Exhibit 7

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 173 PageID: 43096
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, individually, as personal 

representative of the Estate of Charles L. Williams, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; NANCY PEASE, individually, as 

personal representative of the Estate of William Clark, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; MARILYN L. HOLLEY, as 

personal representative of the Estate of Kathryn Darnell, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; DONNA WARE, individually as 

personal representative of the Estate of Ralph Ware, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; and DONNETTE WENGERD, 

individually, as personal representative of the Estate of 

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

representative of others similarly situated, and ROSANNE 

CHERNICK, individually, as personal representative of 

the Estate of Steven Chernick, deceased on behalf of said 

estate, and as representative of others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BASF CATALYSTS LLC, CAHILL GORDON & 

REINDEL LLP, CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL, a 

partnership including a professional corporation, 

THOMAS D. HALKET, ARTHUR A. DORNBUSCH 

II, GLEN HEMSTOCK, HOWARD G. SLOANE 

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

JOHN DOE BUSINESS ENTITIES 1 to 100; JOHN 

DOE BUSINESS ENTITIES 101 to 200; JOHN DOE 

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

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

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

CIVIL ACTION

DEFENDANT BASF CATALYSTS LLC’S 

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER 

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 

[ECF NO. 516]

Eugene F. Assaf, P.C. (pro hac vice)

Michael F. Williams

Daniel A. Bress (pro hac vice)

Peter A. Farrell (pro hac vice)

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

655 15th St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

Phone: (202) 879-5000

Facsimile: (202) 879-5200

Justin T. Quinn

Robinson Miller LLC

One Newark Center, 19th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Phone: (973) 690-5400

Facsimile: (973) 466-2760

Counsel for Defendant BASF Catalysts LLC

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 2 of 173 PageID: 43097 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 30 PageID: 34469
I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1

A. Plaintiffs’ First and Second Sets of Interrogatories ..............................2

B. Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories..................................................6

C. BASF’s Objections and Meet and Confer Efforts ..............................11

ARGUMENT...........................................................................................................13

I. PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES

EXCEEDS THE 25-INTERROGATORY LIMIT........................................13

II. INTERROGATORIES NOS. 9, 10, AND 11 CALL FOR 

INFORMATION THAT IS IRRELEVANT OR THAT 

PLAINTIFFS HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP ..................17

III. INTERROGATORIES 9, 10, AND 11 ARE UNDULY

BURDENSOME............................................................................................23

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................26

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 3 of 173 PageID: 43098 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 2 of 30 PageID: 34470
II

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Avago Techs. U.S., Inc v. IPtronics Inc,

309 F.R.D. 294 (E.D. Pa. 2015)..........................................................................21

Doe v. Methacton Sch. Dist.,

164 F.R.D. 175 (E.D. Pa. 1995)..........................................................................21

Eisai Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC,

2012 WL 628320 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2012)...........................................................22

Engage Healthcare Commc’ns, LLC v. Intellisphere, LLC,

2017 WL 2371834 (D.N.J. Feb. 10, 2017).........................................................14

Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Prod., LLC,

2011 WL 13199148 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2011) ..................................................20

Kleinman v. Merck & Co.,

8 A.3d 851 (N.J. Law Div. 2009) .......................................................................20

Knit With v. Knitting Fever, Inc.,

2010 WL 11474937 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2010).....................................................14

Kokesh v. S.E.C.,

137 S. Ct. 1635 (2017)........................................................................................20

Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC,

2014 WL 3490356 (S.D. Cal. July 11, 2014).....................................................17

Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,

2018 WL 627378 (D.N.J. Jan. 30, 2018)............................................................18

Pulchalski v. Franklin Cty.,

2017 WL 57143 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 5, 2017)......................................................14, 15

Rosenblit v. Zimmerman,

766 A.2d 749 (N.J. 2001) ...................................................................................19

S.E.C. v. Teo,

746 F.3d 90 (3d Cir. 2014) .................................................................................20

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 4 of 173 PageID: 43099 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 3 of 30 PageID: 34471
III

Tartaglia v. UBS PaineWebber Inc.,

961 A.2d 1167 (N.J. 2008) .................................................................................19

Travillion v. Allegheny Cty. Bureau of Corr.,

2009 WL 1457720 (W.D. Pa. May 22, 2009) ....................................................21

Trevino v. ACB American, Inc.,

232 F.R.D. 612 (N.D. Cal. 2006)........................................................................17

Waterbury v. Scribner,

2008 WL 2018432 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2008)......................................................15

Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC,

765 F.3d 306 (3d Cir. 2014) ...............................................................................19

Younes v. 7-Eleven, Inc.,

2015 WL 12843883 (D.N.J. Aug. 19, 2015) ......................................................22

Rules

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26...............................................................................................18, 22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a).................................................................................................13

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 5 of 173 PageID: 43100 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 4 of 30 PageID: 34472
1

INTRODUCTION

BASF opposes plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to 

Interrogatories 9, 10, and 11 in plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories. ECF No. 516. 

Those three interrogatories each call for extensive information about past legal fees 

and claims in thousands of cases spanning 1979 to 2017. And they in each case 

require BASF to prepare discrete calculations for massive grids spanning decades. 

The grid in Interrogatory No. 9 alone, for example, calls for 234 independent 

calculations.

It is hard to know where to begin in explaining why these three interrogatories 

are so improper, and why plaintiffs’ motion to compel should thus be denied. 

Plaintiffs have vastly exceeded their 25-interrogatory limit, and plaintiffs’ motion 

can be denied on that basis alone. The interrogatories also call for information that 

is either not relevant to this case, such as itemized calculations of the amounts of 

legal fees Engelhard and BASF paid, including since 2009, when plaintiffs’ counsel 

first raised the fraud allegations at issue here. The interrogatories otherwise call for 

information about past settlements that either does not exist, is not readily accessible, 

or that plaintiffs could attempt to prepare themselves.

Although plaintiffs claim BASF has at the ready the information they are 

requesting, plaintiffs offer no record support for that assertion, and it is untrue. What 

is really going on here is that, years into this case, plaintiffs did nothing to build a 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 6 of 173 PageID: 43101 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 5 of 30 PageID: 34473
2

record on damages and are now asking BASF to do their work for them, even as 

much of the information requested has no plausible connection to any permissible 

damages theory. It only adds to the prejudice that plaintiffs substantially delayed in 

moving to compel this information and are only doing so now, in the twilight of the 

discovery period. Plaintiffs’ motion is improper, prejudicial, and should be denied.

BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiffs’ First and Second Sets of Interrogatories

Plaintiffs motion to compel responses to their Third Set of Interrogatories 

leaves out important background information, namely, plaintiffs’ First and Second 

Set of Interrogatories. Ex. A (10/23/15 Pls.’ Interrogs., Set 1); Ex. B (1/22/18 Pls.’ 

Interrogs., Set 2). Under this Court’s Scheduling Order, 10/17/16 Order (ECF No. 

221), each party was allowed 25 additional interrogatories following entry of the 

scheduling order. That limitation was imposed against the backdrop of Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 33(a), which provides a default limit of 25 interrogatories. 

