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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                GABRIEL A. JACKSON, State Bar No. 98119
ANTHONY C. CHIOSSO, State Bar No. 209014
achiosso@jjr-law.com

JACKSON JENKINS RENSTROM LLP

55 Francisco Street, 6th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94133

Tel: 415.982.3600

Fax: 415.982.3700

Attorneys for Defendant
COSCO FIRE PROTECTION, INC.

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

APR 19 2012

Clerk of the Court
BY: VANESSA WU
Deputy Clerk

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ROBERT ROSS AND JEAN ROSS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS;
Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit 1
attached to the Summary Complaint
herein; and DOES 1-8500,, et al.

Defendants.

Case No CGC-10-275731

EXHIBITS F THROUGH H TO DECLARATION OF
ANTHONY C. CHiOSSO IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT COSCO FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR
SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

DATE: July 10, 2012

TIME: 9:30 a.m.

DEPT: 503

COMPLAINT FILED: 12/17/10
TRIAL DATE: None

EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF ANTHONY C. CHIOSSO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTEXHIBIT FBRAYTON@¢PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

P.O. BOX 6169

NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169

‘415-898-1555

OO IY A A PY) BH

eu RRR ORES

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., S.B. #73685
DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., 8.B. #154436
JUSTIN S. FISH, ESQ., S.B. #250282
BRAYTON®PURCELL LLP

Attorneys at Law

222 Rush Landing Road

P.O. Box 6169

Novato, California 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555

Attomeys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
RECEIVED
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
AUG 16 2011
RENSTROM LLP
ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, ASBESTOS, JACKSON JENKINS REN
No. CGC-10-275731
Plaintiffs,

DEFENDANT COSCO FIRE
PROTECTION, INC.’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

Ys.

C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS;
Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit 1
attached to the Summary Complaint

2
3 PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO
herein; and DOES 1-8500. }

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant COSCO FIRE PROTECTION, INC.
(Hereinafter “COSCO”)

RESPONDING PARTIES: Plaintiffs ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS
(Hereinafter “Plaintiff”)

SET NO: ONE (1)
GENE!

Plaintiff objects to defendant's definition of the words “YOU” & “YOUR.” The
definition is vague, ambiguous and overbroad. The definition includes thirteen separate groups
of persons and “anyone else purporting to act on her behalf.” The terms “affiliates,” "agents"
and "investigators" are vague and ambiguous and require plaintiff to guess as to who might fit
within these descriptions. Additionally, the inclusion of a potentially unknown number of
persons makes each request with “YOU/YOUR” unduly burdensome and impossible to respond
to. The inclusion of plaintiff's attorneys in this definition calls for information that is
potentially protected by the attorney-work product doctrine. Subject to, and without waiving
said objections, plaintiff responds as follows:

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Plaintiff also objects to this interrogatory on the
grounds that it seeks to ascertain if some parts of plaintiff's expenses, including medical bills,
were paid by collateral sources; as such it seeks information that is rotected under the
collateral source doctrine and is irrelevant to the subject matter of this action, and not calculated

KAlnjured\19349\p!d\ROG-tsp-COSPIR. wpd 1 asp

55292oY DM eB wwe

RNY N YN WN WN ae ee ep s
eo & EOS BSSERDRRBRE EER OS SB

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; it is also burdensome, oppressive and harassing
to plaintiff. Hmnjak v.’Graymar (1971) 4 Cal.3d 725. Pe
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2; Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory upon the
ground that it violates Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) §§ 2034.210 and 2034.220 to the
extent that defendant seeks documents and information relating to consultants, expert
testimony, expert witnesses and/or documents in the possession of any such consultants or
experts. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks documents protected
by the Attomey-Client Privilege and/or the Attorney Work-Product Doctrine. Subject to, and
without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff was exposed to
asbestos at job sites where COSCO was a contractor during his work as follows:

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title
Consolidated Insulation Highland Hospital Insulator 1/1967-3/1972
517-D Marine View Ave. Oakland, CA (1 month, on and
Belmont, CA off)

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Douglass Insulation UCSF Medical Center Insulator 4/1977-5/1977
3990 Ralston Avenue San Francisco, CA (9 days)
Hillsborough, CA

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Consolidated Insulation UCSF Medical Center Insulator 1977-1979
517-D Marine View Ave. San Francisco, CA (4 months, on and
Belmont, CA (Parnassus Street); off)

an Francisco, CA

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Consolidated Insulation University of California Insulator 1979 (2 weeks)
517-D Marine View Ave. Berkeley, CA
Belmont, CA (Warren Hall)

Plaintiff identifies all plaintiff's deposition transcripts, and all exhibits attached thereto,

taken July 12, 2011, and all subsequent dates, available through Aiken & Welch, One Kaiser

