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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                BRAYTON@PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

RUSH LANDING ROAD

222

ow ND DH PB WwW NM

BOM RM ON NR NON NR Rm mmm
ex Y RAB ON SF So wy AN A A Bw YH

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., S.B. #73685 '
JUSTIN 8. FISH, ESQ., $.B. #250282

BRAYTON**PURCELL LLP ELECTRONICALLY
Attorneys at Law

by. Rush Landing Road swe iL ED
Novato, California 94948 County of San Francisco
(415) 898-1555 AUG 20 2010

Tentative Ruling Contest Email: contestasbestosTR@braytonlaw.com Clerk of the Court
BY: RAYMOND K. WONG
Attomeys for Plaintiff “ Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO

CHARLES HUSBAND,
Plaintiff,

ASBESTOS
No. CGC-09-275098

DECLARATION OF JUSTIN S. FISH IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT
CLEANERS, INC.’S MOTION TO
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO ITS
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES,
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND TO DEEM
ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION

v8.

ee

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP)

Date: September 2, 2010

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Room: 220, Hon. Harold E. Kahn
Trial Date: October 4, 2010
Action Filed: March 2, 2009

J, Justin S. Fish, declare as follows:

1. Tam attorney at law, duly licensed to practice law before all courts of the State of
California and I am an associate in the law firm Brayton*Purcell LLP, attorneys of record for
plaintiff herein. I have reviewed the file in this matter and am familiar with the facts of this case,
and if called as a witness regarding the matters set forth below, I would so testify.

-2. A true and correct copy of plaintiff's verified amended discovery responses is attached|

as Exhibit A.

KNinjated195825iphddecs sf meeTEMPLA wd 1 ISP
DECLARATION OF JUSTIN S. FISH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT
CLEANERS, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO ITS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND TO DEEM ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONov MW NIN DH RB WHY

, former counsel for PLANT, Pond North LLC, served Special Interrogatories, Judicial Council
Form Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and Request for Production of Documents
(attached to defendant’s moving papers).

3. Plaintiff responded to the aforementioned discovery on May 12, 2010.

4. Following meet-and-confer efforts that led to an impasse, defendant filed its Motion to,
Compel verified respanses to Interrogatory Nos. 36-52.

5. On July 28, 2010, plaintiff's counsel served amended responses to Interrogatory
Nos. 36-52. Verification was sent on August 10, 2010.

6. On August 18, 2010, plaintiffs counsel sent counsel for PLANT an e-mail requesting
that defendant withdraw its motion since it was in possession of verified amended responses.
Counsel for defendant responded and indicated that even though he was in possession of
plaintiff's verified responses he would not withdraw defendant’s motion.

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

foregoing is true ang correct

Execute, 7 @ A? , at Novato, Californi;

tin S. Fish

K atjure1058 Sipleidecsst mteTEMMLA woe 2 ISE
DECLARATION OF JUSTIN 5, FISH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFE’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT
CLEANERS, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO ITS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION GF DOCUMENTS AND TO DEEM ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONEXHIBIT ABRAVTON@PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
22] RUSH LANDING ROAD.

PO BOX E19
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 96048-4169

(05) BURNS

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., $.B. #73685

f DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., S.B. #154436

ATHENA RB. REIS, ESQ., S.B. #267716

H BRAYTONS’PURCELL LLP

59

EE K.Vnjaredh 0551 Siptatcogs snnd-rep-TEMPLA wpd

4 CHARLES HUSBAND,

| PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC,
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff CHARLES HUSBAND

! responds as follows: No,

| defendant's employees ex; defendant to respirable asbestos fibers while acting within the
}t course and scope of their employment, plaintiff contends that TEMPORARY PLANT
| CLEANERS, INC. (fka PLANT MAINTENANCE OF CALIFORNIA) instructed its employees

ye

Attorneys at Law

222 Rush Landing Road

P.O, Box 6169

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

Attomeys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
” ‘COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
ASBESTOS —

No. CGC-09-275098

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO
TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS,
INC.’S SPECIALLY PREPARED
INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF,
SET ONE

Plaintiff,

<
e
Nee

SET NO.: ONE (1), AMENDED

RESPONSE TO IWIERROGATORY NO. 36: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory upon the
Rope’ that it violates Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010, and Helfend v. Southem Ca Hit.

