Exhibit 4

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-6 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 20 PageID: 43009
Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.

Christopher M. Placitella, Esq. (NJ Atty #: 027781981)

Michael Coren, Esq. (NJ Atty #: 024871979)

Jared M. Placitella, Esq. (NJ Atty #: 068272013)

127 Maple Avenue

Red Bank, NJ 07701

(732) 747-9003

Fox Rothschild LLP

Jeffrey M. Pollock, Esq. (NJ Atty #: 015751987)

Princeton Pike Corp. Center

997 Lennox Drive, Building 3

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

(609) 896-7660

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

BASF CATALYSTS, LLC, et al.,

 

Defendants.

HONORABLE JOSE L. LINARES

CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1754 (JLL) (JAD)

PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES AND FIFTH SET OF 

DOCUMENT REQUESTS ADDRESSED TO 

DEFENDANT BASF CATALYSTS, LLC, 

Plaintiffs propound the following interrogatories and document requests upon BASF 

Catalysts, LLC (“BASF”) and requests that they be answered fully and under oath by defendant 

within thirty (30) days of service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and 34.

DEFINITIONS

1. “You” and/or “Your” means and refers to any and all corporate entities in the chain 

leading from Engelhard Corporation to BASF Catalysts, LLC, the wholly owned American 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-6 Filed 06/25/18 Page 2 of 20 PageID: 43010
2

subsidiary of the Germany-based international corporation, BASF SE. These entities include, but 

are not limited to, Engelhard Corporation, Engelhard Industries, Engelhard Minerals & Chemicals 

Corporation, Minerals & Chemicals Phillip Corporation, Eastern Magnesia Talc Company, 

Porocel Corporation and Pita Realty Limited. “You” and/or “your” also means and refers to any

current and former officers, directors, employees, attorneys, agents and representatives, and any 

affiliated entities, of the above-mentioned companies, including but not limited to, any non-profit 

entities devoted in whole or in part to the development, design, production, manufacturing, 

marketing, advertising, distribution and sale of EMTAL talc. “BASF” shall also mean and refer to 

any division or subsidiary of the above-named entities.

2. “Asbestos”, “asbestos fibers”, “asbestiform” and/or “fibers” shall mean and refer 

to all types or forms of asbestos, including, but not limited to chrysotile, actinolite, amosite, 

crocidolite, tremolite, and anthophyllite. 

3. “Cahill” shall mean and refer to Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, and its successor, Cahill 

Gordon & Reindel, LLP. “Cahill” shall also mean and refer to any current and former officers, 

directors, employees, attorneys, agents and representatives, and any affiliated entities, of Cahill, 

Gordon & Reindel, and its successor, Cahill Gordon & Reindel, LLP.

4. “Communication” means any information sent or received, including, without 

limitation, any correspondence, memoranda, letters, notes, e-mails, transcripts of voicemail, 

transcripts of telephone conversations, transcripts of meetings, press releases, speeches, public 

statements, sound or video recordings, electronic media, and graphic representations. 

5. “Defense Costs” means and refers to any and all costs, expenses or expenditures 

incurred or paid in connection with or relating to defending against EMTAL Claims whether or 

not (a) paid or incurred directly by You or indirectly on Your behalf by any insurer or any Third 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-6 Filed 06/25/18 Page 3 of 20 PageID: 43011
3

Party; and (b) whether or not You were reimbursed or indemnified by anyone for it. By way of 

illustration, and not limitation, Defense Costs include in-house legal staffing and overhead costs; 

outside national counsel legal fees, costs and expenses; local counsel legal fees, costs and 

expenses; outside specialty counsel fees, costs and expenses; claims administration expenses, loss 

adjustment expenses; service or material vendor charges; document or electronically stored 

information management charges; computer or data management charges; contract labor charges;

medical record acquisition charges; expert consultant and witness fees and expenses; investigator 

costs, filings fees, transcript fees, 

6. “Documents” means any tangible thing, writing, recording or reproduction in any 

manner, any visual or auditory data in your possession, custody or control, including without 

limitation, electronically stored information as defined by Rules 26 and 34, computer data bases, 