Plaza, Suite 505, Oakland, California, 94612 (510) 451-1580. Plaintiff believes defendant is in
ssession of these documents. According to plaintiffs deposition, COSCO was a sprinkler-
itter company that the plaintiff worked around from 1959-1970s GD: 1099:20-24). Plaintiff
worked at several jobsites where COSCO worked in proximity to him (TVD:1104:10-13),
Plaintiff knew they were employees of COSCO because of their hardhats, trucks and toolboxes
TVD:1104:19-25), COSCO put studs into cement ceilings, ran rebar down the unistruts, put
m in a hanger, ran pipe through it and then hung their sprinklers (TVD:1101:13-23).
In Plainnity 's presence, COSCO penetrated fireproofing and cement in order to hang their pines
(1105:10-25). COSCO drilled into overhead cement (rvD:1 106:17-18). When COSCO drilled
into the overhead, plaintiff saw dust in the air from the disturbed fireproo: :1106-
1107:19-6). No one ever warned plaintiff to wear a mask or leave the area (T'VD;1107:7-14),

KAlnjured\9349\pIAROG-15p-COSHIR, wpd 2 aspoc Oe YD HM Fw

10

Defendant COSCO was a contractor at plaintiff's job sites listed above during the time
that plaintiff was present, As a contractor, defendant controlled the work sites by coordinating,
managing and overseeing the installation, removal and clean-up 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 disturbed at
plaintiff's job sites as set forth above.

_ By the negligent acts and/or omissions of itself, its subcontractors and other workers at
the sites 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 job sites.
Defendant knew or should have known that the foregoing conditions and activities created a

erous, hazardous and unsafe condition and unreasonable risk of harm and personal injury
to plaintiff and other persons so exposed during their presence on the above-referenced jol
sites.

Defendant failed to warn plaintiff or others of 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 plaintiff's job sites.

fendant 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 hit would be generating asbestos-containing dust which plaintiff would then breathe.
Detendant permitted the job to continue with no precautions or warnings. Defendant did not
warn plaintiff that toxic levels of asbestos-laden dust would be released into the ambient air.

As a result of defendant's conduct, plaintiff was exposed to asbestos fibers and dust
released into the ambient air from asbestos-containing products being used at the job sites under
defendant's control. Consequently, plaintiff was exposed to and breathed asbestos fibers and
dust and developed an asbestos-related injury. Plaintiff was exposed to and inhaled ambient
asbestos dust and such asbestos dust was caused by defendant COSCO's employees,

The hazards associated with exposure to asbestos and the effect of asbestos exposure on
humans have been well documented throughout this century, As early as the 1930s, there
existed a wealth of information available for defendant which evidences that exposure to
asbestos and asbestos-containing products was a health hazard, California promulgated
industrial safety standards for workmen around asbestos-containing products beginning in the
1930s. Therefore, defendant knew or should have known of the health hazards associated with
exposure to asbestos as early as the 1930s.

The OSHA regulations define fireproofing as a presumed asbestos-containing material,
if it is found in buildings that were constructed no later than 1980, 29 CFR 1926.1101{a)
defines “Presumed asbestos-containing material” as “thermal systems insulation and surfacing
material found in building constructed no later than 1980.” (Emphasis added.) The same
provision defines “Surfacing material” as “material that is sprayed, troweled-on or otherwise
applied to surfaces (such as acoustical plaster on ceilings or on structure
members, or other materials on surfaces for acoustical, ‘ooting, and other Burposes.”

mphasis added.) These same definitions are likewise applied in 29 CFR 1910.1001(b).
29 CFR 1910,1001(j)(1) states: “Installed Asbestos Containing Material, Employers and
building owners are required to treat installed TSI [Thermal System Insulation] and sprayed on
and troweled-on surfacing materials as ACM in buildings constructed no later than 1980 for
Rurposes of this standard. These materials are designated ‘presumed ACM or PACM’”, and are
defined in paragraph (b) of this section.” Plaintiff identifies the California Code of
Regulations, Title 8, Section 1529(b).

In the article” Application of Sprayed Inorganic Fiber Containing Asbestos:
Occupational Health Hazards,” American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal (1972) 33(3):
178-191 by W.B. Reitze, W. J, Nicholson, D.A. Holaday, & I. J. Selikoff the authors states:
“Tn 1970, well over half of all the large multistory buildings constructed in this country made
use of sprayed ‘inorganic fiber’ as a fireproofin; agent v7 178-9) “The material used for
fireproofing in a building usually is a blend of 5-30% asbestos fiber (chrysotile). . .” (179.)
“Pipe fitters, welders, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, and others may be on the construction
site during or shortly after mineral fibers have been sprayed. . .That there is a serious risk may

KAlnjured\t9349\pldROG-rep-COSFIR. wp 3 aspbe inferred from the increasing reports of mesothelioma among men working in shipyards in
which asbestos spraying was associated with such risk of indirect occupational exposure.”
(182.) “Our air studies indicate . . . that very high asbestos fiber levels are found in the work
environment of building trades workmen not associated with spraying operations, but simply
working in the same buildings.” (183.)

e Federal Register, Environmental Protection Agency regulations from 1973 which
banned asbestos-containing ofing, which state, ‘The promulgated standard applies to
these uses of spray-on asbestos materials which could generate major emissions of particulate
asbestos material. For those spray-on materials used to insulate or fireproof buildings,
structures, pipes, and conduits, the standard limits the content to no more than 1 percent.
Materials currently used contain from 10-80% asbestos.” [Emphasis added] gre Federal
Register, Vol. 38, No. 66, April 6, 1973, attached hereto as xhibit 7, p. 8321.

