Exhibit,Appendix: JOYCE JUELCH, ET AL VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                GEORGE D. YARON, ESQ. (State Bar #96246)
KEITH E. PATTERSON, ESQ. (State Bar #225753)

ELECTRONICALLY

2 | MICHAEL J. PENG, ESQ. ee Bar #260852)
YARON & ASSOCIATES FILE
3 | 601 California Street, 21" Floor pare Cou of Cok
| San Francisco, California 94108 County of San Frankisco
4 || Telephone: (415) 658-2929
Facsimile: (415) 658-2930 FEB 26 2010
5 Clerk of the Court
Attorneys for Defendant BY: CHRISTLE ARRIOLA
6 || 84 LUMBER COMPANY Deputy Clerk
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
11 | JOYCE JUELCH and NORMAN JUELCH, SR..) CASE NO. CGC-09-275212
)
12 Plaintiffs, ) EXHIBIT D THROUGH
) F TO DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J.
13 v. ) PENG IN SUPPORT OF 84 LUMBER
) COMPANY’S MOTION FOR
14/ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) As) SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR, IN THE
Reflected on Exhibits B, B-1, C; and DOES 1-) ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
15 8500; and SEE ATTACHED LIST, ) ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
2
16 ) Hearing Date: March 18, 2010
Defendants. ) Hearing Time: 9:30 a.m,
17 ) Depart. No.: 220
) Hearing Judge: Hon. Harold E.
18 ) Kahn
)
19 ) Date Action Filed: | May 20, 2009
Date Set For Trial: April 5, 2010
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27EXHIBIT DALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., S.B. #73685
DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ, S.B. #154436
LANCE R. STEWART, ESQ., 8.B. #262124
BRAYTON%PURCELL LLP

Attorneys at Law

222 Rush Landing Road

S
*
3
a
Q

a
3
z

P.O. Box 6169
Novato, California 94948-6169
(415) 898-1555

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

JOYCE JUELCH and ASBESTOS
NORMAN JUELCH, SR., No. 275212

)
Plaintifts, PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT 84 LUMBER COMPANY'S
SPECIALLY PREPARED
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

vs.

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP)

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant 84 LUMBER COMPANY, A LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff JOYCE JUELCH
SET NUMBER: ONE (1)

OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORY NUMBERS 1-7

Plaintiff objects to defendant 84 LUMBER’s entire set of Special Interrogatorics on the
grounds that it violates Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.060(d), in that it is improper in form.
because it contains instructions with unapproved definitions and because each Interrogatory is
not full and complete in and of itself. Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure
Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2005) 4 8:968, 8:972, 8:979.5, ch. 8F.

Plaintiff also objects to defendant's overly broad, vague, and ambiguous definitions of
“YOU” and “YOUR?” in that the defendant would have the pronoun “YOU” and the possessive
pronoun “YOUR?” not only refer to plaintiff, but also include other parties, persons, and entities
unrelated and irrelevant to this litigation.

Without waiving the foregoing objections, plaintiff responds as follows:

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 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.” Plaintuif
objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and thus unduly burdensome

K Mnjured\108688\pldirog.rsp-84LUMB. wpd ] isand harassing. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it calls for
expert opinions and conclusions and therefore prematurely secks disclosure of information
which is properly the subject of expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P.
§ 2034.210, et seq. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
information protected by the attomey-client privilege or attomey work-product doctrine.

Plaintiff JOYCE JUELCH was exposed to asbestos by 84 LUMBER under the
following citcumstances: At the sites listed below, plaintiff was exposed to asbestos-containing
products designed, recommended, specified, manufactured, sold, supplied, and/or installed or
disturbed by 84 LUMBER:

Plaintiff recalls assisting her first husband John Chambers, building a house in Stockton,
California in the early 1970s. Plaintiff recalls mixing, applying and sanding asbestos-
containing KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC. and HAMILTON MATERIALS, INC. all-
purpose joint and taping compounds purchased from 84 LUMBER in Stockton, California.
Plaintiff recalls that sanding such joint and taping compounds created a large amount of dust.
Plaintiff recalls purchasing and working with a large volume of such products from 84
LUMBER, such that the supply store discounted the cost of such products. Plaintiff further
recalls that she performed work using such products, purchased from defendant’s supply store,
over the course of roughly one year.

