Motion,Ex Parte: CHARLES HUSBAND VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Ce ew sD mH & HB He

YPN YP NM YP RP RON Re Be Be em eB oe ee oe
Se 1 OR RA ee OB HB KF SF S&S eB BW ARH BAH ESE

Dean Pollack, State Bar No. 176440
Raymond A. Greene, III, State Bar No. 131510

OAM BROWN ' ELECTRONICALLY
A Professional Law Corporation

P.O. Box | 19 St FILED |
Oakland, California 94604-0119 County of San Proncisco
1901 Harrison Street, 14th Floor FEB 21 2012
Oakland, California 94612 Clerk of the Court
Telephone: (510) 444-6800 BY: VANESSA WU

Facsimile: (510) 835-6666 Deputy Clerk

Attorneys for Defendant
YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
. UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
CHARLES HUSBAND, : No. CGC-09-275098
Plaintiff, MOTION IN LIMINE NO, 3

Vv DEFENDANT YORK
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’S
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP), MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
THE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF
Defendants. CHARLES AY
Date:
Time:
Dept.: 608
Judge: Hon. Curtis BE. A. Karnow

Complaint Filed: March 2, 2009
Pretrial Date: March 9, 2012

L INTRODUCTION
Defendant YORK. INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (“York”) respectfully moves this

Court ia limine for an order precluding Charles Ay from testifying in this case generally as to

Plaintiff Charles Husband’s (“Plaintiff”) alleged exposure to asbestos in the workplace on the
grounds that (1) any opinions Mr. Ay may give relating to York are based on speculation and
assumptions of fact which are contrary to the evidence; and (2) Mr. Ay does not possess the

requisite skill or qualifications necessary to offer any opinion about Plaintiff's work. To allow

1

DEF. YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE EXPERT CECI ATES
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES AY.Ce WA BR BH HR em

PN PRP YP NR RP NN OR ef eR oe oe ew ew oe oe oe
es 1 DA MW BB BN = SS 6 eB BW HR HM BR HB NR Se Ss

Mr. Ay to testify in this case would be highly prejudicial to York. Accordingly, this Court
should preclude Mr: Ay from testifying in this case. In the alternative, York requests a 402
hearing on the admissibility of Mr. Ay’s testimony.

L FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was allegedly directly exposed to asbestos-containing gaskets while washing,
cleaning and disassembling York and Frick brand compressors while working weekends at his
father’s business, Whalen Engineering, from the late 1950's to the mid-1960’s. Specifically, the
plaintiff testified that his job was to disassemble compressors, submerge them in a solvent and
then clean them, which involved removal of gasket material. (See Exhibit A, plaintiff's
deposition transcript, pp.73:18-74:22.) It is significant that during the entire cleaning process,
the York and Frick compressors were submerged in a cleaning solvent. (See Exhibit A, pp.99:
2-19 and 113:3-5.) The plaintiff also claims exposure to a plethora of other asbestos-containing
products during a subsequent 25 year career as a mechanic, carpenter, machine operator and
drywall installer. (See Exhibit B, Plaintiff's Supplemental/Amended Responses to Standard
Interrogatories, Sets One and Two, at pp.2:25 to 22:26.)

In support of his claims, Plaintiff intends to submit the testimony of Charles Ay, a former
shipyard pipe cover insulator, to identify the types of asbestos exposure Plaintiff again allegedly
suffered during the course of his employment as a laborer at Whalen Engineering again in the
late 1950"s to the mid-1960’s. However, Ay admits in deposition that he had no understanding
of the plaintiffs washing of the compressor parts, the cleaning of the components or the
submerging of the parts in a cleaning solvent. Rather, Ay can only testify as to irrelevant and
anecdotal processes he occasionally encountered when he himself removed. gaskets. (See
Exhibit C, deposition of Charles Ay, p.26:8 to p. 27:22.)

IL LEGAL ARGUMENT

A. Charles Ay Does Not Possess The Requisite Skill Or Qualifications
Necessary To Offer An Opinion About Plaintiff Work

Evidence Code section 720(a) states that:
A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill,

experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the
subject to which his testimony relates. Against the objection of a party, such
2

DEF, YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE EXPERT CGC-09-275098
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES AYPNR yy RP RP RP RP NM Be oe ee oe ee Oe OR Om me
Se YN BD Oh F&F WD Be @e SF SCS SC BQ HR HH F&F BV RP = SF

oe YW KR Hk we Ne

special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education must be shown
before the witness may testify as an expert.

The Court of Appeals recently weighed in on the admissibility of expert testimony on
asbestos exposure, and their holding is significant because it concluded that the opinions of
Charles Ay that plaintiff sought to introduce were mere speculation.

In Andrews v. Foster Wheeler, 138 Cal App 4" 96, 108 (2006), the Court of Appeals
found that an expert’s conclusion devoid of any reasoned explanation cannot be used to
manufacture a triable issue of fact. Specifically, the Court found Mr. Ay’s declaration
inadmissible because it failed to provide any reasoning or facts supporting his opinions, instead
the declaration simply made sweeping general conclusions. Id, at 111-112. As such, the Court
of Appeals held that a declaration by plaintiff's expert did not establish causation. Id. at 112.

Plaintiff in Andrews alleged that he was exposed to asbestos from Foster Wheeler

condensers aboard the USS Brinkley Bass. Id. at 99. In that case, Plaintiff submitted the
Declaration of Charles Ay in support of its opposition to Foster Wheeler’s motion for summary
judgment. id. Mr. Ay’s declaration opined that gaskets and packing generally contained
asbestos during the relevant time frame, but did not establish that a Foster Wheeler product
actually contained asbestos, Id, at 108-109, Mr. Ay based his conclusion on his experience
working on naval vessels as an insulator and his review of naval documents. Id. However, Mr.
Ay’s declaration did not provide a basis for his conclusions, but rather made general sweeping
conclusions. Id. at 111-112.

