Exhibit,Appendix: CHARLES HUSBAND VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ee aD A es BW YR

BP oR YP NY NR NR NR YD BE Be Be ee Be oe eB eB Be oe
2 WA vA BF OB YP fF Ss CBA DH BF wD NM SE S

Dean Pollack, State Bar No. 176440
Nicholas Burke, State Bar No. 256660
BURNHAM BROWN

A Professional Law Corporation

P.O. Box 119

Oakland, California 94604

1901 Harrison Street, 11th Floor
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: (510) 444-6800
Facsimile: ($10) 835-6666

Attorneys for Defendant
YORK. INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

JUL 28 2011

Clerk of the Court
BY: JUDITH NUNEZ
Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

CHARLES HUSBAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP),

Defendants.

it
it
Mt
Mt
it
ML
ut
Mt
Mt

No. CGC-09-275098

DEFENDANT YORK
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’S
EXHIBITS D-F IN SUPPORT OF ITS

MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

Date: October 13, 2011
Time: 9:30 am.

Dept.: 220

Judge: Hen. Harold E. Kahn

Complaint Filed: March 2, 2009

i
DEF. YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION'S EXHIBITS D-F IN SUPPORT OF

ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CGC-09-275098EXHIBIT Da 8) N

co oe a NK

10
u
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
22,
23
24
5
6
27

"28

Dean Pollack, State Bar No. 176440
Bind Ghanaat, State Bar No. 264826
BURNHAM BROWN

A Professional Law Corporation
P.O. Box 119

Oakland, California 94604

1901 Harrison Street, 11th Floor
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: (510) 444-6800
Facsimile: (510) 835-6666"

Attorneys for Defendant
YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
CHARLES HUSBAND, No, 275098
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT YORK
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION'S
ve REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP), CHARLES HUSBAND, SET ONE
Defendants. Complaint Filed: March 2, 2009

‘rial Date: May 16, 2011

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff CHARLES HUSBAND

SET NO. ONE

TO ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

demands, pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code section 2031.010, that at 10:00 a.m., on

the day ‘these respdrises “are due, at the law offices of Burnham-Brown;: 1901 Harrison, 11th

Floor, Oakland, California 94612 (mailing address: Post Office Box 119, Oakland, California

94604), Plaintiff CHARLES HUSBAND preduce for inspection and copying all items or

category of items in his possession, custody or control pursuant to the instructions and

definitions set forth in Exhibit A, attached. "

if

i
DEF, YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF No. 275098
DOCUMENTS TC PLAINTIFF CHARLES HUSBAND, SET ONEeC eda A nH ek BW NF

von NM oN oy fF BP Be Be em oR Re Re oe oe
RFS 8 fF F&F 6 ww A A we Ww RW eH SO

26
27

FURTHER, Defendant YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION demands that a
written response, identifying each item or category of item being produced, be served within

thirty (30) days from the date of service of this demand.

DATED: Mov.cl, Baie BURNHAM BROWN

By Brew Bharat
BINA GHANAAT

Attorneys for Defendant
YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

2
DEF. YORE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF ‘No. 275098
DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF CHARLES HUSBAND, SET ONEwe ota an = Bw YN =

EXHIBIT A
L INSTRUCTIONS
1. A separate response to each item or category of item ig required which is
a. Your statement of compliance;
b. Your representation of inability to comply, or
c. Your objection.

2. All documents are to be produced either .
a. As they are kept in the normal course of business, or
b Organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in this demand.

3. Any representation of your inability to comply with a particular demand shall
specify whether such inability is because the item or category of item has never existed, has been
destroyed, lost, misplaced or stolen or has never been or is no longer in your possession, custody
or control.

Such statement shall further set forth the name and address of any natural person or
organization that you know or believe has possession, custody or control of that item or category
of item.

4. If you object to the demand for inspection of any item or category of item, your
response shall

a. identify with particularity each document, tangible thing or real property
to which the objection is made, and ,
b. Set forth clearly the extent of and specific ground for the objection.

Where your objection is based on an asserted claim of privilege and/or that the

information Sought is protected work product; state the particular privilege invoked,
, 1. DEFINITIONS

1. The words “YOU,” “YOUR,” or “PLAINTIFF” shall, mean and refer to
PLAINTIFF CHARLES HUSBAND, and shall include, where appropriate, his past or present
agents, REPRESENTATIVES, associates, attorneys, investigators and any other persons acting
on his behalf.

3
DEF. YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF No. 275098
DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF CHARLES HUSBAND, SET ONEeC ea A mM Fk BW NY

wy Bw YW RP YW KR N NR YD BS BE Be ee oe Be Be Be
SB 3 &F Ba 2B GH F&F FS &e we aA AH FF YW NY KF FS

2. The word “SHALL” is mandatory and the word “MAY?” is permissive.

3. The word “PERSON” shali include both the singular and plural and shall mean
and refer to any natural person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, trust,
corporation or public entity, or other group or combination of the foregoing acting as one.

4. The word “REPRESENTATIVE” shall be liberally construed and shall include
all agents, employees; officials, officers, executives, directors and owners.

