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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                oO own BD oO FF YW NY

B
°

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

BRYDON

Huco & PARKER
135 MAIN STREET
20" FLOOR
San Francisco, CA 94108

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: a 808-0300
Facsimile: (415) 808-0333

Email: service@bhplaw.com

Attomeys for Defendant
A. TEICHERT & SON, INC.

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

FEB 20 2013

Clerk of the Court
BY: JUANITA MURPHY
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)
‘ase No. CGC-10-275734

EXHIBIT D-G TO THE DECLARATION OF
JOSETTE D. JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF
‘A, TEICHERT & SON, INC.’s MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

EXHIBIT D TO THE DECLARATION OF JOSETTE D. JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF A. TEICHERT & SON,
INC.’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTEXHIBIT Doan anw & Bw NF

Boe se ee
aA Rw NS Oo

P.O. BOX 6169

NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169

A1S-898-1555

222 RUSH LANDING ROAD
e
a

BRAYTON#*PURCELL LLP
ATTORNEYS ATLAW

woM NN YP YN YY ego
Bea AR oN Fe So w

ALAN R, BRAYTON, ESQ,, S.B. #73685

DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., 8.B. #154436 imei
JUSTIN 8, FISH, ESQ., S.B. #250282 Received
BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP Ju
Attorneys at Law NE 4 20H
222 Rush Landing Road By
P.O. Box 6169 BRYDON 5, MALL
Novato, California 94948-6169 UGO & PARKER
(415) 898-1555
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, ASBESTOS

No. CGC-10-275731

Plaintiffs,

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO
vs. DEFENDANT A. TEICHERT & SON,

INC.’S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL
C.C. MOORE & CO, ENGINEERS; INTERROGATORIES

Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit 1
attached to the Summary Complaint
herein; and DOES 1-8500.

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant A, TEICHERT & SON, INC.
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS (Hereinafter plaintiff )
SET NUMBER: ONE (1)

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1; Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it prematurely seeks inform: which is properly the subject of expert witness
testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034, Plaintiff further objects to this
Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or
attorney work-product doctrine. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiver
thereof, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff currently identifies Sacramento Convention
Center, Sactamento, California.

Pursuant to C.C.P, § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time.
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are
continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it prematurely seeks information which is properly the subject of expert witness

KAinjured\l9349\pld\vog-rsp-ATEICH. xpd 1 mmCo me IN DAW FB WwW HN

woN NN NY NN YN ee eB ee ee oe oe
RBueackB S&B fF SF Cwm ANDAR YN HF TD

testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034, Plaintiff further objects to this
Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or
attorney work-product doctrine, Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiver
thereof, plaintiff responds as follows: .

Defendant A. TEICHERT & SON, INC, (herein after “TEICHERT”) was responsible
for plaintiff ROBERT ROSS’s exposure to asbestos during his work as follows:

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Siefert and Rossi Sacramento Convention Insulator 4/4972-9/1973
1501 North C Street Center (3 months, on and
Sacramento, CA Sacramento, CA. off)

(16 St.)

Plaintiff remembers that TEICHERT was the general contractor at this site. Plaintiff worked in
proximity to TEICHERT laborers who swept up asbestos-containing block insulation debris
near plaintiff in a large boiler room.

The insulation in use at the jobsite described above was asbestos-containing, as
evidenced by the responses to General Order 129 Standard Case Interrogatories of the various
entities who manufactured the insulation described above. Consequently, the insulation debris
swept up by TEICHERT in proximity to plaintiff generated airborne fibers that contained
asbestos. Plaintiff inhaled the fibers created by the work of employees of TEICHERT by
sweeping up such insulation debris.