York expects Mr. Ay to be offered in the same manner in this case. However, “an
expert's opinion rendered without a reasoned explanation of why the underlying facts lead to the
ultimate conclusion has no evidentiary value because an expert opinion is worth no more than
the reasons and facts on which it is based.” Id. at 108 (quoting Bushling v. Fremont Medical
Center, (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 493, 510). The Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff did not
establish that Foster Wheeler's condensers contained asbestos materials; instead Mr. Ay's

statements did little more than speculate that they did. Andrews, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at 112.

Absent foundational facts, an expert's opinion is “simply too tenuous to create a triable

CGC-09-275098 |

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES AY-_

RB R BW NP RP BR NSN BY Ee Be Be ee Be oe Be ee
oe 2A aA FBR SB Ss B&B BNI DH BF HH em S

oe a A Hh & BN

issue” regarding causation. Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400, 25 Cal.4th 763, 781.

The evidence in Andrews, including the Declaration of Mr. Ay, did little more than

establish basic facts. Plaintiff's’ “evidence” in the form of Mr. Ay’s declaration stating that

Andrews was exposed to respirable asbestos fibers from Foster Wheeler’s products, even under

our most lenient review, “creates only ‘a dwindling stream of probabilities that narrow into

conjecture.” Andrews, supra, 138 Cal.-App.4th at 112 (citing McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co.,

(2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1105; Saelzler vy. Advanced Group 400, 25 Cal.4th 763, 781

[without knowledge of certain foundational facts, an expert's opinion was "simply too tenuous to
create a triable issue” regarding causation].) The mere "possibility" of exposure does not create

a triable issue of fact. McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Go., (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1105

(citing Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850). “It is not enough to produce just some evidence.
The evidence must be of sufficient quality to allow the trier of fact to find the underlying fact in
favor of the party opposing the motion for summary judgment.” (Id.)

Mr. Ay has only a high-school diploma. He is not a medical doctor, nor is he an
industrial hygienist. He is not competent to testify conceming the release of asbestos fibers into
the air, which is the subject of expert testimony of a qualified industrial hygienist. Mr. Ay’s
opinions are based only on his work experience as a shipboard insulator for approximately 20
years. He also claims to have interviewed numerous workers who worked with asbestos,
because he has a claimed interest in the historical perspective of the use of asbestos. These are
clearly insufficient bases to formulate any opinion which could be characterized as expert.

An expert’s testimony is limited to such subjects “sufficiently beyond common

experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of facts.” People v. McDonald

37 Cal. 3d 351, 367 (1984). Because Mr. Ay has limited knowledge of work performed by
Plaintiff and no unique skill or qualifications which would support such testimony, Mr. Ay

should be excluded from testifying as an expert in this case.

B. The Court Should Preclude Mr. Ay From Testifying As To The
Asbestos Content Or Asbestos Release From Any Product At Issue,
Including, Any York Product Because He Lacks Personal Knowledge

York expects Mr. Ay’s role, and expected testimony, to play out the way it did in

4
DEF. YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE EXPERT CGC-09-275098"|
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES AYee Wa AR A ew NH

BM NM OR OR RR KR KR ON. Se eB Re oe oe oe ee ee
os Ss A NU eR Re BR KF SC So SF TD RD ee eR ON SS

Andrews; Mr. Ay did not have knowledge about the Foster Wheeler products at issue in
Andrews just as he has no specific knowledge about the York products at issue in this case.
Nevertheless, Plaintiff will produce Mr. Ay to testify about Plaintiffs opportunity for asbestos
exposure from these products.

One of the central issues in this case is Plaintiff's identification of various defendants’
products. In this matter, however, Mr. Ay has no knowledge regarding the actual subject for
which his expert testimony will be offered, because his opinion is based primarily upon review
of the plaintiffs declaration about his work history. Mr. Ay has-no personal knowledge that
would aid the jury in understanding Plaintiff's case and should not be permitted to testify as an
expert in this case regarding asbestos content or asbestos release from York products,

As outlined above, York expects Ay to admit that he (1) has not conducted recent tests
on York products within the last year; (2) he has not conducted any testing or sampling specific
to this case; (3) has very limited personal knowledge as to the Plaintiff's manner of work with
the York products here such as the submerging of the compressor parts in the cleaning solvent.

In short, any testimony that Mr. Ay would offer about asbestos content or asbestos fiber
release from York products would be conclusory, based on speculation and therefore
inadmissible. California Evidence Code § 702; Osmond v. Weap, Inc,, 153 Cal. App. 3d 842,
851 (1984). See also Redevelopment AG of Long Beach v. First Christian Church of Long

Beach, 140 Cal. App. 3d 690, 702-703 (1983) (expert must have sufficient knowledge on subject
to entitle his opinion to go to the jury); California Evidence Code § 801.

In this case, given the limited and unreliable information from which Mr. Ay will derive
his opinion, his testimony cannot possibly clarify any of the issues regarding York in this case
for the jury.

CG Charles Ay’s Testimony Should Be Excluded Pursuant To California
Evidence Code Section 352

California Evidence Code section 352 permits the court to exclude any evidence if its
probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect, or if its introduction would necessitate an
undue consumption of time. Evidence is likely to cause “undue prejudice” if it “uniquely tends

3

DEF. YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE EXPERT CECH5-273098
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES AY~~

Ce FF 2 BA FR RR WwW NH

10.

to evoke an emotional bias against a party as an individual and which has very little effect on the
issue” People v. Karis, 46 Cal. 3d 612, 638 (1988) or if it is “likely to inflame the passions” of
the jury against the party for whom the evidence is offered. Vorse v. Saracy, 53 Cal. App. 4th
998, 1008 (1997). Furthermore, evidence that may “confuse the issues” or “mislead the jury”
may be excluded under California Evidence Code section 352. (People v. Milner, 45 Cal. 3d
227, 238-239 (1988); People v. Wagner, 138 Cal. App. 3d 473, 481 (1982) (excluding records
containing “confusing medical terminology and extraneous material.”)

As set forth above, Mr. Ay probably has incredibly limited. knowledge regarding the
actual circumstances in which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to asbestos from York products.
If Mr. Ay is permitted to testify as an expert, the jury may give his opinions more weight than
merited because he is being characterized as an expert. This would be severely prejudicial
because Mr, Ay has no qualifications or information. which form the basis for any expert opinion
about Plaintiff's work. Because admission of Mr. Ay’s testimony will create substantial danger
of undue prejudice, confuse the issues and mislead the jury, it should be excluded. Celli v.

