Party Discovery: CHARLES HUSBAND VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Oo oe BDA RR

William M. Hake, Esq. (State Bar No. 110956)
Melissa R. Badgett, Esq. (State Bar No. 246238)

Fernando C. Saldivar, Esq. (State Bar No. 241035) ELECTRONICALLY
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP FILED
444 South Flower Street, Suite 1550 Super ni
. perior Court of California,
bos Anes cA ; ar County of San Francisco
el: “T3H
Fax: (213) 622-7313 AUG 06 2010

Clerk of the Court

Attorneys for Defendant BY: CHRISTLE ARRIOLA

TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC. Deputy Clerk
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CHARLES HUSBAND, Case No.: CGC-09-275098
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF FERNANDO C.
SALDIVAR IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
v. COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO
TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC,’S
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P), SPECIALLY PREPARED
INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF, SET
Defendants. ONE
Dept: 220
Date: September 2, 2010
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Judge: Harold E, Kahn
DECLARATION OF FERNANDO C. SALDIVAR
I, Femando C. Saldivar, declare as follows:
lL lam an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all of the courts in the

State of California. | am associated with the law firm of Cooley Manion Jones Hake Kurowski
LLP, counsel of record for Defendant Temporary Plant Cleaners, Inc. (hereinafter “TPC”) in
this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in the Declaration and, if-called as a
witness, could and would testify competently to such facts under oath.

2. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing the operative-Complaint on March 2, 2009.
TPC was served on March 24, 2009. Trial is currently set for October 4, 2010.

3. Plaintiff served responses to General Order 129 Standard Interrogatories, Set One

DEPENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC'S MOTION TO COMPLE! PLAINTIFP TO PROVIDE
ANSWERS TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES20

on April 3, 2009. Responses to General Order Standard Interrogatories, Set Two-were served
on January 4, 2010. : :

4. Inan aitempt to further determine the scope of Plaintift s claims against it, as
well_as evidence i in support thereof, TPC served an initial round of client-specific written
discovery on March 31, 2010. Included in that discovery were TPC’s Specially Prepared
interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One. Attached as Exhibit “Ais a true and correct copy of TPC’s
Specially Prepared Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One. / :

5. TPC. served a total of 52 specially prepared interrogatories. Accompanying its
request was the Declaration of Beau Lafayette Epperly for Additional Discovery. _

6. > On May 12, 2010, Plaintiff served unverified responses to TPC’s Specially
Prepared interrogatories, Set One. Attached as Exhibit “B” is a true and correct copy of
Plaintil’s unverified responses to TPC’s Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set One.

7. On May 20, 2010, Plaintiff served a signed verification for-his responses to
TPC’s Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set One. Attached as E hibiL “COC is.a true. and
correct copy of Plaintiff's verification to his responses to TPC’s Specially Prepared
Interrogatories, Set One. /

“8. “Although Plaintiff provided individual objections and responses for
Interrogatories Nos. J through 35, he merely provided a blanket “Response to Interrogatory
Nos. 36-52” objecting to the Declaration of Beau Lafayette Epperly for Additional Discovery
and refusing to provide any responses to interrogatories in excess of 35,

9, On July 6, 2010, TPC sent a meet and confer letter to Plainatt requesting
responses, without objection, to Interrogatories Nos. 36 through 52., Attached as Exhibit “Dis
a true and correct copy-of TPC’s meet and confer letter to Plaintiff.

10.-> Thereafter, on July 8, 2010, Plaintiff sent correspondence i in response to TPC’s

meet and confer effort, maintaining the position that they would. not answer of any of TPC’s

specially prepared interrogatories in excess of 35, Attached as Exhibit “E” is a true and correct
copy of Plaintiff's correspondence to r PC,

1k. In an additional attempt to resolve this mater amicably, isent-an. additional meet —

ANSWERS TO. SPECIAL LY PRE {PARED INTERROGAT ‘ORIESOC co aw DAH

and confer correspondence to Plaintiff on July 14, 2010, reiterating TPC’s demand for responses
to the seventeen unanswered interrogatories. Attached as Exhibit “F’’is a true and correct copy
of TPC’s meet and confer correspondence.

2. ‘To date, there has been no response to TPC's latest meet and confer effort.

3. Specifically, TPC requests the Court to compel Plaintiff to provide verified
responses, without objection, to Interrogatory Nos. 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,
48, 49, 50, 51 and 52.

4. TE TPC is deprived of obtaining these responses from Plaintiff, TPC will be
unfairly prejudiced in defending itself at trial.

ixecuted this 5" day of August, 2010, at Los Angeles, California.

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

foregoing is true and correct.

Fernando C. Saldivar

3

ANSWERS TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIESEXHIBIT Awe

FRANK DB. POND (BAR NO, 126191)

GAYVIN D. WHITIS.CBAR NO. 184133

BEAU LAFAYETT ERLY (BAR NO. 242571)
POND NORTH LLP

350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3300

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Telephone: (213) 617-6170

Facsimile: (213) 623-3594

Attorneys for Defendant
TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC,

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

CHARLES HUSBAND, | Case No: CGC-09-275098
}
Plaintitf, DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT
CLEANERS, INC.’S SPECIALLY-PREPARED
v8. INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF, SET
ONE
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P),

Defendants, vase Filed: March 2, 2009
rial Date: = October 4, 2010
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff CHARLES HUSBAND
SET NUMBER: ONE

Pursuant to section 2030.016, et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant
TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC. requests that Plaintiff CHARLES HUSBAND
answer fully, in writing and under oath, within thirty days of service, the following Specially
Prepared Interrogatoriés.

