Exhibit,Appendix: ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                oe ON DO FF WY

NNW NY NNN NY BB eB eB eB oe eB Be eR
N GDB o8F £F WwW NY FPF CO O ON DD VW F&F Ww NH KF ©

28

BRYDON
Huo & PARKER
138 MAINSTREET
20% FLOOR
San Francisco, CA 95108

Edward R. Hugo [Bar No. 124839]
P.M. Bessette [Bar No. 127588]
Josette D. Johnson [Bar No. 195977]
BRYDON HUGO & PARKER

135 Main Street, 20th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 808-0300
Facsimile: (415) 808-0333

Email: service@bhplaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant
PERINI'CORPORATION

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

FEB 22 2013

Clerk of the Court
BY: ALISON AGBAY
Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT - STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS, et al.,

Defendants.

(ASBESTOS)
Case No. CGC-10-275731

EXHIBITS B THROUGH F TO THE
DECLARATION OF JOSETTE D.
JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF

PERINI CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Filed Concurrently With Notice of Motion;
Memorandum of Points and Authorities;
Separate Statement; Request for Judicial
Notice; Declaration of Josette D. Johnson]

Date: May 9, 2013

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Dept: 503

Judge: Hon. Teri L. Jackson
Complaint Filed: | December 17, 2010
Trial Date: June 10, 2013

EXHIBITS B THROUGH F TO THE DECLARATION OF JOSETTE D. JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF PERINI
CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTEXHIBIT BBRYDON
HUGO & PARKER

San Feaseipce, CA 34808

Edward R. Hugo [Bar No. 124839]
P.M. Bessette [Bar No. 127588]

Lisa M, Rickenbacher [Bar No. 203291]
BRYDON HUGO & PARKER

135 Main Street, 20th Floor

San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 808-0300

Facsimile: (415) 808-0333

Attorneys for Defendant
PERINI CORPORATION

SUPERIOR COURT - STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ~ UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

(ASBESTOS)
ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, Case No. CGC-10-275731
Plaintiff(s), DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION’
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO
vs. PLAINTIFF ROBERT ROSS {SET ONE]

C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS, et al,

Defendants.

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant PERINI CORPORATION
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Robert Ross
SET NO.: One (1)

Defendant PERINI CORPORATION (hereinafter “PERINI"), requests that plaintiff
Robert Ross answer under oath within thirty (30) days, in accordance with California
Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030, the following interrogatories.

In answering these interrogatories, plaintiff Robert Ross is required to furnish all
information that is available to him.

Plaintiff Robert Ross is hereby notified that at the commencement of trial of this
case, PERINI will ask the Court for an order precluding plaintiffs from introducing
evidence related to the subject matter of these interrogatories which has not been

disclosed by the answers to these interrogatories.

i
DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS [SET ONE]BryDON
HuGo & PaRicer
138 MAIN STREET
726" FLOR
San Francisoo, CA 94105,

DEFINITIONS

“WRITINGS” shall mean handwriting, typewriting, printing, Photostatting,
photographing, and every other means of recording, upon any tangible thing, any form
of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, signs, or symbols,
or combinations thereof.

“YOU” or “YOUR” shall refer to plaintiff Robert Ross, his counsel, and any
consultants, experts, investigators, agents or other persons acting on his behalf.

As used in these interrogatories, the terms “EXPOSURE” or “EXPOSED” shall mean
Plaintiff Robert Ross’s use, application, installation, disturbance, removal or touching one or
more products and/or Robert Ross’ presence in an area while others are using, installing,
disturbing or removing one or more products.

“PERINI LOCATION” as used here means any location where Plaintiff Robert
Ross claims EXPOSURE to asbestos from PERINI.

“JOB DESCRIPTION” as used here means job title, employer's name,
responsibilities, tasks, and all types of work Plaintiff Robert Ross performed or was
expected to perform on each date, for each location indicated.

“PERSON(S)” as used here means natural person, firm, association, organization,
partnership, business, trust, corporation, joint venture or public entity, their agents,
employees, representatives, or anyone else acting on their behalf.

“REPAIR” as used herein means the manipulation, removal, installation, or
disturbing of any insulation materials or products to perform any type of mechanicat
work.

“DUST CONTROL PROCEDURE” as used here means any method for reducing
or eliminating the quantity of asbestos particles present in the ambient air, including, but
not limited to, ventilation, wet down methods, etc.

“CONTROL” as used here means to direct, manage, or otherwise supervise.

2

DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS [SET ONE}SD RB Wo

28

BRYDON
Huco & PARKER
135 Main STREET
20" FLooR
San Praciteo, C4 98105

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

if YOU were EXPOSED to asbestos or asbestos-containing products while present
at any location where YOU claim EXPOSURE from PERINI, IDENTIFY the specific street
address, city, state, and zip code for each and every location where YOU claim
EXPOSURE from PERINI to asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Please state each fact upon which YOU rely on to support YOUR contention that
YOU were EXPOSED to asbestos or asbestos-containing product at any PERINI
LOCATION.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

For each location where YOU claim EXPOSURE from PERINI to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products, IDENTIFY each and every date (day, month, year) that
YOU contend that YOU were so EXPOSED.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

For each date of alleged EXPOSURE, at any location where YOU claim
EXPOSURE from PERINI, please state with specificity the MANNER in which YOU were
EXPOSED to asbestos or asbestos-containing products,

INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

Please describe YOUR JOB DESCRIPTION for each location where YOU claim
EXPOSURE from PERINI and IDENTIFY each date (day, month, year) of YOUR alleged
EXPOSURE.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

Please [IDENTIFY any and all asbestos or asbestos-containing products to which
YOU contend EXPOSURE at each location where YOU claim EXPOSURE from PERINI,
for each date that YOU contend EXPOSURE.

