IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY CIVIL SECTION: TRIAL DIVISION GEORGE T. WEBBER AND TINA DECEMBER TERM, 2010 WEBBER, h/w NO. 1348 vs. ASBESTOS CASE 3B PRODUCTS COMPANY, et 21] FORD MOTOR RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Ford Motor Company (?Ford?) herein submits its Responses to Plaintiffs? lnterrogatories and Requests for Production to Defendants. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiffs? discovery requests seek information dating back many years, and due to the extreme passage of time, the information sought is dif?cult or impossible to reconstruct or retrieve. For many years, Ford has had at any one time hundreds of thousands of employees in different locations throughout the United States. In conducting its business, Ford has created millions of documents that have been kept in numerous different locations and have been moved frequently ?om site to site as employees have changed jobs. Accordingly, Ford does not, and could not possibly, represent that its answers constitute all of the information requested. Rather, as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure, Ford?s answers reflect all responsive information identi?ed by Ford before the date of these responses pursuant to a reasonable and duly diligent search and investigation conducted in connection with these requests in those areas where such information is expected to be found in the United States. To the extent these requests purport to require more, Ford objects on the grounds that they seek to compel Ford to conduct a search beyond the scope of permissible discovery contemplated by the Rules of Civil Procedure and compliance with these requests would impose an undue burden and expense on Ford. Ford also objects to each discovery request that seeks information about time periods, geographical areas, and products/components that are outside of the scope of the allegations presented in Plaintiffs? complaint. Such questions are overly broad, unduly burdensome, seek information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and would impose an unnecessary burden on Ford to search for, review, organize and produce information and documents that are not relevant to any issue in this case. It is Ford?s understanding that Plaintiffs? claims against Ford in this case are based on allegations relating to Plaintiff George T. Webber?s alleged exposure to asbestos-containing friction vehicle components. Accordingly, Ford?s responses are limited in scope to friction vehicle products and, in particular, to brake linings, brake pads and clutch facings. These responses are also limited to Ford?s North American Operations for Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury and to Ford?s activities and facilities related to such operations within the United States. Ford objects to requests for information or documents about other subjects, operations, subsidiaries, divisions, or af?liates because such questions are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek information or documents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor likely to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Ford further objects to Plaintiffs? definitions to the extent they purport to require Ford to take action or provide information beyond the requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Ford will comply with the requirements of such rules. In addition, to the extent Plaintiffs ascribe special meanings or de?nitions to words used in this set of discovery, Ford objects to the specialized meanings and definitions and interprets all words contained in this set of discovery in accordance with their ordinary and customary meanings. DOCUMENT COLLECTION In addition, and after a duly diligent search for information and documents relating to asbestos-containing friction products in the United States, Ford has established a collection of non-privileged documents identified in response to prior litigation. This collection was updated/supplemented in March 2011. To the extent Plaintiffs seek information that may be contained in these documents, Ford will make that document collection available via DVD, at Plaintiffs? request, for $10, which includes the reasonable costs associated with production of such documents. RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS Subject to the foregoing statement and objections, Ford responds to each individual request as follows: Plaintiffs? Mam~ SPECIFIC Interrogatories INTERROGATORY NO. 1: For each product Plaintiff - or his co?workers or other fact witnesses - identities (in written discovery or sworn testimony) that Defendant manufactured, marketed, sold or distributed, did Defendant ever specify the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products or utilize asbestos containing component parts in the design manufacture, construction, erection, operations, service, and/0r repair of such product? If so, and for each product identified, please provide the following information: a. the trade name or brand name of the product manufactured, marketed, sold or distributed by Defendant; the type and/or brand name of asbestos or asbestos-containing product speci?ed for use with the product; the date the product was placed on the market, and the inclusive dates of the product?s manufacture, sale, and distribution; a detailed description of the product, including a description of how and why the product involved the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products; the date Defendant stopped manufacturing, marketing, selling, and/or distributing the product; if applicable, the date the product was removed from the market and no longer sold or distributed and the reasons therefore; if applicable, the date asbestos was no longer speci?ed for use with the product, and the reasons for no longer specifying it; if applicable, the seller from whom Defendant purchased the asbestos used in the product, and the type (example: amosite, and quantity of asbestos Defendant purchased from the seller; whether Defendant ever conducted any testing on the product to determine whether it posed any potential asbestos-related hazard to human or non-human health; the plants or facilities where the product was manufactured; the foreseeable users of the product (such as insulators, helpers, pipe?tters, boilermakers, welders, machinists, plasterers, drywall ?nishers, carpenters, Shipwrights, etc.); and l. a description of any warnings that Defendant placed on the product or its packaging, operating manuals, brochures, catalogs, or other related printed material. This description should include the precise language of the warning, the size of the warning, the location on the product or its packaging where the warning was printed, and