(1970) 2 Cal.3d 1, 6, in that defendant improperly secks collateral source
information which is not relevant to the subject matter of the action, and such information is not
likely to lead to discovery of admissible cvidence becausc no logical inference of liability can
erefrom, Subject to, and without waiver of te foregoing Objection, plant:

S) t 37: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overly
broad, vague, and ambiguous. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiver thereof,
plaintiff responds as follows: .

TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC. (fka PLANT MAINTENANCE OF
CALIFORNIA) employed the laborers who, as part of their job duties, swept up asbestos
containing debris in plaintiff's presence at Standard Oil in Richmond, California. As

on how to perform their job duties.After a reasonable and good-faith inquiry, plaintiff has no further information
Tesponsive 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 plaintiffs investigation. :

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 38: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
ground that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Subject to the foregoing objections, and
without waiver thereof, plaintiff responds as follows: .

._ TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC. (fka PLANT MAINTENANCE OF
CALIFORNIA) employed laborers and various trades for use as suppiemental labor at a number
of California refineries, Therefore, plaintiff contends that TEM: RY PLANT
CLEANERS, INC. (fka PLANT MAINTENANCE OF CALIFORNIA) instructed its employces
on where to work and what job duties to perform: . | .

After 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 night to amend this Response pending the outcome _
of plaintiff's investigation. ‘ ; ey.

10 TORY NO. 39: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory dn‘the ~~
ground that it is overly broad with respect to “YOU,” defined to include plaintiff's attorney and -
anyone acting on plaintiff's behalf. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiver
thereof, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff has no information responsive to this —.
Interrogatory at this me. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing, Plaintiff
expressly reserves the right to amend this Response pending the outcome of plaintiff's ©
investigation. . oe .

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory an the ~
ground thar it is overly broad with respect to “YOU,” defined to include plaintiff's atlomey and
anyone acting on plaintiff's behalf. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiver
thereof, plaintiff responds as follows:

Plaintiff identifies and incorporates by reference plaintiff's Response to Lnterrogatory
Nos. 37 and 38, ,

After a reasonable and good-faith inquiry, plaintiff has no further information
responsive to this Interrogatary 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. . .
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Plaimiff objects to this Request on the ground
that it ts overly broad, Plaintiff objects to this Request upon the ground that it violates Code of
Civil Procedure

Oo Ow A Ww kh RH ND

possession of any such consultants or experts. Plaintiff er objects to this Request on the

unds that it seeks information equally or more availabie to defendant, or information already
in defendant's possession, thus making it unduly burdensome for piaintite to respond. Subject
to and without waiver of these objections, plaintiff fesponds as foliaws:

Plaintiff identifies the Complaint served in this matter. Plaintiff identifies the Brayton
Purcell Master Complaint, on file with the San Francisco Superior Court. Ptaintiff identifies
plaintiffs’ Responses to Standard Asbestos Case Interrogatories Set One and Set Two, and all
exhibits attached thereto, Plaintiff identifies plaintiff's Social Security records, medical records
and billings, and Union records, which are or will be made available to defendant through
coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry.

Ms

Mh

KAtnjereSUDS8 Siplfvope-arond. rp TEMPLA. wpe

§ 2034210 and 2034.220 to the extent that defendant seeks documents and —_ |
information relating to consultants, expert testimony, expert witnesses and/or documents inthe |attached thereto. Plaintiff identifies plaintiff's deposition transcripts, and all exhibits attached

kf Francisco Superior Court Case No. 981201, in the case of iss v, Asbestos

|) aly, Plant Maintenance, Inc. of America, et al., San Francisco Superior Court Case
No. 303598. Plaint:ff further identifies all of defendant’s documents in the above cases.