“IDENTIFY” means to describe the product by the name under which it is sold in

the market place (trade name), its generic, slang or nickname used in YOUR occupation,

3
DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS [SET ONE]eco RD HR B ww

BRYDON
Hueco & PARKER
135 Man Skee
20" F.00R
San Braneieu, CA 94105

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

Please state with specificity the amount or extent of YOUR alleged EXPOSURE to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products at each location where YOU claim EXPOSURE
from PERINI, for each date that YOU contend to have been so EXPOSED.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

Please state each and every fact upon which YOU rely to support YOUR
determination of the amount or extent of YOUR alleged EXPOSURE to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products at each location where YOU claim EXPOSURE from
PERINI, for each date that YOU contend to have been so EXPOSED.

INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

IDENTIFY each PERSON(S) who has knowledge of the amount or extent of
asbestos to which YOU contend EXPOSURE at each location where YOU claim
EXPOSURE from PERINI, for each date that YOU contend to have been so EXPOSED.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the full name, current or last known
address, including city, state and zip code, and current or last known home or business
telephone number.

INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

IDENTIFY any and all WRITINGS, as defined in California Evidence Code Section
250, that support or otherwise relate to YOUR determination of the amount or extent of
asbestos from PERINI to which YOU contend EXPOSURE at each location where YOU
claim EXPOSURE from PERINI, for each date that YOU contend to have been so
EXPOSED.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the title, author, date, addressee, nature
(letter, memo, audiotape, etc.), content, and present location and custodian of the

WRITING identified,

4

DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS [SET ONE]BRYDON
Huco & PARKER
138 Man SREY
207 FLOOR
San Frontaco, CA 94105

INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

if YOU contend EXPOSURE to asbestos or asbestos-containing products while
present at any location where YOU claim EXPOSURE from PERINL, IDENTIFY the
specific street address, city, state, and zip code for each and every PERINI LOCATION.

INTERROGATORY NO, 12:

Please state each fact upon which YOU rely to support YOUR contention that
YOU were EXPOSED to asbestos or asbestos-containing products at any PERINI
LOCATION.

INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

For each PERINI LOCATION that YOU contend that YOU were EXPOSED to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products, IDENTIFY each and every date (day, month,
year) that YOU contend that YOU were so EXPOSED.

INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

Please state with specificity the MANNER in which YOU were EXPOSED to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products at any PERINI LOCATION; for each date of
alleged EXPOSURE, at each PERINI LOCATION where YOU contend such EXPOSURE
occurred.

INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

Please describe YOUR JOB DESCRIPTION for each PERINI LOCATION where
YOU allege EXPOSURE to asbestos from PERINI, for each date (day, month, year) of
YOUR alleged EXPOSURE.

INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

Please IDENTIFY any and all asbestos or asbestos-containing products to which
YOU contend EXPOSURE at each PERINI LOCATION, for each date that YOU contend.
EXPOSURE.

“IDENTIFY” means to describe the product by the name under which it is sold in

the market place (trade name), its generic, slang or nickname used in YOUR occupation.

5

DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS [SET ONE}BryDon
HUGO & PARKER
135 May STREET
20 FLOOR
San Prono, CA 94305

INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

Please state with specificity the amount or extent of YOUR alleged EXPOSURE to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products at each PERINI LOCATION, for each date that
YOU contend to have been so EXPOSED.

INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

Please state each and every fact upon which YOU rely to support YOUR
determination of the amount or extent of YOUR alleged EXPOSURE to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products at each PERINI LOCATION, for each date that YOU
contend to have been so EXPOSED.

INTERROGATORY NO. 19:

IDENTIFY each PERSON(S) who has knowledge of the amount or extent of
asbestos to which YOU contend YOU were EXPOSED at each location where PERINI was
present, for each date that YOU contend to have been so EXPOSED.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the full name, current or last known
address, including city, state and zip code, and current or last known home or business
telephone number.

INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

IDENTIFY any and all WRITINGS, as defined in California Evidence Code Section
250, that support or otherwise relate to YOUR determination of the amount or extent of
asbestos from PERINI to which YOU contend EXPOSURE at each PERINI LOCATION,
for each date that YOU contend to have been so EXPOSED. “IDENTIFY” as used here
means to state the title, author, date, addressee, nature (letter, memo, audiotape, etc.),
content, and present location and custodian of the WRITING identified.

If YOU contend that PERINI failed to exercise reasonable care (See BAJI 8.32) in
maintaining, managing, inspecting, surveying or controlling any location where YOU
claim EXPOSURE from PERINI to asbestos or asbestos-containing products, please state
all facts upon which YOU rely to support YOUR contention.

6
DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS [SET ONE]BRYDON
Huo & PARKER
135 MAIN SrRaT
20” FLoGk
‘San Franeiseo, CA 94105

INTERROGATORY NO. 22:

Please IDENTIFY all PERSON(S) who have knowledge of the facts that support
YOUR contention that PERINI failed to exercise reasonable care (See BAJI 8.32) in
maintaining, managing, inspecting, surveying, or controlling any location where YOU
claim EXPOSURE from PERINI.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the full name, current or last known
address, including city, state and zip code, and current or last known home or business
telephone number.