The EPA publication, “Managing Asbestos in Place,” July 1990, commonly known as
the “Green Book” states:

“Asbestos became a 4 popular commercial product because it is strong, won’t burn, resists
corrosion, and insulates well. 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 decorative treatment for ceiling and walls. Typically, it is found
in pipe and boiler insulation and in spray-a ied uses such as ofing or sound-deadening
applications.” (p.3.) “Because fasbestos] are so small and age they may remain in the
air for many hours if are released from ACM in a building. n fibers are released into
the air they may be inhaled by people in the building.”

Furthermore, Kenneth Cohen personally performed testing on spray-on fireproofing and
his findings are completely consistent with these published findings of the Environmental
Protection Agency: Fireproofing installed in buildings constructed before 1973 was always
asbestos-containing. Mr. Cohen has personally tested fireproofing, including W.R. Grace
Monokote, in hundreds of public buildings, private commercial buildings, high-rise residential
structures, and a wide variety of other buildings and structures constructed during the 1960s and
early 1970s. Mr. Cohen used polarized microscopy to make a qualitative assessment of the
percentage of asbestos in the material. He generally found that the fireproofing contained 15-
16% asbestos.

Plaintiff further identifies numerous articles and studies relating to health hazards
associated with exposure to asbestos which have appeared in the medical and scientific
literature since the turn of the century, and have also been summarized in various publications.
Three texts that contain summaries and/or bibliographies of this literature are:

Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects, Barry I. Castleman
Prentice-Hall Law and Business, 1990

ourcebook on Asbestos Disease. Medi:
George A. Peters and Barbara J. Peters,
Vol. 1, 1980, Vol. 2, 1986

Plaintiff is in possession of these texts and will make them available for defendant's review.

Plaintiff identifies plaintiff's Responses to Standard Asbestos Case Interrogatories,
equally available to defendant through Coordinating Defense Counsel Berry & Berry, 2930
Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland, California 94610 (510) 835-8330. ,

Plaintiff identifies plaintiff's Social Security records, medical records and billings which
have been, or will be produced to coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry, 2930 Lakeshore
Avenue, Oakland, California 94610 (510) 835-8330, and are equally available to defendant.
Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff identifies an Economic Loss Report, composed on April 14, 2011 by Richard
(poosea re & Associates, 4984 El Camino Real, Suite 210, Los Altos, California 94022

-7435.

al, Legal, a ering A
Garland STPM Press

KMpjured\19349\pld\ROG-sp-COSFIR.wpd 4 aspoC Oo WN HW Bh WwW ON

10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
a
2
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff identifies all Defendant’s Responses to Standard Asbestos Case Interrogatories,
equally available to defendant through Coordinating Defense Counsel Berry & Berry, 2930
Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland, California 94610 (510) 835-8330.

Plaintiff identifies defendant COSCO’s responses to General Order 129 Interrogatories
dated December 22, 2009. Plaintiff believes defendant to be in possession of this document.

Plaintiff identifies defendant, COSCO’s Persons Most wledgeable and Custodians
of Record(s) of any predecessor-in-interest, subsidiary, alter ego, and/or alternate entity, both
past and present. Plaintiff believes that defendant is in ssion of these documents.

Plaintiff also identifies General Industry Safety promulgated under the California
Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Industrial Safety, Title 8, Article 81, including
but not limited to Sections 4104 through 4107, and Appendix A, Table 1 in effect during the
years 1948 to 1972.

Plaintiff contends that plaintiff's exposure to asbestos as a result of defendant was a
substantial factor is causing and contributing to plaintiff's total dose as defined in Rutherford v.
Owens-Illinois (1997) 16 Cal.4th, 953. Rutherford states, “In an asbestos-related cancer case,
the plaintiff need not prove that fibers from the defendant's product were the ones, or among the
ones, that actually began the ¢ process of malignant cellular growth. Instead, the plaintiff may
meet the burden of proving that exposure to defendants product was a substantial factor causing
the illness by showing that in reasonable medical probability it was a substantial factor
contributing to the plaintiff's or Blaintift s risk of developing cancer, The jury should be so
instructed.” (Id., emphasis added, at 982-983.) Plaintiff's experts will testify that plaintiff's
asbestos-related clinical disease responses were caused by the total proven, ascertainable dose
of asbestos of every type and instance in his history, which given sufficient minimum latency
for the fundamental yet individually susceptible biology to obtain represents for trial a
“substantial factor,” as defined in Rutherford,

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
that is not equally available to defendant.