DEFINITIONS
As used herein, “YOU” and “YOUR” mean and refer to plaintiff CHARLES HUSBAND

and. your agents, employees, attorneys, investigators and anyone else acting on your behalf,As used herein, “PPC” means and refers to Defendant TEMPORARY PLANT
CLEANERS, INC. formerly known as PLANT MAINTENANCE,, INC, OF CALIFORNIA.

As used herein, IDENTIFY THE SITES OF EXPOSURE” means to state the date(s)
when YOU contend exposuie attributable to TPC occurred, cach LOCATION where YOU

contend the exposure occurred, and the name of YOUR employer at each such LOCATION.

=

s used herein, “LOCATION” means the business name, street number, street name,
apartment or suite number, city, state, zip code and telephone number. If the LOCATION
identified is a ship, the definition means the ship name, hull number and the LOCATION of the
shipyard, dock, berth or other area where the ship or vessel was present at the time of YOUR

alleged exposure by TPC. Ifthe LOCATION identified is an oil refinery or other industrial

facility, the definition means the name of the premises owner, the name of the oil refiner or

business owner, and the city, state, zip code and telephone number of the facility.

As used herein, “IDENTIFY EACH PRODUCT” means for each asbestos-containing
product, slate the type of product, brand name, manufacturer and supplier of the product, and
deseribe it and its function and physical appearance.

As used herein, “STATE ALL FACTS” means to state each fact that supports your
contention that you were exposed to asbestos by TPC, including but not lintited to: identify the
actor omission of TPC that caused YOU to be exposed to asbestos; the person(s) involved in the
act or omission; the date(s) of the act or omission; the LOCATION(s) at which you were
exposed: and the date(s) of exposure: describe the manner in which TPC caused YOU to be
exposed to asbestos; the nature of the work being performed by TPC; YOUR distance from any
work being performed ‘by TPC that. YOU contend involved the installation, removal, use or
disturbance of asbestos-containing products; the events or circumstances that took place at each
LOCATION that caused the alleged exposure; state the type, brand name and physical
description of the ashestas-containing product(s) to which YOU were exposed; the type of
asbestos fiber to which YOU were exposed; the quantity of fiber te which YOU were exposed:
the duration of each exposure; the intensity of each exposure; and the frequency of each

exposiire,

2
PORARY P.
SPECIALLY-PREPARED INTERROGATORIES TO PLAD

oP ONEhw

wa

6

As used herein, “IDENTIFY EACH PERSON® means to state the person’s name, last
known address, telephone number, and FORMER TESTIMONY.

As used herein, "FORMER TESTIMONY” means iestimony-given under cath in another
action or in a former hearing or'trial of the same action, or a deposition taken in compliance with
law in another action, and includes the name of the other action(s), the date(s) testimony was
given and the identity of the court reporter present to record said testimony (including the name
of the court reporter’s employer).

As used herein, “IDENTIFY EACH DOCUMENT” means to state the DOCUMENT’s
tile (if'any), date, originator or author, sender, recipient(s}, and a general deseription of the
content ofthe DOCUMENT.

As used herein, “DOCUMENT” means a writing, as defined in Evidence Code section
254, including the originals and all non-identical duplicates, whether different from the originals
by reason of any notation made on such copies or otherwise, and includes, without limitation,
correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, statistics, letters, telegrams, telex, telefax, minutes,
contracts, reports, studies, statements, summaries, interoffice and intra-cffice communications,
notations of any sort of conversations, telephone cails, meetings or other communications,
computer printouts, tape recordings, audiotapes, videotapes, charts, graphs, mechanical or
electronic records, compact discs, computer discs, computer tapes, computer soflware,
electronically stored media, and any other form of stored information.

As used herein, “IDENTIFY EACH BASIS” means IDENTIFY EACH PERSON or
entity other than TPC that YOU contend caused YOU to be exposed to asbestos; IDENTIFY

LACH PRODUCT to which YOU were exposed by such persons or entities; identify each

LOCATION where YOU were exposed by such persons or entities; state the date of each alleged
exposure; and describe the manner in which such persons or entities caused YOU to be exposed
to asbestos.
As used herein, “TRANSACTION™ means any form of contractual agreement between
YOU and TPC.
Hf

3As used herein, “IDENTIFY THE TRANSACTION” means siate the date of each
TRANSACTION, IDENTIFY EACH PERSON who entered into each TRANSACTION, state
the LOCATION where the TRANSACTION occurred, state the purpose of the
TRANSACTION, identify any consideration exchanged between the parties for each
TRANSACTION and describe the terms of the TRANSACTION.

As used herein, “DESCRIBE THE CERTIFICATIONS” means state the name and
business address of the issuing body, the date the certification was originally issued. and the name
of the certification. ,

As used in herein, “CERTIFICATIONS” means and refers to professional certifications
or Hcenses, trade certifications or licenses, or other designations of skill, education, experience,
training, or qualification offered by any school, municipality, state, trade association,
professional association, organization, or society, including but not limited to the State-of
California or any union or organization related to YOUR work.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Vor each instance in which YOU contend YOU were exposed to asbestos through any act
or omission of TPC, IDENTIFY THE SITES OF EXPOSURE.