Plaintiffs had already served a first set of interrogatories prior to entry of the 

scheduling order and served a second set shortly afterward. Collectively, plaintiffs’ 

first two sets of interrogatories—which were all served on behalf of all plaintiffs—

contained 21 interrogatories, although with subparts and other requests, the number 

was vastly higher, as discussed below. Indeed, the Second Set of Interrogatories

itself exceeded the 25-interrogatory limit.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 7 of 173 PageID: 43102 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 6 of 30 PageID: 34474
3

In both their First and Second Sets of Interrogatories, plaintiffs requested 

information about past Emtal talc settlements, fees, and claims. See, e.g., Ex. A 

(10/23/15 Pls.’ Interrogs., Set 1, Nos. 2, 6, 17). On December 23, 2016, BASF 

served extensive responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, Ex. C (12/23/16 

BASF Resps. to Pls.’ Interrogs., Set 1), including by referencing and providing the 

Cahill database, which Cahill had prepared while it was defending Emtal-related 

cases. Plaintiffs had asked BASF to provide the amounts of fees it had paid Cahill, 

but BASF objected to this as irrelevant and unduly burdensome. (12/23/16 BASF 

Resps. to Pls.’ Interrogs., Set 1, Resp. to No. 17). Plaintiffs never moved to compel 

on any of these responses.

On January 18, 2018, plaintiffs served a Second Set of Interrogatories that 

also requested extensive information about past cases and settlements. Ex. B 

(1/22/18 Pls.’ Interrogs., Set 2). For example, plaintiffs’ first interrogatory in their 

Second Set requested the following:

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 

Please identify all settlements You entered into between January 1, 

1983 and December 31, 2009, inclusive, where the plaintiff or claimant 

(or his/her personal representative) claimed an injury due to alleged 

exposure to EMTAL talc. For each such settlement please include in 

your answer:

a. The asbestos related disease the plaintiff or claimant alleged he or 

she suffered from; 

b. Whether You contested the diagnosis of the asbestos related disease 

alleged by the plaintiff or claimant; 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 8 of 173 PageID: 43103 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 7 of 30 PageID: 34475
4

c. The nature of the alleged exposure to EMTAL talc, including whether 

exposure allegedly occurred with EMTAL talc itself or as an ingredient 

of another product using EMTAL talc, such as Bondo; 

d. The jurisdiction where the case was filed; 

e. The amount of the settlement; 

f. The name of the plaintiff or claimant’s lawyer; 

g. The amount paid by Your insurance carriers to settle the case; 

h. The amount paid directly by You to settle the case; 

i. The amount paid by or on behalf of You to Your attorneys prior to 

the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim; 

j. Whether any attorney for You ever represented to the lawyer for the 

plaintiff or claimant that there was no asbestos in EMTAL talc, 

including the Attorney’s name who made the representation; 

k. Whether You ever represented to the lawyer for the plaintiff or 

claimant that there was no evidence of asbestos in EMTAL talc, 

including the name of the person who made the representation and his 

or her authority; 

l. Whether the plaintiff or claimant’s lawyer was given a copy of Mr. 

Ashton’s affidavit and if so by whom and why; 

m. Whether the plaintiff or claimant’s lawyer was given a copy of any 

affidavit signed by Mr. Charles Carter as affiant, and if so by whom and 

why; 

n. Whether You had in Your possession at the time of dismissal any 

evidence indicating EMTAL talc was sold to plaintiff or claimant's 

employer; and 

o. Whether the reason for the amount of the settlement was reported to 

the insurance carrier for You

Id., Interrog. No. 1. 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 9 of 173 PageID: 43104 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 8 of 30 PageID: 34476
5

BASF objected that plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories as “exceed[ed] 

the limit on interrogatories set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1),” 

but nevertheless served a substantial response to Interrogatory No. 1 that also 

referenced various documents, including the Cahill database. Ex. D (3/7/18 BASF 

Resps. to Pls.’ Interrogs., Set 2). BASF also “refer[red] plaintiffs to the documents, 

databases, and other information in the possession, custody, or control of the lawyers 

who represented plaintiffs in past litigation matters,” noting that “lawyers for past 

plaintiffs possess substantial information that is responsive to this interrogatory but 

have asserted objections and refused to produce responsive information, particularly 

as to members of the putative class.” Id. at Resp. to Interrog. No. 1. 

Plaintiffs had also requested various information about the lawyers who had 

worked on the Emtal cases, including fees paid to each. Ex. B (1/22/18 Pls.’ 

Interrogs., Set 2, No. 4). BASF again provided an extensive response, but objected 

to providing information on legal fees, as irrelevant and unduly burdensome. Ex. D 

(3/7/18 BASF Resps. to Pls.’ Interrogs., Set 2, No. 4). Plaintiffs once again did not 

move to compel on any responses.

In addition to these interrogatories, plaintiffs had ample opportunity to gather 

information relating to the past asbestos cases. In addition to the Cahill database, 

BASF has produced thousands of other documents based on plaintiffs’ own search 

terms. Plaintiffs also served subpoenas on various insurance companies and 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 9 of 30 PageID: 34477 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 10 of 173 PageID:

43105
6

received documents in response. They further had the opportunity to depose 

numerous witnesses, including four witnesses on insurance issues.

B. Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories

On March 15, 2018, plaintiffs (again, collectively) served a Third Set of 

Interrogatories on BASF. See Ex. E (3/15/18 Pls.’ Interrogs., Set 3). This Third Set 

included 11 more interrogatories calling for a massive amount of additional 

information about the underlying asbestos claims. Interrogatories Nos. 9, 10, and 

11 are the only ones at issue in the instant motion. Each of those three interrogatories 

contains numerous subparts, and then contains yet further subparts through their 

request that BASF provide information responsive to massive grids. Interrogatory 

No. 9 requires BASF to prepare calculations for a 234-cell matrix concerning past 

legal fees, Interrogatory No. 10 requires BASF to prepare calculations for a 351-cell 

matrix concerning the resolution of past cases, and Interrogatory No. 11 requires 

BASF to prepare calculations for a 144-cell matrix concerning past settlements. Id.