Throughout plaintiff's caret as.an insulator, he applied and worked around the full
range of thermal insulation products, including non asbestos containing products such as
canvas, foam plass, fiberglass, mineral wool, styrofoam, rubber insulation, cork, urethane,
rockwool, fibercell, and asbestos free calcium silicates and mastics, as well as with the full
range of asbestos containing thermal insulation products, including 85% magnesia, asbestos
containing calcium silicates. Plaintiff has installed and removed each of these asbestos and non
asbestos containing products at numerous sepatate job sites. The various types of asbestos-
containing and non-asbestos-containing insulation materials can be easily distinguished. For
example, cork insulation is a li rcigh elastic, compressed bark-like material that is
predominately tannish-brownish in color, but has a mottled surface featuring cratered black
spots. Foamglass is a black colored cellular glass product which emits a “rotten eggs” smell
when cut or disturbed, and which is very abrasive to skin, Styrofoam is a lightweight, stiff, low
density material which produces large dust particles when cut or disturbed, and is blue or white
in color. Fiberglass is an off-white to yellowish material comprised of extremely fine glass
fibers. Urethane is a greenish or yellow green colored material which is somewhat more dense
than styrofoam, and which emits very minute dust particles when cut or abraided. Rubber is a
cellular, plastic-like, black colored material which comes in rolled or sheet form, or pre-molded
in various sizes, 85% magnesia is a soft, white, sectional material which is almost chalky in
appearance, and which is easily cut or shaped. 85% magnesia always contained asbestos.
Calcium Silicate is an off-white to light grey, sectional material which is harder and darker in
color than 85% magnesia. The asbestos-containing varieties were extremely hard—requiring
vigorous sawing to penetrate the material, whereas the non-asbestos-containing varieties ate
less hard, less rigid, easier to cut, and readily break apart during rough handling, unlike
asbestos-containing calcium silicates. Aircell is a greyish-tannish paper-like material which
appears somewhat like cardboard, with circular paper cells centered between its exterior walls,
Asbestos cloth is a dense white woven material casily distinguishable from fiberglass cloth, a
thin, lattice patterned, mesh-like material which is white or black. Unibestos is a unique form of
pipe covering and block which features a very hard outer shell which emits slivers when cut or

andled. Mineral Wool is a greenish colored loose fibrous material containing flecks of black
fiberglass, Rockwool is an off white cotton like material. Most of the above products can be
visually distinguished by plaintiff from a distance of more than 20 feet.

KAlnjured\{9349\pld\vog-rsp-ATEICH. wpd 2 amm——

. Based on Plaintiff's experience handling, cutting, mixing, applying and removing
insulation products at commercial, industrial, and institutional locations, on plaintiff's ordering
of such products for use on job sites where plaintiff and other insulators applied and removed
such products, and additionally based on plaintiff's examination and bidding of insulation jobs
for various employers, plaintiff has developed the ability to recognize asbestos versus non
asbestos containing thermal insulation materials, Plaintiff has long been readily familiar with.
the use, consistency of the fibers, density when cutting, appearance, and physical characteristics
in place of the full range of both ‘asbestos containing and asbestos {ree thermal insulation
products, Plaintiff was also able to tell whether insulation was asbestos-containing or not

ecatise some manufacturers placed a green stripe or mica flakes on the insulation to signify
non-asbestos containing insulation.

Plaintiff contends that the insulation fragments that employees of defendant TEICHERT
were cleaning up around him were asbestos-containing.

The EPA publication, Managing Asbestos in Place, July 990, commonly known as the
“Green Book,” states: “Asbestos became a popular commercial product because it is strong,
won’t burn, resists corrosion, and insulates we il, In the United States, its commercial use began
in the early 1900s and peaked in the period from World War Il into the 1970s,” (p. 2.)
“Asbestos in buildings has been commonly used for thermal insulation, fireproofing, and in
various building materials, such as floor coverings and ceiling tile, cement pipe and sheeting,
granular and corrugated paper pipe wrap, and acoustical and lecorative treatment for ceilin;
and walls. Typically, it is found in pipe and boiler insulation and in spray-ay plied uses such as
fireproofing or sound-deadening applications.” (p, 3.) “Because asbestos] fibers are so small
and light, they may remain in the air for many hours if they are released from ACM in a
building. When fibers are relcased into the air they may be inhaled by people in the building.”

‘p. 2.
(2) Additionally, industrial boilers are designed to raise the temperature of water to very
high-temperature steam. As such, thermal insulation is crucial to their operation. Boilers are
internally insulated in layers: thermal insulation blocks, castables, a coat of refractory “wet-as,”
and fire brick held together with mortar, The insulation blocks, the refractory, and the mortar
contained asbestos. Over time expansion and contraction of the fire bricks caused them to crack
and lose theit ability to retain heat, requiring re-insulation of the boiler and the breaking and
removal of the bricks and the asbestos-containing mortar, usually with a chisel-type tool, The
internal bricks could also be broken and disturbed when workers scraped baked-on carbon
sludge from the bottom of the boiler. To enter the boiler, workers had to remove a bolted door,
which was sealed with an asbestos-containing gasket. The outside of the boiler was also
insulated, with asbestos-containing block insulation. Insulation was also required on the boiler
tubes, requiring removal and reinstallation whenever a tube needed to be repaired ot replaced.
Defendant TEICHERT was the general contractor at plaintiff's jobsite listed above