(As used herein, “YOU* and “YOUR” mean and refer to Plaintiff CHARLES
HUSBAND; “PPC” means and refers to Defendant TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.
formerly known as PLANT MAINTENANCE, INC. OF CALIFORNIA: “IDENTIFY THE

SITES OF EXPOSURE” means state the date(s) when YOU contend exposure attributable to

TPC occurred, each LOCATION where YOU contend the exposure occurred, and the name of

YOUR employer at that LOCATION; and “LOCATION” means the street number, street name,
apartment or suite number, city, state, zip code and telephone number. If the LOCATION
identified is a ship, the definition means the ship name, hull number and the LOCATION of the
shipyard, dock, berth or other area where the ship or vessel was present at the time of YOUR
alleged exposure by TPC.3

Al

4

(DANT TEMPORARY PLA LE s
SPECIALLY-PREPARED INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF,

|as

sae

INTERROGA TORY NO, 2

For each instance in which YOU contend YOU were exposed to asbestos through any act
or omission of TPC, IDENTIFY EACH PRODUCT to which YOU contend TPC caused YOU to
be exposed.

(As used herein, “IDENTIFY EACH PRODUCT means for each asbestos-containing
product, state the type of product, brand name, manufacturer and/or supplier of the product, and
describe it end its fmetion and physical appearance.)

INTERROGATORY NO, 3:

For each instance in which YOU contend YOU were exposed to asbestos through any act
or omission of TPC, STATE ALL FACTS which support YOUR contention.

(As used herein, “STATE ALL FACTS” means ideatify the act or emission of TPC that
caused YOU to be exposed to-asbestos, the person(s) making the act or omission, the date(s) of
the act or omission, the LOCATION(s) at which you were exposed, and the date(s) of exposure:

Gescribe the manner in which TPC caused YOU to be exposed to asbestos, the nature of the work

being performed by TPC, YOUR distance from. any work being performed by TPC that YOU
contend involved the installation, removal, use or disturbance of asbestos-containing products,
and the events or circumstances that took place at cach LOCATION that caused the alleged
exposure; and state the type, brand name and physical description of the asbestos-containing
product(s) to which YQU were exposed, the type of asbestos fiber to which YOU were exposed,
the quantityof fiber to which YOU were exposed, the duration of each exposure, the intensity of
each exposure, and the frequency of each exposure.) /

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

For each instance in which YOU contend YOU were exposed to asbestos through any act
or omission of TPC, IDENTIFY EACH PERSON who has knowledge which supports YOUR
contention,

{As used herein, “IDENTIFY EACH PERSON” means to state the person’s name, last
known address, and telephone number.) |

Ufwa

OO

INTERROGATORY NO, 5;

Bor each instance in which YOU contend YOU were exposed to asbestos through any act
or omission of TPC, IDENTIFY EACH PERSON who witnessed TPC exposing YOU to
asbestos.

INTERROGATORY NO, 6:

For each instance in which YOU contend YOU were-exposed to asbestos through any act
or omission of TPC, IDENTIFY EACH DOCUMENT which supports YOUR contention.

(As used herein, “IDENTIFY EACH DOCUMENT™ means to state the DOCUMENT’s
title (ifany), date, originator or author, sender, recipient(s), and a general description of the
content of the DOCUMENT: and “DOCUMENT™ means a writing, as defined in Evidence Code
section 250. inciuding the originals and all non-identical duplicates, whether different from the
originals by reason of any notation made on such copies or otherwise, and inclines, without
Hmitation, correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, statistics, letters, telegrams, telex, telefax,
minutes, contracts, reports, studies, statements, summaries, interoffice and intra-office
communications, notations of any sort of conversations, telephone calls, meetings or other
communications, computer printouts, tape recordings, audiotapes, videotapes, charts, graphs, and
electronic, mechanical or electronic records, compact discs, computer discs, computer tapes,
computer software, electronically stored media, and any other form of stored information.)

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

For each instance in which YOU contend YOU were exposed to asbestos fiber from any
product manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed, and/or otherwise put into the stream of
commerce by TPC, IDENTIFY THE SITES OF EXPOSURE.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

For each instance in which YOU contend YOU were exposed to asbestos fiber from any

product manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed, and/or otherwise put into the stream of

commerce by TPC, IDENTIFY EACH PRODUCT.
if
iif

LEANERS, INC.
SPECIALLY-PREPARED INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFR, SET ONEbo

we

2

INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

For each instance in which YOU contend YOU were exposed to asbestos fiber from any
product manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed, and/or otherwise put into the stream of
commerce by TPC, STATE ALL FACTS upon which YOU base each contention.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

For each instance in which YOU contend YOU were exposed to asbestos fiber from any

product manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed, and/or otherwise put inte the stream of

commerce by TPC, IDENTIFY EACH PERSON known to YOU who has knowledge of the facts

upon which YOU base such contention.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

For each instance in which YOU contend YOU were exposed to asbestos fiber from any
product manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed, and/or otherwise put into the stream of

commerce by TPC, IDENTIFY EACH DOCUMENT which supports YOUR contention.

| INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

IDENTIFY EACH BASIS supporting YOUR contention that YOU were exposed to
asbestos fiber from products or activities for which entities other than ‘TPC are responsible.

(As used herein, “IDENTIPY EACH BASIS” means IDENTIFY EACH PERSON or
entity other that ‘TPC that YOU contend caused YOU to be exposed to asbestos, IDENTIFY
EACH PRODUCT to which YOU were exposed by such persons or entities, identify each

LOCATION where YOU were exposed by such persons or entities; state the date of each alleged

| . + : os
exposure; and describe the manner in which such persons or entities caused YOU to be exposed

to asbestos.)

INPERROGATORY NO. 13:

IDENTIFY EACH PERSON known to YOU who has knowledge of the facts that YOU
were exposed to asbestos fiber from products or activities for which entities other than TPC are

responsible

JANERS, ING,'S
SPECIALLY-PREPARED INTERROGA’ TORIES TO PLAINTIFF,

EY ONENa

ua

INTERROGATORY NO, 14:

IDENTIFY BACH DOCUMENT supporting YOUR. contention that YOU were exposed
to asbestos Hber from products or activities for which entities other than TPC are responsible.

