APPENDIX A 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 94 PageID: 13289
APPENDIX A, TAB A 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 2 of 94 PageID: 13290
11 

" 

, ,'. 

r , 

~\ . 

4-, ,Ij:FtQ SI,.RnU~ 

. F{QOI:R A~O"'Ua 

MIC»AI:L A. aef;K~'" 

HeN't:Y G. BI$QA1.fA 

5V$At( aucl(U:Y l\.t:vlN,J •• U"l'(~ 

p. Kr:.VlN ~~'fE:l. 

JAMES oJ. CLARK 

WAL7El'I C, Cl.l"'''. P.C;, 

DEh"AMIH";. (:OHe,. 

JOSI:~H·", C¢HWA,Y 

M"n3HA\.,\, -COX 

THOH-'oa F'. COI'Uil" 

w. LESll1 DI,fFf'V 

A,.,YHOtfO L. r .... US. ,JR. 

I'fA.Tlm;llJi, "''''''R£/i 

~T 'AIEO).lAt4 

CIRO':",4.v.tOOp.j, 

CHARLIEi.A. OcILMAN 

:ilTt:PHEN A, 0"1£:»£ 

RO.lmr ~. HA\.LMAA 

l:OWAAC .... HAtf9![N 

WIL.LIAtot ~AI, " .... RTH~Tf 

QJt,V1C R. U"'QE 

THOMAS ft, JONE$ 

'tall:N -$. oJO:U.VN ~ ~~fi J. KAVAUI'\ 

ENec .... KOPRlIi 

NU~!' ICOHN 

e:OWA~b F. KRl,lI')M"" 

WILUA,.. T. L'''LANO 

'"!ICI1ASL lrlAoC""J$ 

Dear Jim: 

C.A.H:£.LL GoRDON &. RElNPEL 

E:lG~ PINE S~ 

.rONA.'Y"HAH I. "fARK 

n~Jon$ M¢JHrAN£V. P.C. 

'!AND Me-OUINt •• Gr.:f;'"Irr,R() ~_ ... e-15'TREl,.t,. 

RoOt ... ~tLT%~R 

ot;C.",ORC \.. t-4tCH£L ")OHtl JI'. Mlf(;H.E1,.1,.-

MATHIM S. MQ~C 

MuClH P. r.iO"RI~('m • .Jilt •• 

DONA ... !) J. NI,I\,WMh.1. 

Kfi:~lHe.il-l W, ORC': 

CHAALit$ PlAno 

"oy L. R~GOzlN 

RI~~.6,l'\O I.. A~IHHOt.O 

ClEAN RfNOCL 

THORN RQeel'>lTHA\, 

~jc:t4APtI).J. $Atn::t.LA 

IRWIN &CHHlID£RU"'N, ~.c:. 

H, R,,;HARO .sc,.U,H4-'CHe:R 

.JOHN SC'HlJ!1l'e" 

LAV~CNelr A, I·Ht.vel'\~AN 

OHQwo\'l'O I). SI.O .... ",E 

Ul1ttENC': T • .sOR~IH 

leONAAO A. $PIVAR 

oGERA\,O ~. TA»~NBAVM 

~IC-H,&.EL P. "lr'UI~ 

ROOt:ftT UMOI 

.JOIHJ fI, VAlICH .... " CUOA .... E WAILJ;HI) 

R"""IH O. WINOeR GARy w. WOL,P ..JOHN R, YQUNO 

NEW Yo:ax, N.Y. 100015 

August 30, 1!l8~ 

ReI Engelhard - Tireworkers Litigation 

$..4"lU~L E!3l'RrlC:W&1'I 

AICHAne- ,)", MAJJPQOD. o,e . .... oMlGHA'CL~, ioACKHEIM 

JOHN .,J. !rITANTON. J/h 

"'RltO!:)'!' OI:U:~IN .... 

I: ... "e,~ Oi)Ut.!lll::L 

WASHltlo.rON, 0,(;. Of'"rlct: 

Ino K eT~cr:T. u.w. WASM1NotON. D.C. ~OOtHS 

r:U"OP£AH 0,117,.,<:& lSI> ",UK: rltAN'iI;)IIl f'~ 

1'~ooa ""1'1:1&; FRAnt;t 

'l"£XI'OAliLI; 

1'(<:"" Za.l!1~4 WIJT 1i2:1~a 

t;AOO un C;OTTQPR.o..NJ( NYK 

FAcSmll.C a I a·2l!!)·,s. .. :;O 

• "~l'tlttCQ O.I; • .;».,,~ 

... ,l\UlD A!~"'U"I:-D tkdLAND ,1\/11:1 ",U<.t.I~. 

... t\.Cllo.I1TTC ... "'v.,It~( ~111.Y 

T£l.~PIlON'f! rt,z,,.Oh3000. 

WRITE;R'fI. CII'(J:CT NVM.,e;Jt 

(212) 701-3648 

As I mentioned to you previously, for a number of months 

Engelhard has been actively seeking a dismissal from the 

tireworkers litigation pending in federal and state court in Pennsylvania on the ground that Engelhard's talc did not contain asbestos. Our main support for this contention was an affidavit pre- pared by an expert on talc, william Ashton, who reached this conclusion based on his review of numerous reports, studies and analyses of the talc from Engelhard's only talc mine in vermont. 

Last week, plaintiffs' counsel in pennsylvania agreed to 

dismiss Engelhard from the tireworkers litigation on this baeis. I 

believe that a similar dismissal is warranted in all other juris- dictions where a.tiraworkers lawsuit is pending. In this regard, I 

am enclosing the following documents ~ertaining to our discussions ~ith plaintiffs' counsel in pennsylvania: 

a •. roy COver letter of Mar 17, 1989 to Jeff Schwart~, plaintiffs' counsel 1n Philadelphia, enclosing the affidavits of William Ashton and 

Charles Carter; . . 

b. the September 20, 198B affidavit of Charles 

Carter of Engelhard; 

BASF Fe 0014629 

11 

" 

, ,'. 

r , 

~\ . 

4-, ,Ij:FtQ SI,.RnU~ 

. F{QOI:R A~O"'Ua 

MIC»AI:L A. aef;K~'" 

HeN't:Y G. BI$QA1.fA 

5V$At( aucl(U:Y l\.t:vlN,J •• U"l'(~ 

p. Kr:.VlN ~~'fE:l. 

JAMES oJ. CLARK 

WAL7El'I C, Cl.l"'''. P.C;, 

DEh"AMIH";. (:OHe,. 

JOSI:~H·", C¢HWA,Y 

M"n3HA\.,\, -COX 

THOH-'oa F'. COI'Uil" 

w. LESll1 DI,fFf'V 

A,.,YHOtfO L. r .... US. ,JR. 

I'fA.Tlm;llJi, "''''''R£/i 

~T 'AIEO).lAt4 

CIRO':",4.v.tOOp.j, 

CHARLIEi.A. OcILMAN 

:ilTt:PHEN A, 0"1£:»£ 

RO.lmr ~. HA\.LMAA 

l:OWAAC .... HAtf9![N 

WIL.LIAtot ~AI, " .... RTH~Tf 

QJt,V1C R. U"'QE 

THOMAS ft, JONE$ 

'tall:N -$. oJO:U.VN ~ ~~fi J. KAVAUI'\ 

ENec .... KOPRlIi 

NU~!' ICOHN 

e:OWA~b F. KRl,lI')M"" 

WILUA,.. T. L'''LANO 

'"!ICI1ASL lrlAoC""J$ 

Dear Jim: 

C.A.H:£.LL GoRDON &. RElNPEL 

E:lG~ PINE S~ 

.rONA.'Y"HAH I. "fARK 

n~Jon$ M¢JHrAN£V. P.C. 

'!AND Me-OUINt •• Gr.:f;'"Irr,R() ~_ ... e-15'TREl,.t,. 

RoOt ... ~tLT%~R 

ot;C.",ORC \.. t-4tCH£L ")OHtl JI'. Mlf(;H.E1,.1,.-

MATHIM S. MQ~C 

MuClH P. r.iO"RI~('m • .Jilt •• 

DONA ... !) J. NI,I\,WMh.1. 

Kfi:~lHe.il-l W, ORC': 

CHAALit$ PlAno 

"oy L. R~GOzlN 

RI~~.6,l'\O I.. A~IHHOt.O 

ClEAN RfNOCL 

THORN RQeel'>lTHA\, 

~jc:t4APtI).J. $Atn::t.LA 

IRWIN &CHHlID£RU"'N, ~.c:. 

H, R,,;HARO .sc,.U,H4-'CHe:R 

.JOHN SC'HlJ!1l'e" 

LAV~CNelr A, I·Ht.vel'\~AN 

OHQwo\'l'O I). SI.O .... ",E 

Ul1ttENC': T • .sOR~IH 

leONAAO A. $PIVAR 

oGERA\,O ~. TA»~NBAVM 

~IC-H,&.EL P. "lr'UI~ 

ROOt:ftT UMOI 

.JOIHJ fI, VAlICH .... " CUOA .... E WAILJ;HI) 

R"""IH O. WINOeR GARy w. WOL,P ..JOHN R, YQUNO 

NEW Yo:ax, N.Y. 100015 

August 30, 1!l8~ 

ReI Engelhard - Tireworkers Litigation 

$..4"lU~L E!3l'RrlC:W&1'I 

AICHAne- ,)", MAJJPQOD. o,e . .... oMlGHA'CL~, ioACKHEIM 

JOHN .,J. !rITANTON. J/h 

"'RltO!:)'!' OI:U:~IN .... 

I: ... "e,~ Oi)Ut.!lll::L 

WASHltlo.rON, 0,(;. Of'"rlct: 

Ino K eT~cr:T. u.w. WASM1NotON. D.C. ~OOtHS 

r:U"OP£AH 0,117,.,<:& lSI> ",UK: rltAN'iI;)IIl f'~ 

1'~ooa ""1'1:1&; FRAnt;t 

'l"£XI'OAliLI; 

1'(<:"" Za.l!1~4 WIJT 1i2:1~a 

t;AOO un C;OTTQPR.o..NJ( NYK 

FAcSmll.C a I a·2l!!)·,s. .. :;O 

• "~l'tlttCQ O.I; • .;».,,~ 

... ,l\UlD A!~"'U"I:-D tkdLAND ,1\/11:1 ",U<.t.I~. 

... t\.Cllo.I1TTC ... "'v.,It~( ~111.Y 

T£l.~PIlON'f! rt,z,,.Oh3000. 

WRITE;R'fI. CII'(J:CT NVM.,e;Jt 

(212) 701-3648 

As I mentioned to you previously, for a number of months 

Engelhard has been actively seeking a dismissal from the 

tireworkers litigation pending in federal and state court in Pennsylvania on the ground that Engelhard's talc did not contain asbestos. Our main support for this contention was an affidavit pre- pared by an expert on talc, william Ashton, who reached this conclusion based on his review of numerous reports, studies and analyses of the talc from Engelhard's only talc mine in vermont. 

Last week, plaintiffs' counsel in pennsylvania agreed to 

dismiss Engelhard from the tireworkers litigation on this baeis. I 

believe that a similar dismissal is warranted in all other juris- dictions where a.tiraworkers lawsuit is pending. In this regard, I 

am enclosing the following documents ~ertaining to our discussions ~ith plaintiffs' counsel in pennsylvania: 

a •. roy COver letter of Mar 17, 1989 to Jeff Schwart~, plaintiffs' counsel 1n Philadelphia, enclosing the affidavits of William Ashton and 

Charles Carter; . . 

b. the September 20, 198B affidavit of Charles 

Carter of Engelhard; 

BASF Fe 0014629 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 3 of 94 PageID: 13291
APPENDIX A, TAB B 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 4 of 94 PageID: 13292
FI,.OYO AI!IRAH~ 

ROOt,.. A""DRlI.!; MtOHAIiL ..... IHt:CKtA 

HlCtHtY O. IfS<)AI~JIt 

£USAH I';IUCKt.!t't 

KltYIN .1. l$Ul'tKJ: 

P. ~e;vIN c.a.eTt" "" .... M;E5 .1. e1..ARJ( 

WAt.;fIR e. C;:"'I'",., ~ • .c:. Oetl...MtMIN..,I. eOH&N ,JO:lH~PH p~ CONWAY 

MA,"SlH.ut. wx 'THOlr1~". CI,IRN1N 

W. 1.l:::tllJ& eLI''''' 

RJI,YMOtUl},. "AL1.S • .JR. 

P ..... TRlel ... rAhRt:N 

IlAM FRII:Cl-tAN 

<:11'\0 .... QA"A"ONJ 

<;HA~~ ,..., (J.\u..o..-." 

$TIiPJ'&:N 14., ('!;Rt:ENt: 

CAHILL GonnON' & R:l!::nmEL 

Er~~ :f':!:m:t STaEET 

JOHATHAtJ t. MA'U~ • 

DJ:m$ t.ftltllftNCY. p,e. 

AAND ~t:I/';tI)IHN " 

GERAAD ,H, "1!:1t;;TR&l.1. 

"OGirn t,U:.L.TZtlll 

m,IYI'OJtO L. H'CHB:1. 

JO ... "" P"', /toIm~ml!l.4. HAiH'AS I!':. MQNI 

HUO~ ,.. MCRnlSOU, "" •• bQNA,LI;) .). J.lOI.VlttlLC,. 

1'lEHN[:'rH W. Qrtel: 

C.HAftLIES f'VI.TT¢ 

fiov I.. JltIOOZ1tf 

~1c:HARO .... 5tJ:IH"OLO IPI[,6,N f'UNGE:l,. 

'(HQRN 1\csrN'tHAL 

"'CHAAr> .).1 •• 1:..."'" II'lWIH seI1Pf£lOt:~"'AN. p,e. 

\t. iU~_'tt~"':'Cr !.t\'\\l'MAQHII:R 

.,JOltn ac-l·u .... uEA 

~uR[:H¢e .... iilL.VIAM....,.. 

NEW Yomt, N.Y. 1()()Q!5 

SAHVtI.ISTftIICH'" IIt'CHAAo A. ",AU"OOD. O.C ••• 

I>tIC!ofAtl. A. &ACKHl'!lhI 

016»".). ~l''''~TOH. JR. -(O\ihUl. 

F/III£OI)Y OJQCMlI>1f ..... 

llWIQ"V,H Q\)\lltlh. 

WA$HINGTON~ o,~. 0""'101:: 

I~ K STRI!;It"T, ~.w. 

WA,.SW1~OTOtC. 0.0, 1::0000 

I:tmOpf::..tlN QFPIC"J: 

'S-ItUt I""AANC-Ole IC'I 

7l$004 ~AII\II. I"FlAHc£ 

TCil-tX/CA.at.E 

no .... ~a2I1l"' 'lVU" );Z?~$ 

eAOO 1J1l CO'T¢PfMHlC; fiyt( 

FAC!llI>IILI' .l1.J;·.:tf!;~.!$4eQ 

.. MH,nO:D O.¢ ....... ,,. .. It-oOf;R-, M. ttAL~"'AH 

J:DWAAo A. IoIJ>,HSJ:N WJl.lIAfoI M. ttAR"TH~ 

CAV'~ R. HYOJ: 

7HOHAS 1' • .,lOH~ 

ALLliN " • .JOl-to'/N ""O"'A$ oJ. KAVA'LJ:A 

~OWA~O -G. ~WANE 

i.AVR/tNC, T. IOI'lt<.ltf 

"r:OrtARO A. $PI\I'AII: 

or.;:JVI!.O •• TAN!::HlIA\I 1>4 

~ICH"'lO:l.. P. nEI'IH'E'f 

~.IiR1' U$"'OI 

September 25, 1989 ..... ~ .. ~"t'r'NO Ili~hO .... "O..jA¥ ... IO;"O' 

, .... ,ow",n"l) "'PMct. Ctn'r 

TtU';"'UOHt: .lJ.1:'701~3000 

W~lq,,·.1 I)lI'u::-a't IoIl1MfU:", 

teLAWnCNtl&A, MOUUH 

. HA~u"~ KQ)(R 

,JOHN R, V .... VOHAH 

qlOftGJ: WAlLAND (2l2) 7.01-3648 ARO ~. t<IlUI'JMAN 

IU.'AM T. 1,.J"t.ANo 

NIC~AI:I. NAO:RIO 

RALPH Q. WU"l4CA' 

Q,~YW. WOl.F' 

.JOHN ft. YOUNG 

ReI Engelhard - Tireworkers Litigation 

Dear Jim; 

As a follow-up.to my letter of August 30, 1909 enclosing the A.ffida .... ,lt of William. Ashton and related documents, enclose!i J.s 

the Order of Judge Charles Weiner of the U.S. District Court for 

the Eastern District of ~ennsylvania, foxmally dismissing Engelhard and Eastern Magnesia Talc Co. from all 174 tireworkers cases ~iJed 

in that Court. 

James D. Griffin, Esq. Blackwell Sanders Matheny Weary 

& 'Lomba,;cl! . . 

Two Pershing square 2300 Main 5treet, Suite 1100 

P.O. Box 419777 

Kansas City, Missouri 64141-6777 

f.§..DERAI{ EXPRESS 

(Enclosure] 

co. Howard G. Sloane, Esq. (w/o enol.) 

Kevin Finnegan, Esq. (w/o encl.) 

Eric S. Sarner, Esq. (w/o encL.) 

Sincerely, 

Ira J. DemJ:>row 

. '-~ 

.~" 

BASF Fe 0014616 

FI,.OYO AI!IRAH~ 

ROOt,.. A""DRlI.!; MtOHAIiL ..... IHt:CKtA 

HlCtHtY O. IfS<)AI~JIt 

£USAH I';IUCKt.!t't 

KltYIN .1. l$Ul'tKJ: 

P. ~e;vIN c.a.eTt" "" .... M;E5 .1. e1..ARJ( 

WAt.;fIR e. C;:"'I'",., ~ • .c:. Oetl...MtMIN..,I. eOH&N ,JO:lH~PH p~ CONWAY 

MA,"SlH.ut. wx 'THOlr1~". CI,IRN1N 

W. 1.l:::tllJ& eLI''''' 

RJI,YMOtUl},. "AL1.S • .JR. 

P ..... TRlel ... rAhRt:N 

IlAM FRII:Cl-tAN 

<:11'\0 .... QA"A"ONJ 

<;HA~~ ,..., (J.\u..o..-." 

$TIiPJ'&:N 14., ('!;Rt:ENt: 

CAHILL GonnON' & R:l!::nmEL 

Er~~ :f':!:m:t STaEET 

JOHATHAtJ t. MA'U~ • 

DJ:m$ t.ftltllftNCY. p,e. 

AAND ~t:I/';tI)IHN " 

GERAAD ,H, "1!:1t;;TR&l.1. 

"OGirn t,U:.L.TZtlll 

m,IYI'OJtO L. H'CHB:1. 

JO ... "" P"', /toIm~ml!l.4. HAiH'AS I!':. MQNI 

HUO~ ,.. MCRnlSOU, "" •• bQNA,LI;) .). J.lOI.VlttlLC,. 

1'lEHN[:'rH W. Qrtel: 

C.HAftLIES f'VI.TT¢ 

fiov I.. JltIOOZ1tf 

~1c:HARO .... 5tJ:IH"OLO IPI[,6,N f'UNGE:l,. 

'(HQRN 1\csrN'tHAL 

"'CHAAr> .).1 •• 1:..."'" II'lWIH seI1Pf£lOt:~"'AN. p,e. 

\t. iU~_'tt~"':'Cr !.t\'\\l'MAQHII:R 

.,JOltn ac-l·u .... uEA 

~uR[:H¢e .... iilL.VIAM....,.. 

NEW Yomt, N.Y. 1()()Q!5 

SAHVtI.ISTftIICH'" IIt'CHAAo A. ",AU"OOD. O.C ••• 

I>tIC!ofAtl. A. &ACKHl'!lhI 

016»".). ~l''''~TOH. JR. -(O\ihUl. 

F/III£OI)Y OJQCMlI>1f ..... 

llWIQ"V,H Q\)\lltlh. 

WA$HINGTON~ o,~. 0""'101:: 

I~ K STRI!;It"T, ~.w. 

WA,.SW1~OTOtC. 0.0, 1::0000 

I:tmOpf::..tlN QFPIC"J: 

'S-ItUt I""AANC-Ole IC'I 

7l$004 ~AII\II. I"FlAHc£ 

TCil-tX/CA.at.E 

no .... ~a2I1l"' 'lVU" );Z?~$ 

eAOO 1J1l CO'T¢PfMHlC; fiyt( 

FAC!llI>IILI' .l1.J;·.:tf!;~.!$4eQ 

.. MH,nO:D O.¢ ....... ,,. .. It-oOf;R-, M. ttAL~"'AH 

J:DWAAo A. IoIJ>,HSJ:N WJl.lIAfoI M. ttAR"TH~ 

CAV'~ R. HYOJ: 

7HOHAS 1' • .,lOH~ 

ALLliN " • .JOl-to'/N ""O"'A$ oJ. KAVA'LJ:A 

~OWA~O -G. ~WANE 

i.AVR/tNC, T. IOI'lt<.ltf 

"r:OrtARO A. $PI\I'AII: 

or.;:JVI!.O •• TAN!::HlIA\I 1>4 

~ICH"'lO:l.. P. nEI'IH'E'f 

~.IiR1' U$"'OI 

September 25, 1989 ..... ~ .. ~"t'r'NO Ili~hO .... "O..jA¥ ... IO;"O' 

, .... ,ow",n"l) "'PMct. Ctn'r 

TtU';"'UOHt: .lJ.1:'701~3000 

W~lq,,·.1 I)lI'u::-a't IoIl1MfU:", 

teLAWnCNtl&A, MOUUH 

. HA~u"~ KQ)(R 

,JOHN R, V .... VOHAH 

qlOftGJ: WAlLAND (2l2) 7.01-3648 ARO ~. t<IlUI'JMAN 

IU.'AM T. 1,.J"t.ANo 

NIC~AI:I. NAO:RIO 

RALPH Q. WU"l4CA' 

Q,~YW. WOl.F' 

.JOHN ft. YOUNG 

ReI Engelhard - Tireworkers Litigation 

Dear Jim; 

As a follow-up.to my letter of August 30, 1909 enclosing the A.ffida .... ,lt of William. Ashton and related documents, enclose!i J.s 

the Order of Judge Charles Weiner of the U.S. District Court for 

the Eastern District of ~ennsylvania, foxmally dismissing Engelhard and Eastern Magnesia Talc Co. from all 174 tireworkers cases ~iJed 

in that Court. 

James D. Griffin, Esq. Blackwell Sanders Matheny Weary 

& 'Lomba,;cl! . . 

Two Pershing square 2300 Main 5treet, Suite 1100 

P.O. Box 419777 

Kansas City, Missouri 64141-6777 

f.§..DERAI{ EXPRESS 

(Enclosure] 

co. Howard G. Sloane, Esq. (w/o enol.) 

Kevin Finnegan, Esq. (w/o encl.) 

Eric S. Sarner, Esq. (w/o encL.) 

Sincerely, 

Ira J. DemJ:>row 

. '-~ 

.~" 

BASF Fe 0014616 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 5 of 94 PageID: 13293
APPENDIX A, TAB C 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 6 of 94 PageID: 13294
'r 

~ 

J " " . • 

i 

; ! 

WB8TON,HURD,PALLON,PAISLBY e HOWLEY 

25TH FLOOR TBRNlNAL TOW'S" 

CLBVSL.A.ND,OIUO 4..U3· •• 41 

(alO) a"'·eaoa 

OHlO TO .... t'11J18 ($001 330· ... U 

~XI .. ot31 W'DNl\ • 0Aat..1 LAWC~VlI • 'l'Sl..tOOP1W"l (tie) .", •• ,15. 

october 2, 1989 

Peter J. Brodhead, Esq. 

1500 National city Bank Bldg. Cleveland, Ohio 44114 

Re: Engelhard/Eastern Magnesia Talc Co.-

Tireworkers Litigation 

OUr File No: 15241-07866 

Dear Peter: 

I have atteDpted to reach you by telephone to discuss this 

aatter. In the event that we do not succeed in ~aking contaot by telephone, ! am enolosing a packet of documents for your review and 

consideration. After you have had an opportunity to review these 

Baterials, I would ask that you give me a oall to discuss this 

Batter. 

As you know, I represent Engelhard/Eastern Magnesia Talo Co., 

which is naDed as a detendant in the Tireworker cases that you have 

filed in federal court. 

This letter is to request that you voluntarily disBiss 

EnC}elhard Corporation and its tormer WhOllr-owned sub8idiary, Eastern Maqnesia Talc CO. ("ENTALM) trOB the T reworker cases that 

you have tiled in tederal court. The basis for this request is 

that we have determined that the talc that was produced by ENTAL 

did not contain any aSbestos. Under these circUDStanoes, there 

does not seeD to be any basis to keep Engelhard or ENTAL as naaed 

defendants in these lawsuits. I aa sure that you can appreciate the substantial expense that is being incurred by Engelhard as a 

result of being naaed as a detendant in these lawsuits. 

There is precedent for By request. Engelhard and ENTAL were 

m,aed as defendants in 28 lawsuits brought on behalf of former 

tireworkers at the B.F. Goodrich plant in Oaks, PA. Those lawsuits 

were filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I aa enclosing the docUJIents and materials that were provided to Jeffrey C. 

Schwartz of the Allen L. Rothenberg law tirm in Philadelphia, PA. 

1 aa advised that after Mr. Schwartz had an opportunity to review 

these aaterials, he was satisfied that the talc produced by Engelhard and ENTAL did not contain any asbestos, and therefore, 

he voluntarily dis.issed Engelhard and ENTAL frOD the Tireworker 

BASF Fe 0007755 

'r 

~ 

J " " . • 

i 

; ! 

WB8TON,HURD,PALLON,PAISLBY e HOWLEY 

25TH FLOOR TBRNlNAL TOW'S" 

CLBVSL.A.ND,OIUO 4..U3· •• 41 

(alO) a"'·eaoa 

OHlO TO .... t'11J18 ($001 330· ... U 

~XI .. ot31 W'DNl\ • 0Aat..1 LAWC~VlI • 'l'Sl..tOOP1W"l (tie) .", •• ,15. 

october 2, 1989 

Peter J. Brodhead, Esq. 

1500 National city Bank Bldg. Cleveland, Ohio 44114 

Re: Engelhard/Eastern Magnesia Talc Co.-

Tireworkers Litigation 

OUr File No: 15241-07866 

Dear Peter: 

I have atteDpted to reach you by telephone to discuss this 

aatter. In the event that we do not succeed in ~aking contaot by telephone, ! am enolosing a packet of documents for your review and 

consideration. After you have had an opportunity to review these 

Baterials, I would ask that you give me a oall to discuss this 

Batter. 

As you know, I represent Engelhard/Eastern Magnesia Talo Co., 

which is naDed as a detendant in the Tireworker cases that you have 

filed in federal court. 

This letter is to request that you voluntarily disBiss 

EnC}elhard Corporation and its tormer WhOllr-owned sub8idiary, Eastern Maqnesia Talc CO. ("ENTALM) trOB the T reworker cases that 

you have tiled in tederal court. The basis for this request is 

that we have determined that the talc that was produced by ENTAL 

did not contain any aSbestos. Under these circUDStanoes, there 

does not seeD to be any basis to keep Engelhard or ENTAL as naaed 

defendants in these lawsuits. I aa sure that you can appreciate the substantial expense that is being incurred by Engelhard as a 

result of being naaed as a detendant in these lawsuits. 

There is precedent for By request. Engelhard and ENTAL were 

m,aed as defendants in 28 lawsuits brought on behalf of former 

tireworkers at the B.F. Goodrich plant in Oaks, PA. Those lawsuits 

were filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I aa enclosing the docUJIents and materials that were provided to Jeffrey C. 

Schwartz of the Allen L. Rothenberg law tirm in Philadelphia, PA. 

1 aa advised that after Mr. Schwartz had an opportunity to review 

these aaterials, he was satisfied that the talc produced by Engelhard and ENTAL did not contain any asbestos, and therefore, 

he voluntarily dis.issed Engelhard and ENTAL frOD the Tireworker 

BASF Fe 0007755 

'r 

~ 

J " " . • 

i 

; ! 

WB8TON,HURD,PALLON,PAISLBY e HOWLEY 

25TH FLOOR TBRNlNAL TOW'S" 

CLBVSL.A.ND,OIUO 4..U3· •• 41 

(alO) a"'·eaoa 

OHlO TO .... t'11J18 ($001 330· ... U 

~XI .. ot31 W'DNl\ • 0Aat..1 LAWC~VlI • 'l'Sl..tOOP1W"l (tie) .", •• ,15. 

october 2, 1989 

Peter J. Brodhead, Esq. 

1500 National city Bank Bldg. Cleveland, Ohio 44114 

Re: Engelhard/Eastern Magnesia Talc Co.-

Tireworkers Litigation 

OUr File No: 15241-07866 

Dear Peter: 

I have atteDpted to reach you by telephone to discuss this 

aatter. In the event that we do not succeed in ~aking contaot by telephone, ! am enolosing a packet of documents for your review and 

consideration. After you have had an opportunity to review these 

Baterials, I would ask that you give me a oall to discuss this 

Batter. 

As you know, I represent Engelhard/Eastern Magnesia Talo Co., 

which is naDed as a detendant in the Tireworker cases that you have 

filed in federal court. 

This letter is to request that you voluntarily disBiss 

EnC}elhard Corporation and its tormer WhOllr-owned sub8idiary, Eastern Maqnesia Talc CO. ("ENTALM) trOB the T reworker cases that 

you have tiled in tederal court. The basis for this request is 

that we have determined that the talc that was produced by ENTAL 

did not contain any aSbestos. Under these circUDStanoes, there 

does not seeD to be any basis to keep Engelhard or ENTAL as naaed 

defendants in these lawsuits. I aa sure that you can appreciate the substantial expense that is being incurred by Engelhard as a 

result of being naaed as a detendant in these lawsuits. 

There is precedent for By request. Engelhard and ENTAL were 

m,aed as defendants in 28 lawsuits brought on behalf of former 

tireworkers at the B.F. Goodrich plant in Oaks, PA. Those lawsuits 

were filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I aa enclosing the docUJIents and materials that were provided to Jeffrey C. 

Schwartz of the Allen L. Rothenberg law tirm in Philadelphia, PA. 

1 aa advised that after Mr. Schwartz had an opportunity to review 

these aaterials, he was satisfied that the talc produced by Engelhard and ENTAL did not contain any asbestos, and therefore, 

he voluntarily dis.issed Engelhard and ENTAL frOD the Tireworker 

BASF Fe 0007755 

'r 

~ 

J " " . • 

i 

; ! 

WB8TON,HURD,PALLON,PAISLBY e HOWLEY 

25TH FLOOR TBRNlNAL TOW'S" 

CLBVSL.A.ND,OIUO 4..U3· •• 41 

(alO) a"'·eaoa 

OHlO TO .... t'11J18 ($001 330· ... U 

~XI .. ot31 W'DNl\ • 0Aat..1 LAWC~VlI • 'l'Sl..tOOP1W"l (tie) .", •• ,15. 

october 2, 1989 

Peter J. Brodhead, Esq. 

1500 National city Bank Bldg. Cleveland, Ohio 44114 

Re: Engelhard/Eastern Magnesia Talc Co.-

Tireworkers Litigation 

OUr File No: 15241-07866 

Dear Peter: 

I have atteDpted to reach you by telephone to discuss this 

aatter. In the event that we do not succeed in ~aking contaot by telephone, ! am enolosing a packet of documents for your review and 

consideration. After you have had an opportunity to review these 

Baterials, I would ask that you give me a oall to discuss this 

Batter. 

As you know, I represent Engelhard/Eastern Magnesia Talo Co., 

which is naDed as a detendant in the Tireworker cases that you have 

filed in federal court. 

This letter is to request that you voluntarily disBiss 

EnC}elhard Corporation and its tormer WhOllr-owned sub8idiary, Eastern Maqnesia Talc CO. ("ENTALM) trOB the T reworker cases that 

you have tiled in tederal court. The basis for this request is 

that we have determined that the talc that was produced by ENTAL 

did not contain any aSbestos. Under these circUDStanoes, there 

does not seeD to be any basis to keep Engelhard or ENTAL as naaed 

defendants in these lawsuits. I aa sure that you can appreciate the substantial expense that is being incurred by Engelhard as a 

result of being naaed as a detendant in these lawsuits. 

There is precedent for By request. Engelhard and ENTAL were 

m,aed as defendants in 28 lawsuits brought on behalf of former 

tireworkers at the B.F. Goodrich plant in Oaks, PA. Those lawsuits 

were filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I aa enclosing the docUJIents and materials that were provided to Jeffrey C. 

Schwartz of the Allen L. Rothenberg law tirm in Philadelphia, PA. 

1 aa advised that after Mr. Schwartz had an opportunity to review 

these aaterials, he was satisfied that the talc produced by Engelhard and ENTAL did not contain any asbestos, and therefore, 

he voluntarily dis.issed Engelhard and ENTAL frOD the Tireworker 

BASF Fe 0007755 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 7 of 94 PageID: 13295
· .. WESTON. HUl\D, FALLON, PAISLBY' C HOWLBY' 

Peter J. Brodhead, Esq. October 2, 1989 

Page 2 

litigation in Philadelphia. 

The documents enclosed are as follows: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Affidavit of Charles D. Carter dated September 20, 1988; 

A copy of an Affidavit by Charles D. Carter dated June 

19, 19891 

A copy of a report prepared by Dr. F. D. Pooley concerning an examination of talc sallples taken fro. the Johnson 

Talc Hine; 

A copy of an Affidavit prepared by Williu H. Ashton 

dated Hay 8, 1989, with attached Exhibits A through G. 

The disllissal entry from the federal action in Philadelphia. 

In reviewing these documents, you will note that Engelhard's only talc mine was located in Johnson, Vermont and that Engelhard produced talc from that mine from 1967, when it acquired the mine, 

through 1983, when the mine was closed for economic reasons. (See Affidavits of Charles-carter). ~e Affidavit of William Ashton, 

an expert retained by Engelhard, summarizes a number of reports, studies and analyses from the Johnson, VerMont talc mine. These 

reports, studies and analyses conclude that the talc produced from 

Engelhard's only talc aine did not contain asbestos. Apparently 

a sample of the talc frOB the aine was analyzed in 1982 I.\sir19 

soanning electron aicroscopy and energy dispersive spectroscopy and 

x-ray diffraction analysis and analytical transaission electron 

Bicroscopy. The conclusion was that no ASbestos vas present in the 

sABple.(See para. 7 of Ashton Affidavit). 

During the BOnths of May and June of 1989, there was an 

exchange of correspondence between Jeffrey Schwartz in Philadelphia and counsel for Engelhard. I have not enclosed copies of that 

correspondence, but it indicates that there are no saBplea currently available frOB the Johnson Vermont Hine. The reason for 

this is that the aine is filled with water, Baking access to 

saaples impossible. 

It is BY understanding that the most recent HIOSH report is 

consistent with the aaterials that are enclosed herein, in that no 

asbestos was found in the talc used in the tireworker facility that 

was subject to the stUdy. 

After Hr. Schwartz had an opportunity to review these 

BASF Fe 0007756 

· .. WESTON. HUl\D, FALLON, PAISLBY' C HOWLBY' 

Peter J. Brodhead, Esq. October 2, 1989 

Page 2 

litigation in Philadelphia. 

The documents enclosed are as follows: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Affidavit of Charles D. Carter dated September 20, 1988; 

A copy of an Affidavit by Charles D. Carter dated June 

19, 19891 

A copy of a report prepared by Dr. F. D. Pooley concerning an examination of talc sallples taken fro. the Johnson 

Talc Hine; 

A copy of an Affidavit prepared by Williu H. Ashton 

dated Hay 8, 1989, with attached Exhibits A through G. 

The disllissal entry from the federal action in Philadelphia. 

In reviewing these documents, you will note that Engelhard's only talc mine was located in Johnson, Vermont and that Engelhard produced talc from that mine from 1967, when it acquired the mine, 

through 1983, when the mine was closed for economic reasons. (See Affidavits of Charles-carter). ~e Affidavit of William Ashton, 

an expert retained by Engelhard, summarizes a number of reports, studies and analyses from the Johnson, VerMont talc mine. These 

reports, studies and analyses conclude that the talc produced from 

Engelhard's only talc aine did not contain asbestos. Apparently 

a sample of the talc frOB the aine was analyzed in 1982 I.\sir19 

soanning electron aicroscopy and energy dispersive spectroscopy and 

x-ray diffraction analysis and analytical transaission electron 

Bicroscopy. The conclusion was that no ASbestos vas present in the 

sABple.(See para. 7 of Ashton Affidavit). 

During the BOnths of May and June of 1989, there was an 

exchange of correspondence between Jeffrey Schwartz in Philadelphia and counsel for Engelhard. I have not enclosed copies of that 

correspondence, but it indicates that there are no saBplea currently available frOB the Johnson Vermont Hine. The reason for 

this is that the aine is filled with water, Baking access to 

saaples impossible. 

It is BY understanding that the most recent HIOSH report is 

consistent with the aaterials that are enclosed herein, in that no 

asbestos was found in the talc used in the tireworker facility that 

was subject to the stUdy. 

After Hr. Schwartz had an opportunity to review these 

BASF Fe 0007756 

· .. WESTON. HUl\D, FALLON, PAISLBY' C HOWLBY' 

Peter J. Brodhead, Esq. October 2, 1989 

Page 2 

litigation in Philadelphia. 