Plaintiff also recalls performing repair work on another house around 1976, Plaintiff
likewise recalls for this work mixing, applying and sanding asbestos-containing KAISER
GYPSUM COMPANY, INC. and HD [LTON MATERIALS, INC. all-purpose joint and
taping compounds purchased from 84 LUMBER in Stockton, California. Plaintiff recalls that
sanding such joint and taping compounds created a large amount of dust.

In his July 20, 2006 deposition, 84 LUMBER’s Person Most Knowledgeable Gail
Baughman testified that 84 LUMBER supplied and sold asbestos-containing products
including:

1) roof cement black mastic material from Century Products / Century Industries:
packaged in 1- and 5-gallon metal cans;

2) foundation coating from Century Products / Century Industries

3) driveway sealer from Century Products / Century Industries

4) drywall products including joint compounds in both dry and ready-mix forms,
including: GEORGIA PACIFIC (ready-mix); U.S. GYPSUM (ready-mix); NATIONAL
GYPSUM and Gold Bond joint compounds.

5) roofing shingles and ceiling tile including JOHNS-MANVILLE.

Defendant knew that asbestos-containing products such as those supplied or specified to
plaintiff would be handled, disturbed and manipulated, resulting in the release of airborne
asbestos fibers, and that through such foreseeable use and/or handling, plaintiff would be
exposed to such fibers. As a supplier and/or distributor of asbestos-containing products,
defendant had a duty to warn consumers of dangers inherent in said products, a duty to
appropriately label such products, as well as other duties all of which were breached by
defendant. As a proximate result of defendant’s breach of its duties, plaintiff sustained injury
from exposure to asbestos in products recommended, specified, sold, supplied, and/or
distributed by 84 LUMBER.

Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing. Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.220(c),
plaintiff, after making a reasonable and good-faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to
other natural persons or organizations, believes there is no further relevant and/or responsive
information in plaintiff's possession to disclose at this time that is not equally available to
defendant. Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.310(a), plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this
Response, as investigation and discovery are ongoing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Plaintiff hereby renews the general objection.
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, particularly

K Ninjured\1 08688\pld\rog.rsp-84LUMB.wpd 2 Irswith regard to the use of undefined terms including, but not limited to, “exposed.” Plaintiff
objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it 1s overly broad and thus unduly burdensome
and harassing. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that il calls for
expert opinions and conclusions and therefore prematurely seeks disclosure of information
which is properly the subject of expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P.

co oO mM NY HR HW Bl wow

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:

Plaintiffyefers to, and incorporates by reference herein, his objections and Response to
Interrogatory No. 1, above.

Plaintiff, after making a reasonable and good-faith effort to obtain the information by
inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, believes that he has 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. 3: 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.” 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 calls for
expert opiions and conclusions and therefore prematurely seeks disclosure of information
which is properly the subject of expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P.
§ 2034.210, et seq. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
information protected by the attorney-client privilege or atlorney 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. 1, above.

Plaintiff, after making a reasonable and good-faith effort to obtain the information by
inquiry to other natura] persons or organizations, believes that he has 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: 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.” 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 calls for
expert opinions and conclusions and therefore prematurely secks disclosure of information
which is properly the subject of expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P.
§ 2034.210, et seq. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
information protected by the attomey-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, 1, above.

Plaintiff, after making a reasonable and good-faith effort to obtain the information by
inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, believes that he has 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, 5: 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.” 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 calls for
expert opinions and conclusions and therefore prematurely seeks disclosure of information

KAlnjured\J08688\pld\vog.asp-84LUMB.wpd 3 InsDO wm ND HW Bl WwW N

YN NY NR RN RR Ye Se Fe eB Bee we ee
ota DR BF BS YN fF SSC mw IN DH BRB YW NH

which is properly the subject of expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P.
§ 2034.210, et seq. 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
ove,

Plaintiff, after making a reasonable and good-faith effort to obtain the information by
inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, believes that he has 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 hereby renews the general objection.
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to the
terms, including but not limited to, “exposed.” Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it is overly broad and thus unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff objects to
this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound and disjunctive in violation of C.C.P.