INTERROGATORY NO, 15:

De YOU contend that YOU entered into any TRANSACTION with TPC?

(As used herein, “TRANSACTION” means any form of contractual agreement between
YOU and TPC.)

INTERROGATORY NO, 16:

HE YOU contend that YOU entered into any TRANSACTION with TPC, IDENTIFY
THE TRANSACTION.

{As-used herein, “IDENTIFY THE TRANSACTION” means state-the date of each
transaction, identify each person who entered into each transaction, state the location and state
where the transaction occurred, state the purpose of the transaction, identify any consideration
exchanged between the parties for each TRANSACTION and describe the terms of the
TRANSACTION.

INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
YOU contend that YOU entered into any TRANSACTION with TPC, IDENTIFY

EACH PERSON YOU contend. has knowledge of the TRANSACTION.
INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

Lf YOU contend that YOU entered into any TRANSACTION with TPC, IDENTIFY
BACH DOCUMENT which relates to or evidences the TRANSACTION.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19:

Please DESCRIBE THE CERTIFICATIONS held by YOU at any time.

(As used herein, “DESCRIBE THE CERTIFICATIONS” means state the name and
business.address of the issuing body, the date the certification was originally issued and the name
of the certification; and “CERTIFICATIONS” means and refers to professional certifications or
licenses, trade certifications or licenses, or ather designations of skill, education, experience,
training, or qualification offered by any school, municipality, state, trade association,

8

DANT TEMPORARY PLANTprofessional association, organization, or socicty, including but not limited to the State of
California or any union or organization related to YOUR work.)

INTERROGATORY NO, 20:

STATE ALL FACTS which support YOUR contention that TPC was negligent in this

INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

IDENTIFY EACH PERSON who has knowledge of the facts which support YOUR
contention that TPC was negligent in this case,

INTERROGATORY NO. 22:

STATE ALL FACTS which support YOUR contention that TPC is strictly liable in this
case.
INTERROGATORY NO, 23:

IDENTIPY EACH PERSON who has knowledge of the facts which support YOUR
contention that TPC is strictly liable in this case.
INTERROGATORY NO, 24:

STATE ALL FACTS which support YOUR contention that TPC is liable for faise
representation in this case.

INTERROGATORY NO. 25:

IDENTIFY EACH PERSON who has knowledge of the facts which support YOUR,
contention that TPC is liable for false representation in this case.

INTERROGATORY NO, 26:

STATE ALL FACTS which support YOUR contention that TPC is liable as a premises
owner or contractor in this case,

INTERROGATORY NO, 27:

IDENTIFY EACH PERSON who has knowledge of the facts which support YOUR
contention that TPC is liable as a premises owner or contractor in this case,
if
lif

NERS, IN
SPECIALLY-PREPARED INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF,ne

wn

aD

INTERROGATORY NO. 28:

If YOU contend that TPC is liable for YOUR alleged exposure to respirable asbestos
fibers under any other basis not set forth in these interrogatories, STATE ALL FACTS which
support such contention.

INTERROGATORY NO, 29:

Tf YOU contend that ‘TPO is liable for YOUR alleged exposure ta respirable asbestos
fibers under any other basis not set forth in these interrogatories, IYENTIFY EACH PERSON
who has knowledge of the facts apon which YOU base such contention.

INTERROGATORY NO. 30:

IDENTIFY EACH DOCUMENT supporting YOUR claims against TPC, as alleged in
YOUR complaint.
INTERROGATORY NO, 31:

Have YOU or anyone on YOUR behalf made a claim to any asbestos personal injury
bankruptcy trust for any alleged asbestos-related disease, illness.and/or injury?

INTERROGATORY NO, 32: /

LP YOU and/or anyone on YOUR behalf made.a claim to any asbestos personal injury
bankruptcy trust for any alleged asbestos-related disease, illness and/or injury, please identify
such trust.

INTERROGATORY NO. 33:

IP YOU or anyone on YOUR behalf made a claim to any asbestos personal injury
bankruptcy trust for any alleged asbestos-related disease, iilness and/or injury, and counsel was
retained regarding that claim, please state the attorney, firm name, address and telephone
mumber,

INTERROGATORY NO. 34:

Are YOU enrolled in Medicare or Medi-Cal?
INTERROGATORY NO. 35: |

if YOU are enrolled in Medicare or Medi-Cal, please state YOUR date of enrollment and
enrollment number.

10

PORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INCS
SPECIALLY-PREPARED INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF, SET ONEINTERROGATORY NO. 36:

De YOU receive Social Security Disability Insurance benefits?

INTERROGATORY NO. 37:

As to each site of exposure where YOU contend that YOU were exposed to asbestos
through amy act or omission of TPC, IDENTIFY THE PERSON OR ENTITY who DIRECTED
the work of TPC. (As used herein, “IDENTIFY THE PERSON OR ENTITY” means state the
name, business address, home address if an individual and telephone number.) As used herein,
“DIRECTED” means instructing an individual on how to perform his job duties.

INTERROGATORY NO. 38:

Asto each site of exposure where YOU contend that YOU were exposed to asbestos
through any act or omission of TPC, IDENTIFY THE PERSON OR ENTITY who
CONTROLLED the work of TPC. (As used herein, “CONTROLLED” means instructing an
individual on where to work and what job duties to perform and/or providing tools and materials
for the purpose of carrying out his job duties.)

INTERROGATORY NO, 39:

As to cach site of exposure where YOU contend that YOU were exposed to asbestos
through any actor omission of TPC, IDENTIFY THE PERSON OR ENTITY who
SUPERVISED the work of TPC. “As used herein, “SUPERVISED” means directly supervising,
an individual while he performed his job duties.