hard drives, storage tapes or disks, all email data (including attachments thereto), any digital 

version of any requested information, and any papers or other format on which words have been 

written, printed, typed, digitally embedded or otherwise affixed, correspondence, memoranda, 

transcripts, stenographic or handwritten notes, telegrams, telexes, facsimiles, letters, reports, 

budgets, forecasts, presentations, analyses, training or instructional handbooks or manuals, graphs 

or charts, ledgers, invoices, diaries or calendars, minute books, meeting minutes, computer printouts, prospectuses, financial statements, checks, bank statements, annual, quarterly or other filings 

with any governmental agency or department, annual reports (including schedules thereto), 

statistical studies, articles appearing in publications, press releases, video or audio tapes, and shall 

mean originals or a copy where the original is not in your possession, custody or control, and every 

copy of every document where such copy is not an identical copy of an original (whether different 

from the original by reason of any notation made on such copy or for any other reason). 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-6 Filed 06/25/18 Page 4 of 20 PageID: 43012
4

7. Unless otherwise indicated, “EMTAL” or “product” as used herein shall mean and 

refer to all BASF talc products sold under the brand name “EMTAL”. 

8. Unless otherwise indicated, “EMTAL ore “or “talc ore” as used herein shall mean 

and refer to all talc ore mined and processed at the Johnson Mine.

9. “EMTAL Claim” shall mean and refer to any claim, notice of claim, lawsuit, 

administrative action, arbitration, demand or request for indemnification or contribution, which 

involves, arises from, or is related to alleged harmful exposure to EMTAL talc ore or finished 

product.

10. “EMTAL Claim Claimant” as used herein is a data unit for counting personal injury 

tort and wrongful death claims and is comprised of the alleged physically injured party underlying 

an alleged EMTAL Claim and, if applicable to the EMTAL Claim asserted, the injured party’s 

spouse and family members. For purposes of this counting rule it does not matter that the alleged 

injured party is one of a number of alleged physically injured parties joined as plaintiffs in a single 

suit under a particular docket or court number. As example, a wrongful death act case involving 

an exposed worker who is survived by a spouse and two dependent children are counted all 

together as a one (1) “Emtal Claim Claimant”. If there are five such deceased injured parties and 

families joined in one suit, there are five (5) “Emtal Claim Claimants” counted.

11. “Johnson Mine” shall mean and refer to the talc mine located in or around Johnson, 

Vermont owned and operated by BASF, from which EMTAL talc products were processed and 

manufactured.

12. “Claim Payment” shall mean any payment made by You or on Your behalf to, 

extinguish, resolve, satisfy, settle, discharge, compromise or terminate any liability, claim, 

demand, complaint, judgment, requirement order, or penalty relating to one or more EMTAL 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-6 Filed 06/25/18 Page 5 of 20 PageID: 43013
5

Claims.

13. “Time Period” is defined in Instruction ¶8 below.

14. “Westfall” or the “Westfall case” shall mean and refer to the litigation captioned 

Westfall v. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, et al., C.A. No. 79-0269 (U.S. Dist. Ct. R.I.).

15. As used herein, the words “concerning,” “pertaining to,” “regarding,” “reflecting,” 

or “relating to” shall mean: alluding to, relating to, referring to, containing, connected with, 

discussing, describing, involving, incorporating, identifying, mentioning, constituting, supporting, 

corroborating, demonstrating, proving, evidencing, refuting, disputing, rebutting, controverting 

and/or contradicting. 

16. Words in the singular include the plural, and vice versa, and the words “and” and 

“or” include “and/or.” The past tense includes the present tense when the change of tense does not 

distort the clear meaning.

INSTRUCTIONS

1. These interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing, and You are required to 

supplement your answers based upon any information of which you become aware after you serve 

your initial responses to these interrogatories, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). 

2. To the extent any interrogatory is objected to, set forth all reasons therefore. If you 

claim privilege as a ground for not answering any interrogatory in whole or in part, describe the 

factual basis for your claim of privilege in sufficient detail so as to permit the Court to adjudicate 

the validity of the claim. If you object in part to any interrogatory, answer the remainder 

completely. 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-6 Filed 06/25/18 Page 6 of 20 PageID: 43014
6

3. In answering each interrogatory, state whether the information furnished is within 

the personal knowledge of the person answering and, if not, the name of each person to whom the 

information is a matter of personal knowledge. 

