Exhibit 5

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 24 PageID: 43029
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, individually, as personal 

representative of the Estate of Charles L. Williams, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; NANCY PEASE, individually, 

as personal representative of the Estate of William Clark, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; MARILYN L. HOLLEY, as 

personal representative of the Estate of Kathryn Darnell, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; DONNA WARE, individually as 

personal representative of the Estate of Ralph Ware, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; and DONNETTE WENGERD, 

individually, as personal representative of the Estate of 

Jennifer Graham, deceased on behalf of said estate, and as 

representative of others similarly situated, and ROSANNE 

CHERNICK, individually, as personal representative of 

the Estate of Steven Chernick, deceased on behalf of said 

estate, and as representative of others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BASF CATALYSTS LLC, CAHILL GORDON & 

REINDEL LLP, CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL, a 

partnership including a professional corporation, 

THOMAS D. HALKET, ARTHUR A. DORNBUSCH 

II, GLENN HEMSTOCK, HOWARD G. SLOANE 

(A/K/A “PETER SLOANE”), IRA J. DEMBROW, 

JOHN DOE BUSINESS ENTITIES 1 to 100; JOHN 

DOE BUSINESS ENTITIES 101 to 200; JOHN DOE 

LAWYERS 1 to 500; and, JOHN DOE 1 to 500,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No. 11-cv-1754 (JLL) (JAD)

CIVIL ACTION

BASF CATALYSTS LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES

Defendant BASF Catalysts LLC (“BASF”), through its counsel, Robinson Miller LLC and 

Kirkland & Ellis LLP, responds to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories as follows:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 2 of 24 PageID: 43030
2

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiffs have exceeded their number of interrogatories allowable under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 33(a)(1) and the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 

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

other party.”). Because of this, plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories are not permitted and do not 

require a substantive response by BASF. 

Additionally, independent of the fact that plaintiffs’ interrogatories now exceed the 

limitations of the federal rules and the Court’s order, responding to these interrogatories and their 

subparts would require an enormous investment of resources which is disproportionate to the issues 

in this case. This is especially true where, as here, the plaintiffs have waited until the waning weeks 

of discovery to serve these interrogatories. Below are BASF’s objections to plaintiffs’ 

interrogatories on these and other grounds. 

OBJECTIONS TO 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.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may 

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” 

BASF further objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 3 of 24 PageID: 43031
3

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

party.”). Because BASF has answered Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance 

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 

Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF. 

BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 1 on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not proportional to the needs of this case. 

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.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 

BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may 

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” 

BASF further objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 

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

party.”). Because BASF has answered Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance 

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 

Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF. 

BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not proportional to the needs of this case. BASF 

further objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the grounds that it seeks information protected by the 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 4 of 24 PageID: 43032
4

attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other privileges and protections from discovery. 

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 companies, incurred or paid 

relating to EMTAL Claims? If so please identify and describe each one and identify all documents 

relating to same.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may 

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” 

BASF further objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 

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

party.”). Because BASF has answered Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance 

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 

Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF. 

BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 3 on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not proportional to the needs of this case. BASF 

further objects to Interrogatory No. 3 on the grounds that it seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other privileges and protections from discovery. 

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.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 5 of 24 PageID: 43033
5

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 

BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may 

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” 

BASF further objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 

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

party.”). Because BASF has answered Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance 

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 

Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF. 

BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 4 on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not proportional to the needs of this case. BASF 

further objects to Interrogatory No. 4 on the grounds that it seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other privileges and protections from discovery. 

BASF further objects to Interrogatory No. 4 to the extent it seeks confidential settlement 

information protected from disclosure in the absence of a showing of particularized need. See, e.g., 

Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Props., Inc., 257 F.R.D. 418, 423 (D.N.J. 2009) (party seeking 

discovery of settlement agreements “must make a heightened, more particularized showing of 

relevance”). 

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.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 6 of 24 PageID: 43034
6

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 

BASF objects to Interrogatory No. 5 on the grounds that is seeks information already in the 

possession, custody, or control of plaintiffs. BASF further objects that the number of 

interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may serve on any other party no more than 25 

written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” BASF further objects that the number of 

interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the number allowed by the Court’s October 

17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 (allowing a “[m]aximum of twenty-five (25) 

additional interrogatories by each party to each other party.”). Because BASF has answered 

Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance with the requirements of Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of 

Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF. 

BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 5 on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not proportional to the needs of this case. 

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.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 

BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may 

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” 

BASF further objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 7 of 24 PageID: 43035
7

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

party.”). Because BASF has answered Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance 

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 

Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF. 

BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not proportional to the needs of this case. 

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.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 

BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may 

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” 

BASF further objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 

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

party.”). Because BASF has answered Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance 

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 

Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF. 

BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not proportional to the needs of this case. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

Identify by specific type, element or category all Defense Costs You or anyone on Your 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 8 of 24 PageID: 43036
8

behalf incurred or paid in defending Emtal Claims, including without limitation any insurance 

companies.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 

BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may 

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” 

BASF further objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 

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

party.”). Because BASF has answered Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance 

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 

Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF. 

BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on the grounds that it is vague, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not proportional to the needs of the case. 

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 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:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 9 of 24 PageID: 43037
9

Interrogatory No. 9 Table

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 10 of 24 PageID: 43038
10

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 

BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may 

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” 

BASF further objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 11 of 24 PageID: 43039
11

number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 

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

party.”). Because BASF has answered Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance 

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 

Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF.

BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 9 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not proportional to the needs of this case. BASF 

further objects to Interrogatory No. 9 on the grounds that it seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other privileges and protections from discovery. 

BASF further objects to Interrogatory No. 9 on the ground that it seeks confidential settlement 

information protected from disclosure in the absence of a showing of particularized need. See, e.g., 

Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Props., Inc., 257 F.R.D. 418, 423 (D.N.J. 2009) (party seeking 

discovery of settlement agreements “must make a heightened, more particularized showing of 

relevance”).

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:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 12 of 24 PageID: 43040
12

Interrogatory No. 10 Table

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 13 of 24 PageID: 43041
13

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 14 of 24 PageID: 43042
14

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 

BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may 

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” 

BASF further objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 

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

party.”). Because BASF has answered Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 15 of 24 PageID: 43043
15

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 

Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF. 

BASF objects to Interrogatory No. 10 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not proportional to the needs of this case. BASF 

further objects to Interrogatory No. 10 on the ground that it seeks confidential settlement 

information protected from disclosure in the absence of a showing of particularized need. See, e.g., 

Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Props., Inc., 257 F.R.D. 418, 423 (D.N.J. 2009) (party seeking 

discovery of settlement agreements “must make a heightened, more particularized showing of 

relevance”).

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:

Interrogatory No. 11 Table:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 16 of 24 PageID: 43044
16

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 17 of 24 PageID: 43045
17

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 

BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 18 of 24 PageID: 43046
18

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” 

BASF further objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 

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

party.”). Because BASF has answered Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance 

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 

Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF.

BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 11 on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome,

seeks irrelevant information and is not proportional to the needs of this case. BASF further objects 

to Interrogatory No. 11 on the ground that seeks confidential settlement information protected from 

disclosure in the absence of a showing of particularized need. See, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. 

Edgewood Props., Inc., 257 F.R.D. 418, 423 (D.N.J. 2009) (party seeking discovery of settlement 

agreements “must make a heightened, more particularized showing of relevance”).

DOCUMENT REQUESTS

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.

RESPONSE: BASF objects to the above document requests on the ground that they seek 

information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other privileges 

and protections from discovery. BASF further objects to the above documents requests on the 

grounds that they are unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of this case. BASF 

further objects to the document requests on the grounds that they seek confidential settlement 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 19 of 24 PageID: 43047
19

information protected from disclosure in the absence of a showing of particularized need. See, e.g., 

Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Props., Inc., 257 F.R.D. 418, 423 (D.N.J. 2009) (party seeking 

discovery of settlement agreements “must make a heightened, more particularized showing of 

relevance”).

To date, BASF has already produced relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to 

these Requests, including the database at FRE_408_00000003 and documents identified through 

the parties’ agreed-upon search protocol. Indeed, in responding to plaintiffs’ many requests, BASF 

has conducted an extensive search of documents spanning decades and has supplemented its 

production with additional documents located in the course of preparing its responses to plaintiffs’ 

previous interrogatories and requests for production. Under the circumstances, BASF’s efforts have 

been more than reasonable. BASF cannot exclude the potential that further investigation may 

reveal additional information, in which case BASF reserves the right to supplement its production. 

Finally, BASF notes that documents responsive to these requests have been produced, and continue 

to be produced, in response to plaintiffs’ subpoenas to BASF’s insurers.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1. BASF objects that the definitions of “You,” “Your,” and “BASF” are overly broad, 

vague, ambiguous, and speculative by encompassing “affiliated entities.”

2. BASF objects that the definition of “asbestos,” “asbestos fibers,” “asbestiform,” and 

“fibers” are overly broad, vague, ambiguous, uncertain, and speculative.

3. BASF objects that the definition of “Cahill” is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, 

uncertain and speculative by encompassing “affiliated entities.”