INTERROGATORY NO. 23:

IDENTIFY any and all WRITINGS, as defined in California Evidence Code Section
250, that support or otherwise relate to YOUR contention that PERINI failed to exercise
reasonable care (See BAJI 8.32) in maintaining, managing, inspecting, surveying or
controlling any location where YOU claim EXPOSURE from PERINI.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the title, author, date, addressee, nature
(letter, memo, audiotape, etc.), content, and present location and custodian of the
WRITING identified.

INTERROGATORY NO. 24:

Please IDENTIFY any PERINI employee YOU recall at any location at which YOU
claim exposure from asbestos and indicate what conversations, if any, YOU had with
these PERINI employees.

INTERROGATORY NO. 25:

if YOU contend that PERINI retained the ability to exercise CONTROL over YOU or the
operative details or means and methods of YOUR work at any PERINI LOCATION, please set
forth all facts in support of such contention.

INTERROGATORY NO. 26:

If YOU contend that PERINI retained the ability to exercise CONTROL over YOU
or the operative details or means and methods of YOUR work at any PERINI
LOCATION, please identify all witnesses in support of such contention.

Z

DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS [SET ONE]on nu & wh

BRYDON
Huco & PARKER

‘Sen Franeinoo, CA 94105

INTERROGATORY NO. 27:

If YOU contend that PERINI retained the ability to exercise CONTROL over YOU
or the operative details or means and methods of YOUR work at any PERINI
LOCATION, please identify all documents in support of such contention.

NTERROGATORY NO. 28:

If YOU contend that PERINI exercised CONTROL over YOU or over the operative
details or means and methods of YOUR work at any PERINI LOCATION, please identify
all facts in support of such contention.

INTERROGATORY NO. 29:

If YOU contend that PERINI exercised CONTROL over YOU or over the operative
details or means and methods of YOUR work at any PERINI LOCATION, please identify
all witnesses in support of such contention,

INTERROGATORY NO. 30:

If YOU contend that PERINI exercised CONTROL over YOU or over the operative
details or means and methods of YOUR work at any PERINI LOCATION, please identify
all documents in support of such contention.

if YOU contend that PERINI exercised CONTROL over YOU or the operative
details or means and methods of YOUR work at any PERINI LOCATION and
affirmatively contributed to YOUR injuries, please identify all facts in support of such
contention.

INTERROGATORY NO. 32:

If YOU contend that PERINI exercised CONTROL over YOU or the operative
details or means and methods of YOUR work at any PERINI LOCATION and
affirmatively contributed to YOUR injuries, please identify all witnesses in support of

such contention.

8

DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS [SET ONE] ~BRYDON
HuGo & PARKER
135 MalN STREET
20 FLDGR
‘Sam Francisco, CA 94205

INTERROGATORY NO. 33:

If YOU contend that PERINI exercised CONTROL over YOU or the operative
details or means and methods of YOUR work at any PERINI LOCATION and
affirmatively contributed to YOUR injuries, please identify all documents in support of
such contention.

If YOU contend that PERINI is liable to YOU for damages based upon a cause of
action for intentional tort, describe each and every fact upon which YOU rely to support
YOUR contention.

INTERROGATORY NO. 35:

Please IDENTIFY all PERSON(S) who have knowledge of the facts that support
YOUR contention that PERINI is liable to YOU for damages based upon a cause of action
for intentional tort.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the full name, current or last known
address, including city, state and zip code, and current or last known home or business
telephone number.

INTERROGATORY NO. 36:

IDENTIFY any and all WRITINGS, as defined in California Evidence Code Section
250, that support or otherwise relate to YOUR contention that PERINI is liable to YOU for
damages based upon a cause of action for intentional tort.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the title, author, date, addressee, nature
(letter, memo, audiotape, etc.), content, and present location and custodian of the
WRITING identified.

INTERROGATORY NO. 37:

If YOU contend that PERINI is liable to YOU for damages based upon a cause of

action for false representation, describe each and every fact upon which YOU rely to

support YOUR contention.

9

DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFES [SET ONE]BryDON
HUGO & PARKER
123 Man Sima
2 F208
Sam Franelav0, CA 94108

INTERROGATORY NO. 38:

Please IDENTIFY all PERSON(S) who have knowledge of the facts that support
YOUR contention that PERINI is liable to YOU for damages based upon a cause of action
for false representation.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the full name, current or last known
address, including city, state and zip code, and current or last known home or business
telephone number,

INTERROGATORY NO. 39:

IDENTIFY any and all WRITINGS, as defined in California Evidence Code Section
250, that support or otherwise relate to YOUR contention that PERINI is liable to YOU for
damages based upon a cause of action for false representation.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the title, author, date, addressee, nature
(letter, memo, audiotape, etc.), content, and present location and custodian of the
WRITING identified.

INTERROGATORY NO. 40:

If YOU contend that PERINI is liable to YOU for damages based upon a cause of
action for strict liability, describe each and every fact upon which YOU rely to support
YOUR contention.

INTERROGATORY NO, 41:

Please IDENTIFY all PERSON(S) who have knowledge of the facts that support
YOUR contention that PERINI is liable to YOU for damages based upon a cause of action.
for strict liability.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means te state the full name, current or last known

address, including city, state and zip code, and current or last known home or business

telephone number.a wA Bw BK

BRyDON
Huao & PARKER
135 Many Sraser
207? FLoox
San Pransitee, CA 84105

INTERROGATORY NO. 42:

IDENTIFY any and all WRITINGS, as defined in California Evidence Code Section
250, that support or otherwise relate to YOUR contention that PERINI is liable to YOU for
damages based upon a cause of action for strict liability.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the title, author, date, addressee, nature
(letter, memo, audiotape, etc.), content, and present location and custodian of the
WRITING identified.