RESPONSE TQ INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the
extent 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 objects to this Interrogatory as
overly broad, vague and ambiguous with respect to undefined terms. Subject to and without
waiving said objections, plaintiff presently responds as follows: Plainti refers to, and
incorporates by reference herein, plaintiff's Response to Special Interrogatory No. 2, above.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has je 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
that is not equally available to defendant.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGAT ORY NO. 4: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overly
broad, vague and ambiguous, with respect to the undefined terms and phrases, including but not
limited to, “exposed” and “asbestos-containing products.” Plaintiff abjects to defendant's use
of the undefined term “DISTURBED,” which is capitalized but offers no definition. Plaintiff
further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it prematurely seeks information which is
properly the subject of expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034.
Subject to, and without waiving said objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Yes. —

Pursuant to.C.C.P. § 7036 220(0), 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
that is not equally available to defendant.

ul

‘KAinjured\9349\pld\ROG-rsp-COSFIR. wd 5 aspCwm IN Dw FB wW NY

VN wy MY NN NN Fe Be Be eB eB “
&2® ua & & FBS tS FSaeranreunas

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overly
broad, vague and ambiguous, particularly with respect to the undefined terms and phrases,
including ut not limited to, “exposed”and “asbestos-containing products.” Plaintiff objects to
defendant’s use of the undefined term “DISTURBED,” which is capitalized but offers no
definition. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent 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 objects to this Intertogatory on the grounds that it seeks documents
protected by the Attorney-Client Privilege and/or the Attorney Work-Product Doctrine. Subject
to, and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff was exposed to
asbestos at job sites where COSCO was a contractor during his work as follows:

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Consolidated Insulation Highland Hospital Insulator 1/1967-3/1972
517-D Marine View Ave. Oakland, CA (1 month, on and
Belmont, CA off)

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Douglass Insulation UCSF Medical Center Insulator 4/1977-S/1977
3990 Ralston Avenue San Francisco, CA. (9 days)
Hillsborough, CA

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Consolidated Insulation UCSF Medical Center Insulator 1977-1979
517-D Marine View Ave. San Francisco, CA. (4 months, on and
Belmont, CA amnassus Street); off)

an Francisco, CA.

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Consolidated Insulation University of California Insulator 1979 (2 weeks)
517-D Marine View Ave. Berkeley, CA
Belmont, CA (Warren Hall)

Plaintiff identifies all plaintiff's deposition transcripts, and ali exhibits attached thereto,
taken July 12, 2011, and all subsequent dates, available through Aiken & Welch, One Kaiser
Plaza, Suite 505, Oakland, California, 94612 (510) 451-1580. Plaintiff believes defendant is in
possession of these documents. According to plaintiff's deposition, COSCO was a sprinkler-

itter company that the plaintiff worked around from 1959-1970s (TVD:1099:20-24). Plaintiff
worked at several jobsites where COSCO worked in proximity to him (TVD:1104:10-13).
Plaintiff knew they were employees of COSCO because of their hardhats, trucks and toolboxes
(TVD:1104:19-25). COSCO put studs into cement ceilings, ran rebar down the unistruts, put
them in a hanger, ran pipe through it and then hung their sprinklers (TVD:1101:13-23).
In piginti's presence, COSCO penetrated fireproofing and cement in order to hang their pipes
(1105:10-25). COSCO drilled into overhead cement (TVD:1106:17-18), When COSCO drilled
into the overhead, plaintiff saw dust in the air from the disturbed fireproofing (Typ 106-
1107:19-6). No one ever warned plaintiff to wear a mask or leave the area ( :1107:7-14).

tt

KAlnjured\{9349\plAROG-1sp-COSFIR wpd 6 . aspDefendant COSCO was a contractor at plaintiff's job sites listed above during the time
that plaintiff was present. As a contractor, defendant controlled the work sites by coordinating,
managing and overseeing the installation, removal and clean-up 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 disturbed at
plaintiff's job sites as set forth above.

_ By the negligent acts and/or omissions of itself, its subcontractors and other workers at
the sites 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 job sites.
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
top faintiff and other persons so exposed during their presence on the above-referenced jol
sites.

Defendant failed to warm plaintiff or others of these hazards and failed to take adequate
safety precautions to ensure that plaintiff and others were not exposed to asbestos-containin;
products installed, maintained, used, cleaned-up, replaced and/or repaired at plaintiff's job sites.

efendant dictated that workers at the site would use and disturb acbestos and asbestos-
containing products. Defendant knew or should have known that its employees and/or others
they hired would be generating asbestos-containing dust which plaintiff would then breathe.
Defendant permitted the job to continue with no precautions or warnings. Defendant did not
warn plaintiff that toxic levels of asbestos-laden dust would be released into the ambient air.