The documents enclosed are as follows: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Affidavit of Charles D. Carter dated September 20, 1988; 

A copy of an Affidavit by Charles D. Carter dated June 

19, 19891 

A copy of a report prepared by Dr. F. D. Pooley concerning an examination of talc sallples taken fro. the Johnson 

Talc Hine; 

A copy of an Affidavit prepared by Williu H. Ashton 

dated Hay 8, 1989, with attached Exhibits A through G. 

The disllissal entry from the federal action in Philadelphia. 

In reviewing these documents, you will note that Engelhard's only talc mine was located in Johnson, Vermont and that Engelhard produced talc from that mine from 1967, when it acquired the mine, 

through 1983, when the mine was closed for economic reasons. (See Affidavits of Charles-carter). ~e Affidavit of William Ashton, 

an expert retained by Engelhard, summarizes a number of reports, studies and analyses from the Johnson, VerMont talc mine. These 

reports, studies and analyses conclude that the talc produced from 

Engelhard's only talc aine did not contain asbestos. Apparently 

a sample of the talc frOB the aine was analyzed in 1982 I.\sir19 

soanning electron aicroscopy and energy dispersive spectroscopy and 

x-ray diffraction analysis and analytical transaission electron 

Bicroscopy. The conclusion was that no ASbestos vas present in the 

sABple.(See para. 7 of Ashton Affidavit). 

During the BOnths of May and June of 1989, there was an 

exchange of correspondence between Jeffrey Schwartz in Philadelphia and counsel for Engelhard. I have not enclosed copies of that 

correspondence, but it indicates that there are no saBplea currently available frOB the Johnson Vermont Hine. The reason for 

this is that the aine is filled with water, Baking access to 

saaples impossible. 

It is BY understanding that the most recent HIOSH report is 

consistent with the aaterials that are enclosed herein, in that no 

asbestos was found in the talc used in the tireworker facility that 

was subject to the stUdy. 

After Hr. Schwartz had an opportunity to review these 

BASF Fe 0007756 

· .. WESTON. HUl\D, FALLON, PAISLBY' C HOWLBY' 

Peter J. Brodhead, Esq. October 2, 1989 

Page 2 

litigation in Philadelphia. 

The documents enclosed are as follows: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Affidavit of Charles D. Carter dated September 20, 1988; 

A copy of an Affidavit by Charles D. Carter dated June 

19, 19891 

A copy of a report prepared by Dr. F. D. Pooley concerning an examination of talc sallples taken fro. the Johnson 

Talc Hine; 

A copy of an Affidavit prepared by Williu H. Ashton 

dated Hay 8, 1989, with attached Exhibits A through G. 

The disllissal entry from the federal action in Philadelphia. 

In reviewing these documents, you will note that Engelhard's only talc mine was located in Johnson, Vermont and that Engelhard produced talc from that mine from 1967, when it acquired the mine, 

through 1983, when the mine was closed for economic reasons. (See Affidavits of Charles-carter). ~e Affidavit of William Ashton, 

an expert retained by Engelhard, summarizes a number of reports, studies and analyses from the Johnson, VerMont talc mine. These 

reports, studies and analyses conclude that the talc produced from 

Engelhard's only talc aine did not contain asbestos. Apparently 

a sample of the talc frOB the aine was analyzed in 1982 I.\sir19 

soanning electron aicroscopy and energy dispersive spectroscopy and 

x-ray diffraction analysis and analytical transaission electron 

Bicroscopy. The conclusion was that no ASbestos vas present in the 

sABple.(See para. 7 of Ashton Affidavit). 

During the BOnths of May and June of 1989, there was an 

exchange of correspondence between Jeffrey Schwartz in Philadelphia and counsel for Engelhard. I have not enclosed copies of that 

correspondence, but it indicates that there are no saBplea currently available frOB the Johnson Vermont Hine. The reason for 

this is that the aine is filled with water, Baking access to 

saaples impossible. 

It is BY understanding that the most recent HIOSH report is 

consistent with the aaterials that are enclosed herein, in that no 

asbestos was found in the talc used in the tireworker facility that 

was subject to the stUdy. 

After Hr. Schwartz had an opportunity to review these 

BASF Fe 0007756 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 8 of 94 PageID: 13296
, .... WESTON. JruRDt :FALLON, PAI8LBY e HO'WLUY 

Peter J. Brodhead, Esq. october 2, 1989 

Page 3 

materials, he agreed to voluntarily dismiss Enqelhard and ENTAL 

from the federal litiqation in Philadelphia. I would ask that you review these aaterials and give serious consideration to dis.issing Engelhard and ENTAL from the Tireworkers litigation in federal 

court in cleveland, Ohio. I am sure that you can appreciate the 

concern of ay client to avoid incurrinq further expanses froa this 

litiqation unnecessarily. This would seea to be an appropriate time to eliainate unnecessary and inappropriate defendants, in 

liqht of the meeting that was conducted by Judge Lambros 

approximately 10 days aqo. 

Please feel free to call me after you have had an opportunity 

to review these matters. If any additional inforlilation would be 

of assistance to you in makinq this determination, please feel free 

to let ae know. 

jk/ec 

Enclosures 

/ 

BASF Fe 0007757 

, .... WESTON. JruRDt :FALLON, PAI8LBY e HO'WLUY 

Peter J. Brodhead, Esq. october 2, 1989 

Page 3 

materials, he agreed to voluntarily dismiss Enqelhard and ENTAL 

from the federal litiqation in Philadelphia. I would ask that you review these aaterials and give serious consideration to dis.issing Engelhard and ENTAL from the Tireworkers litigation in federal 

court in cleveland, Ohio. I am sure that you can appreciate the 

concern of ay client to avoid incurrinq further expanses froa this 

litiqation unnecessarily. This would seea to be an appropriate time to eliainate unnecessary and inappropriate defendants, in 

liqht of the meeting that was conducted by Judge Lambros 

approximately 10 days aqo. 

Please feel free to call me after you have had an opportunity 

to review these matters. If any additional inforlilation would be 

of assistance to you in makinq this determination, please feel free 

to let ae know. 

jk/ec 

Enclosures 

/ 

BASF Fe 0007757 

, .... WESTON. JruRDt :FALLON, PAI8LBY e HO'WLUY 

Peter J. Brodhead, Esq. october 2, 1989 

Page 3 

materials, he agreed to voluntarily dismiss Enqelhard and ENTAL 

from the federal litiqation in Philadelphia. I would ask that you review these aaterials and give serious consideration to dis.issing Engelhard and ENTAL from the Tireworkers litigation in federal 

court in cleveland, Ohio. I am sure that you can appreciate the 

concern of ay client to avoid incurrinq further expanses froa this 

litiqation unnecessarily. This would seea to be an appropriate time to eliainate unnecessary and inappropriate defendants, in 

liqht of the meeting that was conducted by Judge Lambros 

approximately 10 days aqo. 

Please feel free to call me after you have had an opportunity 

to review these matters. If any additional inforlilation would be 

of assistance to you in makinq this determination, please feel free 

to let ae know. 

jk/ec 

Enclosures 

/ 

BASF Fe 0007757 

, .... WESTON. JruRDt :FALLON, PAI8LBY e HO'WLUY 

Peter J. Brodhead, Esq. october 2, 1989 

Page 3 

materials, he agreed to voluntarily dismiss Enqelhard and ENTAL 

from the federal litiqation in Philadelphia. I would ask that you review these aaterials and give serious consideration to dis.issing Engelhard and ENTAL from the Tireworkers litigation in federal 

court in cleveland, Ohio. I am sure that you can appreciate the 

concern of ay client to avoid incurrinq further expanses froa this 

litiqation unnecessarily. This would seea to be an appropriate time to eliainate unnecessary and inappropriate defendants, in 

liqht of the meeting that was conducted by Judge Lambros 

approximately 10 days aqo. 

Please feel free to call me after you have had an opportunity 

to review these matters. If any additional inforlilation would be 

of assistance to you in makinq this determination, please feel free 

to let ae know. 

jk/ec 

Enclosures 

/ 

BASF Fe 0007757 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 9 of 94 PageID: 13297
APPENDIX A, TAB D 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 10 of 94 PageID: 13298
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 11 of 94 PageID: 13299
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 12 of 94 PageID: 13300
APPENDIX A, TAB E 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 13 of 94 PageID: 13301
'. 

WESTON HURD 

FALLON PAISLEY & HOWLEY 

COL'NSELlORS AT LAw 

2500 TERMINAL roWER· CLEVELAND. OHIO Hl1J 1241 • 216/241-6602 

OHIO TOLl. fREE. $«\ B6 ... 9\l • FAX:16,621..ft}69 

Michael F. colley, Esq. 

Hoster & High Building 

536 South High Street 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

January 2, 1990 

Re: Engelhard/Eastern Magnesia Talc Co.-

Tireworkers Litigation 

Our File No: 15241-07866 

Dear Mr. colley: 

, . ,_.- .. 

As you know, I represent Engelhard/Eastern Magnesia Talc Co., 

which is named as a defendant in the Tireworker cases that you have 

filed in Summit county Common Pleas Court. 

I have received your letter of December 21, 1989. This letter 

is to request that you voluntarily dismiss Engelhard Corporation 

and its former whOlly-owned SUbsidiary, Eastern Magnesia Talc Co. 

("EMTAL") from the Tireworker cases that you have filed in Summit 

County Common Pleas court. The basis for this request is that we 

have determined that the talc that was produced by EHTAL did not 

contain any asbestos. I am enclosing a packet of documents that 

supports this request. Under these circumstances, there does not 

seem to be any basis to keep Engelhard or EMTAL as named defendants 

in these lawsuits •. 1 am sure that you can appreciate the sUbstan- ti~l expense that is being incurred by Engelhard as a result of 

being named as a defendant in these lawsuits. 

There is precedent tor my request. Engelhard and EMTAL were 

named as defendants in 28 lawsuits brought on behalf of former 

tireworkers at the B.F. GoodriCh plant in Oaks, PA. Those lawsuits 

were filed in the Eastern District·of Pennsylvania. I am enclosing 

the documents and materials that were provided to Jeffrey C. 

Schwartz of the Allen L. Rothenberg law firm in Philadelphia, PA. 

I am advised that after Mr. Schwartz had an opportunity to review 

these materials, he was satisfied that the talc produced by 

Engelhard and EMTAL did not contain any asbestos, and therefore, 

he voluntarily dismissed Engelhard and EMTAL from the Tireworker 

litigation in Philadelphia. 

.1 

BASF Fe 0003892 

'. 

WESTON HURD 

FALLON PAISLEY & HOWLEY 

COL'NSELlORS AT LAw 

2500 TERMINAL roWER· CLEVELAND. OHIO Hl1J 1241 • 216/241-6602 

OHIO TOLl. fREE. $«\ B6 ... 9\l • FAX:16,621..ft}69 

Michael F. colley, Esq. 

Hoster & High Building 

536 South High Street 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

January 2, 1990 

Re: Engelhard/Eastern Magnesia Talc Co.-

Tireworkers Litigation 

Our File No: 15241-07866 

Dear Mr. colley: 

, . ,_.- .. 

As you know, I represent Engelhard/Eastern Magnesia Talc Co., 

which is named as a defendant in the Tireworker cases that you have 

filed in Summit county Common Pleas Court. 

I have received your letter of December 21, 1989. This letter 

is to request that you voluntarily dismiss Engelhard Corporation 

and its former whOlly-owned SUbsidiary, Eastern Magnesia Talc Co. 

("EMTAL") from the Tireworker cases that you have filed in Summit 

County Common Pleas court. The basis for this request is that we 

have determined that the talc that was produced by EHTAL did not 

contain any asbestos. I am enclosing a packet of documents that 

supports this request. Under these circumstances, there does not 

seem to be any basis to keep Engelhard or EMTAL as named defendants 

in these lawsuits •. 1 am sure that you can appreciate the sUbstan- ti~l expense that is being incurred by Engelhard as a result of 

being named as a defendant in these lawsuits. 

There is precedent tor my request. Engelhard and EMTAL were 

named as defendants in 28 lawsuits brought on behalf of former 

tireworkers at the B.F. GoodriCh plant in Oaks, PA. Those lawsuits 

were filed in the Eastern District·of Pennsylvania. I am enclosing 

the documents and materials that were provided to Jeffrey C. 

Schwartz of the Allen L. Rothenberg law firm in Philadelphia, PA. 

I am advised that after Mr. Schwartz had an opportunity to review 

these materials, he was satisfied that the talc produced by 

Engelhard and EMTAL did not contain any asbestos, and therefore, 

he voluntarily dismissed Engelhard and EMTAL from the Tireworker 

litigation in Philadelphia. 

.1 

BASF Fe 0003892 

'. 

WESTON HURD 

FALLON PAISLEY & HOWLEY 

COL'NSELlORS AT LAw 

2500 TERMINAL roWER· CLEVELAND. OHIO Hl1J 1241 • 216/241-6602 

OHIO TOLl. fREE. $«\ B6 ... 9\l • FAX:16,621..ft}69 

Michael F. colley, Esq. 

Hoster & High Building 

536 South High Street 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

January 2, 1990 

Re: Engelhard/Eastern Magnesia Talc Co.-

Tireworkers Litigation 

Our File No: 15241-07866 

Dear Mr. colley: 

, . ,_.- .. 

As you know, I represent Engelhard/Eastern Magnesia Talc Co., 

which is named as a defendant in the Tireworker cases that you have 

filed in Summit county Common Pleas Court. 

I have received your letter of December 21, 1989. This letter 

is to request that you voluntarily dismiss Engelhard Corporation 

and its former whOlly-owned SUbsidiary, Eastern Magnesia Talc Co. 

("EMTAL") from the Tireworker cases that you have filed in Summit 

County Common Pleas court. The basis for this request is that we 

have determined that the talc that was produced by EHTAL did not 

contain any asbestos. I am enclosing a packet of documents that 

supports this request. Under these circumstances, there does not 

seem to be any basis to keep Engelhard or EMTAL as named defendants 

in these lawsuits •. 1 am sure that you can appreciate the sUbstan- ti~l expense that is being incurred by Engelhard as a result of 

being named as a defendant in these lawsuits. 

There is precedent tor my request. Engelhard and EMTAL were 

named as defendants in 28 lawsuits brought on behalf of former 

tireworkers at the B.F. GoodriCh plant in Oaks, PA. Those lawsuits 

were filed in the Eastern District·of Pennsylvania. I am enclosing 

the documents and materials that were provided to Jeffrey C. 

Schwartz of the Allen L. Rothenberg law firm in Philadelphia, PA. 

I am advised that after Mr. Schwartz had an opportunity to review 

these materials, he was satisfied that the talc produced by 

Engelhard and EMTAL did not contain any asbestos, and therefore, 

he voluntarily dismissed Engelhard and EMTAL from the Tireworker 

litigation in Philadelphia. 

.1 

BASF Fe 0003892 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 14 of 94 PageID: 13302
" 

Michael F. Colley, Esq. 

January 2, 1990 

Page 2 

The documents enclosed are as follows: 

(1) Affidavit of Charles D. Carter dated September 20, 1988: 

(2) A copy of an Affidavit by Charles D.Carter dated June 

19, 1989: 

(3) A copy of a report prepared by Dr. F. D. Pooley concerning an examination of talc samples taken from the Johnson 

Talc Mine; 

(4) A copy of an Affidavit prepared by William H. Ashton 

dated May 8, 1989, with attached Exhibits A through G. 

(5) The dismissal entry from the federal action in Philadelphia. 

In reviewing these documents, you will note that Engelhard's 

only talc mine was located in Johnson, Vermont and that Engelhard 

produced talc from that mine from 1967, when it acquired the mine, 

through 1983, when the mine was closed for economic reasons. (See 

Affidavits of Charles Carter). The Affidavit of William Ashton, 

an expert retained by Engelhard, summarizes a number of reports, 

studies and analyses from the Johnson, Vermont talc mine. These 

reports, studies and analyses conclude that the talc produced from 

Engelhard's only talc mine did not contain asbestos. Apparently 

a sample of the talc from the mine was analyzed in 1982 using 

scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive spectroscopy and 

x-ray diffraction analysis and analytical transmission electron 

microscopy. The conclusion was that no asbestos was present in the 

sample. (see para. 7 of Ashton Affidavit). 

During the months ot May and June of 1989, there was an 

exchange of correspondence between Jeffrey Schwartz in Phi ladelphia 

and counsel for Engelhard. I have not enclosed copies of that 

correspondence, but it indicates that there are no samples 

currently available from the Johnson Vermont Mine. The reason for 

this is that the mine is filled ",ith water, making access to 

samples impossible. 

It is my understanding that the most recent NIOSH report is 

consistent with the materials that are enclosed herein, in that no 

asbestos was tound in the talc used in the tireworker facility that 

was subject to the stUdy. 

After Mr. Schwartz had an opportunity to revie", these 

materials, he agreed to voluntarily dismiss Engelhard and EMTAL 

BASF Fe 0003893 

" 

Michael F. Colley, Esq. 

January 2, 1990 

Page 2 

The documents enclosed are as follows: 

(1) Affidavit of Charles D. Carter dated September 20, 1988: 

(2) A copy of an Affidavit by Charles D.Carter dated June 

19, 1989: 

(3) A copy of a report prepared by Dr. F. D. Pooley concerning an examination of talc samples taken from the Johnson 

Talc Mine; 

(4) A copy of an Affidavit prepared by William H. Ashton 

dated May 8, 1989, with attached Exhibits A through G. 

(5) The dismissal entry from the federal action in Philadelphia. 

In reviewing these documents, you will note that Engelhard's 

only talc mine was located in Johnson, Vermont and that Engelhard 

produced talc from that mine from 1967, when it acquired the mine, 

through 1983, when the mine was closed for economic reasons. (See 

Affidavits of Charles Carter). The Affidavit of William Ashton, 

an expert retained by Engelhard, summarizes a number of reports, 

studies and analyses from the Johnson, Vermont talc mine. These 

reports, studies and analyses conclude that the talc produced from 

Engelhard's only talc mine did not contain asbestos. Apparently 

a sample of the talc from the mine was analyzed in 1982 using 

scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive spectroscopy and 

x-ray diffraction analysis and analytical transmission electron 

microscopy. The conclusion was that no asbestos was present in the 

sample. (see para. 7 of Ashton Affidavit). 

During the months ot May and June of 1989, there was an 

exchange of correspondence between Jeffrey Schwartz in Phi ladelphia 

and counsel for Engelhard. I have not enclosed copies of that 

correspondence, but it indicates that there are no samples 

currently available from the Johnson Vermont Mine. The reason for 

this is that the mine is filled ",ith water, making access to 

samples impossible. 

It is my understanding that the most recent NIOSH report is 

consistent with the materials that are enclosed herein, in that no 

asbestos was tound in the talc used in the tireworker facility that 

was subject to the stUdy. 

After Mr. Schwartz had an opportunity to revie", these 

materials, he agreed to voluntarily dismiss Engelhard and EMTAL 

BASF Fe 0003893 

" 

Michael F. Colley, Esq. 

January 2, 1990 

Page 2 

The documents enclosed are as follows: 

(1) Affidavit of Charles D. Carter dated September 20, 1988: 

(2) A copy of an Affidavit by Charles D.Carter dated June 

19, 1989: 

(3) A copy of a report prepared by Dr. F. D. Pooley concerning an examination of talc samples taken from the Johnson 

Talc Mine; 

(4) A copy of an Affidavit prepared by William H. Ashton 

dated May 8, 1989, with attached Exhibits A through G. 

(5) The dismissal entry from the federal action in Philadelphia. 

In reviewing these documents, you will note that Engelhard's 

only talc mine was located in Johnson, Vermont and that Engelhard 

produced talc from that mine from 1967, when it acquired the mine, 

through 1983, when the mine was closed for economic reasons. (See 

Affidavits of Charles Carter). The Affidavit of William Ashton, 

an expert retained by Engelhard, summarizes a number of reports, 

studies and analyses from the Johnson, Vermont talc mine. These 

reports, studies and analyses conclude that the talc produced from 

Engelhard's only talc mine did not contain asbestos. Apparently 

a sample of the talc from the mine was analyzed in 1982 using 

scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive spectroscopy and 

x-ray diffraction analysis and analytical transmission electron 

microscopy. The conclusion was that no asbestos was present in the 

sample. (see para. 7 of Ashton Affidavit). 

During the months ot May and June of 1989, there was an 

exchange of correspondence between Jeffrey Schwartz in Phi ladelphia 

and counsel for Engelhard. I have not enclosed copies of that 

correspondence, but it indicates that there are no samples 

currently available from the Johnson Vermont Mine. The reason for 

this is that the mine is filled ",ith water, making access to 

samples impossible. 

It is my understanding that the most recent NIOSH report is 

consistent with the materials that are enclosed herein, in that no 

asbestos was tound in the talc used in the tireworker facility that 

was subject to the stUdy. 

After Mr. Schwartz had an opportunity to revie", these 

materials, he agreed to voluntarily dismiss Engelhard and EMTAL 

BASF Fe 0003893 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 15 of 94 PageID: 13303
'. 

Michael F. Colley, Esq. 

January 2, 1990 

page 3 

from the federal litigation in Philadelphia. I would ask that you review these materials and give serious consideration to dismissing Engelhard and EHTAL from the Tireworkers Ii tigation in Judge 

Victor's Court in Akron, Ohio. I am sure that you can appreciate the concern of my client to avoid unnecessarily incurring further 

expenses from this litigation. This would seem to be an appropriate time to eliminate unnecessary and inappropriate defendants, in light of the statements by JUdge Victor concerning the 

litigation schedule for these cases. 

Please feel free to call me after you have had an opportunity 

to review these matters. If any additional information would be 

of assistance to you in making this determination, please feel free 

to let. mo know. 

jk/ec 

Enclosures 

Very truly yours, 

t. -~ ,( /J/ _, ~_ ?( /r\ v

Ce _r, Jack Kluznik ~ 

BASF Fe 0003894 

'. 

Michael F. Colley, Esq. 

January 2, 1990 

page 3 

from the federal litigation in Philadelphia. I would ask that you review these materials and give serious consideration to dismissing Engelhard and EHTAL from the Tireworkers Ii tigation in Judge 

Victor's Court in Akron, Ohio. I am sure that you can appreciate the concern of my client to avoid unnecessarily incurring further 

expenses from this litigation. This would seem to be an appropriate time to eliminate unnecessary and inappropriate defendants, in light of the statements by JUdge Victor concerning the 

litigation schedule for these cases. 

Please feel free to call me after you have had an opportunity 

to review these matters. If any additional information would be 

of assistance to you in making this determination, please feel free 

to let. mo know. 

jk/ec 

Enclosures 

Very truly yours, 

t. -~ ,( /J/ _, ~_ ?( /r\ v

Ce _r, Jack Kluznik ~ 

BASF Fe 0003894 

'. 

Michael F. Colley, Esq. 

January 2, 1990 

page 3 

from the federal litigation in Philadelphia. I would ask that you review these materials and give serious consideration to dismissing Engelhard and EHTAL from the Tireworkers Ii tigation in Judge 

Victor's Court in Akron, Ohio. I am sure that you can appreciate the concern of my client to avoid unnecessarily incurring further 

expenses from this litigation. This would seem to be an appropriate time to eliminate unnecessary and inappropriate defendants, in light of the statements by JUdge Victor concerning the 

litigation schedule for these cases. 

Please feel free to call me after you have had an opportunity 

to review these matters. If any additional information would be 

of assistance to you in making this determination, please feel free 

to let. mo know. 

jk/ec 

Enclosures 

Very truly yours, 

t. -~ ,( /J/ _, ~_ ?( /r\ v

Ce _r, Jack Kluznik ~ 

BASF Fe 0003894 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 16 of 94 PageID: 13304
APPENDIX A, TAB F 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 17 of 94 PageID: 13305
• 

I WESfONHURD 

FALLON PAISLEY & HOWLEY 

CO(. "lSEllORS "1 LAW 

. n l'" l'" F":-

"00 n~,"" OHIO rom 

rna 

•• 

f1.EE 

"M~". ~~ }J6"'~S:· ,,"'0 

FAX !16 

"'" 

6!1--8169 

"" • ''1'"'''' . . -

~'O?Yl 

~.l.:lrn;L \ 

-1--\ 

January 2, 1990 . SCo'" IFi: ~ :: -\--

James M. Gatskie, Esq. 

77 Est Mill Street 

Akron, Ohio 44308 

Re: Engelhard/Eastern Magnesia 

Tireworkers Litigation 

Our File No: 15241-07866 

Dear Mr. Gatskie: 

\---

......... ~ 

I '- .... 

Talc co."-

Bra':, 

". ",1;;:' ..... 

As you know, I represent Engelhard/Eastern Magnesia Talc Co., 

which is named as a defendant in the Tireworker cases that you have 

filed in Summit County Common Pleas Court. 

This letter is to request that you voluntarily dismiss 

Engelhard Corporation and its former wholly-owned subsidiary, 

Eastern Magnesia Talc Co. (lIEMTAL") from the Tireworker cases that 

you have filed in summit County Common Pleas Court. The basis for 

this request is that we have determined that the talc that was 

produced by EMTAL did not contain any asbestos. I am enclosing a 

packet of documents that supports this request. Under these 

circumstances, there does not seem to be any basis to keep 

Engelhard or EMTAL as named defendants in these lawsuits. I am 

sure that you can appreciate the substantial expense that is being 

incurred by Engelhard as a result of being named as a defendant in 

these lawsuits. 

There is precedent tor my request. Engelhard and EHTAL were 

nan,ed as uefendants in 28 lawsuits brought on behalf ot tormer 

tireworkers at the B.Y. Goodrich plant i"n Oa1<s, PA. Thos& lo:owsul.ts 

were filed in the Eastern District ot pennsylvania. I am enclosing the documents and materials that were provided to Jeffrey C. 

Schwartz ot the Allen L. Rothenberg law firm in Philadelphia, Ph. 

I am advised that after Mr. Schwartz had an opportunity to review 

these materials, he was satisfied that the talc produced by 

Engelhard and EMTAL did not contain any asbestos, and therefore, 

he voluntarily dismissed Engelhard and EMTAL from the Tireworker 

litigation in Philadelphia. 

BASF Fe 0003971 

• , I WESfONHURD 

FALLON PAISLEY & HOWLEY 

CO(. "lSEllORS "1 LAW 

. n l'" l'" F":-

"00 n~,"" OHIO rom 

rna 

•• 

f1.EE 

"M~". ~~ }J6"'~S:· ,,"'0 

FAX !16 

"'" 

6!1--8169 

"" • ''1'"'''' . . -

~'O?Yl 

~.l.:lrn;L \ 

-1--\ 

January 2, 1990 . SCo'" IFi: ~ :: -\--

James M. Gatskie, Esq. 

77 Est Mill Street 

Akron, Ohio 44308 

Re: Engelhard/Eastern Magnesia 

Tireworkers Litigation 

Our File No: 15241-07866 

Dear Mr. Gatskie: 

\---

......... ~ 

I '- .... 

Talc co."-

Bra':, 

". ",1;;:' ..... 

As you know, I represent Engelhard/Eastern Magnesia Talc Co., 

which is named as a defendant in the Tireworker cases that you have 

filed in Summit County Common Pleas Court. 

This letter is to request that you voluntarily dismiss 

Engelhard Corporation and its former wholly-owned subsidiary, 

Eastern Magnesia Talc Co. (lIEMTAL") from the Tireworker cases that 

you have filed in summit County Common Pleas Court. The basis for 

this request is that we have determined that the talc that was 

produced by EMTAL did not contain any asbestos. I am enclosing a 

packet of documents that supports this request. Under these 

circumstances, there does not seem to be any basis to keep 

Engelhard or EMTAL as named defendants in these lawsuits. I am 

sure that you can appreciate the substantial expense that is being 

incurred by Engelhard as a result of being named as a defendant in 

these lawsuits. 

There is precedent tor my request. Engelhard and EHTAL were 

nan,ed as uefendants in 28 lawsuits brought on behalf ot tormer 

tireworkers at the B.Y. Goodrich plant i"n Oa1<s, PA. Thos& lo:owsul.ts 

were filed in the Eastern District ot pennsylvania. I am enclosing the documents and materials that were provided to Jeffrey C. 

Schwartz ot the Allen L. Rothenberg law firm in Philadelphia, Ph. 

I am advised that after Mr. Schwartz had an opportunity to review 

these materials, he was satisfied that the talc produced by 

Engelhard and EMTAL did not contain any asbestos, and therefore, 

he voluntarily dismissed Engelhard and EMTAL from the Tireworker 

litigation in Philadelphia. 

BASF Fe 0003971 

, 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 18 of 94 PageID: 13306
, 

• 

James M. Gaskie, Esq. 

January 2, 1990 

page 2 

The documents enclosed are as fOllows: 

(1) Affidavit of Charles O. Carter dated september 20, 1988; 

(2) A copy of an Affidavit by Charles D. Carter dated June 

19, 1989: 

(3) A copy of a report prepared by Dr. F. O. pooley concerninq an examination of talc samples taken from the Johnson 

Talc Mine; 

(4) A copy of an Affidavit prepared by William H. Ashton d~ted May 8, 1989, with attached ExhibltS A through G. 

(5) The dismissal entry from the federal action in Philadelphia. 

In reviewing these documents, you will note that Engelhard's 

only talc mine was located in Johnson, Vermont and that Engelhard 

produced talc from that mine from 1967, When it acquired the mine, 

through 1983, when the mine was closed for economic reasons. (See 

Affidavits of Charles Carter). The Affidavit of William Ashton, 

an expert retained by Engelhard, summarizes a number of reports, 

studies and an"lyses tram the Johnson, Vermont talc mine. These 

reports, studies and analyses conclude that the talc produced from 

Engelhard's only talc mine did not contain asbestos. Apparently 

a sample of the talc from the mine was analyzed in 1982 using 

scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersi ve spectroscopy and 

x-ray diffraction analysis and an"lytical transmission electron 

microscopy. The conclusion was that no asbestos was present in the 

sample. (See par". 7 of Ashton Affid"vit). 

During the months of May lind June of. 1989, there was an 

el{chllnge of correspondence between Jeffrey Schwartz in Phil"delphia 

lind counsel for Engelhard. I have not enclosed copies of that 

correspondence, but it indicates that there are no samples 

currently available from the Johnson vermont Mine. The reason for 

this is th"t the mine is filled with water, making access to 

samples impossible. 

It is my understanding that the most recent NIOSH report is 

consistent with the materials that are enclosed herein, in that no 

asbestos was found in the talc used in the tireworker facility that 

was subject to the study. 

Atter Mr. Schwartz had an opportunity to review these 

mater ials, he agreed to voluntar lly dismiss Engelhard and EMTAL 

BASF Fe 0003972 

, 

• 

James M. Gaskie, Esq. 

January 2, 1990 

page 2 

The documents enclosed are as fOllows: 

(1) Affidavit of Charles O. Carter dated september 20, 1988; 

(2) A copy of an Affidavit by Charles D. Carter dated June 

19, 1989: 

(3) A copy of a report prepared by Dr. F. O. pooley concerninq an examination of talc samples taken from the Johnson 

Talc Mine; 

(4) A copy of an Affidavit prepared by William H. Ashton d~ted May 8, 1989, with attached ExhibltS A through G. 

(5) The dismissal entry from the federal action in Philadelphia. 

In reviewing these documents, you will note that Engelhard's 

only talc mine was located in Johnson, Vermont and that Engelhard 

produced talc from that mine from 1967, When it acquired the mine, 

through 1983, when the mine was closed for economic reasons. (See 

Affidavits of Charles Carter). The Affidavit of William Ashton, 

an expert retained by Engelhard, summarizes a number of reports, 

studies and an"lyses tram the Johnson, Vermont talc mine. These 

reports, studies and analyses conclude that the talc produced from 

Engelhard's only talc mine did not contain asbestos. Apparently 

a sample of the talc from the mine was analyzed in 1982 using 

scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersi ve spectroscopy and 

x-ray diffraction analysis and an"lytical transmission electron 

microscopy. The conclusion was that no asbestos was present in the 

sample. (See par". 7 of Ashton Affid"vit). 

During the months of May lind June of. 1989, there was an 

el{chllnge of correspondence between Jeffrey Schwartz in Phil"delphia 

lind counsel for Engelhard. I have not enclosed copies of that 

correspondence, but it indicates that there are no samples 

currently available from the Johnson vermont Mine. The reason for 

this is th"t the mine is filled with water, making access to 

samples impossible. 

It is my understanding that the most recent NIOSH report is 

consistent with the materials that are enclosed herein, in that no 

asbestos was found in the talc used in the tireworker facility that 

was subject to the study. 

Atter Mr. Schwartz had an opportunity to review these 

mater ials, he agreed to voluntar lly dismiss Engelhard and EMTAL 

BASF Fe 0003972 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 19 of 94 PageID: 13307
James M. Gaskie, Esq. 

January 2, 1990 

Page 3 

from the federal litigation in Philadelphia. I would ask that you 

review these materials and give serious consideration to dismissing 

Engelhard and EMTAL from the Tireworkers Ii tigation in Judge Victor's court in Akron, Ohio. I am sure that you can appreciate 

the concern of my client to avoid unnecessarily incurring further 

expenses from this litigation. This would seem to be an appropriate time to eliminate unnecessary and inappropriate defendants, in light of the statements by Judge Victor concerning the 

litigation schedule for these cases. 

please feel free to call me after you have had an opportunity 

to review these matters. If any additional information would be 

of assistance to you in making this determination, please feel free 

to let me know. 

jk/ec 

Enclosures 

Very truly yours, 

BASF Fe 0003973 

James M. Gaskie, Esq. 

January 2, 1990 

Page 3 

from the federal litigation in Philadelphia. I would ask that you 

review these materials and give serious consideration to dismissing 

Engelhard and EMTAL from the Tireworkers Ii tigation in Judge Victor's court in Akron, Ohio. I am sure that you can appreciate 

the concern of my client to avoid unnecessarily incurring further 

expenses from this litigation. This would seem to be an appropriate time to eliminate unnecessary and inappropriate defendants, in light of the statements by Judge Victor concerning the 

litigation schedule for these cases. 

please feel free to call me after you have had an opportunity 

to review these matters. If any additional information would be 

of assistance to you in making this determination, please feel free 

to let me know. 

jk/ec 

Enclosures 

Very truly yours, 

BASF Fe 0003973 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 20 of 94 PageID: 13308
APPENDIX A, TAB G 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 21 of 94 PageID: 13309
WFSTONHURD 

FALLON PAISLEY & HOWLEY 

COIINSfllOllS AT lA'll 

aoo TERMINAL lOWER • CLEVELAND. OHIO 4411).2241 • l161HI-MO% 

OHIO lOUl1\U IOO/l_1 ..... X U6l'1I~169 

A Russell Smith, Esq. ~03 Society Building Akron, Ohio 44308 

January 2, 1990 

Re: Engelhard/Boltern Moane.io Talc CQ.-

Tir.vgrk'r. LitigAtign 

Our File No~ 15241-07866 

Dear Mr. Smith: 

As you know, I represent Engelhard/Eastern Magnesia Talc Co., 

which is named aa a defendant in the Tlreworker cases that you have 

tiled in S~it county Common Pleas Court. 

This letter is to request that you voluntarily dismiss 

Engelhard corporation and its tormer wholly-owned subsidiary, Eastern Magnesia Talc Co. ("EMTAL") from the Tireworker cases that 

you have tiled in S~it county Co=mon Pleas court. The basis for 

this request is that we have determined that the talc that was 

produced by EMTAL did not contain any asbestos. I am enclosing a 

packet ot document. that supports this reque.t. Under these 

circumstances, there does not seem to be any basis to keep Engelhard or ENTAL a. named defendant. in the.e lawsuits. I am 

sure that you can appreciate the substantial expense that is being incurred by Engelhard as a result of being named a. III detendant in 

the.e lawsuits. 

There ia precedent for my request. Engelhard and BHTAL were 

named as defendanta in 28 lawsuits brought on behalf of former 

tireworkers at tbe B.I'. Goodrich plant in oaks, PA. Those lawsuits 

were filed 1n tbe lastern oiatrict of pennsylvania. 1 am enclosing the docuaenta ancl uterials that were provided to Jeffrey C. 

Schwartz ot the Allen L. Rothenberg law fira in Philadelphia, PA. 

1 am advised that after Hr. Schwartz had an opportunity to review 

these uteriel., he was satisfied that the talc produced by Engelhard and ENTAL did not contain any asbestoa, and therefore, 

he voluntarily dls.is.ed Engelhard and ENTAL from the Tireworker 

litigation in Philadelphia. 

BASF Fe 0003979 

WFSTONHURD 

FALLON PAISLEY & HOWLEY 

COIINSfllOllS AT lA'll 

aoo TERMINAL lOWER • CLEVELAND. OHIO 4411).2241 • l161HI-MO% 

OHIO lOUl1\U IOO/l_1 ..... X U6l'1I~169 

A Russell Smith, Esq. ~03 Society Building Akron, Ohio 44308 

January 2, 1990 

Re: Engelhard/Boltern Moane.io Talc CQ.-

Tir.vgrk'r. LitigAtign 

Our File No~ 15241-07866 

Dear Mr. Smith: 

As you know, I represent Engelhard/Eastern Magnesia Talc Co., 

which is named aa a defendant in the Tlreworker cases that you have 

tiled in S~it county Common Pleas Court. 