when the warning was ?rst placed on the product. ANSWER: Ford answers each subpart as follows: a-b. Ford manufactured and sold some vehicles that incorporated friction components, such as brake linings, brake pads, and clutch facings, which were composed, in part, of asbestos. Ford did not, however, manufacture the asbestos-containing friction components that it used in its vehicles. Rather, Ford purchased such components from suppliers. Ford also sold replacement parts, which included asbestos?containing brake linings, brake pads, and clutch facings, to franchised Ford dealers and authorized distributors in the United States under the Ford brand. Ford did not manufacture those replacement components, but rather purchased them from suppliers. In addition, prior to 1998, some remanufactured replacement parts were remanufactured and/or sold, including brake pads, linings and clutches, by Ford Authorized Remanufacturers under the Ford Authorized Remanufactured brand. Ford Authorized Remanufacturers purchased component parts from Ford, which purchased them from suppliers. c. Ford believes that asbestos-containing friction components were incorporated into its vehicles since it began selling mass production vehicles in the early 19005. d. A brake lining is a narrow rectangle shaped to ?t around a circle. A brake pad is a narrow arc?shaped material mounted to an arc-shaped flat plate. A clutch facing is a flat, round, metal plate with two rings, one on each side of friction material. The facing is between the ?y-wheel of the engine and the pressure plate of the transmission. The function of the braking system included on Ford cars and trucks was to slow or stop the speed or momentum of the vehicles. Speci?cally, the brake linings assist in braking through transmitting rotational force from the engine and fly-wheel to the rear wheels while the brake pads assist in braking of the front and/0r rear wheels. The clutch allows the vehicle to connect and disconnect the engine and the transmission while starting up and during shifts. Ford used asbestos-containing friction products in its vehicles because asbestos had good tensile strength, heat resistance, and durability. e-g. Ford began its complete phase?out of asbestos-containing brake products from its vehicles beginning with the 1983 model year Ranger vehicle, although certain other vehicle applications, such as those applications used in emergency vehicles, did not use asbestos prior to this date. By 1993, the only vehicles in which asbestos-containing brake products were still used were low-volume limousine applications and the Mustang. The use of asbestos?containing brake components in the Mustang was discontinued for the 1995 model year and in limousines for the 1997 model year. Certain asbestos?containing service parts for older model year vehicles were available until 2001, through franchised Ford dealerships and Ford Authorized Distributors. Ford began its complete phase-out of asbestos-containing clutch components from its vehicles in 1978. Ford had eliminated all asbestos-containing wet clutch applications for use in automatic transmissions by the 1982 model year, followed by the elimination of asbestos- containing dry clutch applications for use in manual transmissions by the 1984 model year. Such products were phased out as Ford?s suppliers developed suitable alternatives. h. Ford did not manufacture the asbestos-containin friction components that it used in its vehicles or sold as replacement parts. Rather, Ford purchased such components from suppliers. Ford will make available a historical list, revised as of May 1, 1995, of known suppliers to Ford of some brake linings and assemblies (Document Nos. FAFD0007456 FAFD0007468, FAFD0013173 FAFD0013189, FAFD0015548 FAFD0015568 and FAFD0017289 FAFD0017305). Ford will also make available a list of Ford Authorized Remanufacturers (Document No. FAFD0015254 FAFD0015255). Because Ford did not manufacture the brake linings and brake pads, it does not know the percentage of asbestos they contained, but it is generally thought to have been, for example, between 40% and 60% by weight in linings. Ford understands the type of asbestos ?bers in these components to have been i. In the early 19705, Arnold Anderson and Roy Gealer of Ford?s Scienti?c Research Staff conducted tests to determine the quantity of asbestos fibers liberated from brake linings during the braking process. They concluded that over 99.98% of the asbestos fibers in brake linings decomposed during the braking process into other materials. Their results were published in a 1973 SAE paper by A. Anderson and R. Gealer entitled ?Asbestos Emissions from Brake Dynamometer Tests,? (Document No. FAFD0010726 FAFD0010735). In addition, commencing in the early 19703, Ford participated in and provided partial funding for studies done by Dr. Irving Selikoff and others at what is now the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York, which work was reported on in a paper entitled ?Asbestos Exposure During Brake Lining and Maintenance and Repair,? published in Environmental Research, Vol. 12, pp. 110-128 (1976) (Document Nos. FAFD0001669 FAFD0001678, FAFD0005885, FAFD0007306 FAFD0007324, FAFD0008195 FAFD0008229 and FAFD0008737 FAFD0008771). The work done was a study of the environmental pollution, if any, caused by asbestos in brake linings. The study came to focus on the occupational exposure of mechanics during brake repair and maintenance. Ford?s Research and Engineering Department and Industrial Hygiene Department were advised of the study. Ford also provided partial funding for a study conducted by Dennis Paustenbach concerning the environmental and occupational health hazards associated with the presence of asbestos in brake linings and pads. Ford refers Plaintiffs to the following article, which is available in the public domain: Paustenbach, D.J., E. Lu, B.L. Finley, G.P. Brorby, and P. Sheehan, ?Environmental and Occupational Health Hazards Associated with the Presence of Asbestos in Brake Linings and Pads (1900 to ?State-of-the-Art? Review,? Toxicol Environ Health Crit Rev. (2004) (Document No. FAFD0013190 FAFD0013267). Ford?s Industrial Hygiene Department also conducted environmental air testing at Ford facilities for a variety of substances, including general asbestos air testing and air testing relating to asbestos?containing friction products. Ford refers Plaintiffs to its collection of non?privileged documents pertaining to asbestos-containing friction products, which contains additional information concerning these asbestos-related industrial hygiene air tests. j. Ford did not manufacture the asbestos-containing friction components that it used in its vehicles or sold as replacement parts. Rather, Ford purchased such components from