INTERROGATORY NO. 43:

If YOU contend that PERINI knew or was aware that inhalation of airborne
asbestos fibers could cause asbestos-related disease, on any date (day, month, year) YOU
were present at any location where YOU claim EXPOSURE from PERINI, please state
each and every fact upon which YOU rely to support YOUR contention.
INTERROGATORY NO. 44:
Please state with specificity when (day, month, year) YOU contend that PERINT
first had knowledge that inhalation of airborne asbestos fibers could cause asbestos-
related disease.
INTERROGATORY NO. 45:

Please IDENTIFY all PERSON(S) who have knowledge of the facts that support

YOUR contention that PERINI knew or was aware, on any date (day, month, year) that
YOU were present at any location where YOU claim EXPOSURE from PERINI, that
inhalation of airborne asbestos fibers could cause asbestos-related disease.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the full name, current or last known
address, including city, state and zip code, and current or last known home or business
telephone number.

INTERROGATORY NO. 46:

IDENTIFY any and all WRITINGS, as defined in California Evidence Code Section

250, that support or otherwise relate to YOUR contention that PERINI knew or was

aware, on any date (day, month, year) that YOU were present at any PERINI

11

DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS [SET ONE}BRypon
Huco & PARKER

San Pranciseo, CA 94105

LOCATION, that inhalation of airborne asbestos fibers could cause asbestos-related
disease.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the title, author, date, addressee, nature
(letter, memo, audiotape, ete.), content, and present location and custodian of the
WRITING identified.

INTERROGATORY NO. 47:

If YOU contend that PERINI should have known that inhalation of airborne
asbestos fibers could cause asbestos-related disease, on any date (day, month, year) YOU
were present at any PERINI LOCATION where YOU claim EXPOSURE from PERINI,
please state with specificity when (day, month, year) YOU contend that PERINI should
first have had such knowledge.

INTERROGATORY NO. 48:

Please state each and every fact upon which YOU rely to support YOUR
contention that PERINI should have known, on any date (day, month, year) YOU were
present at any location where YOU claim EXPOSURE from PERINL, that inhalation of
airborne asbestos fibers could cause asbestos-related disease.

INTERROGATORY NO. 49:

Please IDENTIFY all PERSON(S) who have knowledge of the facts that support
YOUR contention that PERINI should have known, on any date (day, month, year) YOU
were present at any PERINI LOCATION where YOU claim EXPOSURE from PERINI,
that inhalation of airborne asbestos fibers could cause asbestos-related disease.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the full name, current or last known
address, including city, state and zip code, and current or last known home or business
telephone number.

INTERROGATORY NO. 50:

IDENTIFY any and all WRITINGS, as defined in California Evidence Code Section

250, that support or otherwise relate to YOUR contention that PERINI should have

known, on any date (day, month, year) YOU were present at any location where YOU

12

DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS [SET ONE]BRyDON
Huco & PARKER
13S Mats STREET
20" FLOOR
Son Frencisea, CA 94108

claim EXPOSURE from PERINI, that inhalation of airborne asbestos fibers could cause
asbestos-related disease.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the title, author, date, addressee, nature
(letter, memo, audiotape, etc.), content, and present location and custodian of the
WRITING identified.

INTERROGATORY NO. SL:

If YOU contend that PERINI violated any asbestos-related safety orders,
regulations or statutes in any location where YOU claim EXPOSURE from PERINI while
YOU were employed there, state with specificity each and every safety order, regulation
or statute that YOU contend PERINI violated, if any.

INTERROGATORY NO, 52:

Please state each and every fact upon which YOU rely to support YOUR
contention that PERINI violated any asbestos-related safety order, regulation or statute at
each PERINI LOCATION where YOU claim EXPOSURE from PERINL

INTERROGATORY NO. 53:

Please IDENTIFY all PERSON(S) who have knowledge of the facts that support
YOUR contention that PERINI violated any asbestos-related safety orders, regulations or
statutes while YOU were employed at any PERINI LOCATION.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the full name, current or last known
address, including city, state and zip code, and current or last known home or business
telephone number.

INTERROGATORY NO. 54:

IDENTIFY any and all WRITINGS, as defined in California Evidence Code Section
250, that support or otherwise relate to YOUR contention that PERINI violated any
asbestos-related safety orders, regulations or statutes while YOU were employed at any
location where YOU claim EXPOSURE from PERINI.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the title, author, date, addressee, nature

(letter, memo, audiotape, etc.), content, and present location and custodian of the

13

DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS [SET ONE}Roe

an us w

BRYDON
Huco & PARKER
138 MAIN Sree
AP RODE
Son Fresca, 6 94205

WRITING identified.
INTERROGATORY NO. 55:

Please IDENTIFY the PERSON(S) by whom the tools and equipment with which
YOU worked at each PERIN] LOCATION where YOU claim EXPOSURE from PERINI,
were provided, made available, or otherwise supplied to YOU.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the full name, current or last known
address, including city, state and zip code, and current or last known home or business
telephone number.