This letter is to request that you voluntarily dismiss 

Engelhard corporation and its tormer wholly-owned subsidiary, Eastern Magnesia Talc Co. ("EMTAL") from the Tireworker cases that 

you have tiled in S~it county Co=mon Pleas court. The basis for 

this request is that we have determined that the talc that was 

produced by EMTAL did not contain any asbestos. I am enclosing a 

packet ot document. that supports this reque.t. Under these 

circumstances, there does not seem to be any basis to keep Engelhard or ENTAL a. named defendant. in the.e lawsuits. I am 

sure that you can appreciate the substantial expense that is being incurred by Engelhard as a result of being named a. III detendant in 

the.e lawsuits. 

There ia precedent for my request. Engelhard and BHTAL were 

named as defendanta in 28 lawsuits brought on behalf of former 

tireworkers at tbe B.I'. Goodrich plant in oaks, PA. Those lawsuits 

were filed 1n tbe lastern oiatrict of pennsylvania. 1 am enclosing the docuaenta ancl uterials that were provided to Jeffrey C. 

Schwartz ot the Allen L. Rothenberg law fira in Philadelphia, PA. 

1 am advised that after Hr. Schwartz had an opportunity to review 

these uteriel., he was satisfied that the talc produced by Engelhard and ENTAL did not contain any asbestoa, and therefore, 

he voluntarily dls.is.ed Engelhard and ENTAL from the Tireworker 

litigation in Philadelphia. 

BASF Fe 0003979 

WFSTONHURD 

FALLON PAISLEY & HOWLEY 

COIINSfllOllS AT lA'll 

aoo TERMINAL lOWER • CLEVELAND. OHIO 4411).2241 • l161HI-MO% 

OHIO lOUl1\U IOO/l_1 ..... X U6l'1I~169 

A Russell Smith, Esq. ~03 Society Building Akron, Ohio 44308 

January 2, 1990 

Re: Engelhard/Boltern Moane.io Talc CQ.-

Tir.vgrk'r. LitigAtign 

Our File No~ 15241-07866 

Dear Mr. Smith: 

As you know, I represent Engelhard/Eastern Magnesia Talc Co., 

which is named aa a defendant in the Tlreworker cases that you have 

tiled in S~it county Common Pleas Court. 

This letter is to request that you voluntarily dismiss 

Engelhard corporation and its tormer wholly-owned subsidiary, Eastern Magnesia Talc Co. ("EMTAL") from the Tireworker cases that 

you have tiled in S~it county Co=mon Pleas court. The basis for 

this request is that we have determined that the talc that was 

produced by EMTAL did not contain any asbestos. I am enclosing a 

packet ot document. that supports this reque.t. Under these 

circumstances, there does not seem to be any basis to keep Engelhard or ENTAL a. named defendant. in the.e lawsuits. I am 

sure that you can appreciate the substantial expense that is being incurred by Engelhard as a result of being named a. III detendant in 

the.e lawsuits. 

There ia precedent for my request. Engelhard and BHTAL were 

named as defendanta in 28 lawsuits brought on behalf of former 

tireworkers at tbe B.I'. Goodrich plant in oaks, PA. Those lawsuits 

were filed 1n tbe lastern oiatrict of pennsylvania. 1 am enclosing the docuaenta ancl uterials that were provided to Jeffrey C. 

Schwartz ot the Allen L. Rothenberg law fira in Philadelphia, PA. 

1 am advised that after Hr. Schwartz had an opportunity to review 

these uteriel., he was satisfied that the talc produced by Engelhard and ENTAL did not contain any asbestoa, and therefore, 

he voluntarily dls.is.ed Engelhard and ENTAL from the Tireworker 

litigation in Philadelphia. 

BASF Fe 0003979 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 22 of 94 PageID: 13310
• 

A. Russell Smith, Esq. 

January 2, 1990 

Page 2 

The documents enclosed are as follows: 

(1) Affidavit of Charles O. Carter dated September 20, 1966; 

(2) A copy of an Affidavit by Charles D. Carter dated June 

19, 1989; 

(3) A copy of a report prepared by Dr. F. O. Pooley concerning an examination of talc samples taken from the Johnson 

Talc Minel 

(4) A copy of an Affidavit prepared by William H. Ashton 

dated May 8, 1989, with attached Exhibits A through G. 

(5) The dismissal entry from the federal action in Philadelphia. 

In reviewing these documents, you will nots that Engelhard's only talc mine was located in Johnson, Vermont and that Engelhard produced talc from that mine from 1967, when it acquired the mine, 

through 1983, when the mine was closed for economic reasons. (See Aftidavits ot charles carter). The Affidavit ot William Ashton, 

an expert retained by Engelhard, summarize. a number of reports, studies and analyses from the Johnson, Vermont talc mine. These 

reports, studies and analyse. conclude that the talc produced trom 

Engelhard's only talc mine did not contain asbestos. Apparently 

a sample of the talc from the min. was analyzed in 1982 using scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive spectroscopy and 

x-ray diftraction analysis and analytical transmission electron 

microscopy. The conclusion was that Dg Albaatga WAa present in the 

sAmple.(See para. 7 of Ashton Aftidavit). 

our Ing the lIonth. of HAY and June of 1989, there was an 

exchange of corre.pondence between Jeffrey SChwartz in Philadelphia and counsel for Enqelhard. I have not enclosed coples of that 

corre.pondence, but it indiCAte. that there are no samples currently available froa the Johnson Vermont Min.. The reason tor 

this is that the aine i. filled with water, makinq access to 

samples iapo.aible. 

It ia lIy understandinq that the most recent NIOSH report is 

consistent with the materials that are encloaed her.in, in that no 

asbestoa wa. found in the talc used in the tireworker facility that 

'lola. subject to the study. 

After Mr. Schwartz hAd an opportunity to review these 

materials, he. aqreed to voluntarily dismiss Engelhard and EMT.l.L 

BASF Fe 0003980 

• 

A. Russell Smith, Esq. 

January 2, 1990 

Page 2 

The documents enclosed are as follows: 

(1) Affidavit of Charles O. Carter dated September 20, 1966; 

(2) A copy of an Affidavit by Charles D. Carter dated June 

19, 1989; 

(3) A copy of a report prepared by Dr. F. O. Pooley concerning an examination of talc samples taken from the Johnson 

Talc Minel 

(4) A copy of an Affidavit prepared by William H. Ashton 

dated May 8, 1989, with attached Exhibits A through G. 

(5) The dismissal entry from the federal action in Philadelphia. 

In reviewing these documents, you will nots that Engelhard's only talc mine was located in Johnson, Vermont and that Engelhard produced talc from that mine from 1967, when it acquired the mine, 

through 1983, when the mine was closed for economic reasons. (See Aftidavits ot charles carter). The Affidavit ot William Ashton, 

an expert retained by Engelhard, summarize. a number of reports, studies and analyses from the Johnson, Vermont talc mine. These 

reports, studies and analyse. conclude that the talc produced trom 

Engelhard's only talc mine did not contain asbestos. Apparently 

a sample of the talc from the min. was analyzed in 1982 using scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive spectroscopy and 

x-ray diftraction analysis and analytical transmission electron 

microscopy. The conclusion was that Dg Albaatga WAa present in the 

sAmple.(See para. 7 of Ashton Aftidavit). 

our Ing the lIonth. of HAY and June of 1989, there was an 

exchange of corre.pondence between Jeffrey SChwartz in Philadelphia and counsel for Enqelhard. I have not enclosed coples of that 

corre.pondence, but it indiCAte. that there are no samples currently available froa the Johnson Vermont Min.. The reason tor 

this is that the aine i. filled with water, makinq access to 

samples iapo.aible. 

It ia lIy understandinq that the most recent NIOSH report is 

consistent with the materials that are encloaed her.in, in that no 

asbestoa wa. found in the talc used in the tireworker facility that 

'lola. subject to the study. 

After Mr. Schwartz hAd an opportunity to review these 

materials, he. aqreed to voluntarily dismiss Engelhard and EMT.l.L 

BASF Fe 0003980 

• 

A. Russell Smith, Esq. 

January 2, 1990 

Page 2 

The documents enclosed are as follows: 

(1) Affidavit of Charles O. Carter dated September 20, 1966; 

(2) A copy of an Affidavit by Charles D. Carter dated June 

19, 1989; 

(3) A copy of a report prepared by Dr. F. O. Pooley concerning an examination of talc samples taken from the Johnson 

Talc Minel 

(4) A copy of an Affidavit prepared by William H. Ashton 

dated May 8, 1989, with attached Exhibits A through G. 

(5) The dismissal entry from the federal action in Philadelphia. 

In reviewing these documents, you will nots that Engelhard's only talc mine was located in Johnson, Vermont and that Engelhard produced talc from that mine from 1967, when it acquired the mine, 

through 1983, when the mine was closed for economic reasons. (See Aftidavits ot charles carter). The Affidavit ot William Ashton, 

an expert retained by Engelhard, summarize. a number of reports, studies and analyses from the Johnson, Vermont talc mine. These 

reports, studies and analyse. conclude that the talc produced trom 

Engelhard's only talc mine did not contain asbestos. Apparently 

a sample of the talc from the min. was analyzed in 1982 using scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive spectroscopy and 

x-ray diftraction analysis and analytical transmission electron 

microscopy. The conclusion was that Dg Albaatga WAa present in the 

sAmple.(See para. 7 of Ashton Aftidavit). 

our Ing the lIonth. of HAY and June of 1989, there was an 

exchange of corre.pondence between Jeffrey SChwartz in Philadelphia and counsel for Enqelhard. I have not enclosed coples of that 

corre.pondence, but it indiCAte. that there are no samples currently available froa the Johnson Vermont Min.. The reason tor 

this is that the aine i. filled with water, makinq access to 

samples iapo.aible. 

It ia lIy understandinq that the most recent NIOSH report is 

consistent with the materials that are encloaed her.in, in that no 

asbestoa wa. found in the talc used in the tireworker facility that 

'lola. subject to the study. 

After Mr. Schwartz hAd an opportunity to review these 

materials, he. aqreed to voluntarily dismiss Engelhard and EMT.l.L 

BASF Fe 0003980 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 23 of 94 PageID: 13311
A. Russell Smith, Esq. January 2, 1990 

Page 3 

from the federal litigation in Philadelphia. I would ask that you review these materials and give serious consideration to dismissing Engelhard and EMTAL. frolll the Tireworkers litigation in Judge Victor's court in Akron, Ohio. I am sure that you can appreciate the concern of lilY client to avoid unnece.sarily incurring turther 

expenses troll this 11 tigation. This would seelll to be an ap- propriate time to eliminate unnecessary and inappropriate detendants, in light of the statements by Judge Victor concerning the 

litigation schedule for these cases. 

Please teel tree to call me after you have had an opportunity 

to review these matters. It any additional information would be 

ot assistance to you in making this determination, please teel tree 

to let m. kno .... 

jk/ec 

Enclosures 

BASF Fe 0003981 

A. Russell Smith, Esq. January 2, 1990 

Page 3 

from the federal litigation in Philadelphia. I would ask that you review these materials and give serious consideration to dismissing Engelhard and EMTAL. frolll the Tireworkers litigation in Judge Victor's court in Akron, Ohio. I am sure that you can appreciate the concern of lilY client to avoid unnece.sarily incurring turther 

expenses troll this 11 tigation. This would seelll to be an ap- propriate time to eliminate unnecessary and inappropriate detendants, in light of the statements by Judge Victor concerning the 

litigation schedule for these cases. 

Please teel tree to call me after you have had an opportunity 

to review these matters. It any additional information would be 

ot assistance to you in making this determination, please teel tree 

to let m. kno .... 

jk/ec 

Enclosures 

BASF Fe 0003981 

A. Russell Smith, Esq. January 2, 1990 

Page 3 

from the federal litigation in Philadelphia. I would ask that you review these materials and give serious consideration to dismissing Engelhard and EMTAL. frolll the Tireworkers litigation in Judge Victor's court in Akron, Ohio. I am sure that you can appreciate the concern of lilY client to avoid unnece.sarily incurring turther 

expenses troll this 11 tigation. This would seelll to be an ap- propriate time to eliminate unnecessary and inappropriate detendants, in light of the statements by Judge Victor concerning the 

litigation schedule for these cases. 

Please teel tree to call me after you have had an opportunity 

to review these matters. It any additional information would be 

ot assistance to you in making this determination, please teel tree 

to let m. kno .... 

jk/ec 

Enclosures 

BASF Fe 0003981 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 24 of 94 PageID: 13312
APPENDIX A, TAB H 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 25 of 94 PageID: 13313
• 

JOHN "'.WI611i': 

ROeitAT~. IoU"R5Ae 

J05ltPH I.. ,. ... llit 

aTltPH!;H M "1.1:".,.,0 

O"ARtU. M. aJ:lAw G 

tAlC H LIPsnT 

JOHN Jot POLLOCK 

STf;PH[N R. COCHItLL 

Tt::O" JOttH80N 

JERRY o· ... v.'uo .1"'104£8 ,.. KAt04P 

NAHC.V t.,. 8JIot"IIi:R13 

KAAEN t DRIOO!:6 

1.'6." R081N60N 

OARY .... Ilt:NPAA 

OAtGORV I: $HITH 

MARK T. BUTLEA 

INGRIO W. oIIlHBE:RO 

-,VC)Y A "AIZARO 

Ms. Phoebe Corry 

WISE & MARSAC 

ATTORN&YS ANO COUNSELORS 

PAOJOtSSIOH""1. c:ORPOR,t.tION 

1I'U< FLOOR OUHL BUI\.OING 

DETROIT. MICBtOAN 48226 

1313\ gea~0643 

January 12, 1990 

LOPATIN, MILLER, FREEDMAN, BLUESTONE, 

ERLICK, ROSEN .. BARTNICK 

1301 East Jefferson Avenue 

Detroit, MI 48207-3119 

RE: TIREWORKER CLADIS AGAnIS'l' PITA REALTY 

Dear Ms. Corry: 

OJ" COUNG~~ 

WI"I.I"", D MAAO~Cv· 

£u,u .... POXBON 

ALStAT \, LIEBeR"""'" 

,o.NN "''''OOR orl'U::.£ 

24 "''''AN''' loLOyl) WRIO.,." ORI''''£ 

"'liN ARBOI=1, .... 'CH10 ... N 46'00 

13131 $0I5°440e. 

NEW VORK Qyrle!; 

'''14 AvENUE 01' THt: AMt:RICA6 

NtW VORl!,. NEW TOR ... 10010 

laUti 300' 911~ 

1'I;Lt<::OP'I:R 13.:U il-aa·Oe9e. 

CADLE OYWI. OCT 

··ONI"I:D'1lt 

JoIltw '0011'1( OH\9 

As you know, this firm is local counsel for Defendant Pita 

Realty Limited, f/k/a, Eastern Maqnesia Talc Company in the 

asbestos personal injury cases filed by your firm. Enclosed are 

the materials to whioh Jerry D'Avaneo referred in his teleph9ne conversation with you yesterday. We ask that your firm review 

the enclosed materials and dismiss Pita from the cases you have 

filed for the reason that its talc does not contain asbestos. 

Enclosed are affidavits of Charles D. Carter, Director of 

Joint Ventures and Resources of Englehard COl:poration, dated 

september 20, 1988 and June 19, 1989. Ml:'. Carter's affidavits 

demonstrate that Pita's only talc mine was located in Johnson, 

Vermont, and that Pita ceased producing talc in 1983, when the 

mine was closed for economic l:easons. 

Also enclosed is an affidavit by William H. Ashton, who has 

been involved in inVestigating and studying the talc industry and 

talc: technology for over 35 years. Mr. Ashton's affidavit 

summarizes a number of reports and studies of the talc produced 

at the Johnson, Vermont talc mine that was owned and operated by Pita. The unequivocal conclusion reached by all of these 

investigations is that talc from the Johnson, Vermont mine, which 

was pita's only talc mine, did not contain asbestos. 

Included among the various studies and l:eports referred to 

in Ml:'. Ashton's affidavit are two separate 1982 analyses of the 

talc fl:om the Johnson mine. Both of those analyses concluded, 

based on (i) scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive 

spectroscopy, and (ii) x-l:ay diffraction analysis and analytical transmission electl:on microscopy, respectively, that no asbestos 

BASF Fe 0009089 

• 

JOHN "'.WI611i': 

ROeitAT~. IoU"R5Ae 

J05ltPH I.. ,. ... llit 

aTltPH!;H M "1.1:".,.,0 

O"ARtU. M. aJ:lAw G 

tAlC H LIPsnT 

JOHN Jot POLLOCK 

STf;PH[N R. COCHItLL 

Tt::O" JOttH80N 

JERRY o· ... v.'uo .1"'104£8 ,.. KAt04P 

NAHC.V t.,. 8JIot"IIi:R13 

KAAEN t DRIOO!:6 

1.'6." R081N60N 

OARY .... Ilt:NPAA 

OAtGORV I: $HITH 

MARK T. BUTLEA 

INGRIO W. oIIlHBE:RO 

-,VC)Y A "AIZARO 

Ms. Phoebe Corry 

WISE & MARSAC 

ATTORN&YS ANO COUNSELORS 

PAOJOtSSIOH""1. c:ORPOR,t.tION 

1I'U< FLOOR OUHL BUI\.OING 

DETROIT. MICBtOAN 48226 

1313\ gea~0643 

January 12, 1990 

LOPATIN, MILLER, FREEDMAN, BLUESTONE, 

ERLICK, ROSEN .. BARTNICK 

1301 East Jefferson Avenue 

Detroit, MI 48207-3119 

RE: TIREWORKER CLADIS AGAnIS'l' PITA REALTY 

Dear Ms. Corry: 

OJ" COUNG~~ 

WI"I.I"", D MAAO~Cv· 

£u,u .... POXBON 

ALStAT \, LIEBeR"""'" 

,o.NN "''''OOR orl'U::.£ 

24 "''''AN''' loLOyl) WRIO.,." ORI''''£ 

"'liN ARBOI=1, .... 'CH10 ... N 46'00 

13131 $0I5°440e. 

NEW VORK Qyrle!; 

'''14 AvENUE 01' THt: AMt:RICA6 

NtW VORl!,. NEW TOR ... 10010 

laUti 300' 911~ 

1'I;Lt<::OP'I:R 13.:U il-aa·Oe9e. 

CADLE OYWI. OCT 

··ONI"I:D'1lt 

JoIltw '0011'1( OH\9 

As you know, this firm is local counsel for Defendant Pita 

Realty Limited, f/k/a, Eastern Maqnesia Talc Company in the 

asbestos personal injury cases filed by your firm. Enclosed are 

the materials to whioh Jerry D'Avaneo referred in his teleph9ne conversation with you yesterday. We ask that your firm review 

the enclosed materials and dismiss Pita from the cases you have 

filed for the reason that its talc does not contain asbestos. 

Enclosed are affidavits of Charles D. Carter, Director of 

Joint Ventures and Resources of Englehard COl:poration, dated 

september 20, 1988 and June 19, 1989. Ml:'. Carter's affidavits 

demonstrate that Pita's only talc mine was located in Johnson, 

Vermont, and that Pita ceased producing talc in 1983, when the 

mine was closed for economic l:easons. 

Also enclosed is an affidavit by William H. Ashton, who has 

been involved in inVestigating and studying the talc industry and 

talc: technology for over 35 years. Mr. Ashton's affidavit 

summarizes a number of reports and studies of the talc produced 

at the Johnson, Vermont talc mine that was owned and operated by Pita. The unequivocal conclusion reached by all of these 

investigations is that talc from the Johnson, Vermont mine, which 

was pita's only talc mine, did not contain asbestos. 

Included among the various studies and l:eports referred to 

in Ml:'. Ashton's affidavit are two separate 1982 analyses of the 

talc fl:om the Johnson mine. Both of those analyses concluded, 

based on (i) scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive 

spectroscopy, and (ii) x-l:ay diffraction analysis and analytical transmission electl:on microscopy, respectively, that no asbestos 

BASF Fe 0009089 

• 

JOHN "'.WI611i': 

ROeitAT~. IoU"R5Ae 

J05ltPH I.. ,. ... llit 

aTltPH!;H M "1.1:".,.,0 

O"ARtU. M. aJ:lAw G 

tAlC H LIPsnT 

JOHN Jot POLLOCK 

STf;PH[N R. COCHItLL 

Tt::O" JOttH80N 

JERRY o· ... v.'uo .1"'104£8 ,.. KAt04P 

NAHC.V t.,. 8JIot"IIi:R13 

KAAEN t DRIOO!:6 

1.'6." R081N60N 

OARY .... Ilt:NPAA 

OAtGORV I: $HITH 

MARK T. BUTLEA 

INGRIO W. oIIlHBE:RO 

-,VC)Y A "AIZARO 

Ms. Phoebe Corry 

WISE & MARSAC 

ATTORN&YS ANO COUNSELORS 

PAOJOtSSIOH""1. c:ORPOR,t.tION 

1I'U< FLOOR OUHL BUI\.OING 

DETROIT. MICBtOAN 48226 

1313\ gea~0643 

January 12, 1990 

LOPATIN, MILLER, FREEDMAN, BLUESTONE, 

ERLICK, ROSEN .. BARTNICK 

1301 East Jefferson Avenue 

Detroit, MI 48207-3119 

RE: TIREWORKER CLADIS AGAnIS'l' PITA REALTY 

Dear Ms. Corry: 

OJ" COUNG~~ 

WI"I.I"", D MAAO~Cv· 

£u,u .... POXBON 

ALStAT \, LIEBeR"""'" 

,o.NN "''''OOR orl'U::.£ 

24 "''''AN''' loLOyl) WRIO.,." ORI''''£ 

"'liN ARBOI=1, .... 'CH10 ... N 46'00 

13131 $0I5°440e. 

NEW VORK Qyrle!; 

'''14 AvENUE 01' THt: AMt:RICA6 

NtW VORl!,. NEW TOR ... 10010 

laUti 300' 911~ 

1'I;Lt<::OP'I:R 13.:U il-aa·Oe9e. 

CADLE OYWI. OCT 

··ONI"I:D'1lt 

JoIltw '0011'1( OH\9 

As you know, this firm is local counsel for Defendant Pita 

Realty Limited, f/k/a, Eastern Maqnesia Talc Company in the 

asbestos personal injury cases filed by your firm. Enclosed are 

the materials to whioh Jerry D'Avaneo referred in his teleph9ne conversation with you yesterday. We ask that your firm review 

the enclosed materials and dismiss Pita from the cases you have 

filed for the reason that its talc does not contain asbestos. 

Enclosed are affidavits of Charles D. Carter, Director of 

Joint Ventures and Resources of Englehard COl:poration, dated 

september 20, 1988 and June 19, 1989. Ml:'. Carter's affidavits 

demonstrate that Pita's only talc mine was located in Johnson, 

Vermont, and that Pita ceased producing talc in 1983, when the 

mine was closed for economic l:easons. 

Also enclosed is an affidavit by William H. Ashton, who has 

been involved in inVestigating and studying the talc industry and 

talc: technology for over 35 years. Mr. Ashton's affidavit 

summarizes a number of reports and studies of the talc produced 

at the Johnson, Vermont talc mine that was owned and operated by Pita. The unequivocal conclusion reached by all of these 

investigations is that talc from the Johnson, Vermont mine, which 

was pita's only talc mine, did not contain asbestos. 

Included among the various studies and l:eports referred to 

in Ml:'. Ashton's affidavit are two separate 1982 analyses of the 

talc fl:om the Johnson mine. Both of those analyses concluded, 

based on (i) scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive 

spectroscopy, and (ii) x-l:ay diffraction analysis and analytical transmission electl:on microscopy, respectively, that no asbestos 

BASF Fe 0009089 

• 

JOHN "'.WI611i': 

ROeitAT~. IoU"R5Ae 

J05ltPH I.. ,. ... llit 

aTltPH!;H M "1.1:".,.,0 

O"ARtU. M. aJ:lAw G 

tAlC H LIPsnT 

JOHN Jot POLLOCK 

STf;PH[N R. COCHItLL 

Tt::O" JOttH80N 

JERRY o· ... v.'uo .1"'104£8 ,.. KAt04P 

NAHC.V t.,. 8JIot"IIi:R13 

KAAEN t DRIOO!:6 

1.'6." R081N60N 

OARY .... Ilt:NPAA 

OAtGORV I: $HITH 

MARK T. BUTLEA 

INGRIO W. oIIlHBE:RO 

-,VC)Y A "AIZARO 

Ms. Phoebe Corry 

WISE & MARSAC 

ATTORN&YS ANO COUNSELORS 

PAOJOtSSIOH""1. c:ORPOR,t.tION 

1I'U< FLOOR OUHL BUI\.OING 

DETROIT. MICBtOAN 48226 

1313\ gea~0643 

January 12, 1990 

LOPATIN, MILLER, FREEDMAN, BLUESTONE, 

ERLICK, ROSEN .. BARTNICK 

1301 East Jefferson Avenue 

Detroit, MI 48207-3119 

RE: TIREWORKER CLADIS AGAnIS'l' PITA REALTY 

Dear Ms. Corry: 

OJ" COUNG~~ 

WI"I.I"", D MAAO~Cv· 

£u,u .... POXBON 

ALStAT \, LIEBeR"""'" 

,o.NN "''''OOR orl'U::.£ 

24 "''''AN''' loLOyl) WRIO.,." ORI''''£ 

"'liN ARBOI=1, .... 'CH10 ... N 46'00 

13131 $0I5°440e. 

NEW VORK Qyrle!; 

'''14 AvENUE 01' THt: AMt:RICA6 

NtW VORl!,. NEW TOR ... 10010 

laUti 300' 911~ 

1'I;Lt<::OP'I:R 13.:U il-aa·Oe9e. 

CADLE OYWI. OCT 

··ONI"I:D'1lt 

JoIltw '0011'1( OH\9 

As you know, this firm is local counsel for Defendant Pita 

Realty Limited, f/k/a, Eastern Maqnesia Talc Company in the 

asbestos personal injury cases filed by your firm. Enclosed are 

the materials to whioh Jerry D'Avaneo referred in his teleph9ne conversation with you yesterday. We ask that your firm review 

the enclosed materials and dismiss Pita from the cases you have 

filed for the reason that its talc does not contain asbestos. 

Enclosed are affidavits of Charles D. Carter, Director of 

Joint Ventures and Resources of Englehard COl:poration, dated 

september 20, 1988 and June 19, 1989. Ml:'. Carter's affidavits 

demonstrate that Pita's only talc mine was located in Johnson, 

Vermont, and that Pita ceased producing talc in 1983, when the 

mine was closed for economic l:easons. 

Also enclosed is an affidavit by William H. Ashton, who has 

been involved in inVestigating and studying the talc industry and 

talc: technology for over 35 years. Mr. Ashton's affidavit 

summarizes a number of reports and studies of the talc produced 

at the Johnson, Vermont talc mine that was owned and operated by Pita. The unequivocal conclusion reached by all of these 

investigations is that talc from the Johnson, Vermont mine, which 

was pita's only talc mine, did not contain asbestos. 

Included among the various studies and l:eports referred to 

in Ml:'. Ashton's affidavit are two separate 1982 analyses of the 

talc fl:om the Johnson mine. Both of those analyses concluded, 

based on (i) scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive 

spectroscopy, and (ii) x-l:ay diffraction analysis and analytical transmission electl:on microscopy, respectively, that no asbestos 

BASF Fe 0009089 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 26 of 94 PageID: 13314
WISE & MARSAC 

Ms. Phoebe Corry January 12, 1990 

Page 2 

was present. I have also enclosed the report by Dr. F. D. Pooley referred to in paragraph 7 of the Ashton affidavit. 

As you may be aware, pita Realty, sub n2ffi Eastern Magnesia Talc Company, was recently dismissed from the tireworker 

litigation pending in Pennsylvania based on the enclosed 

information. A copy of those dismissal orders also are enclosed. 

Under the circumstances, while we will file appearances on 

behalf of our client, we will, unless you request otherwise, 

defer filing responsive pleadings until we hear from you with 

respect to the enclosed materials. Further, as per your conversation with Jerry D'Avanzo, we understand that the Motion 

to Compel Discovery which you have noticed for January 19, 1990, 

in Wayne County does not apply to Pita. 

To the extent you should have any questions regarding the 

enclosed materials, please do not hesitate to call Jerry D'Avanzo 

or me. I look forward to hearing from you soon. 

RAM:hrl 

Enclosures 

cc: David L. Ravid, Esq. Eric S. Sarner, Esq. 

Very truly yours, 

WISE & MARSAC 

!UtJJI'~ 

BASF Fe 0009090 

WISE & MARSAC 

Ms. Phoebe Corry January 12, 1990 

Page 2 

was present. I have also enclosed the report by Dr. F. D. Pooley referred to in paragraph 7 of the Ashton affidavit. 

As you may be aware, pita Realty, sub n2ffi Eastern Magnesia Talc Company, was recently dismissed from the tireworker 

litigation pending in Pennsylvania based on the enclosed 

information. A copy of those dismissal orders also are enclosed. 

Under the circumstances, while we will file appearances on 

behalf of our client, we will, unless you request otherwise, 

defer filing responsive pleadings until we hear from you with 

respect to the enclosed materials. Further, as per your conversation with Jerry D'Avanzo, we understand that the Motion 

to Compel Discovery which you have noticed for January 19, 1990, 

in Wayne County does not apply to Pita. 

To the extent you should have any questions regarding the 

enclosed materials, please do not hesitate to call Jerry D'Avanzo 

or me. I look forward to hearing from you soon. 

RAM:hrl 

Enclosures 

cc: David L. Ravid, Esq. Eric S. Sarner, Esq. 

Very truly yours, 

WISE & MARSAC 

!UtJJI'~ 

BASF Fe 0009090 

WISE & MARSAC 

Ms. Phoebe Corry January 12, 1990 

Page 2 

was present. I have also enclosed the report by Dr. F. D. Pooley referred to in paragraph 7 of the Ashton affidavit. 

As you may be aware, pita Realty, sub n2ffi Eastern Magnesia Talc Company, was recently dismissed from the tireworker 

litigation pending in Pennsylvania based on the enclosed 

information. A copy of those dismissal orders also are enclosed. 

Under the circumstances, while we will file appearances on 

behalf of our client, we will, unless you request otherwise, 

defer filing responsive pleadings until we hear from you with 

respect to the enclosed materials. Further, as per your conversation with Jerry D'Avanzo, we understand that the Motion 

to Compel Discovery which you have noticed for January 19, 1990, 

in Wayne County does not apply to Pita. 

To the extent you should have any questions regarding the 

enclosed materials, please do not hesitate to call Jerry D'Avanzo 

or me. I look forward to hearing from you soon. 

RAM:hrl 

Enclosures 

cc: David L. Ravid, Esq. Eric S. Sarner, Esq. 

Very truly yours, 

WISE & MARSAC 

!UtJJI'~ 

BASF Fe 0009090 

WISE & MARSAC 

Ms. Phoebe Corry January 12, 1990 

Page 2 

was present. I have also enclosed the report by Dr. F. D. Pooley referred to in paragraph 7 of the Ashton affidavit. 

As you may be aware, pita Realty, sub n2ffi Eastern Magnesia Talc Company, was recently dismissed from the tireworker 

litigation pending in Pennsylvania based on the enclosed 

information. A copy of those dismissal orders also are enclosed. 

Under the circumstances, while we will file appearances on 

behalf of our client, we will, unless you request otherwise, 

defer filing responsive pleadings until we hear from you with 

respect to the enclosed materials. Further, as per your conversation with Jerry D'Avanzo, we understand that the Motion 

to Compel Discovery which you have noticed for January 19, 1990, 

in Wayne County does not apply to Pita. 

To the extent you should have any questions regarding the 

enclosed materials, please do not hesitate to call Jerry D'Avanzo 

or me. I look forward to hearing from you soon. 

RAM:hrl 

Enclosures 

cc: David L. Ravid, Esq. Eric S. Sarner, Esq. 

Very truly yours, 

WISE & MARSAC 

!UtJJI'~ 

BASF Fe 0009090 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 27 of 94 PageID: 13315
APPENDIX A, TAB I 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 28 of 94 PageID: 13316
, 

CAHILL GORDON & R:EINDEL A PARTHU::1U)HID .t4ClUO,HO PRO'lUISIOWAL. COAPDJl.ATIONIl 

1990 K STNEET. N. W. 

W'ASRING'1'ON, D. C. 20006 

f!:I(JWTV PINIt STRl:I:T 

New YORII,Il Y 100Q6 

RAtll() 11111) C:"'D~1t A""1l1l0aC& 

'COTTOrnANK WASHINGTON' 

"COTTOmANK NP;WVOR~' 

"c::t1TtOFflANK PMIS" 

la Avt FRIIN't016 \"" 

16008 PARIS. PRANCE: 

(202) 862-8964 

~OFF1~E C 

D).I'C 

-=-~'"""l orY 

IllllTlAL 

v----~--

March 2, 1990 

Rea Ohio Tireworker Litigation 

Dear Mr. Brodhead3 

I wtite as national couosel for Eastern Magnesia Talc 

Company (~EmTal")t a defendant in titeworker cases brought on 

behalf of plaintiffs represented by your firm. The purpose of 

this letter is to obtain a response to the request previously made by EmTal's local counsel that you dismiss EmTal from the 

cases brought by your office. 

By letter dated October 2, 1989, EmTal's local 

counsel, Jack Klu~nick, of Weston Hurd Fallon Paisley & Howley, 

sent to you, in support of our request for a dismissal, an 

affidavit prepated by William H. Ashton and supporting materials 

indicating that the talc mined by EmTal did not contain 

asbestos. A copy of Mr. Rluznick 9 a letter is attached. 

It is now five months since you were provided with 

these materials, yet you have not responded in any way to our 

request. I must insist on a response to our tequest for a 

dismissal baaed on the Ashton Affidavit and supporting materials. The stays in effect in this litigation present you with the opportunity to review these materials and advise us of 

your decision. 

~ ---l 

BASF Fe 0000506 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 29 of 94 PageID: 13317
· . -2-

I urge ~hat you give your fullest oonsideration to 

these materials, as plaintiffs' counsel in the Pennsylvania tireworker litigation did. After reviewing these mate~ials, and 

having plaintiffs' expert, Or. Art Rohl, review them as well, 

plaintiffs' counsel in Pennsylvania voluntarily diemiaaed EmTal 

from the pennsylvania litigation. The same result has been 

obtained in the tireworker litigation in Kansas. On January 16 t 

1990 t plaintiffs' counsel filed a notice voluntarily dismissing 

a number of defendants, including EmTal. Plaintiffs' counsel in 

Kansas also had been provided with the Ashton materials. A copy of this notice of dismissal is attached. 

Please oa11 me if you have any questions. Since you have already had these materials for five months t t request that 

you contact me with your response no later than March 15, 1990. 

Peter J. Brodhead, Esq. Spagenberg, Shibley, Tract & Lancione 

1500 National city Bank Bldg. Cleveland, Ohio 44114-3062 

{Attachments] 

CCf Boward G. Sloane, Esq. 

Lester Fliegel, Esq. 

VIA FeDERAL ExpnESS 

BASF Fe 0000507 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 30 of 94 PageID: 13318
APPENDIX A, TAB J 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 31 of 94 PageID: 13319
• 

• 

l' 

• 

CI<)HTY ,.I"'t' STI'tIlt;:T 

NEW '10".," 't 1000$ 

18 RUE ""ANCOIS I'" 

7$00. ~""RIS:I'A"'NCt 

(202) 862-8964 

Dear Hr. Smi th I 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

1990 K STREET, N W. 

WASBINOTON.D.C.20006 

" . 

..... 

March 2, 1990 

.: .• i, rt 

Rei Ohio Tireworker Litigatta~ 

R"'l)tQ "',",0 C"'."IC AOOI'I".C, 

-eorTOntANK WAIIMINOTOHY 

·COTTOnv.HK N~YO"K' 

·CC)"tTOI'~K ~AAI.· 

.. ~ T\ 

I write as national counsel for Eastern ~gne&1a Talc 

Company ("EmTal"), a defendant in tireworker cases brought on 

behalf of plaintiffs represented by your firm. 'The ~rpose of 

this letter ill' ,to> obtain- • response to the request previously 

made by EmTal's local counsel that you dismiss EmTal from the 

cases brought by your office. 

By letter dat&d Janu.r~ l, ~990, EmTal's local 

counsel, Jack Klu.~icL, ot Weston aurd Fallon Paisley' Howley, 

sent to you, in suppor~o~ our req~t fq~ a dismissal, an 

affidsvit prepare4 by William B. Ashton,~d supporting materials 

indicating that th. talc ained by EaTal did not contain 

asbestos. A copy of ~. Kluznick's letter is attached. 

It i. no~ two months since you were provided with 

these materials, yet you have not respondsd in any way to our 

request. I must insist on a response to our request for a 

dismissal based on fhe Ashton Affidavit and supporting materials. The stays in effect in this litigation present you 

with the opportunity to review these materials and advise us of 

your decision. 

I urge that you give your fullest consideration to 

these materials, 'S8 plaintiffs' counsel in the Pennsylvania 

tireworker litigation did. After reviewing these materials, and 

having plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Art Rohl, review them as well, 

BASF Fe 0003957 

• 

• 

l' 

• 

CI<)HTY ,.I"'t' STI'tIlt;:T 

NEW '10".," Y 1000$ 

18 RUE ""ANCOIS I'" 

7$00. ~""RIS:I'A"'NCt 

(202) 862-8964 

Dear Hr. Smi th I 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

1990 K STREET, N W. 

WASBINOTON.D.C.20006 

-' . 

..... 