5. The past, present and future tenses shall each include the other; the masculine,
feminine and neuter shall each include the other; and the singular and plural number shall each
include the other. .

6. The word “DOCUMENT” shall mean and refer to the original or a copy of all
writings as defined in California Evidence Code section 250, to wit:

Handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other

means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication or

representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or
combinations thereof.

The term “DOCUMENT,” or any variant thereof, shall further include, but not be
limited to, all written, typed, printed, recorded, tape-recorded, transcribed, graphic or other
reproduced matter or memorialization in any form pertaining to or describing, referring or
relating to, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, the matter that is the subject of a particular
demand including, but not limited to, originals and copies of letters, notes, natebooks, minutes,
memoranda of telephone calls, correspondence, drafts, messages, telegrams, bank statements,
bank and savings passbooks, leaflets, books, files, records, memoranda, conference reports,
working papers, routing slips, diaries, calendars, appointment books, logbooks, time sheets,
proposals, quotations, memoranda of understanding;-checks;-cancelled-checks, statements .of
account, broker’s records or statements, ledgers, billings, billing registers, receipts, books of
account, invoices, tape recordings, computer materials, working papers or memoranda, all
notations on the foregoing and all copies thereof, as well as each summary, table, graphic, chart,
compilation, report, study, tabulation, tally, diagram, drawing, map, itiustration or statistical

analysis, by whomever prepared, now or formerly in YOUR actual or constructive possession,

4
DEF. YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF ‘No. 275098
DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF CHARLES HUSBAND, SET ONE .Cc oe WN AN Rh HW YD OF

yoy Re Be eB ee oe Be eB eB
nb =e 6&6 © Fe I AH ke YB N KF SF

23

custody or control. Where a DOCUMENT has been prepared in several copies, or where
additional copies have been made that are not identical or are no longer identical by reason of
subsequent notation, highlighting or other modification of any kind whatsoever including, but
not Hmited to, notations on the back of pages thereto, each non-identical copy shall be
considered a separate document.

7. The word “IDENTIFY” when used with respect to a DOCUMENT means-to
state the following for each DOCUMENT:

a. the nature and substance of the DOCUMENT with sufficient particularity
to enable the same to be precisely identified and recognized;

b. the date or approximate date on which the DOCUMENT was prepared;

c. the identity of eacli PERSON who wrote, signed, initialed, dictated, was
present or otherwise participated in the creation of such DOCUMENT;

a. the identity of each PERSON to whom the DOCUMENT or any copy of
it was sent or addressed;

e. the identity of each PERSON who has seen the DOCUMENT,

f. the identity of each PERSON having custody and/or control of the
original DOCUMENT or any copy thereof;

“ g. the identity of each DOCUMENT that refers to, discusses, analyzes or
comments upon any privileged DOCUMENT, in whole or in part, or which contains any or all
of its contents; and

h. the identity of each privilege asserted (e.g., lawyer-client, protection for
work product, self-incrimination), together with any statute which YOU contend supports
YOUR assertion of such privilege.”

8. The word “COMMUNICATION” shall mean and refer to any means of
communicating, either in writing or by word of mouth, whether in PERSON, by mail, by
telegraph, by telex, by telephone or by any other means. With respect to each demand herein
relating to oral COMMUNICATION, the response to each such demand shall set forth whether

or not the oral COMMUNICATION wes by telephone, or face-to-face, and the names,

4
DEF. YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF No. 275098
DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF CHARLES HUSBAND, SET ONEeC Oe a DAH Re WwW YD me

e

li

addresses, business positions and occupations of each PERSON who participated in or was
present at the time of said COMMUNICATION.

9. The word “CORRESPONDENCE” shall mean and refer to any DOCUMENT
marked, delivered, or otherwise transmitted by one PERSON to any other PERSON, and a
request for all “CORRESPONDENCE” shall mean and refer to any and all copies, as well as
originals, of each CORRESPONDENCE.

10. The words “SERVE” and “FILE” mean that a paper filed in a court is to be
accompanied by proof of prior service, in a manner permitted by law, of a copy of the paper on
counsel for each adverse party who is represented by separate counsel and on each party
appearing in PERSON.

41, The word “MEETING” shall mean and refer to any coincidence or presence of
or telephone conversations between PERSONS, whether such meeting was by chance,
prearranged, formal, informal or in connection with some other activity or not. :

12. The phrase “POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR CONTROL” extends to any
DOCUMENT in the POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR CONTROL of YOU and/or YOUR
employees, servants, contractors, consultants, associates, REPRESENTATIVES, successors,
investigators or attorneys and/or agents.

