Preview
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023
EXHIBIT 38
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023
MASTER EXHIBIT 262
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023
O'TOOLE FERNANDEZ WEINER VAN LIEU LLC
By: Gary D. Van Lieu, Esq.
NJ Attorney ID# 019971990
60 Pompton Avenue
Verona, New Jersey 07044
(973) 239-5700
Attorneys for Defendant,
Colgate-Palmolive Company
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
CAROL SCHOENIGER, LAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY
Plaintiff, DOCKET NO. MID L-5869-16AS
vs. Civil Action
BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC, et al. DEFENDANT COLGATE-PALMOLIVE
COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND
Defendants. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES
Defendant, Colgate-Palmolive Company ("Defendant" or "Colgate"), by and through its
attorneys, O'Toole Fernandez Weiner Van Lieu LLC, responds to Plaintiff's Supplemental
Interrogatories ("Suppleme~tal InteITogatories") as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS/RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
1. The following responses are based upon the information that is presently known and
reasonably available to Colgate. Colgate's investigations, and discovery, are ongoing, and Colgate
reserves the right to supplement and/or amend its responses as its investigations, and discovery,
continue. Many matters inquired about took place decades ago. Due to the passage of time,
infonnation and documents may be incomplete or no longer available. Colgate has made
reasonable efforts to respond to Plaintiffs Supplemental Interrogatories to the best of its present
knowledge, information, and belief.
2. Colgate objects to each Interrogatory that calls for information concerning the mining,
1
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023
\.
manufacture, sale or distribution of asbestos, asbestos fiber, or asbestos containing products, as
inapplicable to Colgate. Colgate has never engaged in the mining, manufacture, sale or distribution
of asbestos, asbestos fiber, or asbestos-containing products and has never used asbestos as an
ingredient in any of its pr9ducts.
3. Colgate objects to each Inte1TOgatory to the extent it is unduly burdensome and
overbroad, and seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
4. Colgate objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that they are unlimited in time, scope,
and geographic boundary, as well as to the extent they include terms that are not properly defined.
Plaintiff has sued Colgate based upon Carol Schoeniger's alleged use of a specific consumer
product manufactw·ed and/or sold by Colgate during a specific time frame. Accordingly, any other
information or documents are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence, and to Inte1rogatory any other infom1ation or documents is to impose an undue burden.
Further, Colgate is sued as a manufacturer of a specific consumer product in this case, and
Colgate's responses are limited to such product.
5. Colgate objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information or documents
immune from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or any other
applicable privilege or immunity.
6. Colgate objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential or proprietary
trade infozmation.
7. Colgate objects to each Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent
it fails to identify any specific Colgate product to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed.
8. Colgate objects to the terms "asbestos" and "asbestos containing materials/products" as
2
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023
\ vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and prematurely calling for expe1t discovery.
9. Colgate objects to each definition and instruction to these Supplemental Intenogato1ies
and to the extent that they require Colgate to make any inquiry beyond that which is required by
the laws and Court Rules of this State, this Court, or Orders otherwise governing this action.
J0. Colgate objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information or documents
that are publicly available and of no greater burden for Plaintiff to ascertain or obtain than for
Colgate to provide.
ll. Colgate objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for information or
documents that are not within Colgate's possession, custody, or control.
I 2. Colgate objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information or
documents that are neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,
in the context of this phase of the litigation, and specifically objects to providing any such
information or documents, and its responses are limited to the issues in consideration at this phase
of the litigation.
13. Colgate objects to each Inten-ogatory to the extent that literal adherence to the
instructions, definitions, and Inte11'0gatories would pose an undue burden, unreasonable expense,
and constitute a!llloyance and oppression, as to Colgate.
14. Colgate objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information or
documents that are not relevant to Colgate in that it is seeldng information or documents that are
specific to manufacturers or producers of asbestos products, and not manufacturers of consumer
products.
15. By providing these responses, Colgate does not waive and hereby preserves any and all
3
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023
objections to the admissibility of its responses or documents at trial.
16. These responses are made without prejudice to Colgate's right to rely at trial on
subsequently discovered information or documents or on infonnation or documents inadvertently
omitted from these responses as a result of mistake, error, or oversight.