§ 2030(c)(5). Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds, and to the extent,
that it sceks 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 attorney-client privilege or attomey work-product doctrine.
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks the premature disclosure of
irial witnesses, other than experts, and is therefore in violation of the attorney work-product
doctrine. City of Long Beach v. Superior Court (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 65. Plaintiff further
objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks disclosure of plaintiffs consultants
whom plaintiff is utilizing in the preparation of this case, and as such this Interrogatory violates
the attorney work-product doctrine. Plaintiff objects to 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:

Excluding experts, who have yet to be determined, plaintiff identifies plaintiff JOYCE
JUELCH, c/o Brayton%Purcell LLP, 222 Rush Landing Road, Novato California, (415) 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
identifies the Person(s) Most Knowledgeable and Custodian(s) of Records of 84 LUMBER
COMPANY, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. Plaintiff also identifies all doctors and other
medical professionals identified in plaintiffs medical records which are equally available to
defendant through coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry, Plaintiff identifies the
following persons as individuals with knowledge regarding her exposure to asbestos from
defendant’s aforementioned supplies, as well as individuals with knowledge regarding
defendant’s liability for all of plaintiff's claim, including but not limited to: John Chambers,
Stockton, California.

Plaintiff, after making a reasonable and good-faith effort to obtain the information by
inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, believes that he has no further relevant and/or
responsive information to disclose ai this time. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this
Response as investigation and discovery are continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Plaintiff hereby renews the general objection.
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and thus unduly
burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague
and ambiguous as to the terms, including but not limited to, “exposed.” Plaintiff objects to this
Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks documents and information which are protected from
disclosure by the attorney work-product doctrine in violation of C.C.P. § 2018 and by the
attorney-client privilege. 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.

K Ninjured\408688\ptd\vog-rsp-84L UMB.wpd 4 rsPlaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information equally or more available
to the defendant, or already in the possession of defendant. Plaintiff objects to the production of
documents at any other site other than the law offices of Brayton+Purcell LLP as being unduly
burdensome. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiver thereof, plaintiff responds
as follows:

Plaintiff identifies these Response: :

wn

well as his responses to defendant’s Form Interrogatories- General, Requests for Admissions,
and Requests For Production of Documents, all served concurrently herewith,

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

Plaintiff refers to, and incorporates by reference herein, plaintiff's Statement of Damages
filed in this matter pursuant to General Order No. 129, previously provided to and equally
available from coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry, 2930 Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland,
California 94610 (510) 835-8330. No final determination has yet been made regardin;
economic damages and experts, All information and documents pertaining to plaintiff's
damages will be provided to defendant through plaintiff's expert witnesses at the appropriate
time before trial, including those times prescribed by C.C.P. § 2034. See also, e.g., Hemandez
y. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 883.

Plaintiff identifies plaintiff's complaint and other pleadings already on file with the
court. Plaintiff identifies plaintiff's responses to Standard Asbestos Case Interrogatories, and
all exhibits attached thereto, equally available from coordinating defense counsel, Berry &
Berry, 2930 Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland, California 94610 (510) 835-8330.

aintiff identifies plaintiff JOYCE JUELCH’s deposition, taken on September 15, 2009
and all subsequent days, and al] exhibits attached thereto. Plaintiff identifies all other
depositions and exhibits attached thereto taken in the instant action. Copies of these transcripts
are equally available from Aiken & Welch, Inc., 1 Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505, Oakland, California
94612 (510) 451-1580,

aintiff identifies all defendants’ responses to Standard Asbestos Case Interrogatories,
and all exhibits attached thereto, c/o each defendant’s attorneys of record. A list of defendants’
attomeys of record is equally available from coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry, 2930
Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland, California 94610 (510) 835-8330.

Plaintiff further identifies defendant 84 LUMBER’s Responses to General Order No.
129 Plaintiffs’ Standard Interrogatories to Defendants, all exhibits attached thereto, and all
documents incorporated therein by reference. Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of
these documents.