INTERROGATORY NO, 46:

Por each instance in which YOU contend that TPC DIRECTED, CONTROLLED or
SUPERVISED any of its employees, STATE ALL FACTS, to support YOUR contention,
INTERROGATORY NO, 41:

For each instance YOU contend that TPC DIRECTED, CONTROLLED OR
SUPERVISED the work of any of its employees, IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS, to support

YOUR contention.
wu
Wt

|, SET ONEek

us

INTERROGATORY NO. 42:
For each instance YOU contend that TPC DIRECTED, CONTROLLED OR

SUPERVISED the work of any of its employees, WITNESSES with knowledge to support
YOUR contention, :
INTERROGATORY NO. 43:

if YOU.contend YOU suffered any past or future loss of income dus to VOUR asbestos-
related illness, disease and/or injury, please [DENTIFY ALL SOURCES of INCOME YOU
received in the live years prior to YOUR asbestos-related illness, disease and/or injury.

(For the purposes of these interrogatories, the phrase “IDENTIFY ALL SOURCES”
means:state the date(s}.on which income was received, the amount and source of INCOME. As
used herein, INCOME includes all sources of income or earnings, including but not limited to
salary, wages, tips, profits derived from rents, profits derived from the operation of a business,
unemployment benefits, workers compensation benefits, disability benefits, pension, investment
income and/or other sources of income.)

INTERROGATORY NO, 44:

If YOU attribute any past or future loss: of INCOME to YOUR asbestos-related illness,
disease and/or injury, please IDENTIFY THE INCOME.

(for the purpose of these interrogatories, “IDENTIFY THE INCOME” means state the
source of the INCOME, the date(s) for which INCOME was or will be lost, the total amount of
INCOME lost, and describe how YOU calculated the amount of loss.)

INTERROGATORY NO. 48:

Hf YOU contend YOU suffered any past or future loss of INCOME due to YOUR
asbestos-related illness, disease and/or injury, please IDENTIFY EACH PERSON who has
knowledge of facts supporting YOUR contention.

INTERROGATORY NO. 46:

YOU contend YOU suffered any past or fitture loss of INCOME due to YOUR
asbestos-related illness, disease and/or injury, please IDENTIFY EACH DOCUMENT which

supporis YOUR contention.

APORARY PLANT C
SPECIALLY-PREPARED INTERROGATORIE:

NERS, TN
PO PLAINTIFE, SET ONEINTERROGATORY NO. 47:

If YOU attribute any EXPENSES to YOUR asbestos-related illness, disease and/or
injury, please IDENTIFY THE EXPENSES,

(For the purposes of these interrogatories, “EXPENSES” means any costs. or expenditures
payable to others which YOU and/or and anyone on YOUR. behalf, incurred or paid, which YOU
contend are recoverable as damages in the present suit, including but not limited to: funeral
and/or burial expenses; medical expenses (doctor's and other professicnal medical services costs,
hospital costs, medication costs, medical equipment costs, ambulance or medical transportation
costs, laboratory fees and/or any other costs arising from. or attributable io medical care); travel
expenses; costs for care, upkeep or repair to any physical property (such as an automobile,
residence, farm or business); but excluding any loss of INCOME identified in response to
Special Interrogatory 19, ef seg. As used herein “IDENTIFY THE EXPENSES” means state the

daie each EXPENSE was incurred, the amount of each EXPENSE, to whom each EXPENSE

was paid or is owed, what each EXPENSE was for and describe the reason each EXPENSE was

|| incurred.)

INTERROGATORY NO. 48:

if YOU attribute any EXPENSES to YOUR asbestos-related illness, disease and/or
injury, please IDENTIFY BACH PERSON who has knowledge of those EXPENSES.
INTERROGATORY NO, 49;

Hf YOU attribute any EXPENSES to YOUR asbestos-related illness, disease and/or
injury, please IDENTIFY EACH DOCUMENT which relates to or evidences those EXPENSES.
INTERROGATORY NO. 36:

State the date YOU first became aware that you suffered from an asbestos-related iHness,
| disease and/or injury.

INTERROGATORY NO, 51:

Do you contend that YOU are disabled from an asbestos-related illness, disease and/or
injury?

“ifto

tn

SOD

INTERROGATORY NO, 52:

if you contend that YOU are disabled from an asbestos-related illness, disease and/or

injury, state the date you became disabled.

DATED: Marcel"), 2010 POND NORTH LLP

By:

RVAUTAPAVETTE
Attorneys for Defendant

TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.

— ~ NP TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS,
SPECIALLY-PREPARED INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTwe

DECLARATION OF BEAU LAFAYETTE EPPERLY FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
1, BEAU LAFAYETTE EPPERLY, declare as follows:

1. Tam an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice in the State of California, and am
an associate with the Law Firm of Pond North LLP, attorneys of record for TEMPORARY
PLANT CLEANERS, INC., a party to this action.

2. Tam propounding to. Plaintif CHARLES HUSBAND the attached Set of

| Specially Prepared Interrogatories.

3. This Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories will cause the total number of
Specially Prepared Interrogatories propounded to the party to whom they are directed to exceed
the number of Specially Prepared interrogatories pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of

section 2030 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

| 4. This Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories contains a total of 52 Specially
Prepared interrogatories.
5. tam familiar with the issues in the previous discovery conducted by all parties in
this action.
6. I have personally examined each of the questions in this Set of Specially Prepared
interrogatories.
7. This number of questions is warranted under paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of

section 2030 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the complexity or the quantity of the
existing and potential issues in this matter merit this Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories.