suppliers. Ford will make available a historical list, revised as of May 1, 1995, of known suppliers to Ford of brake linings and assemblies (Document Nos. FAFD0007456 FAFD0007468, FAFD0013173 FAFD0013189, FAFD0015548 FAFD0015568 and FAFD0017289 FAFD0017305). Ford will also make available a list of Ford Authorized Remanufacturers (Document No. FAFD0015254 FAFD0015255). Ford otherwise objects to listing each and every Ford facility that ever manufactured a vehicle that may have incorporated friction components, such as brake linings, brake pads, and clutch facings, which were composed, in part, of asbestos throughout the entire United States, at any time during Ford?s corporate history because to do so is grossly over broad, unduly burdensome and would not provide information that is either relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this matter. k. Ford objects to this interrogatory as it calls for a legal conclusion. I. The vehicles Ford sells are not generally shipped in packages, so Ford has no information responsive to this interrogatory with respect to the sale of its vehicles that may have used asbestos?containing friction components. Replacement brake linings, pads and clutch facings are shipped in cartons. In August 1980, Ford released Package Label Specification L- 1516 and L-1517, which were intended for use as a caution label on certain asbestos-containing friction products. (Document Nos. FAFD0012771, FAFD0015421, FAFD0015423 and FAFD0020428 and Document Nos. FAFDOOISISS, FAFD0020427 and FAFD0021249). The language of L-15 16 read as follows: CAUTION: Contains asbestos fibers. Avoid creating dust. Breathing asbestos dust may cause serious bodily harm. When servicing this brake lining or any component related to it or located near it, prevent asbestos dust from being airborne by vacuuming this assembly with an industrial type vacuum cleaner equipped with a high ef?ciency filter system and by washing the assembly with an appropriate brake parts washer if necessary. Never remove dust or dirt from this assembly by blowing with compressed air. Similar language was used for brake linings and clutch parts. In 1987, Ford revised this caution label to read: DANGER CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS AVOID CREATING DUST CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE HAZARD Do not inhale dust from brakes, clutches or associated components. Inhalation of asbestos ?bers may cause cancer or asbestosis. Compressed air or brushes must not be used to clean brakes, brake drums, clutches or associated components. A high-ef?ciency vacuum cleaner should be used to carefully remove dust. Adherent dust should be removed with a damp rag. Wear high-ef?ciency cartridge or airline respirator if preceding work practices cannot be used. Dust and any rag used to remove it should be enclosed for disposal within a sealed impermeable bag bearing this label. Use asbestos-free replacement parts when available. Ford otherwise objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is not limited to a reasonable time frame, geographic location or scope, and instead seeks information relating to any products, of any type, that may have been manufactured, sold or distributed by Ford, at any time during Ford?s entire corporate history, and without any reasonable limitation to those vehicles, time frames or asbestos-containing friction vehicle components to which George T. Webber was allegedly exposed. Ford also objects to this interrogatory because the term ?asbestos-containing products? as de?ned by Plaintiffs is vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations in the context, and Ford is uncertain what information Plaintiffs are seeking. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: As to any product identi?ed in response to Interrogatory No. 1 above, was such product ever further distributed, marketed, packaged, labeled, or sold by companies or individuals other than Defendant? If so, please identify such companies or individuals, provide the dates those companies or individuals further distributed, marketed, packages, labeled, or sold Defendant?s asbestos-containing products, and identify the speci?c asbestos-containing products involved. ANSWER: Ford sold replacement parts that included asbestos-containing brake linings, brake pads 10 10 and clutch facings to Ford franchised dealers and authorized distributors under the Ford brand. Ford did not manufacture those replacement components, but rather purchased those components from suppliers. In addition, prior to 1998, some remanufactured replacement parts were remanufactured and/or sold, including brake pads and linings, by Ford Authorized Remanufacturers under the Ford Authorized Remanufactured brand. Ford Authorized Remanufacturers purchased component parts from Ford, which purchased them from suppliers. Ford otherwise objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is not limited to a reasonable time frame, geographic location or scope, and instead seeks information relating to any product, of any type, that may have been manufactured, sold or distributed by Ford, at any time during Ford?s entire corporate history, and without any reasonable limitation to those vehicles, time frames or asbestos-containing friction vehicle components to which George T. Webber was allegedly exposed. Ford also objects to this interrogatory because the term ?asbestos-containin products? as de?ned by Plaintiffs is vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations in the context, and Ford is uncertain what information Plaintiffs are seeking. INTERROGATORY N0. 3: As to any product identi?ed in response to Interrogatory No. 1 above, was such product generally expected to reach, or packaged to reach, the consumer or user without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold? If not, with respect to each such product, please explain in what way Defendant claims such product was to be altered or substantially changed after sale or distribution and before reaching the consumer or user. ANSWER: Based on Ford?s interpretation of this interrogatory and with respect to Ford?s brake linings, brake pads, and clutch facings, generally, Ford answers yes. Ford otherwise objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is not limited to a reasonable time frame, geographic location or scope, and instead seeks information relating to any product, of any type, that may have been manufactured, sold or distributed by Ford, at any time during Ford?s entire corporate history, and without any reasonable limitation to those vehicles, time frames or asbestos-containing friction vehicle components to which George T. Webber was allegedly exposed. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: As to any product identi?ed in response to lnterrogatory No. 1 above, does Defendant contend that such product can be generally utilized without liberating asbestos ?bers into the air? If so, please identify such product, generally describe the intended use of the product, and explain how such use would not tend to liberate asbestos ?bers into the air. ANSWER: The asbestos fibers contained in Ford?s brake components were encapsulated and embedded in resin. Accordingly, there is no risk that a significant amount of asbestos fibers would be released into the air as a result of ordinary use of those components. Additionally, in the early 19705, Arnold Anderson and Roy Gealer of Ford?s Scientific Research Staff conducted tests to determine the quantity of asbestos ?bers liberated from brake linings during the braking process. They concluded that over 99.98% of the asbestos ?bers in brake linings decomposed during the braking process into other materials. Their results were published in a 1973 SAE 12 12 paper by A. Anderson and R. Gealer entitled ?Asbestos Emissions ?om Brake Dynamometer Tests,? (Document No. FAFD0010726 FAFD0010735). Ford also refers Plaintiffs to the article prepared by Dennis Paustenbach concerning the environmental and occupational health hazards associated with the presence of asbestos in brake linings and pads. This article is available in the public domain: Paustenbach, D.J., E. Lu, B.L. Finley, G.P. Brorby, and P. Sheehan, ?Environmental and Occupational Health Hazards Associated with the Presence of Asbestos in Brake Linings and Pads (1900 to Present) ?State- of-the-Art? Review,? Toxicol Environ Health Crit Rev. 10 (2004) (Document No. FAFD0013190 FAFD0013267). Additionally, and as mentioned in Ford?s Preliminary Statement, Ford will make available a DVD containing a collection of non-privileged documents, updated as of March 201 l, pertaining to asbestos-containing friction vehicle components, which contains information responsive to this interrogatory, as referenced by the Document Numbers identi?ed above. Ford will make this collection available at Plaintiffs? expense, as identi?ed in the Preliminary Statement. Ford otherwise objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is not limited to a reasonable time frame, geographic location or scope, and instead seeks information relating to any product, of any type, that may have been manufactured, sold or distributed by Ford, at any time during Ford?s entire corporate history, and without any reasonable limitation to those vehicles, time frames or asbestos-containing friction vehicle components to which George T. Webber was allegedly exposed. l3 l3 INTERROGATORY NO. 5: As to any product identi?ed in response to Interrogatory No. 1 above, did Defendant ever use any type of written sales contract between Defendant and the buyer of such product? If so, did such written sales contract ever include a clause that Defendant would agree to repair and/or service such a product if necessary? ANSWER: Ford sold and distributed its new vehicles to franchised Ford dealerships throughout the United States. Ford also sold replacement parts that included asbestos-containing brake linings, brake pads and clutch facings to Ford franchised dealers and authorized distributors throughout the United States. Ford did not, however, manufacture those replacement components, but rather purchased those components from suppliers. Ford otherwise objects to this interrogatory because it is grossly over broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is not limited to a reasonable time frame, geographic location or scope, and instead seeks information relating to any product, of any type, that may have been manufactured, sold or distributed by Ford, at any time during Ford?s entire corporate history, and without any reasonable limitation to those vehicles, time frames or asbestos-containing friction vehicle components to which George T. Webber was allegedly exposed. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Did Defendant ever enter into any agreement with any manufacturer of asbestos? containing products to use or recommend the use of that manufacturer?s asbestos-containing products with any product identi?ed in response to lnterrogatory No. 1 above? ANSWER: Ford manufactured and sold some vehicles that incorporated friction components, such as brake linings, brake pads, and clutch facings, which were composed, in part, of asbestos. Ford did not, however, manufacture the asbestos-containing friction components that it used in its vehicles. Rather, Ford purchased such components from suppliers. Ford also sold replacement parts, which included asbestos?containing brake linings, brake pads, and clutch facings, to franchised Ford dealers and authorized distributors in the United States under the Ford brand. Ford did not manufacture those replacement components, but rather purchased them from suppliers. In addition, prior to 1998, some remanufactured replacement parts were remanufactured and/or sold, including brake pads, linings and clutches, by Ford Authorized Remanufacturers under the Ford Authorized Remanufactured brand. Ford Authorized Remanufacturers purchased component parts from Ford, which purchased them from suppliers. Ford will make available a historical list, revised as of May 1, 1995, of known suppliers to Ford of brake linings and assemblies (Document Nos. FAFD0007456 FAFD0007468, FAFD0013173 FAFD0013189, FAFD0015548 FAFD0015568 and FAFD0017289 FAFD0017305). Ford otherwise objects to this interrogatory because it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is not limited to a reasonable time frame, geographic location or scope, and instead seeks information relating to any product, of any type, that may have been manufactured, sold or distributed by Ford, at any time during Ford?s entire corporate history, and without any reasonable limitation to those vehicles, time frames or asbestos-containing friction vehicle IS 15 components to which George T. Webber was allegedly exposed. Ford also objects to this interrogatory because the term ?asbestos-containing products? as de?ned by Plaintiffs is vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations in the context, and Ford is uncertain what information Plaintiffs are seeking. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Beginning in the year that Defendant ?rst manufactured, marketed, sold, or distributed the product identi?ed in response to Interrogatory No. 1 above, and continuing through the present day, please identify each person who has held the position of corporate medical director, corporate safety director, and (0) corporate industrial hygienist, however characterized. For each person identi?ed, please also provide the person's current or last known address and whether the person is currently alive or dead, if known. ANSWER: In 1937 Ford established an industrial hygiene department designed to evaluate various factors in the work environment for the purpose of protecting and promoting the health of the employees. Moreover, over the past many decades, Ford has employed numerous industrial hygienists as part of its North American central staff. In general, these individuals were classi?ed as industrial hygienists with responsibility to perform industrial hygiene ?eld studies only at Ford locations. The names of these individuals are presented as follows in two groups? those presently employed and those who have le? Ford?and credentials and dates of employment are listed where known. Present Industrial vaienists Yasmeen Alexander, M.S. Kimberly A. Gasche, CIH David Hands, M.S., CIH l6 l6 Past Industrial Hygienists Alan Amberg (19703 - 19803) R. Anderson (19603) Patricia A. Brogan CIH (19803 - 19903) B. Braun (19603) Norm Brusk (1972 1977) David S. Carruthers, B.S., M.S. Occupational Environmental Health, 2007) W. Delhey (19503) Monica Drouillard, M.S., CIH (1978 2007) H. Dryer (1978 1980) D. Eschelbach (19503) William Falzone, CIH (19903) Mark Francis, CIH (1978 - 1982) A. Frazho (19603) James Galloway (19803 - 19903) Donald Greschaw (1956 - 19803) Anthony Haga, CIH (19803 Tom Handy (1957 1961) Dan Hernandez, CIH (1981 1989) Douglas G. Hodgkins, MPH, CIH (7-2009) Peg Hopkins (19803) Leonard Jensen, (19603) Tom L. Kakos, CIH, CSP (1991 2007) Anton Karpowich (1978 1980) Michael D. Kelly, CIH (19703 - 19903) R. Kersten (1977) W. Kronberger (1956 - 1961) Dennis Lapensee (19803 - early 19903) Libardo Latorre CSP (19703 - early 19903) Keith Lee, CIH, CSP (1974 1984) Henry B. Lick (former manager), CIH, CSP (1968 2000) Janet Mackie (19603) Carol Meyer (19603) Sarunas S. Mingela, BS, MS. Occupational Environmental Health, CIH, CSP (~1978 2007) T. Mooney (19303) David J. Neil, CIH (19903) Mike O?Brien, CIH, CSP (1977 1981) Dave Padden, CIH (19303) Linda Parrish (1978 1981) Chris D. Petersen, CIH, CSP (19803 - 19903) Charles Plasters (19503 - 19803) W. Preston Sheldon Rabinovitz, CIH (19703) 17 17 Jack Radcliffe (former manager), CIH (1948 1972), deceased Louis Redmond (19503) E. Ross (19503) Gerald Sattelmeier, CIH (19603) John Slosar (19603) F. Snitz (19603) J. Sproat (1977) J. Stanko, CIH (1973) R. Stites (19403) Theodore F. Strow, CIH (19703 19905) James P. Turner, CIH (~1977 2007) Paul Toth (former manager), CIH, CSP (1960 1982) Anina Vulpetti (19803 - early 19903) Roger Wabeke (former supervisor), CIH, CSP (19703 - 19805) J. Ware (19603) Ben Wong, CIH (19803 - 19903) Ford has also employed medical directors as part of its staff to monitor the health and safety of the employees. They are located in Dearborn, Michigan, and have included: Medical Directors Harley Krieger, M.D.: -1954, deceased; E.A. Irvin, M.D.: 1954-1970, deceased; Duane L. Block, M.D.: 1970-1987, deceased; John Triebwasser, M.D.: 1987-1996; Patrick Beecher, 1998; Walter Talamonti: 1998 - present. Dr. Walter Talamonti is the current Medical Director. In his role at Ford, Dr. Talamonti is responsible for the health and safety of Ford employees, the health bene?ts of Ford employees and their dependents, and the medical clinics at major Ford manufacturing facilities. Ford otherwise objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is not limited to a reasonable time frame, geographic location or scope. INTERROGATORY N0. 8: Was it foreseeable to Defendant, at the time each product identi?ed in response to 18 18 Interrogatory No. 1 above was released for sale and distribution, that the asbestos or asbestos? containing products speci?ed for use might be removed, stripped, ripped out, or replaced at some time after installation? ANSWER: Brake linings, brake pads, and clutch facings wear down with use, and it is expected that they might need to be replaced during the life of a vehicle. Ford otherwise objects to this interrogatory because it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is not limited to a reasonable time frame, geographic location or scope, and instead seeks information relating to any product, of any type, that may have been manufactured, sold or distributed by Ford, at any time during Ford?s entire corporate history, and without any reasonable limitation to those vehicles, time frames or asbestos-containing friction vehicle components to which George T. Webber was allegedly exposed. Ford also objects to this interrogatory because the term ?asbestos-containing products? as defined by Plaintiffs is vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations in the context, and Ford is uncertain what information Plaintiffs are seeking. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Were asbestos gaskets utilized as component parts off the products manufactured, sold, or distributed by you to which Plaintiff alleges that he worked with or around? ANSWER: Ford manufactured and sold some vehicles that incorporated friction components, such as gaskets, which were composed, in part, of asbestos. Ford did not, however, manufacture the l9 l9 asbestos-containing gasket components that it at one time used in the assembly of some of its vehicles or that it sold as replacement parts. Rather, Ford purchased those components from suppliers. Ford otherwise objects to this interrogatory because it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is not limited to a reasonable time frame, geographic location or scope, and instead seeks information relating to any product, of any type, that may have been manufactured, sold or distributed by Ford, at any time during Ford?s entire corporate history, and without any reasonable limitation to those vehicles, time frames or asbestos-containing friction vehicle components to which George T. Webber was allegedly exposed. INTERROGATORY N0. 10: Was asbestos packing utilized as component parts of the products manufactured, sold, or distributed by you to which Plaintiff alleges that he worked with or around? ANSWER: Ford objects to this interrogatory because it is misdirected to Ford. Ford?s primary business is the design, manufacture, ?nal assembly, and wholesale distribution of motor vehicles; Ford was not in the business of manufacturing, marketing, selling, distributing, or installing ?asbestos packing.? Ford also objects to this interrogatory because it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ford further objects to this interrogatory because the term ?asbestos packing? is vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations in this context. 20 20 IN TERROGATORY N0. 