FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/16/ :26 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 105 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2016

Similar documents
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/15/ :12 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 99 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2016

Master File No ORDER NO. 9 Plaintiffs' Master Set of Requests for Production to Defendants

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/20/ :18 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/ :23 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2015

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/ :00 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2017

Sample. Index No: [Insert] RJI No: [Insert] PLAINTIFF S NOTICE TO PRODUCE

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/28/ :04 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/28/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/ :24 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/ :54 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2016

FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 09/27/ :50 AM

ASBESTOS LITIGATION ALERT

FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/03/ :59 PM INDEX NO /2016E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/03/2016

APPENDIX II. INTERROGATORY FORMS. Form A. Uniform Interrogatories to be Answered by Plaintiff in All Personal Injury

Standard Interrogatories. Under Supreme Court Rule 213(j)

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/11/ :40 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2017

A Duty To Warn For The Other Manufacturer's Product?

APPENDIX II. INTERROGATORY FORMS. Form A. Uniform Interrogatories to be Answered by Plaintiff in All Personal Injury

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/23/ :40 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 121 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2018

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/ :49 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/11/ /30/ :42 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/11/2014

Rau v Aerco Intl., Inc NY Slip Op 32368(U) September 4, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /12 Judge: Sherry Klein

C170 Chemicals Convention, 1990

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/ :47 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2015

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/ :18 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2015

DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/ :33 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/10/2014 INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/10/2014

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2014 INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2014

FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 05/22/ :57 PM

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/15/ :09 AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/15/2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/ :02 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2017

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/ :51 PM

Lowe v AERCO Intl., Inc NY Slip Op 30391(U) February 20, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /04 Judge: Sherry Klein

Case 2:13-cv DDP-VBK Document 864 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:36038 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Standard Interrogatories. Under Supreme Court Rule 213(j)

FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/28/ :08 PM INDEX NO /2016E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/28/2016

United States District Court for the Northern District of California ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) Defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS

Consumer Strength Equipment

Moore v Asbeka Indus. of N.Y NY Slip Op 33522(U) December 21, 2010 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /09 Judge: Sherry Klein

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/30/ :47 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/30/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/19/ :21 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2016

BANKRUPTCY TRUST TRANSPARENCY: GARLOCK DECISION

Case 2:13-cv DDP-VBK Document 875 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:36997

Hammer v Algoma 2013 NY Slip Op 31801(U) July 29, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /12 Judge: Sherry Klein Heitler Republished from

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/ :24 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 48 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2015

Defendant, Prevost Car (US) Inc., Individually and as. Successor to Nova Bus, by its attorneys, MAIMONE & ASSOCIATES,

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/ :53 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2016

APPENDIX I SAMPLE INTERROGATORIES

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2010 INDEX NO /2010

FILED: ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 01/23/ :02 PM

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/20/ :18 AM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/20/2014

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF DEFENDANT FISHER CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL LLC IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S OMNIBUS MOTION

Case No. 11-cv CRB ORDER DENYING FOSTER WHEELER S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Plaintiffs,

F 3.201(2)(A) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS ) JOHN D. DOE, ) ) Case No. Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) THOMAS M. SMITH, ) ) Defendant.

CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS. this case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you must keep an open

FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 12/22/ :16 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 156 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2017

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/12/ :04 AM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 175 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/12/2015

Notice Of Interrogatories

Standard Interrogatories Under Supreme Court Rule 213(j)

PART III Discovery CHAPTER 8. Overview of the Discovery Process KEY POINTS THE NATURE OF DISCOVERY THE EXTENT OF ALLOWABLE DISCOVERY

INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT. 1. State your full name, your present address, and date of birth.