March 2, 1990 

.: .• i, rt 

Rei Ohio Tireworker Litigatta~ 

R"'I)lO "',",0 C .... "IC AOOI'I".C, 

-eorTOntANK WAIIMINOTOHY 

·COTTOnv.HK N~YO"K' 

·CC)"tTOI'~K ~AAI.· 

.. ~ T\ 

I write as national counsel tor Eastern ~gne&1a Talc 

Company ("EmTal"), a defendant in tireworker cases brought on 

behalf of plaintiffs represented by your firm. 'The ~rpose of 

this letter ill' ,to> obtain- • response to the request previously 

made by EmTal's local counsel that you dismiss EmTal from the 

cases brought by your oftice. 

By letter dat&d Janu.r~ l, ~990, EmTal's local 

counsel, Jack Klu.~icL, ot Weston aurd Fallon Paisley' Howley, 

sent to you, in suppor~o~ our req~t fq~ a dismissal, an 

affidsvit prepare4 by William B. Ashton,~d supporting materials 

indicating that th. talc ained by EaTal did not contain 

asbestos. A copy of ~. Kluznick's letter is attached. 

It i. no~ two months since you were provided with 

these materials, yet you have not responded in any way to our 

request. I must insist on a response to our request for a 

dismissal based on fhe Ashton Affidavit and supporting materials. The stays in effect in this litigation present you 

with the opportunity to ~.view these materials and advise us of 

your decision. 

I urge that you give your fullest consideration to 

thea. materials, 'aa plaintiffs' counsel in the Pennsylvania 

tireworker litigation did. After reviewing these materials, and 

having plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Art Rohl, review them as well, 

BASF Fe 0003957 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 32 of 94 PageID: 13320
7 

CA.QILL GORDON &- RE1N:O~L 

-2-

plaintiffs' counsel in Pennsylvania voluntarily dismissed EmTal 

from the PennsYlva~i~'1itlqation. The same result has been 

obtained in the tiq!i<iorkltt, litigation in Kansa.-.-' Ort Ihnuary 16, 

1990, plaintiffs' counsel filed a notice voluntarily dismissing 

a number of defendants~ including EmTal. Plaintiffs' counsel in 

Kansas also had.bee~-p(ovided with the Ashton materials. A copy of this notice of dismissal is attach~. 

Pleas."call·~ if you have any questions, Since you have already had theae,materials for two months, I request that 

you contact me with,your response no later than March 15, 1990. 

A. Russell Smith, Esq. A. Russell Smith Co., L.P.A. 

503 Society Building 

159 South Main Street 

Akron, Ohio 44308 

[Attachments] 

CCI Howard G. Sloane, Esq. 

Lester Fliegel, Esq. 

VIA FEDERAL EKPRESS 

< .... , M, 

, - -

BASF Fe 0003958 

7 

CA.QILL GORDON &- RE1N:O~L 

-2-

plaintiffs' counsel in Pennsylvania voluntarily dismissed EmTal 

from the PennsYlva~i~'1itlqation. The same result has been 

obtained in the tiq!i<iorkltt, litigation in Kansa.-.-' Ort Ihnuary 16, 

1990, plaintiffs' counsel filed a notice voluntarily dismissing 

a number of defendants~ including EmTal. Plaintiffs' counsel in 

Kansas also had.bee~-p(ovided with the Ashton materials. A copy of this notice of dismissal is attach~. 

Pleas."call·~ if you have any questions, Since you have already had theae,materials for two months, I request that 

you contact me with,your response no later than March 15, 1990. 

A. Russell Smith, Esq. A. Russell Smith Co., L.P.A. 

503 Society Building 

159 South Main Street 

Akron, Ohio 44308 

[Attachments] 

CCI Howard G. Sloane, Esq. 

Lester Fliegel, Esq. 

VIA FEDERAL EKPRESS 

< .... , M, 

, - -

BASF Fe 0003958 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 33 of 94 PageID: 13321
APPENDIX A, TAB K 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 34 of 94 PageID: 13322
eiGHT,!, PINE 5TRf!£T 

NEW 'fORI(.N V 100015-

19 Rut FR .... Ncr01S lUI7500t) PAr::HS.FRAHC£ 

wRITl!!lfs DfR'CCT DIAl. NOMBE.R 

(202) 862-8964 

Dear Jim: 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL A ....... "fHI:~.I1I" mC:LVOtNQ p"O'CSaIOHIliL COIll .. Olill ... nOHS 

1990 K STREET.N. W. 

~ASHINGTON.D.C.20006 

April 23, 1990 

Re: Arkansas Tireworker Litigation 

:tA~~, 

~ -

+rko..tt.",$rc..(~ 

RADIO AHD CAGLe AOORtSSl:3 

~C:;OTTOh'fANK WASHINGTON' 

"COTTOFRANK NCWYORX" 

"COnOFRAHK PARIS· 

I tried unsuccessfully to reach you on a number of 

occasions last week concerning qur request for a dismissal in the 

Brock action with respect to our client, Eastern Magnesia Talc 

Company ("EmTal"). On April 20, 1990, I received a message from 

your secretary informing me that you need to have your expert review the matter. 

I had assumed from our previous conversations that this 

had been done, especially when you told me a few months ago that 

your conclusion was that EmTal should be dismissed on the basis 

of the materials we provided to you. Regardless, it is now April 

23rd and our current extension of time in which to answer or 

otherwise respond to your clients' Complaint is due to run on 

April 30th. I trust that you will handle this matter in an expe- ditious fashion. However, unless yoU inform me otherwise, I 

believe that we will need to take an additional extension of 

time; the only question is whether this extension should be for 

more than one month. Please contact me immediately at (202) 

862-8964 so that we can discuss this matter further. 

BASF Fe 0000001 

eiGHT,!, PINE 5TRf!£T 

NEW 'fORI(.N V 100015-

19 Rut FR .... Ncr01S lUI7500t) PAr::HS.FRAHC£ 

wRITl!!lfs DfR'CCT DIAl. NOMBE.R 

(202) 862-8964 

Dear Jim: 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL A ....... "fHI:~.I1I" mC:LVOtNQ p"O'CSaIOHIliL COIll .. Olill ... nOHS 

1990 K STREET.N. W. 

~ASHINGTON.D.C.20006 

April 23, 1990 

Re: Arkansas Tireworker Litigation 

:tA~~, 

~ -

+rko..tt.",$rc..(~ 

RADIO AHD CAGLe AOORtSSl:3 

~C:;OTTOh'fANK WASHINGTON' 

"COTTOFRANK NCWYORX" 

"COnOFRAHK PARIS· 

I tried unsuccessfully to reach you on a number of 

occasions last week concerning qur request for a dismissal in the 

Brock action with respect to our client, Eastern Magnesia Talc 

Company ("EmTal"). On April 20, 1990, I received a message from 

your secretary informing me that you need to have your expert review the matter. 

I had assumed from our previous conversations that this 

had been done, especially when you told me a few months ago that 

your conclusion was that EmTal should be dismissed on the basis 

of the materials we provided to you. Regardless, it is now April 

23rd and our current extension of time in which to answer or 

otherwise respond to your clients' Complaint is due to run on 

April 30th. I trust that you will handle this matter in an expe- ditious fashion. However, unless yoU inform me otherwise, I 

believe that we will need to take an additional extension of 

time; the only question is whether this extension should be for 

more than one month. Please contact me immediately at (202) 

862-8964 so that we can discuss this matter further. 

BASF Fe 0000001 

eiGHT,!, PINE 5TRf!£T 

NEW 'fORI(.N V 100015-

19 Rut FR .... Ncr01S lUI7500t) PAr::HS.FRAHC£ 

wRITl!!lfs DfR'CCT DIAl. NOMBE.R 

(202) 862-8964 

Dear Jim: 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL A ....... "fHI:~.I1I" mC:LVOtNQ p"O'CSaIOHIliL COIll .. Olill ... nOHS 

1990 K STREET.N. W. 

~ASHINGTON.D.C.20006 

April 23, 1990 

Re: Arkansas Tireworker Litigation 

:tA~~, 

~ -

+rko..tt.",$rc..(~ 

RADIO AHD CAGLe AOORtSSl:3 

~C:;OTTOh'fANK WASHINGTON' 

"COTTOFRANK NCWYORX" 

"COnOFRAHK PARIS· 

I tried unsuccessfully to reach you on a number of 

occasions last week concerning qur request for a dismissal in the 

Brock action with respect to our client, Eastern Magnesia Talc 

Company ("EmTal"). On April 20, 1990, I received a message from 

your secretary informing me that you need to have your expert review the matter. 

I had assumed from our previous conversations that this 

had been done, especially when you told me a few months ago that 

your conclusion was that EmTal should be dismissed on the basis 

of the materials we provided to you. Regardless, it is now April 

23rd and our current extension of time in which to answer or 

otherwise respond to your clients' Complaint is due to run on 

April 30th. I trust that you will handle this matter in an expe- ditious fashion. However, unless yoU inform me otherwise, I 

believe that we will need to take an additional extension of 

time; the only question is whether this extension should be for 

more than one month. Please contact me immediately at (202) 

862-8964 so that we can discuss this matter further. 

BASF Fe 0000001 

eiGHT,!, PINE 5TRf!£T 

NEW 'fORI(.N V 100015-

19 Rut FR .... Ncr01S lUI7500t) PAr::HS.FRAHC£ 

wRITl!!lfs DfR'CCT DIAl. NOMBE.R 

(202) 862-8964 

Dear Jim: 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL A ....... "fHI:~.I1I" mC:LVOtNQ p"O'CSaIOHIliL COIll .. Olill ... nOHS 

1990 K STREET.N. W. 

~ASHINGTON.D.C.20006 

April 23, 1990 

Re: Arkansas Tireworker Litigation 

:tA~~, 

~ -

+rko..tt.",$rc..(~ 

RADIO AHD CAGLe AOORtSSl:3 

~C:;OTTOh'fANK WASHINGTON' 

"COTTOFRANK NCWYORX" 

"COnOFRAHK PARIS· 

I tried unsuccessfully to reach you on a number of 

occasions last week concerning qur request for a dismissal in the 

Brock action with respect to our client, Eastern Magnesia Talc 

Company ("EmTal"). On April 20, 1990, I received a message from 

your secretary informing me that you need to have your expert review the matter. 

I had assumed from our previous conversations that this 

had been done, especially when you told me a few months ago that 

your conclusion was that EmTal should be dismissed on the basis 

of the materials we provided to you. Regardless, it is now April 

23rd and our current extension of time in which to answer or 

otherwise respond to your clients' Complaint is due to run on 

April 30th. I trust that you will handle this matter in an expe- ditious fashion. However, unless yoU inform me otherwise, I 

believe that we will need to take an additional extension of 

time; the only question is whether this extension should be for 

more than one month. Please contact me immediately at (202) 

862-8964 so that we can discuss this matter further. 

BASF Fe 0000001 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 35 of 94 PageID: 13323
CAHILL GORDoN 8; .RBINJ)'BL 

-2-

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. 

James R. LaFevor, Esq. 

Rowland & Rowland, P.C. 

century Building 

312 South Gay Street 

RnoKville, Tennessee 37902 

VIA TELECOPIER & FEDERAL EXPRESS 

cc: Howard G. Sloane, Esq. 

Lester Fliegel, Esq. (via Federal Express) Phil Campbell, Esq. (via Federal EKpress) 

.' 

BASF Fe 0000002 

CAHILL GORDoN 8; .RBINJ)'BL 

-2-

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. 

James R. LaFevor, Esq. 

Rowland & Rowland, P.C. 

century Building 

312 South Gay Street 

RnoKville, Tennessee 37902 

VIA TELECOPIER & FEDERAL EXPRESS 

cc: Howard G. Sloane, Esq. 

Lester Fliegel, Esq. (via Federal Express) Phil Campbell, Esq. (via Federal EKpress) 

.' 

BASF Fe 0000002 

CAHILL GORDoN 8; .RBINJ)'BL 

-2-

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. 

James R. LaFevor, Esq. 

Rowland & Rowland, P.C. 

century Building 

312 South Gay Street 

RnoKville, Tennessee 37902 

VIA TELECOPIER & FEDERAL EXPRESS 

cc: Howard G. Sloane, Esq. 

Lester Fliegel, Esq. (via Federal Express) Phil Campbell, Esq. (via Federal EKpress) 

.' 

BASF Fe 0000002 

CAHILL GORDoN 8; .RBINJ)'BL 

-2-

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. 

James R. LaFevor, Esq. 

Rowland & Rowland, P.C. 

century Building 

312 South Gay Street 

RnoKville, Tennessee 37902 

VIA TELECOPIER & FEDERAL EXPRESS 

cc: Howard G. Sloane, Esq. 

Lester Fliegel, Esq. (via Federal Express) Phil Campbell, Esq. (via Federal EKpress) 

.' 

BASF Fe 0000002 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 36 of 94 PageID: 13324
APPENDIX A, TAB L 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 37 of 94 PageID: 13325
• • .JOHN A WI9C 

RostllT A ..... UlAC 

STePHEN M "L,MINO 

DARAE\.'" H ORAM8 

I:RIC-" ~IPe.IT" 

."IOHN H POI.\.OCt< 

TEO fit JOHNSON 

..I£ARy 0 AVANIO 

",AM£8 D ZAZAKI& 

"'AMEa ~ KAMP 

KARtN': IIfllOGCB 

I..IOA A RODINOOH 

OAIlY,., KeNDAA 

OAtOOAY E tHu"" 

,..,.RK T DUTLEA 

, .. GRID W AMBERG 

DteRA e OTEIN 

WISE & MARSAC 

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSEL.ORS 

fOAo't:a810 .. A\' CORPOR,r.TlON 

Ill-.!! YLOOR BUtn.. aUILDINO 

DS'tBOlT. MICHIGAN 4seea 

1313' gea·0643 

January 17, 1991 

John L. Christensen, Esq. Lopatin, Miller, Freedman, Bluestone, 

Erlich, Rosen & Bartnick 

1301 East Jefferson Avenue 

Detroit, Michigan 48207~3119 

ANN ARBOR QI'TlCE 

84 'RANK L.l..Ovo WAIOHT DRIVE 

ANN ARBOR HIC""'IOAN 4BIOts 

13131 gY15'440!) 

NEW YORK O""ICE 

Idld AVCNue 0" THI: AMt;RICAS 

NI:W YORK NEW VORt< IOOIQ 

IUlSI30a·lj;a:1I3 

T£LtcOPIr;A 13131 ~e8.00ea 

CAPt.!: O1'","\.O(:T 

Tt:I..I!:X 810.08,.1:'>371 

~1<D"""'t:D , .. 

"1:"'\'~o"I.'P 

Re: Tireworker Litigation ~ Pita Realty Limited 

Dear Mr. Christensen: 

We understand that you have recently taken over responsibil~ 

ity for the tireworker cases brought against, inter alia, our 

client, Pita Realty Limited I "Pita")._ Nearly one Year ago, on __ JanuarY-12, 1990, we forwarded to Phoebe Corry of your office a 

request for a voluntary dismissal accompanied by an affidavit 

prepared by William Ashton setting forth the mineral content of 

our client's talc. A copy of that letter is enclosed. 

OUr client's talc came from the only mine it owned - a 

single mine located in Johnson, Vermont which was operated from ~ 1967 to 1983. As the Ashton Affidavit and accompanying materials 

indicate, the talc from this mine was free of asbestos. Indeed, 

the very study upon which you rely in these csses ~ the NIOSH 

"Analysis of Talc by. l!;~Ray Diffraction !\nd Polarized Light Microscopy" (see your request for admission number 251·-

concluded that Pita's talc (sample number 66) did not contain 

asbestos or tremolite. 

Numerous other oounsel involved in the tireworker litigation nationwide have reviewed these materials and have ooncluded that 

there is simply no basis for a good-faith olaim against our 

client's product. It is. moreover, clear that the product identification against Pita is quite weak. In light of these 

facts, we respeotfully request that you review these materials 

and seriously consider our request for a voluntary dismissal 

without prejudice. 

BASF Fe 0009005 

• • .JOHN A WI9C 

RostllT A ..... UlAC 

STePHEN M "L,MINO 

DARAE\.'" H ORAM8 

I:RIC-" ~IPe.IT" 

."IOHN H POI.\.OCt< 

TEO fit JOHNSON 

..I£ARy 0 AVANIO 

",AM£8 D ZAZAKI& 

"'AMEa ~ KAMP 

KARtN': IIfllOGCB 

I..IOA A RODINOOH 

OAIlY,., KeNDAA 

OAtOOAY E tHu"" 

,..,.RK T DUTLEA 

, .. GRID W AMBERG 

DteRA e OTEIN 

WISE & MARSAC 

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSEL.ORS 

fOAo't:a810 .. A\' CORPOR,r.TlON 

Ill-.!! YLOOR BUtn.. aUILDINO 

DS'tBOlT. MICHIGAN 4seea 

1313' gea·0643 

January 17, 1991 

John L. Christensen, Esq. Lopatin, Miller, Freedman, Bluestone, 

Erlich, Rosen & Bartnick 

1301 East Jefferson Avenue 

Detroit, Michigan 48207~3119 

ANN ARBOR QI'TlCE 

84 'RANK L.l..Ovo WAIOHT DRIVE 

ANN ARBOR HIC""'IOAN 4BIOts 

13131 gY15'440!) 

NEW YORK O""ICE 

Idld AVCNue 0" THI: AMt;RICAS 

NI:W YORK NEW VORt< IOOIQ 

IUlSI30a·lj;a:1I3 

T£LtcOPIr;A 13131 ~e8.00ea 

CAPt.!: O1'","\.O(:T 

Tt:I..I!:X 810.08,.1:'>371 

~1<D"""'t:D , .. 

"1:"'\'~o"I.'P 

Re: Tireworker Litigation ~ Pita Realty Limited 

Dear Mr. Christensen: 

We understand that you have recently taken over responsibil~ 

ity for the tireworker cases brought against, inter alia, our 

client, Pita Realty Limited I "Pita")._ Nearly one Year ago, on __ JanuarY-12, 1990, we forwarded to Phoebe Corry of your office a 

request for a voluntary dismissal accompanied by an affidavit 

prepared by William Ashton setting forth the mineral content of 

our client's talc. A copy of that letter is enclosed. 

OUr client's talc came from the only mine it owned - a 

single mine located in Johnson, Vermont which was operated from ~ 1967 to 1983. As the Ashton Affidavit and accompanying materials 

indicate, the talc from this mine was free of asbestos. Indeed, 

the very study upon which you rely in these csses ~ the NIOSH 

"Analysis of Talc by. l!;~Ray Diffraction !\nd Polarized Light Microscopy" (see your request for admission number 251·-

concluded that Pita's talc (sample number 66) did not contain 

asbestos or tremolite. 

Numerous other oounsel involved in the tireworker litigation nationwide have reviewed these materials and have ooncluded that 

there is simply no basis for a good-faith olaim against our 

client's product. It is. moreover, clear that the product identification against Pita is quite weak. In light of these 

facts, we respeotfully request that you review these materials 

and seriously consider our request for a voluntary dismissal 

without prejudice. 

BASF Fe 0009005 

• • .JOHN A WI9C 

RostllT A ..... UlAC 

STePHEN M "L,MINO 

DARAE\.'" H ORAM8 

I:RIC-" ~IPe.IT" 

."IOHN H POI.\.OCt< 

TEO fit JOHNSON 

..I£ARy 0 AVANIO 

",AM£8 D ZAZAKI& 

"'AMEa ~ KAMP 

KARtN': IIfllOGCB 

I..IOA A RODINOOH 

OAIlY,., KeNDAA 

OAtOOAY E tHu"" 

,..,.RK T DUTLEA 

, .. GRID W AMBERG 

DteRA e OTEIN 

WISE & MARSAC 

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSEL.ORS 

fOAo't:a810 .. A\' CORPOR,r.TlON 

Ill-.!! YLOOR BUtn.. aUILDINO 

DS'tBOlT. MICHIGAN 4seea 

1313' gea·0643 

January 17, 1991 

John L. Christensen, Esq. Lopatin, Miller, Freedman, Bluestone, 

Erlich, Rosen & Bartnick 

1301 East Jefferson Avenue 

Detroit, Michigan 48207~3119 

ANN ARBOR QI'TlCE 

84 'RANK L.l..Ovo WAIOHT DRIVE 

ANN ARBOR HIC""'IOAN 4BIOts 

13131 gY15'440!) 

NEW YORK O""ICE 

Idld AVCNue 0" THI: AMt;RICAS 

NI:W YORK NEW VORt< IOOIQ 

IUlSI30a·lj;a:1I3 

T£LtcOPIr;A 13131 ~e8.00ea 

CAPt.!: O1'","\.O(:T 

Tt:I..I!:X 810.08,.1:'>371 

~1<D"""'t:D , .. 

"1:"'\'~o"I.'P 

Re: Tireworker Litigation ~ Pita Realty Limited 

Dear Mr. Christensen: 

We understand that you have recently taken over responsibil~ 

ity for the tireworker cases brought against, inter alia, our 

client, Pita Realty Limited I "Pita")._ Nearly one Year ago, on __ JanuarY-12, 1990, we forwarded to Phoebe Corry of your office a 

request for a voluntary dismissal accompanied by an affidavit 

prepared by William Ashton setting forth the mineral content of 

our client's talc. A copy of that letter is enclosed. 

OUr client's talc came from the only mine it owned - a 

single mine located in Johnson, Vermont which was operated from ~ 1967 to 1983. As the Ashton Affidavit and accompanying materials 

indicate, the talc from this mine was free of asbestos. Indeed, 

the very study upon which you rely in these csses ~ the NIOSH 

"Analysis of Talc by. l!;~Ray Diffraction !\nd Polarized Light Microscopy" (see your request for admission number 251·-

concluded that Pita's talc (sample number 66) did not contain 

asbestos or tremolite. 

Numerous other oounsel involved in the tireworker litigation nationwide have reviewed these materials and have ooncluded that 

there is simply no basis for a good-faith olaim against our 

client's product. It is. moreover, clear that the product identification against Pita is quite weak. In light of these 

facts, we respeotfully request that you review these materials 

and seriously consider our request for a voluntary dismissal 

without prejudice. 

BASF Fe 0009005 

• • .JOHN A WI9C 

RostllT A ..... UlAC 

STePHEN M "L,MINO 

DARAE\.'" H ORAM8 

I:RIC-" ~IPe.IT" 

."IOHN H POI.\.OCt< 

TEO fit JOHNSON 

..I£ARy 0 AVANIO 

",AM£8 D ZAZAKI& 

"'AMEa ~ KAMP 

KARtN': IIfllOGCB 

I..IOA A RODINOOH 

OAIlY,., KeNDAA 

OAtOOAY E tHu"" 

,..,.RK T DUTLEA 

, .. GRID W AMBERG 

DteRA e OTEIN 

WISE & MARSAC 

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSEL.ORS 

fOAo't:a810 .. A\' CORPOR,r.TlON 

Ill-.!! YLOOR BUtn.. aUILDINO 

DS'tBOlT. MICHIGAN 4seea 

1313' gea·0643 

January 17, 1991 

John L. Christensen, Esq. Lopatin, Miller, Freedman, Bluestone, 

Erlich, Rosen & Bartnick 

1301 East Jefferson Avenue 

Detroit, Michigan 48207~3119 

ANN ARBOR QI'TlCE 

84 'RANK L.l..Ovo WAIOHT DRIVE 

ANN ARBOR HIC""'IOAN 4BIOts 

13131 gY15'440!) 

NEW YORK O""ICE 

Idld AVCNue 0" THI: AMt;RICAS 

NI:W YORK NEW VORt< IOOIQ 

IUlSI30a·lj;a:1I3 

T£LtcOPIr;A 13131 ~e8.00ea 

CAPt.!: O1'","\.O(:T 

Tt:I..I!:X 810.08,.1:'>371 

~1<D"""'t:D , .. 

"1:"'\'~o"I.'P 

Re: Tireworker Litigation ~ Pita Realty Limited 

Dear Mr. Christensen: 

We understand that you have recently taken over responsibil~ 

ity for the tireworker cases brought against, inter alia, our 

client, Pita Realty Limited I "Pita")._ Nearly one Year ago, on __ JanuarY-12, 1990, we forwarded to Phoebe Corry of your office a 

request for a voluntary dismissal accompanied by an affidavit 

prepared by William Ashton setting forth the mineral content of 

our client's talc. A copy of that letter is enclosed. 

OUr client's talc came from the only mine it owned - a 

single mine located in Johnson, Vermont which was operated from ~ 1967 to 1983. As the Ashton Affidavit and accompanying materials 

indicate, the talc from this mine was free of asbestos. Indeed, 

the very study upon which you rely in these csses ~ the NIOSH 

"Analysis of Talc by. l!;~Ray Diffraction !\nd Polarized Light Microscopy" (see your request for admission number 251·-

concluded that Pita's talc (sample number 66) did not contain 

asbestos or tremolite. 

Numerous other oounsel involved in the tireworker litigation nationwide have reviewed these materials and have ooncluded that 

there is simply no basis for a good-faith olaim against our 

client's product. It is. moreover, clear that the product identification against Pita is quite weak. In light of these 

facts, we respeotfully request that you review these materials 

and seriously consider our request for a voluntary dismissal 

without prejudice. 

BASF Fe 0009005 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 38 of 94 PageID: 13326
• • 

WISE 8< MARSAC 

John L. Christensen, Esq. 

January 17, 1991 

Page 2 

We share the view expressed in Mr. Schimers' December 18, 

1990 letter that the parties should avoid needless motion 

practice. To that end, we have made every effort to advise you of the lack of a good-faith basis for maintaining these actions 

against Pita. Nothing in your pleadings or brochures argues persuasively otherwise. Accordingly, we ask that you seriously consider our request for a dismissal with prejudice. We are 

available to discuss these matters with you in further detail at 

your convenience, and propose that we sit down to discuss these 

matters in person after you have had an opportunity to review our 

request. We are available to meet with you on the morning of 

January 30, 1991, prior to the conference scheduled before Judge Harwood. 

RAM/ldf 

Enclosure 

bee: Eric S. Sarner, Esq. 

Howard Sloan. Esq. 

Darrell M. Grams, Esq. 

Sincerely yours, 

WISE & MARSAC 

1~1t Robert A. Marasc .. ~ 

BASF Fe 0009006 

• • 

WISE 8< MARSAC 

John L. Christensen, Esq. 

January 17, 1991 

Page 2 

We share the view expressed in Mr. Schimers' December 18, 

1990 letter that the parties should avoid needless motion 

practice. To that end, we have made every effort to advise you of the lack of a good-faith basis for maintaining these actions 

against Pita. Nothing in your pleadings or brochures argues persuasively otherwise. Accordingly, we ask that you seriously consider our request for a dismissal with prejudice. We are 

available to discuss these matters with you in further detail at 

your convenience, and propose that we sit down to discuss these 

matters in person after you have had an opportunity to review our 

request. We are available to meet with you on the morning of 

January 30, 1991, prior to the conference scheduled before Judge Harwood. 

RAM/ldf 

Enclosure 

bee: Eric S. Sarner, Esq. 

Howard Sloan. Esq. 

Darrell M. Grams, Esq. 

Sincerely yours, 

WISE & MARSAC 

1~1t Robert A. Marasc .. ~ 

BASF Fe 0009006 

• • 

WISE 8< MARSAC 

John L. Christensen, Esq. 

January 17, 1991 

Page 2 

We share the view expressed in Mr. Schimers' December 18, 

1990 letter that the parties should avoid needless motion 

practice. To that end, we have made every effort to advise you of the lack of a good-faith basis for maintaining these actions 

against Pita. Nothing in your pleadings or brochures argues persuasively otherwise. Accordingly, we ask that you seriously consider our request for a dismissal with prejudice. We are 

available to discuss these matters with you in further detail at 

your convenience, and propose that we sit down to discuss these 

matters in person after you have had an opportunity to review our 

request. We are available to meet with you on the morning of 

January 30, 1991, prior to the conference scheduled before Judge Harwood. 

RAM/ldf 

Enclosure 

bee: Eric S. Sarner, Esq. 

Howard Sloan. Esq. 

Darrell M. Grams, Esq. 

Sincerely yours, 

WISE & MARSAC 

1~1t Robert A. Marasc .. ~ 

BASF Fe 0009006 

• • 

WISE 8< MARSAC 

John L. Christensen, Esq. 

January 17, 1991 

Page 2 

We share the view expressed in Mr. Schimers' December 18, 

1990 letter that the parties should avoid needless motion 

practice. To that end, we have made every effort to advise you of the lack of a good-faith basis for maintaining these actions 

against Pita. Nothing in your pleadings or brochures argues persuasively otherwise. Accordingly, we ask that you seriously consider our request for a dismissal with prejudice. We are 

available to discuss these matters with you in further detail at 

your convenience, and propose that we sit down to discuss these 

matters in person after you have had an opportunity to review our 

request. We are available to meet with you on the morning of 

January 30, 1991, prior to the conference scheduled before Judge Harwood. 

RAM/ldf 

Enclosure 

bee: Eric S. Sarner, Esq. 

Howard Sloan. Esq. 

Darrell M. Grams, Esq. 

Sincerely yours, 

WISE & MARSAC 

1~1t Robert A. Marasc .. ~ 

BASF Fe 0009006 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 39 of 94 PageID: 13327
APPENDIX A, TAB M 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 40 of 94 PageID: 13328
EIGHTY PINE STREET 

NEW YORI<, N 'f IOQ06 

19 RUE f'RAN~OIS lIP' 

76006 PArUS. FRANCE 

WRIt-lilt's nzaecr DrAL NUMBER 

(202) 862-8964 

Dear David: 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

1990 K STREET, N. W. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 

TBLBPllONR o'3oa 60~-6&oo 

June 25, 1991 

Re: Montgomery/Summit County Tireworker Litigation 

RADIO "'1010 CAB lit AOJ"U~88Ca 

'COTTOF"RANK WASHINGTON" 

-COTTOmANK NtwYORK' 

-COl'TOFRANi( PARIS' 

This letter will confirm our conversations and understanding to date concerning my client, Eastern Magnesia Talc 

Company. 

Based on your review of the materials previously forwarded, you have agreed, on behalf of the former tire and rubber 

workers represented by your firm, to dismiss my client from all 

of the cases pending in Montgomery and Summit Counties brought by 

your firm. 

I am in the process of drafting a dismissal agreement that reflects your stated need to refile should you be able to 

demonstrate that the talc sold by my client contained asbestos. 

I will be forwarding a draft to you in the next few days. 

Please contact me immediately if the above does not 

accurately reflect our understanding. 

David I. Shroyer, Esq. 

Michael F. Colley Co., L.P.A. 

536 S. High Street 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

cc: Lester Fliegel, Esq. Howard G. Sloane, Esq. Allen s. Joslyn, Esq. 

f-; " S~~Y y~ur~, 

Vt1A )5~~~~'-- Eric S. Sarner 

BASF Fe 0012052 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 41 of 94 PageID: 13329
APPENDIX A, TAB N 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 42 of 94 PageID: 13330
I 

t 

• 

novo "'I/II'''''S RO_CRT A.. Alt"SSi 

ROGER ANORUS 

MICHAEL A •• ECKER 

SU!$AN .UCKI..E't 

Kt. ... IN J. aOAXC 

~ lu::vm CASTe," 

.1AI-ICS J.I::I.AAK 

WAt,TER <:,<:1.."". ~.~. 

eCHJAMJN J. COHE:" 

..lOS ePH ... ~ONW1l.Y 

MARSHALL cox THO).{"$ ,.. CURNI" 

W.lESllE: DUFFY 

..... TRICIA rARfU;:N 

'''''T FI'UCOMAH 

C'RO A. CAM_OHl 

CHMu,r;s A.OILMAN 

SrEflH£H ..... Gft(tHt 

Ao_cnr N. HALlMAN 

EDWARD A. HANSCN 

WILI,IAM f.t. HAIUNtTT 

THOMAS A.JONeS 

ALLCN 5, JOSLYN 

THOMAS J. KAVALtR 

Io'MtNC& A. KoaRIN 

'AHUEL KOHN 

#""0 " KRUGMAN WII.LIAM T. urt. ... NO 

HICHACL MACRI5 

CrJ(J.£ r...wiJ -

H,dtid0ft.;C+ 

if) /<!. CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

JONATHAN I. HARK 

RAND McOUINN" 

O(R ... RO "".MelsTAtU 

ROOER NELTICA 

CLIFFORD L.MICH£L 

JOHN,., MITCHtl..L 

MArHI"l C.MOtU: 

DOHAI,O J. HUl\llH1LI., 

KENNETH W. ORca: 

ROY \,,'U::001IN 

RICHARD I...RtINHOl.O 

OtAN RINGtl. 

THOIitN A05tN1HAL 

RICHARO J. SA.l:tlA 

H. "'CHARD SCHUMACHI:A 

JOHN $CHUSTCft 

LAUfttNC£:,.. $ILV(RMAN 

HOWARD o. SLOA.NE 

L"UftCNCC f. SORXIN 

lCOUAAO A.S"IVAK 

GtRAlD S.TAtH::NaAUM 

MICHAeL po. TICflNC't 

ROIERT V~"'OI 

.JOHN A. VAUOHAN 

OI:OROC W,lllANO 

GlCNN oJ, WAlO'''P', JR. 

ftAlil"H O. WfNGE" 

GARY W. WOLF 

.JOHN ft. YOUNG 

OAHltl..). Z:UIKOf'f 

EIGHTY PINE STREET 

NEW YORK, N.¥. 10001:1 

October 2, 1991 

Re: Wayne County Tireworkers Cases 

RAYMONO 1...I"AllS • .,I1'1. 

DAVIO R. HyDe 

DeNIS McIHt;RNE.'rt 1'\ C. 

IRWIN 5CHNCiOCAMAN 

"CNI!)" eOUN.III" 

COl\VOOH '.DUHHAM 

IAI-IU£1.. tsrnlCfCHCA 

"'IC~IACl. .$. SACJ(HCIH 

.JCFrRt.'t 1t.5H",.,,,0 

JOHN J. STANTON, .JR. 

COUHln 

FR£DDY DRESSCN" 

(UIIOOIOC.o.N COl,jNICI. 

WASHINGTON,O.C.Q''''fCC 

leaD K 5TIIE£T. H.W. 

WASHINGTON, 0. c. ;toooe 

CUl'tOP"CAN of'ne!; 

,. "\.It: Fl'tAN~OIS I"" 1S00. ,. ... AtS.l"ftANC£ 

T£t.£X I CA.!.t 

RCA 2lzJe~ WUT 1270e8 

CAGO Upt C:OTTOf'ptANK NYX 

r"(;:a'MILE iIZ-2ea-5'U~O 

~"'DWltt(O til.e,OHl" 

uAolounl1l ,.""+¢c o!n" 

U:lE"HONE ZI~~701·:'OQO 

WIHTE"'S DI"ECT HUH.Eft 

(212) 701-3321 

Dear Steve: 

I write to confirm our oral request that you voluntarily dismiss the claims of the 12 plaintiffs in the January, 

1992 trial pool against Pita Realty, subject to the same tolling 

agreement as we entered into with respect to the cases in the 

July, 1991 trial pool. The agreement with respect to the July, 

1991 trial pool provided that those plaintiffs could reassert 

claims against Pita only if their "medical and scientific 

experts attest, by sworn affidavit, that a non-asbestos form talc 

product was a substantial contributing cause of the injuries 

allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' Descendents". 

The dismissal followed our demonstration that (i) Pita's talc 

did not contain asbestos -- as your own expert, Dr. Rohl, 

agreed, and that (ii) the condition of the plaintiffs was not 

attributable to talc which did not contain asbestos -- as your 

expert, Dr. Demers, testified. A third factor was the lack of 

product identification. 

Despite this dismissal of all the July, 1991 plaintiffs, I understand that you told my partner Allen Joslyn that 

you are unwilling to dismiss the January, 1992 plaintiffs. The 

reason you gave for this change in position was the deposition 

of Roger Miller, which you claimed establishes that there was 

asbestos at the Eastern Magnesia Talc mine. Having re-read that 

testimony, I cannot find any such indication. Mr. Miller testified that (i) EMTal operated only one mine -- the Johnson mine 

(p. 10); and (ii) he never saw chrysolite, tremolite, actinolite 

BASF Fe 0009003 

I 

t 

• 

novo "'I/II'''''S RO_CRT A.. Alt"SSi 

ROGER ANORUS 

MICHAEL A •• ECKER 

SU!$AN .UCKI..E't 

Kt. ... IN J. aOAXC 

~ lu::vm CASTe," 

.1AI-ICS J.I::I.AAK 

WAt,TER <:,<:1.."". ~.~. 

eCHJAMJN J. COHE:" 

..lOS ePH ... ~ONW1l.Y 

MARSHALL cox THO).{"$ ,.. CURNI" 

W.lESllE: DUFFY 

..... TRICIA rARfU;:N 

'''''T FI'UCOMAH 

C'RO A. CAM_OHl 

CHMu,r;s A.OILMAN 

SrEflH£H ..... Gft(tHt 

Ao_cnr N. HALlMAN 

EDWARD A. HANSCN 

WILI,IAM f.t. HAIUNtTT 

THOMAS A.JONeS 

ALLCN 5, JOSLYN 

THOMAS J. KAVALtR 

Io'MtNC& A. KoaRIN 

'AHUEL KOHN 

#""0 " KRUGMAN WII.LIAM T. urt. ... NO 

HICHACL MACRI5 

CrJ(J.£ r...wiJ -

H,dtid0ft.;C+ 

if) /<!. CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

JONATHAN I. HARK 

RAND McOUINN" 

O(R ... RO "".MelsTAtU 

ROOER NELTICA 

CLIFFORD L.MICH£L 

JOHN,., MITCHtl..L 

MArHI"l C.MOtU: 

DOHAI,O J. HUl\llH1LI., 

KENNETH W. ORca: 

ROY \,,'U::001IN 

RICHARD I...RtINHOl.O 

OtAN RINGtl. 