- during the time that plaintiff was present, ‘As a contractor, defendant controlled the work site by

coordinating, managing and overseeing the installation, removal and cleanup of asbestos and
asbestos-containing products. Defendant caused asbestos and/or asbestos-containing materials
to be supplied, delivered, installed, maintained, used, cleaned up, replaced and/or re aired at
plaintiff's jobsite as set forth. above. By the negligent acts and/or omissions of itself, its
subcontractors and other workers at the site under defendant's control, defendant caused the
release of dangerous quantities of toxic asbestos fibers into the ambient air, creating a
hazardous and unsafe condition to plaintiff and other persons exposed to said asbestos fibers
while present at the above-identified jobsite. Defendant knew or should have known that the
foregoing conditions and activities created a dangerous, hazardous and unsafe condition and
unreasonable risk of harm and personal injury to plaintiff and other persons so ex) sed durin:
their presence on the above-re erenced jobsite, Defendant failed to wam plaintiff or others o:
these hazards and failed to take adequate safety precautions to ensure that plaintiff and others
were not exposed to asbestos-containing products installed, maintained, used, cleaned up,
replaced and/or repaired at plaintif's jobsite. Defendant dictated that workers at the site would
use and disturb asbestos and asbestos-containing products. Defendant knew or should have
known that its employees and/or others they hire would be generating asbestos-containing dust

KAtijured\9349\pldivag-tsp-ATEICH.wpd 3 amm—
WU Bw NF Se wm NH HM BF WN

—

which plaintiff would then breathe. Defendant
precautions or warnings, Defendant controlled

ermitted the job to continue with no

he work site conditions through the hiring of

other contractors and scheduling of work. Defendant did not warn plaintif?’s that toxic levels of
asbestos-laden dust would be released into the ambient air. As a result of defendant's conduct,

plaintiff's was exposed to

asbestos fibers and dust released into the ambient air from asbestos-

containing products being used at the jobsite under defendant's control, Consequently, plaintiff

was exposed to and bréai
Plaintiff was op
by defendant TEICHERT employees.

The hazards associated with exposure to
humans have been well documented throughout
existed a wealth of information available for de:

asbestos and asbestos-containing products was

asbestosis as a compensable disease under Wor!

ed asbestos fibers and

dust and developed an asbestos-related injury.
ie

osed to and inhaled ambient asbestos dust and such asbestos dust was caus

asbestos and the effect of asbestos exposure on
this century. As early as the 1930s, there
endant which evidences that exposure to
ahealth hazard, By 1937, California listed

er's Compensation laws. Numerous articles

and studies relating to the health hazards of exposure to asbestos have appeared in medical and
scientific literature since the turn of the century and have also been summarized in various

publications. Additionally, safet:

asbestos dust in the workplace. Defendant knew or should have known of the health hazards

orders have'existed since the 1940s regarding the control of

associated with exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products prior to working with

such products, anc

failed to take available safety precautions, Defendant knew or should have

known that asbestos-containing products such as those supplied or specified to plaintiff's

emplo ers or customers at plaintiff's jobsites, would be handled, disturbed and mar
efe

ndant’s employees, resulting in the release

inipulated by
of airborne asbestos fibers, and that through

stich foreseeable use and/or handling, plaintiff would be exposed to such fibers, Moreover, as a

general contractor exercising contro!

such as plaintiff of dangers

breached by

disregard for plaintiff's safety and the safety of

breach of due/ordinary care, plaintift sustained
Pursuant to C.C.P, §

believes that there is no further relevant and/or

over those sites, defendant had a duty to warn workers
inherent in said products, as well as other duties all of which were
defendant, Defendant's conduct was wilful, malicious, and done with a wanton

others. As a proximate result of defendant's

iy.
030,220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other i

natural persons or organizations, and

responsive information to disclose at this time.

Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are

continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO, 3:
and off)

Plaintiff identifies 4/1972-9/1973 (3 months, on

Pursuant to C.C.P, § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and

believes that there is no further relevant and/or

responsive information to disclose at this time.

Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are

continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
grounds that it prematurel

jestimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P.

ly seeks information which is properly the subject o:

Plaintiff objects to this {nterrogatory on the
i expert witness
§ 2034. Plaintiff further objects to this

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or

attorney work-product doctrine, Subject to the

foregoing objections, and without waiver

thereof, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference herein his

objections and Response to Interrogato
Pursuant to C.C,P. § 2030.220(c),

to obtain the requested information by

believes that there

No, 2.

plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and

is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time.

Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are

continuing,

KAlnjuredi9349\pld\og-r5p-ATEICH.wpdCo wm NA WH PB WwW NY

eo
eo

14
15

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Plaintiff was working as insulator.

Pursuant to C.C.P, § 2030,220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time.
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are
continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it prematurely seeks information which is properly the subject of expert witness
festimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034, Plaintiff further objects to this
Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or
atiomney work-produet doctrine, Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiver
thereof, plaintiff responds as follows; Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference herein his
objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 2.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 3030-22000, plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time,
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are
continuing.

RESPONSE TO INIERROGATORY NO. 7: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as vague
and ambiguous with respect to the undefined terms including “amount or extent.” Plaintiff
objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it prematurely seeks information which is
properly the subject of expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034.
Plaintitf further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by
the attorney-client privilege or aftorney work-product doctrine. Subject to the foregoing
objections, and without waiver thereof, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff refers to and
incorporates by reference herein his objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 2, Plaintiff
currently has no additional responsive information to this interrogatory.

Pursuant to C.C.P, § 2030,220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time.
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are
continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO, 8: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as vague
and ambiguous with respect to the undefined terms including “amount or extent .” Plainti:
objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it prematurely seeks information which is

roperly the subject of expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034.

laintiff further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by
the attorney-client privilege or attorney work-product doctrine, Subject to the foregoing
objections, and without waiver thereof, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff refers to and
incorporates by reference herein his objections and Response to Interrogatory No. 2. Plaintiff
currently has no additional responsive information to this interrogatory.

Pursuant to C.C.P, § 2030.220(¢), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time.
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are
continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as vague
and ambiguous with respect to the undefined terms including “amount or extent.” Plainti
further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds, and to the extent, that it seeks the premature
disclosure of expert witnesses in Violation of C.C.P. § 2034. Plaintiff further objects to this
Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it seeks information protected by the.

KNnjured\19349\pldrog-rsp-ATBICH. wed 5 ammCen nw FF Ww HN

pe PNP RNRNKNRYNeE ER Ee EER TS

attorney-client privilege or attorney work-product doctrine. Plaintiff objects to this

Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks the premature disclosure of trial witnesses, other than

experts, and is therefore in violation of the attorney work-product doctrine, City of Long Beach
‘uperior Court (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 65. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory on the

grounds that it seeks disclosure of plaintiff's consultants whom plaintiff is utilizing in the

preparation of this case, and as suc this Interrogatory violates the attorney work-product

doctrine, Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiver thereof, plaintiff responds as

‘ollows:

Excluding experts, who have yet to be determined, plaintiff identifies plaintiff ROBERT
ROSS, c/o Brayton Purcell LLP, 2 Rush Landing Road, Novato California, an) 898-1555,
Plaintiff further identifies defendant’s Persons Most ‘Knowledgeable and Custodians of
Record(s) of any predecessor-in-interest, subsidiary, alter ego, and/or alternate entity. Plaintiff
also identifies all doctors and other medical professionals identified in plaintiff's medical
records which are equally available to defendant through coordinating defense counsel, Berry &

erry.

Pursuant to C.C.P, § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time.
Plaintiff reserves the tight to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are

continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds and to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege
and/or the attorney work-product doctrine. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that this
Interrogatory improperly calls for premature identification and disclosure of consultants
writings relied upon by such consultants, who may or may not later be appropriately named as
expert witnesses. Plaintiff objects (o this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information equally
or more available to the defendant, or already in the possession of defendant. Subject to the
foregoing objections, and without waiver thereof, plaintiff responds as follows:

Plaintiff identifies all plaintif’s responses and supplemental/amended responses to
Asbestos General Order No. 129 Defendants’ Standard Tnterrogatories to Plaintiffs, Sets One
and Two, and Defendants’ Standard Requests for Production and Identification of Documents
and Things, Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff identifies plaintiff s medical records, employment records, Union records and
Social Security records, equally available from. coordinating ‘defense counsel, Berry & Berry,
2930 Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland, California 94610 (510) 835-8330,

Plaintiff presently identifies plaintiff ROBERT Ri $S’s deposition transcripts, dated
February 20, 2008, taken in his ersonal injury matter, Ross v. Asbestos Defendants, San
Francisco Superior Court Case No. 274099, reported by Aiken & Welch, Inc., One Kaiser
Plaza, Suite 505, Oakland, California 94612 (510) 451-1580 and all subsequent dates, all
exhibits attached thereto. Copies of these transcripts are equally available from Aiken &
Welch, Inc,, One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505, Oakland, California 94612 65 10) 451-1580.