Plaintiff identifies all transcripts and exhibits attached thereto if any of the Person Most
Knowledgeable and the Custodian of Records for defendant 84 LUMBER and all the other
named defendants in this action. Plaintiff identifies the deposition of Gail W. Baughman in the
matter of Larry Ellison, et al. v. ACandS Inc., et al, Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Matter No.
04-000441, available through Network Deposition Services, 247 Fort Pitt Blvd, Suite 300,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of these documents.
Plaintiff further identifies all of the labeling and packaging materials for all of the
asbestos-containing materials and/or products sold, manufactured, produced and/or distributed
by defendant. Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff further identifies all the records, papers, photographs, films, recordings,
memoranda, books, 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, contracts, accountants’ statements or summaries, purchase order forms, reports,
invoices, canceled checks, check stubs receipts, bank statements, diaries, desk calendars,
appointment books, payment records, telephone bills in defendant 84 LUMBER’s constructive
possession custody, care or control relating to plaintiff, the sites at which 84 LUMBER products

wy

oS

KAlnjured\108688'pldvog.rsp-84LUMB wpd 5 IrsSs 0m NIN Hw BB] WwW Ye

wNW MN WN NN Ne Se Se Be Be Se oe oe Se
oda AA &€ Ob HS =—| S © we I HH BF WHY

later used by or in proximity to plaintiff were obtained, and the sites where plaintiff worked.

Plaintiff further identifies all blueprints, plans, drawings, schematics, specifications which

describe the original construction details of products recommended, specified, sold, supplied,

and/or distributed by 84 LUMBER. These documents are in defendant 84 LUMBER’s

constructive possession custody, care or control. Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of
t

Plaintiff identifies any wamings attached to, placed in, or made a part of any 84
LUMBER products containing asbestos. Plaintiff believes defendant to be in possession of
these documents.
laintiff further identifies numerous articles and studies relating to health hazards
associated with exposure to asbestos which have appeared in the medical and scientific
literatures since the turn of the century, and have also been summarized in various publications.
Two 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.

Sourcebook on Asbestos Disease, Medical, Legal, and Engineering Aspects,
George A. Peters and Barbara J. Peters, Garland S'TPM Press,
Vol. 1, 1980, Vol. 2, 1986.

Plaintiffis in possession of these texts and will make them available for defendant’s review.
Plaintiff cannot make nor distribute copies of these texts to defendant without violating Federal
copyright laws. 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 identifies the NESHAP for asbestos, which are found at
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Chapter 1,Subchapter C, Part 61, Subpart m; published
under the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970; 42 ULS.C.A. Section 7412(b)0 A); 42 U.S.C.A.
Section 7412(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff also identifies all applicable OSHA (federal) and CAL-OSHA
(state) regulations pertaining to asbestos exposure, Plaintiff further identifies Workers’
Compensation Law since the 1930's, under which asbestos has been a compensable disease.
Plaintiff is in possession of these texts and will make them available for defendant’s review.
Plaintiff cannot make nor distribute copies of these texts to defendant without violating federal
copyright laws.

After a reasonable and good-faith inquiry to other persons and organizations, pursuant to
C.C.P. § 2030.220(a)-(c), plaintiff has no further 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
reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are continuing.

Dated: 4.2 5-04 BRAYTON**PURCELL LLP

KAinjured\JO86B8\pld\rog,15p-84LUMB.wpd. 6 lisVERIFICATION TO FOLLOW

a

Ot nH Oo hb

ssst-g6s (SIP)
6919-RP6P6 VINHOAITYD ‘OLYAON
6919 XOUOd
OVOU ONIGNY'T HSN 27Z
ANWTLV SAROLLY
ATT TIADUNd@NOLAVES

oo

an

2
a

KAFORMS\VERIAVER2FOLW.WPD

a

a
nN

on
a

+
a“

yn
a

2
a

é
a

oO
aPROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

Iam employed in the County of Sonoma, State of California. I am over the age of 18
years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 1324 Rand Street,
Petaluma, Califorma 94954.

So Dw RD wm Blew NY

po

, Ll served the within:

On

SEP 2-5-2009
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT 84 LUMBER COMPANY’S
SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

on the interested parties in this action by transmitting a true copy thereof in the following
manner.

placed in a sealed envelope, postage thereon prepaid, addressed and served as follows:

84 LUMBER COMPANY, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Yaron & Associates

601 California Street, 21° Floor

San Francisco, CA 94108

BY MAIL SERVICE: Tam readily familiar with the business practice at
my place of business for collection and processing
of correspondence for delivery by mail.
Correspondence so collected and processed is
deposited with the United States Postal Service on
the same day in the ordinary course of business.
On the above date the said envelope was collected
for the United States Postal Service following
ordinary business practices.