11: Was it necessary for asbestos insulation to be utilized in conjunction with your products that Plaintiff alleges he worked with or around? ANSWER: Ford objects to this interrogatory because it is misdirected to Ford. Ford?s primary business is the design, manufacture, ?nal assembly, and wholesale distribution of motor vehicles; Ford was not in the business of manufacturing, marketing, selling, distributing, or installing building/construction products. Ford also objects to this interrogatory because it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY Please provide the serial numbers for any of your products that Plaintiff alleges that he worked with or around. ANSWER: Ford objects to this interrogatory because it is grossly over broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is not limited to a reasonable time frame, geographic location or scope, and instead seeks the identification of each and every ?serial number? for any product, of any type, that may have been manufactured, sold, or distributed by Ford, at any time during Ford?s entire corporate history, and without any reasonable limitation to those vehicles, time frames or asbestos-containing friction vehicle components to which George T. Webber was allegedly exposed. 21 2] INTERROGATORY NO. 13: State whether Defendant, or any related company or predecessor, sold or delivered ?y asbestos-containing product; to: -Pope Motors in Pottsville, PA -Reading Anthracite in Wadesville, PA -RNJ Transportation in Pottsville, PA -Hans Deibler in Valley View, PA -Precision Aire in Auburn, PA -IMH Trailers in Hamburg, PA -Anthracite Speedway in PA Youse in Pottsville, PA -Dietrich?s in Palo Alto, PA -Sears in Frackville, PA -Bosco?s Auto Supply in PA, including at the Pottsville Mall -St. Clair Auto Supply, in PA -Big A Auto Parts, in PA, including Pottsville, PA (now Pottsville Auto Supply) on HWY 6] ANSWER: Ford objects to searching for information relating to the sale or distribution of vehicles or asbestos-containing friction vehicle components by Ford to Pope Motors (located in Pottsville, Reading Anthracite (located in Wadesville, RNJ Transportation (located in Pottsville, Hans Deibler (located in Valley View, Precision Aire (located in Auburn, JMH Trailers (located in Hamburg, Anthracite Speedway (located somewhere in ES. Youse (located in Pottsville, Dietrich?s (located in Palo Alto, Sears (located in Frackville, Bosco?s Auto Supply (located in the Pottsville Mall in St. Clair Auto Supply (located somewhere in and Big A Auto Parts (located in Pottsville, on HWY (now Pottsville Auto Supply), because Plaintiffs have failed to identify in what manner George T. Webber was allegedly exposed to any asbestos- 22 22 containing components that may have been sold or distributed by Ford to any of those locations. As such, information related to the sale or distribution of asbestos-containing friction vehicle components to any of these locations is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ford also objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is not limited to a reasonable time frame, geographic location or scope, and instead seeks information relating to the sale or distribution of any asbestos-containing products, of any type, to Pope Motors (located in Pottsville, Reading Anthracite (located in Wadesville, RNJ Transportation (located in Pottsville, Hans Deibler (located in Valley View, Precision Aire (located in Auburn, JMH Trailers (located in Hamburg, Anthracite Speedway (located somewhere in E.S. Youse (located in Pottsville, Dietrich?s (located in Palo Alto, Sears (located in Frackville, Bosco?s Auto Supply (located in the Pottsville Mall in St. Clair Auto Supply (located somewhere in and Big A Auto Parts (located in Pottsville, on HWY (now Pottsville Auto Supply), if any at all, from any time during Ford?s entire corporate history, and without any reasonable limitation to those locations, time frames or asbestos-containing friction vehicle components to which George T. Webber was allegedly exposed. Ford also objects to this interrogatory because the term ?asbestos-containing products? as de?ned by Plaintiffs is vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations in the context, and Ford is uncertain what information Plaintiffs are seeking. 23 23 INTERROGATORY NO. 14: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 13 was in the af?rmative, state: The date any asbestos-containing products was/were sold or delivered to said above location(s): 21) b) ANSWER: The type or trade name and speci?cations of the asbestos-containing products so sold or delivered; The model number, serial number, part number and/or any other identifying information of the asbestos-containing products; Whether the Defendant, any related company or any predecessor, at any time, gave warnings, instructions and/or cautions regarding asbestos to the persons who would be installing, servicing, or removing the asbestos-containing products, and, if so, describe the same, state to whom they were given, the dates they were given, and describe the manner in which they were given. Ford refers Plaintiffs to, and incorporates herein, its answer and objections to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 13. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 13 was in the af?rmative, for each asbestos- containing product, state: a) b) C) The type of asbestos contained in the product as it was ?rst manufactured; The percentage of asbestos contained in the product as it was ?rst manufactured; Any modi?cation to the product which altered the percentage or type of asbestos in the product and the dates of such modi?cation; 24 24 d) g) h) j) ANSWER: The source or supplier of asbestos in each product and/or of the asbestos- containing product; The color, physical characteristics, and appearance of each product; Any and all other names under which the product was sold, at any time; The number and date of each patent or patent application for each product; If the product continued to be produced after the deletion of asbestos, all reasons why the asbestos was deleted, the identity of the person(s) who made the decision to delete the asbestos, and the date the product was ?rst produced without the asbestos; If the product is no longer produced, all reasons I was discontinued, the identity of the person(s) who made the decision to discontinue the product, the brand name of the replacement product, and the date the replacement product ?rst went into production; and The reasons why asbestos was used as an ingredient in each such product. Ford refers Plaintiffs to, and incorporates herein, its answer and objections to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 13. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: With respect to each product identified in Interrogatory No. 1 above: Identify any and all purchasers of said product which acted, at any time, as distributors of the same and state whether or not any such distributors were, at any time, an exclusive distributor in terms of product, material or territory; Identify the largest purchaser of said product for each year that the product was 25 25 (C) ANSWER: a?d. throughout the United States. manufactured, sold, distributed and or otherwise dispersed by defendant, a predecessor and/or related entity; Identify the ten (10) largest purchasers of said product for the entire time that the product was manufactured, sold, distributed and or otherwise dispersed by defendant, a predecessor and/or related entity; Identify any all purchasers for which Defendant and/or any predecessor related entity was the exclusive provider of the product type in question for any period of time; Identify any and all documents, including, but not limited to, contracts and sales records, referring to, relating to, and/or re?ecting the transactions described in sub-parts of this Interrogatory; and, Identify any and all persons known to you to have knowledge or information concerning transactions described in sub-parts of this interrogatory. Ford sold and distributed its new vehicles to franchised Ford dealerships Ford also sold replacement parts that included asbestos- containing brake linings, brake pads and clutch facings to Ford franchised dealers and authorized distributors throughout the United States. Ford did not, however, manufacture those replacement components, but rather purchased those components from suppliers. e. As mentioned in Ford?s Preliminary Statement, Ford will make available a DVD containing a collection of non?privileged documents, updated as of March 2011, pertaining to asbestos-containing friction vehicle components, which may contain information responsive to this interrogatory. Ford will make this collection available at Plaintiffs? expense, as identified in 26 26 the Preliminary Statement. f. No one person within Ford is most knowledgeable concerning the sale and distribution of vehicles and asbestos-containing friction replacement components. Complete information regarding these areas of inquiry would likely require input from numerous sources. Ford will exercise its right to choose appropriate corporate representative in response to proper deposition notices that designate areas of inquiry. Ford otherwise objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is not limited to a reasonable time frame, geographic location or scope, and instead seeks information relating to any asbestos-containing products, of any type, that may have been sold or distributed by Ford, at any time during Ford?s entire corporate history, and without any reasonable limitation to those time frames or asbestos-containing friction vehicle components to which George T. Webber was allegedly exposed. Ford also objects to this interrogatory because the term ?asbestos-containing products? as de?ned by Plaintiffs is vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations in the context, and Ford is uncertain what information Plaintiffs are seeking. INTERROGATORY NO. 17 Were any of the products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 above utilized by any purchaser thereof as a component or material in the manufacture and/or assembly of any equipment or other finished product gaskets incorporated by another in pumps; brakes used in automobile)? If so: Identify any and all such purchasers; 27 27 Identify the product(s) used as a component or material and the speci?c type, make and/or model of equipment finished product into which it was incorporated; State the year(s) during which each such component product was used in each such ?nished product; Identify any and all documents, including, but not limited to, contracts and sales records, referring to, relating to, and/or re?ecting the transactions described in sub-parts of this Interrogatory; and, Identify any and all persons known to you to have knowledge or information concerning transactions described in sub-parts of this Interrogatory. ANSWER: a?b. Ford manufactured and sold some vehicles that incorporated friction components, such as brake linings, brake pads, and clutch facings, which were composed, in part, of asbestos. Ford did not, however, manufacture the asbestos-containing friction components that it used in its vehicles. Rather, Ford purchased such components from suppliers. Ford also sold replacement parts, which included asbestos-containing brake linings, brake pads, and clutch facings, t0 franchised Ford dealers and authorized distributors throughout the United States. Ford did not manufacture those replacement components, but rather purchased them from suppliers. 0. Ford believes that asbestos-containing friction components were incorporated into its vehicles since it began selling mass production vehicles in the early 1900s. Ford began its complete phase?out of asbestos-containing brake products from its vehicles beginning with the 1983 model year Ranger vehicle, although certain other vehicle applications, such as those 28 28 applications used in emergency vehicles, did not use asbestos prior to this date. By 1993, the only vehicles in which asbestos-containing brake products were still used were low-volume limousine applications and the Mustang. The use of asbestos-containing brake components in the Mustang was discontinued for the 1995 model year and in limousines for the 1997 model year. Certain asbestos-containing service parts for older model year vehicles were available until 2001, through franchised Ford dealerships and Ford Authorized Distributors. Ford began its complete phase-out of asbestos?containing clutch components from its vehicles in 1978. Ford had eliminated all asbestos-containing wet clutch applications for use in automatic transmissions by the 1982 model year, followed by the elimination of asbestos- containing dry clutch applications for use in manual transmissions by the 1984 model year. Such products were phased out as Ford?s suppliers developed suitable alternatives. d. As mentioned in Ford?s Preliminary Statement, Ford will make available a DVD containing a collection of non-privileged documents, updated as of March 2011, pertaining to asbestos-containing friction vehicle components, which may contain information responsive to this interrogatory. Ford will make this collection available at Plaintiffs? expense, as identi?ed in the Preliminary Statement. 