THOIitN A05tN1HAL 

RICHARO J. SA.l:tlA 

H. "'CHARD SCHUMACHI:A 

JOHN $CHUSTCft 

LAUfttNC£:,.. $ILV(RMAN 

HOWARD o. SLOA.NE 

L"UftCNCC f. SORXIN 

lCOUAAO A.S"IVAK 

GtRAlD S.TAtH::NaAUM 

MICHAeL po. TICflNC't 

ROIERT V~"'OI 

.JOHN A. VAUOHAN 

OI:OROC W,lllANO 

GlCNN oJ, WAlO'''P', JR. 

ftAlil"H O. WfNGE" 

GARY W. WOLF 

.JOHN ft. YOUNG 

OAHltl..). Z:UIKOf'f 

EIGHTY PINE STREET 

NEW YORK, N.¥. 10001:1 

October 2, 1991 

Re: Wayne County Tireworkers Cases 

RAYMONO 1...I"AllS • .,I1'1. 

DAVIO R. HyDe 

DeNIS McIHt;RNE.'rt 1'\ C. 

IRWIN 5CHNCiOCAMAN 

"CNI!)" eOUN.III" 

COl\VOOH '.DUHHAM 

IAI-IU£1.. tsrnlCfCHCA 

"'IC~IACl. .$. SACJ(HCIH 

.JCFrRt.'t 1t.5H",.,,,0 

JOHN J. STANTON, .JR. 

COUHln 

FR£DDY DRESSCN" 

(UIIOOIOC.o.N COl,jNICI. 

WASHINGTON,O.C.Q''''fCC 

leaD K 5TIIE£T. H.W. 

WASHINGTON, 0. c. ;toooe 

CUl'tOP"CAN of'ne!; 

,. "\.It: Fl'tAN~OIS I"" 1S00. ,. ... AtS.l"ftANC£ 

T£t.£X I CA.!.t 

RCA 2lzJe~ WUT 1270e8 

CAGO Upt C:OTTOf'ptANK NYX 

r"(;:a'MILE iIZ-2ea-5'U~O 

~"'DWltt(O til.e,OHl" 

uAolounl1l ,.""+¢c o!n" 

U:lE"HONE ZI~~701·:'OQO 

WIHTE"'S DI"ECT HUH.Eft 

(212) 701-3321 

Dear Steve: 

I write to confirm our oral request that you voluntarily dismiss the claims of the 12 plaintiffs in the January, 

1992 trial pool against Pita Realty, subject to the same tolling 

agreement as we entered into with respect to the cases in the 

July, 1991 trial pool. The agreement with respect to the July, 

1991 trial pool provided that those plaintiffs could reassert 

claims against Pita only if their "medical and scientific 

experts attest, by sworn affidavit, that a non-asbestos form talc 

product was a substantial contributing cause of the injuries 

allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' Descendents". 

The dismissal followed our demonstration that (i) Pita's talc 

did not contain asbestos -- as your own expert, Dr. Rohl, 

agreed, and that (ii) the condition of the plaintiffs was not 

attributable to talc which did not contain asbestos -- as your 

expert, Dr. Demers, testified. A third factor was the lack of 

product identification. 

Despite this dismissal of all the July, 1991 plaintiffs, I understand that you told my partner Allen Joslyn that 

you are unwilling to dismiss the January, 1992 plaintiffs. The 

reason you gave for this change in position was the deposition 

of Roger Miller, which you claimed establishes that there was 

asbestos at the Eastern Magnesia Talc mine. Having re-read that 

testimony, I cannot find any such indication. Mr. Miller testified that (i) EMTal operated only one mine -- the Johnson mine 

(p. 10); and (ii) he never saw chrysolite, tremolite, actinolite 

BASF Fe 0009003 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 43 of 94 PageID: 13331
CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

-2-

or pyrophyllite in the EMTal mine (p. 37). Mr. Miller also testified (in response to your question), 

"The Witness. In our examination to control 

the quality of the products, we looked for any 

extraneous mineral and asbestos happens to be a 

readily easily identified mineral in hand specimens 

and fine powders. While there was no specific 

directive to do that, I believe that our quality 

control that we used to regulate the operations 

were such that we would not have missed asbestos if 

it were present." (p. 60) 

Finally, Mr. Miller endorsed Chidester's analysis as the most 

definitive source about what was in the ore budy. 

In short, there is no good faith basis for the continuation of the 1992 plaintiffs' cases against Pita. We will have 

to decide soon whether to commence full scale litigation with 

respect to them. I await either your agreement to dismiss the 

January, 1992 plaintiffs against Pita, or demonstration of a 

good faith basis for your refusal to do so. Please call me or 

my partner, Allen Joslyn, to discuss this. 

steve Kaufman, Esq. 

Lopatin, Miller 

1301 East Jefferson Avenue 

Detroit, Michigan 48209-3119 

Howard G. Sloane . 

BASF Fe 0009004 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

-2-

or pyrophyllite in the EMTal mine (p. 37). Mr. Miller also testified (in response to your question), 

"The Witness. In our examination to control 

the quality of the products, we looked for any 

extraneous mineral and asbestos happens to be a 

readily easily identified mineral in hand specimens 

and fine powders. While there was no specific 

directive to do that, I believe that our quality 

control that we used to regulate the operations 

were such that we would not have missed asbestos if 

it were present." (p. 60) 

Finally, Mr. Miller endorsed Chidester's analysis as the most 

definitive source about what was in the ore budy. 

In short, there is no good faith basis for the continuation of the 1992 plaintiffs' cases against Pita. We will have 

to decide soon whether to commence full scale litigation with 

respect to them. I await either your agreement to dismiss the 

January, 1992 plaintiffs against Pita, or demonstration of a 

good faith basis for your refusal to do so. Please call me or 

my partner, Allen Joslyn, to discuss this. 

steve Kaufman, Esq. 

Lopatin, Miller 

1301 East Jefferson Avenue 

Detroit, Michigan 48209-3119 

Howard G. Sloane . 

BASF Fe 0009004 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 44 of 94 PageID: 13332
APPENDIX A, TAB O 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 45 of 94 PageID: 13333
, 

• 

FLOYD ".1fAM~ 

AO.CRT A, ALeSSI 

"oat'" ANDRU$ 

MICHAEL A •• ~eKCR 

$U15I\H .UCKl£Y 

KEVIN .,I •• URI'U' 

,.. KEVIN CASTel 

.,lAMeS .J. CLARK 

WALTen c. CI.'''''. ~. c. _eN,J"MIN J.CQHEN 

,J05£,.H 1\ CONWAY 

MARSHALl. COXTHO,",,"S f. CURNIN 

W. l.eSLIt:. DU"'" PATRICIA rARR£N 

.ART rRI£Ot-lAH 

CIRO A. GAMaONI 

CHARLES A.OILMAN 

5TE~H.cN "".0"£[»£ 

R08£RT M. HALLMAN 

tOWARD A. HANseN 

WILL.IAM M. HARTNETT 

THOMAS A • ..I0NtS 

ALLEN S .... O,,!.V» 

TtiOMAS oJ. tV.V .... LER 

LAWRENCe A. xO_nlH 

lMHANU£L KOHN" 

If;OW"I'tD ... KRUGHAN 

WILLI"H T. LlflAND 

JCHAI;L MACRIS 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

EIGHTY PINE STREET 

,JONATHAN t. f..lAPl:K 

RAND Hc::OUINN' 

GERARD t-f. "U;:15TJU:U. 

ROOtR '"U:LfZ£ft 

Cl.l",.O"OI..MICHel 

JOHN iI'. MITCHeLL 

MATH'''S £ MON£ 

DONALD J. M"H.VIHll!" 

K£HHt:tH W.DRC£ 

ROY "'.REOOZI" RICHARD 1..RCIHHOI.O 

DCAN RING'L 

'THORN ROSCNTHAL 

RICHARD J. 5A.tl.I. ... 

H. RICHARD S<;:HUM ... CH£R 

JQHN SCHUSTtl't 

LoI,URCNCC A. SILVERMAN 

HOWAI'tD Q. SLOAN!: 

LAURENce T. !oOI'tKIN 

LCONARD A.~PIVAK 

GCRALO S, TAH£'H_AUM 

MICHACL Po TI£RN£'Y 

AoatllT U5AOI 

JOHN /'t, VAUGHAN 

GEORGE; WAlloAN£) 

GLENN ,J. WALOAI~ • .JIt, 

R"I.PH 0, WINOCft 

OAAv W.WOLI" 

JONN ,.. YOUNG 

OAlHCl..,J. tU8KOFJ" 

NEW YOllK, N.¥. 1000n 

october 31, 1991 

Re: Summit county Asbestos/Tireworker 

Litigation 

Dear Mr. Nace: 

RAYMOND I.. r"Lt.s. """, 

CA .... 'D R. HyDe 

DCHI-S MelNE"NC"', 1'\ C. 

mWfN SCHN£IOCRM"" 

,CHIOII' COUHU:t. 

CORYOON a, DUN""'" 

SAl-WE\. CST"EICHCR 

HICHAo!:\, S.$ACKtt£IH 

JE"RCV t. SHAJlIAO 

JOHN J. STANTON.JR. 

COulntlo 

nu:ooY oAcsseN·~ 

tIiIlOI'C"'H COUHU:t, 

WASHINGTON, D.C, orr-Icc U~80 K STAter, N.W. 

WASHINGTON, 0. c. itoooe 

tU"O,.t:AH O'FI<:C 

IV ftut: f"Jll:AN<i0IS .1. 

75008 J'AJll:III,FJll:ANCC 

TE:"':X I CAlIl€: 

ftCA UII.'" WUT" IZ70ee 

C"130 UA COT"O,.ftAHK N",K 

,,,eslI·IIL£ itlt-2eO-.'Uo 

• ... b~lTlI:O "'i;.OIf~T 

..... 1>).11"1:110 fll"'~CO:: Olil.T 

In response to your letter of october 4, 1991, you are 

perfectly aware of our position, since, in an effort to 

demonstrate the lack of justification for this suit, on January 

2, 1990, we supplied you with copies of the documents which form 

its basis. If you have misplaced them, please let me know and I 

will send another set. 

The answer is, of course, that even with your expanded 

definition, Pita did not mine, mill or sell "asbestos". Now that 

you have our answer, which demonstrates the laok of any basis for 

these suits against Pita, please dismiss the claims against it. 

R. Bryan Nace, Esq. 

Laybourne, Smith, Gore 

159 South Main Street, 

Akron, Ohio 44308-1317 

co: Jaok Kluznik, Esq. 

& Goldsmith 

suite 503 

sincerely yours, 

~ ~;).--

Allen S. Joslyn 

BASF Fe 0002594 

, 

• 

FLOYD ".1fAM~ 

AO.CRT A, ALeSSI 

"oat'" ANDRU$ 

MICHAEL A •• ~eKCR 

$U15I\H .UCKl£Y 

KEVIN .,I •• URI'U' 

,.. KEVIN CASTel 

.,lAMeS .J. CLARK 

WALTen c. CI.'''''. ~. c. _eN,J"MIN J.CQHEN 

,J05£,.H 1\ CONWAY 

MARSHALl. COXTHO,",,"S f. CURNIN 

W. l.eSLIt:. DU"'" PATRICIA rARR£N 

.ART rRI£Ot-lAH 

CIRO A. GAMaONI 

CHARLES A.OILMAN 

5TE~H.cN "".0"£[»£ 

R08£RT M. HALLMAN 

tOWARD A. HANseN 

WILL.IAM M. HARTNETT 

THOMAS A • ..I0NtS 

ALLEN S .... O,,!.V» 

TtiOMAS oJ. tV.V .... LER 

LAWRENCe A. xO_nlH 

lMHANU£L KOHN" 

If;OW"I'tD ... KRUGHAN 

WILLI"H T. LlflAND 

JCHAI;L MACRIS 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

EIGHTY PINE STREET 

,JONATHAN t. f..lAPl:K 

RAND Hc::OUINN' 

GERARD t-f. "U;:15TJU:U. 

ROOtR '"U:LfZ£ft 

Cl.l",.O"OI..MICHel 

JOHN iI'. MITCHeLL 

MATH'''S £ MON£ 

DONALD J. M"H.VIHll!" 

K£HHt:tH W.DRC£ 

ROY "'.REOOZI" RICHARD 1..RCIHHOI.O 

DCAN RING'L 

'THORN ROSCNTHAL 

RICHARD J. 5A.tl.I. ... 

H. RICHARD S<;:HUM ... CH£R 

JQHN SCHUSTtl't 

LoI,URCNCC A. SILVERMAN 

HOWAI'tD Q. SLOAN!: 

LAURENce T. !oOI'tKIN 

LCONARD A.~PIVAK 

GCRALO S, TAH£'H_AUM 

MICHACL Po TI£RN£'Y 

AoatllT U5AOI 

JOHN /'t, VAUGHAN 

GEORGE; WAlloAN£) 

GLENN ,J. WALOAI~ • .JIt, 

R"I.PH 0, WINOCft 

OAAv W.WOLI" 

JONN ,.. YOUNG 

OAlHCl..,J. tU8KOFJ" 

NEW YOllK, N.¥. 1000n 

october 31, 1991 

Re: Summit county Asbestos/Tireworker 

Litigation 

Dear Mr. Nace: 

RAYMOND I.. r"Lt.s. """, 

CA .... 'D R. HyDe 

DCHI-S MelNE"NC"', 1'\ C. 

mWfN SCHN£IOCRM"" 

,CHIOII' COUHU:t. 

CORYOON a, DUN""'" 

SAl-WE\. CST"EICHCR 

HICHAo!:\, S.$ACKtt£IH 

JE"RCV t. SHAJlIAO 

JOHN J. STANTON.JR. 

COulntlo 

nu:ooY oAcsseN·~ 

tIiIlOI'C"'H COUHU:t, 

WASHINGTON, D.C, orr-Icc U~80 K STAter, N.W. 

WASHINGTON, 0. c. itoooe 

tU"O,.t:AH O'FI<:C 

IV ftut: f"Jll:AN<i0IS .1. 

75008 J'AJll:III,FJll:ANCC 

TE:"':X I CAlIl€: 

ftCA UII.'" WUT" IZ70ee 

C"130 UA COT"O,.ftAHK N",K 

,,,eslI·IIL£ itlt-2eO-.'Uo 

• ... b~lTlI:O "'i;.OIf~T 

..... 1>).11"1:110 fll"'~CO:: Olil.T 

In response to your letter of october 4, 1991, you are 

perfectly aware of our position, since, in an effort to 

demonstrate the lack of justification for this suit, on January 

2, 1990, we supplied you with copies of the documents which form 

its basis. If you have misplaced them, please let me know and I 

will send another set. 

The answer is, of course, that even with your expanded 

definition, Pita did not mine, mill or sell "asbestos". Now that 

you have our answer, which demonstrates the laok of any basis for 

these suits against Pita, please dismiss the claims against it. 

R. Bryan Nace, Esq. 

Laybourne, Smith, Gore 

159 South Main Street, 

Akron, Ohio 44308-1317 

co: Jaok Kluznik, Esq. 

& Goldsmith 

suite 503 

sincerely yours, 

~ ~;).--

Allen S. Joslyn 

BASF Fe 0002594 

, 

• 

FLOYD ".1fAM~ 

AO.CRT A, ALeSSI 

"oat'" ANDRU$ 

MICHAEL A •• ~eKCR 

$U15I\H .UCKl£Y 

KEVIN .,I •• URI'U' 

,.. KEVIN CASTel 

.,lAMeS .J. CLARK 

WALTen c. CI.'''''. ~. c. _eN,J"MIN J.CQHEN 

,J05£,.H 1\ CONWAY 

MARSHALl. COXTHO,",,"S f. CURNIN 

W. l.eSLIt:. DU"'" PATRICIA rARR£N 

.ART rRI£Ot-lAH 

CIRO A. GAMaONI 

CHARLES A.OILMAN 

5TE~H.cN "".0"£[»£ 

R08£RT M. HALLMAN 

tOWARD A. HANseN 

WILL.IAM M. HARTNETT 

THOMAS A • ..I0NtS 

ALLEN S .... O,,!.V» 

TtiOMAS oJ. tV.V .... LER 

LAWRENCe A. xO_nlH 

lMHANU£L KOHN" 

If;OW"I'tD ... KRUGHAN 

WILLI"H T. LlflAND 

JCHAI;L MACRIS 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

EIGHTY PINE STREET 

,JONATHAN t. f..lAPl:K 

RAND Hc::OUINN' 

GERARD t-f. "U;:15TJU:U. 

ROOtR '"U:LfZ£ft 

Cl.l",.O"OI..MICHel 

JOHN iI'. MITCHeLL 

MATH'''S £ MON£ 

DONALD J. M"H.VIHll!" 

K£HHt:tH W.DRC£ 

ROY "'.REOOZI" RICHARD 1..RCIHHOI.O 

DCAN RING'L 

'THORN ROSCNTHAL 

RICHARD J. 5A.tl.I. ... 

H. RICHARD S<;:HUM ... CH£R 

JQHN SCHUSTtl't 

LoI,URCNCC A. SILVERMAN 

HOWAI'tD Q. SLOAN!: 

LAURENce T. !oOI'tKIN 

LCONARD A.~PIVAK 

GCRALO S, TAH£'H_AUM 

MICHACL Po TI£RN£'Y 

AoatllT U5AOI 

JOHN /'t, VAUGHAN 

GEORGE; WAlloAN£) 

GLENN ,J. WALOAI~ • .JIt, 

R"I.PH 0, WINOCft 

OAAv W.WOLI" 

JONN ,.. YOUNG 

OAlHCl..,J. tU8KOFJ" 

NEW YOllK, N.¥. 1000n 

october 31, 1991 

Re: Summit county Asbestos/Tireworker 

Litigation 

Dear Mr. Nace: 

RAYMOND I.. r"Lt.s. """, 

CA .... 'D R. HyDe 

DCHI-S MelNE"NC"', 1'\ C. 

mWfN SCHN£IOCRM"" 

,CHIOII' COUHU:t. 

CORYOON a, DUN""'" 

SAl-WE\. CST"EICHCR 

HICHAo!:\, S.$ACKtt£IH 

JE"RCV t. SHAJlIAO 

JOHN J. STANTON.JR. 

COulntlo 

nu:ooY oAcsseN·~ 

tIiIlOI'C"'H COUHU:t, 

WASHINGTON, D.C, orr-Icc U~80 K STAter, N.W. 

WASHINGTON, 0. c. itoooe 

tU"O,.t:AH O'FI<:C 

IV ftut: f"Jll:AN<i0IS .1. 

75008 J'AJll:III,FJll:ANCC 

TE:"':X I CAlIl€: 

ftCA UII.'" WUT" IZ70ee 

C"130 UA COT"O,.ftAHK N",K 

,,,eslI·IIL£ itlt-2eO-.'Uo 

• ... b~lTlI:O "'i;.OIf~T 

..... 1>).11"1:110 fll"'~CO:: Olil.T 

In response to your letter of october 4, 1991, you are 

perfectly aware of our position, since, in an effort to 

demonstrate the lack of justification for this suit, on January 

2, 1990, we supplied you with copies of the documents which form 

its basis. If you have misplaced them, please let me know and I 

will send another set. 

The answer is, of course, that even with your expanded 

definition, Pita did not mine, mill or sell "asbestos". Now that 

you have our answer, which demonstrates the laok of any basis for 

these suits against Pita, please dismiss the claims against it. 

R. Bryan Nace, Esq. 

Laybourne, Smith, Gore 

159 South Main Street, 

Akron, Ohio 44308-1317 

co: Jaok Kluznik, Esq. 

& Goldsmith 

suite 503 

sincerely yours, 

~ ~;).--

Allen S. Joslyn 

BASF Fe 0002594 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 46 of 94 PageID: 13334
APPENDIX A, TAB P 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 47 of 94 PageID: 13335
EIOH.,y PINE BTRE:£T 

N~ YORK,N.Y.I0005 

19 ROE f"R"H~OIB ta* 

7aoOB PARISt FF~ANCE 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

1990 K STREET, N. W. 

WASB~GTON,D.C.20006 

(202) 862-8941 April 23, 1992 

Re: Cuyahoga County Tireworker Actions 

Dear Mr. Economusl 

" .. , ,-. to;" , 

RADIO AND CA.". AODIII'a80ca 

·~K-.a"l~ 'CO\'TO>RANK _ 

"CQTTOJ"R'orNK PNtla· 

I enjoyed speaking with you on MOnday. Aa we discussed, this firm is of counsel to Engelhard Corporation (·Engelhard"), which is named as a defendant in three tireworker 

cases that you/recentlY filed in the Cuyahoga County Court of 

Common Pleas. l You indicated that Engelhard is named as a 

defendant in these cases because its former subsidiary, Eastern 

Magnesia Talc Company (·EmTal·), allegedly sold talc to plain- tiffs' employers. EmTal operated a single talc mine in Johnson, 

Vermont between October 1967 and 1973. 

This letter is to request that you voluntarily dismiss 

Engelhard from these three tireworker actions, on the basis that 

talc produced by EmTal contained no asbestos. I am enclosing the 

following documents supporting this request I 

(1) A copy of an Affidavit prepared by William H. Aahton dated May 8, 1989, 

with attached Exhibits A through Gl 

(2) A copy of an Affidavit by Charles D. 

Carter dated September 20, 19881 

(3) A copy of an Affidavit by Charles D. 

Carter dated June 19, 1989; 

(4) A copy of a report prepared by Dr. F. D. 

Pooley concerning an examination of talc 

samples taken from the Johnson, Vermont 

minel and 

1/ Namely, these actions are Clay C. Compton, et a1. v. Abe~ 

Corp. et a1., Case No. 92-229107-CVl Charles L. Williams~ 

al. v. Abex Corp. et al., Case No. 92-229108-CVi and Lloyd W. Brown, et al. v. Abex Corp., et al., Case No. 

92-229393-CV. 

BASF Fe 0004407 

EIOH.,y PINE BTRE:£T 

N~ YORK,N.Y.I0005 

19 ROE f"R"H~OIB ta* 

7aoOB PARISt FF~ANCE 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

1990 K STREET, N. W. 

WASB~GTON,D.C.20006 

(202) 862-8941 April 23, 1992 

Re: Cuyahoga County Tireworker Actions 

Dear Mr. Economusl 

" .. , ,-. to;" , 

RADIO AND CA.". AODIII'a80ca 

·~K-.a"l~ 'CO\'TO>RANK _ 

"CQTTOJ"R'orNK PNtla· 

I enjoyed speaking with you on MOnday. Aa we discussed, this firm is of counsel to Engelhard Corporation (·Engelhard"), which is named as a defendant in three tireworker 

cases that you/recentlY filed in the Cuyahoga County Court of 

Common Pleas. l You indicated that Engelhard is named as a 

defendant in these cases because its former subsidiary, Eastern 

Magnesia Talc Company (·EmTal·), allegedly sold talc to plain- tiffs' employers. EmTal operated a single talc mine in Johnson, 

Vermont between October 1967 and 1973. 

This letter is to request that you voluntarily dismiss 

Engelhard from these three tireworker actions, on the basis that 

talc produced by EmTal contained no asbestos. I am enclosing the 

following documents supporting this request I 

(1) A copy of an Affidavit prepared by William H. Aahton dated May 8, 1989, 

with attached Exhibits A through Gl 

(2) A copy of an Affidavit by Charles D. 

Carter dated September 20, 19881 

(3) A copy of an Affidavit by Charles D. 

Carter dated June 19, 1989; 

(4) A copy of a report prepared by Dr. F. D. 

Pooley concerning an examination of talc 

samples taken from the Johnson, Vermont 

minel and 

1/ Namely, these actions are Clay C. Compton, et a1. v. Abe~ 

Corp. et a1., Case No. 92-229107-CVl Charles L. Williams~ 

al. v. Abex Corp. et al., Case No. 92-229108-CVi and Lloyd W. Brown, et al. v. Abex Corp., et al., Case No. 

92-229393-CV. 

BASF Fe 0004407 

EIOH.,y PINE BTRE:£T 

N~ YORK,N.Y.I0005 

19 ROE f"R"H~OIB ta* 

7aoOB PARISt FF~ANCE 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

1990 K STREET, N. W. 

WASB~GTON,D.C.20006 

(202) 862-8941 April 23, 1992 

Re: Cuyahoga County Tireworker Actions 

Dear Mr. Economusl 

" .. , ,-. to;" , 

RADIO AND CA.". AODIII'a80ca 

·~K-.a"l~ 'CO\'TO>RANK _ 

"CQTTOJ"R'orNK PNtla· 

I enjoyed speaking with you on MOnday. Aa we discussed, this firm is of counsel to Engelhard Corporation (·Engelhard"), which is named as a defendant in three tireworker 

cases that you/recentlY filed in the Cuyahoga County Court of 

Common Pleas. l You indicated that Engelhard is named as a 

defendant in these cases because its former subsidiary, Eastern 

Magnesia Talc Company (·EmTal·), allegedly sold talc to plain- tiffs' employers. EmTal operated a single talc mine in Johnson, 

Vermont between October 1967 and 1973. 

This letter is to request that you voluntarily dismiss 

Engelhard from these three tireworker actions, on the basis that 

talc produced by EmTal contained no asbestos. I am enclosing the 

following documents supporting this request I 

(1) A copy of an Affidavit prepared by William H. Aahton dated May 8, 1989, 

with attached Exhibits A through Gl 

(2) A copy of an Affidavit by Charles D. 

Carter dated September 20, 19881 

(3) A copy of an Affidavit by Charles D. 

Carter dated June 19, 1989; 

(4) A copy of a report prepared by Dr. F. D. 

Pooley concerning an examination of talc 

samples taken from the Johnson, Vermont 

minel and 

1/ Namely, these actions are Clay C. Compton, et a1. v. Abe~ 

Corp. et a1., Case No. 92-229107-CVl Charles L. Williams~ 

al. v. Abex Corp. et al., Case No. 92-229108-CVi and Lloyd W. Brown, et al. v. Abex Corp., et al., Case No. 

92-229393-CV. 

BASF Fe 0004407 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 48 of 94 PageID: 13336
• 

CAHILL GoRDON 8: REINDEL 

- 2 -

(5) A copy of a B.F. Goodrich specification sheet dated November 10, 1978 for EmTal 

500 talc. 

In ~eviewin9 these documents, you will note that 

EmTal's (and, accordingly, Engelh~d's) only talc mine was located in Johnson, Ve~ont, and that £roTal produced talc from that 

mine only from October 1967, when EmTal acquired the mine, until 

1983, when the mine was closed for economic reasons. (See Carter 

Affidavits.) The Affidavit of William H. Ashton summarizes numerous investigations, examinations, and studies of the Johnson 

mine. The conclusion derived from all of these studies is that 

the talc produced from this mine did not contain asbestos. A 

sample from the Johnson talc mine was analyzed in 1982 using 

scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive spectroscopy, 

as well as x-ray diffraction analysis and analytical transmission 

electron microscopy. The analysis revealed that no asbestos was 

present in the sample. (See Ashton Affidavit p~agraph 7.) 

Under the circumstances, there appears to be no basis 

for maintaining Engelhard as a named defendant in these actions. 

I am sure that you can appreciate that considerable expense has 

been and will be incurred by Engelhard as a defen4ant in these 

cases, and that this dismissal request merits immediate attention. 

There is substantial precedent for my request. For 

example, Engelh~d and EmTal were named as defendants in 28 cases 

brought on behalf of former tireworkers at the B.F. Goodrich 

plant in Oaks, pennsylvania and filed in the Eastern District of 

Pennsylyania. The enclosed documents were provided to Jeffrey C. 

Schwartz of the Allen L. Rothenberg law fi~ in Philadelphia and 

were reviewed by plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Arthur Rohl. After this 

review, Mr. Schwartz voluntarily dismissed Engelh~d and ErnTal 

from that litigation. 

EmTal has also been voluntarily dismissed from 

tireworker litigation in, inter alia, the District of Kansas and 

Michigan state court. Those plaintiffs' counsel had also been 

provided with the Ashton materials described above. 

BASF Fe 0004408 

• 

CAHILL GoRDON 8: REINDEL 

- 2 -

(5) A copy of a B.F. Goodrich specification sheet dated November 10, 1978 for EmTal 

500 talc. 

In ~eviewin9 these documents, you will note that 

EmTal's (and, accordingly, Engelh~d's) only talc mine was located in Johnson, Ve~ont, and that £roTal produced talc from that 

mine only from October 1967, when EmTal acquired the mine, until 

1983, when the mine was closed for economic reasons. (See Carter 

Affidavits.) The Affidavit of William H. Ashton summarizes numerous investigations, examinations, and studies of the Johnson 

mine. The conclusion derived from all of these studies is that 

the talc produced from this mine did not contain asbestos. A 

sample from the Johnson talc mine was analyzed in 1982 using 

scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive spectroscopy, 

as well as x-ray diffraction analysis and analytical transmission 

electron microscopy. The analysis revealed that no asbestos was 

present in the sample. (See Ashton Affidavit p~agraph 7.) 

Under the circumstances, there appears to be no basis 

for maintaining Engelhard as a named defendant in these actions. 

I am sure that you can appreciate that considerable expense has 

been and will be incurred by Engelhard as a defen4ant in these 

cases, and that this dismissal request merits immediate attention. 

There is substantial precedent for my request. For 

example, Engelh~d and EmTal were named as defendants in 28 cases 

brought on behalf of former tireworkers at the B.F. Goodrich 

plant in Oaks, pennsylvania and filed in the Eastern District of 

Pennsylyania. The enclosed documents were provided to Jeffrey C. 

Schwartz of the Allen L. Rothenberg law fi~ in Philadelphia and 

were reviewed by plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Arthur Rohl. After this 

review, Mr. Schwartz voluntarily dismissed Engelh~d and ErnTal 

from that litigation. 

EmTal has also been voluntarily dismissed from 

tireworker litigation in, inter alia, the District of Kansas and 

Michigan state court. Those plaintiffs' counsel had also been 

provided with the Ashton materials described above. 

BASF Fe 0004408 

• 

CAHILL GoRDON 8: REINDEL 

- 2 -

(5) A copy of a B.F. Goodrich specification sheet dated November 10, 1978 for EmTal 

500 talc. 

In ~eviewin9 these documents, you will note that 

EmTal's (and, accordingly, Engelh~d's) only talc mine was located in Johnson, Ve~ont, and that £roTal produced talc from that 

mine only from October 1967, when EmTal acquired the mine, until 

1983, when the mine was closed for economic reasons. (See Carter 

Affidavits.) The Affidavit of William H. Ashton summarizes numerous investigations, examinations, and studies of the Johnson 

mine. The conclusion derived from all of these studies is that 

the talc produced from this mine did not contain asbestos. A 

sample from the Johnson talc mine was analyzed in 1982 using 

scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive spectroscopy, 

as well as x-ray diffraction analysis and analytical transmission 

electron microscopy. The analysis revealed that no asbestos was 

present in the sample. (See Ashton Affidavit p~agraph 7.) 

Under the circumstances, there appears to be no basis 

for maintaining Engelhard as a named defendant in these actions. 

I am sure that you can appreciate that considerable expense has 

been and will be incurred by Engelhard as a defen4ant in these 

cases, and that this dismissal request merits immediate attention. 

There is substantial precedent for my request. For 

example, Engelh~d and EmTal were named as defendants in 28 cases 

brought on behalf of former tireworkers at the B.F. Goodrich 

plant in Oaks, pennsylvania and filed in the Eastern District of 

Pennsylyania. The enclosed documents were provided to Jeffrey C. 

Schwartz of the Allen L. Rothenberg law fi~ in Philadelphia and 

were reviewed by plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Arthur Rohl. After this 

review, Mr. Schwartz voluntarily dismissed Engelh~d and ErnTal 

from that litigation. 

EmTal has also been voluntarily dismissed from 

tireworker litigation in, inter alia, the District of Kansas and 

Michigan state court. Those plaintiffs' counsel had also been 

provided with the Ashton materials described above. 

BASF Fe 0004408 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 49 of 94 PageID: 13337
CAHILL GORDON &. REINDEL 

- 3 -

I look forward to speaking with you further once you have had an opportunity to review the enclosed materials. If any additional information would assist you in your decision, please call me directly. 

Dale S. Economus, Esq. Bevan & Economus 

10360 Northfield Road 

Northfield, Ohio 44067 

[Enclosures] 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

Vr!'JJ:rurs, 

~. Martin 

bee: Howard G. Sloane, Esq. (w/o enclosures) 

Allen S. Joslyn, Esq. (w/o enclosures) 

Mr. Michael D. Sullivan (w/o enclosures) 

BASF Fe 0004409 

CAHILL GORDON &. REINDEL 

- 3 -

I look forward to speaking with you further once you have had an opportunity to review the enclosed materials. If any additional information would assist you in your decision, please call me directly. 

Dale S. Economus, Esq. Bevan & Economus 

10360 Northfield Road 

Northfield, Ohio 44067 

[Enclosures] 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

Vr!'JJ:rurs, 

~. Martin 

bee: Howard G. Sloane, Esq. (w/o enclosures) 

Allen S. Joslyn, Esq. (w/o enclosures) 

Mr. Michael D. Sullivan (w/o enclosures) 

BASF Fe 0004409 

CAHILL GORDON &. REINDEL 

- 3 -

I look forward to speaking with you further once you have had an opportunity to review the enclosed materials. If any additional information would assist you in your decision, please call me directly. 

Dale S. Economus, Esq. Bevan & Economus 

10360 Northfield Road 

Northfield, Ohio 44067 

[Enclosures] 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

Vr!'JJ:rurs, 

~. Martin 

bee: Howard G. Sloane, Esq. (w/o enclosures) 

Allen S. Joslyn, Esq. (w/o enclosures) 

Mr. Michael D. Sullivan (w/o enclosures) 

BASF Fe 0004409 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 50 of 94 PageID: 13338
APPENDIX A, TAB Q 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 51 of 94 PageID: 13339
£.GHTY PlfroiE STREET 

N!tW 'l'ORJ(~N • .,..tOooa 

1& RUt; ,.FlANljOt8 tu 

7.80Q8 PARI.B t P'RAHCI: 

(202) 862-8941 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

1990 K STREET, N. W. 

WASH~GTON,D.C.20006 

May 18, 1992 

Re: Cuyahoga County Tireworker Actions 

Dear Mr. Economusl 

RADIO "'.0 CA_LE Abtulco.ca 

-~K WMlNIHO'fON-

"c:oTTOP'RANK Htw'tOI'tK' 

-eoTTOI"AAHK ~5· 

f'Ae8IMU.C 201-8ea-eDftD 

On April 23, 1992, I wrote to you to request dismissal 

from three tireworker cases recently filed by your office naming Engelhard Corporation as a defendant. As you recall, Engelhard 

was named in those cases because its former subsidiary, Eastern 

Magnesia Talc Company ('EmTa1'), allegedly sold talc to plain- tiffs' employers. Enclosed with my letter last mont.h were 

various documents demonstrating that talc produced by EmTal from 

its sole mine and mill in Johnson, Vermont contained no asbestos. 

I trust that you have had an opportunity to review those documents. If you have misplaced any of those materials or feel that 

.more information would assist you in your decision regarding our 

dismissal request, please let me know. 

. Last week I received a copy of the Complaint in 

Gonzalez v. Abex Corp., et al., Case No. 92-231225-CV, which also 

names Engelhard as a defendant. Obviously, we would like to 

avoid incurring additional expenses in defense of the four 

actions which now name Engelhard when under the circumstances 

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

a defendant. Accordingly, I request that you give serious and 

BASF Fe 0004405 

£.GHTY PlfroiE STREET 

N!tW 'l'ORJ(~N • .,..tOooa 

1& RUt; ,.FlANljOt8 tu 

7.80Q8 PARI.B t P'RAHCI: 

(202) 862-8941 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

1990 K STREET, N. W. 

WASH~GTON,D.C.20006 

May 18, 1992 

Re: Cuyahoga County Tireworker Actions 

Dear Mr. Economusl 

RADIO "'.0 CA_LE Abtulco.ca 

-~K WMlNIHO'fON-

"c:oTTOP'RANK Htw'tOI'tK' 

-eoTTOI"AAHK ~5· 

f'Ae8IMU.C 201-8ea-eDftD 

On April 23, 1992, I wrote to you to request dismissal 

from three tireworker cases recently filed by your office naming Engelhard Corporation as a defendant. As you recall, Engelhard 

was named in those cases because its former subsidiary, Eastern 

Magnesia Talc Company ('EmTa1'), allegedly sold talc to plain- tiffs' employers. Enclosed with my letter last mont.h were 

various documents demonstrating that talc produced by EmTal from 

its sole mine and mill in Johnson, Vermont contained no asbestos. 

I trust that you have had an opportunity to review those documents. If you have misplaced any of those materials or feel that 

.more information would assist you in your decision regarding our 

dismissal request, please let me know. 