E before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals.Board before in the matter of Cozette ahs Plant}.
, Mai ¢, , No. SFO 369003; commencing on Janvary 9, 1995. Plaintt P believes -,
| (516) 451-1580.

| Tidewater Oil Company, dated July 29, 1960, and all exhibits attached thereto.

| Berween Tidewater Oil Company and Plant Maintenance, Inc. and associated Jetter signed by
| J.A. Thomas on December 20, 1962. This letter contains the following subject line:

|; Refinery, January 1; 1974;‘defendant’sfetter, dated uly 127 19699 at Stan

f X unjoregh10581 pidvogs-amad. rap TEMPLA wpe 3

Plaintiff further identifies all deposition transcripts taken in this case and all exhibits

thereto, commencing on January 2, 2009, and all subsequent dates. Plaintiff believes defendant
is in possession of these documents. However, copies of these transcripts are available from
Aiken & Welch, Inc., 1 Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505, Oakland, California 94612, (510) 451-1580.

Plaintiff identifies all defendants’ responses to General Order 129 Standard Asbestos
Case Interrogatories, cach available care of each defendant’s attorney of record. A list of
defendant’s attorneys of record is equally available from coordinating defense counsel, Berry &
Berry, 2930 Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland, Catifornia 94610, (510) 835-8330.

. Plaintiff further identifies the deposition testimony and attached exhibits therein of
Timothy J. Holz in his capacity as Person Most Knowledgeable for Defendant, taken on
September 24, 1991, in the case of, hecgey, Abex. San Francisco Superior Court Case :
No. 920265 taken on December 8, 1998, in the case of i: fendants, San

Defendants, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 433663 and in the case of Cecil Martin ct

Plaintiff identifies the testimony of Dayton Jennings, and all exhibits attached thereto, taken
x.

a
defendant to be in possession of these documents. :
Plaintiff identifies the deposition transcripts of Antonio Flores taken in the matter of
i i ¥, Co SFSC No. 957498, and ail
pies of these fransenpts are
612,

i
exhibits attached thereto, commencing on November 1, 1994.
available from Aiken & Welch, Inc., | Kaiser Plaza, Suite $05, Oakland, Califomia 9:

Plaintiff identifies all of defendant's Responses to General Order 129 Interrogatories,
and attached exhibits therein, in the case of Jobns v. Abex, San Francisco Superior Court Case
No. 916424, Plaintiff believes defendant 1s in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff identifies a maintenance contract between Plaint Maintenance, Inc. and

Plaintiff identifies a Modification No. | to October 24, 1961 Maintenance Agreement

“MODIFICATION NUMBER ONE TO PLANT MAINTENANCE ANNUAL CONTRACT.”
- Plaintiff identifies a Modification No. 2 to October 24, 196] Maintenance Agreement
Between Tidewater Gil Company and Plant Maintenance, Inc., dated February 14, 1563.
Plaintiff identifies a letter from J.A. Thomas dated September 21, 1960, with the
following subject line: PLANT MAINTENANCE ANNUAL LABOR AGREEMENT.
Plaintiff identifies a maintenance contract between defendant and Philips, at Avon

Plaintiff identifies the Articles of ‘Aprgement Between Plant Maintenance, Inc. of
Califomia and Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers Internationa] Union, effective October t,

1963. .

Plaintiff identifies a maintenance contract between Plaint Maintenance, Inc. and
Tidewater Oil Company, dated September 27, 1963, and al! exhibits attached thereto.

Piaintiff identifies a September 19, 1963 memorandum by Amold Nelson entitled “Plant
Maintenance Contract.”