A DOCUMENT is decmed to be in YOUR POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR
CONTROL if it is in YOUR physical CUSTODY or if it is in the physical CUST' ODY of any
other PERSON and YOU

a. own the DOCUMENT in whole or in part;

b have a right by contract, statute or otherwise to use, inspect or examine or
copy such DOCUMENT on any terms;

c have an understanding, express or implied, that any of YOU may use,
inspect, examine or copy such DOCUMENT; or

d. asa practical matter, have been able to use, inspect, examine or copy such
DOCUMENT when any of YOU have sought to do so.
if

6
DEF. YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF No. 275098
DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF CHARLES HUSBAND, SET ONEer wma nn eB BN OF

yoR RP PN NNR NR BD BR Be em Re Ro
BNR hw 2B OB FF SF BO BA HAH SF BW NHN KF SF

13. The word “EVIDENCE,” or any variant thereof, when applied to the content of
any DOCUMENT, shall be understood to apply if the DOCUMENT mentions, constitutes,
concerns, refers or relates to (directly or indirectly), or in any other way deals with, the subject
matter described in the within demand.

14. The word “DEFENDANT” includes YORK INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, or any related corporate entity, division, subsidiary, affiliate or predecessor
of YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

YI. SPECIFIC ITEMS OR CATEGORY OF ITEMS
TO BE PRODUCED FOR INSPECTION

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

Any and all DOCUMENTS IDENTIFIED in YOUR responses to Interrogatory Nos. 5,
17, 29, 42 and 45 of YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION'S first set of specially
prepared interrogatories to PLAINTIFF.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:

Any and all DOCUMENTS which YOU contend support YOUR allegations that YOU
were exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing products at any of the job sites listed in YOUR
responses to YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’S specially prepared Interrogatory
Nos. 6, 18 and 30,

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
Any and all DOCUMENTS which YOU contend support YOUR allegations that YOU

were exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing products at any job site from 1948 to the
present.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

Any and all. DOCUMENTS which YOU contend support YOUR allegations that YOU
were exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing products at job or other sites, due to the actions
or omissions of YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION from 1948 to the present.
lif
il

z
DEF. YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF ‘No. 275098
DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF CHARLES HUSBAND, SET ONEom nr A HW YW NY

yb wR RP YP BY KR KR DN YD BS BS BF Fe PF Be Be Be eB
SB Rk RF HB SF BHK fF FBC WADA H BF BW YF SC

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:

Any and al! photographs, diagrams, drawings, plans or other depictions in YOUR
POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR CONTROL or prepared by YOU with regard to any and all
job or employment or other sites at which YOU contend that YOU were exposed to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products due to the actions or omissions of YORK INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

Any and all TRANSCRIPTS identified in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 53 of
YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION'S first set of specially prepared interrogatories
to PLAINTIFF.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:

Any and all TRANSCRIPTS which YOU contend support YOUR allegations that YOU
were exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing products on any of the job sites listed in YOUR
responses to YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’S specially prepared Interrogatory
Nos. 6, 18 and 30.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:

Any ‘and all TRANSCRIPTS which YOU contend support YOUR allegations that YOU
-were exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing products at any job site from 1948 to the
present.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:

Any and all DECLARATIONS identified in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 55 of
YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’S first set of specially prepared interrogatories
to PLAINTIFF:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:

Any and all DECLARATIONS which YOU contend support YOUR allegations that
YOU were exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing products at any of the job sites listed in
YOUR responses to YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’S specially prepared

Interrogatory Nos. 6, 18 and 30.

g
DEF. YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF No. 275098
DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIEF CHARLES HUSBAND, SET ONEeC FA AH F WwW YM

eee Be Be Se eB ee
SU A A ke WY NM HR So

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
Any and all DECLARATIONS which YOU contend support YOUR allegations that

YOU were exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing products at any job site from 1948 to the
present.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:

Any and all DECLARATIONS which YOU contend support YOUR allegations that
YOU were exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing products at any job or other sites, due to
the actions or omissions of YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION from 1948 to the

present.

1038578

9
DEF. YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION ’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF No. 275098
DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF CHARLES HUSBAND, SET ONERe: Charles Husband v. Asbestos Defendants (BP)
Court: San Francisco Superior Court
Action No: CGC-09-275098

PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE

I, declare that I am over the age of 18, not a party to the above-entitled action, and
aman employee of Burnham Brown whose business address is 1901 Harrison Street,
i1" Floor, Oakland, Alameda County, California 94612 (mailing address: Post Office
Box 119, Oaldand, California 94604).

On the date executed below, | electronically served the decument(s) via
LexisNexis File & Serve described as:

DEFENDANT YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION'S REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF CHARES HUSBAND, SET ONE

on recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File &
Serve website. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing is true and correct and was executed on November 2, 2010
at Oakland, California. .

‘

ANNETTE DI GIOVANNI

1040060

PROOF OF SERVICE CGC 09-275098EXHIBIT EBRAYTON@PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS ATLAW

222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

OD wm YN DH Fw Ne

Se ee ew
Rw nN = S

POBOX 6165
(15) 898-1555
ow

NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169
Vee Be
SUD wm IND

N

22

iiha 06
Vio 27
28

RE

NO

POllcH2.