Sports Car Club of America, Inc., 29 Cal. App. 3d 511, 522 (1972).

D. Alternatively, York Requests The Court Schedule A Hearing
Pursuant To Evidence Code 402 Lo Determine Whether Critical
Threshold Facts Exist That Would Permit The Admission Of Mr.
Ay’s Testimony
California Evidence Code section 402 provides, in pertinent part:
(a) when the existence of a preliminary fact is disputed, its existence or non-existence
shall be determined as provided in this article.

(b) the court may hear and determine the question of admissibility of evidence out of the
presence or hearing of the jury...

In this case, the preliminary facts to be determined here are whether there is reliable
foundational evidence for Mr. Ay to opine whether Plaintiff had exposure to asbestos from York
products and whether the methods employed by Mr. Ay to determine said exposure are reliable
and generally accepted.

The California Supreme Court has addressed the importance of “judicial caution” in
admitting expert scientific testimony to avoid juries from being unduly swayed by it. People v.

6

DEF. YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE EXPERT CGC-09-275098
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES AYee Ww KD Rh ke WB NR

Don RP RP NR ON OR Be Be Be oe Se Be oe ee SE eS
BNeBRR RP RB FSF 8S Fk DAG FBR BS

Leahy, 8 Cal. 4" 587, 595 (1994). ‘The Leahy court concluded that the judicial standards for
evaluating expert testimony have “prevented justice from becoming a matter of amateur
guesswork based on unreliable techniques and has helped to assure that determinations . . . are
not influenced by the vagaries of pseudoscience.” Id. at 603.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeals in Lockheed was quite clear on the importance it
imparted to such hearings on the admissibility of expert testimony when it explained that “an

expert opinion has no value if its basis is unsound.” In re Lockheed Litigation Cases, 115 Cal.

App. 4th 558, 564; see also People v. Lawly, 27 Cal. 4th 102, 131 (2002); People v. Bassett, 69
Cal. 2d 122, 141 (1969). ‘

Matter that provides a reasonable basis for one opinion does not necessarily provide a
reasonable basis for another opinion. Evidence Code Section 801 (b) states that a court must
determine whether the matter the expert relies on is a type that an expert reasonably can rely on
“in forming an opinion upon the subject which his testimony relates. We construe this to mean
that the matter relied on must provide a reasonable basis for the particular opinion offered and

that an expert opinion based on speculation or conjecture is inadmissible.” Smith v. ACandS.

Inc., 31 Cal. App. 4th 77, 93 (1994).

While the specific testimony at issue varies among the cases, these cases all stand for the
proposition that courts must scrutinize the foundation of expert opinions because, absent a valid
scientific basis for expert conclusions, the expert is not offering scientific evidence’ but personal
opinions, hypotheses and speculation. Judicial economy dictates that this be done at the earliest
opportunity and outside the presence of a jury.

UL CONCLUSION

Charles Ay does not possess any of the requisite education or professional qualifications

to render opinions concerning Plaintiff's alleged use or over-exposure to asbestos. Accordingly,

his testimony as an alleged expert should be excluded as unduly prejudicial and misleading

u
Ht
nnn sa sas vo 7... cs ennstrnaacenstnnnnnnninntnnnnrionnsnct
DEF. YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE EXPERT EGC-09-275098

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES AYCe YW DOD A ke BW NH

ey 6M BRB NM Re Be NM NR ER OR OE OR Rl ele
&B SRRERR RS Fk DR BEERS

because it lacks the necessary foundation to permit its introduction to the jury.

DATED: February 21, 2012 BURNHAM BROWN

By Mn
RAYMOND A. GREENE, III
Attomeys for Defendant YORK

INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

1114893

8

DEF. YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE EXPERT
‘TESTIMONY OF CHARLES AY

CGE-09-275098Re: 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
am an employee of Bumham Brown whose business address is 1901 Harrison Street,
14" Floor, Oakland, Alameda County, California 94612 (mailing address: Post Office
Box 119, Oakland, California 94604),

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

DEFENDANT YORK [INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’S MOTION IN
LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF CHARLES AY

on recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File &

Serve website. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing is true and correct and was executed on February 21, 2012,

at Oakland, California.
GR ‘Andrew-Marshall 7 =

1040060

PROOF OF SERVICE CGC 09-275098EXHIBIT AoO eo 4 Mm OF BF Oo HN +

mMoNM MOR KB MY SB Ba SB a Bw ew ese Be Se
Oa Bb G&G NHN = GCG © 2 4 OO GF BR &DW NY = CO

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
—-o00o--
CHARLES HUSBAND,

Plaintiff,
vs. No. 275098

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP),

Defendants.

NEWLY SERVED DEPOSITION OF CHARLES HUSBAND
VOLUME |
(Pages 1 through 180, inclusive)

Taken before Kimberly L. Avery
CSR No. 5074
April 18, 2011oan O89 HO FF BW NH =

my oNM MRM NM RP RM Se SB ea ew Be oe se Be a
a & 8 N = OC Oo a2 Nn DW HF FB So NR =| CD

INDEX
PAGE
EXAMINATION BY MS. HUTH
EXAMINATION BY MS, GLEZAKOS
EXAMINATION BY MR. BURKE
EXAMINATION BY MS. STERN

EXHIBITS
(No Exhibits Marked)

668
60119
n
128

Aiken Welch Court Reporters Charles Husband 8/18/2011oOo Fn OB HO BRB YH HH =

Be ep so sas ae an aw aw a
ao sn OO fH FB WM |= OO

noo
ao o

mw NR NN
Oo NM

Nm fh
a

NEWLY SERVED DEPOSITION OF CHARLES HUSBAND

BE IT REMEMBERED, that pursuant to Notice, and on
the 18th day of April 2011, commencing at the hour of
9:28 a.m., in the offices of Aiken Welch, One Kaiser
Plaza, Suite 505, Oakland, California, before me,
Kimberly L. Avery, a Certified Shorthand Reporter,
personally appeared CHARILES HUSBAND, produced as a
witness in said action, and being by me first duly
sworn, was thereupon examined as a. witness in said

cause.