INTERROGATORY NO. 56:

IDENTIFY any and all WRITINGS, as defined in California Evidence Code Section
250, that evidence or otherwise relate to the source of tools or other equipment with
which YOU worked while at each PERIN] LOCATION where YOU contend EXPOSURE
from PERINI.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the title, author, date, addressee, nature
(letter, memo, audiotape, etc.), content, and present location and custodian of the
WRITING identified.

INTERROGATORY NO. 57:

Please IDENTIFY the PERSON(S) by whom the materials with which YOU
worked at each PERINI LOCATION where YOU claim EXPOSURE from PERINI, were
provided, made available, or otherwise supplied to YOU.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the full name, current or last known
address, including city, state and zip code, and current or last known home or business
telephone number.

INTERROGATORY NO. 58:

IDENTIFY any and ail WRITINGS, as defined in California Evidence Code Section
250, that evidence or otherwise relate to the source of the materials with which YOU
worked with while at each PERINI LOCATION where YOU contend EXPOSURE.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the title, author, date, addressee, nature

14

DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFES [SET ONE}10
i
12
13
14
15
16
v7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Brypon
Huco & PARKER
SS MAIN SREY
2" RooK
San Fraiven, C4 94108,

(letter, memo, audiotape, etc.), content, and present location and custodian of the
WRITING identified.
INTERROGATORY NO. 59:

Please IDENTIFY any PERINI employce YOU recall at any PERINI LOCATION at
which YOU claim EXPOSURE from asbestos or asbestos-containing products and
indicate what conversations, if any, YOU had with these PERINI employees.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the full name, current or last known
address, including city, state and zip code, and current or last known home or business
telephone number.

INTERROGATORY NO. 60:

Please IDENTIFY your employer at each PERINI LOCATION where YOU contend
YOU were EXPOSED to asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

INTERROGATORY NO. 61:

Please IDENTIFY the general contractor at each PERINI LOCATION where YOU
contend YOU were EXPOSED to asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

Please IDENTIFY YOUR supervisor and any other PERSON(S) who supervised
the work YOU performed at any PERINI LOCATION.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the full name, current or last known
address, including city, state and zip code, and current or last known home or business
telephone number
INTERROGATORY NO. 63:

Please list any injuries to PERSON(S) or property YOU observed at any PERINI
LOCATION.

INTERROGATORY NO. 64:

Please list any incompetent activities performed by YOU or YOUR employer at

any PERINI LOCATION.

15

DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS [SET ONE}Cc oO RR RH BB YW Ww

10

BRYDON
Huco & PaRKER
135 MADCSTREBT
20" FLODR
Sau Prancises, CA 84105,

INTERROGATORY NO. 65:

Please state all facts concerning or otherwise relating to any and all DUST
CONTROL PROCEDURES in operation at each location where YOU were EXPOSED to
asbestos or asbestos containing products from PERINL
INTERROGATORY NO. 66:

Please IDENTIFY the PERSON(S) with knowledge of any and all DUST
CONTROL PROCEDURES in operation at each PERINI LOCATION where YOU were
EXPOSED to asbestos or asbestos containing products from PERINI.

IDENTIFY as used here means to state the full name, current or last known
address, including city, state and zip code, and current or last known home or business
telephone number
INTERROGATORY NO. 67:

IDENTIFY any and all WRITINGS, as defined in California Evidence Code Section
250, that support or otherwise relate to any DUST CONTROL PROCEDURES in
operation at each PERIN] LOCATION where YOU were EXPOSED to asbestos or
asbestos containing products from PERINI.

IDENTIEY as used here means to state the title, author, date, addressee, nature
(letter, memo, audiotape, etc.), content, and present location and custodian of the
WRITING identified.

INTERROGATORY NO. 68:

Please IDENTIFY any and all PERSON(S) who CONTROLLED the use and
implementation of the DUST CONTROL PROCEDURES in operation at each PERINI
LOCATION where YOU were EXPOSED to asbestos or asbestos containing products
from PERINI.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the full name, current or last known
address, including city, state and zip code, and current or last known home or business

telephone number.

16

DEFENDANT PERINE CORPORATION’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS [SET ONE]Co em MD WH FB YD

2

VW

BRYDON
HUGO & PARKER
135 Make STREET
20" FoR
San Francisca. CA 98108

INTERROGATORY NO. 69:

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030, please IDENTIFY
any settlements YOU have received from any party in this action.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state the settling party, the amount of the
settlement monies received or negotiated from that party, and the date of receipt of
monies or confirmation of settlement agreement.

INTERROGATORY NO. 70:

IDENTIEY any and all other locations at which YOU claim EXPOSURE to asbestos
or asbestos containing products not previously identified in these interrogatories.

“IDENTIFY” as used here means to state address of the site, the name of the
person or entity residing in or working from the location, and the telephone and.
facsimile numbers therefor.

INTERROGATORY NO. 71:

If YOU worked with any asbestos-containing products manufactured, produced,
prepared, distributed or sold by any bankrupt entity, whether or not such entity has been
named as a party to this lawsuit, IDENTIFY each such entity.

“IDENTIFY” in the context of WRITINGS or Proof of Claim Forms as used herein
shall mean to state the title, author, date, addressee, nature [letter, memo, audiotape,
etc], content, and present LOCATION and custodian of the WRITINGS identified.
INTERROGATORY NO. 72:

IDENTIFY each Proof of Claim Form YOU have submitted for each bankrupt
entity identified in YOUR response to SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 71.