Plainuff identifies an October 2, 1963 letter from J.A. Thomas entitled “PLANT
MAINTENANCE LABOR CONTRACT" and attached document entitled “DOCUMENT

SYNOPSIS.” .
Plaintiff identifies a tember 15, 1964 letter from B.C. Shaul entitled “PLANT

MAINTENANCE ANNUAL CONTRACT.”
Hi1 Plaintiff identifies Modification No. 1 to September 27, 1963 Maintenance Agreement
Between Tidewater Oi! Company and Plant Maintenance, Inc. and associated letter signed by
24) J.A. Thomas on October 7, 1964. This letter contains the following subject line: "PLANT
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - MODIFICATION NO. 1.”
3 Plaintiff identifies Modification No. 2 to September 27, 1963 Maintenance Agreement
Between Tidewater Oil Company and Plant Maintenance, Inc. and associated letter signed by
4) E.A. Storm, dated February 2, 1966. This letter contains the following subject line: “Plant
Maintenance, Inc. of Catiforua.
5 ___ Plaintiff identifies letters dated August 10, 1965 and September 30, 1965 from Plant
Maintenance, Inc. of California president Jack O. Fries to the Tidewater Oil Company regarding
61 Modification Agreement No. 2. —
Plaintiff identifies Modification No. 4 to September 27, 1963 Maintenance Agreement
7 || Between Tidewater Oil Company and Plant Maintenance, inc. and associated letter signed by
[| JA. Thomas on October 7, 1964. This letter contains the following subject line: “PLANT
8) MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - MODIFICATION NO. 1.” , :
. ’ Plaintiff identifies Modification No.5 to September 27, 1963 Maintenance Agreement
|| Between Fidewater Oil Company and Plant Maintenance, Inc. and associated Jeter signed:by
} J.A. Thomas on Jativary 9, 1968. . Ce SE
J.) Plaintiff identifies Modification No: 6 to September 27, 1963 Maintenance Agreement
{| Between Tidewater Oil Company (Subsequently Assigned to Phillips Petroleum Company) and
|| Plant Maintenance, Inc., dated January 7, 1970, and associated Plant Maintenance Wage Scales
and lctter signed by A.E. Storen to M_L. Porter, dated January 13, 1970:

Plaintiff identifies Modification No. 7 to September 27, 1963 Maintenance Agreement
Between Tidewater Oil Company (Subsequently Assigned to Phillips Petroleum Company) and
Piant Maintenance, Inc., dated June 1, 1970 and associated Plant Maintenance Wage Scales and
letter signed by W.H. Coleman, dated July 6, 1970.

Piaimiff identifies Modification No. 8 to September 27, 1963 Maintenance Agreement
Between Tidewater Oil Company (Subsequently Assigned to Phillips Petroleum Company) and
H Plant Maintenance, Inc., dated June i, 1970 and associated Plant Maintenance Wage Scales and
letter signed by W.H. Coleman, dated February 11, 1971.

Plaintiff identifies Modification No. 9 to September 27, 1963 Maintenance Agreement
Berwveen Tidewater Oil Company (Subsequently Assigned to Phillips Petroteum Company) and
H Plant Maintenance, Inc., dated September 17, 1971 and associated Plant Maintenance Wage
{| Scales and fetter signed by A.E. Storm and dated January 26, 1972. “

Plaintiff identifies Modification Nos. 10 and 11 to Septernber 27, 1963 Maintenance

|| Agreement Between Tidewater Oi Company (Subsequently Assigned to Phillips Petroleum

|| Company) and Plant Maintenance, Inc., dated January 7, 1972 and February 26, 1973
respectively and associated letter signed by A.E. Storm and dated March 5, 1973.

Plaintiff identifies a document entitled MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACT between
Tidewater Oil Compan Phillips Petroleum Company by assignment) and Plant.

f Mainte

eSE Canora aa
Plaintiff identifies a maintenance agreement contract between Phillips Petroleum
Company and Plant Maintenance, inc, of California, dated January 1, 1974, os

Plaintiff identifies Modification No. | to January 1, 1974 Contract Between Phillips
Petroleum Company and Plant Maintenance, Inc. and associated letter signed from Roger A,
Peterson to A.E. Storm, dated March 31, 1975.