8. None of the questions in this Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories is being
propounded for any improper purpose, suck as to harass the party, or the attorney for the party, to
whom it is directed, or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

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

foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this day of March 2010, at San Franeiscoy

aliforniay
oe|

PROOF OF SERVICE

I declare that I am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to this action. My
business address is 100 Spear Street, Suite 1200, San Francisca, California 94105.

On March. a 2010, | served the following document(s}: DEFENDANT TEMPORARY
PLANT CLEANERS, INC.’S SPECIALLY-PREPARED INTERROGATORIES TO
PLAINTIFF, SET ONE on the interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct
copy of such document, enclosed in.a sealed envelope, addressed ag follows:

BRAYTON®PURCELL

222 Rush Landing Read

P.O. Box 6169

Novato, California 94949-6169
Ty 415-898-1555

EF 415-898-1247

Lam readily familiar with the business’ practice for collection and processing of
correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. 1 know that the
correspondence was deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day this
declaration was executed in the ordinary course of business. [ know that the envelope
was sealed and, with postage thereon fully prepaid, placed for collection and mailing on
this date in the United States mail at San Francisco, Califomia

Cl By overnight Service: | caused the above-referenced document(s} to be deposited in a
box or other facility regularly maintained by the overnight courier, or I delivered the
above-referenced document(s) to.an overnight courier service, for delivery to the above
addressee(s).

a By E-Services | electronically served the above document(s) via LexisNexis File & Serve
on the recipients designated on. the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File &
Serve website.

cl By Personal Service: I caused to be delivered by courier First Legal Support Services,
such envelope by hand to the offices of the above addressee(s}.

O By Personal Service: I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the
addressee(s),

o By Facsimile Machine: The document was transmitted by facsimile transmission to the

number(s} indicated and was reported as complete and without error.
Executed: March 2, 2010

(State) | declare under penalty of perjury under the | laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct. oy A f
Q L

jetties Pilchard
5% -0218
16

MPORARY PLANT CA ‘ANERS, TNC’S
SPECIALLY-PREPARED INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF, SET ONE,EXHIBIT BBRAYTGNG@PURCELELLE

ATIGRSEYS AT LAW

222 KUSH LANRING ROAD

+ RG, ROX SIGH

NOVATO.CALIRORNIA 94958-6167

ASEESST

oP oN ke & Nom

GR Ss

i4

ALAN BR, BRAYTON, ESQ., 8.B. #73685.
DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., 8.B, #154436
RAMONA EL ATANACIO, ESO,, S.B. #267716
BRA YTON®PURCELL LLP
8
P.O. Box 6169 :
WNovalo, California 94948-6169
(415) 898-1533

Attormeys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

CHARLES HUSBAND, } ASBESTOS

No, CGC-09-275098

Plaintiff,

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO
vs, TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS,

INC’S SPECIALLY PREPARED
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B%P) INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF,

SET ONE

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff CHARLES HUSBAND
SETNO.; ONE)

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Plaintiff objects to the Declaration of Beau Lafayette Epperly offered in support of
defendant TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.'s additional number of Specially
Prepared Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One. The declaration summarily asserts without more
justification that “This number of questions is warranted under paregrap (2) of subdivision (c)
of section 2030 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the complexity or the quantity of the
existing ing and potential issues in this matter merit this Set of Specially Prepared texrogatories.”
(Epperly Declaration $7.) Defense counsel’s declaration is ieally awed in that it fails to state
2 case-specific reason as to. why the complexity or the quantity of the issues in this lawsuit is
applicable to the instant defendant, warranting the 52 Interrogatories. As such, defendant's
interrogatories are unnecessarily Suplicative, unduly burdensome, and harassing. Plaintiff
objecis to each Interrogation, over No. 35 to the extent that this set of Specially Prepared
Interrogatories exceeds the limit under C.C.P, 2033.040 without substantial justification.

RESETS TO INTERROGATORY BO L: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory in that it
seeks information equally or more available to defendant, or information already in defendant's
possession, thus making it unduly burdensome for plaintiff to respond. Subject to. and without
waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff identifies the following site of
exposure:

Aline USE stpideagrepTEMPLA wpe I thsOE te

Wo & BN NM NR ON DQ beh eta tee
BSeeRRSRRERERE BSS TRA REE SOS

‘Location of Exposure
Dates

Employer Exposure Job Title
Albay Construction Co. Sheil 01 Carpenter 1975-1977
Martinez, CA Martinez, CA
Shell Oil 1975 C1 week);
Martinez, CA 1976
Dupont Chemical,
Pittsburg, CA

After a reasonable and good-faith inquiry, plaintiff has no further information
responsive io this Interrogatory at this time. ‘laintiff's investigation and discovery are
continuing. Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to amend this Response pending the outcome
of plaintiff's investigation.

RESPEC a SETOIN EEE ROS SATORY NO. 2: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory in that it
seeks information 24 ually or mor¢ available to defendant, or information already in defendant’s
possession, tus making it unduly burdensome for plaintiff to respond. Subject to and without
waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows: .

. Plaintiff identifies asbestos-containing gasket material and asbestos-containing
discarded insulation. . . . Oo

Plaintiff's expert will testify that in the 1970s or earlier, gaskets and insulation used on
high heat and high pressure industrial piping-and equipment characteristic in oil refineries, more
likely than notecntained asbestos. , .