“(DENTIFY” in the context of WRITINGS or Proof of Claim Forms as used herein
shall mean to state the title, author, date, addressee, nature [letter, memo, audiotape,
etc.], content, and present location and custodian of the WRITINGS identified.
INTERROGATORY NO. 73:

For each such claim form identified in YOUR response to SPECIAL
INTERROGATORY NO, 71, IDENTIFY the date on which the claim form was prepared.

17

DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS [SET ONE]BRYDON
HUGO & PARKER,
13S Mall STaa=T
20" F.D08
San Francisco, CA 96105

“IDENTIFY” in the context of WRITINGS or Proof of Claim Forms as used herein
shall mean to state the title, author, date, addressee, nature [letter, memo, audiotape,
ete.|, content, and present location and custodian of the WRITINGS identified.
INTERROGATORY NO. 74:

For each such claim form identified in YOUR response to SPECIAL
INTERROGATORY NO. 71, IDENTIFY the entity to which the claim form was
submitted.

“IDENTIFY” in the context of WRITINGS or Proof of Claim Forms as used herein
shall mean to state the title, author, date, addressee, nature [letter, memo, audiotape,
etc], content, and present location and custodian of the WRITINGS identified.

Please identify any and all workers’ compensation actions filed by or on behalf
of YOU, including the jurisdiction of the filing, the action number and all parties to the
claim.

INTERROGATORY NO. 76:

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030,070, please state any
later acquired information bearing on all answers previously made by YOU to any and
all of PERINI’S previously served Interrogatories.

INTERROGATORY NO. 77

if YOU contend that PERINI is liable 0 YOU under any or all of the causes of action
listed in YOUR complaint, please state all facts in support of YOUR contentions,
INTERROGATORY NO. 78

State all facts supporting YOUR claim for punitive damages against PERINI.
INTERROGATORY NO. 79

IDENTIFY all PERSONS having information that supports YOUR claim for
punitive damages against PERINI.

18

DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS [SET ONE]BRyDON

HUGO & PARKER:
139 MAIN STREET

‘San Franeista, CA 94108

INTERROGATORY NO. 80

For each PERSON having information that supports YOUR claim for punitive
damages against PERINI, state all facts that YOU contend are within each PERSONS’
personal knowledge that supports YOUR claim for punitive damages against PERINL
INTERROGATORY NO. 81

Please state all facts that support YOUR prayer for punitive damages as listed in
YOUR complaint,

Dated: October 17, 2012 BRYDON, HUGO & PARKER

By:  /s/Lisa M. Rickenbacher
Paul M. Bessette
Lisa M. Rickenbacher
Attorneys for Defendant
PERINE CORPORATION

19

DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFBS [SET ONE}a mH

Brypon
Huo & PARKER
133 Main ScReET
2 BooR
Sun Fransizeo, CA 84108,

DECLARATION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY

I, Lisa M. Rickenbacher, declare:

1. Jam the attorney for PERINI CORPORATION, a party to this action.

2. Jam propounding to plaintiff the attached set of Special Interrogatories.

3. This set of interrogatories will cause the total number of specially prepared
interrogatories propounded to the party to whom they are directed to exceed the number
of specially prepared interrogatories permitted by Section 2030.030 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.

4. i have previously propounded a total of zero (0) interrogatories to this party on

behalf of PERINI CORPORATION.

5. This set of interrogatories contains a total of eighty-one (81) specially prepared
interrogatories,
6. Tam familiar with the issues and the previous discovery conducted by all of the

parties in the case.

7. Thave personally examined each of the questions in this set of interrogatories.

8. This number of questions is warranted under Section 2030.040 of the Code of Civil
Procedure because of the complexity and quantity of the existing and potential issues in
this case and the expedience of using this method of discovery to provide the responding
party the opportunity to conduct an inquiry, investigation, or search of files or records to
supply the information.

9. None of the questions in this set of interrogatories is being propounded for any
improper purpose, such as to harass the party, or the attorney for the party, to whom it is
directed, or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on October 17, 2012

& a £7
sn I flick hy

Lisa M. Rickenbacher

in San Francisco, California.

DECLARTION OF P.M. BESSETTE IN SUPPORT OF ADDITIONAL DISCOVERYRoss, Robert & Jean
San Francisco County Superior Court Case No, CGC-10-275731
LexisNexis Transaction No. 47121665

PROOF OF SERVICE

Tama resident of the State of California, over the age of 18 years, and nota
party to the within action, My electronic notification address is
service@bhplaw.com and my business address is 135 Main Street, 20" Floor, San
Francisco, California 94105. On the date below, I served the following:

DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO
PLAINTIFF ROBERT ROSS, SET ONE

on the following:

BRAYTON PURCELL LLP
222 Rush Landing Road
Novato, CA 9494

Fax: (415) 898-1247

“ By transmitting electronically the document(s) listed above as set forth
on the electronic service list on this date before 5:00 p.m.

o By transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax
number(s) set forth above on this date before 5:00 p.m.

o By placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and placing
the envelope for collection and mailing on the date below following the
firm’s ordinary business practices. I] am readily familiar with the firm’s
practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under
that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal service on the same
day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Francisco, California in
the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party
served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage
meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in
affidavit.

o By placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope designated.
for Federal Express overnight delivery and depositing same with fees
thereupon prepaid, in a facility regularly maintained by Federal Express,
addressed as set forth above.

o By causing personal delivery of the document(s) listed above to the
person(s) at the address(es) set forth above.