Executed SEP 25 7009 , at Petaluma, California.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct. -

rep

y

Joyce Juelch and Norman Juelch, Sr. v. Asbestos Defendants (BYP)
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 275212

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAILBrayton*Purcell ,,,

TRIAL LAWYERS

ALANR. BRAYTON 222 Rush Landing Road Moo RAS RS
GILBERT L, PURCELL PO Box 6169 Bea) anes aaa eles

, 1 Box. Pears Ses. EER er
DAVIDR Donabio > Call Se lace rater
LiOYDF LeRoy TFocaimile (815) 898-1247 Bone. = eraare™

FREY Portland: (503) 295-4931 sheet Saha
BUBPHEN, HEALY Los Angeles: (415) 898-1585 Walerediwo ENCE State
Walia, MCDEVITT Salt Lake City: (801) 366-9100 Ire Saar BESET a oouesrt
ee
il: mail@braytonlaw.

* PERT RUELINEBEEES Ema Rec

DEC 2 4 2009

Yaron & Associates
601 California Street, 21" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108

Re: — Joyce Juelch and Norman Juelch, Sr.
SFSC Case No. 275212

To Whom it May Concern:

Enclosed please find the original signed verification(s) for the above-named plaintiff(s)
with regard to Plaintiff's Response io Defendant 84 Lumber Company’s Specially Prepared
Interrogatories, Set One, propounded by 84 Lumber Company, A Limited Partnership,
previously served,

Please contact our office should you ha uestions.

108688VERIFICATION

Joyce Juelch and Norman Juelch, Sr.

(445) 898-1585

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

BRAYTON®PURCELL LLP
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169

0 Om ND Mm SW WY

ee ie
ony Aw PB WwW NH — Oo

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

an Francisco Superior Court Case No. 275212

I, Joyce Juelch, declare:
Iam the plaintiff in the above-entitled action. The foregoing Plaintiff's Response to
Defendant 84 Lumber Company’s Specially Prepared_Interrogatories, Set One_, propounded by

84 Lumber Company, A Limited Partnership, are true and correct as to those statements for
which I have personal knowledge. As to those matters which are therein stated on my
information and belief and, as to those matters, ] believe them true.

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

foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: fa-f¢- a7

Signed:

Please do not write below this line. If you have any changes, please submit them on a

separate sheet of paper, Thank you.PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

Jam employed in the County of Sonoma, State of California. I am over the age of 18

years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 1324 Rand Street,
Petaluma, California 94954.

BRAYTON@PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

222 RUSH LANDING ROAD.
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555.

Oo oe UD

On___ DEC 2 1 20ne

VERIFICAT 1ON(S) for Plaintiff's Res nse to Delendant of Jumber Som "s
cially Prepared _Interrogatories, Set One ropounded by umber Company, A
Limited Partnership on the interested parties qh this action by transmitting a true copy
thereof in the following manner.

, L served the within:

I placed in a sealed envelope, postage thereon prepaid, addressed and served as follows:

Yaron & Associates
601 California Street, 21° Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108

Attorneys for 84 Lumber Company, A Limited Partnership

BY MAIL SERVICE: 1 am readily familiar with the business practice at
my place of business for collection and processing
of correspondence for delivery by mail.
Correspondence so collected and processed is
deposited with the United States Postal Service on
the same day in the ordinary course of business.
On the above date the said envelope was collected

for the United States Postal Service following
ordinary business practices.

Executed on. BEC-2-+9688

, at Petaluma, California.

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

the foregoing is true and correct.