Plaintiff identifies any and all depositions taken in the instant matter, including but not
limited to the deposition of plaintiffs. Copies of these transcripts are equally available from
Aiken & Welch, Inc., 1 Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505, Oakland, California 94612 (510) 451-1580.

Plaintiff identifies these Responses to defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, as
well as his responses to defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Requests for
Admission, and Judicial Council Form Interrogatories, all served concurrently herewith,

Plaintiff identifies plaintiff's complaint and other pleadings already on file with the

court,

In addition, plaintiff identifies the following documents, which plaintiff believes may
have information responsive to the Request:

Plaintiff further identifies all of ‘the agreements and contracts between defendant
TRICHERT and any general contractor, sub-contractor and supplier who was present at any job
sites at which plaintiff worked. Plaintiff further identifies:all the papers, photographs, films,

K Mnjured19249'pldirog-rep-ATHICHLWpd 6 ammCow aD nH BF WN

moe
nb ee So

recordings, memoranda, books, records, pamphlets, circulars, handbooks, manuals, periodicals,
files, envelopes, notices, instructions, transcripts, notes, telex messages, communications
(including reports, notes, notation and memoranda of telephone conversations and conferences,
electronic mail, minutes, transcriptions, correspondence, etc.) writings, letters, telegrams,
correspondence, notes of meetings or of conversations either in writing or upon any mechanical
or electronic devices, notes, accountants’ statements or summaries, reports, invoices, canceled
checks, check stubs receipts, bank statements, diaries, desk calendars, appointment books,
payment records, telephone bills in defendant’s constructive ossession, custody, care or control
relating to plaintiff and the jobsites at which plaintiff worked. Plaintiff believes defendant is in
possession of these documents.

Plaintiff identifies various Johns-Manville sale invoices to defendant TEICHERT.
Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff identifies the EPA publication, Managing Asbestos in Place, July 1990,
commonly known as the “Green Book,”

After a reasonable and good-faith inquiry to other persons and organizations, pursuant
to C.C.P, § 2030.220(a)-(c), plaintiff has no er information responsive to this Interrogatory
at this time. Plaintiff's experts may have additional documents unknown to plaintiff, which
they rely upon to arrive at opinions and may later advance in this case. Plaintiff's experts and
applicable experts’ reports will be produced pursuant to C.C.P, § 2034, et seq. Plaintiff's
investigation and discovery are ongoing. Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to amend this
Response pending the outcome of plaintiff's investigation.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO, 11: Plaintiff objects that this Interrogatory is
substantially identical to defendant’s Special Interrogatory No. |, and is therefore duplicative of
that Interrogatory, and is therefore harassing and oppressive. Subject to and without waiving
said objections, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference
herein Response to Interrogatory No. 1, above. .

Pursuant to C.C.P, § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time.
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are
continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO, 12: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the
extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work-
product doctrine. Plaintiff further objects fo this Interrogatory on the grounds that it calls for
expert opinions and conclusions and therefore prematurely seeks disclosure of information
which is properly the subj ect of expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. §
2034.010 et seq. Plaintiff objects that, given defendant’s definition of a “ TEICHERT
LOCATION” as “any location where PLAINTIFF claims exposure to asbestos from
TEICHERT, this Interrogatory is substantially identical to defendant’s Special Interrogatory No.
2, and is therefore duplicative of that Interrogatory, and is therefore harassing and oppressive.
Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff refers to
and incorporates by reference herein Response to Interrogatory No, 2, above,

Parsuant to C.C.P, § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to othei natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time,
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are
continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Plaintiff objects that, given defendant’s
definition ofa” TEICHERT LOCATION? as “any location where PLAINTIFF claims exposure
to asbestos from TEICHERT, this Interrogatory is substantially identical to defendant’s Special
Interrogatory No. 3, and is therefore duplicative of that Interrogatory, and is therefore harassing
and oppressive. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows:

KAinjured\19349\pld\vog-tap-ATEICH wpd : 7 ammmc oO ew eNO OH FF WON

oe
ak Ww

x

Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference herein Response to Interrogatory No. 3, above.

