March 5, 2018

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:

We write to express our opposition to BASF’s second motion to enforce the 

January 15, 2018 Order (CM/ECF # 455) with respect to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental 

Answers to BASF’s First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1, 4, 12, and 13, as Plaintiffs 

have complied with the express requirements and spirit of the Order as well as

Your Honor’s expectations during the hearing on that date.

BACKGROUND

On January 15, 2018, Your Honor presided over a hearing on a motion to 

compel filed by BASF. In discussing the obligation to respond to interrogatories, 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 459 Filed 03/05/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 20560
The Honorable Robert A. Rivera-Soto

March 5, 2018

Page 2

Your Honor acknowledged the difficulty that Plaintiffs find themselves in of 

having to verify interrogatory responses without first-hand knowledge of what had 

happened with their family members’ underlying cases. 1/15/2018 Hr’g Tr. 

151:19-22; 155:8-9. Your Honor consequently directed Plaintiffs to distinguish 

between the facts within their personal knowledge and those that are on 

information and belief, which Your Honor explained Plaintiffs can do in either the 

interrogatory answers themselves or in the verifications. Id. at 153:23 to 154:2; 

155:1-3. But again, recognizing the challenge of the situation, Your Honor

reminded counsel that the “overarching purpose” of discovery is to get “as much 

information transmitted from one side to the other” as possible “with a minimum 

amount of fuss.” Id. at 155:21 to 156:2.

In compliance with Your Honor’s directives, Plaintiffs supplemented their 

interrogatory responses on January 29, 2018. (CM/ECF # 455-1).

ARGUMENT

BASF’s Motion should be denied as it is much fuss about nothing. BASF 

claims that “the named plaintiffs alluded to . . . information without actually 

articulating it or identifying its source.” (CM/ECF # 455, pg. 6). In making this 

point, BASF ignores the complete answers to the four interrogatories in question,

and instead plucks a single sentence from the response of Plaintiff William’s 

response to Interrogatory No. 12:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 459 Filed 03/05/18 Page 2 of 10 PageID: 20561
The Honorable Robert A. Rivera-Soto

March 5, 2018

Page 3

My attorneys from the Underlying Case may have more information 

responsive to this request as the information that I have is based on 

my reading of the complaints filed in this matter and is being 

developed by the lawyers who represent me in this case.

Id. What BASF fails to do is provide any of the context for this statement by not 

showing the Court a complete view of the interrogatory response.

In full, the response to Interrogatory No. 12 provides:

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections set forth above, 

including but not limited to Objection No. 16, Plaintiff objects to this 

Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome. The following 

response is provided subject to and without waiving the foregoing 

Objections. 

My husband’s attorneys in the Underlying Action had frequent 

conversations with Charles regarding the Underlying Action when my 

husband was alive and the case was still pending. 

After my husband’s death, I too had conversations with Mr. Bevan 

about the status of the Underlying Action, but to a much lesser extent. 

Still, I am confident Mr. Bevan explained to us the decision to dismiss 

Engelhard from the Underlying Action, as he had with other events 

related to the case. My husband and I relied upon Mr. Bevan and 

agreed to his recommendation. My attorneys from the Underlying 

Case may have more information responsive to this request as the 

information that I have is based on my reading of the complaints filed 

in this matter and is being developed by the lawyers who represent me 

in this case. 

Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement her response as discovery in 

this and related matters such as the Sampson case continue.

Put more simply, Ms. Williams states that (1) her husband’s attorneys had frequent 

conversations with him while the underlying case was still pending; (2) that after 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 459 Filed 03/05/18 Page 3 of 10 PageID: 20562
The Honorable Robert A. Rivera-Soto

March 5, 2018

Page 4

his death, she too had conversations with Mr. Bevan, (3) that Mr. Bevan explained 

the decision to dismiss Engelhard to them, and (4) that they agreed to Mr. Bevan’s 

recommendation. Seen in this context, the statement that the attorneys from the 

Underlying Case “may have more information responsive to this request” is 

nothing more than a logical coda to her statement about what she knows based on 

what sources and a reservation of rights to supplement this response. Indeed, as 

should be evident, the full response both describes in detail her knowledge of the 

“process” behind the decision to settle the underlying case and identifies the 

participants to the discussions in full satisfaction of the interrogatory.