40 Paterson Street New Brunswick, NJ Tel: (732) Fax: (732) November 12, 2015

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI)

60-DAY NOTICE OF VIOLATION SENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA HEALTH & SAFETY CODE (d)

For Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/ :46 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2017

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/09/ :53 PM

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/ :52 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2017

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2013 INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2013. Exhibit 2

Chapter 1. TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND SAFETY ACT (Assented to March 6, 2002)

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/29/ :53 AM INDEX NO /2017

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/15/ :18 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/15/2017

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT LINDA LAJOIE FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/02/ :23 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/02/2016

DIVISION 2 DIVISION OF FINANCE - DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

ATKINSON-BAKER REPORTER GUIDELINES. December 29, 2015 Revised April 1, 2018

SMALL CLAIMS MANUAL. The following information has been made available through the office of the McHenry County Clerk of the

DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS/ ST. JOHN PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT WAHEED HAMED

NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION 79 TH Annual Convention & Exhibits

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/03/ :44 PM INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 379 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/03/2014. Exhibit C

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. Case No.

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/31/2013 INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/31/2013

FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 09/26/ :45 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/2016

FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 12/21/ :39 PM INDEX NO /2015E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/21/2015

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT AT LAW

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/11/2013 INDEX NO /2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/11/2013

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/08/2013 INDEX NO /2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/08/2013

STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig NY Slip Op 32705(U) October 8, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /13 Judge:

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/12/ :45 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/12/2017

Florida House of Representatives HB 889 By Representative Melvin

Case 3:16-md VC Document Filed 01/09/19 Page 1 of 18 EXHIBIT A

Knowledge Objectives (2 of 2) Skills Objectives. Introduction. Legal Considerations During Investigation 12/20/2013. Legal Considerations

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/30/ :06 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2017

FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/09/ :43 PM

Transcription:

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/16/2016 03:26 PM INDEX NO. 190113/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 105 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: AMADO GONZALES and ANGELA GONZALES, -against- 3M CO., et. al. Plaintiffs, NYCAL Index No.: 190113/2016 NOTICE OF CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE DEPOSITION OF PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORP. UPON ORAL EXAMINATION Defendants. TO: ALL COUNSEL AND UNREPRESENTED DEFENDANTS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that pursuant to the New York Asbestos Litigation Case Management Order and Article 31 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, the plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, The Lanier Law Firm PLLC, will take the deposition of Philips Electronics North America Corp. s ( Philips ) 1 person most knowledgeable with respect to the following subject areas: 1. Philips knowledge of the hazards of asbestos including, without limitation, when and how Philips learned of said hazards. 2. The documents produced by Philips in this action. 3. The documents produced by Philips in Leidig v. 3M Co., Case No. BC 477685, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. 4. When Philips first learned of state and federal regulations relating to asbestos. 5. Philips corporate history including, without limitation, Magnavox. 1 Philips shall include Philips and/or its predecessors-in-interest including, without limitation, Magnavox. As such, each and every subject area and request in Schedule A pertains to Philips, Magnavox, and any other related entities to Philips and Magnavox. 1 of 10

6. All information, documents, and witnesses regarding any agreements or transactions between Philips and Magnavox. 7. All information, documents, and witnesses regarding any agreements or transactions between Philips and GTE Sylvania. 8. All information, documents, and witnesses regarding any agreements or transactions between Philips and Philco Corporation and/or Philco-Ford Corporation. 9. All information, documents, and witnesses regarding any agreements or transactions between Philips and Funai Corporation. 10. Philips document retention policy. 11. Philips membership in any industry associations. 12. Philips membership in any trade associations. 13. Asbestos-related workers compensation claims filed against Philips. 14. Claims made against Philips for injuries or death related to asbestos exposure from Philips television and/or radios. 15. Philips vacuum tube televisions including, without limitation, the first and last years of manufacture, appearance, and the percentage of televisions which contained asbestos component parts. 16. Philips vacuum tube radios including, without limitation, the first and last years of manufacture, appearance, and the percentage of radios which contained asbestos component parts. 17. The asbestos products used in conjunction with equipment manufactured by Philips, including, without limitation, asbestos cloth, padding, insulation, sound dampener, paper and sheet. 18. The miners, manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors of asbestos, asbestos products, or asbestos component parts, including fiber, incorporated into Philips vacuum tube televisions and radios. 19. Philips communication with any other defendants in this action. 20. Philips relationship with any other defendants in this action. 21. Philips sales practices in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. 22. The reasons why asbestos was used in Philips vacuum tube televisions and radios. 23. The company s financial condition (e.g., revenue, income, profit, etc.). 2 of 10