ALAN R, BRAYTON, S.B. #73685

DAVID R. DONADIO, 8.B. #154436

JENNIFER L. ALESIO, ESQ., S.B. #258413

BRAYTON“PURCELL LLP

Attorneys at Law \ IL-asb
222 Rush Landing Road

P.O, Box 6169

Novato, California 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555

Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CHARLES HUSBAND, ASBESTOS
No. CGC-09-275098
Plaintiff, :
. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO

vs. DEFENDANT YORK INTERNATIONAL

: CORPORATION'S SPECIAL
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
ANSWERING PARTY: Plaintiff CHARLES HUSBAND
SET NUMBER: ONE (1)

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Yes.

RESPONSE TO. OGATORY NO, 2: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that and to the extent that it cails for information protected by the attorney-client

rivilege and/or work-product doctrine, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure (°C.C.P.”)

§ 2018.020 and 2018.030. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for expert
witness information and writings, if any. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds
that it is over broad, vague and ambiguous, making a response impossible without speculation
as to the meaning of ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS. Notwithstanding said
objections, and without waiver thereof, plaintiff responds as follows:

Plaintiff contends that he was sed to the following asbestes-containing products
manufactured by YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION: YORK INTERNATIONAL
and FRICK refrigeration compressors

After a reasonable and good-faith inquiry to other persons and organization, pursuant to
C.C.P, § 2030,220(a)-(c), plaintiff has no further information responsive to this Interrogatory at
this time. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing. Plaintiff expressly reserves the
tight to amend this Response pending the outcome of plaintiff's investigation.

Ht

EIVED

2bd he spuateoc.ssp-YORKIN wed . 1 : Tcv

Burnham | Brown

CAL SANCem WD A PF YW NY YL

ee Se eB Be ee ee
oN DA BR WN & OD

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that and to the extent that it calls for information Protected by the attorney-client
privilege and/or work-product doctrine, in violation of C.C.P. §§ 2018.020 and 2 18.030.
Plaintiit objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for expert witness information and
writings, ifany. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is over broad, vague
and ambiguous, making a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of
ASBESTOS-CONT. iG PRODUCTS. Notwithstanding said objections, and without
waiver thereof, plaintiff responds as follows:

At the jobsites listed below, plaintiff was exposed to asbestos-containing products
designed, recommended, specified: manufactured, sold, supplied, and/or installed by YORK
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (“YORK INTERNATIONAL”). Defendant knew that
asbestos-containing products such as those supplied or specified to plaintiff's employers or
contractors at plaintiff's job sites, would be handled, disturbed and manipulated by workers,
resulting in the release of airborne asbestos fibers, and that through such foreseeable use and/or
handling, plaintiff would be exposed to such fibers. As a manufacturer, 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 aabestos in YORK INTERNATIONAL products at

the following jobsites:

Location of Exposure
Employer . Exposure Job Title Dates
Whelen Engineering Whelen Engineering Laborer Early 1960s to
Emeryville, CA Emeryville, CA mid- 1960s

Plaintiff worked at his father’s shop beginning in the early 1960s after school. He performed
maintenance and repairs to various commercial refrigeration compressors. Two of the brands of
compressors plaintiff repaired were FRICK and YORK INTERNATIONAL. Plaintiff could
identify these two brands since their company names were written on the compressors
themselves. Plaintiff's repairs of FRICK YORK INTERNATIONAL refrigeration
compressors required him to gpen them up and remove all the asbestos-containing gaskets.
Plaintiff believes that these asbestos-containing gaskets he removed from the FRICK and
YORK INTERNATIONAL compressors were original since he was the first one to perform
repairs to these compressors, Plaintiff obtained almost all of the asbestos-containing
replacement gaskets for these FRICK and YORK INTERNATIONAL refrigeration compressors
directly from the manufacturers, The only occasions plaintiff would not obtain the replacement
gaskets directly from the manufacturer was if the model was discontinued and they no longer
possessed the replacement component parts for the compressors.

Steve Pelz, P.O. Box 353, Joshua Tree, California 92252. c/o Brayton Purcell, worked
with plaintiff at his father’s compressor shop during the 1960s, Mr. Pelz and plaintiff both
worked on various refrigeration compressors at this shop, including compressors manufactured
by YORK INTERNATIONAL, Mr. Pelz could identify these refrigeration compressors as
YORK INTERNATIONAL compressors since the company name was written on the
compressor itself. Mr. Pelz and plaintiff both cleaned the hcads on these YORK.

IN TERNATIONAL refrigeration. compressors. This required them to remove.and scrape off,
asbestos-containing Garlock-type gaskets. They both used serapers and grinders to scrape off
the asbestos-containing gasket residue from the YORK INTERNATIONAL compressors. This
work created visible dust which they both inhaled.