Plaintiff identifies a December 12, 1972 Avon Refinery memorandum from C.G. Moore
HS: Novak, entitled “COMPOSITION OF INSULATING MATERIALS USED AT
A ” ”
Plaintiff identifies any and all contracts identified by defendant in its Second Amended
Supplemental Answer to General Order 129 Standard Interrogatories.

Plaintiff further identifies defendant’s Second Amended Supplemental Answer to
General Grder 129 Standard Interrogatories, dated July 24, 1998, as well as defendant's
28 || previous Responses to General Order 129 Interrogatories. Plaintiff believes defendant is in
possession of these documents.

KAmwred\t 0581 Sipidroge-amnd-rsp TEMPLA apd 4 ARRCm Aw 2 WH

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

After a reasonable and good-faith inquiry, plaintiff has no further infarmation
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 plaintit?’s investigation. .

RESPONSE. TO INTERROGATOR Y_NO. 42: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the
extent that it seeks the premature disclosure of expert witnesses in violation oF C.C’P. § 2034.
Plaintiff also objects to this Interropatory on the grounds that it calls for information regarding
plaintiff's retained litigation consultants which is protected by the attorney work-product
doctrine and C.C.P, § 2018.030. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiver
thereaf, plaintiff responds as follows: . ‘

Piaintiff identifies the Person(s) Most Knowledgeable and Custodian(s) of Records of
defendant TEMPORARY. PLANT CLEANERS, INC., both past and present, as well as...
corporate representatives of TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC., both past and present.
’ Affer 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 ovtcome
of plaintitf’s investigation.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 43: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
ground that it is overly broad. Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the ground that it
seeks information which is protected from disclosure by Revenue and Tax Code section 19282
and Hood v. i (1999) ; and on the ground that it infringes upon the right of
privacy as conferred by Article 1, Section 1 of the Califomia Constitution. Plaintiff objects ta
this interrogatory on the ground that it secks documents or information that is more available to
defendant or which is in defendant's possession making plaintiff's fesponse unduly
burdensome. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows:

Plaintiff is not presently claiming wage or earning loss. Morcover, plaintiff's economic
losses will be presented by plaintiff's retained economic consultants pursuant to C-C.P. § 2034.
Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing. Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to
amend this Response pending the outcome of plaintiff's investigation.

RESPONSL TOINTERROGATORY NO. At: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the
ground that it is overly broad. Plaintiff farther objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it
seeks information which is protected from disclosure by Revenue Tax Code section 19282
and Hood v-Sunerior Court (1999). and on the ground that it infringes upon the right of privacy_.
as conterred by Article 1, Section } of the California Constitution. Plaintiff objects to this:
teiropal he ground that 1'seeks documents or information that'is more available to.
defendant or which is in defendant's possession making plaintiff's response unduly ae
burdensome. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows: .
Plaintiff is not presently claiming wage or earming loss. Moreover, plaintiff's economic
losses will be presented by plaintiff's retained economic consultants pursuant to C.C.P. § 2034,
Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing. Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to
amend this Response pending the outcome of plaintiff's investigation.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overly
broad. Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent it secks the premature disclosure of expert
witnesses in violation of C.C.P, § 2034. Subject to and without waiving said objections,
plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff's economic losses will be presented by plaintiff's _
retained economic consultants pursuant to C.C.P. § 2034. :
it

KX Atnjured LOS! Sipletimps-eenna-rap- TEMPLA.wpd 5 ARRwm bw oN

24
25
26
27
28

RESPONSE Ti RR ‘ORY NO. 46; Plaintiff objects to this Interrogat

broad. Plaintiff abjects to this laterrogatory on the grounds that it violates Code ofeivil, erly
Procedure §§ 2034.210 and 2034.220 to the extent that Defendant seeks documents and
information relating to consultants, expert testimony, expert witnesses and/or documents in the
Possession of any such consultants or experts. Such documents and information will be
provided to Defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2034.210 and 2034.220 at the
appropriate time before trial once Plaintiff has made a determination about experts and who will
lestify at tral.