 It is necessary to quote these three interrogatories in full as part of later 

demonstrating why they are excessive and improper1:

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

excluding expenditures relating solely to the defense of the present Williams case, 

 

1 All text for the remainder of this subsection B are quotes of Interrogatories Nos. 9 

to 11.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 10 of 30 PageID: 34478 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 11 of 173 PageID:

43106
7

state: (a) the total aggregate amount of Defense Costs You or anyone on Your 

Behalf, including without limitation any insurance company, paid to defend EMTAL 

Claims asserted against You during any portion of the year; (b) the total number of 

EMTAL Claim Claimants with actions pending against You during any portion of 

the year; (c) the highest total amount of Defense Costs paid by You or on Your behalf 

during the year in defending a single EMTAL Claim Claimant’s EMTAL Claim; (d) 

the lowest total amount of Defense Costs paid by You or on Your behalf during the 

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

arithmetic average (mean) total expenditure amount paid by You or on Your behalf 

in defending a single EMTAL Claim Claimant’s EMTAL Claim during the year; 

and (f) the median expenditure paid by You or on Your behalf for defending a single 

EMTAL Claim Claimant’s EMTAL Claims during the year 

Please use the following matrix to supply this data:

Year (a) 

Total Defense 

Expenditures

(b) 

Number of 

EMTAL Claim 

Claimants 

Pending

(c) 

Highest single 

Emtal Claim 

Defense Cost 

expenditure 

during period

(d)

Lowest single 

EMTAL claim 

Defense Cost 

expenditure

(e) 

Arithmetic 

Average 

(mean) 

Defense Cost 

expenditure

(f) 

Median 

Defense Cost 

expenditure

1979 $ $ $ $ $

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 11 of 30 PageID: 34479 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 12 of 173 PageID:

43107
8

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

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

excluding the present Williams case, state the number of Emtal Claim Claimants’ 

Emtal Claims that resolved or terminated at or during each of the following claim or 

litigation stages: 

a. Prior to filing of suit or adjudicative claim. 

b. At or upon filing of suit or adjudicative claim 

c. Filing of Motion to dismiss complaint. 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 12 of 30 PageID: 34480 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 13 of 173 PageID:

43108
9

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

granted in full as to Engelhard or BASF. 

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

f. Motion for Summary Judgment or similar dispositive motions 

g. Pretrial proceedings 

h. Trial 

i. During Appeal 

Please use the following matrix to supply this data:

Year a b c d e f g h i

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 13 of 30 PageID: 34481 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 14 of 173 PageID:

43109
10

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

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

state the total amount of Claim Payments You or anyone on Your Behalf, including 

without limitation any insurance company, paid relating to Emtal Claims; (b) the 

number of EMTAL Claim Claimants whose Emtal Claims were terminated or 

resolved by the Claim Payments made during the year; (c) the highest Claim 

Payment amount paid during the year in relation to a single Emtal Claim Claimant; 

and (d) the lowest Claim Payment amount paid during the year in relation to a single 

Emtal Claim Claimant.

Please use the following matrix to supply this data:

Year (a) 

Total Amount of Claim 

Payments Paid During Year

 (b) 

Number of 

EMTAL Claim 

Claimants 

Claim 

Payments 

resolved

 (c) 

Highest Claim 

Payment to a Single 

EMTAL Claim 

Claimant during 

period

 (d)

Lowest Claim 

Payment to a Single 

EMTAL Claim 

Claimant during 

period

1979 $ $ $

1980

1981

1982

1983

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 14 of 30 PageID: 34482 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 15 of 173 PageID:

43110
11

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

C. BASF’s Objections and Meet and Confer Efforts

On April 16, 2018, BASF served timely responses and objections to plaintiffs’ 

third set of interrogatories. See Ex. F (4/16/18 BASF Resps. & Objs.). BASF 

objected to all of plaintiffs’ Third Interrogatories because plaintiffs “exceeded their 

number of interrogatories allowable” under the Federal Rules and this Court’s 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 15 of 30 PageID: 34483 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 16 of 173 PageID:

43111
12

October 17, 2016 Order. Id. at 2. BASF further objected because “responding to 

these interrogatories and their subparts would require an enormous investment of 

resources which is disproportionate to the issues in this case. This is especially true 

where, as here, the plaintiffs have waited until the waning weeks of discovery to 

serve these interrogatories.” Id.

Plaintiffs on April 18, 2018 sent an email to BASF asking to meet and confer 

regarding BASF’s interrogatory responses. See Ex. G (4/18/18 R. Pratter Email to 

P. Farrell). BASF responded the next day, April 19, and attempted to schedule a 

meet-and-confer the following day, April 20. See Ex. H (4/19/18 P. Farrell Email to 

R. Pratter). Plaintiffs took more than a week to respond and eventually offered to 

speak on April 29. See Ex. I (4/27/18 R. Pratter Email to P. Farrell). Because BASF 

was fully engaged preparing its experts for the Science Day hearing then scheduled 

for May 2, BASF offered to meet and confer with plaintiffs in person in Philadelphia 

either before or after the hearing. Ex. J (4/27/18 P. Farrell Email to R. Pratter). 

Plaintiffs declined this request. See Ex. K (4/30/18 P. Farrell Email to H. Roth).

The parties finally met and conferred by telephone on May 8. BASF reiterated 

what it had already produced in response to plaintiffs’ prior document requests and 

interrogatories, including the Cahill database, tens of thousands of pages of 

documents that were identified using search terms plaintiffs themselves crafted, and 

documents produced by Engelhard’s insurers. BASF also explained that 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 16 of 30 PageID: 34484 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 17 of 173 PageID:

43112
13

Engelhard’s defense costs are not relevant and unduly burdensome to calculate in 

the manner plaintiffs have requested. BASF also noted that plaintiffs exceeded the 

number of interrogatories permitted. On May 15, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to 

compel on only 3 of the 11 interrogatories in Set Three. This opposition follows.

ARGUMENT

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Interrogatories Nos. 9, 10, 

and 11 is improper and should be denied. Those interrogatories far exceed the 

permissible 25-interrogatory limit; call for information, such as legal fees, that is not 

relevant or proportional to the case; and request other information that would be 

unduly burdensome for BASF to prepare, that plaintiffs could try to prepare on their

own, and that plaintiffs had many opportunities to develop in discovery. All of this 

also comes far too late in the discovery process. It was plaintiffs’ obligation to build 

a record under a permissible damages theory. They cannot now foist that work upon 

BASF at the eleventh hour.

I. PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES EXCEEDS THE 

25-INTERROGATORY LIMIT

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel should be denied at the outset because plaintiffs 

have vastly exceeded the 25-interrogatory limit. Under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 33(a)(1), “a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written 

interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” (Emphasis added). By the same 

token, it is also “well settled that the question whether an interrogatory contains more 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 17 of 30 PageID: 34485 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 18 of 173 PageID:

43113
14

than one ‘discrete separate subject’ does not turn on whether the interrogatory has 

separately enumerated subparts. The subparts can be explicit or implicit; the number 

of subparts does not turn on the formalism of labeling.” Engage Healthcare 

Commc’ns, LLC v. Intellisphere, LLC, 2017 WL 2371834, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 10, 

2017) (quotations omitted). A sub-part or portion of an interrogatory is deemed a 

separate request when it is not “logically or factually subsumed within and 

necessarily related to the primary question.” Id. (quotations omitted); see also 

Pulchalski v. Franklin Cty., 2017 WL 57143, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 5, 2017) (finding 

party exceeded 25-interrogatory limit under this standard); Knit With v. Knitting 

Fever, Inc., 2010 WL 11474937, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2010) (same).

The pretrial scheduling order in this case clarified that each party was 

permitted to serve 25 additional interrogatories from the time that order was entered, 

which occurred after plaintiffs and BASF had each served a first set of 

interrogatories. A review of plaintiffs’ First and Second Set of Interrogatories 

demonstrates that they each easily exceed the 25-interrogatory limit. By BASF’s 

count, and counting conservatively, plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, although 

styled as 17 interrogatories, is in fact closer to 26 separate questions. And plaintiffs’ 

Second Set of Interrogatories, although styled as 4 interrogatories, is in fact closer 

to 52 separate questions. For example, Interrogatory No. 1 in the Second Set, which 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 18 of 30 PageID: 34486 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 19 of 173 PageID:

43114
15

BASF quoted in full above, contains 15 unique subparts alone, which would have to 

be answered for every past Emtal talc settlement. 

By any measure, plaintiffs had thus easily exceeded the applicable 25-

interrogatory limit by the time they served their Third Set of Interrogatories. But 

that Third Set, if anything, contains even more true subparts. In fact, the three 

interrogatories at issue in this motion to compel themselves exceed the 25-

interrogatory limit on their own. Interrogatory No. 9 contains six subparts, which 

must each be answered for every year between 1979 and 2017. This is hundreds of 

independent questions alone, and the same is true of Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 11.

Such questions requiring various discrete pieces of information for multiple 

years easily put plaintiffs over the interrogatory limit, as courts have recognized. See 

Pulchalski, 2017 WL 57143, at *4 (“We find that the interrogatories propounded by 

the plaintiff exceed the 25 interrogatory limit set by Rule 33(a)(1). In particular, we 

note that a number of these interrogatories are framed in multiple sub-parts asking a 

series of discrete inquiries about multiple events, spanning several years.”); 

Waterbury v. Scribner, 2008 WL 2018432, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2008) 

(“Plaintiff’s requests for the separate years from 2004 through to the present are 

separate and distinct. Interrogatories 2, 3 and 4 will each be treated as five separate 

interrogatories, for a total of fifteen (15) interrogatories.”).

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 19 of 30 PageID: 34487 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 20 of 173 PageID:

43115
16

During the meet-and-confer process, plaintiffs provided no basis for 

exceeding the 25-interrogatory limit. Instead, Mr. Coren for plaintiffs informed 

BASF that plaintiffs were entitled to additional interrogatories because the Court’s 

appointment of a Special Discovery Master signified an expansion of available 

discovery (which is not the case). In their motion to compel, plaintiffs now make a 

completely different argument (and one they never made before) that, in fact, each 

named plaintiff is entitled to serve 25 interrogatories on BASF. Pls.’ Br. 3-4.

That post hoc justification is not correct. When the parties were discussing 

the discovery limits with Judge Dickson, there was no suggestion that each named 

plaintiff would be able to serve 25 additional interrogatories on BASF. Ex. L 

(10/14/16 Hr’g Tr. 15:6-15). Nor would BASF have ever agreed to a world of lopsided discovery in which plaintiffs could serve 150 interrogatories on BASF, in 

addition to those served before entry of the scheduling order. Confirming this is not 

what the parties or Court intended, plaintiffs have never proceeded as though each 

plaintiff had 25 separate interrogatories to serve. Plaintiffs served all three sets of 

interrogatories on behalf of “plaintiffs” collectively, not any one plaintiff 

individually. Ex. A (10/23/15 Pls.’ Interrogs., Set 1); Ex. B (1/22/18 Pls.’ Interrogs., 

Set 2); Ex. E (3/15/18 Pls.’ Interrogs., Set 3). And even if each plaintiff had 25 

interrogatories, each plaintiff has already exceeded that amount by joining in the 

service of the second set interrogatories, to say nothing of the third.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 20 of 30 PageID: 34488 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 21 of 173 PageID:

43116
17

The sole case plaintiffs’ cite, Trevino v. ACB American, Inc., 232 F.R.D. 612 

(N.D. Cal. 2006), does not support them. There, the Court recognized that plaintiffs, 

like plaintiffs here, had in fact exceeded the interrogatory limit because some of their 

interrogatories contained multiple independent questions. Id. at 614. Counting those 

separate subparts as separate interrogatories, the plaintiffs had exceeded the limits 

by 7 interrogatories as to one defendant, and 12 as to another, which the Court 

permitted them to do. Id. That is a far cry from this case, where plaintiffs are seeking 

to serve dozens if not hundreds more interrogatories, following a multi-year course 

of dealing in which plaintiffs never suggested or acted as though they could serve 

any more than the 25 interrogatories the parties had agreed to before Judge Dickson. 

See also Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 2014 WL 3490356, at *6 (S.D. Cal. July 11, 

2014) (explaining how given overall context of case, plaintiffs were not each 

allowed 50 interrogatories, contrary to language suggesting that in scheduling order).

II. INTERROGATORIES NOS. 9, 10, AND 11 CALL FOR 

INFORMATION THAT IS IRRELEVANT OR THAT PLAINTIFFS 

HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP

Even if plaintiffs could exceed the 25-interrogatory limit, Interrogatories Nos. 

9, 10, and 11 would still be impermissible. Under Rule 26, discovery must be 

“relevant” and “proportional to the needs of the case,” considering factors such as 

“the importance of the issues at stake,” “the importance of the discovery in resolving 

the issues,” “the parties’ relative access to relevant information,” and “whether the 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 21 of 30 PageID: 34489 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 22 of 173 PageID:

43117
18

burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The party seeking discovery bears the burden of establishing it is 

subject to production under Rule 26. See, e.g., Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of 

Pittsburgh v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 2018 WL 627378, at *4 (D.N.J. Jan. 30, 

2018). Plaintiffs cannot meet that burden for Interrogatories 9 to 11. In this section, 

BASF will explain why the information requested is either irrelevant or information 

plaintiffs could have prepared on their own, to the extent it exists. In the following 

section, BASF will explain why these requests are unduly burdensome. 

Interrogatory No. 9: Interrogatory No. 9 asks for extensive information about 

defense costs and fees paid to defend Emtal talc cases, from 1979 to 2017, including 

preparation of a grid requiring 234 independent calculations, such as “the arithmetic 

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

defending a single EMTAL Claim Claimant’s” for each year in a 38-year period. 

Ex. E (3/15/18 Pls.’ Interrogs., Set 3, No. 9). This includes the period 2009 to 2017, 

the more modern litigation that post-dates plaintiffs’ counsel’s raising their fraud 

allegations in New Jersey state court. Plaintiffs in their brief offer only a single line 

justifying the enormous amount of information requested in Interrogatory No. 9: 

“Interrogatory No. 9 would yield information on BASF’s knowledge and motive, as 

well as data that will inform Plaintiffs’ expert on damages.” Pls.’ Br. 9. Neither of 

these justifications passes muster.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 22 of 30 PageID: 34490 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 23 of 173 PageID:

43118
19

Plaintiffs offer no explanation as to what “knowledge or motive” they are 

referring to, or how extensive information about legal fees would be relevant to this 

unidentified “knowledge and motive.” Nor do plaintiffs explain the basis for any 

request for information post-dating 2009, when plaintiffs’ counsel “uncovered” the 

alleged fraud, 7/16/15 2nd Am. Compl. ¶ 7 (ECF No. 158), after which Kirkland & 

Ellis LLP and other new firms became involved in BASF’s defense. Plaintiffs have 

previously agreed that these later time periods were off limits for discovery 

purposes. That this time period is part of plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories 

underscores the overbreadth of the requests. Regardless, plaintiffs have had ample 

opportunity through other means—other interrogatories, documents, depositions, 

and so on—to develop evidence going to “knowledge and motive,” however defined. 

Nor do plaintiffs explain how legal fees Engelhard and BASF paid in 

defending talc cases would be relevant to plaintiffs’ own damages. In the meet-andconfer process, plaintiffs claimed that amounts Engelhard and BASF paid to defend 

itself in talc cases would be relevant to a “disgorgement” theory. The argument is 

nonsensical. As the Third Circuit opinion indicates, plaintiffs may attempt to seek 

damages with reference to their underlying cases and how much they incurred to 

litigate them without the alleging missing evidence. Williams v. BASF Catalysts 

LLC, 765 F.3d 306, 321 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Rosenblit v. Zimmerman, 766 A.2d 

749, 758 (N.J. 2001), and Tartaglia v. UBS PaineWebber Inc., 961 A.2d 1167, 1190 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 23 of 30 PageID: 34491 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 24 of 173 PageID:

43119
20

(N.J. 2008)). Plaintiffs have either failed to develop this evidence in discovery, have 

refused to produce the information that would allow such calculations, or cannot get 

around the fact that in the underlying cases, other talc defendants whose products 

were known to contain asbestos participated in aggregate settlements and paid the 

same or similar amounts as did Engelhard.

While those difficulties may be the origins of plaintiffs’ new “disgorgement” 

theory, that theory makes no sense in the context of this case. “Generally, 

disgorgement is a form of [r]estitution measured by the defendant’s wrongful gain. 

Disgorgement requires that the defendant give up those gains ... properly attributable 

to the defendant’s interference with the claimant’s legally protected rights.” Kokesh 

v. S.E.C., 137 S. Ct. 1635, 1640 (2017) (quotations omitted); see also S.E.C. v. Teo, 

746 F.3d 90, 110 (3d Cir. 2014) (purpose of disgorgement is for “wrongdoers to 

disgorge their fraudulently obtained profits”) (quotations omitted); Kleinman v. 

Merck & Co., 8 A.3d 851, 863 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 2009) (“The intent of an 

unjust enrichment cause of action is to receive a ‘disgorgement’ of the profits 

retained by the defendant.”).

Here, a disgorgement remedy has no conceptual relationship to the amounts 

Engelhard or BASF paid to outside counsel to litigate talc cases, and plaintiffs cite 

no authority suggesting one. These legal fees are not “gains” or “profits” for 

Engelhard or BASF; they are, if anything, losses. They likewise were not taken from 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 24 of 30 PageID: 34492 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 25 of 173 PageID:

43120
21

plaintiffs in any relevant sense, and therefore have no relationship to any damages 

plaintiffs could claim they sustained, making Interrogatory No. 9 irrelevant here. 

See, e.g., Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Prod., LLC, 2011 

WL 13199148, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2011) (“KC now raises another argument 

concerning damages, but fails to explain (or cite authority explaining) the measure 

of damages to which the requested information is allegedly relevant. KC’s 

assertions of relevance are unsupported, and as such, they are not sufficient to 

convince us that the requested documents are relevant.”).

Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 11: Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 11 request 

extensive information about past asbestos cases, including the stage of the 

proceeding in which every case litigated between 1979 and 2017 concluded 

(Interrogatory 10) and settlement figures and other related data for every year from 

1982 to 2017 (Interrogatory No. 11). Plaintiffs attempt to justify these substantial 

and burdensome requests by arguing that they would “provide valuable information 

to Plaintiffs’ expert in creating a damages model” and would be “pertinent to a 

number of issues such as numerosity and ascertainability.” Pls.’ Br. 9-10. 

These thin justifications are not sufficient, especially given the amount of 

information sought. Vague and generic allegations of relevance do not satisfy 

plaintiffs’ burden under Rule 26. See, e.g., Avago Techs. U.S., Inc v. IPtronics Inc, 

309 F.R.D. 294, 298–99 (E.D. Pa. 2015); Travillion v. Allegheny Cty. Bureau of 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 25 of 30 PageID: 34493 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 26 of 173 PageID:

43121
22

Corr., 2009 WL 1457720, at *1 (W.D. Pa. May 22, 2009); Doe v. Methacton Sch. 

Dist., 164 F.R.D. 175, 176-77 (E.D. Pa. 1995). The requests again call for 

information from 2009 to 2017, which is improper and problematic for the reasons 

stated above. And for information prior to 2009, plaintiffs neglect to explain how 

such information would be relevant to damages or to ascertainability (neither 

Interrogatory No. 10 nor No. 11 requests the identity of any putative class members). 

At bottom, if this is information plaintiffs wanted, they had ample opportunity 

to gather it during this litigation, both through the documents produced (responsive 

to plaintiffs’ own search terms), the Cahill database, insurers, and so on. Much of 

the information in question is also in possession of counsel for putative class 

members. See Ex. D (3/7/18 BASF Resps. to Pls.’ Interrogs., Set 2 at 3) (noting that 

“lawyers for past plaintiffs possess substantial information that is responsive to this 

interrogatory but have asserted objections and refused to produce responsive 

information, particularly as to members of the putative class”). What plaintiffs 

cannot do is force BASF to do the work of plaintiffs and their experts. See, e.g., 

Younes v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 2015 WL 12843883, at *3 (D.N.J. Aug. 19, 2015) (denying 

discovery because, inter alia, material sought was “unnecessarily cumulative” and 

“resource intensive”).

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 26 of 30 PageID: 34494 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 27 of 173 PageID:

43122
23

III. INTERROGATORIES 9, 10, AND 11 ARE UNDULY BURDENSOME

Discovery requests may also “be denied if, after assessing the needs of the 

case ... there exists a likelihood that the resulting benefits would be outweighed by 

the [consequent] burden or expenses imposed.” Eisai Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., 

LLC, 2012 WL 628320, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2012); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1). Even assuming plaintiffs could exceed the 25-interrogatory limit and their 

requests were deemed relevant, plaintiffs’ motion to compel should be denied in 

light of the obvious burden that Interrogatories 9 to 11 would impose on BASF.

The breadth of these three interrogatories is remarkable and confirms the 

burden. For a nearly 40-year period involving what plaintiffs allege are thousands 

of past asbestos cases in courts around the country, plaintiffs ask BASF to prepare 

extensive information and calculations about legal fees across decades 

(Interrogatory No. 9), the point in the litigation at which every past case resolved 

(Interrogatory No. 10), and settlement figures, including information relating to 

claims paid by insurers (Interrogatory No. 11). All told, plaintiffs ask BASF to fill 

in 729 individual cells in three grid matrices, each requiring its own calculation. It 

is difficult to imagine a more onerous set of interrogatories.

Plaintiffs argue “[i]t is simply inconceivable that BASF does not have the 

information responsive to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 10 and 11 readily available to it and 

its counsel who filed these objections.” Pls.’ Br. 11. But plaintiffs have no record 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 27 of 30 PageID: 34495 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 28 of 173 PageID:

43123
24

evidence to support these assertions and took no discovery that would support them. 

It is also not “simply inconceivable” that BASF would not have at the ready 

voluminous information about thousands of past cases, in the form plaintiffs desire, 

going back 40 years for litigation involving the long-discontinued talc operation of 

a company it acquired 12 years ago. Plaintiffs’ contention that Interrogatories 9, 10, 

and 11 are not burdensome is based on speculation and ignores the obvious burdens 

associated with their request.

For avoidance of doubt, however, the information plaintiffs seek is, in fact, 

not readily accessible, to the extent it exists at all. Attached hereto is the declaration 

of Kevin Wood, the Manager of Catalyst Information Management at BASF. Ex M 

(Wood Decl.). Mr. Wood is “generally familiar with BASF’s current and historical 

accounting and accounts payable systems used to record expenses and payments to 

outside vendors, including outside law firms.” Id. ¶ 2. As Mr. Wood explains, with 

respect to legal fee spend and settlement information (Interrogatories 9 and 11), 

I am not aware of any reporting capability that would 

generate the information requested in the form that 

plaintiffs seek in an automated fashion for any portion of 

the time period covered by plaintiffs’ requests. As a result, 

assembling the information that plaintiffs requested in the 

form that they seek it would require a manual review of 

historical documents, such as periodic invoices and 

associated correspondence regarding Emtal litigation and 

settlements from 1979 through 2017 for each law firm that 

BASF and Engelhard retained in each personal injury case 

related to Emtal talc.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 28 of 30 PageID: 34496 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 29 of 173 PageID:

43124
25

Id. ¶ 4. 

Specifically, legacy Engelhard legal spend and settlement amounts “are not 

maintained in current systems and, if they are maintained at all, they would be 

maintained in applications that are no longer supported commercially and reside on 

an offsite server from which information would need to be extracted and reviewed.” 

Id. ¶ 5; see also id. ¶ 6 (“The versions of the applications provided by McCormack 

& Dodge and J.D. Edwards used by Engelhard are no longer supported commercially 

and would require specialized hardware and software to operate.”). And while 

spending and settlement amounts after 2006 (post-acquisition) are maintained in 

online systems, those systems “do not maintain that information in the form that 

plaintiffs seek,” and so “manual review of periodic invoices and related 

correspondence would still be necessary.” Id. ¶ 7.

The information sought by Interrogatory No. 10—the number of claims 

resolved at nine specified points in litigation over nearly 40 years—is also not 

readily accessible and does not exist in the form plaintiffs request. BASF has already 

produced information responsive to plaintiffs’ requests that could potentially be used 

to generate such information, such as the Cahill database. But this request would 

effectively ask BASF to do plaintiffs’ work for them and laboriously examine 

records of past cases, including court records, to ascertain the point when the cases 

may have resolved. BASF does not believe this undertaking is even possible across 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 29 of 30 PageID: 34497 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 30 of 173 PageID:

43125
26

all past cases, or even a critical mass of them. But in all events, there is no basis for 

plaintiffs to ask BASF to do work that they could attempt to undertake themselves.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to 

Interrogatories 9, 10, and 11 in Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories should be 

denied.

Date: May 21, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

s/ Justin T. Quinn

Eugene F. Assaf, P.C. (pro hac vice)

Michael F. Williams

Daniel A. Bress (pro hac vice)

Peter A. Farrell (pro hac vice)

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

655 15th St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

Phone: (202) 879-5000

Facsimile: (202) 879-5200

Justin T. Quinn

Robinson Miller LLC

One Newark Center, 19th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Phone: (973) 690-5400

Facsimile: (973) 466-2760

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529 Filed 05/21/18 Page 30 of 30 PageID: 34498 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 31 of 173 PageID:

43126
Eugene F. Assaf, P.C. (pro hac vice)

Michael F. Williams

Daniel A. Bress (pro hac vice)

Peter A. Farrell (pro hac vice)

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

655 15th St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

Phone: (202) 879-5000

Facsimile: (202) 879-5200

Justin T. Quinn 

ROBINSON MILLER LLC

One Newark Center, 19th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Phone: (973) 690-5400

Facsimile: (973) 466-2761

Counsel for Defendant BASF Catalysts LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BASF CATALYSTS LLC, ET AL.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

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

CIVIL ACTION

DECLARATION OF 

JUSTIN T. QUINN, ESQ.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 34499 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 32 of 173 PageID:

43127
2

I, Justin T. Quinn, of full age, hereby declare as follows: 

1. I am an attorney at law and a partner with the law firm of Robinson 

Miller LLC in Newark, New Jersey. 

2. I am one of the counsel of record for Defendant BASF Catalysts LLC 

in this action. 

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ 

first set of Interrogatories to Defendant BASF Catalysts, LLC in this matter dated 

October 23, 2015. 

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ 

second set of Interrogatories and fourth set of Document Requests to Defendant 

BASF Catalysts, LLC in this matter dated January 22, 2018.

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of BASF 

Catalysts’ Answers to Plaintiffs’ first set of Interrogatories in this matter dated 

December 23, 2016.

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of BASF 

Catalysts’ Answers to Plaintiffs’ second set of Interrogatories in this matter dated 

March 7, 2018.

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ 

third set of Interrogatories and fifth set of Document Requests to Defendant BASF 

Catalysts, LLC in this matter dated March 15, 2018.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 34500 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 33 of 173 PageID:

43128
3

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of BASF 

Catalysts’ Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs’ third set of Interrogatories in this 

matter dated April 16, 2018.

9. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of an email 

from Robert Pratter of Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C. to Peter Farrell and Eugene 

Assaf of Kirkland and Ellis LLP dated April 18, 2018, 2:10 PM.

10. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of an email 

from Peter Farrell of Kirkland and Ellis LLP to Robert Pratter of Cohen, Placitella 

& Roth, P.C. and Eugene Assaf of Kirkland and Ellis LLP dated April 19, 2018, 

4:08 PM.

11. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of an email from 

Harry Roth of Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C. to Eugene Assaf and Peter Farrell of 

Kirkland and Ellis LLP dated April 27, 2018, 5:00 PM.

12. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of an email from 

Peter Farrell of Kirkland and Ellis LLP to Harry Roth of Cohen, Placitella & Roth, 

P.C. dated April 27, 2018, 5:20 PM. 

13. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of an email 

from Peter Farrell of Kirkland and Ellis LLP to Harry Roth of Cohen, Placitella & 

Roth, P.C. dated April 30, 2018, 7:33 AM. 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 34501 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 34 of 173 PageID:

43129
4

14. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct excerpt of the 

Transcript from a Status Conference before the Honorable Joseph A. Dickson, 

Unites States Magistrate Judge dated October 14, 2016. 

15. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of the 

Declaration of Kevin Wood dated May 21, 2018. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the above statements are true and 

correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

s/ Justin T. Quinn

Justin T. Quinn

Dated: May 21, 2018

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 34502 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 35 of 173 PageID:

43130
EXHIBIT A 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-2 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 34503 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 36 of 173 PageID:

43131
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-2 Filed 05/21/18 Page 2 of 14 PageID: 34504 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 37 of 173 PageID:

43132
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-2 Filed 05/21/18 Page 3 of 14 PageID: 34505 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 38 of 173 PageID:

43133
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-2 Filed 05/21/18 Page 4 of 14 PageID: 34506 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 39 of 173 PageID:

43134
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-2 Filed 05/21/18 Page 5 of 14 PageID: 34507 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 40 of 173 PageID:

43135
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-2 Filed 05/21/18 Page 6 of 14 PageID: 34508 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 41 of 173 PageID:

43136
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-2 Filed 05/21/18 Page 7 of 14 PageID: 34509 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 42 of 173 PageID:

43137
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-2 Filed 05/21/18 Page 8 of 14 PageID: 34510 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 43 of 173 PageID:

43138
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-2 Filed 05/21/18 Page 9 of 14 PageID: 34511 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 44 of 173 PageID:

43139
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-2 Filed 05/21/18 Page 10 of 14 PageID: 34512 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 45 of 173 PageID:

43140
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-2 Filed 05/21/18 Page 11 of 14 PageID: 34513 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 46 of 173 PageID:

43141
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-2 Filed 05/21/18 Page 12 of 14 PageID: 34514 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 47 of 173 PageID:

43142
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-2 Filed 05/21/18 Page 13 of 14 PageID: 34515 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 48 of 173 PageID:

43143
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-2 Filed 05/21/18 Page 14 of 14 PageID: 34516 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 49 of 173 PageID:

43144
EXHIBIT B 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-3 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 15 PageID: 34517 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 50 of 173 PageID:

43145
Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.

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

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

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

127 Maple Avenue

Red Bank, NJ 07701

(732) 747-9003

Fox Rothschild LLP

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

Princeton Pike Corp. Center

997 Lennox Drive, Building 3

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

(609) 896-7660

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

BASF CATALYSTS, LLC, et al.,

 

Defendants.

HONORABLE JOSE L. LINARES

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

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES AND

FOURTH SET OF DOCUMENT REQUESTS 

ADDRESSED TO DEFENDANT BASF 

CATALYSTS, LLC

Plaintiffs propound the following interrogatories and document requests upon BASF 

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

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

DEFINITIONS

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

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

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-3 Filed 05/21/18 Page 2 of 15 PageID: 34518 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 51 of 173 PageID:

43146
2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

any division or subsidiary of the above-named entities.

2. “Advertisement” shall mean and refer to any description or presentation of BASF 

intended to induce Consumers to buy, support, or approve of EMTAL, regardless of the format or 

the medium used. It includes brochures, product specifications publications, and Material Safety 

Data Sheets (MSDS).

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

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

crocidolite, tremolite, and anthophyllite. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-3 Filed 05/21/18 Page 3 of 15 PageID: 34519 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 52 of 173 PageID:

43147
3

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

6. “Consumer” refers to any person to whom BASF has marketed to, advertised to, 

distributed to and/or sold to, excluding persons to whom EMTAL was marketed, advertised and/or 

sold solely for the purposes of resale. 

7. “Distributors” or “Retailers” refer to all persons or entities to which EMTAL has 

been marketed to, advertised to, distributed to and/or sold to for the purposes of resale to 

consumers. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-3 Filed 05/21/18 Page 4 of 15 PageID: 34520 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 53 of 173 PageID:

43148
4

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

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

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

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

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

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

product.

12. “Johnson Mine” shall mean and refer to the talc mine located in Johnson, Vermont 

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

manufactured.

13. “Test results” shall mean and refer to any and all measurement, investigation, 

analytical or assay findings of one or more items, persons, samples or environments, as well as 

documents relating to or embodying such findings. It also shall mean and include physical things 

relating to or concerning the findings such as photographs, micrographs, maps, diagrams, graphics, 

tables, and analytical apparatus or machine hardcopy output.

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

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

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

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

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

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

and/or contradicting. 

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

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-3 Filed 05/21/18 Page 5 of 15 PageID: 34521 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 54 of 173 PageID:

43149
5

“or” include “and/or.” The past tense includes the present tense when the clear meaning is not 

distorted by the change of tense.

INSTRUCTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

completely. 

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

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

information is a matter of personal knowledge. 

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

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

to that interrogatory. 

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

that asks to identify persons, state the following: 

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

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

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

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

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-3 Filed 05/21/18 Page 6 of 15 PageID: 34522 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 55 of 173 PageID:

43150
6

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

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

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

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

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

obtained and/or prepared. 

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

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

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

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

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

INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Please identify all settlements You entered into between January 1, 1983 and December 

31, 2009, inclusive, where the plaintiff or claimant (or his/her personal representative) claimed an 

injury due to alleged exposure to EMTAL talc. For each such settlement please include in your 

answer:

a. The asbestos related disease the plaintiff or claimant alleged he or she suffered 

from;

b. Whether You contested the diagnosis of the asbestos related disease alleged by the 

plaintiff or claimant;

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-3 Filed 05/21/18 Page 7 of 15 PageID: 34523 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 56 of 173 PageID:

43151
7

c. The nature of the alleged exposure to EMTAL talc, including whether exposure 

allegedly occurred with EMTAL talc itself or as an ingredient of another product 

using EMTAL talc, such as Bondo;

d. The jurisdiction where the case was filed;

e. The amount of the settlement;

f. The name of the plaintiff or claimant’s lawyer;

g. The amount paid by Your insurance carriers to settle the case;

h. The amount paid directly by You to settle the case;

i. The amount paid by or on behalf of You to Your attorneys prior to the dismissal of 

the plaintiff’s claim;

j. Whether any attorney for You ever represented to the lawyer for the plaintiff or 

claimant that there was no asbestos in EMTAL talc, including the Attorney’s name 

who made the representation;

k. Whether You ever represented to the lawyer for the plaintiff or claimant that there 

was no evidence of asbestos in EMTAL talc, including the name of the person who 

made the representation and his or her authority;

l. Whether the plaintiff or claimant’s lawyer was given a copy of Mr. Ashton’s 

affidavit and if so by whom and why;

m. Whether the plaintiff or claimant’s lawyer was given a copy of any affidavit signed 

by Mr. Charles Carter as affiant, and if so by whom and why;

n. Whether You had in Your possession at the time of dismissal any evidence 

indicating EMTAL talc was sold to plaintiff or claimant's employer; and

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-3 Filed 05/21/18 Page 8 of 15 PageID: 34524 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 57 of 173 PageID:

43152
8

o. Whether the reason for the amount of the settlement was reported to the insurance 

carrier for You;

RESPONSE:

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Please identify all settlements by You entered into on or after January 1, 2010 where the 

plaintiff or claimant (or his/her personal representative) claimed an injury due to alleged exposure 

to EMTAL talc. For each such settlement please include in your answer:

a. The asbestos related disease the plaintiff or claimant alleged he or she suffered 

from;

b. Whether You contested the diagnosis of the asbestos related disease alleged by the 

plaintiff or claimant;

c. The nature of the alleged exposure to EMTAL talc including whether exposure 

allegedly occurred with EMTAL talc itself or as an ingredient of another product 

using EMTAL talc, such as Bondo;

d. The jurisdiction where the case was filed;

e. The amount of the settlement;

f. The name of the plaintiff or claimant’s lawyer;

g. The amount paid by Your insurance carriers to settle the case;

h. The amount paid directly by You to settle the case;