BASF likewise claims that the responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 13 

include “similarly evasive language” while the response to Interrogatory No. 4 

contains no reference to Bevan’s knowledge at all. But once more, BASF presents 

only part of the responses. For instance, although the response to Interrogatory No. 

13 states that “[i]nformation responsive to this request is outside [Ms. Williams’] 

personal knowledge,” the response goes on to state:

My understanding of what happened comes from reading the 

complaints in this case and from privileged communications with my 

attorneys. I rely upon my attorneys to provide the evidence 

supporting my case.

I, however, am generally aware that there was discovery in my 

husband’s lawsuit as set out in the Second Amended Complaint, 

which sought out information about EMTAL talc. Based on the 

Second Amended Complaint and referenced exhibits, as well as the 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 459 Filed 03/05/18 Page 4 of 10 PageID: 20563
The Honorable Robert A. Rivera-Soto

March 5, 2018

Page 5

documents described below, it is my understanding that 

Engelhard/BASF through its attorneys represented to the Bevan Law 

Firm (my husband’s attorneys in the Underlying Action) that 

Defendant’s EMTAL talc does not contain asbestos and that there was 

no evidence that EMTAL talc contained asbestos. 

While I have no first-hand knowledge, upon information and belief, 

records and information obtained by my attorneys indicate that my 

attorneys from the Underlying Case may be able to attest to the 

following: 

I do not have first-hand knowledge, upon which to respond to this 

interrogatory. The Bevan Law Firm, when prosecuting my husband’s 

case, was able to document substantial sales of EMTAL talc, both 

directly from Engelhard/BASF and through its distributor C.P. Hall, to 

the Goodyear facility where my husband worked, that the lawyers 

were also aware from testimony of witnesses in the facility that 

whitish/gray talc was used by employees in Goodyear’s plant. 

However, upon receiving Engelhard/Cahill’s representations and 

information that the talc did not contain asbestos, this was not 

specifically explored in every case. It is also my understanding that 

The Bevan Law Firm retained expert witnesses to support my 

husband’s lawsuit. The Bevan Law Firm would likely know more 

about this evidence.

The Bevan Law Firm could not prove that EMTAL talc contained 

asbestos. Through various correspondence and conversations with 

attorneys Scott Martin and Allen Joslyn of the Cahill Gordon Law 

Firm, the Bevan Law Firm was informed that EMTAL talc does not 

contain asbestos and that there is no evidence that EMTAL talc 

contains asbestos. 

As with the response to Interrogatory No. 12, the response here describes the 

limits of Ms. Williams’ knowledge, as well as the source of her “information and 

belief.” In fact, the response does not end at just describing the effect of 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 459 Filed 03/05/18 Page 5 of 10 PageID: 20564
The Honorable Robert A. Rivera-Soto

March 5, 2018

Page 6

Engelhard/BASF’s fraudulent scheme; it describes seven letters between Cahill 

and the Bevan Law Firm that precipitated the decision to dismiss Engelhard:

• 1992/04/23: a letter from Scott Martin, Esq. (Cahill) to Dale 

Economus, Esq. (Bevan) where Mr. Martin requested that Engelhard 

be voluntarily dismissed from the Williams, Compton, and Brown

actions “on the basis that talc produced by EMTAL contained no 

asbestos.” In support of that request, Mr. Martin enclosed (1) the 

Affidavit of William H. Ashton, (2) two affidavits of Mr. Charles 

Carter, (3) a report by Dr. Fred Pooley, and (4) a B.F. Goodrich 

specification for EMTAL talc. Based upon these documents, Mr. 