As a result of defendant's conduct, plaintiff was exposed to asbestos fibers and dust
released into the ambient air from asbestos-containing products being used at the job sites under
defendant's control. Consequently, plaintiff was exposed to and breathed asbestos fibers and
dust and developed an asbestos-related injury. Plaintiff was exposed to and inhaled ambient
asbestos dust and such asbestos dust was caused by defendant COSCO’s employees,

The hazards associated with exposure to asbestos and the effect of asbestos exposure on
humans have been well documented throughout this century, As early as the 1930s, there
existed a wealth of information available for defendant which evidences that exposure to
asbestos and asbestos-containing products was a health hazard. California promulgated
industrial safety standards for workmen around asbestos-containing products beginning in the
1930s. Therefore, defendant knew or should have known of the health hazards associated with
exposure to asbestos as early as the 1930s.

The OSHA regulations define fireproofing as a presumed asbestos containing material,
if it is found in buildings that were constructed no later than 1980. 29 CFR 1926.1101(a)
defines “Presumed asbestos-containing material” as “thermal systems insulation and surfacing
material found in building constructed no later than 1980.” (Emphasis added.) The same
provision defines “Surfacing material” as “material that is sprayed, troweled-on or otherwise
applied to surfaces (such as acoustical plaster on ceilings or Hreproofing materials on structure
members, or other materials on surfaces for acoustical, fireproofing, and other purposes.”
Emphasis added.) These same definitions are likewise applied in 29 CFR _1910,1001(b).

9 CFR 1910,1001(j)(1) states: “Installed Asbestos Containing Material. Employers and
building owners are required to treat installed TSI [Thermal System Insulation] and Sprayed on
and troweled-on surfacing materials as ACM in buildings constructed no later than 1980 for

oses of this standard. These materials are designated ‘presumed ACM or PACM’, and are
Felined in paragraph (b) of this section.” Plaintiff t identifies the California Code of
Regulations, Title 8, Section 1529(b).

In the article“Application of Sprayed Inorganic Fiber Containing Asbestos:
Occupational Health Hazards,” American Industrial lene Association Journal (1972) 33(3):
178-191 by W.B. Reitze, W. J. Nicholson, D.A. Holaday, & I. J. Selikoff the authors states:
“In 1970, well over half of all the Jarge multistory buildings constructed in this country made
use of sprayed ‘inorganic fiber’ as a fireproofi ent.” 78-9) “The material used for
fireproofing in a building usually is a blend of 5-30% asbestos fiber (chrysotile). . .” (179.)
“Pipe fitters, welders, clectricians, plumbers, carpenters, and others may be on the construction
site during or shortly after mineral fibers have been sprayed. . . That there is a serious risk may

KAlnjured\19349'plQ\ROG-rsp-COSFIR.wpd 7 aspCe YA Ww ew Dd

be inferred from the increasing reports of mesothelioma among men working in shipyards in
which asbestos spraying was associated with such risk of indirect occupational exposure.”
{182.) “Our air studies indicate . . . that very high asbestos fiber levels are found in the work
environment of building trades workmen not associated with spraying operations, but simply
working in the same buildings.” (183.)

The Federal Register; Environmental Protection Agency regulations from 1973 which
banned asbestos-containing fireproofing, which state, “The promulgated standard applies to
these uses of spray-on asbestos materials which could generate major emissions of particulate
asbestos material. For those spray-on materials used to insulate or fireproof buildings,
structures, pipes, and conduits, the standard limits the content to no more than 1 percent.
Materials currently used contain from 10-80% asbestos.” phasis added] (The Federal
Register Vol. 38, No. 66, April 6, 1973, attached hereto as Exhibit 7, p. 8321.)

The EPA publication, “Managing Asbestos in Place,” July 1990, commonly known as
the “Green Book” states:

“Asbestos became a popular commercial product because it is strong, won’t burn, resists
corrosion, and insulates well. In the United States, its commercial use began in the early 1900s
and peaked in the period from World War II 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 decorative treatment for ceiling and walls. Typically, it is found
in pipe and boiler insulation and in spray-applied 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. en fibers are released into
the air they may be ‘nha led by people in the building.”

Furthermore, Kenneth Cohen personally performed testing on spray-on fireproofing and
his findings are completely consistent with these published findings of the Environmental
Protection Agency: fireproofing installed in buildings con: before 1973 was always
asbestos-containing. Mr. Cohen has personally tested fireproofing, including W.R. Grace
Monokote, in hundreds of public buildings, private commercial buildings, high-rise residential
structures, and a wide variety of other buildings and structures constructed during the 1960s and
early 1970s. Mr. Cohen used polarized microscopy to make a qualitative assessment of the
Percentage of asbestos in the material. He generally found that the fireproofing contained 15-

6% asbestos. .