4. In answering each interrogatory, identify each person who assisted or participated 

in preparing or supplying any of the information in the answer to or relied on in preparing answers 

to that interrogatory. 

5. “Identify” shall mean that for each person identified in response to an interrogatory 

that asks to identify persons, state the following: 

(a) whether the person is a current or former employee of BASF; 

(b) the dates of each such person’s employment with BASF; 

(c) the employment position(s) held by the person during the relevant time period; 

(d) the nature of any other relationship the person does or has maintained with BASF; 

(e) the person’s current or last known home and business addresses; and 

(f) the person’s current or last known home and business telephone numbers. 

6. If any information responsive to these interrogatories is withheld based upon a 

claim or privilege, state separately the specific interrogatory to which it is responsive, the privilege 

claimed, and the identity of the persons involved in such communication. If you claim attorneywork product, also identify the matter in connection with which the information it contains was 

obtained and/or prepared. 

7. If the answer to all or any part of the interrogatory is not presently known or 

available, include a statement to the effect, furnish the information now known or otherwise 

available, and respond to the entire interrogatory by supplemental answer, in writing and under 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-6 Filed 06/25/18 Page 7 of 20 PageID: 43015
7

oath, within ten (10) days from the time the entire answer becomes known or available, but in no 

event less than five (5) days prior to trial.

8. Time Period. These questions seek information in BASF's possession, custody and 

control from January 1, 1979 to present. However, if an EMTAL Claim predates January 1, 1979, 

then the earliest date of an Emtal Claim should be used as the beginning date in responding.

INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify every BASF or Engelhard department and each person 

in Your organization who has or who ever had a role in, or were assigned responsibility for,

reviewing, approving, auditing, paying, budgeting, coordinating, controlling, managing, 

monitoring, or recovering reimbursement of Defense Costs that You or anyone on Your behalf,

including without limitation any insurance companies, incurred or paid relating to EMTAL 

Claims.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Were any policies, procedures or guidelines established, 

adopted or otherwise utilized by You or anyone acting on Your behalf to review, manage, pay,

control or track Defense Costs that You or anyone on Your behalf, including without limitation 

any insurance companies, incurred or paid relating to EMTAL Claims? If so please identify and 

describe each one and identify all documents relating to same.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Were any accounting records, accounts, ledgers, internal 

controls or internal control procedures used or maintained to review, pay, manage, control or track 

Defense Costs You or anyone on Your behalf, including without limitation any insurance 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-6 Filed 06/25/18 Page 8 of 20 PageID: 43016
8

companies, incurred or paid relating to EMTAL Claims? If so please identify and describe each 

one and identify all documents relating to same.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Did You maintain records, summaries or other numerical or 

statistical data with respect to the amount of Defense Costs and Claim Payments relating to 

EMTAL Claims either on a case, claim, aggregate or some other basis? If so, by whom were they 

maintained, how, when and for what purpose(s). Please include in your response the identity of all 

documents relating to such records along with the identity of the person who is the document’s 

currently custodian.

. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Were any management reports, internal or external accounting

reports, auditing or financial reports or budgets prepared with respect to or relating to EMTAL 

Claims? If so please identify each report, its author and recipients and its current custodian.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Were any management reports, internal or external accounting

reports, auditing or financial reports or budgets prepared with respect to or relating to Defense 

Costs of Emtal Claims? If so please identify each report, its author and recipients and its current 

custodian.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-6 Filed 06/25/18 Page 9 of 20 PageID: 43017
9

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Were any management reports, internal or external accounting

reports, auditing or financial reports, or budgets prepared with respect to or relating to Claim 

Payments on Emtal Claims? If so please identify each report, its author and recipients and its 

current custodian.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify by specific type, element or category all Defense 

Costs You or anyone on Your behalf incurred or paid in defending Emtal Claims, including 

without limitation any insurance companies.

INTERROGATORY NO. 9: For each year during the Time Period, and excluding 

expenditures relating solely to the defense of the present Williams case, state: (a) the total 

aggregate amount of Defense Costs You or anyone on Your Behalf, including without 

limitation any insurance company, paid to defend EMTAL Claims asserted against You during 

the year; (b) the total number of EMTAL Claim Claimants with actions pending against You

during any portion of the year; (c) the highest total amount of Defense Costs paid by You or 

on Your behalf during the year in defending a single EMTAL Claim Claimant’s EMTAL 

Claim; (d) the lowest total amount of Defense Costs paid by You or on Your behalf during the 

year in defending a single EMTAL Claim Claimant’s EMTAL Claim; (e) the arithmetic 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-6 Filed 06/25/18 Page 10 of 20 PageID: 43018
10

average (mean) total expenditure amount paid by You or on Your behalf in defending a single 

EMTAL Claim Claimant’s EMTAL Claim during the year; and (f) the median expenditure 

paid by You or on Your behalf for defending a single EMTAL Claim Claimant’s EMTAL 

Claims during the year

Please use the following matrix to supply this data:

Interrogatory No. 9 Table

Year (a)

Total Defense 

Expenditures

(b)

Number of 

EMTAL Claim

Claimants

Pending

(c)

Highest single 

EMTAL Claim 

Defense Cost 

expenditure 

during period

(d)

Lowest single 

EMTAL claim 

Defense Cost 

expenditure

(e)

Arithmetic 

Average 

(mean) 

Defense Cost 

expenditure 

(F)

Median 

Defense Cost 

expenditure 

1979

$ $ $ $ $

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-6 Filed 06/25/18 Page 11 of 20 PageID: 43019
11

Year (a)

Total Defense 

Expenditures

(b)

Number of 

EMTAL Claim

Claimants

Pending

(c)

Highest single 

EMTAL Claim 

Defense Cost 

expenditure 

during period

(d)

Lowest single 

EMTAL claim 

Defense Cost 

expenditure

(e)

Arithmetic 

Average 

(mean) 

Defense Cost 

expenditure 

(F)

Median 

Defense Cost 

expenditure 

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-6 Filed 06/25/18 Page 12 of 20 PageID: 43020
12

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: For each year during the Time Period, and excluding the 

present Williams case, state the number of Emtal Claim Claimants’ Emtal Claims that resolved 

or terminated at or during each of the following claim or litigation stages: 

a. Prior to filing of suit or adjudicative claim.

b. At or upon filing of suit or adjudicative claim

c. Filing of Motion to dismiss complaint. 

d. The close of the pleadings if no motion to dismiss filed or if filed was not granted in 

full as to Engelhard or BASF.

e. During discovery but prior to dispositive motions or pretrial conference.

f. Motion for Summary Judgment or similar dispositive motions

g. Pretrial proceedings

h. Trial

i. During Appeal

Please use the following matrix to supply this data:

Interrogatory No. 10 Table

Year a b c d e f g h i

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-6 Filed 06/25/18 Page 13 of 20 PageID: 43021
13

Year a b c d e f g h i

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-6 Filed 06/25/18 Page 14 of 20 PageID: 43022
14

Year a b c d e f g h i

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

INTERROGATORY NO. 11: For each year during the Time Period please state the total 

amount of Claim Payments You or anyone on Your Behalf, including without limitation any 

insurance company, paid relating to Emtal Claims; (b) the number of EMTAL Claim

Claimants whose EMTAL Claims were terminated or resolved by the Claim Payments made 

during the year; (c) the highest Claim Payment amount paid during the year in relation to a 

single Emtal Claim Claimant; and (d) the lowest Claim Payment amount paid during the year 

in relation to a single Emtal Claim Claimant. 

Please use the following matrix to supply this data:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-6 Filed 06/25/18 Page 15 of 20 PageID: 43023
15

Interrogatory No. 11 Table

Year (a)

Total Amount of Claim 

Payments Paid During Year

(b)

Number of 

Emtal Claim 

Claimants 

Claim 

Payments

resolved

(c)

Highest Claim 

Payment to a Single 

EMTAL Claim 

Claimant during 

period

(d)

Lowest Claim 

Payment to a Single 

EMTAL Claim 

Claimant during 

period

1982

$ $ $

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-6 Filed 06/25/18 Page 16 of 20 PageID: 43024
16

Year (a)

Total Amount of Claim 

Payments Paid During Year

(b)

Number of 

Emtal Claim 

Claimants 

Claim 

Payments

resolved

(c)

Highest Claim 

Payment to a Single 

EMTAL Claim 

Claimant during 

period

(d)

Lowest Claim 

Payment to a Single 

EMTAL Claim 

Claimant during 

period

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

DOCUMENT REQUESTS.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. No. 34, please provide copies of the following documents:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-6 Filed 06/25/18 Page 17 of 20 PageID: 43025
17

1. A copy of all documents You identify or refer in response to the above 

interrogatories. 

2. A copy of all documents relating to or containing any information requested in the 

above interrogatories.

3. A copy of all documents You based your responses to above interrogatories upon, 

including any data or information you provide. 

Dated: March 15, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,

COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.

/s/ Michael Coren 

Of Counsel:

Harry M. Roth, Esq. 

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Robert L. Pratter, Esq.

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Christopher M. Placitella, Esq. (NJ Atty #: 027781981)

Michael Coren, Esq. (NJ Atty #: 024871979)

Jared M. Placitella, Esq. (NJ Atty #: 068272013)

127 Maple Avenue

Red Bank, NJ 07701

(732) 747-9003

Fox Rothschild LLP

Jeffery M. Pollock, Esq. (NJ Atty #: 015751987)

Princeton Pike Corp. Center

997 Lennox Drive, Building 3

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

(609) 896-7660

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-6 Filed 06/25/18 Page 18 of 20 PageID: 43026
18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

BASF CATALYSTS, LLC, et al.,

 

Defendants.

HONORABLE JOSE L. LINARES

CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1754 (JLL) 

(JAD)

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES AND

FOURTH SET OF DOCUMENT 

REQUESTS ADDRESSED TO 

DEFENDANT BASF CATALYSTS, 

LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 15, 2018, I served the foregoing on the following attorneys 

via Email:

Eugene F. Assaf, P.C.

Peter Farrell, Esq.

Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 

655 15th St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

eassaf@kirkland.com

Justin T. Quinn, Esq.

Robinson Miller LLC 

One Newark Center, 19th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102 

jquinn@rwmlegal.com

Attorneys for Defendant, BASF Catalysts, LLC

John K. Villa, Esq.

David Blatt, Esq.

Grant A. Geyerman, Esq.

Williams & Connolly, LLP

725 12th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

jvilla@wc.com

ggeyerman@wc.com

Robert E. Ryan, Esq.

Jennifer C. Critchley, Esq.

Connell Foley, LLP

85 Livingston Avenue

Roseland, New Jersey 07068

rryan@connellfoley.com

Attorneys for Cahill Defendants

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-6 Filed 06/25/18 Page 19 of 20 PageID: 43027
19

Kevin H. Marino, Esq.

John A. Boyle, Esq

Marino, Tortorella & Boyle, P.C.

437 Southern Boulevard

Chatham, New Jersey 07928

kmarino@khmarino.com

jboyle@khmarino.com

Attorneys for Defendant Arthur Dornbusch

Eric Tunis, Esq.

Herold Law, P.A.

25 Independence Boulevard

Warren, New Jersey 07059

etunis@heroldlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Thomas Halket

COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.

/s/ Michael Coren 

Of Counsel:

Harry M. Roth, Esq. 

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Robert L. Pratter, Esq.

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Christopher M. Placitella, Esq. (NJ Atty #: 027781981)

Michael Coren, Esq. (NJ Atty #: 024871979)

Jared M. Placitella, Esq. (NJ Atty #: 068272013)

127 Maple Avenue

Red Bank, NJ 07701

(732) 747-9003

Fox Rothschild LLP

Jeffery M. Pollock, Esq. (NJ Atty #: 015751987)

Princeton Pike Corp. Center

997 Lennox Drive, Building 3

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

(609) 896-7660

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-6 Filed 06/25/18 Page 20 of 20 PageID: 43028