4. BASF objects that the definition of “Defense Costs” is overly broad, vague, and 

ambiguous by encompassing expenses not related to litigation. 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 20 of 24 PageID: 43048
20

5. BASF objects that the definition of “EMTAL Claim” is overly broad, vague, 

ambiguous, uncertain and speculative by encompassing alleged litigation beyond Plaintiffs’ 

specific claims.

6. BASF objects that the definition of “Time Period” encompasses alleged litigation 

beyond Plaintiffs’ specific claims.

7. BASF objects that the definitions and instructions call upon BASF to: (a) create 

documents not presently existing; (b) describe unsuccessful efforts to respond to particular 

interrogatories; (c) interpret, alter, modify, or change the meaning of any interrogatory from the 

plain meaning thereof; (d) respond in all ways to interrogatories susceptible of multiple 

interpretations; (e) respond to any aspect of an interrogatory not described with reasonable 

particularity; (f) locate or interview former employees or any other non-BASF employee; or (g) 

identify any custodian or records no longer known to BASF. 

8. BASF objects that the definitions and instructions impose upon BASF requirements 

exceeding those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

9. BASF objects that the interrogatories are overly broad and impose an unreasonably 

burden of inquiry.

10. BASF objects that the interrogatories are vague, ambiguous, and not susceptible to 

a reasoned interpretation.

11. BASF objects that the interrogatories seek information that the burden or expense 

of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 

12. BASF objects that the interrogatories are redundant, not reasonably particular, not 

limited to a relevant period of time and the interrogatory seeks information spanning a period of 

several decades or that relates to decades-old information that has no bearing on Plaintiffs’ claims.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 21 of 24 PageID: 43049
21

13. To the extent that any interrogatory inquires about “all,” “each,” “any,” or “every,” 

BASF objects that the interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it would be 

unreasonable to expect, even after a reasonably diligent search, that “all,” “each,” “any,” or “every” 

individual, document, or thing falling within a description can or has been located. 

14. BASF objects that the interrogatories request information already in the possession, 

custody, or control of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ agents, and/or Plaintiffs’ counsel.

15. BASF objects that the interrogatories purport to impose a duty on it to undertake a 

search for documents and individuals beyond a diligent search of the files where it would 

reasonably expect to find documents responsive to these interrogatories.

16. BASF objects that the interrogatories call for BASF to gather and summarize 

information contained in voluminous papers or papers that are a matter of public record. 

17. BASF objects that the interrogatories seek information equally available to 

Plaintiffs, previously produced to Plaintiffs, in the public record, or which may be readily 

obtainable by less burdensome or less invasive means.

18. BASF objects that the interrogatories seek information protected from disclosure by 

the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and other privileges and immunities 

recognized by law. BASF expressly states that any and all inadvertent disclosures of protected 

information is not a waiver of any privilege.

19. BASF objects that the interrogatories seek confidential and private information 

about individuals who are not parties to this action, the disclosure of which would violate their right 

to privacy as established and protected by the federal and state Constitutions.

20. BASF objects that the interrogatories seek proprietary business information, trade 

secrets, or other confidential business information.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 22 of 24 PageID: 43050
22

21. BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs 

exceeds the number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each 

party “may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete 

subparts.”

22. BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs 

exceeds the number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 

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

other party.”).

23. BASF does not concede that any of its objections are or will be admissible evidence 

at trial. BASF does not waive any objection, on any ground, whether or not asserted, at the time of 

trial. Where BASF has answered any of the interrogatories without objection, BASF does not agree 

to the relevancy, materiality, or admissibility of any information sought.

24. BASF expressly incorporates its General Objections into each of its objections 

above.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 23 of 24 PageID: 43051
23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that, on this 16th day of April 2018, the following counsel were served 

electronically with BASF Catalysts LLC’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of 

Interrogatories:

Christopher M. Placitella, Esquire

Michael Coren, Esquire

Jared Placitella, Esquire

Cohen Placitella & Roth PC

127 Maple Avenue

Red Bank, NJ 07701

Nina M. Gussack

Barry H. Boise

Angelo A. Stio, III

Pepper Hamilton LLP

3000 Two Logan Square

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Attorneys for Defendants Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP,

Cahill Gordon & Reindel, Howard Sloane, and Ira J. Dembrow

Eric Tunis, Esquire

Herold Law

25 Independence Blvd.

Warren, NJ 07059-6747

Attorney for Defendant Thomas D. Halket

Kevin Marino, Esquire

John A. Boyle, Esquire

Marino, Tortorella & Boyle PC

437 Southern Blvd.

Chatham, NJ 07928

Attorneys for Defendant Arthur A. Dornbusch II

April 16, 2018 /s/ Justin T. Quinn 

 Justin T. Quinn

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-7 Filed 06/25/18 Page 24 of 24 PageID: 43052