CB]

Joyce Juelch and Norman Juelch, Sr.
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 275212

CET TOPLAS

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAILEXHIBIT EBRAYTONSPURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

RUSH LANDING ROAD

272

0 OW TA wD

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ,, 5.B. #73685
DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., S.B. #154436
LANCE R. STEWART, ESQ,, S.B. #262124
BRAYTON**PURCELL LLP

| Attommeysat Law
222 Rush Landing Road

P.O. Box 6169
Novato, California 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
JOYCE JUELCH and ) ASBESTOS
NORMAN JUELCH, SR., } No. 275212
Plaintiffs, } PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO

) DEFENDANT 84 LUMBER COMPANY’S
vs. }) | REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF

} DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B4P} )

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant 84 LUMBER COMPANY, A LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff JOYCE JUELCH
SET NUMBER: ONE (1)

OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST NUMBERS 1-22

Plaintiff objects to defendant 84 LUMBER’s Request for Production of Documents in
its entirety on the ground that it is unduly burdensome in that it requests forwarding or
woduction of documents at the offices of Yaron & Associates, 601 California Street, 21° Floor,
an Francisco, California 94108. Plaintiff will make all responsive non-privileged documents
available to defendant, at defendant’s expense, at a time mutually agreeable to counsel for
plaintiff and counsel for defendant at the law offices of Brayton%*Purcell LLP, 222 Rush
Landing Road, Novato, California.

Plaintiff also objects to defendant’s overly broad, vague, and ambiguous definitions of
“YOU” and “YOUR” in that the defendant would have the pronoun “YOU” and the possessive
pronoun “YOUR” not only refer to plaintiff, but also include other parties, persons, and entities
unrelated an irrelevant to this litigation.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, plaintiff responds as follows:

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1: Plaintiff hereby renews the general objection. Plaintiff
objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and thus unduly burdensome and

KAlnjured\l08688\pld\rfp-rsp-84LUMB spd 1 Is1}! harassing. Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to
its terms, including but not limited to, “expressly represented,” “merchantable quality,” and
2|| “safe for the use for which they were intended.” Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds
rotected from disclosure by the attorney
2 db attorney-client privilege
ounds that this Request improperly calls for premature
identification and disclosure of consultants’ writings relied upon by such consultants, who may

Plaintiff identifies all defendants’ responses to Standard Asbestos Case Interrogatories,
and all exhibits attached thereto, c/o each defendant’s atiorneys of record. A list of defendants’
attorneys of record is equally available from coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry, 2930
20] Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland, California 94610 (510) 835-8330.
Plaintiff further identifies defendant 84 LUMBER’s Responses to General Order No.
21]/ 129 Plaintiffs’ Standard Interrogatories to Defendants, all exhibits attached thereto, and all
documents incorporated therein by reference. Plaintiff betieves defendant is in possession of
22 |) these documents.
Plaintiff identifies all transcripts and exhibits attached thereto if any of the Person Most
23 | Knowledgeable and the Custodian of Records for defendant 84 LUMBER and all the other
named defendants in this action. Plaintiff identifies the deposition of Gail W. Baughman in the
241! matter of Larry Ellison, et al. y. ACandS Inc.. et al, Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Matter No.
04-000441, available through Network Deposition Services, 247 Fort Pitt Blvd, Suite 300,

25} Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of these documents.
Plaintiff further identifies all of the labeling and packaging materials for all of the

26 | asbestos-containing materials and/or products sold, manufactured, produced and/or distributed
by defendant. Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of these documents.

27 Plaintiff further identifies all the records, papers, photographs, films, recordings,
memoranda, books, pamphlets, circulars, handbooks, manuals, periodicals, files, envelopes,
28 || notices, instructions, transcripts, notes, telex messages, communications (including reports,

KAlnjured\] O8688\pld\rfp-rsp-84LUMB.wpd 2 isnotes, 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, contracts, accountants’ statements or summaries, purchase order forms, reports,

appointment books, payment records, telephone bills in defendant 84 LUMBER’s constructive

ossession custody, care or control relating to plaintiff, the sites at which 84 LUMBER products
later used by or in proximity to plaintiff were obtained, and the sites where plaintiff worked.
Plaintiff further identifies all blueprints, plans, drawings, schematics, specifications which
describe the original construction details of products recommended, specified, sold, supplied,
and/or distributed by 84 LUMBER. These documents are in defendant 84 LUMBER’s
constructive possession custody, care or control. Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of
these documents.

Plaintiff identifies any warnings attached to, placed in, or made a part of any 84
LUMBER products containing asbestos. Plaintiff believes defendant to be in possession of
these documents.

Plaintiff further identifies numerous articles and studies relating to health hazards
associated with exposure to asbestos which have appeared in the medical and scientific
literatures since the turn of the century, and have also been summarized in various publications.
Two 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.