24. Insurance coverage for this lawsuit. 25. The company s ability to satisfy a verdict. 26. Communications with Johns-Manville concerning TV-Bord. 27. Philips use of TV-Bord in Philips vacuum tube televisions including, without limitation, the first and last year of use and appearance of said televisions. 28. The percentage of asbestos used in asbestos heat shields, cloth, sheet, paper, padding, insulation, and/or sound dampeners incorporated into Philips vacuum tube televisions and radios. 29. When Philips commenced use of asbestos heat shields, padding, insulation, sheets, papers, and/or sound dampeners in its vacuum tube televisions and radios. 30. When Philips ceased use of asbestos heat shields, padding, insulation, sheets, papers, and sound dampeners in its vacuum tube televisions and radios. 31. Whether Philips transistor/solid-state radios contained asbestos heat shields, padding, insulation, sheets, papers and/or sound dampeners. 32. Whether Philips transistor/solid-state televisions contained asbestos heat shields, padding, insulation, sheets, papers, and/or sound dampeners. 33. Whether Philips Hybrid televisions contained asbestos heat shields, padding, insulation, sheets, papers, and/or sound dampeners. 34. To the extent applicable, why Philips chose not to use asbestos heat shields, padding, insulation, sheets, papers, and/or sound dampeners in its products described in subject area numbers 26 through 28 above. 35. Warnings, if any, placed on Philips televisions concerning the health hazards associated with asbestos. 36. Warnings, if any, placed on Philips radios concerning the health hazards associated with asbestos. 37. Warnings placed in any manuals, guides, or other written materials concerning the health hazards associated with asbestos as those materials related to televisions and/or radios. 38. Warnings concerning the creation of dust in connection with repairs or maintenance to Philips televisions and radios. 39. Knowledge of any non-asbestos heat dissipating and/or sound deadening insulation, padding, sheet, cloth, paper, shield or other material that is white in color and was used in Philips vacuum tube televisions and/or radios. 3 of 10

40. The differences, if any and if applicable, in the physical characteristics including, without limitation, the appearance of asbestos and non-asbestos, heat shields, sound deadeners, cloth, sheet, papers, insulation, and/or padding used in Philips vacuum tube televisions and/or radios. 41. Philips attempts to inform the public at large of asbestos in Philips vacuum tube television and radios. 42. The defendant s contentions, impressions and assessments as it relates to the testimony given in this case. 43. All facts, documents, and witnesses that support defendant s contention that it performed each and every duty owed to Amado Gonzales in a reasonable manner. 44. All facts, documents, and witnesses that support defendant s contention that it was not guilty of any negligence that was a proximate or producing cause of Amado Gonzales injuries and damages. 45. All facts, documents, and witnesses that support defendant s contention that any of Amado Gonzales injuries and damages were the result of the negligence of third parties over whom the defendant exercised no direct or indirect control and over whom defendant had no supervisory responsibilities. 46. The identities of the third parties that defendant contends were negligent and resulted in Amado Gonzales injuries and damages over whom the defendant exercised no direct or indirect control and over whom defendant had no supervisory responsibilities. 47. All facts, documents, and witnesses that support defendant s contention that Amado Gonzales was guilty of negligence. 48. All facts, documents, and witnesses that support defendant s contention that Amado Gonzales had a duty to mitigate his injuries and failed to do so. 49. All facts, documents, and witnesses that support defendant s contention that Amado Gonzales injuries and damages are caused by the alteration, modification, or misuse of a product by Amado Gonzales over whom defendant exercised no control. 50. All facts, documents, and witnesses that support defendant s contention that Amado Gonzales injuries and damages are caused by the alteration, modification, or misuse of a product by third persons or parties over whom defendant exercised no control. 51. All facts, documents, and witnesses that support defendant s contention that sometime prior to Amado Gonzales hands-on work with defendant s televisions and/or radios, an asbestos component part was installed which was not installed by Defendant. 52. All facts, documents, and witnesses that show defendant s televisions and/or radios were not sold with a white asbestos material located within to a first time purchaser. 4 of 10