Defendant YORK INTERNATIONAL admits in its responses to General Order No. 129
Standard Asbestos Case Interrogatories that FRICK, formerly a competitor, was acquired by
YORK INTERNATIONAL, Defendant YORK INTERNATIONAL further admits that
between 1930 and 1985, YORK INTERNATIONAL sold air conditioning units which
contained asbestos-containing gaskets and

gaskets containing asbestos fibers, which were
purchased from Durabla, Garlock or Johns-Manville. YORK INTERNATIONAL further

KAlajured\105815\plAROG-rsp-YORKIN. wpd 2 TovOe IY A HW WHY

VPN YN NY NNN NY Be Be eB Pe eee ei
oI AMR OD S SO we AW HAH FF YW NH DTD

admits that “[o]n occasion, YORK INTERNATIONAL may have sold replacement gaskets to
various customers.” Thus, plaintiff reasonably believes that the gaskets on the YORK and
FRICK equipment that he handled and worked with contained asbestos.
Plaintiff further contends he was exposed to asbestos based upon the deposition of
YORK INTERNATIONAL’s Person(s} Mest Knowledgeable Fred Ziffér, taken in the maiter of
Paul Svkes and Bonnie Sykes v. American Standard, District Court, Harris County, Texas,
TIth Judicial District Cause No. 2005-11196, taken on December 15, 2005, before Susan 8.
Klinger, CSR. Mr. Ziffer testified that the first time asbestos was addressed by YORK
employees was at a series of safety training seminars in the late 1970s. (Vol. 1, pg. 30: 19-24).
Mr. Ziffer testified that there were no specific safety training sessions that dealt with asbestos.
(Vol, 1, pg. 33: 21-25). Mr. Ziffer testified that he first became aware in the 1970s that YORK
compressors contained asbestos. (Vol. 1, PE. 44: 13-17). Mr. Ziffer testified that gaskets were
the asbestos-containing components of the YORK compressors. (Vol. 1, pg. 44: 3-6). Mr.
Ziffer testified that YORK compressors had asbestos-containing gaskets m the 1960s until
approximately 1987. (Vol. 1, pgs. 45-46: 21-9, 16-17). Mr. Ziffer testified that he first became
aware in the late 1970s that Durabla, Garlock, and Johns Manville gaskets contained asbestos in
the 1960s and 1970s. (Vol. 1, pg. 77, 78: 15-18, 2-7). Mr. Ziffer testified that YORK began
eens in 1989 that nonasbestos gaskets should be used in its compressors. (Vol: 1, pg. 79:
19-24), Mr. Ziffer testified that YORK stopped using asbestos-containing gaskets in its
compressors altogether in 1989. (Vol. 1, pg. 83: 19-22). Mr. Ziffer testified that YORK
stopped using asbestos-containing gaskets in any of its ucts by 1991. (Vol. 1, pg. 84: 3-6).
Mr. Ziffer testified that YORK first became aware in 1987 that exposure to asbestos could have
adverse health effects. (Vol. 1, pg. 88: 4-9). Mr, Ziffer testified that he is unaware of YORK
publishing any warnings on its compressors concerning the dangers associated with asbestos
exposure or the removal of asbestos-containin: . (ol. L pg. 90: 6-10, 16-20).
According to a report prepared for the EPA, “Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on
Asbestos and Asbestos Products,” Final Report, January 19, 1989, compressed sheet gaskets are
used in heavy-duty applications where high temperatures and pressures are likely to exist, It
goes on to specifically identify exhaust systems and turbo chargers, cylinder head and intake
manifolds, and high load/high extrusion applications. The report states that the most common
‘uses are in engines, gear cases, and pipe flanges. The report states that asbestos is the primary
component of compressed sheet ets, 75% and up by weight. The report states that the
asbestos sheet gasket market was estimated to be worth $26.5 million in 1985, As of the time
of the report (late 1980s), non-asbestos gaskets held less than half of the sheet gasket market.
Further, at that time the military was still specifying the use of asbestos-containing new and
replacement gaskets. The report also discusses “beater-add” gaskets, which are used for lower
temperatures than sheet gaskets. The report identifies twe pri uses of these gaskets: as
head, carburetor, exhaust manifold, and transmission ets, and in the form of flange, spiral-
wound, and general service indusirial gaskets. As of the time of the report (late 1980s),
substitute non-asbestos gaskets only had about a 50% share of the t,
acking performs the same function as a gasket-to seal in fluids—but is used where
motion is necessary to the device, for example in pumps, valves, compressors, mixers, and
hydraulic cylinders. Asbestos-containing packing is usually made from a braided asbestos yarn,
ome packing has a graphite-impregnated asbestos core. Asbestos-fiber packing is valued for
its heat resistance, its chemical resistance to deterioration, its durability, and its low cost.
According fo the above report, asbestos-containing packings have dominated the market “until
very recently. aoe eee seo
One study by researchers employed by Chevron Products Company stated, “Despite the
EPA's recent action, asbestos gaskets will continue to be handled for many years in the
workplace as in-service gaskets are replaced and inventories of remaining gaskets are used.”
.T. Cheng and H.J. McDermott, “Exposure to Asbestos From Asbestos Gaskets,” Applied
ccupational & Environmental Hygiene (1991), Vol. 6, pp. 588-591, emphasis added.)