17. Colgate specifically reserves the right to revise, correct, supplement, make objections
to, and amend its responses to these Interrogatories and RFP, and does not concede that any of
its responses are or will be admissible evidence at trial in this matter. Further, Colgate does not
waive any objections, on any grounds, whether or not asserted in these responses, to the use of
any of these responses or docwnents at trial of this matter.
4
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023
,.
·' \
RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES
SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY Sl:
State the amount YOU have paid to Exponent for litigation consultation related to
Cashmere Bouquet from 2008 through 2016. Separately identify the amount YOU paid to
Exponent for the "underlying research, simulations, and laboratory analysis" identified in the 2016
paper, Assessment of Health Risk from Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder from Society
of Risk Analysis.
RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY Sl:
Colgate objects to this Inten-ogatory and incorporates by reference its General Objections
above. Colgate also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or
documents protected from disclosure by attorney work-product and/or attorney-client privilege,
and/or by other relevant privileges. Colgate also objects that the Interrogatory is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY S2:
Did YOU rely on any supplier to supply YOU with cosmetic talc that was asbestos-free?
If yes, please identify all such suppliers from 1920 to 1990 upon which YOU relied and all such
info1mation communicated to You by those suppliers regarding the asbestos-free nature of the talc.
supplied to YOU.
RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY S2:
Colgate objects to this Intenogatory and incorporates by reference its General Objections
above. Colgate also objects to. this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks inf01mation and/or
documents protected from disclosure by attorney work-product and/or attorney-client privilege,
and/or by other relevant privileges. Colgate further objects to this Interrogatory as unduly
5
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023
burdensome, overbroad, and seeking infmmation not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Colgate also objects to this InteITogatory as vague and ambiguous,
including to the extent it includes undefined terms that cannot be understood to the extent it seeks
information irrelevant to Plaintiff's claims in time, scope, and geography. Colgate further objects
to this Interrogatory on the ground that Plaintiffs alleged exposure postdates the 1920s.
Subject to and without waiving or otherwise limiting these objections, Colgate responds as
follows:
Yes. Colgate purchased the raw, cosmetic grade talc used to make Cashmere Bouquet
talcum powder exclusively from third party suppliers. Colgate obtained the talc used to make
Cashmere Bouquet exclusively from the Charles Mathieu, Inc. family of companies ("Charles
Mathieu") from at least 1940 to 1979. Until at least 1968, Charles Mathieu exclusively supplied
cosmetic-grade talc sourced from Societa Talco E Grafite Val Chisone, which mined the talc in
the Pinero lo region ofltaly. Between 1968 and 1979, Charles Mathieu continued to supply Colgate
with Italian talc from the Pinerolo region, but may have also supplied Colgate with talc from the
Regal Mine in North Carolina and mines in the Dillon-Ennis district of Montana as early as 1968
and 1970, respectively. Any supply from the Regal Mine ended in or about 1970. Charles Mathieu
and/or its assets were acquired by Cyprus Industrial Minerals Co. ("Cyprus») in or about 1979,
and Cypms began supplying Colgate with talc that Colgate used to produce Cashmere Bouquet
talcum powder in the U.S. in 1979. All information located after a reasonable search suggests that
Cyprus supplied talc from the Beaverhead mine in the Dillon-Ennis district of Montana in addition
to the same source(s) in Italy used by Charles Mathieu.
6
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023
All information located after a reasonable search regarding code, lot, grade, or other
designation of the cosmetic grade talc used by Colgate to manufacture Cashmere Bouquet has been
produced as part of Colgate's document production.
Colgate first learned ofreports that cosmetic-grade talc might potentially be contaminated
with asbestos in the summer/fall of 1971, due to discussions of that topic at the United States Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") and the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association
("CTFA").