Sourcebook on Asbestos Disease, Medical, Legal, and Engineering Aspects,
George A. Peters and Barbara J. Peters, Garland STPM Press,
Vol. 1, 1980, Vol. 2, 1986.

Plaintiff is in possession of these texts and will make them available for defendant’s review.
Plaintiff cannot make nor distribute copies of these texts to defendant without violating Federal
copyright laws. Plaintiff also identifies General Industry Safety Orders promulgated under the
California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Industrial Safety, Title 8, Article 81,
ineluding but not limited to Sections 4104 through 4107, and Appendix A, Table 1 in effect
during the years 1948 to 1972. Plaintiff identifies the NESHAP for asbestos, which are found at
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Chapter 1,Subchapter C, Part 61, Subpart m; published
under the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970; 42 U.S.C.A, Section 7412(b)(1)(A); 42 ULS.C.A.
Section 7412(b\(1(B). Plaintiff also identifies all applicable OSHA (federal) and CAL-OSHA
(state) regulations pertaining to asbestos exposure. Plaintiff further identifies Workers’
Compensation Law since the 1930's, under which asbestos has been a compensable disease.
Plaintiff is in possession of these texts and will make them available for defendant’s review.
Plaintiff cannot make nor distribute copies of these texts to defendant without violating federal
copyright laws.

Afler a reasonable and good-faith inquiry to other persons and organizations, pursuant to
CCP. § 2030,220(a)-(c), plaintiff has no further information responsive to this Request 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 reserves the right
to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are continuing.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2: Plaintiff hereby renews the general objection. Plaintiff
objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and thus unduly burdensome and
harassing. Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to
its terms, including but not limited to, “expressly represented,” “merchantable quality,” and
“safe for the use for which they were intended.” Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds
that it seeks documents and information which are protected from disclosure by the attorney

KMnjured ¥O8688\pld'rfp-rsp-84 LUMB.wpd 3 Irswork-preduct doctrine in violation of C.C.P. § 2018 and by the attorney-client privilege.
Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that this Request 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 to this Request to
s or more a nthe

Ppossessio! defendant. Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent it seeks Jega] conclusions
from a plaintiff a lay person. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiver thereof,
plaintiff responds as follows:

Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference herein plaintiff's Response to Request
for Production No. 1, above.

Afler a reasonable and good-faith inquiry to other persons and organizations, pursuant to
C.C.P. § 2030.220(a)-(c), plaintiff has no further information responsive to this Request 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 continuing, Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to amend this Response pending
the outcome of plaintiff's investigation.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3: Plaintiff hereby renews the general objection. Plaintiff
objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and thus unduly burdensome and
harassing. Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to
its terms, including but not limited to, “expressly represented,” “merchantable quality,” and
“safe for the use for which they were intended.” Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds
that it seeks documents and information which are protected from disclosure by the attorney
work-product doctrine in violation of C.C.P. § 2018 and by the attorney-client privilege.
Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that this Request improperly calls for premature
identification and disclosure of consultants’ writings relied upon by such consultants, who may
or may not Jater be appropriately named as expert witnesses. Plaintiff objects to this Request to
the extent it seeks information equally or more available to the defendant, or already in the
possession of defendant. Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent it seeks legal conclusions
from a plaintiff, a lay person. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiver thereof,
plaintiff responds as follows:

Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference herein plaintiff's Response to Request
for Production No. 1, above.

After a reasonable and good-faith inquiry to other persons and organizations, pursuant to
C.C.P. § 2030.220(a}-(c), plaintiff has no further information responsive to this Request at this
time. Plaintiffs 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 continuing. Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to amend this Response pending
the outcome of plaintiff's investigation.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4: Plaintiff hereby renews the general objection. Plaintiff
objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and thus unduly burdensome and
harassing. Plaintiif objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to
ils terms. Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks documents and
information which are protected from disclosure by the attorney work-product doctrine in
violation of C.C.P. § 2018 and by the attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff further objects on the
grounds that this Request 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 to this Request 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 refers to and incorporates by reference herein plaintiff's Response to Request
for Production No. 1, above.