~000~--

APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff:

UMU TAFIS!

Brayton Purcell

222 Rush Landing Road
Novato, California 94948

For the Defendant, Albay Construction:

JOCELYN SORIANO

(via phone)

Archer Norris

2033 N. Main Street, Suite 800
Walnut Cresk, California 94596

Aiken Welch Court Reporters. Charles Husband 8/18/2011o eC ao 4 GF oO FF DB NH =

For the Defendant, J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc,:

ERIN POPPLER

(via phone)

Bassi, Edlin, Huie & Blum

351 California Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, California 94104

For the Defendant, Union Carbide Corporation:

TINA GLEZAKOS

Brydon, Hugo & Parker

135 Main Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105

For the Defendant, York International:

NICHOLAS BURKE

Burnham Brown

1901 Harrison Street, 11th Floor
Oakland, California 94612

For the Defendant, Bigge Crane & Rigging:

RYAN JACOBSON

(via phone)

Knox Ricksen

1300 Clay Street, Suite 500
Oakland, California 94612

For the Defendant, CertainTeed:

SAM STERN

McKenna, Long & Aldridge

101 California Street, 41st Floor
San Francisco, California 94111

For the Defendant, Chicago Bridge & lron:

CHRIS DIAS

(via phone)

Sack Rosendin LLP

One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 340
Oakland, California 94612

Aiken Welch Court Reporters Charles Husband 8/18/2011=

oo FP 4 OW HO RF BH NH

BoM MN NN = 2B Be Bw ew ew ow ow Se
ao F&F @ NHN 32 6 © ON @ HB WN =

For the Defendants, Thomas Dee Engineering Company;
Hamilton Materials, Inc.; Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.:

HILLARY H; HUTH

Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall
601 Montgomery Street, Ninth Floor
San Francisco, California 94414

For the Defendant, Temporary Plant Cleaners, Inc.:

BRITTANY MALY

Cooley Manion Jones Hake & Kurowski
201 Spear Street, 18th Floor

San Francisco, California 94105

Aiken Welch Court Reporters Charles Husband 8/18/2011=

~ . .

73
| would have to say in the late '50s, all the
way up in the '60s, you know, ‘Some grade school,
junior high, and high school days.

Q. Do you recall the last year that you worked for
or you worked at Whalen Engineering?

A. Well, } went fo Vietnam in '68, so | went in
the Army in '67, so it would have to be in ‘66.

Qa Now, you mentioned that you were in schoo! at
the time. Was this work that you performed on the
weekends or ~~

A. | performed it on the weekends. | went tothe
shop, and my dad brought the work to the house for me
to do sometimes at night, you know, a couple hours here
and there, because he was in rebuilding of the
refrigeration industry, you know, take new and make
new -- take old and make new, | mean.

. Q.° Sure.
What specifically, what kind of work did you
perform?

A. Teardown,

Q, What's teardown?

A. lf you rebuild a compressor, you have to tear
it down.

Q. And were you doing this when you were in grade
school?

Aiken Welch Court Reporters Charles Husband 8/18/2011Co 7 NN GO GG B® NB =

mo RM RM RR a Be se ew ew ew oe Be
ao BF ON |= FS BD ON D2 HR WH 2 DS

/ 74
A. Yes.

Q. Could you describe what's involved in a

teardown?

MS. TAFISK: Calls for speculation.

THE WITNESS: You have kind of --

MS, TAFISI: Let me finish my objection and you
can go ahead.

Calls for a narrative. Vague and ambiguous.

THE WITNESS: | can probably go down and take a
picture, but the shop is not there.

It was like an assembly line. You bring in the
compressors, they tear down the unit that's bad in the
component, the compressor or whatever comes down the
line, you wash them, you clean them, take them apart,
and it goes down to the end and you wash them again,
scrape gaskets off of them, clean them out for -- to
renew them.

BY MR. BURKE:

Q. So you washed compressors?

A. Yes, in solvent, and scraped gaskets, and
cleaned goo off of them with screwdrivers, wire
brushes, whatever, you know, get stuff off of there.

Q. When did you start — strike that.

Did you start -- did you take apart compressors.

for the entire time that you worked for Whalen’?

Aiken Welch Court Reporters Charles Husband 8/18/201199
that's the only way we could get them off.

Q. So the first step in the process after taking

apart the compressor would be to immerse it in the

solvent?

A. Yes, and clean it, clean everything.

Q. And you would clean it while it was still

immersed in the solvent?

A. Yeah, yeah, under the solvent.
Qa When the gaskets were baked on, how Jong would

it take typically to scrape off the gasket?

A. Ahard one, 15, 20 minutes, or longer.

Sometimes you had to set them aside and come back to

them.

Qa. And during the entire cleaning process, was the

compressor -- were the compressor parts covered in this

solvent?
A. Weil--
MS. TAFISK Misleading, Misleading.
THE WITNESS: Lightly, yes.
BY MR. BURKE:

Q. What kind of solvent was this?

A. Saime kind of solvent we have today, a clean
solvent. | don't know the chemical compound of it,
but...

Q. Do you know the brand name?

Aiken Welch Court Reporters Charles Husband 8/18/2011=

ono 4 OO A fF WO N

10

take them apart?

Yes, and cleaned.

And the process was the same, where you'd have

it submerged in a solvent?

Yes, after it was all broke down.

And how long would it take to break down a

Frick compressor?

Most of them were 45 minutes to an hour,

depending upon the gaskets. If they really got hot and
burned out, the gasket gets so hot, they are hard --
they are like stone, you know, and you got to chip them
off. The solvent doesn't really do anything to them,

it just takes the dirt off of them. It doesn’t even
penetrate them, you know, and that's why these ones
take longer, because you are there with a chisel. You
can't get a chisel, so you get a wire brush and try to

get a groove in it so you can try and pop it off.

How often would the gasket material be baked

onto the compressors?

50 percent, because most of those things were

burned out from the heat.