Colgate discussed and addressed the reports of potential contamination of cosmetic grade
talcum powder when they first emerged, in 1971. All info1mation regarding what was discussed at
Colgate, including information contained in deposition testimony, has been produced as part of
Colgate's document production in this case. Also, as soon as it heard reports of the possible
contamination of cosmetic-grade talc with asbestos, Colgate required that the talc that it used to
manufacture Cashmere Bouquet must be asbestos-free. It also began developing a method to test
for the presence of asbestos in talc because, at the time, there was no generally accepted testing
method. As soon as Colgate had developed a reliable testing method, in the early to mid-1970s,
Colgate internally tested its talc supply for the presence of asbestos using x-ray diffraction and
optical microscopy. By early 1974, Colgate was also submitting samples of the talc used to
manufacture Cashmere Bouquet to Walter Mccrone Associates, Inc. ("McCrone"), the world's
foremost microscopy laboratory, for independent testing by transmission electron microscopy
("TEM") with selected area electron diffraction ("SAED"), as a further quality control measure.
Under Colgate's protocol, McCrone tested all talc samples that tested negative for asbestos in
Colgate's internal testing; Colgate's protocol required Colgate to discard any talc lot that was
sampled and found in Colgate's internal testing to be contaminated with asbestos. By the mid-
7
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023
1970s, Colgate also required that its talc suppliers analyze their talc for asbestos content and certify
that any talc they supplied to Colgate was asbestos-free, as detennined by x-ray diffraction, optical
microscopy, and TEM with SAED. Colgate never found th~ talc used to manufacture Cashmere
Bouquet to be contaminated with asbestos.
Colgate further responds that its suppliers tested the talc used to manufacture Cashmere
Bouquet for potential asbestos contamination, as required by Colgate, and provided ce1tifications
that the talc was asbestos free.
SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY 83:
Please identify the formula for Winter 800344 Perfume.
RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY 83:
Colgate objects to this Interrogatory and incorporates by reference its General Objections
above. Colgate also objects to this Inte11'0gatory to the extent it seeks information and/or
documents protected from disclosure by attomey work-product and/or attorney-client privilege,
and/or by other relevant privileges. Colgate further objects to this Interrogatory as unduly
burdensome, overbroad, and seeking information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Colgate also objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous,
including to the extent it includes undefined terms that cannot be understood and to the extent it
seeks information in·elevant to Plaintiff's claims in time, scope, and geography.
Subject to and without waiving or otherwise limiting these objections, Colgate responds
that based on the information in, for example, document Bates stamped QE-CPC00001565, any
additional information responsive to this Interrogatory, if available, would be inelevant to the
Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder product(s) allegedly used by Plaintiff.
8
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023
SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY S4:
Please identify the formula for 85-740 Palmai LCV 10 Soap Perfume.
RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY S4:
Colgate objects to this Interrogatory and incorporates by reference its General Objections
above. Colgate also objects to this Intenogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or
documents protected from disclosure by attorney work-product and/or attorney-client privilege,
and/or by other relevant privileges. Colgate further objects to this Interrogatory as unduly
burdensome, overbroad, and seeking information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Colgate also objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous,
including to the extent it includes undefined terms that cannot be understood and to the extent it
seeks info1mation in·elevant to Plaintiffs claims in time, scope, and geography.
Subject to and without waiving or othe1wise limiting these objections, Colgate responds
that based on the information in, for example, documents Bates stamped QE-CPC00001560-61,
any additional information responsive to this Interrogatory, if available, would be ifl'elevant to the
Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder product(s) allegedly used by Plaintiff.
SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY 85:
Please identify the fonnula for 96-109 Cashmere Bouquet Talc Perfume.
RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY 85:
Colgate objects to this Interrogatory and incorporates by reference its General Objections
above. Colgate also objects to this Inte1rngatory to the extent it seeks information and/or
documents protected from disclosure by attomey work-product and/or attorney-client privilege,
and/or by other relevant privileges. Colgate further objects to this Interrogatory as unduly
burdensome, overbroad, and seeking information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
9
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023
(
,•
of admissible evidence. Colgate also objects to this Intenogatory as vague and ambiguous,
including to the extent it includes undefined terms that cannot be understood and to the extent it
seeks information irrelevant to Plaintiffs claims in time, scope, and geography.