Martin explained that “there appears to be no basis for maintaining 

Engelhard as a named defendant in these actions.” Mr. Martin further 

explained that there was “substantial precedent” for his request as 

plaintiff’s counsel in Pennsylvania voluntarily dismissed Engelhard 

from other asbestos-related cases based upon his review, and his 

expert’s review of the enclosed documents. So too did attorneys in 

the federal district court of Kansas and Michigan state court.

• 1992/5/18: a letter from Scott Martin, Esq. (Cahill) to Dale 

Economus, Esq. (Bevan) stating that he had previously sent “various 

documents demonstrating that talc produced by EMTAL from its sole 

mine and mill in Johnson, Vermont contained no asbestos.” Mr. 

Martin then notes that he had received a complaint in the Gonzalez

matter that named Engelhard as a defendant. To avoid “incurring 

additional expenses in defense of the four actions” for which “there 

appears to be no basis in fact for maintaining Engelhard as a 

defendant”, Mr. Martin requested that Mr. Economus give “serious 

and prompt consideration to our dismissal request.” 

• 1992/12/21: a letter from Scott Martin, Esq. (Cahill) to Dale 

Economus, Esq. (Bevan) where Mr. Martin requested that Engelhard 

be dismissed from the James v. Abex litigation because the talc sold 

to plaintiffs’ employers “contained no asbestos”. Mr. Martin stated 

that this fact was “demonstrated in the various affidavits and other 

documents forwarded to you with my previous correspondence.” 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 459 Filed 03/05/18 Page 6 of 10 PageID: 20565
The Honorable Robert A. Rivera-Soto

March 5, 2018

Page 7

Because the “diagnosis of the plaintiff in each of the [James] actions 

in which Engelhard is named as a defendant is an asbestos-related 

disease, [the plaintiffs’ diseases] which cannot be attributed to 

EMTAL talc.”

• 1993/02/04: a letter from Scott Martin, Esq. (Cahill) to Thomas 

Bevan, Esq. (Bevan) stating that at Mr. Bevan’s request, Mr. Martin 

has prepared notices of dismissal for Mr. Bevan’s signature from the 

five recently-filed actions “on the basis of our correspondence 

demonstrating that talc produced by Engelhard’s former subsidiary, 

Eastern Magnesia Talc Company (“EMTAL”), contained no 

asbestos.” Mr. Martin instructs that the dismissal notices for four of 

the five actions should be sent to Judge Weiner of the U.S. District 

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the dismissal for 

the James action should be filed in state court. Mr. Martin finally 

requests that C.P. Hall be dismissed from these actions as well if it is 

“named only as the distributor of EMTAL talc”.

• 1993/02/11: a letter from Thomas Bevan, Esq. (Bevan) to Scott 

Martin, Esq. (Cahill) indicates that “in light of new information” Mr. 

Bevan was “reconsidering [its] decision to dismiss Engelhard 

Minerals & Chemicals Company.” Mr. Bevan explains that 

correspondence dated February 24, 1950 from the State of Vermont 

Department of Health discusses the propensity of EMTAL employees 

to develop pneumoconiosis and refers to future x-rays of Johnson 

employees and a future publication. Based on that correspondence, 

Mr. Bevan requests “to review the results of the studies at Waterbury 

and Johnson as well as the publication that was alluded to” as well as 

sales records to Goodyear Tire & Rubber, B.F. Goodrich, and 

Goodyear Aerospace plans in Akron.

• 1993/02/22: a letter from Scott Martin, Esq. (Cahill) to Thomas 

Bevan, Esq. (Bevan) in response to Mr. Bevan’s Feb. 11, 1993 letter 

where Mr. Martin states that the 1950 correspondence “should in no 

way alter your previously expressed decision to dismiss Engelhard 

from these cases.” Mr. Martin explains that he was not aware of any 

follow-up study or publication of Johnson employees, and that the 

company the correspondence referred to was “long since defunct.” 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 459 Filed 03/05/18 Page 7 of 10 PageID: 20566
The Honorable Robert A. Rivera-Soto