M

KNinjurod\10581 SiplROG-rsp-YORKIN.wpd 3 tevoo YN A WP WH

FP Pe ee eB eB eS
ey A mA BW NHN & Oo

A study of the removal of ashestos-containing valve packing from an abated and
contained environment showed the release of asbestes fibers from the packing material and
concluded that asbestos packing can become friable after use in valves. (J, R. Millette and M.
D. Mount, “A Study Determining Asbestos Fiber Release During the Removal of Valve
Packing,” Aoplicd Leoupational & Environmental Hygiene (1993), Vol. 8, No. 9, pp. 790-793.)

laintiff cites to the following pamphlet me Office of the U.K.: ‘Meraorandara

the Industrial Dise: of Silicosis and Asbestosis, HMSO, 1932. The pamphlet describes
the industries and processes in which asbestosis occurs: “Processes involving exposure to
asbestos dust which are known to give rise to asbestosis or in which the conditions are such as
10 be liable to produce the disease, are the breaking, crushing, disintegrating, opening and
grinding of asbestos and the mixing or sieving of asbestosis or any i of asbestos, the
manufacture of asbestos textiles, the making of insulating slabs or sections and the making or
repairing of insulating mattresses composed wholly or partly of asbestos, and the sawing,
grinding and turning in the dry state of articles composed wholly or partly of asbestos such as
motor car brake clutch linings, electric conductors and packing and gaskets.” (p.12.) The
pamphiet also describes compensation for workers in the case of death or disablement from
asbestosis and recommends initial and periodic medical examinations. 12)
Plaintiff's experts will testify that during the handling and scraping of YORK gaskets,
asbestos fibers were released and that plaintiff necessarily inhaled asbestos-containing dust,

In support of plaints contention that plaintiff was exposed to asbestos-containing

roducts for which YORK INTERNATIONAL is responsible for, plaintiff identifies the
following documents:

Plaintiff identifies his employment records and medical records, previously roduced to
Designated Defense Counsel and equally available to defendant. Plaintiff believes defendant is
in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff further identifies his complaint in this action and all exhibits attached thereto.
Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff further identifies his responses in this case to Defendants’ Standard
Interrogatories to Plaintiffs (Personal Injury), Sets One and Two. Plaintiff believes defendant is
in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff further identifies defendant’s responses to Standard Interrogatories pursuant to
San Francisco General Order No. 129 including but not limited to that dated 10/16/97 by Walter
Rundin, verified 10/16/97 by Wayne Naylor, and served 10/16/97 by Virginia Gaulter.

Plaintiff further identifies the transcript and all exhibits attached thereto of the Person(s)
Most Knowledgeable and Custodian(s) of Records of YORK INTERNATIONAL in the matter
of Paul Sykes and Bonnie Sykes v. American Standard, et al., filed in the District Court of
Harris County Texas, Case No. 2005-11196, taken on December 15, 2005, reported by Henjum
Goucher Reporting Services. Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of these documents.

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

Plaintiff further identifies all of the agreements and contracts between defendant and all
general contractors and sub-contractors present at the jobsites where plaintiff worked. Plaintiff

elieves defendant is in possession of these documents.

ut

KAnjured\t0581 ipl ROG-rp-YORKIN, wpd 4 TovCwm DN DH WA FY NY

von Yb RR NNN Boe eee ewe eB eG

Plaintiff further identifies all of the labeling and packaging materials for all of the
asbestos-containing materials and equipment mantfactured by, sold by, supplied by, and/or in
the control of defendant used at the jobsites where plaintiff worked. Plaintiff believes
defendant is in possession of these documents,

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

sbestos: ical and AS)
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, ae STPM Press
Vol. 1, 1980, Vol. 2, 1986

athology of Asbi Associated Diseas: Edition,
Victor Roggli, Tim Oury, and Thomas Spor, Springer-Verlag, 2004

Plaintiff is in possession of these texts and will make them available for defendant's review.
Due to the limitations of copyright law, plaintiff cannot provide copies of these texts to
lefendant,

Plaintiff further identifies General Industry Safety Orders promulgated pursuant to
California Labor Code § 6400, et seq., and California Administrative Code under the California
Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Industrial Safety, including, but not limited to,
Title VII, Group 9 (Control of Hazardous Substances), Article 81, §§ 4150, 4104-4108, and
Threshold Limit Values as documented for asbestos and other toxic substances under
Appendix A, Table I of said Safety Orders. Plaintiff also identifies NESHAP Asbestos
Regulations (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) which are found at Code
of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Part 61, Su M, published under
the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C.A. § 7412(b)(1 (A) and 4: US.C.A,

§ 7412(b\(1\(B). Plaintiff also identifies OSHA standards relating to asbestos, found at Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 29, Chapter 17, Section 1910, et seq.; and Title 8, Section 5208 of the
California OSHA regulations pertaining to asbestos exposure. ~

Plaintiff incorporates by reference, without repeating herein, all testimony from all
plaintiff's experts from all prior similarly-situated cases.