Subject to and without waiving or otherwise limiting these objections, Colgate responds
that 96-109 Cashmere Bouquet Talc Perfume consisted of the following ingredients:
LINALOOL
RHODINOL MPV
CEDARWOOD (JUNIPERUS VIRGIANA) OIL
RHODINOL44
TERPINYL (P-MENTH-1-EN-8-YL) ACETATE
BENZYL ACETATE
2-PHENYLETHANOL
ORRIS RESINOID 092001 (CHARBOT)
COUMARIN
CLOVE
Preview
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023 EXHIBIT 38 FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023 MASTER EXHIBIT 262 FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023 O'TOOLE FERNANDEZ WEINER VAN LIEU LLC By: Gary D. Van Lieu, Esq. NJ Attorney ID# 019971990 60 Pompton Avenue Verona, New Jersey 07044 (973) 239-5700 Attorneys for Defendant, Colgate-Palmolive Company SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY CAROL SCHOENIGER, LAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY Plaintiff, DOCKET NO. MID L-5869-16AS vs. Civil Action BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC, et al. DEFENDANT COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND Defendants. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES Defendant, Colgate-Palmolive Company ("Defendant" or "Colgate"), by and through its attorneys, O'Toole Fernandez Weiner Van Lieu LLC, responds to Plaintiff's Supplemental Interrogatories ("Suppleme~tal InteITogatories") as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS/RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 1. The following responses are based upon the information that is presently known and reasonably available to Colgate. Colgate's investigations, and discovery, are ongoing, and Colgate reserves the right to supplement and/or amend its responses as its investigations, and discovery, continue. Many matters inquired about took place decades ago. Due to the passage of time, infonnation and documents may be incomplete or no longer available. Colgate has made reasonable efforts to respond to Plaintiffs Supplemental Interrogatories to the best of its present knowledge, information, and belief. 2. Colgate objects to each Interrogatory that calls for information concerning the mining, 1 FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023 \. manufacture, sale or distribution of asbestos, asbestos fiber, or asbestos containing products, as inapplicable to Colgate. Colgate has never engaged in the mining, manufacture, sale or distribution of asbestos, asbestos fiber, or asbestos-containing products and has never used asbestos as an ingredient in any of its pr9ducts. 3. Colgate objects to each Inte1TOgatory to the extent it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, and seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4. Colgate objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that they are unlimited in time, scope, and geographic boundary, as well as to the extent they include terms that are not properly defined. Plaintiff has sued Colgate based upon Carol Schoeniger's alleged use of a specific consumer product manufactw·ed and/or sold by Colgate during a specific time frame. Accordingly, any other information or documents are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and to Inte1rogatory any other infom1ation or documents is to impose an undue burden. Further, Colgate is sued as a manufacturer of a specific consumer product in this case, and Colgate's responses are limited to such product. 5. Colgate objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information or documents immune from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or immunity. 6. Colgate objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential or proprietary trade infozmation. 7. Colgate objects to each Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it fails to identify any specific Colgate product to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed. 8. Colgate objects to the terms "asbestos" and "asbestos containing materials/products" as 2 FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023 \ vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and prematurely calling for expe1t discovery. 9. Colgate objects to each definition and instruction to these Supplemental Intenogato1ies and to the extent that they require Colgate to make any inquiry beyond that which is required by the laws and Court Rules of this State, this Court, or Orders otherwise governing this action. J0. Colgate objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information or documents that are publicly available and of no greater burden for Plaintiff to ascertain or obtain than for Colgate to provide. ll. Colgate objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for information or documents that are not within Colgate's possession, custody, or control. I 2. Colgate objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information or documents that are neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, in the context of this phase of the litigation, and specifically objects to providing any such information or documents, and its responses are limited to the issues in consideration at this phase of the litigation. 13. Colgate objects to each Inten-ogatory to the extent that literal adherence to the instructions, definitions, and Inte11'0gatories would pose an undue burden, unreasonable expense, and constitute a!llloyance and oppression, as to Colgate. 14. Colgate objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information or documents that are not relevant to Colgate in that it is seeldng information or documents that are specific to manufacturers or producers of asbestos products, and not manufacturers of consumer products. 