So 50 percent of the time that you were

cleaning compressors, the gasket material was baked on?

Oh, yeah, yeah.

Were the appearance of the gaskets on the Frick

113

Aiken Weich Court Reporters Charles Husband 8/18/2011BO nN +

Oo oOo BN DGD GH

180

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

)
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA)

|, KIMBERLY L. AVERY, do hereby certify:

That CHARLES HUSBAND, in the foregoing deposition
named, was present and by me sworn as a witness in the
above-entitled action at the time and place therein
specified;

That said deposition was taken before me at said
time and place, and was taken down in shorthand by me,
a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of
California, and was thereafter transcribed into
typewriting, and that the foregoing transcript
constitutes a full, true and correct report of said
deposition and of the proceedings that took place;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, | have hereunder subscribed my
hand this 5th of May 2011.

KIMBERLY LAVERY, GR No. 5074 b

State of California

;

Aiken Welch Court Reporters Charles Husband 8/18/2011EXHIBIT B-BRAYTON@PURCELL LLP
“ATTORNEYS AT LAW
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD
POBOX see
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94945-6169
GIS) RDE SSS

ee ee ee eB ee
mua A Fe OS YN Se oD

19.

we WA Rw ON +

| SUP) ‘AMEND. SE: Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though

‘Dated:

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., 5.B. #73685
JUSTIN S. FISH, ESQ., S.B. #250282

BRAYTON PURCELL LLP “sf
Attorneys at Law
222 Rush Landing Road
P.O. Box 6169
Novato, California 94948
(415) 898-1555
Attomeys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

CHARLES HUSBAND, ASBESTOS

No. CGC-09-275098

Plaintiff,

SUPPLEMENTAL/AMENDED
vs. RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP)

PROPOUNDING PARTY: STANDARD ASBESTOS CASE INTERROGATORIES
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff CHARLES HUSBAND
SET NOS,; ONE and TWO

Plaintiff supplements/amends his Responses to Standard Asbestos Case Interrogatories,
Set One, No. 26, and Set Two, Nos. | through 3, as follows:

fully set forth herein, all work history jobsites and co-workers and related information identified
in the attached

KAUnjuredh OSE NpIAALsupsaed.oved Jww WU A A A YN

Now w Re eB ee Be Be ee eB ee
RPOeRRR RB TS Gwen aD eB RES

EXHIBIT A
Charles Hush: dants (BAP

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Donald R. Husbands General Glassblowing Co. Glass Blower 1964-1965
General Glassblowing Co, Richrnond, CA (weekends)
Richmond, CA °
Job Duties: Plaintiff worked weekends in his uncle’s garage, Plaintiff heated up glass, blew it
and shaped it. Plaintiff is currently unaware if he was exposed to asbestos during this
employment. .

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
East Bay Newspaper Inc. Contra Costa Times Laborer 1964-1965
Walnut Creek, Walnut Creek, CA. (2-3 weeks)
Job Duties: Plaintiff operated machinery in the press room and stacked the newspapers as they
came off the printing press. Plaintiff prepared the papers for delivery. Plaintiff recalls the
following coworker! Steve Pelz, c/o Brayton*Purcell, LLP. Plaintiff is currently unaware ifhe

was exposed to asbestos during this employment.

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Lacord Drive Ins, Inc, Chaps Drive In Cook 1966
Chaps Drive In Lafayette, CA,
Vallejo, CA.
Job Duties: Plaintiff propared hamburgers, Plaintiff is currently unaware if he was exposed to
asbestos during this employment.

Location of : Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Universal Press of San Jose A Unknown Laborer 1966 >

(1 week)

Co
San'tose, CA

Job Duties: Plaintiff operated machinery in the press room and stacked the newspapers as they
came off the printing press. Plaintiff prepared the papers for delivery. Plaintiff is currently
unaware if he was exposed to asbestos during this employment.

Location of . Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
US Army US Army - Mechanic 1967
Fort Lewis. ,
Tacoma, WA. 1967 (8-10 wks)
US-Army 1967 (6 months)

AAlajuralNSB LAE Atom pt . 2 : treee NU A we BH

eo
= Oo

Fort Belvoir, VA

US-Ammy 1968 (3-4 wks)
Ayre, MA

US-Anm: 2/10/68 - 2/9/69
Ben Wak, Vietnam.

US-Amnay Post Engineer 1969-1970
South Carolina (8 mos.)

Job Duties: Plaintiff completed his basic training in at Fort Lewis. Plaintiff was trained io
mechanical maintenance. At Fort Belvoir, plaintiff received ATI training, including 62B20
training fheavy equipment maintenance); and 62830 training (heavy equipment repair). In the
course of this training, plaintiff worked with brakes and brake shoes, including using
compressed air to clean out brake drums.. Plaintiff was taught to sand down brakes and brake
shoes. Plaintiff maintained military trucks manufactured by FORD, JEEP (CHRYSLER LLC)
and DODGE (CHRYSLER LLC), Plaintiff recalls working with CUMMINS DIESEL
(CUMMINS INC.) engines on the DODGE vehicles. Plaintiff inspected, cleaned, removed and
replaced the brakes and the brake shoes on these vehicles, Plaintiff used BENDIX -

(HONEY WELL INTERNATIONAL, INC) replacement brakes provided his employer, and
sanded down those brakes prior to installation. Plaintiff replaced gaskets on valve covers.