. Last week I received a copy of the Complaint in 

Gonzalez v. Abex Corp., et al., Case No. 92-231225-CV, which also 

names Engelhard as a defendant. Obviously, we would like to 

avoid incurring additional expenses in defense of the four 

actions which now name Engelhard when under the circumstances 

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

a defendant. Accordingly, I request that you give serious and 

BASF Fe 0004405 

£.GHTY PlfroiE STREET 

N!tW 'l'ORJ(~N • .,..tOooa 

1& RUt; ,.FlANljOt8 tu 

7.80Q8 PARI.B t P'RAHCI: 

(202) 862-8941 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

1990 K STREET, N. W. 

WASH~GTON,D.C.20006 

May 18, 1992 

Re: Cuyahoga County Tireworker Actions 

Dear Mr. Economusl 

RADIO "'.0 CA_LE Abtulco.ca 

-~K WMlNIHO'fON-

"c:oTTOP'RANK Htw'tOI'tK' 

-eoTTOI"AAHK ~5· 

f'Ae8IMU.C 201-8ea-eDftD 

On April 23, 1992, I wrote to you to request dismissal 

from three tireworker cases recently filed by your office naming Engelhard Corporation as a defendant. As you recall, Engelhard 

was named in those cases because its former subsidiary, Eastern 

Magnesia Talc Company ('EmTa1'), allegedly sold talc to plain- tiffs' employers. Enclosed with my letter last mont.h were 

various documents demonstrating that talc produced by EmTal from 

its sole mine and mill in Johnson, Vermont contained no asbestos. 

I trust that you have had an opportunity to review those documents. If you have misplaced any of those materials or feel that 

.more information would assist you in your decision regarding our 

dismissal request, please let me know. 

. Last week I received a copy of the Complaint in 

Gonzalez v. Abex Corp., et al., Case No. 92-231225-CV, which also 

names Engelhard as a defendant. Obviously, we would like to 

avoid incurring additional expenses in defense of the four 

actions which now name Engelhard when under the circumstances 

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

a defendant. Accordingly, I request that you give serious and 

BASF Fe 0004405 

£.GHTY PlfroiE STREET 

N!tW 'l'ORJ(~N • .,..tOooa 

1& RUt; ,.FlANljOt8 tu 

7.80Q8 PARI.B t P'RAHCI: 

(202) 862-8941 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

1990 K STREET, N. W. 

WASH~GTON,D.C.20006 

May 18, 1992 

Re: Cuyahoga County Tireworker Actions 

Dear Mr. Economusl 

RADIO "'.0 CA_LE Abtulco.ca 

-~K WMlNIHO'fON-

"c:oTTOP'RANK Htw'tOI'tK' 

-eoTTOI"AAHK ~5· 

f'Ae8IMU.C 201-8ea-eDftD 

On April 23, 1992, I wrote to you to request dismissal 

from three tireworker cases recently filed by your office naming Engelhard Corporation as a defendant. As you recall, Engelhard 

was named in those cases because its former subsidiary, Eastern 

Magnesia Talc Company ('EmTa1'), allegedly sold talc to plain- tiffs' employers. Enclosed with my letter last mont.h were 

various documents demonstrating that talc produced by EmTal from 

its sole mine and mill in Johnson, Vermont contained no asbestos. 

I trust that you have had an opportunity to review those documents. If you have misplaced any of those materials or feel that 

.more information would assist you in your decision regarding our 

dismissal request, please let me know. 

. Last week I received a copy of the Complaint in 

Gonzalez v. Abex Corp., et al., Case No. 92-231225-CV, which also 

names Engelhard as a defendant. Obviously, we would like to 

avoid incurring additional expenses in defense of the four 

actions which now name Engelhard when under the circumstances 

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

a defendant. Accordingly, I request that you give serious and 

BASF Fe 0004405 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 52 of 94 PageID: 13340
CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

-2-

prompt consideration to our dismissal request. 

to discuss this matter further, please call me 

time. 

Dale S. Economus, Esq. 

Bevan & Economus 

10360 Northfield Road 

Northfield, Ohio 44067 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

If you would like 

directly at any 

BASF Fe 0004406 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

-2-

prompt consideration to our dismissal request. 

to discuss this matter further, please call me 

time. 

Dale S. Economus, Esq. 

Bevan & Economus 

10360 Northfield Road 

Northfield, Ohio 44067 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

If you would like 

directly at any 

BASF Fe 0004406 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

-2-

prompt consideration to our dismissal request. 

to discuss this matter further, please call me 

time. 

Dale S. Economus, Esq. 

Bevan & Economus 

10360 Northfield Road 

Northfield, Ohio 44067 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

If you would like 

directly at any 

BASF Fe 0004406 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

-2-

prompt consideration to our dismissal request. 

to discuss this matter further, please call me 

time. 

Dale S. Economus, Esq. 

Bevan & Economus 

10360 Northfield Road 

Northfield, Ohio 44067 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

If you would like 

directly at any 

BASF Fe 0004406 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 53 of 94 PageID: 13341
APPENDIX A, TAB R 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 54 of 94 PageID: 13342
• • 

"1.0YO "."AM. 

"O.':"T A A\.tSISI 

ReG-eft ANDRUS 

MICHAa::C. A .~CKC" 

SUSAN aUCKl.l:V 

KEVIN ..J. aURKIE 

po HEVIN CASTEL 

","'''U:5..J OI..""K 

WALTt:ft c. Ct.,"", ,. e. atHJA""",.J eOHEN 

.JOSE:~H P CONWAY 

NA"SHAL,t. COX 

THOMAS f'. CU'Ui'N 

W LESLIe: DUFn 

PATRIC'A "",RRUf 

8"I'l1' ,." .. COMAN 

CIRO A GAM_ON I 

CH""C.t:. A. OILMAN 

$TI;PHlI;N A. O'U:t:NIt 

Ito. ern" H. HALLMAN 

WIL.LIA~ H. H""TN~TT 

THOMAS I't ,JONCS 

AI.Lt:N S. ,",OSLY).I 

THOMA!I,J ttAVALt:Jt 

LAWRENCE A I<O ... ,N 

""HUEL KOHN 

HARD p. "'RUOMAN 

.1...1,.\'" T Lln.,ANt) 

MICHAtt. MACR'S 

<JONATHAN'."" .... ,.,K 

CAHILL GoRDON & REINDEL 

""NO McQUINN' 

G£f!:AftO M. MC •• TRELI.. 

1'1001:." MELTZER 

0\.,,,,.0"0 \. NICHIU. 

.JOt-Hi .. ~ITCHz:t.L 

MATHI". I: HONe 

OONM.O oJ MUI.VIHILL 

KlttlN.El'H W O"C( 

1'110'1' L I'lEOO!IH 

'UCHARD \., REINHOLD 

DE"'" "'NOEL 

THOft" "OSIENTH"\. 

,ueHARD oJ •• ".ELL.'" H JIIICHA"O SCHUMACUr;,. 

oJOHN .aCHvaTt:" 

LAO"C"C:I: A SIt.Vt:;-"MAN 

HOWArto o • • LO .... tH~ 

LAU,IUNCC T SO,.IiIH 

L£O..., .... "O A SPIVAK 

GlftA\.O S. "TAN[N)fAUH 

."ON .... THAN 0 TH' .... 

MICHAEL,," TllEltHIitY 

ItO.t:ltT UlJAOI 

..JOHN" .... "UGH .... ..., 

OCO"O£ W,A,ILAHD 

Qt.!:"N oJ WAt.O'U,,". oJ,.. 

GA"Y W. WOLF' 

.JOHN It, YOUNG 

OAHtJ;t. oJ. zuaxO"" 

EIGHT\" PlNE STREET 

NEW YORK, N.Y. 10005 

August 4, 1992 

Re: Akron Tireworker Litigation 

Dear Russ and Brian: 

O",VID It HYDE 

OEJ,j"$ t.(cIH£ItHEV ... e. 

tAWIN SI;HHl:fDI;"MAH 

,. ... t. ... H 0 WINGIC" 

.uno" eovlolua. 

CO"VOQN. Dum .. """, 

S"'MUEl., C5TJ1U:U;:HCR 

,.HILII'" A HCIMOWITZ 

MICHA£L' SACKHt::IM 

.JE"""I['( I: SHAfI',fltO 

.JOHN oJ IJTAI-ITQN, .,lit. 

eouH.~1. 

,.,ltEPOV o,.£ •• r::"," IU~~CAH ~H":1. 

W .... HINOTON. 0 C. O""CE 

,,,gO K SnU:I:T, N W 

WASH,NGTON, 0 C 200015 

I:U"O~I:""N O''''CE ," "\.IE ,.,It ... ,..~OI$ ". 

75000 ,.ARIS, F"RANc:t; 

TCLI:X , c",at.c 

ftC" i::JZIO. WUT,,70da 

CAGO UJII c:OTTO,.,. ... NK HVK 

I"AC1UMIt.E 212.zea • .54Z0 

• ... fHoI."lO oe.olou.Y ··A(nIlT'f£D r,.,o,lic;c ONI,Y 

T£LI:"HONt 212.701·3000 

WR'TC""S CI,.ECT HUM a.:" 

(212) 701-3321 

We recently learned that your firm voluntarily dismissed Windsor Minerals, Inc, from the Akron cases some time ago 

after reviewing an affidavit supplied by Windsor. Our client, 

Eastern Magnesia Talc, bought precisely the same mining operations from Windsor in 1967 and operated them until 1983. The 

Windsor affidavit attests to the fact that "all of the talc 

mined by Windsor Minerals, Inc. has been regularly sampled and 

tested for the presence of asbestos. No evidence of the presence of asbestos in Windsor Minerals, Inc. 's product has ever 

been revealed by this testing". (Copies of the affidavit and 

dismissal stipulations are enclosed). 

In light of your dismissal of the predecessor owner 

and operator of these mining operations, Windsor, we urge you to 

voluntarily dismiss BMTal from the remaining Akron cases on the 

same basis. As I have indicated to you in the past, similar 

BASF FC 0014436 

• • 

"1.0YO "."AM. 

"O.':"T A A\.tSISI 

ReG-eft ANDRUS 

MICHAa::C. A .~CKC" 

SUSAN aUCKl.l:V 

KEVIN ..J. aURKIE 

po HEVIN CASTEL 

","'''U:5..J OI..""K 

WALTt:ft c. Ct.,"", ,. e. atHJA""",.J eOHEN 

.JOSE:~H P CONWAY 

NA"SHAL,t. COX 

THOMAS f'. CU'Ui'N 

W LESLIe: DUFn 

PATRIC'A "",RRUf 

8"I'l1' ,." .. COMAN 

CIRO A GAM_ON I 

CH""C.t:. A. OILMAN 

$TI;PHlI;N A. O'U:t:NIt 

Ito. ern" H. HALLMAN 

WIL.LIA~ H. H""TN~TT 

THOMAS I't ,JONCS 

AI.Lt:N S. ,",OSLY).I 

THOMA!I,J ttAVALt:Jt 

LAWRENCE A I<O ... ,N 

""HUEL KOHN 

HARD p. "'RUOMAN 

.1...1,.\'" T Lln.,ANt) 

MICHAtt. MACR'S 

<JONATHAN'."" .... ,.,K 

CAHILL GoRDON & REINDEL 

""NO McQUINN' 

G£f!:AftO M. MC •• TRELI.. 

1'1001:." MELTZER 

0\.,,,,.0"0 \. NICHIU. 

.JOt-Hi .. ~ITCHz:t.L 

MATHI". I: HONe 

OONM.O oJ MUI.VIHILL 

KlttlN.El'H W O"C( 

1'110'1' L I'lEOO!IH 

'UCHARD \., REINHOLD 

DE"'" "'NOEL 

THOft" "OSIENTH"\. 

,ueHARD oJ •• ".ELL.'" H JIIICHA"O SCHUMACUr;,. 

oJOHN .aCHvaTt:" 

LAO"C"C:I: A SIt.Vt:;-"MAN 

HOWArto o • • LO .... tH~ 

LAU,IUNCC T SO,.IiIH 

L£O..., .... "O A SPIVAK 

GlftA\.O S. "TAN[N)fAUH 

."ON .... THAN 0 TH' .... 

MICHAEL,," TllEltHIitY 

ItO.t:ltT UlJAOI 

..JOHN" .... "UGH .... ..., 

OCO"O£ W,A,ILAHD 

Qt.!:"N oJ WAt.O'U,,". oJ,.. 

GA"Y W. WOLF' 

.JOHN It, YOUNG 

OAHtJ;t. oJ. zuaxO"" 

EIGHT\" PlNE STREET 

NEW YORK, N.Y. 10005 

August 4, 1992 

Re: Akron Tireworker Litigation 

Dear Russ and Brian: 

O",VID It HYDE 

OEJ,j"$ t.(cIH£ItHEV ... e. 

tAWIN SI;HHl:fDI;"MAH 

,. ... t. ... H 0 WINGIC" 

.uno" eovlolua. 

CO"VOQN. Dum .. """, 

S"'MUEl., C5TJ1U:U;:HCR 

,.HILII'" A HCIMOWITZ 

MICHA£L' SACKHt::IM 

.JE"""I['( I: SHAfI',fltO 

.JOHN oJ IJTAI-ITQN, .,lit. 

eouH.~1. 

,.,ltEPOV o,.£ •• r::"," IU~~CAH ~H":1. 

W .... HINOTON. 0 C. O""CE 

,,,gO K SnU:I:T, N W 

WASH,NGTON, 0 C 200015 

I:U"O~I:""N O''''CE ," "\.IE ,.,It ... ,..~OI$ ". 

75000 ,.ARIS, F"RANc:t; 

TCLI:X , c",at.c 

ftC" i::JZIO. WUT,,70da 

CAGO UJII c:OTTO,.,. ... NK HVK 

I"AC1UMIt.E 212.zea • .54Z0 

• ... fHoI."lO oe.olou.Y ··A(nIlT'f£D r,.,o,lic;c ONI,Y 

T£LI:"HONt 212.701·3000 

WR'TC""S CI,.ECT HUM a.:" 

(212) 701-3321 

We recently learned that your firm voluntarily dismissed Windsor Minerals, Inc, from the Akron cases some time ago 

after reviewing an affidavit supplied by Windsor. Our client, 

Eastern Magnesia Talc, bought precisely the same mining operations from Windsor in 1967 and operated them until 1983. The 

Windsor affidavit attests to the fact that "all of the talc 

mined by Windsor Minerals, Inc. has been regularly sampled and 

tested for the presence of asbestos. No evidence of the presence of asbestos in Windsor Minerals, Inc. 's product has ever 

been revealed by this testing". (Copies of the affidavit and 

dismissal stipulations are enclosed). 

In light of your dismissal of the predecessor owner 

and operator of these mining operations, Windsor, we urge you to 

voluntarily dismiss BMTal from the remaining Akron cases on the 

same basis. As I have indicated to you in the past, similar 

BASF FC 0014436 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 55 of 94 PageID: 13343
;. 

CAIULL GORDON & RE:1NDEL 

-2-

orders have been signed by plaintiffs' counsel in numerous 

jurisdictions around the country after concluding that there was 

no asbestos in the EMTal product. 

A. Russell Smith, Esq. Brian R. Nace, Esq. 

Laybourne, Smith, Gore 

& Goldsmith 

503 Society Building 

159 South Main Street 

Akron, Ohio 44308-1317 

BASF Fe 0014437 

;. 

CAIULL GORDON & RE:1NDEL 

-2-

orders have been signed by plaintiffs' counsel in numerous 

jurisdictions around the country after concluding that there was 

no asbestos in the EMTal product. 

A. Russell Smith, Esq. Brian R. Nace, Esq. 

Laybourne, Smith, Gore 

& Goldsmith 

503 Society Building 

159 South Main Street 

Akron, Ohio 44308-1317 

BASF Fe 0014437 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 56 of 94 PageID: 13344
........ -

IN THE COURT OF COMMON P!.US 

SUMMIT COUN'r.l, OHIO 

FAYE MILLER, Individually 

and as Administratrix ot the 

Estate of ROBERT R. MILLER,' 

Deceased, 3026 Lijke James Ter~ace, Akron, Ohio 44312 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

A.C. & S., INC., et al. 

Defendants. 

: 

. 

• 

CASE NO. ACVaS4-1087 

J1.JDGE CARROL!. 

AFFIPAVIT 

ROGER N. MILLER, being duly sworn, according to law, 

upon his oath, depO$es and says: 

1. I am the President of Windsor Minerals, Inc. and 

have held that position since 1968 when Windsor Minerals, Inc. 

was first formed. 

2. The exclusive business of Windsor Minerals, Inc. is 

and has been the mining and milling of talc from a single 

mining district in Windsor, Vermont. In addition, Windsor 

Minerals, Inc. also sells a portion of its product to 

independent industrial ~serS for manufacturing purposes. 

WinQ$or Mineral$, Inc. never sold any of its product to 

distributors or 8gents for re$ale. 

BASF Fe 0014438 

........ -

IN THE COURT OF COMMON P!.US 

SUMMIT COUN'r.l, OHIO 

FAYE MILLER, Individually 

and as Administratrix ot the 

Estate of ROBERT R. MILLER,' 

Deceased, 3026 Lijke James Ter~ace, Akron, Ohio 44312 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

A.C. & S., INC., et al. 

Defendants. 

: 

. 

• 

CASE NO. ACVaS4-1087 

J1.JDGE CARROL!. 

AFFIPAVIT 

ROGER N. MILLER, being duly sworn, according to law, 

upon his oath, depO$es and says: 

1. I am the President of Windsor Minerals, Inc. and 

have held that position since 1968 when Windsor Minerals, Inc. 

was first formed. 

2. The exclusive business of Windsor Minerals, Inc. is 

and has been the mining and milling of talc from a single 

mining district in Windsor, Vermont. In addition, Windsor 

Minerals, Inc. also sells a portion of its product to 

independent industrial ~serS for manufacturing purposes. 

WinQ$or Mineral$, Inc. never sold any of its product to 

distributors or 8gents for re$ale. 

BASF Fe 0014438 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 57 of 94 PageID: 13345
I 

)I., 

, 

, . 

.. ....- -: .... _-._ .... ... Jow ...... , __ ........... . 

3. : Win~sor Minerals, Inc. has never sold any of its 

product to the General Tire and Rubber Company in Akron, Ohio. 

or any other tire manufacturing facility or rubber eompany. 

4. ~ll of the talc mined by Windsor Minerals, Inc. has 

been re9ul~rly sampled and tested for the presence of 

asbestos. No evidence of the presence ot asbestos in Windsor 

Mineral, Inc. '5 product has ever been revealed by this testing. 

Sworn to and subscribed 

before me this ~r~L~Lb~ __ _ day of July, 1988. 

---_.-----._--

BASF Fe 0014439 

I 

)I., 

, 

, . 

.. ....- -: .... _-._ .... ... Jow ...... , __ ........... . 

3. : Win~sor Minerals, Inc. has never sold any of its 

product to the General Tire and Rubber Company in Akron, Ohio. 

or any other tire manufacturing facility or rubber eompany. 

4. ~ll of the talc mined by Windsor Minerals, Inc. has 

been re9ul~rly sampled and tested for the presence of 

asbestos. No evidence of the presence ot asbestos in Windsor 

Mineral, Inc. '5 product has ever been revealed by this testing. 

Sworn to and subscribed 

before me this ~r~L~Lb~ __ _ day of July, 1988. 

---_.-----._--

BASF Fe 0014439 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 58 of 94 PageID: 13346
APPENDIX A, TAB S 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 59 of 94 PageID: 13347
IIlaHT\' "U'i: .""'CIT 

HEW YO'IIJ~.,N. Y.IOOO. 

I. RUt ,."-'NItC> •• I'" 

,IQo ..... "1., r'v.HC~ 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

1990 K STREET. N. W .• 

WASHINOTON,D.C.Z0006 

" .... 'e 4l1li0 C..la ... otun: •••• 

.~t( '-'HIM9TQH'" 

~I<H~.t 

con~K~.· 

YAC.IM'IoC 110.· ••• • ..... 

'W'1Ul'U"5 :UP-aCT I);I4.L 1tVVJIU 

/ 

202-862-8941 DeCtllWar 4, 1992 

1. Ra: Tirework.r Litigation 

near TOD: 

I enjoyed the opportunity to discuss the tireworker 

oas.s with you today. As I ~entioned on the phone, all t.sts ot 

EMTAL talo and surveys of the sole mine and Dill operated by Eastern Hagn •• ia Talc Company, looated in John.on, Vermont, have 

determined that the talc produoed from the Johnaon Din. contained 

DQ asbestos. The Affidavit of Williaa H. Ashton, a copy of which 

I enclose for your reterenoe, aumaarize. thia evidenoe. 

Pleas. call if you have any quastiona regarding the 

enclosed material. 

Thomas F. Martello, Euq. Miohael F. Colley Co., L.P.A. 

536 South High street 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

[Enclosure] 

BASF Fe 0003901 

IIlaHT\' "U'i: .""'CIT 

HEW YO'IIJ~.,N. Y.IOOO. 

I. RUt ,."-'NItC> •• I'" 

,IQo ..... "1., r'v.HC~ 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

1990 K STREET. N. W .• 

WASHINOTON,D.C.Z0006 

" .... 'e 4l1li0 C..la ... otun: •••• 

.~t( '-'HIM9TQH'" 

~I<H~.t 

con~K~.· 

YAC.IM'IoC 110.· ••• • ..... 

'W'1Ul'U"5 :UP-aCT I);I4.L 1tVVJIU 

/ 

202-862-8941 DeCtllWar 4, 1992 

1. Ra: Tirework.r Litigation 

near TOD: 

I enjoyed the opportunity to discuss the tireworker 

oas.s with you today. As I ~entioned on the phone, all t.sts ot 

EMTAL talo and surveys of the sole mine and Dill operated by Eastern Hagn •• ia Talc Company, looated in John.on, Vermont, have 

determined that the talc produoed from the Johnaon Din. contained 

DQ asbestos. The Affidavit of Williaa H. Ashton, a copy of which 

I enclose for your reterenoe, aumaarize. thia evidenoe. 

Pleas. call if you have any quastiona regarding the 

enclosed material. 

Thomas F. Martello, Euq. Miohael F. Colley Co., L.P.A. 

536 South High street 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

[Enclosure] 

BASF Fe 0003901 

IIlaHT\' "U'i: .""'CIT 

HEW YO'IIJ~.,N. Y.IOOO. 

I. RUt ,."-'NItC> •• I'" 

,IQo ..... "1., r'v.HC~ 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

1990 K STREET. N. W .• 

WASHINOTON,D.C.Z0006 

" .... 'e 4l1li0 C..la ... otun: •••• 

.~t( '-'HIM9TQH'" 

~I<H~.t 

con~K~.· 

YAC.IM'IoC 110.· ••• • ..... 

'W'1Ul'U"5 :UP-aCT I);I4.L 1tVVJIU 

/ 

202-862-8941 DeCtllWar 4, 1992 

1. Ra: Tirework.r Litigation 

near TOD: 

I enjoyed the opportunity to discuss the tireworker 

oas.s with you today. As I ~entioned on the phone, all t.sts ot 

EMTAL talo and surveys of the sole mine and Dill operated by Eastern Hagn •• ia Talc Company, looated in John.on, Vermont, have 

determined that the talc produoed from the Johnaon Din. contained 

DQ asbestos. The Affidavit of Williaa H. Ashton, a copy of which 

I enclose for your reterenoe, aumaarize. thia evidenoe. 

Pleas. call if you have any quastiona regarding the 

enclosed material. 

Thomas F. Martello, Euq. Miohael F. Colley Co., L.P.A. 

536 South High street 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

[Enclosure] 

BASF Fe 0003901 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 60 of 94 PageID: 13348
APPENDIX A, TAB T 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 61 of 94 PageID: 13349
EfGH'tY PINE aTR~t:T 

HEW YO~"IN+Y.IOOoa 

19 AUE FR"'N~OIO J~ 

76000 PARI B, PR"NCf! 

(202) 862-8941 

CAIUl.l. GORDON & REINDEL Ii. PARfNIHUU'lIP tNCLUDINQ ... PRor,CtlIONA,- ~ORPOA"TION 

1990 K STREET. K W. 

'VASHINQTON. D.C. 20006 

RADIO AND CABLE ADOAaODC(!o 

·CDJ'TOm..\NK WNJHJNOTOW" 

'"eOTTOnasK N!:W't'ORK' 

"COT'ToTRANK PAALS~ 

FACSIMILE 202-86a-9966 

December 21, 1992 

Re: Cuyahoga County Tireworker Actions 

Dear Mr. Economus: 

To confirm our telephone conversation this afternoon, 

you have agreed to respond by Thursday, December 31, 1992 to 

Engelhard Corporation's request for dismissal from five 

tireworker cases filed by your office this year. As you know, 

Engelhard's answer to the most recent complaint, James v. ~ 

Corp., is due the first week of January 1993. 

Engelhard was named in these cases solely because its 

former subsidiary, Eastern Magnesia Talc Company ("ENTal") allegedly sold talc to plaintiffs' employers. As demonstrated in the 

various affidavits and other documents forwarded to you with my 

previous correspondence, talc produced by EMTal from its sole 

mine and mill in Johnson, Vermont contained no asbestos. The 

alleged diagnosis of the plaintiff in each or-the actions in 

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

disease, which cannot be attributed to EMTal talc. 

If you require additional copies of any of the materials previously sent to you, please let me know as soon as possible. If I am out of the office, please feel free to discuss this 

BASF Fe 0000286 

EfGH'tY PINE aTR~t:T 

HEW YO~"IN+Y.IOOoa 

19 AUE FR"'N~OIO J~ 

76000 PARI B, PR"NCf! 

(202) 862-8941 

CAIUl.l. GORDON & REINDEL Ii. PARfNIHUU'lIP tNCLUDINQ ... PRor,CtlIONA,- ~ORPOA"TION 

1990 K STREET. K W. 

'VASHINQTON. D.C. 20006 

RADIO AND CABLE ADOAaODC(!o 

·CDJ'TOm..\NK WNJHJNOTOW" 

'"eOTTOnasK N!:W't'ORK' 

"COT'ToTRANK PAALS~ 

FACSIMILE 202-86a-9966 

December 21, 1992 

Re: Cuyahoga County Tireworker Actions 

Dear Mr. Economus: 

To confirm our telephone conversation this afternoon, 

you have agreed to respond by Thursday, December 31, 1992 to 

Engelhard Corporation's request for dismissal from five 

tireworker cases filed by your office this year. As you know, 

Engelhard's answer to the most recent complaint, James v. ~ 

Corp., is due the first week of January 1993. 

Engelhard was named in these cases solely because its 

former subsidiary, Eastern Magnesia Talc Company ("ENTal") allegedly sold talc to plaintiffs' employers. As demonstrated in the 

various affidavits and other documents forwarded to you with my 

previous correspondence, talc produced by EMTal from its sole 

mine and mill in Johnson, Vermont contained no asbestos. The 

alleged diagnosis of the plaintiff in each or-the actions in 

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

disease, which cannot be attributed to EMTal talc. 

If you require additional copies of any of the materials previously sent to you, please let me know as soon as possible. If I am out of the office, please feel free to discuss this 

BASF Fe 0000286 

EfGH'tY PINE aTR~t:T 

HEW YO~"IN+Y.IOOoa 

19 AUE FR"'N~OIO J~ 

76000 PARI B, PR"NCf! 

(202) 862-8941 

CAIUl.l. GORDON & REINDEL Ii. PARfNIHUU'lIP tNCLUDINQ ... PRor,CtlIONA,- ~ORPOA"TION 

1990 K STREET. K W. 

'VASHINQTON. D.C. 20006 

RADIO AND CABLE ADOAaODC(!o 

·CDJ'TOm..\NK WNJHJNOTOW" 

'"eOTTOnasK N!:W't'ORK' 

"COT'ToTRANK PAALS~ 

FACSIMILE 202-86a-9966 

December 21, 1992 

Re: Cuyahoga County Tireworker Actions 

Dear Mr. Economus: 

To confirm our telephone conversation this afternoon, 

you have agreed to respond by Thursday, December 31, 1992 to 

Engelhard Corporation's request for dismissal from five 

tireworker cases filed by your office this year. As you know, 

Engelhard's answer to the most recent complaint, James v. ~ 

Corp., is due the first week of January 1993. 

Engelhard was named in these cases solely because its 

former subsidiary, Eastern Magnesia Talc Company ("ENTal") allegedly sold talc to plaintiffs' employers. As demonstrated in the 

various affidavits and other documents forwarded to you with my 

previous correspondence, talc produced by EMTal from its sole 

mine and mill in Johnson, Vermont contained no asbestos. The 

alleged diagnosis of the plaintiff in each or-the actions in 

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

disease, which cannot be attributed to EMTal talc. 

If you require additional copies of any of the materials previously sent to you, please let me know as soon as possible. If I am out of the office, please feel free to discuss this 

BASF Fe 0000286 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 62 of 94 PageID: 13350
C.,uULL GOHDON & REINDEL 

-2-

matter with Peter Sloane in our New York office, whose direct 

line is 212-701-3321. I look forward to hearing from you. 

Dale S. Econornus, Esq. 

Bevan & Economus 

10360 Northfield Road 

Northfield, Ohio 44067 

VIA FACSIMILE & MAIL 

trulY(OUrS t 

BASF Fe 0000287 

C.,uULL GOHDON & REINDEL 

-2-

matter with Peter Sloane in our New York office, whose direct 

line is 212-701-3321. I look forward to hearing from you. 

Dale S. Econornus, Esq. 

Bevan & Economus 

10360 Northfield Road 

Northfield, Ohio 44067 

VIA FACSIMILE & MAIL 

trulY(OUrS t 

BASF Fe 0000287 

C.,uULL GOHDON & REINDEL 

-2-

matter with Peter Sloane in our New York office, whose direct 

line is 212-701-3321. I look forward to hearing from you. 

Dale S. Econornus, Esq. 

Bevan & Economus 

10360 Northfield Road 

Northfield, Ohio 44067 

VIA FACSIMILE & MAIL 

trulY(OUrS t 

BASF Fe 0000287 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 63 of 94 PageID: 13351
APPENDIX A, TAB U 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 64 of 94 PageID: 13352
.. 

EIGHTY PIN£: STRtE" 

NEW yORK ..... Y,IOOOB 

19 A'\H" "R"'N~OI6 I"'" 

7B006 PARIS, FRANCE: 

"'IRITJ!R S DIRECT DIAL NUMD1:.R 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

1990 K STREET.}\ W. 

WASHINOTON. D. C. 20006 

TElZPIION.E: ;oJOa·eaa·89QO R"olo A~O CA.I,.£ AtJORCIU\Ca 

·CO'n'OJI'IIAHM WASHINOTON" 

-ConOf'RAHK NEVrrTOA"o 

"eonO~M PARIS' 

F"CSIMILt" BOR-86!'6f;166 

202-862-8941 February 4, 1993 

Re: CUyahoga county Tireworker Actions 

Dear Tom: 

As you requested last month, I have prepared and ~ 

enclosing notices of dismissal for your signature and filing regarding the dismissal of Engelhard Minerals & CheMicals Company from five recently-filed tireworker actions in Cuyahoga county, 

on the basis of our correspondence demonstrating that talc 

produced by Engelhard's former subsididary, Eastern Magnesia Talc 

company ("EMTaln), contained no asbestos. I apologize for the 

delay in getting these documents tOiaSYtO;U1,~b~u~t~I~h~a~v~e~be~e=n~c~aU~g:h~t __ -. J.OV- .. nor--ad. a lout of town for 1;he-..last weeks. 

As you probably already know, four of the five actions 

have been removed to federal court by Canadian defendants. The 

dismissals for these four actions should be filed with the clerk 

of the united States District Court for the Northern District of 

Ohio (the federal docket numbers are noted on the notices of 

dismissal) for entry by Judge Lambros, and a copy should be sent 

to Judge Charles R. Weiner of the United states District Court 

for the Eastern District of pennsylvania, as the cases have now 

entered the Multidistrict Litigation. I am informed by the clerk 

for the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas that no notice of 

reMoval has been filed for the most recent case, Anthony James, 

and accordingly the notice of dismissal for that case should be 

filed in state court. 

, ormer distributor, C.P. 

Hall company, is named in these actions as well. If C.P. Hall is 

named 2nlY as a distributor of EMTal talc, then C.P. Hall should 

be dismissed as well. To the extent, however, that C.P. Hall is 

also named as a defendant for having sold or distributed other 

prodUcts to the plants at issue, I will understand C.P. Hall's 

continued presence in the litigation not to be attributable to 

sales or distribution of EMTal talc. Please let me know which of 

the above is the case. 

Thank you again for your attention to these matters. 

Please return copies of the signed notices of dismissal in the 

BASF Fe 0004428 

.. 

EIGHTY PIN£: STRtE" 

NEW yORK ..... Y,IOOOB 

19 A'\H" "R"'N~OI6 I"'" 

7B006 PARIS, FRANCE: 

"'IRITJ!R S DIRECT DIAL NUMD1:.R 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

1990 K STREET.}\ W. 

WASHINOTON. D. C. 20006 

TElZPIION.E: ;oJOa·eaa·89QO R"olo A~O CA.I,.£ AtJORCIU\Ca 

·CO'n'OJI'IIAHM WASHINOTON" 

-ConOf'RAHK NEVrrTOA"o 

"eonO~M PARIS' 

F"CSIMILt" BOR-86!'6f;166 

202-862-8941 February 4, 1993 

Re: CUyahoga county Tireworker Actions 

Dear Tom: 

As you requested last month, I have prepared and ~ 

enclosing notices of dismissal for your signature and filing regarding the dismissal of Engelhard Minerals & CheMicals Company from five recently-filed tireworker actions in Cuyahoga county, 

on the basis of our correspondence demonstrating that talc 

produced by Engelhard's former subsididary, Eastern Magnesia Talc 

company ("EMTaln), contained no asbestos. I apologize for the 

delay in getting these documents tOiaSYtO;U1,~b~u~t~I~h~a~v~e~be~e=n~c~aU~g:h~t __ -. J.OV- .. nor--ad. a lout of town for 1;he-..last weeks. 

As you probably already know, four of the five actions 

have been removed to federal court by Canadian defendants. The 

dismissals for these four actions should be filed with the clerk 

of the united States District Court for the Northern District of 

Ohio (the federal docket numbers are noted on the notices of 

dismissal) for entry by Judge Lambros, and a copy should be sent 

to Judge Charles R. Weiner of the United states District Court 

for the Eastern District of pennsylvania, as the cases have now 

entered the Multidistrict Litigation. I am informed by the clerk 

for the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas that no notice of 

reMoval has been filed for the most recent case, Anthony James, 

and accordingly the notice of dismissal for that case should be 

filed in state court. 

, ormer distributor, C.P. 

Hall company, is named in these actions as well. If C.P. Hall is 

named 2nlY as a distributor of EMTal talc, then C.P. Hall should 

be dismissed as well. To the extent, however, that C.P. Hall is 

also named as a defendant for having sold or distributed other 

prodUcts to the plants at issue, I will understand C.P. Hall's 

continued presence in the litigation not to be attributable to 

sales or distribution of EMTal talc. Please let me know which of 

the above is the case. 

Thank you again for your attention to these matters. 

Please return copies of the signed notices of dismissal in the 

BASF Fe 0004428 

.. 

EIGHTY PIN£: STRtE" 

NEW yORK ..... Y,IOOOB 

19 A'\H" "R"'N~OI6 I"'" 

7B006 PARIS, FRANCE: 

"'IRITJ!R S DIRECT DIAL NUMD1:.R 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

1990 K STREET.}\ W. 

WASHINOTON. D. C. 20006 

TElZPIION.E: ;oJOa·eaa·89QO R"olo A~O CA.I,.£ AtJORCIU\Ca 

·CO'n'OJI'IIAHM WASHINOTON" 

-ConOf'RAHK NEVrrTOA"o 

"eonO~M PARIS' 

F"CSIMILt" BOR-86!'6f;166 

202-862-8941 February 4, 1993 

Re: CUyahoga county Tireworker Actions 

Dear Tom: 

As you requested last month, I have prepared and ~ 

enclosing notices of dismissal for your signature and filing regarding the dismissal of Engelhard Minerals & CheMicals Company from five recently-filed tireworker actions in Cuyahoga county, 

on the basis of our correspondence demonstrating that talc 

produced by Engelhard's former subsididary, Eastern Magnesia Talc 

company ("EMTaln), contained no asbestos. I apologize for the 

delay in getting these documents tOiaSYtO;U1,~b~u~t~I~h~a~v~e~be~e=n~c~aU~g:h~t __ -. J.OV- .. nor--ad. a lout of town for 1;he-..last weeks. 

As you probably already know, four of the five actions 

have been removed to federal court by Canadian defendants. The 

dismissals for these four actions should be filed with the clerk 

of the united States District Court for the Northern District of 

Ohio (the federal docket numbers are noted on the notices of 

dismissal) for entry by Judge Lambros, and a copy should be sent 

to Judge Charles R. Weiner of the United states District Court 

for the Eastern District of pennsylvania, as the cases have now 

entered the Multidistrict Litigation. I am informed by the clerk 

for the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas that no notice of 

reMoval has been filed for the most recent case, Anthony James, 

and accordingly the notice of dismissal for that case should be 

filed in state court. 

, ormer distributor, C.P. 

Hall company, is named in these actions as well. If C.P. Hall is 

named 2nlY as a distributor of EMTal talc, then C.P. Hall should 

be dismissed as well. To the extent, however, that C.P. Hall is 

also named as a defendant for having sold or distributed other 

prodUcts to the plants at issue, I will understand C.P. Hall's 

continued presence in the litigation not to be attributable to 

sales or distribution of EMTal talc. Please let me know which of 

the above is the case. 

Thank you again for your attention to these matters. 

Please return copies of the signed notices of dismissal in the 

BASF Fe 0004428 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 65 of 94 PageID: 13353
j CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

-2-

enclosed self-addressed postpaid envelope, and call me directly 

if you have any questions. Best regards. 

Thomas W. Bevan, 

10360 Northfield 

Northfield, ohio 

[Enclosures] 

Esq. 

Road 

44067 

VIA FEDERAl' EXPRESS 

BASF Fe 0004429 

j CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

-2-

enclosed self-addressed postpaid envelope, and call me directly 

if you have any questions. Best regards. 

Thomas W. Bevan, 

10360 Northfield 

Northfield, ohio 

[Enclosures] 

Esq. 

Road 

44067 

VIA FEDERAl' EXPRESS 

BASF Fe 0004429 

j CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL 

-2-

enclosed self-addressed postpaid envelope, and call me directly 

if you have any questions. Best regards. 

Thomas W. Bevan, 

10360 Northfield 

Northfield, ohio 

[Enclosures] 

Esq. 

Road 

44067 

VIA FEDERAl' EXPRESS 

BASF Fe 0004429 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 66 of 94 PageID: 13354
APPENDIX A, TAB V 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 67 of 94 PageID: 13355
' .. 

EIGHTY PINe: STREE:T 

N£W YORK,H.Y.WOOS 

" 

, 

" 

:"".'" " ~ J, 

• ".~;",., of '. 

CAHILL' CORDO;' & R'~YN·D'i.£ ,;., , " P"'flTfl~R5H!J mcluJDiH" I>. P~Of'l;S"IO·1'I"'1.. t:Oi!>PQIIATIOH 

; l,;~d K Sft!E1n. N, W. 

!W..\.sa:dWTON, 'D, G, Z0006 , 'I I' -'.L Y:kx.i:PBONE ~62;'8e:a~e90o I I ' 

i 

:t . ! .. ~., , 

'1 ~:..',. 

R.4OIO "'''10 CAUL!;: AOORE:"SI!JCS 

"c;crrrorn"N~ WAS";INO';~N: 

'COTTOF'RAHK N~fl,:"'· 

·COTTOFRANK PA1US·,·-1 ; Iii RUE ~RANyOI5 In 

750'06 PAl'ttS.FA .... NCE 

+! FACSIMH_~ 202~ee2:.895o' " :'.~ 

WR1T1!R'S DIRECT D1ALNVl!DER 

I .1-1 i 

a

l c," ount! e orker A tion 

202-862";8941 February 22, 1993 

Re: Cu 

;{ 

Dear Tom: , ! lY. ' 1; ,~-;~ .. 

I am pleased toiresponal):o .your letter dated February , 11, 1993, concerning 4ism~s~al of['Engell\ard corporation f:rom five 

recently-filed actions. The FebrUary ,24,' 1950 letter you" 

enclosed should 'in no I way I aitery;our :previously expressed 

decision', to dismiss Engelhard from' the!le Cases. ' , i J I'. 

" The companyj ref~r~nced iln t)l", 1950 ,correspondence is 

not our client, nor was iJ: owned/by our client. That company in 

fact operated several!mine~ in ~Waterbury and Johnson, 

Vennont" and the letter',dbes not {indicate from which of those 

locatipns workers may! hav~ Jbeen~'i!:.1ray,e'd, I do not know of ,any 

follow-up study or publication,relating to workers at either of 

those locations, and ;thatl dompailY'tis 'long' since defunct. 

Regardless, Engelhard's iolimer'subsidiary operated !lli1.Y a 

Johnson" Vermont minEl, arid) in faCt", did not begin that mining 

and mil~ing operation untit sevepteenyears later, from October 

1967 until 1983, ) J I 'I'" , I' , , Beginning ~ith.lm§ fir~~ reqlles,~ for dismis~al last 

Apr11, I sent your f1rm"voluminouE,l,mat",r1als concerm,ng the 

Johnson mine, In reachih91 your ~de.cision,'to dismiss Engelhard, 

your firm reviewed, inter alia;",jthe Affidavit of William H. 

Ashton, which summar.~ze~:! !1um~~C?tt,s:- :in~esti9'ati?ns, ex;:unin'ations, 

and studies of the Johnsonj minel<:":·,The conclus10n der1ved from all 

of th,;,se studies is ~hat'I' t,n!> t,~'~c',l?roduced from this mine d~d not 

conta1n asbestos, The only ana~ys1S which we have not prev10usly 

forwarded to you is bne Qust co*pleted by the R', J. Lee Group 

which showed no evidence' eff asbestos minerals nor of their non- , , ) I • , 

fibroUS analogs', and' found',the, talc to be 'a platy, non-fibrous 

variety,. I' shOuld a'dd that amot"j,'the:'witnesses we have 'retained 

on this point is, thEl, lea'ding geb,logist:in Vermont, who will also 

confirm these facts}; .... , I' ' ,. ,I:' : .. ,', ',' " ,I ',! : " 

In sum, t~ere lis no "bksis fo~ maintaining Engelhard as 

a named defendant irt th.lsJ. :actiops,.r These plaintiffs allege 

injuries as a result ,6f:!,elqSosur'" to ,asb'estos and . "asbestos 

! .. ,! ,;,) ~. ' 

,t 

,'I :1 

'. 

" 

~ I .' ,} 

." 

:1 

1/ 

It 

" 

~ ; 

, ' ' 

,'" 

' .. 

EIGHTY PINe: STREE:T 

N£W YORK,H.Y.WOOS 

" 

, 

" 

:"".'" " ~ J, 

• ".~;",., of '. 

CAHILL' CORDO;' & R'~YN·D'i.£ ,;., , " P"'flTfl~R5H!J mcluJDiH" I>. P~Of'l;S"IO·1'I"'1.. t:Oi!>PQIIATIOH 

; l,;~d K Sft!E1n. N, W. 

!W..\.sa:dWTON, 'D, G, Z0006 , 'I I' -'.L Y:kx.i:PBONE ~62;'8e:a~e90o I I ' 

i 

:t . ! .. ~., , 

'1 ~:..',. 

R.4OIO "'''10 CAUL!;: AOORE:"SI!JCS 

"c;crrrorn"N~ WAS";INO';~N: 

'COTTOF'RAHK N~fl,:"'· 

·COTTOFRANK PA1US·,·-1 ; Iii RUE ~RANyOI5 In 

750'06 PAl'ttS.FA .... NCE 

+! FACSIMH_~ 202~ee2:.895o' " :'.~ 

WR1T1!R'S DIRECT D1ALNVl!DER 

I .1-1 i 

a

l c," ount! e orker A tion 

202-862";8941 February 22, 1993 

Re: Cu 

;{ 

Dear Tom: , ! lY. ' 1; ,~-;~ .. 

I am pleased toiresponal):o .your letter dated February , 11, 1993, concerning 4ism~s~al of['Engell\ard corporation f:rom five 

recently-filed actions. The FebrUary ,24,' 1950 letter you" 

enclosed should 'in no I way I aitery;our :previously expressed 

decision', to dismiss Engelhard from' the!le Cases. ' , i J I'. 

" The companyj ref~r~nced iln t)l", 1950 ,correspondence is 

not our client, nor was iJ: owned/by our client. That company in 

fact operated several!mine~ in ~Waterbury and Johnson, 

Vennont" and the letter',dbes not {indicate from which of those 

locatipns workers may! hav~ Jbeen~'i!:.1ray,e'd, I do not know of ,any 

follow-up study or publication,relating to workers at either of 

those locations, and ;thatl dompailY'tis 'long' since defunct. 

Regardless, Engelhard's iolimer'subsidiary operated !lli1.Y a 

Johnson" Vermont minEl, arid) in faCt", did not begin that mining 

and mil~ing operation untit sevepteenyears later, from October 

1967 until 1983, ) J I 'I'" , I' , , Beginning ~ith.lm§ fir~~ reqlles,~ for dismis~al last 

Apr11, I sent your f1rm"voluminouE,l,mat",r1als concerm,ng the 

Johnson mine, In reachih91 your ~de.cision,'to dismiss Engelhard, 

your firm reviewed, inter alia;",jthe Affidavit of William H. 

Ashton, which summar.~ze~:! !1um~~C?tt,s:- :in~esti9'ati?ns, ex;:unin'ations, 

and studies of the Johnsonj minel<:":·,The conclus10n der1ved from all 

of th,;,se studies is ~hat'I' t,n!> t,~'~c',l?roduced from this mine d~d not 

conta1n asbestos, The only ana~ys1S which we have not prev10usly 

forwarded to you is bne Qust co*pleted by the R', J. Lee Group 

which showed no evidence' eff asbestos minerals nor of their non- , , ) I • , 

fibroUS analogs', and' found',the, talc to be 'a platy, non-fibrous 

variety,. I' shOuld a'dd that amot"j,'the:'witnesses we have 'retained 

on this point is, thEl, lea'ding geb,logist:in Vermont, who will also 

confirm these facts}; .... , I' ' ,. ,I:' : .. ,', ',' " ,I ',! : " 

In sum, t~ere lis no "bksis fo~ maintaining Engelhard as 

a named defendant irt th.lsJ. :actiops,.r These plaintiffs allege 

injuries as a result ,6f:!,elqSosur'" to ,asb'estos and . "asbestos 

! .. ,! ,;,) ~. ' 

,t 

,'I :1 

'. 

" 

~ I .' ,} 

." 

:1 

1/ 

It 

" 

~ ; 

, ' ' 

,'" 

' .. 

EIGHTY PINe: STREE:T 

N£W YORK,H.Y.WOOS 

" 

, 

" 

:"".'" " ~ J, 

• ".~;",., of '. 

CAHILL' CORDO;' & R'~YN·D'i.£ ,;., , " P"'flTfl~R5H!J mcluJDiH" I>. P~Of'l;S"IO·1'I"'1.. t:Oi!>PQIIATIOH 

; l,;~d K Sft!E1n. N, W. 

!W..\.sa:dWTON, 'D, G, Z0006 , 'I I' -'.L Y:kx.i:PBONE ~62;'8e:a~e90o I I ' 

i 

:t . ! .. ~., , 

'1 ~:..',. 

R.4OIO "'''10 CAUL!;: AOORE:"SI!JCS 

"c;crrrorn"N~ WAS";INO';~N: 

'COTTOF'RAHK N~fl,:"'· 

·COTTOFRANK PA1US·,·-1 ; Iii RUE ~RANyOI5 In 

750'06 PAl'ttS.FA .... NCE 

+! FACSIMH_~ 202~ee2:.895o' " :'.~ 

WR1T1!R'S DIRECT D1ALNVl!DER 

I .1-1 i 

a

l c," ount! e orker A tion 

202-862";8941 February 22, 1993 

Re: Cu 

;{ 

Dear Tom: , ! lY. ' 1; ,~-;~ .. 

I am pleased toiresponal):o .your letter dated February , 11, 1993, concerning 4ism~s~al of['Engell\ard corporation f:rom five 

recently-filed actions. The FebrUary ,24,' 1950 letter you" 

enclosed should 'in no I way I aitery;our :previously expressed 

decision', to dismiss Engelhard from' the!le Cases. ' , i J I'. 

" The companyj ref~r~nced iln t)l", 1950 ,correspondence is 

not our client, nor was iJ: owned/by our client. That company in 

fact operated several!mine~ in ~Waterbury and Johnson, 

Vennont" and the letter',dbes not {indicate from which of those 

locatipns workers may! hav~ Jbeen~'i!:.1ray,e'd, I do not know of ,any 

follow-up study or publication,relating to workers at either of 

those locations, and ;thatl dompailY'tis 'long' since defunct. 

Regardless, Engelhard's iolimer'subsidiary operated !lli1.Y a 

Johnson" Vermont minEl, arid) in faCt", did not begin that mining 

and mil~ing operation untit sevepteenyears later, from October 

1967 until 1983, ) J I 'I'" , I' , , Beginning ~ith.lm§ fir~~ reqlles,~ for dismis~al last 

Apr11, I sent your f1rm"voluminouE,l,mat",r1als concerm,ng the 

Johnson mine, In reachih91 your ~de.cision,'to dismiss Engelhard, 

your firm reviewed, inter alia;",jthe Affidavit of William H. 

Ashton, which summar.~ze~:! !1um~~C?tt,s:- :in~esti9'ati?ns, ex;:unin'ations, 

and studies of the Johnsonj minel<:":·,The conclus10n der1ved from all 

of th,;,se studies is ~hat'I' t,n!> t,~'~c',l?roduced from this mine d~d not 

conta1n asbestos, The only ana~ys1S which we have not prev10usly 

forwarded to you is bne Qust co*pleted by the R', J. Lee Group 

which showed no evidence' eff asbestos minerals nor of their non- , , ) I • , 

fibroUS analogs', and' found',the, talc to be 'a platy, non-fibrous 

variety,. I' shOuld a'dd that amot"j,'the:'witnesses we have 'retained 

on this point is, thEl, lea'ding geb,logist:in Vermont, who will also 

confirm these facts}; .... , I' ' ,. ,I:' : .. ,', ',' " ,I ',! : " 

In sum, t~ere lis no "bksis fo~ maintaining Engelhard as 

a named defendant irt th.lsJ. :actiops,.r These plaintiffs allege 

injuries as a result ,6f:!,elqSosur'" to ,asb'estos and . "asbestos 

! .. ,! ,;,) ~. ' 

,t 

,'I :1 

'. 

" 

~ I .' ,} 

." 

:1 

1/ 

It 

" 

~ ; 

, ' ' 

,'" 

' .. 

EIGHTY PINe: STREE:T 

N£W YORK,H.Y.WOOS 

" 

, 

" 

:"".'" " ~ J, 

• ".~;",., of '. 

CAHILL' CORDO;' & R'~YN·D'i.£ ,;., , " P"'flTfl~R5H!J mcluJDiH" I>. P~Of'l;S"IO·1'I"'1.. t:Oi!>PQIIATIOH 

; l,;~d K Sft!E1n. N, W. 

!W..\.sa:dWTON, 'D, G, Z0006 , 'I I' -'.L Y:kx.i:PBONE ~62;'8e:a~e90o I I ' 

i 

:t . ! .. ~., , 

'1 ~:..',. 

R.4OIO "'''10 CAUL!;: AOORE:"SI!JCS 

"c;crrrorn"N~ WAS";INO';~N: 

'COTTOF'RAHK N~fl,:"'· 

·COTTOFRANK PA1US·,·-1 ; Iii RUE ~RANyOI5 In 

750'06 PAl'ttS.FA .... NCE 

+! FACSIMH_~ 202~ee2:.895o' " :'.~ 

WR1T1!R'S DIRECT D1ALNVl!DER 

I .1-1 i 

a

l c," ount! e orker A tion 

202-862";8941 February 22, 1993 

Re: Cu 

;{ 

Dear Tom: , ! lY. ' 1; ,~-;~ .. 

I am pleased toiresponal):o .your letter dated February , 11, 1993, concerning 4ism~s~al of['Engell\ard corporation f:rom five 

recently-filed actions. The FebrUary ,24,' 1950 letter you" 

enclosed should 'in no I way I aitery;our :previously expressed 

decision', to dismiss Engelhard from' the!le Cases. ' , i J I'. 

" The companyj ref~r~nced iln t)l", 1950 ,correspondence is 

not our client, nor was iJ: owned/by our client. That company in 

fact operated several!mine~ in ~Waterbury and Johnson, 

Vennont" and the letter',dbes not {indicate from which of those 

locatipns workers may! hav~ Jbeen~'i!:.1ray,e'd, I do not know of ,any 

follow-up study or publication,relating to workers at either of 

those locations, and ;thatl dompailY'tis 'long' since defunct. 

Regardless, Engelhard's iolimer'subsidiary operated !lli1.Y a 

Johnson" Vermont minEl, arid) in faCt", did not begin that mining 

and mil~ing operation untit sevepteenyears later, from October 

1967 until 1983, ) J I 'I'" , I' , , Beginning ~ith.lm§ fir~~ reqlles,~ for dismis~al last 

Apr11, I sent your f1rm"voluminouE,l,mat",r1als concerm,ng the 

Johnson mine, In reachih91 your ~de.cision,'to dismiss Engelhard, 

your firm reviewed, inter alia;",jthe Affidavit of William H. 

Ashton, which summar.~ze~:! !1um~~C?tt,s:- :in~esti9'ati?ns, ex;:unin'ations, 

and studies of the Johnsonj minel<:":·,The conclus10n der1ved from all 

of th,;,se studies is ~hat'I' t,n!> t,~'~c',l?roduced from this mine d~d not 

conta1n asbestos, The only ana~ys1S which we have not prev10usly 

forwarded to you is bne Qust co*pleted by the R', J. Lee Group 

which showed no evidence' eff asbestos minerals nor of their non- , , ) I • , 

fibroUS analogs', and' found',the, talc to be 'a platy, non-fibrous 

variety,. I' shOuld a'dd that amot"j,'the:'witnesses we have 'retained 

on this point is, thEl, lea'ding geb,logist:in Vermont, who will also 

confirm these facts}; .... , I' ' ,. ,I:' : .. ,', ',' " ,I ',! : " 

In sum, t~ere lis no "bksis fo~ maintaining Engelhard as 

a named defendant irt th.lsJ. :actiops,.r These plaintiffs allege 

injuries as a result ,6f:!,elqSosur'" to ,asb'estos and . "asbestos 

! .. ,! ,;,) ~. ' 

,t 

,'I :1 

'. 

" 

~ I .' ,} 

." 

:1 

1/ 

It 

" 

~ ; 

, ' ' 

,'" 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 68 of 94 PageID: 13356
"- 'i 

" j) 

, 

,r . . i, ~,' .. 

"I ., 

I 

CAHILL GORDON' & REINDeL ! I 

, , 

.. -, }~. 1- < * 

!' . . _. ~ .. c.;", 

:1~:.',.-: ;~ .. '~:;~ ~~(.. . !r t- 1.--: • .••• r .. I~ 51. ~::'. -, ,J ~ ... . ~.u >,' "~t. '. ~ ..... of-:. 

I I -2-. " s, :'1. 1 ~:'i" produots" in the oours~ of :itlieir et)lployment. The plaintiffs' own <t ',;i:,' ,,-

diagnosing physioians do not·lattribute findings oompatible with . "t· ,'i/;, 

pneumoconiosis, if any,! or /any 'otli~r conditions, to'talc !,·Ai .. uncontaminated by asbestos. !AccordinglY, EMTal talc is not a ", J. 

cause of :plaintiffs' alleged injuiies. , ,-.', !'~" 

i· I i ~ t. 

Tom, I trust)that this l~tter addresses any questions ' 

raised. by the 1950 cor~esP9n~eilceil' If you. still have concei:)\s or ·:,t "l 

would like to discuss the' matter 'f,urther, please call me 'i ' 

directly.· Thanks agaltlfor your ',rttention tb this matter. 

Thomas W. Bevan, 

Bevan & Economus 

10360 Northfield 

Northfield, ohio 

VIA FACSIMILE AND 

'. 

) I ') ", I 

; .! 

i 

Esq. 

" 

I 

~l I 

I 

I 

: 

, 

' J 

f" 

i , 

I 

r 

) 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i 

I 

I 

i 

• 

.' 

,;,1 

. ~·I - " ' 

.. ~, 

c- ---'~-

J' 733820 36'·& ,.; '. 

RECEIPT FO~"CERTIFIEO.MAIL M 1'<SUAA.\'tt W\'{flA.Gf P'1!(/VIliEa f "'Of FOIt IIHUI.'iA.TIONA1. \Wl , . .. (See-[leveISe) .. $enl !o Thomas ~_~~'.~ . 

, -" Bevan 

Slrw and No. 

10360 Northfield 'Rd. , ' 

P.O., SI810 and ZIP CodE) 

Northfield Ohio '4406 PO~1age S 'z,'f " , .; Ct'f1ilicd Feo 

'/~. 

.' 

5pe(:ial Defiv&fy F (10 , 

; " 

Rr;$\ric1ro Dellvery Fee 

Relum Receipt shoWi'lg // , 

~ IQ whom aM Dale Detrvared 

Return ~1(IEl\\WlN.o _~. ti Oala, 

• ' 'Y , • ~,o 

, • TO "', ' '!).,I-r ., ..., .I 

~ Po. - ~~.~ .. " : 

E 

0 ' is'SftM Wi' , .. : 

;! 

!(' , 

",.;;..._._-- .------ _: .,; 

BASF 

"- 'i 

" j) 

, 

,r . . i, ~,' .. 

"I ., 

I 

CAHILL GORDON' & REINDeL ! I 

, , 

.. -, }~. 1- < * 

!' . . _. ~ .. c.;", 

:1~:.',.-: ;~ .. '~:;~ ~~(.. . !r t- 1.--: • .••• r .. I~ 51. ~::'. -, ,J ~ ... . ~.u >,' "~t. '. ~ ..... of-:. 

I I -2-. " s, :'1. 1 ~:'i" produots" in the oours~ of :itlieir et)lployment. The plaintiffs' own <t ',;i:,' ,,-

diagnosing physioians do not·lattribute findings oompatible with . "t· ,'i/;, 

pneumoconiosis, if any,! or /any 'otli~r conditions, to'talc !,·Ai .. uncontaminated by asbestos. !AccordinglY, EMTal talc is not a ", J. 

cause of :plaintiffs' alleged injuiies. , ,-.', !'~" 

i· I i ~ t. 

Tom, I trust)that this l~tter addresses any questions ' 

raised. by the 1950 cor~esP9n~eilceil' If you. still have concei:)\s or ·:,t "l 

would like to discuss the' matter 'f,urther, please call me 'i ' 

directly.· Thanks agaltlfor your ',rttention tb this matter. 

Thomas W. Bevan, 

Bevan & Economus 

10360 Northfield 

Northfield, ohio 

VIA FACSIMILE AND 

'. 

) I ') ", I 

; .! 

i 

Esq. 

" 

I 

~l I 

I 

I 

: 

, 

' J 

f" 

i , 

I 

r 

) 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i 

I 

I 

i 

• 

.' 

,;,1 

. ~·I - " ' 

.. ~, 

c- ---'~-

J' 733820 36'·& ,.; '. 

RECEIPT FO~"CERTIFIEO.MAIL M 1'<SUAA.\'tt W\'{flA.Gf P'1!(/VIliEa f "'Of FOIt IIHUI.'iA.TIONA1. \Wl , . .. (See-[leveISe) .. $enl !o Thomas ~_~~'.~ . 

, -" Bevan 

Slrw and No. 

10360 Northfield 'Rd. , ' 

P.O., SI810 and ZIP CodE) 

Northfield Ohio '4406 PO~1age S 'z,'f " , .; Ct'f1ilicd Feo 

'/~. 

.' 

5pe(:ial Defiv&fy F (10 , 

; " 

Rr;$\ric1ro Dellvery Fee 

Relum Receipt shoWi'lg // , 

~ IQ whom aM Dale Detrvared 

Return ~1(IEl\\WlN.o _~. ti Oala, 

• ' 'Y , • ~,o 

, • TO "', ' '!).,I-r ., ..., .I 

~ Po. - ~~.~ .. " : 

E 

0 ' is'SftM Wi' , .. : 

;! 

!(' , 

",.;;..._._-- .------ _: .,; 

BASF 

"- 'i 

" j) 

, 

,r . . i, ~,' .. 

"I ., 

I 

CAHILL GORDON' & REINDeL ! I 

, , 

.. -, }~. 1- < * 

!' . . _. ~ .. c.;", 

:1~:.',.-: ;~ .. '~:;~ ~~(.. . !r t- 1.--: • .••• r .. I~ 51. ~::'. -, ,J ~ ... . ~.u >,' "~t. '. ~ ..... of-:. 

I I -2-. " s, :'1. 1 ~:'i" produots" in the oours~ of :itlieir et)lployment. The plaintiffs' own <t ',;i:,' ,,-

diagnosing physioians do not·lattribute findings oompatible with . "t· ,'i/;, 

pneumoconiosis, if any,! or /any 'otli~r conditions, to'talc !,·Ai .. uncontaminated by asbestos. !AccordinglY, EMTal talc is not a ", J. 

cause of :plaintiffs' alleged injuiies. , ,-.', !'~" 

i· I i ~ t. 

Tom, I trust)that this l~tter addresses any questions ' 

raised. by the 1950 cor~esP9n~eilceil' If you. still have concei:)\s or ·:,t "l 

would like to discuss the' matter 'f,urther, please call me 'i ' 

directly.· Thanks agaltlfor your ',rttention tb this matter. 

Thomas W. Bevan, 

Bevan & Economus 

10360 Northfield 

Northfield, ohio 

VIA FACSIMILE AND 

'. 

) I ') ", I 

; .! 

i 

Esq. 

" 

I 

~l I 

I 

I 

: 

, 

' J 

f" 

i , 

I 

r 

) 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i 

I 

I 

i 

• 

.' 

,;,1 

. ~·I - " ' 

.. ~, 

c- ---'~-

J' 733820 36'·& ,.; '. 

RECEIPT FO~"CERTIFIEO.MAIL M 1'<SUAA.\'tt W\'{flA.Gf P'1!(/VIliEa f "'Of FOIt IIHUI.'iA.TIONA1. \Wl , . .. (See-[leveISe) .. $enl !o Thomas ~_~~'.~ . 

, -" Bevan 

Slrw and No. 

10360 Northfield 'Rd. , ' 

P.O., Slalo and ZIP CodE) 

Northfield Ohio '4406 PO~1age S 'z,'f " , .; Ct'f1ilicd Feo 

'/~. 

.' 

5pe(:ial Defiv&fy F (10 , 

; " 

Rr;$\ric1ro Dellvery Fee 

Relum Receipt shoWi'lg // , 

~ IQ whom aM Dale Detrvared 

Rerum ~1(IEl\\WlN.o _~. ti Oala, 

• ' 'Y , • ~,o 

, • TO "', ' '!).,I-r ., ..., .I 

~ Po. - ~~.~ .. " : 

E 

0 ' is'SftM Wi' , .. : 

;! 

!(' , 

",.;;..._._-- ,------ _: .,; 

BASF 

"- 'i 

" j) 

, 

,r . . i, ~,' .. 

"I ., 

I 

CAHILL GORDON' & REINDeL ! I 

, , 

.. -, }~. 1- < * 

!' . . _. ~ .. c.;", 

:1~:.',.-: ;~ .. '~:;~ ~~(.. . !r t- 1.--: • .••• r .. I~ 51. ~::'. -, ,J ~ ... . ~.u >,' "~t. '. ~ ..... of-:. 

I I -2-. " s, :'1. 1 ~:'i" produots" in the oours~ of :itlieir et)lployment. The plaintiffs' own <t ',;i:,' ,,-

diagnosing physioians do not·lattribute findings oompatible with . "t· ,'i/;, 

pneumoconiosis, if any,! or /any 'otli~r conditions, to'talc !,·Ai .. uncontaminated by asbestos. !AccordinglY, EMTal talc is not a ", J. 

cause of :plaintiffs' alleged injuiies. , ,-.', !'~" 

i· I i ~ t. 

Tom, I trust)that this l~tter addresses any questions ' 

raised. by the 1950 cor~esP9n~eilceil' If you. still have concei:)\s or ·:,t "l 

would like to discuss the' matter 'f,urther, please call me 'i ' 

directly.· Thanks agaltlfor your ',rttention tb this matter. 

Thomas W. Bevan, 

Bevan & Economus 

10360 Northfield 

Northfield, ohio 

VIA FACSIMILE AND 

'. 

) I ') ", I 

; .! 

i 

Esq. 

" 

I 

~l I 

I 

I 

: 

, 

' J 

f" 

i , 

I 

r 

) 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i 

I 

I 

i 

• 

.' 

,;,1 

. ~·I - " ' 

.. ~, 

c- ---'~-

J' 733820 36'·& ,.; '. 

RECEIPT FO~"CERTIFIEO.MAIL M 1'<SUAA.\'tt W\'{flA.Gf P'1!(/VIliEa f "'Of FOIt IIHUI.'iA.TIONA1. \Wl , . .. (See-[leveISe) .. $enl !o Thomas ~_~~'.~ . 

, -" Bevan 

Slrw and No. 

10360 Northfield 'Rd. , ' 

P.O., SI810 and ZIP CodE) 

Northfield Ohio '4406 PO~1age S 'z,'f " , .; Ct'f1ilicd Feo 

'/~. 

.' 

5pe(:ial Defiv&fy F (10 , 

; " 

Rr;$\ric1ro Dellvery Fee 

Relum Receipt shoWi'lg // , 

~ IQ whom aM Dale Detrvared 

Return ~1(IEl\\WlN.o _~. ti Oala, 

• ' 'Y , • ~,o 

, • TO "', ' '!).,I-r ., ..., .I 

~ Po. - ~~.~ .. " : 

E 

0 ' is'SftM Wi' , .. : 

;! 

!(' , 

",.;;..._._-- .------ _: .,; 

BASF 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 69 of 94 PageID: 13357
APPENDIX A, TAB W 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 70 of 94 PageID: 13358
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 71 of 94 PageID: 13359
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 72 of 94 PageID: 13360
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 73 of 94 PageID: 13361
APPENDIX A, TAB X 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 74 of 94 PageID: 13362
Cahill Gohdon <&; Reinbel

Eighty Pint Stheet

New York, N.Y. iooos-itos

FLOYD ABRAMS

ROBERT A, ALESSt

ROGER ANDRUS

MICHAEL A. BECKER

SUSAN 3UCKLEY

KEVIN J, eURKE

P. KEVIN CASTEL

JAMES J. CLARK

WALTER C, CLIFF, P.C,

BENJAMIN J. COHEN

marshall cox

THOMAS F. CURNIN

W, LESLIE DUFFY

PATRICIA PARREN

JOAN HURTAON FRANKEL

BART FRIEDMAN

CIRO A, GAMBON!

WILLIAM B- GANNETT

CHARLES A, GILMAN

STEPHEN A. GREENE

ROBERT M. HALLMAN

WILLIAM M, HARTNETT

THOMAS R, JONES

ALLEN S. JOSLYN

THOMAS J, KAVALER

LAWRENCE A, KOBRIN

IMMANUEL KOHN

EDWARD P. KRUGMAN

GEOFFREY E, LtEBMANN

WILLIAM T. LIFLAND

MICHAEL MACRtS

JONATHAN 1, mark

GERARD M. MEtSTRELL

ROGER MELT2ER

CLIFFORD L. MICHEL

JOHN P. MITCHELL

MATHIAS E. MONE

DONALD J. MULVIHILL

KENNETH W. ORCE

ROY L. REGOZIN

RICHARD L. REINMOLO

dean RINGEL

THORN ROSENTHAL

RICHARD J, SABELLA

JONATHAN A. SCHAFF2IN

H. RICHARD SCHUMACHER

JOHN SCHUSTER

LAURENCE A. SILVERMAN

HOWARD G. SLOANE

LAURENCE T. SORKIN

LEONARD A. SPIVAK

GERALD S. TANENBAUM

JONATHAN D. THIER

MICHAEL P, TIERNEY

ROBERT USADI

GEORGE WAILAND

GLENN J, WALDRIP, JR.

GARY W. WOLF

JOHN R, YOUNG

DANIEL J, ZUBKOFF

October 25, 1996

JOSEPH P, CONWAY

DAVO R. HYDE:

DEN^S MCINERNEY

^RW^N SCHNE:!DERMAN

^OHN R. VAUGHAN

RALPH O, winger

SENIOR COONSEt

CORYDON e, DUNHAM

SAMUEL ESTREiCHER

PH^L^P A, HE^MOWlTZ

UAMES J. really

JOHN J. STANTON, JR.

COUNSEL

FREDDY ORESSEN*

EUROPEAN COUNSEL

WASHINGTON, D.C, OFFICE

tBBO K STREET, N.W,

WASH^NGTON. D.C, £0000“M03

EUROPEAN office

JO RUE FRANCOIS

75008 PARIS, FRANCE

TELETX / CABLE

MCI 23ZiaAATT 137066

CAGO UR COTTOFRANK NVK

facsimile

^aomitted trance only

telephone 3I£'7QJ‘3000

WRlTER^S DPRECT NUMBER

(212) 701-3319

Re: Hotta v. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels,

et al,, No. 96-4434B

Dear Robin:

I enjoyed speaking with you yesterday. As I stated,

this firm represents Engelhard Corporation ("Engelhard"), which is

named as a defendant in the above-referenced action which you

recently filed in the Superior Court for Suffolk County. The complaint alleges the wrongful death of plaintiff's decedent Thomas

Motta as a result of exposure to talc while he was employed at

Plymouth Rubber Company.

Engelhard's only connection with the mining, milling, or

sale of talc was through a subsidiary. Eastern Magnesia Talc Company ("EMTal"), which operated a single mine in Johnson, Vermont

from October 1967 until 1983, when the mine was closed for economic reasons. As we discussed, this letter is to request that

you voluntarily dismiss Engelhard from this action, on the basis 

that talc produced by EMTal at its sole mine contained no asbestos 

and therefore could not have caused Mr. Motta's death. I am

enclosing the following documents supporting this request:

BASF ROSS000013771

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 75 of 94 PageID: 13363
Cahill Gordon 8c Reindel

(!) a copy of an affidavit prepared by William H,

Ashton dated May 8, 1989, with attached Exhibits A

through G;

(2) copies of affidavits by Charles D. Carter dated 

September 20, 1988 and June 19, 1989;

(3) a copy of a report prepared by Dr. F.D. Pooley concerning an examination of talc samples taken from

the Johnson, Vermont mine; and

(4) a copy of a B.F. Goodrich specification sheet for

EMTal 500 Talc dated November 10, 1978.

The Carter affidavits confirm that the Johnson talc mine

was the only one ever owned or operated by Engelhard. The Ashton

Affidavit summarizes numerous investigations, examinations, and 

studies of this Johnson mine. The conclusion derived from all of

these studies is that the talc produced from the mine did not contain asbestos. Indeed, a sample from the Johnson talc mine was

analyzed in 1982 by Dr. Pooley, one of the world's foremost 

authorities on the identification of asbestos, using scanning

electron microscopy and energy dispersive spectroscopy, as well as

x-ray diffraction analysis and analytical transmission electron

microscopy. The analysis revealed that no asbestos was present in

the sample. See Ashton Affidavit paragraph 7 and Dr. Pooley's 

report. Industry testing of the EMTal talc by B.F. Goodrich confirms the incontrovertible findings of these experts: EMTal talc

contained no asbestos.

Under the circumstances, there appears to be no basis 

for maintaining Engelhard as a defendant- in this action. There is

no epidemiological evidence whatsoever linking pure talc,

uncontaminated by asbestos, to metastatic lung cancer, the cause 

of Mr. Motta's death. Accordingly, I request that you voluntarily

dismiss Engelhard in order that my client be spared further 

expense in defending this action.

There is substantial precedent for my request. For

example, Engelhard and EMTal were named as defendants in 28 cases 

brought on behalf of former fireworkers at the B.F. Goodrich plant 

in Oaks, Pennsylvania and filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The enclosed documents were provided to the Allen L.

Rothenberg law firm in Philadelphia and were reviewed by plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Arthur Rohl. After this review, plaintiffs’

counsel Jeffrey C. Schwartz voluntarily dismissed Engelhard and

EMTal from that litigation, EMTal has also been voluntarily

BASF ROSS000013772

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 76 of 94 PageID: 13364
Cahill Gohhon & Reistdel

-3-

dismissed from tireworker and rubberworker litigation in, inter 

alia, the District of Kansas and various state courts in Michigan

and Ohio. Those plaintiffs’ counsel had also been provided with

the Ashton materials described above and pursued their actions 

against other talc and asbestos defendants.

I look forward to speaking with you further once your

upcoming trial concludes and you have an opportunity to review the

enclosed materials. If any additional information would assist 

you in your decision, please call me directly. Thank you again 

for your attention to this matter.

Robin M. Welch, Esq.

Thornton, Early & Haumes 

60 State Street, Sixth Floor

Boston, Massachusetts 02109

[Enclosures}

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

BASF ROSS000013773

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 77 of 94 PageID: 13365
APPENDIX A, TAB Y 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 78 of 94 PageID: 13366
,-

FORMAN 

PERRY 

WATKINS 

KRUTZ & 

TARDY, PLLC 

ATI'ORNEYSATIAW 

Marcy 1. Bry." 

mlbIy.Ul@lj>wk-rom 

Dirn1 DW, (601) 9OO{l63O 

Quentin Daniels 

Daniels and Gentry, PLLC 

P.O. Box 55848 

Jackson, MS 39296-5848 

RE: Engelhard Corporation 

Dear Quentin: 

1200 OneJ,w"n Place 

188 _ C>pirnl Stred 

Jo.tbon. M~ 39201.2131 

Post OffICe BClI: 22608 

Jadro •• Mi<rusIppi 8922.5-2608 

Tckphollel 601·96O-UOO 

IWln Facdm!Je, 601.96O-M13 

A!be!tos Pacini!", 601·960-3241 

February 19, 2002 

Please allow this correspondence to serve a.~ a response to your inquiries relating to Engelhard Corporation ("Engelhard") in connection with the Holmes litigation. Pursuant to our telephone 

conversation and our previous dealings, it is my understanding that you have agreed to treat this infonnation as confidential and utilize it solely for the purpose of a Rule I I investigation into the validity of filing an asbestos-related complaint against Engelhard. 

Engelhard, as in the past, appreciates the opportunity to respond to the two matters you have 

raised in your conversation \vith me. The first matter concerns the possibility that Engelhard manufactured asbestos-containing thixotropic fillers and the second concerns an allegation that talc mined 

a number of years ago by an Engelhard subsidiary was "serpentine, n i.e., contained asbestos. Based 

on our review of relevant documents and discussions with Engelhard personnel, we can reiterate 

categorically what was said in my July 27. 2001 letter to you: neither Engelhard nor any of its 

predecessor companies or subsidiaries ever manufactured any asbestos-containing products. Specifically. (i) Engelhard does not now and did not in the past manufacture an asbestos-containing 

thixotropic filler and (ii) the talc mined and distributed for a short period oftime by an Engelhard 

subsidiary did not. according to numerous analyses. reports and studies, contain asbestos. 

Thixotropic Fillers 

You mentioned that you have no infonnation timt Engelhard manufactured thixotropic fillers, but that you believed that Engelhard was the type of company that might manufacture these 

products. and that some thixotropic fillers. to your knowledge. contained asbestos. 

BASF Fe 0016806 

,-

FORMAN 

PERRY 

WATKINS 

KRUTZ & 

TARDY, PLLC 

ATI'ORNEYSATIAW 

Marcy 1. Bry." 

mlbIy.Ul@lj>wk-rom 

Dirn1 DW, (601) 9OO{l63O 

Quentin Daniels 

Daniels and Gentry, PLLC 

P.O. Box 55848 

Jackson, MS 39296-5848 

RE: Engelhard Corporation 

Dear Quentin: 

1200 OneJ,w"n Place 

188 _ C>pirnl Stred 

Jo.tbon. M~ 39201.2131 

Post OffICe BClI: 22608 

Jadro •• Mi<rusIppi 8922.5-2608 

Tckphollel 601·96O-UOO 

IWln Facdm!Je, 601.96O-M13 

A!be!tos Pacini!", 601·960-3241 

February 19, 2002 

Please allow this correspondence to serve a.~ a response to your inquiries relating to Engelhard Corporation ("Engelhard") in connection with the Holmes litigation. Pursuant to our telephone 

conversation and our previous dealings, it is my understanding that you have agreed to treat this infonnation as confidential and utilize it solely for the purpose of a Rule I I investigation into the validity of filing an asbestos-related complaint against Engelhard. 

Engelhard, as in the past, appreciates the opportunity to respond to the two matters you have 

raised in your conversation \vith me. The first matter concerns the possibility that Engelhard manufactured asbestos-containing thixotropic fillers and the second concerns an allegation that talc mined 

a number of years ago by an Engelhard subsidiary was "serpentine, n i.e., contained asbestos. Based 

on our review of relevant documents and discussions with Engelhard personnel, we can reiterate 

categorically what was said in my July 27. 2001 letter to you: neither Engelhard nor any of its 

predecessor companies or subsidiaries ever manufactured any asbestos-containing products. Specifically. (i) Engelhard does not now and did not in the past manufacture an asbestos-containing 

thixotropic filler and (ii) the talc mined and distributed for a short period oftime by an Engelhard 

subsidiary did not. according to numerous analyses. reports and studies, contain asbestos. 

Thixotropic Fillers 

You mentioned that you have no infonnation timt Engelhard manufactured thixotropic fillers, but that you believed that Engelhard was the type of company that might manufacture these 

products. and that some thixotropic fillers. to your knowledge. contained asbestos. 

BASF Fe 0016806 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 79 of 94 PageID: 13367
You asked for confitmation that Engelhard did not manufacture any asbestos-containing thixotropic 

fillers. This leiter serves to provide this confinnation. 

Engelhard does not now, and as can best be detetmined, has not ever manufactured a 

"thixotropic filler." At present, Engelhard mines and manufactures attapulgite which is used in industrial processes as a thickener. However, attapuigie, as is true of all products currently, and in the 

past, mined, manufactured or produced by Engelhard and its predecessors and subsidiaries, does not 

contain asbestos or asbestos-like fibers nor has attapulgite ever been connected to or associated with 

any asbestos-related disease. 

In short, I believe Engelhard can confitm, as you requested, that it does not now, and has not 

in the past, manufactured or produced an asbestos-containing thixotropic filler. 

You forwarded to me an excerpt from the 1973-1974 Modem Plastics Encyclopedia which 

lists Emtal, the trade name for talc produced and distributed for a short period oftime by Eastern 

Magnesia Talc Co., a fotmer subsidiary of Engelhard. This one-line listing appears to indicate that 

the Emtal talc was "serpentine". 

We previously sent to you, as an enclosure to my July 27, 2001 leiter to you, a copy of an affidavit prepared in May 1989 by William Ashton, who for thirty-five years was actively involved in 

investigating and studying the domestic and international talc industry and talc technology while 

ernployed by Johnson & Johnson. Mr. Aston, after referring to and discussing in his affidavit numerous investigations, examinations and studies of Em tal talc, concluded that "[I]rom the 1940's 

through the 1980's [the affidavit is dated May 8, 1989], talc mined in Vetmont and specifically the 

talc mined by Engelhard Corporation (and its predecessors) from the talc mine located in Johnson, 

Vermont [a single mine that was Engelhard's only source of talc] has been considered to be talc free 

from contamination from asbestos." (See Ashford Affidavit, '112) 

Indeed, one of the studies described in the Ashford Affidavit occurred at almost the same 

time as the pUblication of the 1973-1974 Modem Plastics Encyclopedia. A scientific paper entitled, 

"Occupational Exposures to Non-Asbestiform Talc in Vetmon!," reported on an environmental 

study that was conducted during the summer of 1975 and the winter of 1976 of three Vetmont talc 

companies, including Eastern Magnesia Talc and its Johnson, Vermont mine. The paper concluded 

that "petrograpic microscopy analysis, analytical transmission electron microscopy, and x-ray defraction with step-scanning revealed no asbestos in the bulk samples" (emphasis added) from the 

three Vermont companies. (See ~ 6 and Exhibit D ofthe Ashford Affidavit). 

In addition, the Ashton Affidavit recounts sworn testimony in a lawsuit by Dr. Alfred H. 

Chidester who had been employed for 39 years by the U.S. Geological Survey, a unit of the U.S. 

Department of the Interior. For a period of about 18 years, from 1944 through 1962, Dr. Chidester 

was primarily concerned with the talc deposits ofVennont and Northern Massachusetts. (See Ash2 

BASF Fe 0016807 

You asked for confitmation that Engelhard did not manufacture any asbestos-containing thixotropic 

fillers. This leiter serves to provide this confinnation. 

Engelhard does not now, and as can best be detetmined, has not ever manufactured a 

"thixotropic filler." At present, Engelhard mines and manufactures attapulgite which is used in industrial processes as a thickener. However, attapuigie, as is true of all products currently, and in the 

past, mined, manufactured or produced by Engelhard and its predecessors and subsidiaries, does not 

contain asbestos or asbestos-like fibers nor has attapulgite ever been connected to or associated with 

any asbestos-related disease. 

In short, I believe Engelhard can confitm, as you requested, that it does not now, and has not 

in the past, manufactured or produced an asbestos-containing thixotropic filler. 

You forwarded to me an excerpt from the 1973-1974 Modem Plastics Encyclopedia which 

lists Emtal, the trade name for talc produced and distributed for a short period oftime by Eastern 

Magnesia Talc Co., a fotmer subsidiary of Engelhard. This one-line listing appears to indicate that 

the Emtal talc was "serpentine". 

We previously sent to you, as an enclosure to my July 27, 2001 leiter to you, a copy of an affidavit prepared in May 1989 by William Ashton, who for thirty-five years was actively involved in 

investigating and studying the domestic and international talc industry and talc technology while 

ernployed by Johnson & Johnson. Mr. Aston, after referring to and discussing in his affidavit numerous investigations, examinations and studies of Em tal talc, concluded that "[I]rom the 1940's 

through the 1980's [the affidavit is dated May 8, 1989], talc mined in Vetmont and specifically the 

talc mined by Engelhard Corporation (and its predecessors) from the talc mine located in Johnson, 

Vermont [a single mine that was Engelhard's only source of talc] has been considered to be talc free 

from contamination from asbestos." (See Ashford Affidavit, '112) 

Indeed, one of the studies described in the Ashford Affidavit occurred at almost the same 

time as the pUblication of the 1973-1974 Modem Plastics Encyclopedia. A scientific paper entitled, 

"Occupational Exposures to Non-Asbestiform Talc in Vetmon!," reported on an environmental 

study that was conducted during the summer of 1975 and the winter of 1976 of three Vetmont talc 

companies, including Eastern Magnesia Talc and its Johnson, Vermont mine. The paper concluded 

that "petrograpic microscopy analysis, analytical transmission electron microscopy, and x-ray defraction with step-scanning revealed no asbestos in the bulk samples" (emphasis added) from the 

three Vermont companies. (See ~ 6 and Exhibit D ofthe Ashford Affidavit). 

In addition, the Ashton Affidavit recounts sworn testimony in a lawsuit by Dr. Alfred H. 

Chidester who had been employed for 39 years by the U.S. Geological Survey, a unit of the U.S. 

Department of the Interior. For a period of about 18 years, from 1944 through 1962, Dr. Chidester 

was primarily concerned with the talc deposits ofVennont and Northern Massachusetts. (See Ash2 

BASF Fe 0016807 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 80 of 94 PageID: 13368
ford Affidavit, '\]4). In testil)ing in 1983, Dr. Chidester stated that he never found veins of chrysolite asbestos in talc located in Vennont. He acknowledged that crysotile was a serpentine mineral 

found in serpentinite rock, but that, in the formation of talc in Vennont, all of the serpentine minerals had been changed to talc. He concluded: "So any asbestos that may have been there in the first 

place is altered to talc." Dr. Chidester further testified that he personally had been at the talc mine 

in Johnson, V ennont and, based on his personal observation and testing, all of the serpentinite at the 

Johnson mine had been changed to talc and magnesite. ~ Ashford Affidavit, '118 and Ex. G) 

Thus, at the Jolmson, Vennont mine, which was the only talc mine ever operated by Engelhard or 

any of its subsidiaries, and in Vennont in general, talc and serpentine are mutually exclusive.a 

I believe this letter answers your inquiries as to thixotropic fillers and talc formerly mined by 

Engelhard. It reiterates the statement in my July 27,2001 letter that neither Engelhard nor its predecessors or subsidiaries ever manufactured an asbestos-containing product. As a result, we believe 

that there cannot be any good faith basis for Engelhard to remain as a defendant in the Holmes lawsuit or to be named a defendant in any new lawsuits by plaintiffs claiming exposure to asbestos. 

As always, I am available, by telephone and in person, to answer any question you may have 

pertaining to this correspondence or to provide any further information or documents that may be 

appropriate. As noted, Engelhard very much appreciates the opportunity to respond to the questions 

you have raised. We look forward to hearing from you soon. 

Sincerely, 

FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, PLLC 

CC: Fred Krutz 

n You should also note that one of the analyses of Engelhard's talc that is referred to in the Ashford 

Affidavit is by Dr. F. W. Pooley of the University of Cardiff in Wales, England, whom you may be 

aware has provided expert opinions and testimony to plaintiffs in a large number of asbestos-related 

lawsuits. (See ~ 7 of the Ashford Affidavit and the analysis by Dr. Pooley, a copy of which is enclosed.) 

3 

BASF Fe 0016808 

ford Affidavit, '\]4). In testil)ing in 1983, Dr. Chidester stated that he never found veins of chrysolite asbestos in talc located in Vennont. He acknowledged that crysotile was a serpentine mineral 

found in serpentinite rock, but that, in the formation of talc in Vennont, all of the serpentine minerals had been changed to talc. He concluded: "So any asbestos that may have been there in the first 

place is altered to talc." Dr. Chidester further testified that he personally had been at the talc mine 

in Johnson, V ennont and, based on his personal observation and testing, all of the serpentinite at the 

Johnson mine had been changed to talc and magnesite. ~ Ashford Affidavit, '118 and Ex. G) 

Thus, at the Jolmson, Vennont mine, which was the only talc mine ever operated by Engelhard or 

any of its subsidiaries, and in Vennont in general, talc and serpentine are mutually exclusive.a 

I believe this letter answers your inquiries as to thixotropic fillers and talc formerly mined by 

Engelhard. It reiterates the statement in my July 27,2001 letter that neither Engelhard nor its predecessors or subsidiaries ever manufactured an asbestos-containing product. As a result, we believe 

that there cannot be any good faith basis for Engelhard to remain as a defendant in the Holmes lawsuit or to be named a defendant in any new lawsuits by plaintiffs claiming exposure to asbestos. 

As always, I am available, by telephone and in person, to answer any question you may have 

pertaining to this correspondence or to provide any further information or documents that may be 

appropriate. As noted, Engelhard very much appreciates the opportunity to respond to the questions 

you have raised. We look forward to hearing from you soon. 

Sincerely, 

FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, PLLC 

CC: Fred Krutz 

n You should also note that one of the analyses of Engelhard's talc that is referred to in the Ashford 

Affidavit is by Dr. F. W. Pooley of the University of Cardiff in Wales, England, whom you may be 

aware has provided expert opinions and testimony to plaintiffs in a large number of asbestos-related 

lawsuits. (See ~ 7 of the Ashford Affidavit and the analysis by Dr. Pooley, a copy of which is enclosed.) 

3 

BASF Fe 0016808 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 81 of 94 PageID: 13369
APPENDIX A, TAB Z 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 82 of 94 PageID: 13370
DaarMarli:: 

PAOUANO ~ WEINTRAUB J..l.p 

1:110" eJ'lOADWhY 

24Tti t'\,Q(lIt 

New Yal'U'l. NJ;w YOIIK 10018 

TB.l.lu>HONIl: 21~'7S!1-i;1100 

~111!1\: 21 :a-78S-OOQQ 

April 15, 2C02 

P.02 

Rs: ChernIck v, ABa Lummus Globaltlno:, lit al.llnd&)( No. 01-116741 

In our recent se~lement conference with thlil $p~lld M3$ter In the 

referenced mQtt,r we agre!!d 10 provide to your offie. documents we are aware of that 

O$tabllsh that the talc engalhard Corporation [MEnge/hard") or any of lUI present 01 

former eube/diaries allegedly aold to Bondo COrp¢ratlon was $$beetos·free. Enclosed 

with thi8 letter ,are such documents, whloh are explaIned ~elow. 

The only tala mine ev8I' operated by Engellhard Qr Its ~ub$fdrarlllS WtAS 

operated In Johnson, Vermont by the I':llstom Magnesia Talo Compsny j"'EMTal"), a 

fermer $ubsfdillry ot Engelhard. EMl'al (now known as PIta RMlty Lfmlted) produced 

talc from the Johnson mille from October 191'17, when EMTal ecquired the rnint!l, until 

1983. when the miM Was closed for eoonornlc reasona. 

A number of ana lYles of tha talc ptodUOed by tha Johnson mine havo 

be(!n oonducted. All of them concluded that the t~o WI)!) a$be$tQa·free. The enclosed 

Affidavit of William 1:1. Ashton, dated Maya. 1989 (with ftttaehed Exhibits A • G), 

summarizes many of the iIW$$llgltions, examinatlonlf <Ina studies •. All .of thClm 

concluded that the talc produoed from the J~hn"an mine did not contain asbestos. 

Alao enolQ$O<i I" 1\11 copy of s D":>Iffi'\bf:lr .2.2, 1982 r .. port by Dr. I'!.O. 

Pooley, entitled Report of the EXtlmln4r1on af Talc Samples from the Johnson TtJ/c 

Mfns. This study analyzed 8 semple from thlll Johnson mine I,l$inra $~nnlng Elec1rQn 

Mlcrosoopy, Energy DispersiVe Sptotr0300PY; x-ray diffraction analysla, and analytIcal 

Tramlm/osion Eleotron Microscopy ("TEM-). The study concluded that no lIsbestos 

was present In the sample. 

Finally, we have !:Inclolled II oopy of II May 1 977 report prllpllred by the 

National InBtitUte10r OCllupatiooal Safety and Health, entitled An8/y$/$ of T(1/r; by XRoy DiffflJctlon ~nd Pollitt/ted light Mic((,l$coPY. This report analyzed 1 00 talc, 

samples, Includlng a sample of EMTal telG, using Polarized Ught Mioroscopy, OI~p~"lon StainIng, x-n!lY CllrtftJOt'OIl, TEM, <Inti "'l'I'trOn mloroprob",. 't'h'" l>rH"y~11J .. , 

th<:/ sample of EMTal talc fOl,lno no a$bl!$tos. (Soe NIOSH Report, AppendIx A, page 

BASF Fe 0014136 

DaarMarli:: 

PAOUANO ~ WEINTRAUB J..l.p 

1:110" eJ'lOADWhY 

24Tti t'\,Q(lIt 

New Yal'U'l. NJ;w YOIIK 10018 

TB.l.lu>HONIl: 21~'7S!1-i;1100 

~111!1\: 21 :a-78S-OOQQ 

April 15, 2C02 

P.02 

Rs: ChernIck v, ABa Lummus Globaltlno:, lit al.llnd&)( No. 01-116741 

In our recent se~lement conference with thlil $p~lld M3$ter In the 

referenced mQtt,r we agre!!d 10 provide to your offie. documents we are aware of that 

O$tabllsh that the talc engalhard Corporation [MEnge/hard") or any of lUI present 01 

former eube/diaries allegedly aold to Bondo COrp¢ratlon was $$beetos·free. Enclosed 

with thi8 letter ,are such documents, whloh are explaIned ~elow. 

The only tala mine ev8I' operated by Engellhard Qr Its ~ub$fdrarlllS WtAS 

operated In Johnson, Vermont by the I':llstom Magnesia Talo Compsny j"'EMTal"), a 

fermer $ubsfdillry ot Engelhard. EMl'al (now known as PIta RMlty Lfmlted) produced 

talc from the Johnson mille from October 191'17, when EMTal ecquired the rnint!l, until 

1983. when the miM Was closed for eoonornlc reasona. 

A number of ana lYles of tha talc ptodUOed by tha Johnson mine havo 

be(!n oonducted. All of them concluded that the t~o WI)!) a$be$tQa·free. The enclosed 

Affidavit of William 1:1. Ashton, dated Maya. 1989 (with ftttaehed Exhibits A • G), 

summarizes many of the iIW$$llgltions, examinatlonlf <Ina studies •. All .of thClm 

concluded that the talc produoed from the J~hn"an mine did not contain asbestos. 

Alao enolQ$O<i I" 1\11 copy of s D":>Iffi'\bf:lr .2.2, 1982 r .. port by Dr. I'!.O. 

Pooley, entitled Report of the EXtlmln4r1on af Talc Samples from the Johnson TtJ/c 

Mfns. This study analyzed 8 semple from thlll Johnson mine I,l$inra $~nnlng Elec1rQn 

Mlcrosoopy, Energy DispersiVe Sptotr0300PY; x-ray diffraction analysla, and analytIcal 

Tramlm/osion Eleotron Microscopy ("TEM-). The study concluded that no lIsbestos 

was present In the sample. 

Finally, we have !:Inclolled II oopy of II May 1 977 report prllpllred by the 

National InBtitUte10r OCllupatiooal Safety and Health, entitled An8/y$/$ of T(1/r; by XRoy DiffflJctlon ~nd Pollitt/ted light Mic((,l$coPY. This report analyzed 1 00 talc, 

samples, Includlng a sample of EMTal telG, using Polarized Ught Mioroscopy, OI~p~"lon StainIng, x-n!lY CllrtftJOt'OIl, TEM, <Inti "'l'I'trOn mloroprob",. 't'h'" l>rH"y~11J .. , 

th<:/ sample of EMTal talc fOl,lno no a$bl!$tos. (Soe NIOSH Report, AppendIx A, page 

BASF Fe 0014136 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 83 of 94 PageID: 13371
P.03 

" . 

SS, Sample No. 066., . .,. 

. Given the forogoing, there appears to. be no b~$l$ for your o\lents to 

aSsert clallTlll lI"ain~ EngfJIhllrq. We h8r~y request that you qlsmlss Engelhard from 

thi$ action. We look forwili'd to "peaking wIth ¥o/J again at the upcomIng sottloment 

OQnf.,ren'oo. '. . , 

Mtlrk Blbro. E!lq. 

£tally & StrauSS, LLC 

360 Lexington Avenue, 20ti1 Floor 

New York, NiJW York 10017: 

(EnolosurelJl 

. .. 

: 

, . 

.' ,Your3 31ncerely. 

,~~. 

GIdeon Mark • 

.. 

. . 

, . 

BASF Fe 0014137 

, 

': 

, 

P.03 

" . 

SS, Sample No. 066., . .,. 

. Given the forogoing, there appears to. be no b~$l$ for your o\lents to 

aSsert clallTlll lI"ain~ EngfJIhllrq. We h8r~y request that you qlsmlss Engelhard from 

thi$ action. We look forwili'd to "peaking wIth ¥o/J again at the upcomIng sottloment 

OQnf.,ren'oo. '. . , 

Mtlrk Blbro. E!lq. 

£tally & StrauSS, LLC 

360 Lexington Avenue, 20ti1 Floor 

New York, NiJW York 10017: 

(EnolosurelJl 

. .. 

: 

, . 

.' ,Your3 31ncerely. 

,~~. 

GIdeon Mark • 

.. 

. . 

, . 

BASF Fe 0014137 

, 

': 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 84 of 94 PageID: 13372 , 
APPENDIX A, TAB AA 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 85 of 94 PageID: 13373
r '" MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LL 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

~ FRANCIS PATRICK NEWELL 

AOMITTeD IN Pr:NN5YLVANIA & WASHINGTON. 

D.C. 

DIRECT DIAL 

215-772-7310 

fnewell@mmwr.com 

VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL 

Signe O'Brien Rudberg, Esquire 

Rudberg Law Offices 

1105 E. Carson Street 

Pittsburgh, P A 15203 

123 SOUTH BROAD STREET 

AVENUE O. THE ARTS 

PHILAOELPHIA. PA 19109 

215-772-1500 

FAX 215-772-7620 

November 18,2003 

Re: Berdine, et a1. vs. Bakertalc, Inc. et al. 

Washington County, Pennsylvania 

Court of Common Pleas, G.D. No. 2003-4209 

Dear Ms. Rudberg: 

l: 457 HADDON 1"-, E:-L~D~O:':'A;';"l>.""'S"'U-'T-E--:6:::0::0 

CHeRRY HILL. NJ 06002 

856-488-7700 

FAX 856-488-7720 

300 DELAWARE: AVENU~. SUIT!: 750 

WILMINGTON. DE 19801 

302-504-7800 

FAX 302-504-7820 

ONE WESTLAKE", SUItE 200 

BERWYN, PA 1931<: 

610-889-2210 

FAX 610·889-2220 

Thank you for setting aside the time today to speak with me concerning the status 

of defendant Eastern Magnesia Talc Company, Inc. ("EMTal") with respect to the abovecaptioned matter (the "litigation"). 

As we discussed at some length, based upon the extensive materials that have been sent 

to you, EMTal believes that, as in many previous cases, it should be dismissed from the 

litigation, and plaintiffs have agreed to continue to take that request under consideration. 

With respect to the discovery which has been served by plaintiffs upon EMTal. this will 

serve to confinn that plaintiffs have agreed that EMTal has an indefinite extension of time to 

object and/or respond. 

I look forward to speaking with you after you have had further time to consider EMTal's 

request to be dismissed from the litigation. 

978GOlvi 

A UI-41T£.O LIABllIT'r' ~ARTNe:A:$H1P f'ORMED IN peNNSYLVANIA 

LOUIS" Pr.TI=IONI - NEw JERSEY RESPON$IOLE PARTNEA 

BASF Fe 0012094 

BASF _SAMPSON000015047 

r '" MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LL 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

~ FRANCIS PATRICK NEWELL 

AOMITTeD IN Pr:NN5YLVANIA & WASHINGTON. 

D.C. 

DIRECT DIAL 

215-772-7310 

fnewell@mmwr.com 

VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL 

Signe O'Brien Rudberg, Esquire 

Rudberg Law Offices 

1105 E. Carson Street 

Pittsburgh, P A 15203 

123 SOUTH BROAD STREET 

AVENUE O. THE ARTS 

PHILAOELPHIA. PA 19109 

215-772-1500 

FAX 215-772-7620 

November 18,2003 

Re: Berdine, et a1. vs. Bakertalc, Inc. et al. 

Washington County, Pennsylvania 

Court of Common Pleas, G.D. No. 2003-4209 

Dear Ms. Rudberg: 

l: 457 HADDON 1"-, E:-L~D~O:':'A;';"l>.""'S"'U-'T-E--:6:::0::0 

CHeRRY HILL. NJ 06002 

856-488-7700 

FAX 856-488-7720 

300 DELAWARE: AVENU~. SUIT!: 750 

WILMINGTON. DE 19801 

302-504-7800 

FAX 302-504-7820 

ONE WESTLAKE", SUItE 200 

BERWYN, PA 1931<: 

610-889-2210 

FAX 610·889-2220 

Thank you for setting aside the time today to speak with me concerning the status 

of defendant Eastern Magnesia Talc Company, Inc. ("EMTal") with respect to the abovecaptioned matter (the "litigation"). 

As we discussed at some length, based upon the extensive materials that have been sent 

to you, EMTal believes that, as in many previous cases, it should be dismissed from the 

litigation, and plaintiffs have agreed to continue to take that request under consideration. 

With respect to the discovery which has been served by plaintiffs upon EMTal. this will 

serve to confinn that plaintiffs have agreed that EMTal has an indefinite extension of time to 

object and/or respond. 

I look forward to speaking with you after you have had further time to consider EMTal's 

request to be dismissed from the litigation. 

978GOlvi 

A UI-41T£.O LIABllIT'r' ~ARTNe:A:$H1P f'ORMED IN peNNSYLVANIA 

LOUIS" Pr.TI=IONI - NEw JERSEY RESPON$IOLE PARTNEA 

BASF Fe 0012094 

BASF _SAMPSON000015047 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 86 of 94 PageID: 13374
MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LlP 

Signe O'Brien Rudberg, Esquire 

- November 18, 2003 

Page 2 

Thank you for your courtesies in this matter 

Very truly yours, 

Ld-,2-

Francis Patrick Newell 

e FPN:jfy 

978GOlvl 

BASF Fe 0012095 

BASF _SAMPSON000015048 

MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LlP 

Signe O'Brien Rudberg, Esquire 

- November 18, 2003 

Page 2 

Thank you for your courtesies in this matter 

Very truly yours, 

Ld-,2-

Francis Patrick Newell 

e FPN:jfy 

978GOlvl 

BASF Fe 0012095 

BASF _SAMPSON000015048 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 87 of 94 PageID: 13375
MQ-NTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP 

Signe O'Brien Rudberg, Esquire 

. November 18, 2003 

Page 3 

bee: Howard G. Sloane, Esquire 

Michael Sullivan, Esquire 

Michael Hassett, Esquire 

978601 vI 

BASF Fe 0012096 

BASF _SAMPSON000015049 

MQ-NTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP 

Signe O'Brien Rudberg, Esquire 

. November 18, 2003 

Page 3 

bee: Howard G. Sloane, Esquire 

Michael Sullivan, Esquire 

Michael Hassett, Esquire 

978601 vI 

BASF Fe 0012096 

BASF _SAMPSON000015049 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 88 of 94 PageID: 13376
APPENDIX A, TAB BB 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 89 of 94 PageID: 13377
Littleton Joyce

Ugh ETTA Park & Kelly llp

NEW YORK CITY | PURCHASE, NY | RED BANK, NJ

Direct Dial: (732) 933-2730

robert.kellv@littretoniovce.coin

125 Half Mile Road

Suite 200

Red Bank, NJ 0770I

Tel,(732) 933-2727

Fax-(732) 933-2729

WWW,liUkionj^'Ce. com

March 28, 2008

Rachel A. Placitella, Esq.

Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.

127 Maple Avenue

Red Bank, NJ 07701

Re: Angeline Comandini vs. Asbestos Corporation Limited, et als

Docket Nos. ; MID-L-4398-07 AS

Our File No. : 08951.00005

Vivian Volk vs. Asbestos Corporation Limited, et als

Docket Nos. : MlD-L-10012-07 AS

Our File No. : 08951.00004

Joanne Fuschino, ,et al. vs. Asbestos Corporation Limited, et als

Docket Nbs : ME)-^KlC899-07 AS

Our File No. : 08951.00006 ,

Dear Ms. Placitella:

As you are aware, this office represents Defendants Eastern'Magnesia Talc (“BMTAL”)

(now known as Pita Realty Ltd.) and BASF Cataiysts- LLC {“BASF”) in the above referenced

matters. Enclosed herewith, are the various Notices ofAdoption ofthe Standard Answer recently

filed on behalf of our clients. As set forth in the pleadings and in further detail below, EMTAL

and BASF did not manufacture asbestos-containing talc. Accordingly, we hereby request that the

plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss with prejudice their complaint against our clients.

Attached hereto is an Affidavit fiom William H. Ashton that sets forth the history ofthe

Vermont talc mines and more specifically,- the history of the talc mined by Englehard

’ Coiporation (and its predecessors) from the talc mine located in Johnson, Vermont (the “Johnson

mine”). As set forth in Mr. Ashton’s Affidavit, after numerous investigations, examinations and 

studies of the Johnson mine, spanning more than, fifty (50) years, it has been conclusively

established that the talc from the Johnson mine does not contain asbestos. As such, there is no

reasonable basis to support proceeding with the plaintiffs’ claims against EMTAL and BASF.

Pursuant to R. 1:4-8 and N.J.SvA. 2A'.T'5^59.'l. we. hereby demand that the complaints be

voluntarily dismissed because, based on the foregoing, the allegations against EMTAL and 

BASF are frivolous. If the plaintiffs fail to comply with this, request within twenty eight (28)
Our File No,: 08951.00006 

Page 2

days of sei-vice of this letter, we shall seek all available remedies under New Jersey Frivolous

Litigation Rule and Statute.

Thank you for your anticipated attempt and prompt response.

Very truly yours,

LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA PARK & KELLY LLP

Robert J. Kelly j

RJK:JS

Enclosures

Littleton Joyce Ughetta Park & Kelly llp
APPENDIX A, TAB CC 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 92 of 94 PageID: 13380
November 12,2008 

John Mismas, Esq. 

Bevan & Associates 

10360 Northfield Rd. 

Northfield, OH 44067 

Re: Jennifer Graham v. Eastern Magnesia Talc 

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Case No. 656405 

Russell Young v. Eastern Magnesia Talc 

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Case No. 531764 

Dear John: 

Jennifer A. Riester 

216.687.3271 

JRiester((/)westonhurd.com 

This letter is in response to the discovery requests served in the above captioned cases. The 

discovery requests are not properly directed to the supplier of talc. In lieu of providing objections to 

the discovery I am enclosing document relative to my client's talc. I would ask that you voluntarily 

dismiss Eastern Magnesia Talc and, in the Young case, both Eastern Magnesia Talc and Engelhard 

Corporation from these cases on the basis that talc produced by EMTal contained no asbestos. 

EMTal operated a single talc mine in Johnson, Vermont between October 1967 and 1983. The 

following documents enclosed herewith support this request: 

1) A copy of an Affidavit prepared by William H. Ashton dated 

May 8, 1989, with attached Exhibits A through G; 

2) A copy ofa report prepared by Dr. F.D. Pooley concerning an 

examination of talc samples taken from the Johnson, Vermont 

mine; 

3) A copy ofa 1977 NIOSH study entitled "Analysis of Talc By 

X-Ray Diffraction and Polorized Light Microscopy"; and 

BASF _SAMPSON000002046 

November 12,2008 

John Mismas, Esq. 

Bevan & Associates 

10360 Northfield Rd. 

Northfield, OH 44067 

Re: Jennifer Graham v. Eastern Magnesia Talc 

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Case No. 656405 

Russell Young v. Eastern Magnesia Talc 

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Case No. 531764 

Dear John: 

Jennifer A. Riester 

216.687.3271 

JRiester((/)westonhurd.com 

This letter is in response to the discovery requests served in the above captioned cases. The 

discovery requests are not properly directed to the supplier of talc. In lieu of providing objections to 

the discovery I am enclosing document relative to my client's talc. I would ask that you voluntarily 

dismiss Eastern Magnesia Talc and, in the Young case, both Eastern Magnesia Talc and Engelhard 

Corporation from these cases on the basis that talc produced by EMTal contained no asbestos. 

EMTal operated a single talc mine in Johnson, Vermont between October 1967 and 1983. The 

following documents enclosed herewith support this request: 

1) A copy of an Affidavit prepared by William H. Ashton dated 

May 8, 1989, with attached Exhibits A through G; 

2) A copy ofa report prepared by Dr. F.D. Pooley concerning an 

examination of talc samples taken from the Johnson, Vermont 

mine; 

3) A copy ofa 1977 NIOSH study entitled "Analysis of Talc By 

X-Ray Diffraction and Polorized Light Microscopy"; and 

BASF _SAMPSON000002046 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 93 of 94 PageID: 13381
John Mismas, Esq. 

November 12, 2008 

Page 2 

4) A copy of a letter from RJ Lee Group, Inc. dated January 27, 

1993 reporting the results of their analysis of a sample of 

EMTal talc. 

Be advised that EMTal's (and, accordingly, Engelhard's) only talc mine was located in Johnson, 

Vermont, and that EMTal produced talc from that mine from October 1967, when EMTal acquired 

the mine, until 1983, when the mine was closed for economic reasons. The Affidavit of William H. 

Ashton summarizes numerous investigations, examinations, and studies ofthe Johnson mine. The 

conclusion derived from all ofthese studies is that the talc produced from this mine did not contain 

asbestos. A sample from the Johnson mine was analyzed in 1982 using Scanning Electron 

Microscopy ("SEM") and Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy ("EDS), as well as x-ray diffraction 

analysis and analytical Transmission Electron Microscopy ("TEM"). The analysis revealed that no 

asbestos was present in the sample. (See Ashton Affidavit paragraph 7.) In addition, the 1977 

NIOSH study analyzed 100 talc samples, including a sample of EMTal talc, by Polorized Light 

Microscopy ("PLM"), Dispersion Staining, X -ray Diffraction, TEM and Electron Microprobe. The 

analysis of the sample of EM Tal talc found no asbestos present. (See NIOSH Report, Appendix A, 

page 38, Sample No. 066.) Furthermore, RJ Lee performed an analysis of a sample ofEMTal talc 

by PLM, X-ray Diffraction, and TEM, from which RJ Lee concluded that no asbestos was present in 

EMTal talc nor the non-fibrous analogs of the asbestos minerals. (See RJ Lee Group letter.) 

Engelhard and EMTal have been named as defendants and subsequently dismissed voluntarily as a 

result of the enclosed materials in various jurisdictions including Arkansas (4 plaintiffs), Kansas 

(191 plaintiffs), Michigan (40 plaintiffs), Mississippi (31 plaintiffs), Pennsylvania (over 300 

plaintiffs) and most recently, Florida (1 plaintiff). In fact, in the Pennsylvania cases, the voluntary 

dismissal of Engelhard and EMTal came as the result of the review of similar materials not only by 

plaintiffs' counsel (Allen L. Rothenberg law firm in Philadelphia), but also their expert, Dr. Arthur 

Roh!. 

I look forward to speaking with you once you have had an opportunity to review the enclosed 

materials. If any additional information would assist you in your decision, please contact me 

directly. 

Very truly yours, 

Jennifer A. Riester 

JAR/drs 

enclosure 

BASF _SAMPSON000002047 

John Mismas, Esq. 

November 12, 2008 

Page 2 

4) A copy of a letter from RJ Lee Group, Inc. dated January 27, 

1993 reporting the results of their analysis of a sample of 

EMTal talc. 

Be advised that EMTal's (and, accordingly, Engelhard's) only talc mine was located in Johnson, 

Vermont, and that EMTal produced talc from that mine from October 1967, when EMTal acquired 

the mine, until 1983, when the mine was closed for economic reasons. The Affidavit of William H. 

Ashton summarizes numerous investigations, examinations, and studies ofthe Johnson mine. The 

conclusion derived from all ofthese studies is that the talc produced from this mine did not contain 

asbestos. A sample from the Johnson mine was analyzed in 1982 using Scanning Electron 

Microscopy ("SEM") and Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy ("EDS), as well as x-ray diffraction 

analysis and analytical Transmission Electron Microscopy ("TEM"). The analysis revealed that no 

asbestos was present in the sample. (See Ashton Affidavit paragraph 7.) In addition, the 1977 

NIOSH study analyzed 100 talc samples, including a sample of EMTal talc, by Polorized Light 

Microscopy ("PLM"), Dispersion Staining, X -ray Diffraction, TEM and Electron Microprobe. The 

analysis of the sample of EM Tal talc found no asbestos present. (See NIOSH Report, Appendix A, 

page 38, Sample No. 066.) Furthermore, RJ Lee performed an analysis of a sample ofEMTal talc 

by PLM, X-ray Diffraction, and TEM, from which RJ Lee concluded that no asbestos was present in 

EMTal talc nor the non-fibrous analogs of the asbestos minerals. (See RJ Lee Group letter.) 

Engelhard and EMTal have been named as defendants and subsequently dismissed voluntarily as a 

result of the enclosed materials in various jurisdictions including Arkansas (4 plaintiffs), Kansas 

(191 plaintiffs), Michigan (40 plaintiffs), Mississippi (31 plaintiffs), Pennsylvania (over 300 

plaintiffs) and most recently, Florida (1 plaintiff). In fact, in the Pennsylvania cases, the voluntary 

dismissal of Engelhard and EMTal came as the result of the review of similar materials not only by 

plaintiffs' counsel (Allen L. Rothenberg law firm in Philadelphia), but also their expert, Dr. Arthur 

Roh!. 

I look forward to speaking with you once you have had an opportunity to review the enclosed 

materials. If any additional information would assist you in your decision, please contact me 

directly. 

Very truly yours, 

Jennifer A. Riester 

JAR/drs 

enclosure 

BASF _SAMPSON000002047 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370-4 Filed 11/02/17 Page 94 of 94 PageID: 13382