53. All facts, documents, and witnesses that support defendant s contention that Plaintiff s injuries and damages were the result of the abnormal and unintended use of products, which was not reasonably foreseeable. 54. All facts, documents, and witnesses that support defendant s contention that Plaintiff s claims are barred in whole and/or in part by the Doctrine of Comparative Negligence. 55. The items listed in schedule A. 56. All other matters relevant to this action. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that the deposition(s) will commence on October 18, 2016 at 10:30 am EST, continuing day-to-day until completion, at the offices of The Lanier Law Firm, PLLC, 126 East 56th Street, New York, NY 10022. At such date and time, The Lanier Law Firm PLLC will conduct an examination and the testimony will be recorded stenographically and by videotape. This deposition will be held before an officer duly authorized to administer oaths at which time and place you are invited to attend and cross-examine. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that the person(s) to be examined is/are required to provide The Lanier Law Firm PLLC with any and all materials and data, including but not limited to documents, records, journals, brochures and pamphlets that, at any time, were reviewed, referenced and/or relied upon to formulate responses to the NYCAL standard interrogatories and requests for production and the production identification interrogatories and requests for production in this matter, and related attachments, which were submitted in this case, and all responses served by Defendant to the same submitted in this matter. Deponent is required to produce all documents contained within the attached Schedule A at least seven business days prior to the deposition and to bring all documents to said deposition. If the subject areas and items listed in Schedules A require the deposition of more than one witness for Philips, then Philips shall provide the names and titles to each of its persons most knowledgeable and shall afford plaintiffs the opportunity to depose said individuals at a date and 5 of 10

time mutually agreeable upon the parties. Dated: September 15, 2016 New York, New York THE LANIER LAW FIRM PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff(s) By: Joseph N. Cotilletta, Esq. 126 E. 56 th Street, 6 th Floor New York, New York 10022 Tel.: (212) 421-2800 6 of 10

SCHEDULE A 1. The witnesses most recent curriculum vitae or résumé. 2. Defendant s annual reports from 1940 through 1970. 3. Defendant s organizational charts dated 1940 through the present. 4. All Defendant s catalogs dated 1920 through 1980. 5. All documents evidencing Defendant s membership in any industry association between 1920 and 1980. 6. All documents evidencing Defendant s membership in any trade association between 1920 and 1980. 7. All records of sales to Amado Gonzales or any of his employers or worksites. 8. Photographs of each of the defendant s asbestos-containing vacuum tube televisions and radios manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, or supplied which match the plaintiffs witnesses descriptions of televisions and radios which Amado Gonzales worked on. 9. All documents in your possession relating in any way to meetings, correspondence, statements or other communications to or from any manufacturer or supplier (or from their agents, representatives or trade associations) of asbestos, asbestos-containing products and/or asbestos-containing materials concerning the health effects of asbestos. 10. All documents in your possession or of which you have ever become aware relating in any way to meetings, correspondence or other communications of any trade association, labor union, employer or governmental agency (or from any of their agents or representatives) relating to the subjects of occupational health and exposure to asbestos, asbestoscontaining products and/or asbestos-containing materials. 11. All documents prepared by or on behalf of the defendant, prior to this litigation, in any way relating to the documents requested in 9 and 10 above. 12. All documents in your possession relating in any way to the health effects of asbestos, asbestos dust, asbestos fibers, asbestos-containing products and/or asbestos-containing materials mined, processed, designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, transported or installed by any person or entity or by any of the named defendants herein. 7 of 10