6. No one person within Ford is most knowledgeable concerning the sale and distribution of vehicles and asbestos-containing friction replacement components. Complete information regarding these areas of inquiry would likely require input from numerous sources. Ford will exercise its right to choose appropriate corporate representative in response to proper deposition notices that designate areas of inquiry. Ford otherwise objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action, 29 29 nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is not limited to a reasonable time frame, geographic location or scope, and instead seeks information relating to any asbestos-containing products, of any type, that may have been sold or distributed by Ford, at any time during Ford?s entire corporate history, and without any reasonable limitation to those time frames or asbestos-containing friction vehicle components to which George T. Webber was allegedly exposed. Ford also objects to this interrogatory because the terms ?asbestos-containing products,? as de?ned by Plaintiffs, and ?equipment? is vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations in the context, and Ford is uncertain what information Plaintiffs are seeking. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: With respect to each product identi?ed in response to Interrogatory No. 1 above, identify the source(s) of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing components in each such product by year and by speci?c product if Defendant made automobiles with asbestos-containing components, identify the source of each and every such component by make, model and year). ANSWER: Ford manufactured and sold some vehicles that incorporated friction components such as brake linings, brake pads, and clutch facings, which were composed, in part, of asbestos. Ford did not, however, manufacture the asbestos-containing friction components that were used in its vehicles. Rather, Ford purchased such components from suppliers. Ford also sold replacement parts, which included asbestos-containing brake linings, brake pads and clutch facings, to franchised Ford dealers and authorized distributors in the United States. Ford did not manufacture those replacement components, but rather purchased them from suppliers. Ford will make available a historical list, revised as of May 1, 1995, of known suppliers to Ford of some 30 30 brake linings and assemblies (Document Nos. FAFD0007456 FAFD0007468, FAFD0013173 FAFD0013189, FAFD0015548 FAFD0015568 and FAFD0017289 FAFD0017305). Ford will make available a list of Ford Authorized Remanufacturers (Document No. FAFD0015254 FAFD0015255). Ford otherwise objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is not limited to a reasonable time frame, geographic location or scope, and instead seeks information relating to any asbestos-containing product, of any type, that may have been sold or distributed by Ford, at any time during Ford?s entire corporate history, and without any reasonable limitation to those time frames or asbestos-containing friction vehicle components to which George T. Webber was allegedly exposed. Ford also objects to this interrogatory because the term ?asbestos-containing products? as de?ned by Plaintiffs is vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations in the context, and Ford is uncertain what information Plaintiffs are seeking. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Identify the person answering these interrogatories on behalf of Defendant. ANSWER: These are the answers of Ford and are signed on behalf of Ford by the authorized agent identified on the attached veri?cation. They are prepared by and under the direction and supervision of Ford?s attorneys, including outside counsel. Ford otherwise objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated 3] 31 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ford also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, consulting expert privilege, or any other applicable privilege. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Describe the manner in which the information used to answer these interrogatories was collected, including listing any and all such sources of information relied upon, identifying any and all records or documents reviewed and identifying persons providing the information. ANSWER: 1n answering these interrogatories, Ford has conducted a reasonable inquiry in those areas within the company where responsive and discoverable information would likely be located as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure. Ford otherwise objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks an additional or different answer because it is overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ford also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. IN TERROGATORY N0. 21: As to any product identi?ed in response to Interrogatory No. 1 above, did Defendant ever use any type of written sales contract between Defendant and the buyer of such product? If so, did such written sales contract ever include a clause that Defendant would agree to repair and/or service the product if necessary? ANSWER: Ford sold and distributed its new vehicles to franchised Ford dealerships throughout the 32 32 Ford also objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ol?admissible evidence. This request is not limited to a reasonable time frame, geographic location or scope, and instead seeks all documents relating to the sale or distribution of any products, of any type, that may have been sold or distributed by Ford to any of Plaintiff George T. Webher?s jobsites, if any at all. from any time during Ford?s entire corporate history, and without any reasonable limitation to those locations, time frames or asbestos-containing friction vehicle components to which George T. Webber was allegedly exposed. ls! Sharon L. Cat'l'rev. Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP Sharon L. Caf?'ey, [Esquire 3U I?th Street Philadelphia, PA (215) 979-1000 Attorney for Defendant Ford Motor Company 51 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Rafael C. Haoiski, hereby ccrlify that on June 27, 20] l, a true and correct copy ot'lhc foregoing has been served on Plaintiff?s counsel via ?rst class mail and via electronic mail [0 and Is! Rafael C. Haciski Rafael C. Haciski 5.2 52 State of Michigan )ss. County of Wayne MARK K. TAYIDR . being duly sworn. deposes and says that the deponent is an authorised agent of Ford Motor Company. and that the deponent veri?es the foregoing FORD MOTOR RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO for and on behalf of Ford Motor Company and is duly authorized so to do: that the matters stated therein are not within the personal knowledge of the deponent; that the facts stated therein have been assembled by authorized employees and counsel ol? Ford Motor Company, and the deportent is informed that the facts stated therein are true. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day or 201 1 A. Flood, Notary Public State of Michigan, County of Wayne My Commission Expires on: April l4, 20M Acting in the County of Wayne 53 53 54 54