Pursuant to C.C.P, § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, an
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time,
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are
continuing. :

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it prematurely seeks information ‘which is properly the subject of expert witness
testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034. Plaintiff further objects to this
Interrogatory to the extent that it secks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or
attorney work-product doctrine. Plaintiff objects that, given defendant’s definition of a
eTRICUERT LOCATION?” as “any location where PLAINTIFF claims exposure to asbestos
from TEICCHERT,” this Interrogatory is substantially identical to defendant’s Special
Interrogatory No. 4, and is therefore duplicative of that Interrogatory, and is therefore harassing
and oppressive. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows:
ab Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference herein Response to Interrogatory No. 4,
Ov

8.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time.
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are
continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO, 15: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it prematurely secks information which is properly the subject of expert witness
testimony and/or reports in violation of C,C.P. § 2034. laintilf further objects to this
Interrogatory to the extent that it secks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or
attorney work-product doctrine. Plaintiff objects that, given. defendant’s definition of a
eTRICHERT LOCATION” as “any location where PLAINTIFF claims exposure to asbestos
from TEICHERT,” this Interrogatory is substantially identical to defendant’s Special
Interrogatory No. 5, and is therefore duplicative of that Interrogatory, and is therefore harassing
and oppressive, Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows:

b Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference herein Response to Interrogatory No, 5,
above.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time.
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are
continuing.

RESPONSE TO. INTERROGATORY NO. 16; Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it prematurely seeks information which is properly the subject of expert witness
testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034. Plaintiff further objects to this
Jnterrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or
attorney work-product doctrine, Plaintiff objects that, given defendant's definition of a
“TEICHERT LOCATION? as “any location where PLAINTIFF claims exposure to asbestos
from TEICHERT,.” this Interrogatory is substantially identical to defendant’s Special
Interrogatory No. 6, and is therefore duplicative of that Interrogatory, and is therefore harassing
and oppressive. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows:
Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference herein Response to Interrogatory No.6,

above.
Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort

to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and

believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time.

KAlnjured\19349\pldvog-rsp-A TRICH.wpd 8 amm“oD ow WD OH BR WON

wow yn nn vn vee ee Se tongs
Bs & & SF FS fF 6G Gowen ww FY NS FS

Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are
continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17; Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the -
grounds that it prematurely seeks information which is properly the subject of expert witness
testimony and/or reports in violation of C,C.P. § 2034. Plaintiff further objects to this
Tnterrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or
attorney work-product doctrine. Plaintiff objects that, given defendant's definition of a
“TEICHERT LOCATION” as “any location where P. TIFF claims exposure to asbestos
from TEICHERT,” this Interrogatory is Substantially identical to defendant’s Special
Interrogatory No. 7, and is therefore duplicative of that Interrogatory, and is therefore harassing
and oppressive. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows:
Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference herein Response to Interrogatory No. 7,

above,

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose af this time.
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are
continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO, 18: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it prematurely seeks information which is properly the subject of expert witness
testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034, Plaintiff further objects to this
Interrogatory to the extent that it secks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or
attorney work-product doctrine. Plaintiff objects that, aiven defendant’s definition of a
“TEICHERT LOCATION” as “any location where PLAINTIFF claims exposure to asbestos
from TEICHERT,” this Interrogatory is substantially identical to defendant’s Special
Interrogatory No. 8, and is therefore duplicative of that Interrogatory, and is therefore harassing
and oppressive. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows:

Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference herein Response to Interrogatory No. 8,
above,

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time.
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are
continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it prematurely seeks information which is properly the subject of expert witness
testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034, laintiff further objects to this
Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or
attorney work-product doctrine, Plaintiff objects that, given defendant’s definition of a
“TEICHERT LOCATION” as “any location where PLAINTIFF claims exposure to asbestos
from TEICHERT,” this Interrogatory is substantially identical to defendant’s Special
Interrogatory No. 9, and is therefore duplicative of that Interrogatory, and is therefore harassing
and oppressive, Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows;

Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference herein Response to Interrogatory No. 9,
above.