Plaintiff further refers defendant to plaintiffs responses to Standard Asbestos Case
Interrogatories, Set One and Set Two, the Statement of Damages served on defendant in this
matter, and; the transcripts of plaintiffs depositi n, commencing on January 2, 2009 and all
subsequent dates. Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession oF these documents. Plaintiff's
investigation and discovery are continuing, Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to arnend this
Response pending the outcome of plaintiff's investigation.

RESPONSE TO INT ERROGATORY NO. 47; Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory onthe |
ground that it is overly broad. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that jt seeks
locuments or information that is equally available to defendant or that is in the possession ‘of ~
defendant, making piaintiff’s response unduly burdensome. Subject to the-foregoing objections,’
and without waiver thereof; plaintiff responds as follows: ue . ee .
Plaintiff identifies his medical billings, which have been or will be produced to.
coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry. Moreover, plaintiff's economic losses will be
presented by plaintiff's retained economic consuitants pursuant to C.C.P. § 2034. PlaintifP's
Investigation and discovery are continuing. Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to amend this
Response pending the outcome of plaintiff's investigation. . .

RESPONSE TO JNTERROGATORY NO. 48: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
i

ground that it is overly broad with respect to “YOUR,” defined to include plaintiffs attorney
and anyone acting on plaintiff's behalf. “Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds
that it seeks documents or information that is equally available to defendant or is in the
possession of the defendant, making plaintiff's response unduly burdensome. Plaintiff objects
to this Request to the extent it seeks the premature disclosure of expert witnesses in violation of
CCP. § 034. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows:

Plaintiff refers defendant to the individuals or entities identified in plainnff’s medical
billings, which have been or will be produced to coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry.
Moreover, Plaintiff's economic losses will be presented by plaintiff's retained economic
consultants pursuant to C.C.P. § 2034. Plaintiff’s investigation and discovery are continuing.
Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to amend this Response pending the outcome of plaintiff's
investigation. | :

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO-49: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory‘on the
ground that it is overly broad with respect to “YOU,” defined to include plainuff’s attomey and
anyone acting on plaintiff's behalf. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it
seeks documents or information that is equally available to defendant or is in the possession of
the defendant, making plaintiff's response unduly burdensome. Plaintiff objects to this
Interrogatory as overly broad. Plaintiff objects to this Interragatory on the grounds that it
violates Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2034.210 and 2034.220 to the extent that Defendant seeks
documents and information relating to consultants, expert testimony, expert witnesses and/or
documents in the possession of any such consultants or experts. Such documents and.
information will be provided to Defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2034.210
and 2034.220 at the appropriate time before trial once Plaintiff has made a determination about
experts and who will testify at trial. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiver
thereof, plaintiff responds as follows: .
dif

XAlnjured\1 O58 1Sipli\vagy-emnodrep-TEMPLA mpd 6 ARR,. Plaintiff refers defendant to plaintiff's medical records and billings, which have been or
will be produced to coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry. Plaintiff identifies the
transcripts of plaintiff's deposition, commencing on January 2, 2009. Plaintiff believes
defendant is in possession of these documents. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are
continuing. Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to amend this Response pending the outcome
of plaintiff's investigation.

RESPONSE TO INT ERROGATORY NO. 50: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
ground that it ts overly broad with respect to “YOU,” defined to include plainuff's altomey and
anyone acting on plaintiff's behalf. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it
seeks documents or information that is equally available to defendant or is in the possession of
the defendant, making plaintiff's response unduly burdensome. Subject to the foregoing
objections, and without waiver thereof, plaintiff responds as follows:

Plaintiff refers defendant to plaintiff's Standard Asbestos Case interrogatories, Set One
and the transcripts of plaintiff's deposition, commencing on January 2, 2009. Plaintiff believes
defendant is in possession of these documents." Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are .
continuing. Plainuff expressly reserves the night. to amend this Response pending the outcome
‘of plaintiff's investigation. . . oy soe