‘Aller a reasonable and good-faith inquiry, plaintiff has no further information
responsive to this Interrogatory'at this time, Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are
continuing. Plaintiff expreasly reserves the right to amend this Response pending the outcome
of plaintiff's investigation.

possession, thus making it unduly burdensome for plaintiffto respond, Subject to and without
waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows:

At the jobsite described below, plain ‘was exposed to asbestos by wang in close
xcimnity fo trades employed by TEMPORARY PF. MAINTENANCE, INC, (formerly
LANT 3 ING. OF CALIFORNIA) that were handling and disturbing
asbestos-containing products. Plaintiff necessarily inhaled the air with dust that had been
generated by the handling and disturbance of asbestos-containing materials. Defendant failed ta
exercise due/ordinary care in order to avoid injuring plaintiff while. plaintiff worked near
defendant's employees at facilities listed below, Detendant did not isolate work involving
asbestos and estos-gontaining: products. Defendant did not maintain the premises so as to
prevent exposure to asbestos, a hazardous substance, Defendant did not control, reduce-or
eliminate dust or provide adequate ventilation. Defendant did not provide plaintiff with
respiratory safety equipment or educate plaintiff regarding the use of: respiratory safety
equipment, Further, defendant controlled the work site, by coordinating, managing and
overseeing the handling of asbestos and asbestos-containing products to which plaintiff was
exposed. Defendant contracted for the handling of asbestos-containing materials, which caused
asbestos-containing products 10 be present on the below listed premises, Plaintiff consequently
developed an asbestos-related injury. Thus, a8 a proximate result of defendant's breach of
dus/ardinary care, plaintiff sustained injury.

uf

KMnjurodi 0561 Stgldenganp- TEMPLA wp 2 . thsLocation of Exposure
Exposure Dates

| Emplover Job Tite
| Albay Construction Co. Shell OF Carpenter 1975-1977
3) Mastinez, CA Martinez, CA
al Shell Oil 1975 (1 week);
5! Martinez, CA 1976
| Dupont Chemical,
6i Pittsburg, CA.

; At the Shell Oil jobsite in 1976, plaintiff performed maintenance work, He recalls
| laborers, welders, pipefitiers, steamfitters, boilermakers, and electricians working around him.
$s] Plaintiff built the scaffolding so that other trades could access equipment that needed repair
| While building scaffolding, plaintiff disturbed asbestos-containing insulation on pipes. Plaintiff
disassembled Scaffolding, including cleaning up discarded white, le, fibrous insulation and
gaskets. Plaintiff recalls asbestos-containing gaskets, such as Victor gaskets, on the scaffolding.
At this Shell Oil jobsite in 1976, plaintiff saw PLANT MAINTENANCE employees
sweeping pp the asbestos-containing gaskets and insulation material three times, five feet away,
for ten to fificen minutes. They swent the gaskets and insulation under the pipes on the ground.
Plaintiff taiked to PLANT. NANCE employees one time to borrow a tool under his
12) bose? direction to ask them. He identified PLAN’ MAINTENANCE employees by their hard

At the chemical plant in Pittsburg in 1977, plaintiff saw PLANT MAINTENANCE
employees working on-valves at three occasions. The first time, near the entrance of the plant,
14] he ed for three minutes, eight to ten fect away from two to three PLANT} ANCE.
| employees wearing hard hats with the PLANT MAINTENANCE logo. The pipe was externally
insulated. The second time, in the middle of the plant, he walked two times right next to two
PLANT MAINTENANCE employees on scaffolding eight to nine feet high using wrenches to
around the ep of an externally insulated valve. Although he did not see PLANT
MAINTENANCE entployees remove the insulation, he saw them working on the bolts, which
first requires tear out of'asbestos-containing thermal insulation, The third time, laintifl walked
eight to ten feet away for 45 seconds, twice that day, from two PLANT MAI ‘ANCE
employees wearin, ‘d hats with the PLANT MAINTENANCE loge setting up e welder and
| one exnployee with a brown coat with the PLANT MAINTENANCE loge in a white Chevy
true!

Kk.
i Plaintiff's expert will testify that insulation and gaskets used on high heat and high
| pressure industrial piping and equipment characteristic in oil refineries, in the 1979s or earlier,
|| more likely than not contained asbestos. Further, plaintiff's expert will show that sweeping and
 cleanii asbestos-containing gasket material and asbestos-containing discarded insulation
| caused that dust to become airborne. As a direct result of defendant's conduct, plaintiff

224 necessarily breathed in asbestes-containing dust.

Aftera reasonable and good-faith mquiry, plaintiff has no further information
' masive to this Interrogatory at this time, Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are
| continuing, Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to amend this Response pending the outcome
f of plaintiff's investigation.

ETO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds ‘that it seeks the premature disclosure of trial witnesses, other than experts, and is
fore in Violation of the attorney work-product doctrine. City of Long Beach v. Superior
Court (1976) 64 Cal.App, 3d 65. Subject to and without waiving these objections, plaintiff
responds as follows:
Plaintiff identifies himself, CHARLES HUSBAND c/o Brayton*Purcell LLP.
Afier a reasonable and good-faith inquiry, plaintiff has no further information
| responsive to this Interrogetory at this time. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are

Hl xsinjureds10581syiivog-rop TEMPLA, wpe 3Oo 8 NM A A Rw Roe

S

wt

| plaintiff worked. Plaintiff $
[| the asbestos-containing products and materials manufacti sold, supp!

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

INSE T ATORY : Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
pel that it seeks the Premane disclosure. of trial witnesses, other thant experts, and is

efore in violation of the attorney work-product doctrine. Sly of Lone Besch.v. Superior
Court (1976) 64 Cal App. 3d 65, Subject to and without waiving these objections, plaintiff
responds as follows:

Afier a reasonable and good-faith inquiry, plaintiff hag no further information
responsive to this Interrogatory at this time. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are
sontinging. Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to amend this Response pending the outcome
of plaintiff's investigation.