Without limiting the scope of defendant’s liability, plaintiff contends that defendant
supplied, sold, manufactured, and/or distributed asbestos-containing products to plaintiff and/or to
worksites where plaintiff used said products. By 1937, California Hsted asbestosis as a
compensable disease under Worker’s Compensation laws, Numerous articles and studies relating
to the health hazards of exposure to asbestos have appeared in medical and scientific literature
since the turn of the twentieth century and have also been summarized in various publications.
‘Additionally, safety orders have existed since the 1940s regarding the control of asbestos dust in
the workplace. Defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the health hazards
associated with exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products prior to their distribution,
sale, or supply and failed to take available safety precautions. Further, defendant failed to warn
plaintiff of the dangers inherent in these products. . Defendant’s conduct was wilful, malicious,
and done with a wanton disregard for plaintiff's safety and the safety of others.

‘After a teasonable and good-faith inquiry to other persons and organization, pursuant to
C.C.P. § 2030,220(a)-(c), plaintiff has no further information responsive to this Interrogatory at
this time. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are contiming. Plaintiff expressly reserves the
tight to amend this Response pending the outcome of plaintiff's investigation.

Mt

KAlnjurech105815\plROG-r5p-YORKIN.wpd 3 TvCwm WA HW F&F HY YL

b NR PP RN bye oe
BSeRRRBBERB SBE ABDEBHES

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that and to the extent that it calls for information Bivtected the attorney-client
rivilege and/or work-product doctrine, in violation of C.C.P. §§ 2018.020 and 2 18.030.
lainti: gbjects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for expert witness information and
‘writings, if any. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is over broad, vague
and ambiguous. Notwithstanding said objections, and without waiver thereof, plaintiff
responds as follows:

Plaintiff identifies himself, CHARLES HUSBAND. Plaintiff identifies all past and
resent co-workers, supervisors, managers, and other percipient witnesses, including but not
imited to: Steve Pelz, P.O. Box 353, Joshua Tree, California 92252. c/o Brayton + cell.

Plaintiff identifies the Person(s) Most Knowledgeable, the Custodian(s) of Records, and all
current and former employees of defendant YORK INTERNATIONAL, including, but not
limited to, Fred Ziffer. Plaintiff further identifies current and former employees, officers, and
agents of defendant whose identities are currently unknown to plaintiff.

After a reasonable and good-faith inquiry to other persons and organization, pursuant to

C.C.P. § 2030.220(a)-(c), plaintiff has no further information responsive to this Interrogatory at
this time. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing. Plaintiff cxpressly reserves the
tight to amend this Response pending the outcome of plaintiff's investigation.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO, 5: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that and to the extent that it calls for information protected by the attorney-client
pivilege and/or work-product docirine, in violation of C.C.P. §§ 2018.020 and 2018.030.
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for expert witness information and
writings, if any. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is over broad, vague
and ambiguous, making a response impossible without s; ation as to the meaning of
ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS. Notwithstanding said objections, and without
waiver thereof, plaintiff responds as follows:

Plaintiff identifies his loyment records and medical records, previously produced to
Designated Defense Counsel and equally available to defendant. Plaintiff believes defendant is
in possession of these documents.

___ Plaintiff further identifies his complaint in this action and all exhibits attached thereto.
Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff further identifies his responses in this case to Defendants’ Standard
Interrogatories to Plaintiffs (Personal Injury), Sets One and Two. Plaintiff believes defendant is
in possession of these documents.

: Plaintiff identifies the transcripts of all depositions taken in this action, and all attached
exhibits, ifany. Plaintiff identifies plaintiff's own trial preservation and deposition transcripts
and all exhibits, if any attached thereto, commencing on February 2, 2010 and all subsequent
dates, These transcripts are reported by and available from Aiken & Welch, One Kaiser Plaza,
Suite 505, Oakland, California. Plaintiff believes defendant is in ‘possession of these

locuments.

Plaintiff further identifies the deposition transcripts of laintiff in the matter, Steve Pelz
y. Asbestos Defendants, San Francisco Court Case No. 28, commencing on November 29,
2007 and all subsequent dates, These transcripts are reported by and available from Aiken &
Welch, One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505, Oakland, California. Plaintiff believes defendant is in
possession of these documents. .

Plaintiff further identifies the deposition transeri of Steve Pelz in the matter, Steve.
Pelz v. Asbestos Defendants, San Francisco Court Case No. 440228, commencing on May 3,
2006 and all subsequent dates, These transcripts are reported by and available from Aiken &
Welch, One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505, Oakland, California. Plaintiff believes defendant is in
possession of these documents.

Plaintiff further identifies defendant’s responses to Standard Interrogatories pursuant to
San Francisco General Order No. 129 including but not limited to that 10/16/97 by Walter
Rundin, verified 10/16/97 by Wayne Naylor, and served 10/16/97 by Virginia Gaulter.

KAlnjured\1058LS5\p1AROG-rsp-YORKIN.wpd 6 Tvwo wo ADU Pen He

wy wey RN NN YE eB Be ee oe se ee
BRR GETS SF SF Gen aw Bw NH DS

Plaintiff further identifies the transcript and all exhibits attached thereto of the Person(s)
Most Knowledgeable and Custodian(s) of Records of YORK INTERNATIONAL in the matter
of Paul. Svkes and Bonnie Sykes v. American Standard, et al., filed in the District Court of
Harris County Texas, Case No. 2005-11196, taken on December 15, 2005, reported by Henjum
Goucher Reporting Services, Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of these documents.