Pursuant to C.C.P, § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time,
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery ate
continuing.

ii

KNnjured\19349\pldé\rog-rsp-ATEICH, wpd 9 ammCm ay A nA FW NY

mM NY YN NN DN BB eR Be ee ee
BRRRE BRE S Ge DA AEGHE S

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Plaintiff hereby renews the general objection.
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, particularly
with regard to the use of undefined terms including, but not limited to, “exposed,” and
“asbestos-containing product.” Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is
overly broad and thus unduly burdensome and harassing, Plaintiff further objects to this
Interrogatory on the grounds that it prematurely seeks information which is properly the subject
of expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P, § 2034, Plaintiff farther
objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney-
client privilege or attorney work-product doctrine. Plaintiff objects that, given defendant’s
definition of a “TEICHERT LOCATION” as “any location where PLAINTIFF claims exposure
to asbestos from TEICHERT,” this Interrogatory is substantially identical to defendant’s Special
Interrogatory No. 10, and is therefore duplicative of that Interrogatory, and is therefore
harassing and oppressive. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as

‘ollows:

Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference herein Response to Interrogatory No. 9,

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030,220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time.
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are
continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO, 21: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it seeks documents protected by the Attorney-Cli /or the Attorney

above,

lent Privilege an

ork-Product Doctrine. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as
follows: Defendant A. TEICHERT & SON, INC. (herein after “TEICHERT”) was responsible
for plaintiff ROBERT ROSS’s exposure to asbestos during his work as follows:

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Siefert and Rossi Sacramento Convention. Insulator 4/1972-9/1973
1501 North C Street Center (3 months, on and
Sacramento, CA Sacramento, CA off)

(16" St.) .

Plaintiff remembers that TEICHERT was the general contractor at this site. Plaintiff worked in.
proximity to TEICHERT laborers who swept up asbestos-containing block insulation debris
near plaintiff in a large boiler room,

The insulation in use at the jobsite described above was asbesios-containing, as
evidenced by the responses to General Order 129 Standard Case Interrogatories of the various
entities who manufactured the insulation described above. Consequently, the insulation debris
swept up by TEICHERT in proximity to plaintiff generated airborne fibers that contained
asbestos, Plaintiff inhaled the fibers created by the work of employees of TEICHERT by
sweeping up such insulation debris,

‘hroughout plaintiff's career as an insulator, he applied and worked around the full
range of thermal insulation products, including non asbestos containing products such as
canvas, foam glass, fiberglass, mineral wool, styrofoam, rubber insulation, cork, urethane,
rockwool, fibercell, and asbestos free calcium silicates and mastics, as well as with the full
range of asbestos containing thermal insulation products, including 85% magnesia, asbestos
containing calcium silicates. Plaintiff has installed and removed each of these asbestos and non
asbestos containing products at numerous separate job sites. The various types of asbestos-
containing and non-asbestos-containing insulation materials can be easily distinguished. For
example, cork insulation is a light weir! t, elastic, compressed bark-like material that is
predominately tannish-brownish in color, but has a mottled surface featuring cratered black

KAlnjured\19349\pld\wogersp-A TEICH wpd 10 amm.So ewe Ww AO HW BR Bw YN

ae oe
aA vA F WN

spots. Foamglass is a black colored cellular glass product which emits a “rotten eggs” smell
when cut or disturbed, and which is very abrasive to skin. Styrofoam is a lightwei wht, stiff, low
density material which produces large dust particles when cut or disturbed, and is blue or white
in color. Fiberglass is an off-white to yellowish material comprised of extremely fine glass
fibers. Urethane is a greenish or yellow green colored material which is somewhat more dense
than styrofoam, and which emits very minute dust particles when cut or abraided. Rubber is a
cellular, plastic-like, black colored material which comes in rolled or sheet form, or pre-molded
in various sizes. 85% magnesia is a soft, white, sectional material which is almost chalky in
appearance, and which is easily cut or shaped. 85% magnesia always contained asbestos.
cium Silicate is an off-white to light grey, sectional material which is harder and darker in

color than 85% magnesia. The asbestos-coritaining varicties were extremely hard—requiring
vigorous sawing to penetrate the material, whereas the non-asbestos-containing varieties are
less hard, less rigid, easier to cut, and readily break apart during rough handling, unlike
asbestos-containing calcium silicates, Aircel is a greyish-tannish paper-like material which
appears somewhat like cardboard, with circular paper cells centered between its exterior walls.
‘Asbestos cloth is a dense white woven material easily distinguishable from fiberglass cloth, a
thin, lattice patterned, mesh-like material which is white or black. Unibestos is a unique form of
pipe covering and block which features a very hard outer shell which emits slivers when cut or

andled, Mineral Wool is a greenish colored loose fibrous material containing flecks of black
fiberglass. Rockwool is an off white cotton like material, Most of the above products can be
visually distinguished by plaintiff from a distance of more than 20 feet.