I declare under penal of perjury that the above is true and correct.
Executed on October 17, 2012, at San Francisco, California.

+ nr. /

“Mabelene Valeros

PROOF OF SERVICEEXHIBIT CBRAYTON¢PURCELL LLP

Ce Yt Dh Bw NH

10

49078980
dan 23 2013

12:35PM

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., 8.B. #73685
DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., 8.B. #154436
MICHAEL D. LEVINSON, ESQ., S.B. #271556
BRAYTON#PURCELL LLP

Attorneys at Law

222 Rush Landing Road

P.O. Box 6169

Novato, California 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, ASBESTOS

No. CGC-10-27573t
Plaintiffs,
PLAINTIFF ROBERT ROSS’S AMENDED
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT PERINI
CORPORATION’S SPECIALLY
PREPARED INTERROGATORIES,

SET ONE

vs.

C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS:
Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit I
attached to the Summary Complaint

herein; and DOES 1-8500.

eee

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant PERINI CORPORATION (“PERINI”)
ESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff ROBERT ROSS
SET NUMBER: ONE (1)

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that itis vague and ambiguous, particularly with regard to the use of defined terms
including, but not limited to, “EXPOSED,” “EXPOSURE,” and “YOU.” Plaintiff further
objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, particularly with
regard to the use of undefined terms and phrases including, but not limited to, “while present at
any location,” “each and every location,” “claim,” and “products.” Plaintiff objects to this
interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil
rocedure (“C.C.P.”) § 2030.060. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds
that it calls for expert opinions and conclusions and therefore prematurely seeks disclosure of
information which is properly the subject of expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation
of C.C.P, § 2034.210 et seq. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks
information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work-product
doctrine. Plaintiff reserves, and in hereby responding does not rely upon or incorporate,
information subject to all privileges, including but not limited to attorney-work product and.
attorney client privileges, and objections, including but not limited to relevancy at trial and
burden. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows:

K Slujured!19349'pldROG-rsp-PERCOR-amd.wpd 1 dxiCem BRD A Bw NY

10

At the below-described jobsites, plaintiff was exposed to asbestos by working in close
proximity to trades employed by PERINI who were handling and disturbing asbestos-containing
products. Plaintiff breathed the air and dust that had been generated by the handling and
disturbance of these asbestos-containing products. Defendant failed to exercise due/ordinary
care in order to avoid injuring plaintiff while plaintiff worked near defendant’s employees at
facilities listed below. Defendant did not isolate work involving asbestos and asbestos-
containing products. Defendant did not maintain the premises so as to prevent exposure to
asbestos, a hazardous substance. Defendant did not control, reduce or eliminate dust or provide
adequate ventilation. Defendant did not provide plaintiff with respiratory safety equipment or
educate plaintiff regarding the use of respiratory safety equipment. Further, defendant
controlled the work site by coordinating, managing and overseeing the installation and removal
of asbestos and asbestos-containing products to which plaintiff was exposed. Defendant
contracted for the installation and/or removal and otherwise caused asbestos-containing
products to be present on the below listed premises and recommended, specified, and executed
the use of asbestos-containing products being used at defendant’s premises listed below and
plaintiff consequently developed an asbestos-related injury. As a proximate result of
defendant's breach of due/ordinary care, plaintiff sustamed injury. Plaintiff cannot currently be
more specific as to precise date(s) on which plaintiff was at the following locations and under
the following circumstances:

Plaintiff testified that PERINI was a contractor at several of his job sites, including but
not limited to the following sites. Plaintiff was an Insulator for 35 years and knew that the
products he used contained asbestos. Plaintiff testified that he saw the word “asbestos” on the
boxes of materials he used. Therefore, plaintiff knows that PERINI employees swept up
asbestos-containing materials around him which he inhaled due to their work.

Plaintiff testified that he worked at Ghirardelli Square, San Francisco, California for
about one week during 1966-1972 for Consolidated Insulation, 517-D Marine View Ave.
Belmont, California. Plaintiff worked on both a new construction and remodel project where he
was an insulator. Plaintiff testified that he used JM (Johns-Manville) magnesium and mud.
Plaintiff also testified that he used cal-sil (calcium-silicate). Plaintiff testified that he worked
around three or four PERINI employees. Two were laborers, one was a superintendent, and one
was a carpenter. Plaintiff testified that the laborers used shovels and brooms to sweep up
plaintiff's asbestos-containing debris and also gaskets that had been used on steam. Plaintiff
worked within three to twenty feet from the PERINI employees who were sweeping up. He
knew they were PERINI employees from their hardhats that said “PERINI.”

Plaintiff had also testified in Robert Ross v Asbestos Defendants (BP) San Francisco
Superior Court No. 274099 that the PERINI laborers at Ghirardelli Square had also swept up
fireproofing within three to twenty feet from plaintiff.

Plaintiff testified that he worked at the San Francisco International Airport during 1965
and 1966 for a week and a half for AC&S Insulation, P.O. Box 1268, Lancaster, Penns Fania,
Plaintiff worked there as in insulator on both new and old construction. Plaintiff testified that
he used KAYLO all-purpose mud, asbestos-containing cal-sil and mud at this site. Plaintiff
testified that PERINI laborers used brooms and shovels to sweep up the debris from the fleor
that included the materials that plaintiff used. The PERINI laborers worked within three to
twenty five feet from plaintiff. Plaintiff testified that he knew they were PERINI employees
from their hard hats.