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

Plaintiff further identifies all of the agreements and contracts between defendant and all
eneral contractors and sub-contractors present at the jobsites where plaintiff worked. Plaintiff
elieves 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 equipment manufactured by, sold ye lied by, and/or in
the control of defendant used at the jobsites where plaintiff worked. Plaintiff believes
defendant is in possession of these documents,

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

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

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

Pathology of Asbestos-Associated Diseases, Second Edition,
Victor Roggli, Tim Oury, snd Thomas Sporn, Springer-Verlag, 2004

Plaintiff is in possession of these texts and will make them available for defendant's review.
Due to the limitations of copyright law, plaintiff cannot provide copies of these texts to
lefendant.

Plaintiff further identifies General Industry Safety Orders promulgated pursuant to
California Labor Code § 6400, et seq., and California Administrative Code under the California
Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Industrial Safety, including. but not limited to,
Title VII, Group 9 (Control of Hazardous Substances), Article 81, §§ 4150, 4104-4108, and
Threshold Limit Values as documented for asbestos and other toxic substances under
Appendix.A, Table I of said Safety Orders, Plaintiff also identifies NESHAP Asbestos
Regulations ( (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) which are found at Code

of Federal ulations. Title 40, Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Part 61, Subpart M, published under
> the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C.A. § 7412(b)(1)(A) and 2B USCA,

1c
§ 741 2(b) 1) 1. Plaintiff also identifies OSHA standards relating to asbestos, found at Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 29, Chapter 17, Section 1910, et seq.; and Title 8, Section 5208 of the
California OSHA regulations pertaining to asbestos exposure.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference, without repeating herein, all testimony from all
plaintiff's experts from all prior similarly-situated cases.

KAlnjured\10581 S\pldiROG-p-YORKIN.wpd 7 Tcvwoo TN DH PF YW KN

Doe a a
SS e&® AAA PB oH eHE SD

Without limiting the scope of defendant’s liability, plaintiff contends that defendant
supplied, sold, manufactured, and/or distributed asbestos-containing products to plaintiff and/or to
worksites where plaintiff used said products. By 1937, California listed asbestosis as a
compensable disease under Worker’s Compensation laws, Numerous articles and studies relating
to the health hazards of exposure to asbestos have aj in medical and scientific literature
since the turn of the twentieth century and have also been summarized in various publications.
Additionally, safety orders have existed since the 1940s regarding the control of asbestos dust in
the workplace. Defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the health hazards
associated with exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products prior to their distribution,
sale, or supply and failed to take available safety precautions. Further, defendant failed to warn
plaintiff of the dangers inherent in these products. Defendant’s conduct was wilful, malicious,
and done with a wanton disregard fo:  Piaintit’s safety and the safety of others.

After a reasonable and good-faith inquiry to other persons and organization, pursuant to
C.CP. § 2030,.220(a)-(c), plaintiff has no further information responsive to this Interrogatory at
this time. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing, Piaintiff expressly reserves the
tight to amend this Response pending the outcome of plaintiff's investigation.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that and to the extent that it for information protected by the attorney-client
privilege and/or work-product doctrine, in violation of C.C.P. §§ 2018.020 and 2018.030,

laintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for expert witness information and
writings, if any. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is over broad, vague
and ambiguous, making a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of
ASBESTOS-CONTAINING RODUCTS. Notwithstanding said objections, and without
waiver thereof, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff refers to and hereby incorporates into
this Response, plaintiff’ s Response to Interrogatory No. 3, above.

a reasonable and good-faith inquiry to other persons and organization, pursuant to

C.C.P. § 2030,220(a)-(c), plaintiff has no further information responsive to this Interrogatory at
this time. Plaintiffs investigation and discovery are continuing. Plaintiff: expressly reserves the
tight to amend this Response pending the outcome of plaintiff's investigation.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO, 7: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds and to the extent that it calls for information protected by the attomey-client
tivilege and/or work-product doctrine, in violation of C.C.P. §§ 2018.020 and 2 18.030,

laintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for expert witness information and
writings, if any. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the yunds that it is over broad, vague
and ambiguous, making a response impossible without sp tion as to the meaning of
ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS. Notwithstanding said objections, and without
waiver thereof, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff refers to and hereby incorporates into
this Response, plaintiff's Response to Interrogatory No. 3, above.

After a reasonable good-faith inquiry to other persons and organization, pursuant to

C.C.P. § 2030.220(a)-(c), plaintiff has no further information responsive to this Interrogatory at
this time. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing, Plaintiff expressly reserves the
tight to amend this Response pending the outcome of plaintiff's investigation.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that and to-the extent that it calls for information protected by the attorney-client
privilege and/or work-product doctrine, in violation of C.C.P. §§ 2018.020 and 2018.030.
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for expert witness information and
writings, if any. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the : Brounds that it is over broad, vague
and ambiguous, making a response impossible without specu