March 5, 2018

Page 8

Mr. Martin then recounts the “voluminous materials” that he had sent 

to the Bevan Law Firm last April with his request for a dismissal that 

demonstrated that “the talc produced from [the Johnson] mine did not 

contain asbestos.” Mr. Martin adds that the R.J. Lee Group had just 

completed an analysis that showed no evidence of asbestos minerals, 

and that Engelhard had retained the “leading geologist in Vermont, 

who will also confirm these facts.” Mr. Martin concludes by asserting 

that there is “no basis for maintaining Engelhard as a named 

defendant in these actions” because “plaintiffs allege injuries as a 

result of exposure to asbestos” which cannot be attributed “to talc 

uncontaminated by asbestos.” “Accordingly,” Mr. Martin states, 

“EMTAL talc is not a cause of plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.”

• 1996/07/24: a letter from Scott Martin, Esq. (Cahill) to Thomas 

Bevan, Esq. (Bevan), where Mr. Martin requests a voluntary dismissal 

of the Stricklin case because “this action is an asbestos case and there 

is no evidence whatsoever that talc mined and milled by EMTAL 

contained asbestos.” In support of that request, Mr. Martin encloses 

his correspondence with the Bevan Law Firm pertaining to the Brown, 

Compton, Gonzales, James, and Williams, and the dismissals from 

those cases. Mr. Martin goes on to say, “there has never been any 

room for argument that EMTAL talc could cause an asbestos-related 

disease.” Mr. Martin concludes by stating “as there is no evidence 

whatsoever that EMTAL talc could have caused Mr. Stricklin’s 

alleged injuries, there can be no basis in law or fact for this action to 

continue against EMTAL.”

The response thus goes above and beyond what BASF asked for in the 

interrogatory.

BASF’s claim that the response to Interrogatory No. 1 contains evasive 

language likewise relies on an interpretation of the response divorced from what 

Ms. Williams actually said:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 459 Filed 03/05/18 Page 8 of 10 PageID: 20567
The Honorable Robert A. Rivera-Soto

March 5, 2018

Page 9

I am personally unaware of anyone with knowledge of my claims 

against BASF in the matter of Williams, et al. v. BASF Catalysts, 

LLC, et al., No. 11-cv-1754 (D.N.J.) other than my attorneys and 

presumably my other co-plaintiffs.

There is nothing evasive about this response: it identifies persons with knowledge, 

the subject matter of which should be self-evident from both the description of 

those individuals as the lawyers in the Underlying Action and the other 

interrogatory responses.

Finally, BASF implies that Ms. Williams stated only in the response to 

Interrogatory No. 4 that she has “no personal recollection of information 

responsive to this request.” (CM/ECF 455, pg. 7). Again though, BASF draws the 

Court’s attention to only one sentence to make it seem that the response was not 

responsive. But in actuality, the response—in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 

33(d)—referred Defendants “to documents regarding individual settlement 

amounts.”

In sum, faced with the difficult proposition of having to verify interrogatory 

responses without first-hand knowledge on some issues, Plaintiffs followed the 

direction provided by Your Honor to distinguish between the facts within 

Plaintiffs’ personal knowledge and those that are on information and belief. 

Through these responses then, as well as the documents produced from Mr. 

Bevan’s files, Plaintiffs have fully complied with Your Honor’s directive that the 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 459 Filed 03/05/18 Page 9 of 10 PageID: 20568
The Honorable Robert A. Rivera-Soto

March 5, 2018

Page 10

parties transmit as much information as possible from one side to the other under 

the prevailing circumstances. BASF’s continuing efforts to keep alive a 

controversy over the adequacy of Plaintiffs’ responses to BASF First Set of 

Interrogatories should come to an end because Plaintiffs have complied with the 

Order dated January 15, 2018.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, BASF’s Motion should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Christopher M. Placitella

Christopher M. Placitella

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the 

Proposed Class

cc: All Counsel of Record (via ECF)

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 459 Filed 03/05/18 Page 10 of 10 PageID: 20569