Plaintiff further identifies numerous articles and studies relating to health hazards
associated with exposure to asbestos which have appeared in the medical and scientific
literature since the tum of the century, and have also been summarized in various publications.
Three texts that contain summaries and/or bibliographies of this literature are:

Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects, Barry J, Castleman
Prentice-Hall Law and Business, 1990

Sourcebook on Asbestos Disease, Medical, Legal, and Engineering Aspects,
George A. Peters and Barbara J. Peters, Garland STPM Press
3

Vol. I, 1980, Vol. 2, 1986

Plaintiff is in possession of these texts and will make them available for defendant's review.

Plaintiff identifies plaintiff's Responses to Standard Asbestos Case Interrogatories,
equally available to defendant through Coordinating Defense Counsel Berry & Berry, 2930
Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland, California 94610 (510) 835-8330.

Plaintiff identifies plaintiffs Social Security records, medical records and billings which
have been, or will be luced to coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry, 2930 Lakeshore
Avenue, Oakland, California 94610 (510) 835-8330, and are equally available to defendant.
Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff identifies an Economic Loss Report, composed on April 14, 2011 by Richard
W. Johnson & Associates, 4984 El Camino Real, Suite 210, Los Altos, California 94022
(800)541-7435,

KAlnjured\19349%plMROG-rsp-COSFIR.wed 8 aspwo eo NY DH FF WN

vN MN NM NR NNN ee Be Be Be eB ee Be
eI ANE DDH ES DO wMOHA AEH PES

Plaintiff identifies all Defendant’s Responses to Standard Asbestos Case Interrogatories,
equally available to defendant through Coordinating Defense Counsel Berry & Berry, 2930
Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland, California 94610 (510) 835-8330.

Plaintiff identifies defendant COSCO’s responses to General Order 129 Interrogatories
dated December 22, 2009. Plaintiff believes defendant to be in m possession of this document.

Plaintiff identifies defendant, COSCO’s Persons Most Knowledgeable and Custodians
of Record(s) of any predecessor-in-interest, subsidiary, alter ego, and/or alternate entity, both
past and present. Plaintiff believes that defendant is in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff also identifies General Industry Safety Orders promulgated under the California
Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Industrial Safety, Title 8, Article 81, including
but not limited to Sections 4104 through 4107, and Appendix A, Table 1 in effect during the
years 1948 to 1972.

Plaintiff contends that plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos as a result of defendant was a
substantial factor is causing and contributing to plaintiff's total dose as defined in Rutherford v.
Owens-Illinois (1997) 16 Cal.4th. 953. Rutherford states, “In an asbestos-related cancer case,
the plaintiff need not prove that fibers from the defendant's product were the ones, or among the
ones, that actually began the process of malignant cellular growth. Instead, the plaintiff may
meet the burden of proving that exposure to defendants product was a substantial factor causing
the illness by showing that in reasonable medical probability it was a substantial factor
contributing to the plaintiff's or plaintiff's risk of developing cancer, The jury should be so
instructed.” (1d., emphasis added, at 982-983.) Plaintiff's experts will testify that plaintiff's
asbestos-related clinical disease responses were caused by the total proven, ascertainable dose
of asbestos of every type and instance in his history, which given sufficient minimum latency
for the fundamental yet individually susceptible biology to obtain represents for trial a
“substantial factor,” as defined in Rutherford.

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
that is not equally available to defendant.

RESFONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overly
broad, vague and ambiguous, particularly with respect to the undefined terms and phrases,
including but not limited to, “exposed,” “exposure” and “asbestos-containing products.”
Plaintiff objects to defendant’s use of the undefined term “DISTURBED,” which is capitalized
but offers no definition. Plaintiff further objects to this Interropatory to the extent that it
prematurely seeks information which is properly the subject of expert witness testimony and/or
orts in violation of C.C.P. § 2034. Plaintiff chiects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that
itis compound and conjunctive in violation of C.C.P. § 2030(c){5), Subject to, and without

waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows:

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure job Title Dates
Consolidated Insulation Highland Hospital Insulator 1/1967-3/1972
517-D Marine View Ave. Oakland, CA (1 month, on and
Belmont, CA. off)
Do s Insulation UCSF Medical Center Tnsulator 4N9TT-S/9T7
3990 Ralston Avenue San Francisco, CA (9 days)
Hillsborough, CA .
Consolidated Insulation UCSF Medical Center Insulator 1977-1979
517-D Marine View Ave. San Francisco, CA (4 months, on and
Belmont, CA Pamassus Street); off)

an Francisco, CA

KAlnjuredi19349\pld\ROG-rsp-COSFIR. wpd 9 aspoe oD A RY YH

e232 A&G FoR TS

19

Location of Exposure

Employer (contd.) Exposure Job Title Dates
Consolidated Insulation University of California Insulator 1979 (2 weeks)
517-D Marine View Ave. Berkeley, CA.