KAlnjured\1 08688\pldfp-rsp-84L UMB pd. 4 hisAfter a reasonable and good-faith inquiry to other persons and organizations, pursuant to
C.C.P. § 2030.220(a)-(c), plaintiff has no further information responsive to this Request 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

ed _pursi
discovery are continuing. Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to amend this Response pending
the outcome of plaintifi’s investigation.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5: Plaintiff hereby renews the general objection. Plaintiff
objects to this Request on the grounds that il is overly broad and thus unduly burdensome and
harassing. Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to
its terms, including but not limited to, “amount or extent,” “exposure,” “experienced,” and
“while working with.” Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks documents
and information which are protected from disclosure by the atlommey work-product doctrine in
violation of C.C.P. § 2018 and by the attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff further objects to this
Request on the grounds that it calls for expert opinions and conclusions and therefore
prematurely seeks disclosure of information which is properly the subject of expert witness
testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034.210, et seq. Plaintiff further objects on
the grounds that this Request 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 to this Request to the extent it seeks information
equally or more available to the defendant, or already in the possession of defendant. Plaintiff
objects to this Request to the extent it seeks legal conclusions from a plaintiff, a lay person.
Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiver thereof, plaintiff responds as follows:

Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference herein plaintiff's Response to Request
for Production No. 1, above.

After a reasonable and good-faith inquiry to other persons and organizations, pursuant to
C.CP. § 2030.220(a)-(c), plaintiff has no further information responsive to this Request at this
time. Plaintiff's experts may have additional documents unknown to plaintiff, which they rely
upon fo 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 continuing, Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to amend this Response pending
the outcome of plaintiff's investigation.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6: Plaintiff hereby renews the general objection. Plaintiff
objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and thus unduly burdensome and
harassing. Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to
its terms, including but not limited to, “duration,” “exposure,” “experienced,” and “while
working with.” Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks documents and
information which are protected from disclosure by the attomey work-product doctrine in
violation of C.C.P. § 2018 and by the attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff further objects to this
Request on the grounds that it calls for expert opinions and conclusions and therefore
prematurely seeks disclosure of information which is properly the subject of expert witness
testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034.210, et seq. Plaintiff further objects on
the grounds that this Request 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 to this Request to the extent it secks information
equally or more available to the defendant, or already in the possession of defendant. Plaintiff
objects to this Request to the extent it seeks legal conclusions from a plaintiff, a lay person.
Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiver thereof, plaintiffresponds as follows:

Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference herein plaintiff's Response to Request
for Production No. 1, above. Plaintiff is currently unable to provide a specific duration of time
in which he was exposed to asbestos from defendant’s products. However, once asbestos
materials were released from defendant’s products, exposure would have been continuous
unless and until the area was de-contaminated.

KAlnjured\| O8688\pldfp-rsp-84LUMB.wpd 5 IsAfter a reasonable and good-faith mquiry to other persons and organizations, pursuant to
C.C.P, § 2030.220(a)-(c), plaintiff has no further information responsive to this Request at this
time. Plaintiff's experts may have additional documents unknown to plaintiff, which they rely
upon {o arrive at opinions and may later advance in this case. Plaintiff's experts and applicable

discovery are continuing. Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to amend this Response pending
the outcome of plaintiff's investigation.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7: Plaintiff hereby renews the general objection. Plaintiff
abjects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and thus unduly burdensome and
harassing. Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to
its terms, including bui not limited to, “safety precautions.” Plaintiff objects to this Request on
the grounds that it seeks documents and information which are protected from disclosure by the
attorney work-product doctrine in violation of C.C.P. § 2018 and by the attorney-client
privilege. Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds that it calls for expert
opinions and conclusions and therefore prematurely seeks disclosure of information which is
2 erly the subject of expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P.

2034-210, et seq, Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that this Request improperly calls
‘or premature identification and disclosure of consultants’ writings relied upon by such
consultants, who may or may not later be appropriately named as expert witnesses. Plainuff
objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information equally or more available to the
defendant, or already in the possession of defendant. Plaintiff objects to this Request to the
extent it seeks legal conclusions from a plaintiff, a lay person. Subject to the foregoing
objections, and without waiver thereof, plaintiff responds as follows:
Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference herein plaintiff's Response to Request
for Production No. 1, above.
After a reasonable and good-faith inquiry to other persons and organizations, pursuant to
C.C.P. § 2030.220(a)-(c), plaintiff has no further information responsive to this Request at this
time. Plaintiffs 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 applicab