15. By providing these responses, Colgate does not waive and hereby preserves any and all 3 FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023 objections to the admissibility of its responses or documents at trial. 16. These responses are made without prejudice to Colgate's right to rely at trial on subsequently discovered information or documents or on infonnation or documents inadvertently omitted from these responses as a result of mistake, error, or oversight. 17. Colgate specifically reserves the right to revise, correct, supplement, make objections to, and amend its responses to these Interrogatories and RFP, and does not concede that any of its responses are or will be admissible evidence at trial in this matter. Further, Colgate does not waive any objections, on any grounds, whether or not asserted in these responses, to the use of any of these responses or docwnents at trial of this matter. 4 FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023 ,. ·' \ RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY Sl: State the amount YOU have paid to Exponent for litigation consultation related to Cashmere Bouquet from 2008 through 2016. Separately identify the amount YOU paid to Exponent for the "underlying research, simulations, and laboratory analysis" identified in the 2016 paper, Assessment of Health Risk from Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder from Society of Risk Analysis. RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY Sl: Colgate objects to this Inten-ogatory and incorporates by reference its General Objections above. Colgate also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or documents protected from disclosure by attorney work-product and/or attorney-client privilege, and/or by other relevant privileges. Colgate also objects that the Interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY S2: Did YOU rely on any supplier to supply YOU with cosmetic talc that was asbestos-free? If yes, please identify all such suppliers from 1920 to 1990 upon which YOU relied and all such info1mation communicated to You by those suppliers regarding the asbestos-free nature of the talc. supplied to YOU. RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY S2: Colgate objects to this Intenogatory and incorporates by reference its General Objections above. Colgate also objects to. this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks inf01mation and/or documents protected from disclosure by attorney work-product and/or attorney-client privilege, and/or by other relevant privileges. Colgate further objects to this Interrogatory as unduly 5 FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023 burdensome, overbroad, and seeking infmmation not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Colgate also objects to this InteITogatory as vague and ambiguous, including to the extent it includes undefined terms that cannot be understood to the extent it seeks information irrelevant to Plaintiff's claims in time, scope, and geography. Colgate further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that Plaintiffs alleged exposure postdates the 1920s. Subject to and without waiving or otherwise limiting these objections, Colgate responds as follows: Yes. Colgate purchased the raw, cosmetic grade talc used to make Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder exclusively from third party suppliers. Colgate obtained the talc used to make Cashmere Bouquet exclusively from the Charles Mathieu, Inc. family of companies ("Charles Mathieu") from at least 1940 to 1979. Until at least 1968, Charles Mathieu exclusively supplied cosmetic-grade talc sourced from Societa Talco E Grafite Val Chisone, which mined the talc in the Pinero lo region ofltaly. Between 1968 and 1979, Charles Mathieu continued to supply Colgate with Italian talc from the Pinerolo region, but may have also supplied Colgate with talc from the Regal Mine in North Carolina and mines in the Dillon-Ennis district of Montana as early as 1968 and 1970, respectively. Any supply from the Regal Mine ended in or about 1970. Charles Mathieu and/or its assets were acquired by Cyprus Industrial Minerals Co. ("Cyprus») in or about 1979, and Cypms began supplying Colgate with talc that Colgate used to produce Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder in the U.S. in 1979. All information located after a reasonable search suggests that Cyprus supplied talc from the Beaverhead mine in the Dillon-Ennis district of Montana in addition to the same source(s) in Italy used by Charles Mathieu. 6 FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023 All information located after a reasonable search regarding code, lot, grade, or other designation of the cosmetic grade talc used by Colgate to manufacture Cashmere Bouquet has been produced as part of Colgate's document production. Colgate first learned ofreports that cosmetic-grade talc might potentially be contaminated with asbestos in the summer/fall of 1971, due to discussions of that topic at the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association ("CTFA"). Colgate discussed and addressed the reports of potential contamination of cosmetic grade talcum powder when they first emerged, in 1971. All info1mation regarding what was discussed at Colgate, including information contained in deposition testimony, has been produced as part of Colgate's document production in this case. Also, as soon as it heard reports of the possible contamination of cosmetic-grade talc with asbestos, Colgate required that the talc that it used to manufacture Cashmere Bouquet must be