Plaintiff was sent to Ben Wah, Vietnam to work in the ammunition forces. Plaintiff was
attached to 3“ Ordinance Group with the 6" Army. Plaintiff maintained military tracks
manufactured by FORD, JEEP (CHRYSLER LLC), and removed and replaced the brakes and
the brake shoes on these vehicles. Plaintiff removed existing BENDIX (HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC.), and recalls gecing the name “B IX” on brakes he removed.
Plaintiff installed BENDIX (HONEY WELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.) replacement brakes,
and sanded down those brakes prior to installation. Plaintiff replaced gaskets on valve covers.
Plaintiff drove a forklift and operated cranes used to move ammunition, Plaintiff worked on
HYSTER forklifts with GEN MOTORS engines, including blowing out the brake dust
inside the wheel wells. Plaintiff scraped off and replaced existing inter: gaskets on the
cpgines. Plaintiff inspected brake ystems on 220 ton GALLION (KOMATSU AMERICA

RP.) RT Cranes and AMERICAN CRANE CORPORATION (TEREX CORPORATION)
cranes, includin, blowing out the brake dust inside the wheel wells, and scraped off existing
VICTOR (DANA COMPANIES, LLC (DANA CORPORATION)) internal gaskets. Plaintiff
recalls that the brakes on such vehicles were original, Plaintiff worked on CATERPILLAR
‘dozers, including blowing out the brake dust inside the wheel wells, and scraping off and
replacing existing intemal gaskets on the engines. Plaintiff blew out the brake dust inside the
crane using an air compressor in order to inspect clutch and brake parts. Plaintiff recalls
crawling inside the crane to blow the dust out. Plaintiff adjusted the brakes on the cranes.
Plaintiff recalls tightening the clutch on an AMERICAN CRANE CORPORATION (TEREX.
CORPORATION) crane with a drag line. Plaintiff removed, inspected, cleaned, adjusted and
replaced the brakes and clutches on a 3/4-tox DODGE manual track. Plaintiff inspected the
brakes and clutches on manual wreckers, and 10-ton tractor trailers.

At the South Carolina base, plaintiff adjusted the brakes on OLD AMERICAN DRAGLINE and
P&H cranes, inchiding using a haramer to knock dust loose. Plaintiff assisted other workers in
performing repair work on JEEPS and 2 ¥4-ton trucks, including replacing the brakes on 2 '4-ton
truck,

Plaintiff recalls the following coworkers: “ Mr, Coker,” current address unknown; “Lurch”
(nickname) current address unknown. Plaintiff currently contends he was exposed to asbestos
uring this employment.

KakiuredVOSBSplAlowpned pd” 3 tesOW we RW A A ewe YN

Ree se ee ee ee
So 2 2 Rh BBR HS

Location of = * Exposure

Employer Exposure Job Tith

Manpower Inc of Washington [-Magnin : Janitor 1967

DC Walnut Creek, CA (5-6 months)
Milwaukee, WI

Job Duties: Plaintiff worked as a janitor. Plaintiff is currently unaware if he was exposed to
asbestos during this employment.

: Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Santa Fe-Pomeroy Inc. Unknown location Unknown 1970

Orange, CA.

Job Duties: Plaintiff currently does not recall the specifies of this employment. Plaintiff is
currently unaware if he was exposed to asbestos during this employment.

Location of _ Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title
US Navy Naval Weapons Station Rigger 1970
US Weapons Station Concord, CA (3-6 months)

Concord, CA

Job Duties: Plaintiff operated a forklift. Plaintiff loaded bombs on various naval and Victory
Ships, securing them for transportation. Plaintiffrecalls disturbing asbestos-containing pire
insulation on steam pipes when placing bombs. Plaintiff recalls large amounts of disturbed
white, half-round insulation on the floors of the ships. Plaintiff recalls that the insulation fell on
to his clothes. Plaintiff cut and fit wooden boards to secure the loads. Plaintiff currently
contends he was exposed to asbestos during this employment.

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Marin Storage & Trucking Unknown Unknown 1970

Inc.

Petaluma, CA.

Job Duties: Plaintiff currently does not recall the specifics of this employment. Plaintiff is
currently unaware if he was exposed to asbestos during this employment.

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Bradford Building Services Unknown : Unknown. 1971

Inc.
Los Angeles, CA

Job Duties: Plaintiff currently does-not recall the specifics of this employment. Plaintiffis
currently unaware if he was exposed to asbestos during this employment.

Location of Exposure
e Dates

Employer Job Tithe

AyjuedX Los plaAbesrpseednpd 4 tesCet A tk ew RD

y nN Re N ON Boe oe Se oe Se DP oe me SE
BRRRRRBBERS FSB AUR DSS BK SC

Teiple A Machine Shop Inc. Faple A Machine Shop Mechanic 1971
Richmond, CA Richmond, CA (3-4 months)

Job Duties: Plaintiff performed maintenance on company vehicles. Plaintiff recalls the
following trades: carpenters, operating engineers. Plaintiff currently contends he was exposed’
to asbestos during this employment,

Location of Exposure
Employer - Exposure Jab ‘Title Dates
Matson Terminals Inc. Various Matson Navigation Carpenter
Oakland, CA Line Shi 1972, 1973

Matson Terminals (2-3 wks)
Oakland,

Job Duties: Plaintiff set up scaffolding alongside ships for maintenance of Pipes. Plaintiff
recalls the following trades: pipefitters, insulators, laborers, and electricians. Plaintiff recalls
scaffolding was set up for pipefitters cutting, removing and replacing pipes. Plaintiff recalls
pipefitters removed and replaced asbestos-containing gaskets and disturbed asbestos-containiny
pipe insulation and removed and replaced asbestos-containing packing in valve stems. Plainti
recalls debris from the pipefitters’ work, including chunks of white, half-round insulation, fell
onto scaffolding and frequently fel on top of him during maintenance. Plaintiff currently
contends he was exposed to asbestos during this employment.

. Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title _ Dates
Fluor Products Company Inc. PG & EB : Carpenter 1972 (2 months!
Santa Rosa, CA. pan Pittsburg, CA . @ )

Job Duties: Plaintiff set up scaffolding along a cooling tower that needed replacement of
asbestos-containing insulation. Plaintiff recalls the scaffolding collected asbestos-containing
insulation left there by insulators and pipefitters. Plaintiff disturbed discarded insulation when
moving the scaffolding, Plaintiff dumped the insulation off of the scaffolding per to
disassembling the scaffolding. Plaintiff recalls the following coworker: Steve Pelz, c/o
Brayton*Purcell, LLP. Plaintiff currently contends he was exposed to asbestos during this
employment. . .

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Ame Falk Construction Co. Unknown. Carpenter 1972 (1-2 days)
General .
Redwood City, CA

Job Duties: Plaintiff worked on the new construction of homes and/or condominiums.
Plaintiff is currently unaware if he was exposed to asbestos during this employment.

Location of Exposure |
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Ronald Jean Bohm Various residential Carpenter 1972 (Approx. 3
Pro-Duction Co Quality locations throughout Contra days)
Construction Costa County, CA .

Oakland, CA

Aju DO5S1SpNAospac2 pd 8 Inoom RW A BR YON Oe

ny RoR Pe se Be Be ee Fe Be Se
PNP RRRBE BSS IU ADE BRR S

Job Duties: Plaintiff cut, fit and assembled wood materials for framing. Plaintiff built
scaffolding used by other trades. Plaintiff currently contends he was exposed to asbestos during
this employment. .

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Oscar E. Erickson Inc, Exxon Refinery Carpenter 1972 (Approx. 3
Richmond, CA . Benicia, CA eae

Job Duties: Plaintiff cut, fit and assembled materials for framing, Plaintiff built, moved and
dismantled scaffolding used by various other trades including insulators, pipefitters,
boilermaker electricians anid laborers. Plaintiff disturbed discarded asbestos materials used by
other trades, including white hal£-round insulation, which fell to the ground, creating dust when
he tumed scaffolding boards. Plaintiff used a claw hammer to knock insulation off of pipes.
Plaintiff set up stagging for tradesmen to work on pipes, Plaintiff bagged insulation and gasket
debris and disposed of i€ in a trash bin, Plaintiff recalls building scaffolding used by PLANT
MAINTENANCE (TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.) workers removing and
replacing ashestos-containing gaskets and valves on refinery equipment and machinery.
Plaintiff set up scaffolding used by insulators from PL, INSULATION removing and
replacing pipe insulation. Plaintiff recalls the following co-workers: Steve Pelz, c/o

Brayton ell, LLP; George Ingles, c/o Brayton*Purcell, LLP; Roland Bjork, Concord,
California; Howard Gentry, deceased; Les Moore, Clearlake Park, California; Mr. Strout,
address currently unknown. Plaintiff currently contends that he was exposed to asbestos during
this employment. .

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Foley-PMI Inc. Shell Oil Carpenter 1972
Chantilly VA : Martinez, CA (2-3 months)

Job Duties: Plaintiff recalls the following trades: laborers, electricians, pipefitters, steamfitters,
and operating engineers. Plaintiff set up scaffolding and stagging for pipefitters, insulators and
boilermakers. Plaintiff used boards for building the scaffolding, and removed the scaffolding
when repairs were complete. Plaintiff recalls that when he removed the scaffolding, he
disturbed discarded asbestos-containing insulation that the other trades left on the boards.
Plaintiff used a claw hammer to remove white pipe insulation. Plaintiff currently contends he
was exposed to asbestos duting this employment. -

Location of ‘ Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
RL Chaides Construction Co, Various Residential Drywall 1972 (1 day)
Ine. Loeations throughout Carpenter
Fremont, CA Contra Costa County, CA.

Job Duties: Plaintiff created forms for the installation of concrete. . Plaintiffrecalls the
following coworker: Steve Pelz c/o Braytone*Purcell, LLP. Plaintiff currently contends he was
exposed to asbestos during this employment.

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
KB Home North Bay Inc. Various Locations Drywall 1972 (1 day)
Los Angeles, CA throughout the San. Carpenter

Atnjures SEL AAD nope wp 6 tes1 Francisco North Bay
San Francisco, CA

Job Duties: Plaintiff was paid for show-up time only. Plaintiff is currently unaware of whether
31} he was exposed to asbestos during this employment.

4 Location of . Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
California Delta Homes Inc. Various Locations Drywall 1972

61 Byron, CA throughout Carpenter

Contra Costa County, CA

Job Duties: Plaintiff set up framing for new construction of single-family homes. Plaintiff
packed wood for ing, and loaded sheetrock in the plots. Plaintiff assisted drywallers
moving KAISER GYPSUM ‘Null-A-Fire’ 5/8 inch Fire-rated X drywall boards, Plaintiff
9] recalls debris from the application and sanding of asbestos containing ant
“GYPSUM” joint and topping compounds often fell onto the scaffol ing and was disturbed

104) when he took it apart, Plaintiff currently contends he was exposed to asbestos during this
YW employment,
Location of Exposure
12}, Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
13 || George E. Congdon III Various apartment Carpenter 1972-1973
Construction Co. Inc. complexes near 1-680,
14] Los Altos, CA Pleasant Hill, CA

15|| Job Duties. Plaintiff moved lumber and sheetrock. Plaintiff assisted in wall alignment. .
Plaintiff worked in proximity to drywallers, Plaintiff swept up debris from the application and
16 || sanding of asbestos-containing drywall board and joint and topping compounds, including
HAMILTON Red Dot joint compound. Plaintiff currently contends he was exposed to asbesto.
17} during this employment. .

18 Location of Exposure

19 Employer Exposure. Job Title Dates
SBI Inc. . Various residential Drywall 1973

20 |} San Jose, CA locations throughout the Carpenter

at San Jose Area, CA

Job Duties: Plaintiff set up scaffolding and framing for new construction. Plaintiff moved and
22|| dismantled scaffolding used by drywallers. Plaintiff recalls debris from the application and
sanding of asbestos-containing drywall board and joint and topping compounds often fell onto
2311 the scaffolding and was disturbed when he took it apart. Plaintiff currently contends he was
exposed to asbestos during this employment.

24
Location of . Exposure
25 Employer Exposure Job Tite Dates
26 || United States Army Reserves Angel Island Immigration Reservist 1973
tation
27 San Francisco, CA.

28]| Job Duties: Plaintiff removed piling left from the demolition of old buildings on the island.
Plaintiff currently contends he was exposed to asbestos during this employment.

HegyeesOS81SAAS-oopsec. pd 7 . Is ice NW AR eR YH

ne BN ee Se eB ee ee Se
PRBRRBS SRR GEER ES

23

bo
ea 1 w

‘Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Kenneth Rose Unknown, Unknown 1973
Napa, CA .

Job Duties: Plaintiff currently does not recall the specifics of this employment. Plaintiff is
currently unaware if he was exposed to asbestos during this employment.