13. All documents prepared, written, reviewed, issued or commented on by you or any of your agents or employees relating in any way to warnings, potential health hazards, instructions or precautions regarding the use, handling of, or exposure to asbestos, asbestos dust, asbestos fibers, asbestos-containing products and/or asbestos-containing materials. 14. All statements, recorded interviews, films, videotapes, reports, questionnaires, forms or other documents made, submitted, compiled, prepared or filled out by, on behalf of, or under the direction of defendant or any of its agents or employees relating in any way to exposure or alleged exposure to asbestos, asbestos-containing products and/or asbestoscontaining materials or any other issues relating to asbestos lawsuits, except that information which was prepared by, for, or at the request of defendant's counsel need not be produced (but must be identified, including date) without an order of the Court, provided that the written or recorded communication between defendant and counsel was made after an attorney-client relationship was established. 15. All documents relating to defendant's first knowledge, notice or awareness about the alleged adverse effects of exposure to asbestos, asbestos dust, asbestos fibers, asbestoscontaining products and/or asbestos-containing materials. 16. All records relating to comments, complaints, suggestions or proposals made by your agents, employees, officers, customers, dealers, distributors, contractors or yourself regarding the health effects of asbestos exposure. 17. All photographs of people working with, using or being exposed to any of the asbestoscontaining products you mined, processed, designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, transported or installed. 18. All documents submitted to any federal, state or local government or agency in connection with that body s efforts to establish standards, specifications or levels of ambient or occupational exposure to asbestos or asbestos dust from your products or your products replacement or component parts, whether or not manufactured by you. 19. All records relating to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products of the type mined, processed, designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, transported or installed by defendant and which the defendant has in its possession, custody or control. 20. All labels, tags or warnings which defendant alleges it placed on the boxes, containers, wrappers or other materials which contained the asbestos-containing vacuum tube televisions and/or radios which defendant processed, designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, transported or installed. 8 of 10

21. Any customer, contractor, dealer or distributor complaint or report relating to any asbestoscontaining product that defendant mined, processed, designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, transported or installed and any incident or accident reports defendant produced or received relating to the health hazards of its asbestos-containing products. 22. All communications with or concerning the American Conference of Government and Industrial Hygienists. 23. All documents received by you or in your possession relating to or concerning the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association (QAMA). 24. All documents marked as exhibits in any insurance coverage litigation between you and any liability insurance carrier, particularly those documents relating to disputes about insurance coverage for asbestos-related claims. 25. All documents produced by you in the course of any litigation with your liability insurance carrier regarding asbestos-related liabilities. 26. All documents reviewed by the witness to prepare for the deposition. 27. All documents concerning this defendant s historical knowledge of the dangers of asbestos or asbestos-containing products up to 1985. 28. All documents in the defendant s possession relating to the need to protect its employees or contract workers from exposure to asbestos. 29. All documents in the defendant s possession relating to industrial hygiene studies relating to defendant s vacuum tube televisions and/or radios. 30. All documents in the defendant s possession relating to information provided to this Defendant from any insurance carrier related to the dangers of asbestos exposure. 31. All documents in the defendant s possession relating to workers compensation claims filed against this defendant alleging asbestos-related diseases. 32. All documents in the defendant s possession relating to respiratory protection provided to defendant s employees to prevent the inhalation of potentially harmful dusts. 33. Copies of all state regulations concerning asbestos that were in effect in those states where this defendant had manufacturing facilities up to 1985. 9 of 10

34. All industrial hygiene manuals relating to the protection of employees or contract workers from asbestos fibers or asbestos-containing dust. 35. All documents relating to the membership of this defendant or its employees in any of the following organizations: a. The Air Hygiene Foundation b. The Industrial Hygiene Foundation c. American Industrial Hygiene Association d. The National Safety Council e. The American Petroleum Institute f. The Asbestos Information Association g. The Gypsum Association h. National Insulation Manufacturers Association i. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers j. Associated Radio Manufacturers k. Radio Manufacturers Association l. Radio Television Manufacturers Association m. Radio Electronics Television Manufacturers n. Electronics Industries Association o. Electronics Industries Alliance p. Consumer Electronics Association q. Consumer Technology Association 36. All documents concerning part numbers of defendant s vacuum tube televisions and/or radios associated with asbestos cloth, padding, insulation, sound deadeners, sheets and/or papers. 37. All documents concerning part numbers of defendant s vacuum tube televisions and/or radios associated with non-asbestos cloth, padding, insulation, sound deadeners, sheets and/or papers. 38. All documents defendant intends to use to contradict Amado Gonzales, Marie Gonzales and/or Joseph Gonzales testimony in this case including, without limitation, those deponent s testimony regarding the physical characteristics and/or appearance of defendant s vacuum tube televisions and/or radios. 39. All documents evidencing any mergers, acquisitions, and/or asset purchase agreements between: (a) Philips; and (b) Magnavox; and/or (c) GTE Sylvania; and/or (d) Funai Corpration. 10 of 10