‘Based on Plaintiff’ s experietice handling, cutting, mixing, applying and removing
insulation products at commercial, industrial, and institutional locations, on plaintiff’s ordering
of such products for use on job sites where plaintiff and other insulators applied and removed
such products, and additionally based on plaintiffs examination and bidding of insulation jobs
for various employers, plaintiff has developed the ability to recognize asbestos versus non
asbestos containing thermal insulation materials. Plaintiff has long been readily familiar with
the use, consistency of the fibers, density when cutting, appearance, and physical characteristics
in place of the full range of both asbestos containing and asbestos free thermal insulation
products. Plaintiff was also able to tell whether insulation was asbestos-containing or not

ecatise some manufacturers placed a green stripe or mica flakes on the insulation to signify
non-asbestos containing insulation.

Plaintiff contends that the insulation fragments that employees of defendant TEICHERT
were cleaning Bp around him were asbestos-containin

e

publication, Managing Asbestos in Place, July 1990, commonly known as the
«Green Book,” states: “Asbestos became a po ular commercial product because it is strong,
won’t burn, resists corrosion, and insulates wel I, In the United States, its commercial use began
in the early 1900s and peaked in the period {rom World War Tinto the 1970s.” & 2)
“Asbestos in buildings has been commonly used for thermal insulation, fireproo. ne and in
various building materials, such as floor coverings and ceiling tile, cement pipe and shecting,
granular and corrugated paper pipe wrap, and acoustical and decorative treatment for ceilin,

and walls. Typically, it is found in pipe and boiler insulation and in spray-applied uses su
fireproofing or sound-deadening applications,” (p. 3.) “Because {asbestos} ers are so smal]
and light, they may remain in the air for many hours if they are released from ACM ina
building. When fibers are released into the air they may be inhaled by people in the building.”

12.
@) Additionally, industrial boilers are desi, ed to raise the temperature of water to very
high-temperature sicam, As such, thermal insulation is crucial to their operation. Boilers are
internally insulated in layers: thermal insulation blocks, castables, a coat of refractory “wet-as,”
and fire brick held together with mortar. The insulation blocks, the refractory, and the mortar
contained asbestos, Over time expansion and contraction of the fire bricks caused them to crack
and lose their ability to retain heat, requiring re-insulation of the boiler and the breaking and
removal of the bricks and the asbestos-containing mortar, usually with a chisel-type tool. The
internal bricks could also be broken and disturbed when workers scraped baked-on carbon
sludge from the bottom of the boiler. To enter the boiler, workers had to remove a bolted door,

KANinjured\19349'pld\og-sp-ATBICH wed il aumCoO WN DH FF WN

which was sealed with an asbestos-containing gasket. The outside of the boiler was also
insulated, with asbestos-containing block insulation. Insulation was also required on the boiler
tubes, requiring removal and reinstallation whenever a tube needed to be repaired or replaced.

_ Defendant TEICHERT was the general contractor at plaintiff's jobsite listed above
during the time that plaintiff was present, As a contractor, defendant controlled the work site by
coordinating, managing and overseeing the installation, removal and cleanup of asbestos and
asbestos-containing products. Defendant caused asbestos and/or asbestos-containing materials
to be supplied, delivered, installed, maintained, used, cleaned up, replaced and/or repaired at
plaintiff’s jobsite as set forth above. By the negligent acts and/or omissions of itself, its
subcontractors and other workers at the site under defendant’s control, defendant caused the
release of dangerous quantities of toxic asbestos fibers into the ambient air, creating a
hazardous and unsafe condition to plaintiff and other persons exposed to said asbestos fibers
while present at the above-identified jobsite. Defendant knew or should have known that the
foregoing conditions and activities created a dangerous, hazardous and unsafe condition and
unreasonable risk of harm and personal injury to plaintiff and other persons so exposed durin;
their presence on the above-referenced jobsite. Defendant failed to warn plaintiff or others o.
these ds and failed to take adequate safety precautions.to ensure that plairitiff and others
were not exposed to as! estos-conta