asbestos-free. It also began developing a method to test for the presence of asbestos in talc because, at the time, there was no generally accepted testing method. As soon as Colgate had developed a reliable testing method, in the early to mid-1970s, Colgate internally tested its talc supply for the presence of asbestos using x-ray diffraction and optical microscopy. By early 1974, Colgate was also submitting samples of the talc used to manufacture Cashmere Bouquet to Walter Mccrone Associates, Inc. ("McCrone"), the world's foremost microscopy laboratory, for independent testing by transmission electron microscopy ("TEM") with selected area electron diffraction ("SAED"), as a further quality control measure. Under Colgate's protocol, McCrone tested all talc samples that tested negative for asbestos in Colgate's internal testing; Colgate's protocol required Colgate to discard any talc lot that was sampled and found in Colgate's internal testing to be contaminated with asbestos. By the mid- 7 FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023 1970s, Colgate also required that its talc suppliers analyze their talc for asbestos content and certify that any talc they supplied to Colgate was asbestos-free, as detennined by x-ray diffraction, optical microscopy, and TEM with SAED. Colgate never found th~ talc used to manufacture Cashmere Bouquet to be contaminated with asbestos. Colgate further responds that its suppliers tested the talc used to manufacture Cashmere Bouquet for potential asbestos contamination, as required by Colgate, and provided ce1tifications that the talc was asbestos free. SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY 83: Please identify the formula for Winter 800344 Perfume. RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY 83: Colgate objects to this Interrogatory and incorporates by reference its General Objections above. Colgate also objects to this Inte11'0gatory to the extent it seeks information and/or documents protected from disclosure by attomey work-product and/or attorney-client privilege, and/or by other relevant privileges. Colgate further objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome, overbroad, and seeking information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Colgate also objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, including to the extent it includes undefined terms that cannot be understood and to the extent it seeks information in·elevant to Plaintiff's claims in time, scope, and geography. Subject to and without waiving or otherwise limiting these objections, Colgate responds that based on the information in, for example, document Bates stamped QE-CPC00001565, any additional information responsive to this Interrogatory, if available, would be inelevant to the Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder product(s) allegedly used by Plaintiff. 8 FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023 SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY S4: Please identify the formula for 85-740 Palmai LCV 10 Soap Perfume. RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY S4: Colgate objects to this Interrogatory and incorporates by reference its General Objections above. Colgate also objects to this Intenogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or documents protected from disclosure by attorney work-product and/or attorney-client privilege, and/or by other relevant privileges. Colgate further objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome, overbroad, and seeking information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Colgate also objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, including to the extent it includes undefined terms that cannot be understood and to the extent it seeks info1mation in·elevant to Plaintiffs claims in time, scope, and geography. Subject to and without waiving or othe1wise limiting these objections, Colgate responds that based on the information in, for example, documents Bates stamped QE-CPC00001560-61, any additional information responsive to this Interrogatory, if available, would be ifl'elevant to the Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder product(s) allegedly used by Plaintiff. SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY 85: Please identify the fonnula for 96-109 Cashmere Bouquet Talc Perfume. RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY 85: Colgate objects to this Interrogatory and incorporates by reference its General Objections above. Colgate also objects to this Inte1rngatory to the extent it seeks information and/or documents protected from disclosure by attomey work-product and/or attorney-client privilege, and/or by other relevant privileges. Colgate further objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome, overbroad, and seeking information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 9 FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2023 08:25 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2023 ( ,• of admissible evidence. Colgate also objects to this Intenogatory as vague and ambiguous, including to the extent it includes undefined terms that cannot be understood and to the extent it seeks information irrelevant to Plaintiffs claims in time, scope, and geography. Subject to and without waiving or otherwise limiting these objections, Colgate responds that 96-109 Cashmere Bouquet Talc Perfume consisted of the following ingredients: LINALOOL RHODINOL MPV CEDARWOOD (JUNIPERUS VIRGIANA) OIL RHODINOL44 TERPINYL (P-MENTH-1-EN-8-YL) ACETATE BENZYL ACETATE 2-PHENYLETHANOL ORRIS RESINOID 092001 (CHARBOT) COUMARIN CLOVE