Belmont, CA (Warren Hall)

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
that is not equally available to defendant.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overly
broad, ¢ and ambiguous, particularly with yespect to undefined terms and phrases,
including not limited to, “exposed,” “exposure” and “gabestos containing pro lucts.
Plaintiff objects to defendant’s use of the undefined term “DISTURBED,” which is capitalized
but offers no definition. Plaintiff further objects to this Jnterrogatory to the extent that it
prematurely secks information which is properly the subject of expert witness testimony and/or
reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that
it ts compound and conjunctive in violation of C.C.P. § 2030(c)(5). Subject to, and without
waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows:

Location of Exposure
Employer x] Job Title Dates
Consolidated Insulation Highland Hospital Insulator 1/1967-3/1972
517-D Marine View Ave. Oakland, CA (1 month, on and
Belmont, CA off)
Douglass Insulation UCSF Medical Center Insulator 4/1977-S/1977
3990 Ralston Avenue San Francisco, CA (9 days)
Hillsborough, CA
Consolidated Insulation UCSF Medical Center Insulator 1977-1979
517-D Marine View Ave. San Francisco, CA (4 months, on and
Belmont, CA (Parnassus Street); off)

an Francisco, CA

Consolidated Insulation University of California Insulator 1979 (2 weeks)
517-D Marine View Ave. Berkeley, CA
Belmont, CA (Warren Hall)

Plaintiff cannot currently be any more specific as to a date that the plaintiff was exposed
to asbestos by defendant, COSCO.

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
that is not equally available to defendant.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Plaintiff objccts to this Interrogatory as overly
road, vague and ambiguous, particularly with respect to the undefined terms, including but not
limited to, “exposed,” “exposure” and “asbestos-containing products.” Plaintiff opjects to
defendant’s use of the undefined term “DISTURBED,” which is capitalized but o: no
definition. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it prematurely seeks

KAlnjured\1934%pldROG-rep-COSFIR. wpd 10 aspoe WA HA Fw nN

be PP ye Ny Nb ~ o Boe
& US & FSS Ye SF Saran EoOR eS

information which is properly the subject of expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation
of C.C.P. § 2034. Subject to, and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as
follows: Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos-containing products that were disturbed by COSCO,
while employed by Consolidated Insulation, as well as Douglass Insulation.

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
that is not equally available to defendant.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overly
broad, vague and ambiguous, particularly with respect to the undefined terms, including but not
limited to, “exposed,” “exposure” and “asbestos-containing products.” Plaintiff objects to
defendant’s use of the undefined term “DISTURBED,” which is capitalized but offers no
definition. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound and
conjunctive in violation of C.C.P. § 2030(c)(5). Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory to
the extent 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 objects to this Interrogatory on
the grounds that it seeks information equally or more available to defendant, and is therefore

ressive and unduly burdensome to plaintiff. Subject to, and without waiving said
objections, plaintiff responds as follows:

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Consolidated Insulation Highland Hospital Insulator 1/1967-3/1972
517-D Marine View Ave. Oakland, CA (1 month, on and
Belmont, CA. off}
Plaintiff insulated pipes and ducts in the ceilings and worked in the boiler room.

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Douglass Insulation. UCSF Medical Center Insulator 4/1977-5/1977
3990 Ralston Avenue San Francisco, CA (9 days)
Hillsborough, CA
Plaintiff repaired asbestos-containing pipe insulation.

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Consolidated Insulation UCSF Medical Center Insulator 1977-1979
517-D Marine View Ave. San Francisco, CA (4 months, on and
Belmont, CA (Parnassus Street); off)

San Francisco, CA
Plaintiff insulated pipes and installed board glass during a remodel project.

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Consolidated Insulation University of California Insulator 1979 (2 weeks)
517-D Marine View Ave. Berkeley, CA
Belmont, CA (Warren Hall)

K Aljured\19349\plAROG-tsp-COSFIR.wpd 11 aspeo mm IN DH FW NY

ww WN NY NM HRN NY eB Be eB Be eB eB ew ewe eR
2a Rm Fob SN FE 5S De AAA RD HS

Plaintiff insulated pipes and ducts, Plaintiff insulated pipes that had been tied into existing
pipes and had some of the existing insulation removed.

Plaintiff identifies all plaintiff's deposition transcripts, and all exhibits attached thereto,
taken July 12, 2011, and all subsequent dates, available through Aiken & Welch, One Kaiser
Plaza, Suite 505, Oakland, California, 94612 (510) 451-1580. Plaintiff believes defendant is in
possession of these documents.

Plaintiff identifies plaintiff's Responses to Standard Asbestos Case Interrogatories,
equally available to defe t through Coordinating Defense Counsel Berry & Berry, 2930

re Avenue, Oakland, California 94610 (510) 835-8330, Plaintiff believes defendant is
in possession of these documents.