0! Si: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on.the

grounds that 31 1s vague, ambiguous, and overly broad as to the undefined term “disabled.” ’ -
Jainuiff further objects that this interrogatory is unintelligible as phrased. © _

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY. 52: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the
s that it is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad as to the undefined term “disabled.”
laintiff further objects that this interrogatory is unintelligible as phrased.
Dated: 723 //O BRAYT RCELL LL
By:

“Athena R. Reis
” Attomeys for Plaintiff

KAlnjarechOSAISipideo ga TEMPLA pS“I

OO NV mA WR BN om

6

PROO! SERVICE BY MAIL
1am employed in the County of Sonoma, State of California. | ar over the age of
18 years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is }324 Rand Street,
Petaluma, Califomia 94954.
On JUL 28 2010, served the within:

"PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.’S
SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF, SET ONE

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

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

TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC. . ee
Cooley Manion Jones Hake Kurowski, LLP . : a
201 Spear Street, 18th.Floor . . : . .
San Francisco, CA 94105 mo

BY MAIL SERVICE: am readily familiar with the business practice at

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

Executed _ JUL? 8 2010 , at Petaluma, Califomia.

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

Charles Husband v. Asbestos Defendants (BYP) :
San Francisco Supenor Court Case No. CGC-09-275098

PROOF OF SERVICE BY E-SERVICEBrayton*Purcell

LLP
TRIAL LAWYERS
dank BRON 222 Rush igh Landing Road
“Novato, Catitgrnin 94948-616'
DaviD R. DoNapio * Telephone: (415) soeises.
ESHER? : Facsimile: iT 898-1247
Someut Hear . Portlet: (5033 2954931
EE En olit Ae (3 ES
RoueaTM: LEW Lake City: (201)
“ Email: mail@braytoniaw.com
RMT RR REIL “We? C200
AUG *T 0.2010

Cooley, Manion, Jones, Hake, & Kurowski UP:
201 Spear Street

Suite 1800

San Francisco, CA 94105

Re: Charles Husband
SFSC Case No. CGC-09-275098

To Whom it May Concern:

Enclosed please find | the oeinal signed verification(s} for the above-named plains
with regard to Plai $

e., propounded by Temporssy Plant Cleaners, ihe,

previously served.

Please contact our office should you have any further questions. -

105815BRAYTON®PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

722 RUSH LANDING ROAD

z
5
3
z

BO WA WA A we ow

VERIFICATION

Charles Husband
San Francisco Superier Court Case No. CGC-09-275098

I, Charles Husband, declare:
Tam the plaintiff in the above-entitled action. The foregoing Plaintiffs Amended

-Response'to Defendant Plant C) Inc.'s Specially Prepared In is Plainti

Set One, propounded by Temporary Plant Cleaners, Inc., are true and correct as to those
statements for which T have personal knowledge. ‘As to those matters which are therein stated ~
on my information and belief and, as 10 those matters, ] believe them true. :

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

foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: @-9 -!*
Signed: Ch ad DAY : : -

Please do net write below this line. If you have any changes, please submit them ona

separate sheet of paper. Thank you.BRAYTON®PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555

aA be ww

10
i

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

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

On AUG 10 2010 1 served the within:

VERIFICATION(S) for Plaintiff's Amended Response to Defendant_Plant Cleaners,

, i interrogatories to Plaintiff. Set One propounded by
Temporary Plant Cleaners, Inc. on the interested parties in this action by transmitting a
true copy thereof in the following manner.

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

Cooley, Manion, Jones, Hake, & Kurowski LLP
201 Spear Street : . es
Suite 1800 : oe
San Francisco, CA 94105
Attomeys for Temporary Plant Cleaners, Inc.

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

“AUG 10 2010

BY MAIL SERVICE:

Executed on at Petaluma, California.

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

harles Husband
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-09-275098

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL