Exhibit 9

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 53 PageID: 43274
May 24, 2018

VIA ECF 

The Honorable Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

Special Discovery Master

Ballard Spahr LLP 

210 Lake Drive East, Suite 200 

Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002-1163

RE: Kimberlee Williams, et al. v. BASF Catalysts LLC, et al. 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01754 (JLL) (JAD)

Dear Justice Rivera-Soto: 

Plaintiffs served their Third Set of Interrogatories on BASF generally 

directed to developing evidence bearing upon Plaintiffs’ disgorgement remedy claim 

as well bearing upon defendants’ motive and intent. See BASF’s Ex. E (ECF # 529-

6) (Ps Third Set of Interrogatories). BASF objected to the interrogatories. See P’s 

Ex. A (ECF # 516-2) (BASF’s Objections). The parties met and conferred, during

which Plaintiffs did not withdraw the full set of interrogatories but offered to narrow 

its request to the information sought in Interrogatories 9, 10 and 11 generally dealing 

with defense costs that BASF paid to defend EMTAL talc claims from 1979 through 

2017, (Interrogatory No. 9); the number of Emtal claims that BASF resolved or 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 2 of 53 PageID: 43275 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533 Filed 05/24/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 36625
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 24, 2018 

Page 2

terminated at or during certain stages of the claim or litigation for the years 1979-

2017, (Interrogatory No. 10); the total amount of claim payments BASF paid relating 

to Emtal claims for the years 1979-2017, (Interrogatory No. 11); and the number of

the claims resolved by the payment, (id.). Each of these are relevant and important 

metrics in this matter. BASF, however, continues to object to this more focused 

inquiry. See P’s Ex. A (ECF # 516-2) (BASF’s Objections). Thereafter, Plaintiffs 

filed a Motion to Compel (ECF # 516), and to which BASF has filed its response 

(ECF # 529). Plaintiffs now submit this reply to BASF’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ 

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories. (ECF # 529). 

Interrogatories 9, 10 and 11 in Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories directed to 

BASF are (1) appropriate in number and scope, (2) relevant to the parties’ claims 

and defenses, (3) not duplicative as the information has not already been produced 

and (4) are not unduly burdensome. Indeed, these three interrogatories are the most 

appropriate means to obtain these metrics, which surely must have been tracked by 

BASF for several business reasons. BASF should be compelled to respond. 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 3 of 53 PageID: 43276 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533 Filed 05/24/18 Page 2 of 14 PageID: 36626
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 24, 2018 

Page 3

ARGUMENT

A. Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories Does Not Count Towards the 25 

Interrogatory Limit and Plaintiffs Have Not Exceeded their 25 

Interrogatory Limit.

BASF mischaracterizes the number of interrogatories served by Plaintiffs as 

well as which interrogatories count towards the additional 25 interrogatory limit 

imposed by Judge Dickson’s October 16, 2017 Order. Throughout the course of this 

case, Plaintiffs served a total of three sets of interrogatories on BASF. See BASF’s 

Ex. A (ECF # 529-2) (Ps First Set of Interrogatories), BASF’s Ex. B (ECF # 529-3) 

(Ps Second Set of Interrogatories, BASF’s Ex. E (ECF # 529-6) (Ps Third Set of 

Interrogatories). All in all, Plaintiffs served 34 interrogatories on BASF. However, 

Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories were served on October 23, 2015. See BASF’s 

Ex. A (ECF # 529-2). After Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories were served, on 

October 17, 2016, Judge Dickson entered a scheduling Order providing for a 

“[m]aximum of twenty-five (25) additional interrogatories by each party to each 

other party” in this action. See (ECF 221); see also BASF’s Ex. L (ECF 529-13)

(10/14/16 Hr’g Tr. at 15:6-15) (emphasis added). The plain language of the Order as 

well as the hearing transcript shows that each party (or each of the six Representative 

Plaintiffs) could serve 25 interrogatories in addition to interrogatories already 

served, i.e, the First Set of Interrogatories propounded by Plaintiffs. Thus, the 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 4 of 53 PageID: 43277 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533 Filed 05/24/18 Page 3 of 14 PageID: 36627
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 24, 2018 

Page 4

number of interrogatories in Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, whether it be 17 

or 261, does not count towards the 25 additional interrogatory limit provided for in 

Judge Dickson’s Order and BASF’s implications that it does should be ignored.

Accordingly, the only interrogatories that count towards the 25-interrogatory

limit are Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories containing 4 interrogatories and 

 

1 BASF claims that Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories were “closer to 26 

separate questions” as opposed to 17. See BASF Opp. (ECF 529) at 14. While 

Plaintiffs do not concede that any of the First Set of Interrogatories contained 

“discrete subparts”, the fact of the matter is that BASF substantively answered some 

of those interrogatories “without waiving” its objections and, therefore, any 

objection to those interrogatories based on the number was and is waived. See

BASF’s Ex. C (ECF 529-4); Knit With v. Knitting Fever, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 147695, at 5-6, n. 2 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2010) (finding defendant waived 

objection as to exceeding the interrogatory limit where it answered some 

interrogatories “without waiving” its objection).

By the same token, BASF should be deemed to have waived its objection to 

Plaintiffs’ Second and Third Sets of Interrogatories on grounds that Plaintiffs 

exceeded the 25-interrogatory limit because it provided substantive answers to 

Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories “without waiving” its objection on 

numerosity grounds. Based on BASF’s answers to the Second Set of Interrogatories, 

its claim that “plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories, although styled as 4 

interrogatories, is in fact closer to 52 separate questions” rings hollow. See BASF 

Opp. (ECF 529) at 14. Finally, and as a result of answering Plaintiffs’ Second Set of 

Interrogatories, BASF has waived any objection to answering Interrogatories 9, 10 

and 11 on the grounds the interrogatories served by Plaintiffs exceeded the 25-

interrogatory limit here and BASF should be compelled to respond. See Knit With, 

2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147695, at 5-6, n. 2 (requiring defendant to answer 

interrogatories in excess of 25 where the defendant answered some interrogatories 

without waiving the objection while declining to provide any answer to others based 

on the same objection because a party cannot selectively answer interrogatories).

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 5 of 53 PageID: 43278 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533 Filed 05/24/18 Page 4 of 14 PageID: 36628
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 24, 2018 

Page 5

Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories containing 11 interrogatories. Plaintiffs are 

only moving to compel a response to 3 of the 11 interrogatories (numbers 9, 10 and 

11) propounded in Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories for a total of 14 

interrogatories to be answered by BASF since the time of Judge Dickson’s October 

17, 2016 scheduling order. Plaintiffs are will within their limit of 25 interrogatories 

each2.

Contrary to BASF’s assertion, the format that Plaintiffs requested BASF’s 

answers to interrogatory nos. 9, 10 and 11 in does not turn the interrogatories into 

hundreds of “discrete subparts” for the purposes of Rule 33(a)(1)’s and/or Judge 

Dickson’s scheduling order’s 25 interrogatory limit. Whether a subpart of an 

interrogatory should be counted as a “discrete subpart” and therefore, a separate 

interrogatory depends on whether the subpart is logically or factually subsumed 

within and necessarily related to the primary question. Engage Healthcare 

Communs., LLC v. Intellisphere, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83068, at *10 (D.N.J. 

Feb. 10, 2017). This Court takes a pragmatic approach that “requires application of 

the related question framework with an eye to the competing purposes of Rule 

33(a)(1): allowing reasonable latitude in formulating an inquiry to elicit as complete 

 

2 As set forth in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs would be entitled to serve 

125 interrogatories total.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 6 of 53 PageID: 43279 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533 Filed 05/24/18 Page 5 of 14 PageID: 36629
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 24, 2018 

Page 6

an answer as possible, while at the same time not allowing the multiplication of 

interrogatories to the point that it defeats the purposes underlying the 25-

interrogatory limit.” Id. at *11 (internal quotations omitted). Whether an 

interrogatory is sufficiently discrete to be considered a separate interrogatory 

depends on the particular circumstances of the case. Id.

Plaintiffs’ three interrogatories collectively seek information relating to 

defense costs BASF paid to defend EMTAL talc claims from 1979 through 2017, 

the number of Emtal claims resolved or terminated during this time period and the 

total amount of claim payments BASF paid in respect to the same (Interrogatory 

Nos. 9, 10 and 11). A brief review of these interrogatories shows that any subparts 

to these questions are logically and factually subsumed in the main interrogatory, 

and therefore, are not discrete subparts, particularly in a complex class action case 

involving allegations of BASF’s decades long fraud on litigants and courts

nationwide: the table format is simply a way to obtain this requested information in 

a structured and organized fashion. 

Further, requesting that BASF break down by year its answer to the question 

posed, for a number of years does not automatically turn the interrogatory into 

hundreds of discrete subparts as BASF suggests. See Medigus Ltd. v. Endochoice, 

Inc., Civil Action No. 15-505, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156752, at *7, n.5 (D. De. 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 7 of 53 PageID: 43280 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533 Filed 05/24/18 Page 6 of 14 PageID: 36630
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 24, 2018 

Page 7

July 19, 2016) (finding interrogatories were not discrete subparts where the same 

question was being asked for each year for eight years); High Point SARL v. Spring 

Nextel Corp., Civil Action No. 09-2269, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103118, at *18 (D. 

Kan. Sept. 12, 2011) (finding an interrogatory that requested all revenue on a 

monthly basis from 2002 forward, with such revenue broken down by category of 

revenue, was one interrogatory). Again, this is particularly true in light of the facts 

of this case and the decades long fraud Plaintiffs’ allege that BASF engaged in.

B. The Requests Seek Information Relevant to the Parties’ Claims or 

Defenses and are Proportional to the Needs of the Case. 

BASF has not already produced responsive information that could be used by 

Plaintiffs to generate the information Plaintiffs seek here. BASF specifically refers 

to the Cahill database, which was an electronic database established to track 

complaints that were being brought against Engelhard and various types of litigation, 

including talc litigation. See Excerpt of Deposition of Michael Sullivan attached 

hereto as Exhibit 1 at 171:18-173:18. However, as Plaintiffs have previously 

informed BASF and Cahill, the Cahill database is inoperable as it does not link and 

interrelate the various record information. See Correspondence re: Cahill Database

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 8 of 53 PageID: 43281 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533 Filed 05/24/18 Page 7 of 14 PageID: 36631
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 24, 2018 

Page 8

attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

3 Further, despite Plaintiffs’ requests, neither BASF nor 

Cahill have produced the other documents, the talc case indices, that may provide 

some of this information. The talc indices are also the subject of an outstanding 

motion to compel. See ECF # 525.

The information sought in these three interrogatories is relevant to Plaintiffs’ 

claims (including damages) and BASF’s defenses. In determining whether evidence 

is relevant the Court considers whether the evidence has “a tendency to make a fact 

more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and the fact is of 

consequence in determining the action.” See Williams v. BASF Catalysts, LLC, Civil 

Action No. 11-1754, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122053, at *10 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2017) 

(citing Fed. R. Evid. 401) (internal quotations omitted). Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26 “is to be construed liberally in favor of disclosure, as relevance is a 

 

3 Cahill’s Michael Sullivan testified that Cahill’s Access relational database worked 

prior to it being downloaded and removed by Cahill’s former counsel in connection 

with this case. See Ex. 1 at 171:2-173:18; 181:18-182:14. He further testified it 

contained “objects”, that is forms, from which related information could be 

conveniently assembled from the many various tables of information and viewed.

See Ex. 1 at 171:2-173:18. The database provided however did not contain the forms 

and relational “links” between numerous tables which allow queries and the 

generation of reports. Requests for explanations why this is so continue to go 

unanswered by BASF and Cahill. See Ex. 2. In any event, the Cahill database is not 

one intended or designed to collect the information that is the subject of these 

interrogatories, Ex. 1 at 171:2-173:18.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 9 of 53 PageID: 43282 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533 Filed 05/24/18 Page 8 of 14 PageID: 36632
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 24, 2018 

Page 9

broader inquiry at the discovery stage than at trial.” See Williams, 2017 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 122053, at *10 (citations omitted); Young v. Lukens Steel Co., Civil Action 

No. 92-6490, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1462, *3 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (recognizing that in 

light of the Rule 26’s purpose of allowing the parties to obtain the fullest possible 

knowledge of the issues and facts before trial, wide latitude should be afforded to 

the party seeking discovery).

In the Brief in Support of their Motion for Class Certification, Plaintiffs 

explain the disgorgement remedy they will seek — i.e., disgorgement of, inter alia, 

monies saved by Engelhard in defense costs and liability payments — and why 

disgorgement is a proper remedy in this case. (ECF # 418-1). The information sought 

by Interrogatories 9, 10 and 11 specifically relate to and go towards proving the 

amount of monies BASF should disgorge if Plaintiffs’ are successful. The 

information is also relevant as to BASF’s intent and motive in employing the 

fraudulent asbestos defense scheme. Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 11 are also pertinent 

to a number of issues such as numerosity and ascertainability, which are fundamental 

to the issue of class certification. See, e.g., Younes, 312 F.R.D. at 705 (“Although 7-

Eleven believes Project P is immaterial, there is no legitimate question that plaintiffs 

are entitled to pursue discovery to support their theory of the case, especially in light 

of the allegations in their complaint.”).

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533 Filed 05/24/18 Page 9 of 14 PageID: 36633 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 10 of 53 PageID:

43283
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 24, 2018 

Page 10

C. Whether BASF has to Engage in a Manual Review of Onsite and/or 

Offsite Documents Does Not Make the Request Unduly Burdensome 

and BASF has failed to Meet its Burden to Show Otherwise.

Similarly, BASF’s arguments that the requests are unduly burdensome also 

fail. As an initial matter, and contrary to BASF’s assertions, Plaintiffs do have record 

evidence that the evidence it seeks exists or existed. Arthur Dornbusch, former 

general counsel of Engelhard, testified at his deposition that Engelhard received

separate monthly bills for each legal matter and a general memorandum of the work 

that was done for each matter that he would review and approve for payment. See 

Excerpted Deposition of Arthur Dornbusch attached hereto as Ex. 3 at 107:19-

108:11; see also Excerpted Deposition of Michael Hasset attached hereto as Ex. 4 at 

52:8-18 (testifying: “[Engelhard] in general maintained records of legal expenses 

and all expenses. It’s, you know, a big company with good financial statements....”).

The bill would then go to accounts payable. Ex. 2 at 108:12-17. The financial 

department at Engelhard would also give Mr. Dornbusch sheets with analysis of 

legal expenditures broken down by matter. Id. at 109:13-110:7. Mr. Dornbusch 

further testified that if he wanted to know how much Cahill Gordon billed Engelhard 

from 2003 to 2005 he could obtain that information. See Ex. 2 at 111:7-13. Mr. 

Dornbusch’s testimony confirms the undeniable fact that corporations the size of,

and with the sophistication and resources of BASF and its predecessors, including 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533 Filed 05/24/18 Page 10 of 14 PageID: 36634 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 11 of 53 PageID:

43284
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 24, 2018 

Page 11

Engelhard, have numerous accounting, financial, and budgetary procedures and 

controls to know what they are spending on legal defense costs, and especially the 

fees charged by outside law firms. Nothing in BASF’s Response or accompanying 

declaration support a finding that the information sought is truly burdensome or no 

longer exists — BASF just does not want to look for it.

To show an undue burden, BASF had to demonstrate with “specificity and 

factual detail” the nature and extent of the burden Plaintiffs’ requests would pose. 

Parks, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-00946, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

112861 at * 15-16, n. 3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2005). In Clark v. Mellon Bank, N.A., 

Civil Action No. 92-4823, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2924, at *6-7 (E.D. Pa. 1993), the 

court required the defendants’ to answer the plaintiff’s request to compile highly 

personal information concerning hundreds of employees from departments and 

divisions other than plaintiff’s department/division because the defendant did not 

produce evidence to suggest that defendants’ agents could not go to a single or even 

various locations to quickly and efficiently search the files to uncover the necessary 

information to respond to plaintiff’s requests. Id. at *6-7.

BASF further bases its undue burden claim on the fact that the information is 

not readily available to it as it cannot generate the information requested in the exact 

form Plaintiffs seek in an automated fashion. BASF supports this argument with the 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533 Filed 05/24/18 Page 11 of 14 PageID: 36635 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 12 of 53 PageID:

43285
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 24, 2018 

Page 12

declaration of a manager “generally familiar” with BASF’s current and historical 

accounting. See Ex. M to BASF’s Opp. (ECF 529-14) at ¶¶ 1-2. While the 

declaration provides that the information cannot be automated in the “form” 

Plaintiffs seek, it does not state that the information needed to complete the 

interrogatory cannot be automated at all or at the very least obtained through manual 

review. Id. at ¶¶ 4-7. As in Clark, supra, the fact that BASF will have to engage in 

a manual review of information onsite and/or offsite does not make the request 

unduly burdensome. There is nothing in the declaration stating that the information 

cannot be automated, just that it cannot be automated into the exact grid-type form 

Plaintiffs’ requested the answers be provided in. Further, the declaration is 

completely devoid of any indication as to how much time the review would take or 

how expensive the review would be and therefore, BASF cannot meet its burden of 

showing the request is unduly burdensome. Parks, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

1128861 at * 15-16, n. 3. 

Finally, the fact that Plaintiffs’ requests span a number of years, in this class 

action case alleging a decades long fraud, is not grounds for finding a request unduly 

burdensome. Parks, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1128861 at * 15-16, n. 3; Roseberg 

v. Johns-Manville Corp., 85 F.R.D. 292, 296 (E.D.Pa. 1980) (in an asbestos case, a 

request was not unduly burdensome, unreasonable or irrelevant by virtue of spanning 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533 Filed 05/24/18 Page 12 of 14 PageID: 36636 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 13 of 53 PageID:

43286
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 24, 2018 

Page 13

fifty years). Moreover, current defense expenditures on Emtal talc litigation and

BASF’s liability in an environment where the suppressed facts are known to at least 

some plaintiffs are germane to the valuation issues in this matter.

BASF cannot evade responding to Plaintiffs’ relevant discovery requests 

simply because it does not want to make an effort to respond.

CONCLUSION

In sum, BASF should be compelled to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 10 

and 11 of Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories directed to BASF as the service of 

those interrogatories complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1), and BASF did not 

carry its burden to object to them. 

Respectfully Submitted,

COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.

/s/ Christopher M. Placitella

Christopher M. Placitella, Esq.

(NJ Atty #: 027781981)

Michael Coren, Esq.

(NJ Atty #: 024871979)

Jared M. Placitella, Esq.

(NJ Atty #: 068272013)

Eric S. Pasternack, Esq.

(NJ Atty #: 015132011)

127 Maple Avenue

Red Bank, NJ 07701

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

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533 Filed 05/24/18 Page 13 of 14 PageID: 36637 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 14 of 53 PageID:

43287
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 24, 2018 

Page 14

(732) 747-9003

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative

Class

cc: All Counsel of Record (via ECF)

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533 Filed 05/24/18 Page 14 of 14 PageID: 36638 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 15 of 53 PageID:

43288
COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C. Christopher M. Placitella, Esq. 

(027781981) Michael Coren, Esq. (024871979) 

Jared M. Placitella, Esq. (068272013) 

Eric S. Pasternack, Esq. (015132011) 

127 Maple Avenue 

Red Bank, NJ 07701 

(732) 747-9003

FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 

Jeffrey M. Pollock, Esq. (015751987) 

997 Lenox Drive, Building 3 

Princeton Pike Corporate Ctr. Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 

(609) 896-3600

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al.

 

 Plaintiffs,

 vs.

BASF CATALYSTS LLC, et al.

 

 Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-01754 (JLL) (JAD)

CIVIL ACTION

CERTIFICATION OF 

COUNSEL

CHRISTOPHER M. PLACITELLA, of full age, hereby certifies as follows:

1. I am an attorney at law in the State of New Jersey and a shareholder with the law 

firm of Cohen, Placitella and Roth, P.C.

2. I am familiar with the facts and circumstances of the within action.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 36639 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 16 of 53 PageID:

43289
3. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the March 23, 

2018 deposition of Michael Sullivan.

4. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the compilation of

correspondence between counsel in Williams v. BASF Catalysts, LLC., Civil Action No. 11-

1754.

5. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the May 14, 

2018 deposition of Arthur Dornbusch.

6. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the April 24, 

2018 deposition of Michael Hassett.

I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the 

foregoing statements by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.

/s/ Christopher M. Placitella

CHRISTOPHER M. PLACITELLA

Dated: May 15, 2018

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 36640 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 17 of 53 PageID:

43290
EXHIBIT 1

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-2 Filed 05/24/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 36641 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 18 of 53 PageID:

43291
Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 Civil Action No.

 -against- 11-1754(JLL)(JAD)

BASF CATALYSTS, LLC, et al.,

 Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

 Videotaped oral deposition of

 MICHAEL SULLIVAN, taken pursuant to

 notice, was held at the law offices of

 PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, 620 Eighth Avenue,

 New York, New York, commencing March 23,

 2018, 10:05 a.m., on the above date,

 before Leslie Fagin, a Court Reporter

 and Notary Public in the State of New

 York.

 - - -

 MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES

 320 West 37th Street, 12th Floor

 New York, New York 10018

 (866) 624-6221

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-2 Filed 05/24/18 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 36642 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 19 of 53 PageID:

43292
2 (Pages 2 to 5)

Page 2

1

2 APPEARANCES:

3

COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.

4 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

 124 Maple Avenue

5 Red Bank, New Jersey 07701

BY: CHRISTOPHER M. PLACITELLA, ESQUIRE

6 MICHAEL COREN, ESQUIRE

7

8 PEPPER HAMILTON LLP

Attorneys for Cahill Gordon and the Witness

9 Michael Sullivan

 3000 Two Logan Square

10 Eighteenth and Arch Streets

 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

11 BY: BARRY H. BOISE, ESQUIRE

 KYLE DOLINSKY, ESQUIRE

12 (Appearing via telephone.)

13

14 KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP

Attorneys for Defendant BASF Catalysts, LLC

15 655 15th Street, N.W.

 Washington, D.C. 20005

16 BY: PETER FARELL, ESQUIRE

17

18 MARINO, TORTORELLA & BOYLE, P.C.

Attorneys for Defendant Arthur Dornbusch

19 437 Southern Boulevard

 Chatham, New Jersey 07928

20 BY: JOHN A. BOYLE, ESQUIRE

 (Appearing via telephone.)

21

22

23

24

25

Page 3

1

2 APPEARANCES:

3

4 HEROLD LAW, P.A.

Attorneys for Defendant Thomas Halkett

5 25 Independence Boulevard

 Warren, New Jersey 07059

6 BY: ERIC TUNIS, ESQUIRE

 (Appearing via telephone.)

7

8

ALSO PRESENT:

9

 RAY MOORE, Videographer

10 Magna Legal Services

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 4

1

2 (Exhibit P-1-A, notice of

3 deposition, marked for identification.)

4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on

5 the record.

6 This begins DVD No. 1 in the

7 deposition of Michael Sullivan in the

8 matter of Kimberlee Williams, et al.

9 versus BASF Catalysts, LLC, et al. in

10 the United States District Court, for

11 the District of New Jersey, civil action

12 11-1754.

13 Today is March 23, 2018 and the

14 time is 10:05 a.m.

15 This deposition is being taken 620

16 Eighth Avenue, New York New York at the

17 request of Cohen, Placitella & Roth.

18 The videographer is Ray Moore of

19 Magna Legal Services and the court

20 reporter is Leslie Fagin of Magna Legal

21 Services.

22 Will the court reporter please

23 swear in the witness.

24 M I C H A E L S U L L I V A N, called as

25 a witness, having been duly sworn by a

Page 5

1 M. Sullivan

2 Notary Public, was examined and testified

3 as follows:

4 EXAMINATION BY

5 MR. PLACITELLA:

6 Q. Good morning, Mr. Sullivan. How

7 are you?

8 A. I'm doing well. Thank you.

9 Q. I'm Chris Placitella. I'm here for

10 purposes of taking your deposition.

11 Have you ever had your deposition

12 taken before?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Have you ever attended any

15 depositions?

16 A. No.

17 Q. So I'm going to ask you a series of

18 questions, which I ask that you respond to --

19 MR. BOISE: Those on the phone, can

20 you please mute the phones, there is

21 some background noise.

22 MR. PLACITELLA: Heavy breathing,

23 to be exact.

24 MR. TUNIS: Before you start your

25 questioning, you are breaking up and I'm

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-2 Filed 05/24/18 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 36643 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 20 of 53 PageID:

43293
43 (Pages 166 to 169)

Page 166

1 M. Sullivan

2 Q. Do you have knowledge that there

3 was a database used at Cahill Gordon

4 concerning the EMTAL Talc litigation?

5 MR. FARELL: Objection to form.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Did you have any role in the

8 construction or use of that database?

9 MR. FARELL: Objection to form.

10 MR. BOISE: Compound.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. What was your role?

13 A. At any particular point in time?

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. Because the databases kind of

16 evolved.

17 Q. Tell me what your understanding is

18 of the evolution of the database, maybe that

19 will help.

20 A. It started out in one form with one

21 particular software and it expanded and

22 everything from that database at that time

23 was then converted and imported into the next

24 platform, which was Advanced Revelation and

25 then that expanded out beyond, when Advanced

Page 167

1 M. Sullivan

2 Revelation was no longer a company, it was

3 converted to Microsoft Access database.

4 Q. What was the original platform?

5 MR. FARELL: Objection to form.

6 A. From my knowledge, because it was

7 in existence before I started is Nutshell.

8 Q. And were you there when it

9 converted over to the second platform?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Was all the information in the

12 first platform transferred to the second

13 platform?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And when it was converted over to

16 the Access database, was all the information

17 that was contained in the second platform

18 imported and made accessible in the Access

19 database?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Was this a database created

22 specifically for the EMTAL Talc litigation or

23 was it broader than that?

24 MR. FARELL: Objection to form.

25 MR. BOISE: Which database?

Page 168

1 M. Sullivan

2 MR. PLACITELLA: The Access

3 database.

4 A. By that time, it was broader than

5 that.

6 Q. What did it entail, did it involve

7 all of the litigation in your office or

8 specific litigations?

9 MR. FARELL: Objection to form.

10 A. Specific.

11 Q. Which ones?

12 A. Involving Engelhard.

13 Q. So this was an Engelhard database?

14 A. Yes, that was the only client that

15 we had in there, yes.

16 Q. Who was in charge of that database?

17 MR. FARELL: Objection to form.

18 A. Me.

19 Q. You were?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Were you involved in the

22 construction of that database?

23 A. To a certain degree, but like I

24 said, it was a conversion of one platform to

25 another, so that structure, so to speak, was

Page 169

1 M. Sullivan

2 carried over and conformed to fit and work

3 with Access.

4 Q. And this was now a database, the

5 Access database that involved all work that

6 was being done for Engelhard, including the

7 EMTAL Talc litigation, correct?

8 MR. BOISE: Objection to form,

9 foundation.

10 A. All, I mean all -- I don't know,

11 but cases that I know that I was working on.

12 Q. When you say, cases, which cases?

13 MR. FARELL: Objection to form.

14 A. Just the talc cases certainly and

15 then there were other cases involving another

16 subsidiary of Engelhard which we considered

17 to be premises cases and then there were

18 other types of cases, silica cases, cases

19 involving other products.

20 Q. Did any of the insurance-related

21 litigation get put in that database?

22 MR. BOISE: Objection to form,

23 foundation.

24 MR. FARELL: Objection to form.

25 A. Insurance-related litigation.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-2 Filed 05/24/18 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 36644 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 21 of 53 PageID:

43294
44 (Pages 170 to 173)

Page 170

1 M. Sullivan

2 Q. Was there insurance-related

3 litigation in that database?

4 MR. FARELL: Objection to form,

5 foundation.

6 A. No.

7 Q. Was it a relational database?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Do you know what I mean by

10 relational -- could you define what you

11 understand relational to be?

12 A. A relational database is a database

13 where there are various instances of a one

14 to many relationship.

15 Q. Were there tables in that database?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. I'm talking about the Access

18 database.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. That's the one you have the most

21 familiarity with, correct?

22 MR. BOISE: As opposed to what?

23 Q. As it relates to Engelhard

24 litigation.

25 A. Sure.

Page 171

1 M. Sullivan

2 Q. When it was put into the Access

3 database and you turned on the computer

4 screen, what would you see? They all think

5 it's funny.

6 A. There are various things you can

7 see, but the way I created it was so that

8 there was a screen that would give a list of

9 the primary tables that you could go into

10 and, actually, not tables, but forms that

11 would provide information.

12 Q. So when you turned on the screen,

13 would you see the list of the tables, would

14 you see a form, what would you see?

15 A. You can consider that to be a form

16 with a list of the primary parts to the

17 relational database.

18 Q. What was the purpose of the

19 database?

20 MR. FARELL: Objection to form,

21 foundation, privileged, to the extent

22 it's going to get into the substance of

23 communications. If there is a general

24 purpose or subject matter that you can

25 speak to, that's fine, but specific

Page 172

1 M. Sullivan

2 conversations between you and your

3 colleagues may be privileged.

4 Can you give kind of a high level

5 answer?

6 THE WITNESS: Yes.

7 A. To track complaints that were being

8 brought against Engelhard and various types

9 of litigations.

10 Q. Did it track more than just

11 complaints? What did it track?

12 MR. FARELL: Objection to form.

13 A. It would track basically

14 information that we -- the complaints

15 themselves, plaintiffs and any information

16 that was contained therein or any other

17 document received thereafter about

18 plaintiffs, to the extent it could be coded.

19 Other pleadings, answers, amended complaints,

20 if certain information we received in some

21 jurisdictions from plaintiff's counsel,

22 questionnaires and whatnot, that information

23 would go in there, so that would include work

24 history, including years of employment,

25 exposures, military history, prior work

Page 173

1 M. Sullivan

2 history, that type of information. Also,

3 about counsel representing various defendants

4 and plaintiffs. That's all I remember right

5 now.

6 Q. This was done for every case

7 involving EMTAL Talc?

8 MR. FARELL: Objection to form and

9 foundation.

10 MR. BOISE: Mischaracterizes

11 testimony.

12 Q. I'm asking.

13 A. To the extent I was aware of the

14 cases, I don't know if --

15 THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I

16 didn't hear you.

17 A. To the extent I was aware of the

18 cases.

19 Q. Was it your intent in administering

20 the database that it capture all information

21 that was provided concerning the cases you

22 were involved in?

23 MR. FARELL: Did you get the second

24 half of the witness' answer?

25 Can you read back his last answer

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-2 Filed 05/24/18 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 36645 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 22 of 53 PageID:

43295
45 (Pages 174 to 177)

Page 174

1 M. Sullivan

2 as you recorded it, please?

3 MR. BOISE: Off the record for a

4 moment.

5 (Record read.)

6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is now

7 2:32 p.m. and we are going off the

8 record.

9 (Off the record.)

10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is now

11 2:41 p.m. We are back on the record.

12 MR. FARELL: Before we resume, I

13 wanted to note the conversation that was

14 had off the record following the last

15 Q&A with the witness, which is that Mr.

16 Sullivan was asked about the content and

17 the completeness of the Cahill

18 databases, and only a portion of his

19 answer was recorded on the stenographic

20 record due to some cross talk and

21 distractions.

22 I noted off the record that Mr.

23 Sullivan -- the second half of Mr.

24 Sullivan's answer was he did not know

25 whether the Cahill database contained

Page 175

1 M. Sullivan

2 all of the EMTAL Talc related cases that

3 had filed against Engelhard.

4 Mr. Placitella initially disputed

5 that, then said the video record could

6 confirm whether the second half of his

7 answer did, in fact, state what I have

8 just said it stated, so it sounds like

9 the plaintiffs are agreeing that in this

10 instance, the video record will confirm

11 what the witness' testimony was.

12 I will say that while I was here

13 listening to the answer, I heard the

14 answer that he did not know whether the

15 database contained all cases.

16 Go ahead, Mr. Placitella.

17 MR. PLACITELLA: I appreciate you

18 saying that multiple times, but whatever

19 is on the video, is on the video.

20 Q. Was it the intent for the database

21 to capture information for all cases?

22 MR. FARELL: Objection to form and

23 foundation.

24 MR. BOISE: Objection to form.

25 A. No.

Page 176

1 M. Sullivan

2 Q. It wasn't the intent.

3 So you created a database and you

4 didn't intend on it to capture the

5 information for all the EMTAL Talc cases?

6 MR. FARELL: Objection to form and

7 foundation.

8 MR. BOISE: You are arguing with

9 him.

10 A. Not at all.

11 Q. What cases did you intend to leave

12 out?

13 MR. BOISE: Objection to form.

14 MR. FARELL: Objection to form,

15 foundation.

16 MR. BOISE: Your questions leading

17 to this issue is confusing nature and

18 objectionable nature of your question.

19 Q. What cases did you intend to leave

20 out when you were creating and administering

21 the database used for the EMTAL Talc

22 litigation?

23 MR. FARELL: Objection to form and

24 foundation.

25 A. I didn't intend to leave any out

Page 177

1 M. Sullivan

2 that I --

3 MR. BOISE: Finish your answer.

4 A. That I became aware of.

5 Q. To the extent that you were aware

6 to put everything in there, correct?

7 MR. FARELL: Objection to form.

8 A. I don't know what you mean by,

9 everything, and you are saying all

10 information, I don't know what you mean by

11 that.

12 Q. Let me back up.

13 Was it your intent to capture

14 information for all of the people who sued

15 Engelhard or BASF in an EMTAL Talc case?

16 MR. BOISE: Objection to form.

17 A. If I got a copy of the complaint,

18 the names of the plaintiffs would be

19 captured.

20 Q. Were there systems put in place to

21 assure that the complaint was sent to you

22 when a complaint was filed to make sure it

23 was captured?

24 MR. FARELL: Objection to form,

25 foundation.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-2 Filed 05/24/18 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 36646 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 23 of 53 PageID:

43296
46 (Pages 178 to 181)

Page 178

1 M. Sullivan

2 A. I don't know about any specific

3 procedures put in place.

4 Q. Well, the intent wasn't to just do

5 it on a happenstance basis, right? The

6 intent was every time Engelhard was sued in

7 an EMTAL talc case or BASF was sued in an

8 EMTAL Talc case, was to capture information

9 on that plaintiff in your database?

10 MR. FARELL: Objection to form and

11 foundation.

12 A. Plaintiff's names and associations

13 with complaint numbers, sure.

14 Q. Who had access to this database

15 besides you?

16 MR. FARELL: Objection to form.

17 A. Other legal assistants and

18 attorneys, if they wanted it.

19 Q. Did anybody outside the firm have

20 access to the database?

21 MR. BOISE: You are talking the

22 last Access database?

23 MR. PLACITELLA: Yes.

24 MR. FARELL: Objection to form.

25 A. Not that I recall.

Page 179

1 M. Sullivan

2 Q. Was the database used to prepare

3 reports for the client?

4 MR. FARELL: Objection to form.

5 A. No.

6 Q. You said before there was -- prior

7 to the Access database, there was a database

8 called Revelation?

9 A. Advanced Revelation, yes.

10 Q. When did that changeover take

11 place?

12 A. I don't remember specifically, I

13 don't remember.

14 Q. Were you the official custodian of

15 the database?

16 MR. BOISE: Objection to form.

17 MR. FARELL: Objection to form.

18 A. I mean, yes. I don't know if

19 official is the right word, but, yes, I

20 always knew where it was.

21 Q. Was it networked?

22 A. It's not like a -- no, it was on

23 the network, but it was not a

24 networkable-type database where multiple

25 people could...

Page 180

1 M. Sullivan

2 Q. Was there a manual or training

3 materials that explained to people how to use

4 this database?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Did you log -- first of all, you

7 did some of the coding in the database

8 yourself, correct?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. When we say coding, what do you

11 mean by that, so the record is clear?

12 A. Reviewing a complaint, for example,

13 and taking the information from the complaint

14 and entering into it into specific fields in

15 the database.

16 Q. Or if there was an interrogatory

17 answer, someone would look at it and extract

18 information and put into the database?

19 MR. FARELL: Objection to form,

20 foundation.

21 A. No.

22 Q. We will get to that. Maybe the

23 easier way to do this...

24 (Exhibit P-1-C, database tables,

25 marked for identification.)

Page 181

1 M. Sullivan

2 Q. C-1, I gave you, is what we printed

3 out from the database that was given to us.

4 Is this an accurate

5 characterization of the tables that are in

6 the database?

7 MR. BOISE: Take a look at the

8 whole document.

9 MR. FARELL: What's the pending

10 question?

11 (Record read.)

12 MR. FARELL: Of the tables?

13 MR. PLACITELLA: Correct.

14 MR. FARELL: Objection to form.

15 A. I don't know if this is absolutely

16 every table, but a lot of these tables do

17 look familiar.

18 Q. Do you still have the database?

19 A. No.

20 Q. What happened to it?

21 A. It was collected by counsel.

22 Q. Counsel, being, who?

23 A. Williams & Connelly.

24 Q. And when was that?

25 A. Somewhere around the litigation. I

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-2 Filed 05/24/18 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 36647 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 24 of 53 PageID:

43297
47 (Pages 182 to 185)

Page 182

1 M. Sullivan

2 don't know exactly.

3 Q. Up until that point in time, was

4 the database functional?

5 MR. FARELL: Objection to form.

6 A. To my recollection, yes.

7 Q. Did you delete your copy of the

8 database from the network?

9 MR. BOISE: Objection to form.

10 A. It was collected and removed. I

11 had nothing to do with that part of it.

12 Q. Was it physically removed from the

13 Cahill premises, the entire database?

14 A. I don't know what happened to it.

15 Q. Do you have a list of all the

16 tables in the database somewhere?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Does such a list exist?

19 A. I don't recall ever creating one.

20 Q. How would we know whether the

21 database we received contained all of the

22 tables?

23 MR. FARELL: Objection to form and

24 foundation.

25 A. I don't know.

Page 183

1 M. Sullivan

2 Q. So the exhibit -- if you go to the

3 last page of the exhibit in front of you --

4 MR. FARELL: Did this get marked

5 with a number?

6 MR. PLACITELLA: It did.

7 MR. BOISE: C-1.

8 MR. PLACITELLA: I think she marked

9 it 1-C.

10 MR. BOISE: The record will reflect

11 that you said C-1.

12 MR. PLACITELLA: It's fine.

13 Q. This is a list of the tables that

14 we construct from reviewing the database.

15 Can you look at it and tell me

16 whether you think there are any tables

17 missing?

18 MR. FARELL: Objection to form.

19 Q. For the record, I have 87 separate

20 tables listed.

21 A. I have no -- this was a long time

22 ago and I really have no knowledge of every

23 table.

24 MR. PLACITELLA: Can we mark this

25 the next in line.

Page 184

1 M. Sullivan

2 (Exhibit P-1-D, database tables,

3 marked for identification.)

4 Q. So you have in front of you what's

5 been marked 1-D and what I tried to do, in

6 preparation for today's deposition, is drill

7 down into some of the tables to see what kind

8 of information is in there, okay?

9 A. Okay.

10 Q. The very first page is just what it

11 would look like blank without looking at any

12 tables specifically. You got me?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. So then if you go to the next page,

15 I went into the case table.

16 Do you see that?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And when I look at the case table,

19 and this is just a screen shot of -- it's not

20 the entire table, it's just a screen shot,

21 but I want to ask you some information.

22 A. Okay.

23 Q. The first column is case number.

24 What does that represent?

25 MR. FARELL: Objection to form.

Page 185

1 M. Sullivan

2 A. The case number from the complaint.

3 Q. So when a case comes in -- a

4 complaint comes in, you record that under

5 this column, case number?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Then the next column is case name.

8 Do you see that?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And does that mean that's what the

11 caption said in the complaint?

12 A. Yes, generally.

13 Q. And then there is a column for the

14 court, correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And then you record who the judge

17 was, right?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. You record what happened to the

20 case, correct?

21 MR. BOISE: Objection to form.

22 MR. FARELL: Objection to form and

23 foundation.

24 Q. You write for case status, there is

25 a list of cases, they all say dismissed, with

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-2 Filed 05/24/18 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 36648 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 25 of 53 PageID:

43298
EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-3 Filed 05/24/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 36649 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 26 of 53 PageID:

43299
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-3 Filed 05/24/18 Page 2 of 14 PageID: 36650 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 27 of 53 PageID:

43300
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-3 Filed 05/24/18 Page 3 of 14 PageID: 36651 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 28 of 53 PageID:

43301
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-3 Filed 05/24/18 Page 4 of 14 PageID: 36652 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 29 of 53 PageID:

43302
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-3 Filed 05/24/18 Page 5 of 14 PageID: 36653 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 30 of 53 PageID:

43303
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-3 Filed 05/24/18 Page 6 of 14 PageID: 36654 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 31 of 53 PageID:

43304
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-3 Filed 05/24/18 Page 7 of 14 PageID: 36655 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 32 of 53 PageID:

43305
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-3 Filed 05/24/18 Page 8 of 14 PageID: 36656 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 33 of 53 PageID:

43306
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-3 Filed 05/24/18 Page 9 of 14 PageID: 36657 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 34 of 53 PageID:

43307
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-3 Filed 05/24/18 Page 10 of 14 PageID: 36658 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 35 of 53 PageID:

43308
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-3 Filed 05/24/18 Page 11 of 14 PageID: 36659 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 36 of 53 PageID:

43309
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-3 Filed 05/24/18 Page 12 of 14 PageID: 36660 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 37 of 53 PageID:

43310
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-3 Filed 05/24/18 Page 13 of 14 PageID: 36661 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 38 of 53 PageID:

43311
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-3 Filed 05/24/18 Page 14 of 14 PageID: 36662 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 39 of 53 PageID:

43312
EXHIBIT 3

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-4 Filed 05/24/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 36663 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 40 of 53 PageID:

43313
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 - - -

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, : CIVIL ACTION

et al., :

 Plaintiffs, :

 :

 vs. :

 :

BASF CATALYSTS, LLC, :

et al., :

 Defendants : NO. 2:11-CV-1754

 - - -

 MONDAY, MAY 14, 2018

 - - -

 Videotaped deposition of

ARTHUR DORNBUSCH, was held at the law offices

of Littleton, Park, Joyce, Ughetta & Kelly,

141 West Front Street, Suite 120, Red Bank,

New Jersey, commencing at 9:06 a.m., on the

above date, before Deborah A. Brazukas, a

Registered Professional Reporter, Certified

Shorthand Reporter of New Jersey, License No.

XI 01938, and Notary Public.

 MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES

 (866) 624-6221

 www.MagnaLS.com

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-4 Filed 05/24/18 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 36664 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 41 of 53 PageID:

43314
2 (Pages 2 to 5)

Page 2

1 APPEARANCES:

2 COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.

 BY: CHRISTOPHER M. PLACITELLA, ESQUIRE

3 MICHAEL COREN, ESQUIRE

 127 Maple Avenue

4 Red Bank, New Jersey 07701

 732.747.9003

5 cplacitella@cprlaw.com

 mcoren@cprlaw.com

6 Counsel for Plaintiffs

7

8 KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP

 BY: PETER FARRELL, ESQUIRE

9 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.

 Washington, D.C. 20005

10 202.879.5959

 peter.farrell@kirkland.com

11 Counsel for BASF Catalysts, LLC

12

13 PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP

 BY: BARRY BOISE, ESQUIRE

14 3000 Two Logan Square

 18th and Arch Streets

15 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

 215.981.4591

16 boiseb@pepperlaw.com

 Counsel for Cahill, Gordon; Peter

17 Sloane; Ira Dembrow

18

19 MARINO, TORTORELLA & BOYLE, P.C.

 BY: KEVIN MARINO, ESQUIRE

20 JOHN BOYLE, ESQUIRE

 437 Southern Boulevard

21 Chatham Township, New Jersey 07928

 973.824.9300

22 khmarino@khmarino.com

 jboyle@khmarino.com

23 Counsel for Arthur Dornbusch

24

Page 3

1 APPEARANCES (Continued):

2

3 HEROLD LAW, P.A.

 BY: ERIC TUNIS, ESQUIRE

4 25 Independence Boulevard

 Warren, New Jersey 07059

5 908.484.1153

 etunis@herold.com

6 Counsel for Thomas Halket

7 ALSO PRESENT:

8 Sneha Desai, Esquire

 Robert Pratter, Esquire (via telephone)

9 Lea Callahan

 Ray Moore, The Videographer

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Page 4

1 INDEX

2 - - -

3 TESTIMONY OF: PAGE

4 ARTHUR DORNBUSCH

5 BY MR. PLACITELLA 11

6

7 - - -

8 EXHIBITS

9 - - -

10 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE

11 Dornbusch1 United States Securities

 and Exchange Commission,

12 Washington, D.C.,

 Schedule 14A *

13

Dornbusch2 Excerpt from BASF Privilege

14 Log - Dornbusch *

15 Dornbusch3 Excerpt from BASF Privilege

 Log - O'Shaughnessy Ashton

16 Entries *

17 1 Cahill Collection of Testing

 Document (Excluding

18 Privileged Documents) *

19 3 Transcript of deposition of

 Glenn Hemstock, March 16,

20 1983, Re: Westfall vs.

 Whittaker, Clark & Daniels,

21 et al. *

22

23

24

Page 5

1 EXHIBITS (Continued):

2 - - -

3 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE

4 4 Transcript of deposition of

 Peter Gale, April 26, 1983,

5 Re: Westfall vs. Wittacker,

 Clark & Daniels, et al. *

6

 5 Affidavit of William H.

7 Ashton *

8 6 Affidavit of Charles D.

 Carter *

9

 13 Excerpt of transcript of

10 deposition of Daniel

 Steinmetz, July 18, 2017,

11 Re: Sampson vs. 3M Company,

 et al. *

12

 14 Summary of Activities

13 Related to Servives Rendered

 for Decof & Grimm in the case

14 of David H. Westfall vs.

 Whittaker, Clark & Daniels,

15 et al. *

16 15 Inter-Department Memorandum,

 Minerals & Chemical Division,

17 Document Retrieval -

 Discontinued Operations,

18 March 7, 1984 *

19 41 Answers of BASF Catalysts

 LLC ton Interrogatories

20 Propounded by the Plaintiffs,

 Re: Williams, et al. vs.

21 BASF Catalysts, LLC, et al. *

22

23

24

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-4 Filed 05/24/18 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 36665 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 42 of 53 PageID:

43315
3 (Pages 6 to 9)

Page 6

1 EXHIBITS (Continued)

2 - - -

3 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE

4

 50 Answers, Objections and

5 Responses of Pita Realty

 Limited, Formerly Known as

6 Eastern Magnesia Talc Company,

 and Engelhard Corporation to

7 Owens-Corning Fiberglas

 Corporation's Interrogatories

8 and Request for Production,

 Re: Asbestos Products

9 Liability Litigation *

10 57 Responses by Engelhard

 Corporation to Plaintiffs'

11 First Standard Set of

 Liability Interrogatories,

12 Re: Chernick vs. ABB Lummus

 Global, Inc., et al. *

13

 108 Letter from Eric S. Sarner

14 to Mr. Hobson, January 22,

 1990 *

15

 121 Letter from Eric S. Sarner

16 to Dear Jim, April 23, 1990 *

17 123 Letter from Sarner to Dear

 Peter, April 24, 1990 *

18

 148 Letter from Francis Patrick

19 Newell to Signe O'Brien

 Rudberg, Esquire, November

20 18, 2003 *

21 176 BASF Catalysts LLC's

 Responses and Objections to

22 Plaintiffs' First Request for

 Admissions, Re: Williams,

23 et al. vs. BASF Catalysts,

 LLC, et al. *

24

Page 7

1 EXHIBITS (Continued):

2 - - -

3 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE

4 203 Defendant Arthur A. Dornbusch

 II's Disclosures Under Rule

5 26(a)(1), Re: Williams, et

 al. vs. BASF Catalysts, LLC,

6 et al. *

7 210 Letter from Eric S. Sarner

 to Dear David, July 16, 1991 *

8

 214 "Englehard Corp. William

9 Salling" with attachments *

10 215 Letter from Harriet

 Vasilopoulos to Ms. Nancy

11 Remundo, January 24, 1985,

 with attachment *

12

13 (* Exhibit marked prior to start of

14 deposition.)

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Page 8

1 - - -

2 DEPOSITION SUPPORT INDEX

3 - - -

4 Direction to Witness Not to Answer

5 Page Line Page Line Page Line Page Line

6 16 14 118 2 238 9 267 19

7 35 5 121 23 239 15 272 20

8 35 11 125 1 242 9 274 20

9 35 17 126 16 245 6 275 3

10 36 1 127 2 246 5 276 10

11 36 14 127 15 246 13 278 3

12 41 12 130 17 250 11 280 7

13 42 12 132 1 252 18 286 17

14 43 14 132 6 253 3 287 6

15 45 2 146 22 253 12 288 9

16 46 6 191 2 256 12 289 1

17 51 24 207 1 257 7

18 55 17 208 4 257 17

19 56 22 219 13 258 10

20 114 10 228 6 258 20

21 116 10 230 11 259 5

22 117 10 237 21 263 7

23

24

Page 9

1 DEPOSITION SUPPORT INDEX (Continued):

2 - -

3

4 Request for Production of Document

5 Page Line

6 None

7

8 Stipulations

9 Page Line

10 None

11

12 Question Marked

13 Page Line

14 None

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-4 Filed 05/24/18 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 36666 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 43 of 53 PageID:

43316
4 (Pages 10 to 13)

Page 10

1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now

2 on the record. This begins DVD No. 1 in

3 the deposition of Arthur Dornbusch in the

4 matter of Kimberlee Williams, et al.

5 versus BASF Catalysts, LLC, et al., in

6 the United States District Court for the

7 District of New Jersey, Civil Action No.

8 2:11-cv-1754.

9 Today is May 14th, 2018, and

10 the time is 9:06 a.m. This deposition

11 is being taken at 141 West Front Street,

12 Red Bank, New Jersey, at the request of

13 Cohen, Placitella and Roth.

14 The videographer is Ray Moore

15 of Magna Legal Services and the court

16 reporter is Debbie Brazukas of Magna

17 Legal Services. Counsel will be noted

18 on the stenographic record.

19 Will the court reporter please

20 swear in the witness.

21 - - -

22 ARTHUR DORNBUSCH, after having

23 been duly sworn, was examined and

24 testified as follows:

Page 11

1 - - -

2 EXAMINATION

3 - - -

4 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

5 Q. Good morning, Mr. Dornbusch. How

6 are you?

7 A. Good morning.

8 Q. I can make you a promise before

9 we start. This will be a lot shorter than

10 the last time we were together.

11 A. That would be good.

12 Q. As you know, I'm Chris

13 Placitella, and I'm here to get your

14 testimony today.

15 You currently reside where?

16 A. Six Harbor Drive in Rumson, New

17 Jersey.

18 Q. And you went to Yale to get your

19 bachelor of arts?

20 A. I did.

21 Q. And then University of

22 Pennsylvania Law School?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. All right. Did you ever sit for

Page 12

1 any -- the New Jersey bar?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Okay. Am I correct that your --

4 that you started with Engelhard in 1976?

5 A. Yes, December '96.

6 Q. And your first job was

7 assistant --

8 A. '76.

9 Q. -- general counsel?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Okay. At that time, what were

12 your job responsibilities?

13 A. I was responsible for the general

14 legal support of certain of the business --

15 sub business groups. I don't recall

16 specifically which ones. I know that one of

17 them was the systems, air -- air and systems

18 water group located in Union, New Jersey.

19 And there were other groups too, but at that

20 time, I'm not sure what they were.

21 Q. Okay. And am I -- in 1980, you

22 became the vice president and general counsel

23 of Minerals and Chemicals --

24 A. Yes.

Page 13

1 Q. -- is that fair?

2 And what were your

3 responsibilities as vice president and

4 general counsel for Mineral and Chemicals?

5 A. I was responsible for all of the

6 legal affairs of that division. That was one

7 of three divisions of Engelhard, Minerals and

8 Chemicals Corporation.

9 Q. Okay. In that capacity, did you

10 do work on the talc litigation?

11 MR. FARRELL: Objection to

12 form.

13 THE WITNESS: Yes. I'm not

14 sure at what point talc litigation

15 ensued, but yes.

16 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

17 Q. Okay. And in 1984, did you

18 become the corporate secretary for Engelhard?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. All right. And as corporate

21 secretary, did you attend board meetings?

22 A. Yes, I did.

23 Q. Okay. In 1984, did you become

24 vice president and general counsel for the

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-4 Filed 05/24/18 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 36667 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 44 of 53 PageID:

43317
28 (Pages 106 to 109)

Page 106

1 Q. If you know.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Okay. And who would that person

4 be? Who would they get the authorization

5 from?

6 MR. FARRELL: Objection to form

7 and foundation.

8 THE WITNESS: They'd get it

9 from me.

10 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

11 Q. Okay. Would they have to provide

12 you with a reason for their recommendation

13 for a particular settlement amount?

14 MR. FARRELL: Objection to form

15 and foundation.

16 THE WITNESS: We'd have a

17 discussion about it.

18 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

19 Q. Okay. And were records kept

20 concerning the settlements and the reasons

21 for the settlements --

22 MR. FARRELL: Objection to form

23 and foundation.

24 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

Page 107

1 Q. -- as it relates specifically to

2 the Engelhard talc litigation?

3 MR. FARRELL: Same objections.

4 THE WITNESS: Not to my

5 knowledge.

6 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

7 Q. Okay. Did Cahill Gordon have a

8 defense budget for their -- for the defense

9 of the talc litigation?

10 MR. FARRELL: Objection to

11 form.

12 THE WITNESS: No.

13 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

14 Q. So their budget was unlimited?

15 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection to

16 form.

17 THE WITNESS: Yes.

18 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

19 Q. Okay. In terms of -- how did the

20 billing occur, just for the talc litigation?

21 MR. FARRELL: Objection to form

22 and foundation.

23 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

24 Q. If you know.

Page 108

1 A. Well, we would receive a bill

2 monthly. And there would be -- when I say a

3 bill, there would be actually a series of

4 bills, a separate one for each matter. And

5 there would be a general memorandum that

6 would summarize the work that was done for

7 each matter. Talc -- the talc litigation

8 would be one of them.

9 And I would review those. If

10 I had any questions, I would discuss it with

11 Cahill and then approve it for payment.

12 Q. Okay. And when that bill was

13 approved for payment, where did it physically

14 go?

15 MR. FARRELL: Objection to form

16 and foundation.

17 THE WITNESS: To accounts

18 payable, I guess.

19 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

20 Q. Okay. And who was that person in

21 charge, if you remember?

22 A. I don't know.

23 Q. Okay. And do you know what

24 ultimately happened to the bills that were

Page 109

1 submitted?

2 MR. FARRELL: Objection to

3 form.

4 THE WITNESS: No, I don't.

5 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

6 Q. Did the counts -- the accounts

7 payable have a separate ledger for the

8 defense of the Emtal talc litigation?

9 MR. FARRELL: Objection to

10 form; foundation.

11 THE WITNESS: I don't know.

12 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

13 Q. Did accounts payable ever provide

14 you with summaries of what the legal defense

15 costs were for the defense of the Emtal talc

16 litigation?

17 MR. FARRELL: Objection to

18 form.

19 THE WITNESS: I received a

20 number of things from our finance people

21 that consisted of the -- I call them IBM

22 printouts, but it was -- in those days,

23 you got things on paper with perforations

24 on both margins. And it would have an

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-4 Filed 05/24/18 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 36668 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 45 of 53 PageID:

43318
29 (Pages 110 to 113)

Page 110

1 analysis of legal department

2 expenditures. I believe it was probably

3 broken down, litigation costs were

4 probably broken down by matter.

5 I didn't pay much attention to

6 it because I had reviewed it in more

7 detail on a monthly basis.

8 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

9 Q. Were they permanent business

10 records that -- reports that you're referring

11 to?

12 MR. FARRELL: Objection to form

13 and foundation.

14 THE WITNESS: Well, they would

15 have been covered by the document

16 retention policy. I -- I'm not sure how

17 permanent you would be. Probably after a

18 year or so, they wouldn't be required to

19 be retained.

20 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

21 Q. Now, in terms of the accounts

22 payable records, how did they figure into

23 the -- the accounts -- accounts payable

24 ledgers, how did they figure into the

Page 111

1 document retention policy?

2 MR. FARRELL: Objection to

3 form.

4 THE WITNESS: I don't -- I

5 don't recall.

6 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

7 Q. Okay. If -- when you were there

8 in, say, 2005, and you wanted to know how

9 much Cahill Gordon billed you from two --

10 2003 to 2005, could you get that information?

11 MR. FARRELL: Objection to form

12 and foundation.

13 THE WITNESS: I'm sure I could.

14 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

15 Q. Okay. And if you were there in

16 2005 and you wanted to know how much Cahill

17 Gordon billed you from 2000 to 2005, could

18 you secure that information?

19 MR. FARRELL: Objection to form

20 foundation.

21 THE WITNESS: I would think I

22 could. I -- but I don't know for a fact.

23 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay.

24 THE WITNESS: I never -- never

Page 112

1 had occasion to find out.

2 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

3 Q. And how -- who would you ask or

4 what would you -- if you had to make that

5 request, what would you do?

6 MR. FARRELL: Same objections.

7 THE WITNESS: Well, in the

8 first instance, I would ask Mike

9 Sperduto, who was our chief financial

10 officer. And he would put me in touch

11 with somebody in his finance organization

12 who could give me the answer.

13 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

14 Q. Okay. Now, as corporate

15 secretary and general counsel, were you

16 required to keep the board of directors

17 apprized of what was going on in the Emtal

18 talc litigation?

19 MR. FARRELL: Objection to

20 form.

21 THE WITNESS: I don't know that

22 I was required to. I did on an

23 occasional basis.

24 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

Page 113

1 Q. Okay. And what sort of

2 information would you be reporting to the

3 board of directors about the Engelhard talc

4 litigation?

5 MR. FARRELL: Objection to

6 form; foundation. And I'd also caution

7 you, Mr. Dornbusch, not to reveal the

8 substance of any communications that

9 preserve privileges and work product that

10 would apply to such communications with

11 the board.

12 THE WITNESS: I would give them

13 an overview of where we stood.

14 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

15 Q. And when you say "overview," what

16 do you mean by that?

17 A. Well, I'd tell them how many

18 cases, how many since the last period had

19 been settled; if they were settled for money,

20 how much. That sort of thing.

21 Q. And if they were dismissed with

22 no money, would you tell them that?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Okay. Would you tell them the

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-4 Filed 05/24/18 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 36669 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 46 of 53 PageID:

43319
EXHIBIT 4

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-5 Filed 05/24/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 36670 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 47 of 53 PageID:

43320
Page 1

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 CIVIL ACTION NO: 11-cv-1754 (JLL) (JAD)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:

 KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al, :

 :

 Plaintiffs, : DEPOSITION UPON

 : ORAL EXAMINATION

 vs. :

 : of

 BASF CATALYSTS, LLC, et al, :

 : MICHAEL JAMES

 Defendants. : HASSETT

 :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:

 West Orange, New Jersey

 Tuesday, April 24, 2018

 DEPOSITION of MICHAEL JAMES HASSETT

in the above-entitled action by and before PATRICIA J.

RUSSONIELLO, a Certified Court Reporter and Notary

Public of the State of New Jersey, at the office of

ARLEO & DONOHUE, LLC, 622 Eagle Rock Avenue,

commencing at 10:11 a.m.

 Magna Legal Services

 866-624-6221

 www.MagnaLS.com

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-5 Filed 05/24/18 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 36671 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 48 of 53 PageID:

43321
2 (Pages 2 to 5)

Page 2

1 A P P E A R A N C E S:

2 COHEN PLACITELLA ROTH, PC

 By JARED M. PLACITELLA, ESQ.

3 CHRISTOPHER M. PLACITELLA, ESQ.

 Two Commerce Square

4 2001 Market Street, Suite 2900

 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

5 127 Maple Avenue

 Red Bank, New Jersey 07701

6 Tel: (732) 747-9003 Tel: (215) 567-9003

 jmplacitella@cprlaw.com

7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

8 KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP

 By DANIEL A. BRESS, ESQ.

9 RONALD K. ANGUAS, JR., ESQ.

 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.

10 Washington, D.C. 20005

 Tel: (202) 879-5152

11 daniel.bress@kirkland.com

 ronald.anguas@kirkland.com

12 Attorneys for BASF Catalysts, LLC

13 PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP

 By ANTHONY VALE, ESQ.

14 3000 Two Logan Square

 18th and Arch Streets

15 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2799

 Tel: (215) 981-4000 Fax: (215) 981-4750

16 valea@pepperlaw.com

 Attorneys for Defendants, Cahill Gordon,

17 Peter Sloane and Ira Dembrow

18 ARLEO & DONOHUE, LLC

 By TIMOTHY M. DONOHUE, ESQ.

19 622 Eagle Rock Avenue

 West Orange, New Jersey 07052

20 Tel: (973) 736-8660 Fax: (973) 736-1712

 Attorneys for Deponent

21

22

A P P E A R A N C E S: (Continued on next page)

23

24

25

Page 3

1 A P P E A R A N C E S: (Continued)

2 MARINO, TORTORELLA & BOYLE, P.C.

 By PHILLIP S. PAVLICK, ESQ. (via telephone)

3 437 Southern Boulevard

 Chatham, New Jersey 07928

4 Tel: (973) 824-9300 Fax: (973) 824-8425

 ppavlick@khmarino.com

5 Attorneys for Defendant, Arthur Dornbusch

6 HEROLD LAW, P.A.

 By ERIC TUNIS, ESQ. (via telephone)

7 25 Independence Boulevard

 Warren, New Jersey 07059-6747

8 Tel: (908) 647-1022 Fax: (908) 647-7721

 etunis@herold.com

9 Attorneys for Defendant, Thomas Halket

10

A L S O P R E S E N T:

11

 Thomas Karwacki, Videographer

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 4

1 I N D E X

2 WITNESS EXAMINATION BY

3 MICHAEL JAMES HASSETT

By Mr. Jared Placitella 8

4

5

6

7

 E X H I B I T S

8

NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE

9

Hassett-1 Six-page Notice Of Video 9

10 Deposition Of Michael Hassett,

 Esq., and attached Certificate

11 of Service

12 Hassett-1A One-page Interoffice Memorandum 186

 12/23/91 and attached Engelhard

13 Record Retention Manual

 (BASF_Sampson 39958-39998)

14

Exhibit 1 Multi-page Cahill Collection 86

15 Of Testing Document (Excluding

 Privileged Documents) (P-15)

16

Exhibit 3 Transcript (Glenn Hemstock) 91

17 3/16/83 (BASF-Sampson 14462-

 14601)

18

Exhibit 4 Transcript (Peter Gale) 94

19 4/26/83 (JNJ-Ros 9712-9792)

20 Hassett 5 One-page letter, 8/20/02 58

 and attached settlement list

21 (BASF-Williams 390446-390460)

22 Hassett 7 One-page letter, 5/9/06 and 175

 attached Release (BASF FC 12168-

23 12171)

24 Hassett 10 Two-page Merten to Cuzzone 168

 letter, 8/2/04 and attachments

25

Page 5

1 E X H I B I T S (continued)

2 NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE

3 Exhibit 11 Multi-page document, re, 69

 Excerpted Entries from

4 Privilege Log of BASF

 Catalysts LLC

5

Exhibit 14 Multi-page Summary Of 167

6 Activities Related To Services

 Rendered For Decof & Grimm

7 (BASF-Lopez 21666-21681)

8 Exhibit 15 One-page Interoffice 105

 Memorandum, 3/7/84 (BASF 00157)

9

Exhibit 57 Responses By Engelard 114

10 Corporation To Plaintiffs'

 First Standard Set Of Liability

11 Interrogatories (BASF FC 14202-

 14256)

12

Exhibit 60 Multi-page Defendant Eastern 155

13 Magnesia Talc Company's Answers

 To Plaintiff's Interrogatories

14 (BASF FC 12190-12204)

15 Exhibit 124 Two-page letter, 5/3/02 147

 (BASF-Williams 40099-40100)

16

Exhibit 203 Defendant Arthur A. Dornbusch 72

17 II's Disclosures Under Rule

 26(a)(1)

18

Exhibit 205 Seven-page Plaintiff Theresa 161

19 Martin's More Responsive Answers

 To Interrogatories Propounded By

20 Eastern Magnesia Company

 (BASF_Williams 334310-334316)

21

22 (Reporter retains all exhibits except Exhibit 7.)

23

24

25

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-5 Filed 05/24/18 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 36672 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 49 of 53 PageID:

43322
3 (Pages 6 to 9)

Page 6

1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS:

2 PAGE LINE

3 66 17 (copies of documents)

4

5

6

7 DIRECTIONS NOT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS:

8 PAGE LINE

9 13 1

 13 4

10 47 21

 50 20

11 51 2

 77 21

12 80 1

 80 8

13 127 1

 146 13

14 152 19

 184 8

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 7

1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the

2 record. This begins videotape number 1 in the

3 deposition of Michael Hassett in the matter of

4 Kimberlee Williams, et al, versus BASF Catalysts, LLC,

5 et al, in the United States District Court for the

6 District of New Jersey.

7 Today is Tuesday April 24th, 2018 and

8 the time is 10:11 a.m.

9 This deposition is being taken at 622

10 Eagle Rock Avenue, West Orange, New Jersey, at the

11 request of Cohen, Placitella and Roth.

12 The Videographer is Thomas Karwacki of

13 Magna Legal Services and the court reporter is

14 Patricia Russoniello of Magna Legal Services.

15 Will counsel and all parties present

16 state their appearances and whom they represent,

17 please.

18 MR. JARED PLACITELLA: Sure. I'll

19 start.

20 Jared Placitella for the plaintiffs.

21 MR. CHRISTOPHER PLACITELLA: Chris

22 Placitella.

23 MR. DONOHUE: Tim Donohue, Arleo and

24 Donohue, for the witness, Michael Hassett.

25 MR. BRESS: Dan Bress, Kirkland and

Page 8

1 Ellis, for BASF.

2 MR. ANGUAS: Ronald Anguas, Kirkland and

3 Ellis, for BASF.

4 MR. VALE: Anthony Vale for Cahill

5 Gordon, Peter Sloane and Ira Dembrow.

6 MR. PAVLICK: Phillip Pavlick of Marino,

7 Tortorella & Boyle for Arthur Dornbusch.

8 MR. TUNIS: Eric Tunis on behalf of

9 Thomas Halket.

10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court

11 reporter please swear in the witness.

12 M I C H A E L J A M E S H A S S E T T, having been

13 duly sworn by the Notary, testifies as follows:

14 EXAMINATION BY MR. JARED PLACITELLA:

15 Q. Good morning, Mr. Hassett.

16 A. Good morning.

17 Q. My name is Jared Placitella. It's nice

18 to meet you.

19 A. Good to meet you.

20 Q. You understand that we're here today for

21 the purposes of taking your deposition?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Have you ever had your deposition taken

24 before?

25 A. Yes.

Page 9

1 Q. When was that?

2 A. Probably very late '90s.

3 Q. And what was the circumstances under

4 which you had your deposition taken?

5 A. It was a case that went to litigation

6 about an insurance claim by Engelhard against AIG.

7 Q. And do you recall what the insurance

8 claim was over?

9 A. Yes. It was a loss of -- a loss

10 relating to base metal inventory held at an Engelhard

11 subsidiary in Japan.

12 Q. And that was the only time you ever had

13 your deposition taken before today?

14 A. That's the only one I can remember.

15 Q. Sure.

16 I'm going to show you what I've marked

17 as Hassett Exhibit 1 for identification; well, Exhibit

18 Hassett-1. Sorry.

19 Have you ever seen this Notice before

20 today?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And when was the first time that you --

23 well, when did you see this Notice of your deposition?

24 A. Recently. Within the past five or six

25 days.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-5 Filed 05/24/18 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 36673 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 50 of 53 PageID:

43323
14 (Pages 50 to 53)

Page 50

1 (At this time the witness and counsel

2 leave the deposition room at 11:21 a.m.)

3 MR. DONOHUE: Everybody's there on the

4 phone, right?

5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is --

6 MR. TUNIS: Yes.

7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: -- 11:28 a.m. We're

8 on the record.

9 BY MR. JARED PLACITELLA:

10 Q. So, Mr. Hassett, before we took a short

11 break I believe my last question was what were the

12 nature of the interactions that you had with insurance

13 carriers in the context of the Martin case?

14 MR. BRESS: And I'll instruct you not

15 to -- go ahead. I think you can give the answer.

16 A. We were inquiring into coverage issues.

17 Q. And what were those coverage issues?

18 MR. BRESS: Well, I don't -- I don't

19 know if you know the answer to that but -- but I'm

20 not -- I'm going to ask you and instruct you not to

21 reveal specific communications.

22 THE WITNESS: Well, first I think to the

23 extent that I discussed that, it was with the local

24 counsel and not -- that part of it at least was not

25 directly with the carrier so that -- does that change

Page 51

1 your view on the...

2 MR. BRESS: Oh, yes. I do instruct you

3 not to disclose communications with local counsel on

4 the basis of privilege.

5 Q. But for the instruction not to answer

6 would you be able to answer that question?

7 A. Only in an extremely general way.

8 Q. But yes?

9 MR. BRESS: Objection to form.

10 A. I could give a very general answer, yes.

11 Q. In the context of the Emtal talc

12 litigation did you have any interactions with

13 insurance brokers?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Did Engelhard set budgets on attorneys

16 fees and expenses in individual matters?

17 MR. BRESS: Objection. Form.

18 A. In general, no. I don't remember an

19 exception I was involved in.

20 Q. Do you know approximately how much it

21 cost Engelhard to defend an Emtal talc case?

22 MR. BRESS: Objection. Form.

23 A. And I -- I don't know there was a

24 typical case you could answer based on. I don't

25 really remember much of anything about the fee numbers

Page 52

1 at this point.

2 Q. Instead of a typical number how about --

3 let's take two cases.

4 You said the Chernick case.

5 Do you recall how much it cost Engelhard

6 to defend the Chernick case?

7 A. I don't remember.

8 Q. And do you recall how much it cost

9 Engelhard to defend the Martin case?

10 A. I do not remember.

11 Q. Did Engelhard keep records of how much

12 it cost it to defend Emtal talc cases?

13 A. The company in general maintained

14 records of legal expenses and all expenses. It's, you

15 know, a big company with good financial statements.

16 I don't recall seeing reports that were

17 specific to -- specific breakdowns for talc cases

18 or -- and -- and certainly didn't ask for them.

19 Q. If those records existed who would --

20 what department in Engelhard would be responsible for

21 maintaining them?

22 MR. BRESS: Objection. Foundation.

23 THE WITNESS: Answer anyway?

24 MR. DONOHUE: You may answer.

25 A. Well, accounting would have records on

Page 53

1 expenses generally including legal fees and I don't

2 know if there would be any supplemental reports

3 that -- you know, that Arthur saw but I didn't.

4 Q. Have you ever attended any seminars

5 pertaining to the defense of asbestos or talc cases?

6 A. No.

7 Q. What role did Engelhard's Legal

8 Department have in deciding whether to settle a talc

9 case?

10 MR. BRESS: Objection to form.

11 A. In general a settlement would be

12 approved by the in-house Legal Department.

13 The tire worker cases I just didn't get

14 involved -- I'm not sure what the approval -- tire

15 workers were different. Not sure what the approval

16 process was exactly there.

17 Q. Who in the Engelhard Legal Department

18 approved settlements? Would that be Arthur Dornbusch?

19 A. In general, yes.

20 Q. I'd like to go back to the tire workers

21 cases for a minute.

22 Do you recall what tire worker cases,

23 you know, were within your purview?

24 A. Well, I would -- in theory, all. In

25 practice, none. I -- I -- I just...

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-5 Filed 05/24/18 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 36674 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 51 of 53 PageID:

43324
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)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify a true and accurate copy of the foregoing attached Reply Brief is being

served on all counsel for the parties of record listed below on this 24th day of May 2018 date via 

electronic delivery only. 

Eugene F. Assaf, P.C.

Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 

655 15th St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

eassaf@kirkland.com

Peter A. Farrell, Esq.

Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 

655 15th St., N.W.

Facsimile: (202) 879-5200

pfarrell@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

Kevin H. Marino, Esq.

Marino, Tortorella & Boyle, P.C.

437 Southern Boulevard

Chatham, New Jersey 07928

kmarino@khmarino.com

John A. Boyle, Esq.

Marino, Tortorella & Boyle, P.C.

437 Southern Boulevard

Chatham, New Jersey 07928

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 Halkett

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-6 Filed 05/24/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 36675 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 52 of 53 PageID:

43325
Barry H. Boise, Esquire

Anthony Vale, Esquire

Nina M. Gussack, Esquire 

Pepper Hamilton LLP

3000 Two Logan Square

18th & Arch Streets

Philadelphia, PA 19103

boiseb@pepperlaw.com

valea@pepperlaw.com

gussackn@pepperlaw.com

Angelo A. Stio, III, Esquire

Pepper Hamilton LLP

301 Carnegie Center, Suite 400

Princeton, New Jersey 08543

stioa@pepperlaw.com

Jessica S. Russell, Esquire

Pepper Hamilton LLP 

333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 400

Redwood City, CA 94065

russellj@pepperlaw.com

Attorneys for Cahill Defendants

COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH PC

/s/ CHRISTOPHER M. PLACITELLA 

_________________________________

CHRISTOPHER M. PLACITELLA

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: May 24, 2018

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 533-6 Filed 05/24/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 36676 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-11 Filed 06/25/18 Page 53 of 53 PageID:

43326