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
that is not equally available to defendant.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overly
broad, vague and ambiguous, particularly ‘with respect to the undefined terms, including but not
limited to, “exposed,” “exposure” “and “asbestos-containing products.” Plaintiff objects to
defendant’s use of the undefined term “DISTURBED,” which is capitalized but offers no
definition. Plaintiff further objects to this Intetrogatory to the extent that it prematurely seeks
information which is properly the subject of expert witness testimony and/or reports which will
be given at the appropriate time before trial, in violation of C.C.P. § 2034. Plaintiff objects to
this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information equally or more available to
defendant, and is therefore oppressive and unduly burdensome to plaintiff. Subject to, and
without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows:

Plaintiff identifies all plaintiff's deposition transcripts, and all exhibits attached thereto,
taken July 12, 2011, and all subsequent dates, available through Aiken & Welch, One Kaiser
Plaza, Suite 505, Oakland, California, 94612 (510) 451-1580. Plaintiff believes defendant is in
possession of these documents. According to Plaintiff's deposition, COSCO was a sprinkler-

iter company that the plaintiff worked around from 1959-1970s FVD: 0592024), Plaintiff
worked at several jobsites where COSCO worked in proximity to him (TVD:1 104:19-13).
Plaintiff knew they were employees of COSCO because of their hardhats, trucks and toolboxes
(TVD:1104:19-25). COSCO put studs into cement ceilings, ran rebar down the unistruts, put
them in a hanger, ran pipe through it and then hung their sprinklers (TVD:1101:13-23).
In plaintiff's presence, COSCO penetrated fireproofing and cement in order to hang their Pipes
(1105:10-25). COSCO drilled into overhead cement (1VD:1106:17-18), When COSCO drilled
into the overhead, plaintiff saw dust in the air from the disturbed fireproofing (TVD:1106-
1107:19-6), No one ever warned plaintiff to wear a mask or leave the area 1107:7-14),

Plaintiff identifies plaintiff's Responses to Standard Asbestos Case Interrogatories,
equally available to defendant through Coordinating Defense Counsel Berry & Berry, 2930
Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland, California 94610 (510) 835-8330. Plaintiff believes defendant is
in possession of these documents. Plaintiff cannot be any more specific as to how exposure
from defendant, COSCO, occurred at this time.

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, ant
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time
that is not equally available to defendant.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of C.C.P. § 2030(c)(5). Plaintiff
objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, vague and ambiguous, particularly with respect to
the undefined terms, inclu ing but not limited to, “exposed,” “exposure” and “asbestos-
containing products.” Plaintiff objects to defendant’s use of the undefined term

“DISTURB 1D” which is capitalized but offers no definition. Subject to, and without waiving
said objections, plaintiff identifies co-workers as follows:

KAlnjured\19349\p1dROG-tsp-COSPIR. wpd 12 aspowe IN DAH PB WH

eo
@ -s Ww Me So

16

Robert Cantley c/o Brayton ¢Purcell LLP; Richard Collins c/o Brayton #Purcell LLP;
Gres Beck (Sonoma); Jim White, Jr.(Napa); Bill Dalton (unknown); Joe McLeary (unknown),
Bill Houston (Deceased), Phil Peterson (Deceased), Stan Silva (Deceased), Earl Beck
(Deceased), Tom Douglass (Deceased).

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
that is not equally available to defendant.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of C.C.P. § 2030(c)(5). Plaintiff
objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, vague and ambiguous, particularly with respect to
the undefined terms, mcluding but not limited to, “exposed,” “exposure” and “asbestos-
containing products.” Plaintiff objects to defendant’s use of the undefined term
“DISTURBED” which is capitalized but offers no definition. Plaintiff further objects to this
Interrogatory to the extent that it prematurely seeks information which is properly the subject of
expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034. Subject to, and without
waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows: Excluding ¢: who have yet to be
determined, plaintiff identifies ROBERT ROSS, c/o Brayton¢-Purcell LLP, 222 Rush Landing
Road, Novato, California (415) 898-1555.

Plaintiff further identifies JEAN ROSS, c/o Brayton*-Purcell LLP, 222 Rush Landing
Road, Novato, California (415) 898-1555. Plaintiff is unaware of any other persons responsive
to this Interrogatory at this time.

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
that is not equally available to defendant.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of C.C.P. § 203063) Plaintiff
objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and vague with respect to the undefined terms,
“exposure” and “asbestos-containing products.” Plaintiff objects to defendant’s use of the
undefined term “DISTURBED,” which is capitalized but offers no definition, Plaintiff further
objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it prematurely seeks information which is properly
the subject of expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034. Subject to,
and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff refers to, and
incorporates by reference herein, plaintiff's Response to Special Interrogatory No. 2, 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
that is not equally available to defendant.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the

grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of C.C.P. § 2030(c)). Plaintiff

objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and vague with respect to the undefined terms,
sure” and “asbestos-containing products.” Plaintiff objects to defendant’s use of the

undef