Plaintiff testified that he worked at the Golden Gateway apartments in San Francisco,
California where he worked on the new construction of the apartments for approximately thirty
days. Plaintiff insulated pipe and duct. Plaintiff testified that PERINI laborers swept up mud,
MONOKOTE fireproofing, GARLOCK gaskets and worked within two to fifteen feet from
him. Plaintiff knew they were PERINI employees from their hard hats and toolboxes.

Plaintiff had also testified in Robert Ross v Asbestos Defendants (BP) San Francisco
Superior Court No. 274099 that drywallers used HAMILTON mud at the Golden Gateway
apartments and that he had applied KAYLO. Therefore, PERINI laborers would have also
swept up drywall materials and KAYLO mud around plaintiff at this site.

K Slujured!19349'pldROG-rsp-PERCOR-amd.wpd 2 dxiCem BRD A Bw NY

10

Robert Cantley had also testified in Robert Ross v Asbestos Defendants (BP) San
Francisco Superior Court No. 274099 that the MONOKOTE fireproofing used at the Golden
Gateway apartments came in bags bearing the words “contains asbestos.” Mr. Cantley testified
that KAISER GYPSUM, PACO and HAMILTON products were contained in the removed
walls and PERINI laborers disturbed fireproofing near plaintiff on numerous occasions. Mr.
Cantley testified that PERINT laborers swept up asbestos-containing wallboard finishing
products, insulation debris including pipecovering and cement scraps, and fireproofing near
plaintiff on a twice daily basis.

Plaintiff testified that he worked at Golden Gate University, San Francisco, California
during 1978-1979 for about forty-five days for Consolidated Insulation, 517-D Marine View
Ave., Belmont, California. Plaintiff worked on both new construction and remodel work on
piping in many areas of this job site. Plaintiff testified that he used cal-sil and all purpose mud.
Plaintiff testified that there were numerous PERINI employees at this job site and the PERINI
laborers swept up the GARLOCK gaskets, insulation, and cal-sil from the floor in his work
area. Plaintiff knew they were PERINI employees from their hard hats, tool boxes, and trucks.

Plaintiffs experts in similar cases have provided depositions, declarations and/or trial
testimony, that the insulation, fireproofing, and gasket materials described and associated with
applications similar to that with which plaintiff was exposed to by this defendant, and to which
plaintiff was exposed as described above, during the relevant time period, contained asbestos,
and as a consequence plaintiff inhaled the asbestos-laden air.

Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos-containing products that were disturbed by PERINL
As stated in Cabral v. Ralph’s Grocery Co, (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 764, 768, “California law
establishes the general duty of each person to exercise, in his or her activities, reasonable care
for the safety of others. (Civ. Code, § 1714, subd. (a).).”. Defendant owed plaintiffa general
duty of care, which was breached because defendant knew or should have known of the dangers
of asbestos and failed to prevent plaintiff from inhaling asbestos fibers. Defendant knew that
asbestos-containing products such as those supplied to plaintiff's employers or contractors at
plaintiffs jobsite would be handled, disturbed and manipulated by workers, resulting in the
release of airborne asbestos fibers, and that through such foreseeable use and/or handling,
plaintiff would be exposed to such asbestos fibers. As a proximate result of defendant’s breach
of its duties, plaintiff sustained injury.

Plaintiff bases his contention that he was exposed to asbestos attributable to defendant
in part upon the following facts and documents. These facts and documents support the
contention that the joint compound and drywall accessory products to which he was exposed
were more likely than not asbestos-containing. They are also indicative of the state of the art
regarding the knowledge of the hazards of asbestos, which is relevant to plaintiff's negligence
and failure to warn claims.

Plaintiff identifies a 2010 article by the Collegium Ramazzini in Bologna, Italy titled
“Commentary: Asbestos is Still With US: Repeat Call.” Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Hygiene, 7, D57-D61. This article begins by stating “All forms of asbestos are
Known human carcinogens.” (Emphasis added.) It says, “No exposure to asbestos is without
risk, and there is no safe threshold of exposure to asbestos.” Plaintiff believes defendant is in
possession of or has equal access to these documents.

Prior to the mid-1970s, joint compound, as it was used in residential and commercial
construction, nearly universally contained asbestos, typically in the range of 5-10 percent. The
first U.S. patent for an asbestos-free joint compound was filed on July 26, 1973 and awarded on
June 24, 1975. It remained the case that joint compound products contained asbestos until such
asbestos use was banned by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, effective in 1978 under
16 CFR ch If, § 1304.4, which states, “On the basis that airborne asbestos fibers present the
hazards of cancer, including lung cancer and mesothelioma, to the public, consumer patching
compounds containing intentionally-added, respirable, free-form asbestos, which have been
manufactured or initially introduced into commerce after January 16, 1978, are banned
hazardous products.” Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of or has equal access to
these documents.

K Slujured!19349'pldROG-rsp-PERCOR-amd.wpd 3 dxiSCO eR DH BE RD

MM YN MY NY NR RM Re me eB ee Be Re eS ea
eS YQ RR RB YBN = S Cw YD mA BW we =

The ban was announced in December 1977 with production to cease in January 1978
and sales to cease in June 1978. As a result of this action most manufacturers removed the
commercially added asbestos from their products in accordance with the new regulation. it
seems likely that remaining stocks of asbestos-containing joint compound would have been
used up in the ensuing months or year.

In commercial construction, once the drywall is hung the joints between the boards are
taped with paper and then reinforced with joint compound. Joint compound originally came in
dry form an