Ni A NO. 6: Plaintiff objects to this Interragatory on the
gro) to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege
and/or the attorney work-product doctrine, Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds
that it seeks the premature disclosure of documents within the possession of plaintiff's retained

consultants, in violation of C.C.P, §2034.210(¢). Subject to and without waiving these
objections, plaintiff responds as follows:

Plaintiff identifies plaintiff’s Social Security records; employment, union, medical
records and billings: previously made available to defendant through coordinating defense
counsel Berry an Bev. . . .

Plaintiff identifies the Complaint served in this matter. Plaintiff identifies the Brayton
Purcell Master Complaint, on file with the San Francisco Superior Court,

: Plaintiff further identifies the transcript and all exhibits attached thereto of the
denosition of plaintiff, taken on February 2, 2010, February 3, 2010, February 4, 2010, and
February 5, 2610, equally available to defendant through court reporters Aiken & Welch, One
Kaiser Plaza, Oakland, California. :

Plaintiff identifies all deposition transcripts and all exhibits attached thereto taken in the
present case, including the deposition of all limits, equally available to defendant through
court reporters Alken & Welch, One Kaiser Oakland, California.

Jaintiff 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,
transcripdans, correspondence, etc.) writings, letters, telegrams, correspondence, notes. of
meetings or of conversations either in writing or upon any mechanical or electronic devices,

| notes, accountants’ statements or sumimaries, reports, invoices, canceled checks, check stubs

ts, benk statements, diaries, desk calendars, appointment books, payment records,

| recel

| telepl bills in defendant's constructive possession, custody, care or control relating to

| asbestos-containing products and materials manufactured, sold, Supplied and/or distributed by
| defendant, and the jobsites at which plaintiff worked. Plaintiff beli

eves defendant is in
ssession of these documents. Plaintiff further identifies all of the agreements and contracts
tween defendant and all general contractors and sub-contractors present at all jobsites where
Sirther identifies ail of the labeling and Packaging tmaterials for all of
ned and/or distributed
by defendant and used at plaintiff's jobsites, Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of

| these documents.

I) xnunjuredidO581 Sgideogvap-TEMPLA.wpd 4 aewD OB WA A mB Yo

Plaintiff further identifies ail defendant PLANT MAINTENANCE documents in the
above cases; all of defendant PLANT MAINTENANCE Responses to General Order 29
Interrogatories, and attached exhibits therein, in the case of. Johns ~.Abex, San Francisco
Superior Court Case No. 916424; Plaintiff believes defendant to be in possession of these

locuments. : >
__ Plaintiff identifies any and all contracts between PLANT MAINTENANCE INC. and
the jebsites identified above. Plaintiff identifies any and al] contracts identified by defendant in
its Second Amended Supplemental Answer to General Order 129 Standard Interrogatories,

Plaintiff further identifies PLANT MAINTENANCE INC. OF CALIFO! ’s Second
Amended Supplemental Answer to General Order 129 Standard interrogatories, dated July 24,
1998, as well as PLANT MAINTENANCE INC. OF CALIFORNIA’s lous Responses to
General Order 129 Intecrogatories. Plaintiff believes defendant TEMPORARY P!
CLEANERS, INC. to be in possession of these documents. -

Plaintiff further identifies the Ex Parte Application for Order to Show Cause as to
TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.’s Failure to Comply with General Order No, 129
and the Order to Show Cause, San Francisco Superior Court Case No, 828684.

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

Ashgples. Madina and Legal Aspects, Barry I. Castleman, Prentice-Hall Law

and Business, 1990,

Vol. 2, 1986,

sl jated Diseases, Second Edition, Victor Roggli, Tim Oury,
and Thomas Sporn, Springer-Verlag, 2004.

Plaintiff is in possession of these texts and will make them available for defendant's review.
Due to copyright laws, plaintiff cannot provide copies of these texts to defendant. Plaintiff
further identifies General Industry Safety Orders promul vated under the California Department

of Industrial Relations, Division of Industrial Safety, Title 3, Articie 81, includiag but not
limited to Sections 4104 through 4107, and Appendix A, Table | in effect daring the years 1948

te 1972.
Plaintiff further identifies the NESHAF for asbestos, which are found at n Code of Federal

Regulations, Title 40, Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Part 61, Subpart uiblished ie Fe
Glean Ait Act ol 127%: BUS GA Section ZaL AACA 2 Uses. Section 7412(b))B).
Plaintif er identities al applicable OSHA (fed and CAL-OSHA (staic) regulations

pertaining to asbestos exposure. Plaintiff further identifies Workers’ Compensation Law since
the 1930's, wuler which asbestos has been a compensable disease. .

fier a reasonable and good-faith inquiry, plaintiff has no further information
responsive to this Interrogatory at this time. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are
continuing. Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to.amend this Response pending the outcome
of plaintiff's investigation.

RES) 8 7; Plaintiff objects to this interrogate: as vague

gmbiguous with respect to the undefined terms “manufactured,” “sold,” “supplied,”
“distributed,” “put into the stream of commerce.” Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that itus compound and disjunctive in violation of C.C.P. § 2030.060 (). Plaintit¥

er objects to this Interrogatory in that it seeks information equally or more available to
defendant, or information already in defendant's possession, thus mall ing it unduly burdensome
for plaintit to respond. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as
OLOWS;

“KAlnjured 0581 Siphduogerap- TEMELA oped § tha.Plaintiff refers to, and incorporates by reference herein, plaintiff's supplemental
responses to Interrogatory No, 1,

Pursuant to C.C.P, § 2030.220, plaintiff, after making a reasonable and good-faith effort
8 to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, believes that there
is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time. Plaintiff reserves
the right to supplement t