Location of ‘ Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title . Dates
Christensen Contracting Co. Various Residential Drywall 1973-1974
Santa Rosa, CA * locations throughout the Carpenter

San Francisco, North Bay
Job Duties: Plaintiff worked on new construction. Plaintiff set up scaffolding and ing for

new construction, Plaintiff moved and dismantled scaffolding used by drywallers, Plainti
carried asbestos-containing drywall boards to drywallers. Plaintiff recalls debris from the
application and sanding of asbestos-containing drywall board and joint and Lopping compounds
often fell Gnto the scaffolding and was disturbed when he took it apart. Plainttif currently
contends he was.exposed to asbestos during this employment.

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure = IobTitle :
Howell & Lee Inc, Unknown, Carpenter 1973 (Approx.)

‘Napa, CA

Job Duties. Plaintiff stacked lumber and assisted in framing. Plaintiff recalls the following
trades: electricians, plumbers, and sheet metal workers. Plaintiffis currently unaware if he was
exposed to asbestos during this employment.

Location of Exposure
impo Exposure Job Title Dates
Rahlves Organization ‘Unknown Carpenter 1973 (1 week)

Benicia, CA

Job Duties: Plaintiff worked on the new constriction of single-family homes. Plaintiff worked
in close proximity to drywallers hanging drywall and applying joint compound. Plaintiff
currently contends if he was exposed to asbestos during this employment. .

Location of Exposure
 Emplover Exposure. Job Title Dates
DL Nelson Cor Unknown Carpenter 1973 (1 day’
Oakland, CA )

Job Duties: Plaintiff set'up scaffolding used by millwrights. Plaintiff recalls that millwrights
made repairs to pumps, Plaintiff assisted millwrights replacing asbestos: containing gaskes,
including installing PLEXTTALLIC gaskets, on these pumps, changing the seals and leveling

the pumps. Plaintiff currently contends he was exposed to asbestos during this employment.

Location of : Exposure

Ania IOSAA SpA upo:d wp 8g bswe WV Aw YN

ee ae
arin wea 8 N we Oo

Wy

Employer Exposure Job Title Dates

Biltwell Development Co. A Various Residential Carpenter 1973 (1 week)
Corp locations throughout the
San Francisco, CA San Francisco Bay Area,

Job Duties: Plaintiff worked on new construction of an apartment complex. Plaintiff cut, fit
and assembled wood materials for framing. Plaintiff built scaffolding used by other trades,
Plaintiff moved and dismantled scaffolding used by various other trades including drywallers,
plumbers and insulators. Plaintiff disturbed discarded asbestos materials used by other trades,
which fell to the ground, creating dust, Plaintiff worked adjacent to deywallers mnixing,
applying, sanding GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION joint compounds. Plaintiff currently
contends he was exposed to asbestos during this employment.

Location of Exposure
Emplover Exposure Job Title Dates
Floyd Raynor Const, Inc. Various Residential and Carpenter 1973-1974
San Jose, CA Commercial locations

throughout the San

Francisco Bay Area, CA

Job Duties: Plaintiff cut, fit and assembled wood materials for framing. Plaintiff built
scaffolding used by other trades, Plaintiff moved and dismantled scaffolding used by various
other trades including drywallers, plasterers, electricians and insulators. Plaintiff disturbed
discarded asbestos materials used by other trades, which fell to the ground, creating dust.
Plaintiff currently contends he was exposed to asbestos during this employment.

Location of oe Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Tide Dates
Dillingham Corporation. Shell Oil Carpenter 1974 (1-2 weeks);
‘Walnut Creek, CA Martinez, CA 1978

Job Duties: Plaintiff recalls working on shutdowns. Plaintiff recalls the following trades:
steamfitters, boilermakers, insulators, maintenance workers, and operating engineers. Plaintiff
removed asbestos-containing pipe and block insulation to set up scaffolding snugly against
equipment requiring maintenance. Plaintiff worked directly adjacent to steamfitters removing
and replacing asbestos-containing pipe insulation on steamlines, replacing, cutting and
installing asbestos-containing gaskets, including VICTOR (DANA COMPANIES, LLC
DANA CORPORATION)) gaskets. Plaintiff removed anc dismantled scaffolding containing

iscarded asbestos-containing debris after other trades finished their work. Plaintiff currently
contends he was exposed to asbestos during this employment.

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Maipass Construction Co. Various Commercial Carpenter 1974
Inc. buildings throughout the (3-4 months)
Pleasant Hill, CA San Francisco Bay Area,

Job Duties: Plaintiff set up scaffolding for roofers and electricians, Plaintiff performed
framing, Plumbing line work, finishing, and roofing work. Plaintiff handled and moved
sheetrock, Plaintiff worked in close proximity to arywallers hanging drywall, taping, and

Ayre MOSES Alsop wp 9 Itsoe YAH RYH

Bos

a

applying and sanding joint compound, Plaintiff recalls electricians employed by ROSENDIN
CTRIC. Plaintiff currently contends he was exposed to asbestos during this employment,

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title * Dates
Syar Industries Inc. Unknown Locations Carpenter 1974
apa, CA Petaluma and Healdsburg, (2-3 months)

Job Duties: Plaintiff recalls working in a rock quay hauling asphalt. Plaintiff performed
maintenance on a 530 CASE backhoe loader. aintiff is curren ty unaware if hé was exposed
to asbestos during this employment.

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure, Job Title Dates
Hess Concrete Construction Various homes throughout Carpenter 1974 (2 months)
Ca, Ine. Contra Costa County and
American Canyon, CA Solano County, CA,

Job Duties: Plaintiff set up forms and poured conerete for curbs and gutter. Plaintiff recalls the
following trade: Plumbers. Plaintiff is currently unaware if he was exposed to asbestos during
this employment. .

. Location of . Exposure
Employer Exposure - Job Title Dates
Bechtel Inc. Phillips Petroleum Carpenter 1975-1976
San Francisco, CA. Company

Avon, CA

Job Duties: Plaintiff worked on the demolition and new construction of the coker unit after the
unit had burt down. Plaintiff recalls the following trades: pipofitte