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-3 Filed 05/21/18 Page 9 of 15 PageID: 34525 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 58 of 173 PageID:

43153
9

i. The amount paid by or on behalf of You to Your attorneys prior to the dismissal of 

the plaintiff's claim;

j. Whether any attorney for You ever represented to the lawyer for the plaintiff or 

claimant that there was no asbestos in EMTAL talc, including the Attorney’s name 

who made the representation;

k. Whether You ever represented to the lawyer for the plaintiff there was no evidence 

of asbestos in EMTAL talc, including the name of the person who made the 

representation and his or her authority;

l. Whether the plaintiff or claimant’s lawyer was given a copy of Mr. Ashton’s 

affidavit and if so by whom and why;

m. Whether the plaintiff or claimant’s lawyer was given a copy of any affidavit signed 

by Mr. Charles Carter as affiant, and if so by whom and why;

n. Whether You had in Your possession at the time of dismissal any evidence 

indicating EMTAL talc was sold to the plaintiff or claimant's employer; and 

o. Whether the reason for the amount of the settlement was ever reported to the 

insurance carrier for You;

RESPONSE:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-3 Filed 05/21/18 Page 10 of 15 PageID: 34526 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 59 of 173 PageID:

43154
10

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

Please identify all cases against Engelhard or BASF where the plaintiff or claimant (or 

his/her personal representative) alleged exposure to EMTAL talc prior to 2010 that were

dismissed without payment. For each such case please also specify: 

a. The name of the plaintiff or claimant;

b. The asbestos related disease the plaintiff or claimant alleged he or she suffered 

from;

c. Whether You contested the diagnosis of the asbestos related disease alleged by the 

plaintiff or claimant, and if so how;

d. The nature of the alleged exposure to EMTAL talc including whether exposure 

allegedly occurred to EMTAL talc itself or as an ingredient of a product using 

EMTAL talc such as Bondo;

e. The jurisdiction where the case was filed;

f. The reason for the dismissal if known or documented;

g. The name of the plaintiff or claimant’s lawyer;

h. The amount paid by or on behalf of You to Your attorneys prior to the dismissal of 

the plaintiff's claim;

i. Whether You ever represented to the lawyer for the plaintiff or claimant that there 

was no asbestos in EMTAL talc;

j. Whether any attorney for You ever represented to the lawyer for the plaintiff or 

claimant that there was no asbestos in EMTAL talc, including the Attorney’s name 

who did;

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-3 Filed 05/21/18 Page 11 of 15 PageID: 34527 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 60 of 173 PageID:

43155
11

k. Whether You ever represented to the lawyer for the plaintiff or claimant that there 

was no evidence of asbestos in EMTAL talc, including the Attorney’s name who 

did;

l. Whether the plaintiff or claimant’s lawyer was given a copy of Mr. Ashton’s 

affidavit and if so by whom and why;

m. Whether the plaintiff or claimant’s lawyer was given a copy of any affidavit signed 

by Mr. Charles Carter as affiant, and if so by whom and why;

n. Whether You had in Your possession at the time of dismissal any evidence 

indicating EMTAL talc was sold to the plaintiff or claimant's employer; and 

o. Whether the reason for dismissal was ever reported to the insurance carrier for You;

RESPONSE:

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

List separately by year, starting with 1988 to the present, all law firms, including Cahill, 

and lawyers within those firms whom Engelhard and/or BASF retained to represent, defend or 

otherwise advise it with respect to the defense or other response to Emtal Claims asserted against 

You, and please include in Your response the amount of legal fees and costs paid each year to each 

such firm, the basis upon which such fees were computed (e.g. hourly rates, fixed fee per case or 

other basis), and the hourly rates and time expended by each lawyer or other person for whom you 

were billed. To the extent an insurer or a third party paid the fee in whole or in part, or reimbursed 

BASF in whole or in part, please identify who made such payment, how much was paid or 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-3 Filed 05/21/18 Page 12 of 15 PageID: 34528 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 61 of 173 PageID:

43156
12

reimbursed, whether the payment was made under reservation or rights or any other reservation or 

condition.

RESPONSE:

DOCUMENT REQUEST

1. Please provide a copy of all documents relating to or containing any information 

requested in the above interrogatories, including their subparts.

Dated: January 22, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,

COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.

/s/ Christopher M. Placitella

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

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

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

127 Maple Avenue

Red Bank, NJ 07701

(732) 747-9003

Fox Rothschild LLP

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

Princeton Pike Corp. Center

997 Lennox Drive, Building 3

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

(609) 896-7660

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-3 Filed 05/21/18 Page 13 of 15 PageID: 34529 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 62 of 173 PageID:

43157
13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

BASF CATALYSTS, LLC, et al.,

 

Defendants.

HONORABLE JOSE L. LINARES

CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1754 (JLL) 

(JAD)

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES AND

FOURTH SET OF DOCUMENT 

REQUESTS ADDRESSED TO 

DEFENDANT BASF CATALYSTS, 

LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 22, 2018, I served the foregoing on the following attorneys 

via Email:

Eugene F. Assaf, P.C.

Peter Farrell, Esq.

Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 

655 15th St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

eassaf@kirkland.com

Justin T. Quinn, Esq.

Robinson Miller LLC 

One Newark Center, 19th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102 

jquinn@rwmlegal.com

Attorneys for Defendant, BASF Catalysts, LLC

John K. Villa, Esq.

David Blatt, Esq.

Grant A. Geyerman, Esq.

Williams & Connolly, LLP

725 12th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

jvilla@wc.com

ggeyerman@wc.com

Robert E. Ryan, Esq.

Jennifer C. Critchley, Esq.

Connell Foley, LLP

85 Livingston Avenue

Roseland, New Jersey 07068

rryan@connellfoley.com

Attorneys for Cahill Defendants

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-3 Filed 05/21/18 Page 14 of 15 PageID: 34530 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 63 of 173 PageID:

43158
14

Kevin H. Marino, Esq.

John A. Boyle, Esq

Marino, Tortorella & Boyle, P.C.

437 Southern Boulevard

Chatham, New Jersey 07928

kmarino@khmarino.com

jboyle@khmarino.com

Attorneys for Defendant Arthur Dornbusch

Eric Tunis, Esq.

Herold Law, P.A.

25 Independence Boulevard

Warren, New Jersey 07059

etunis@heroldlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Thomas Halket

COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.

/s/ Michael Coren 

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

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

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

127 Maple Avenue

Red Bank, NJ 07701

(732) 747-9003

Fox Rothschild LLP

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

Princeton Pike Corp. Center

997 Lennox Drive, Building 3

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

(609) 896-7660

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-3 Filed 05/21/18 Page 15 of 15 PageID: 34531 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 64 of 173 PageID:

43159
EXHIBIT C 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 22 PageID: 34532 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 65 of 173 PageID:

43160
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, individually, as personal 

representative of the Estate of Charles L. Williams, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; NANCY PEASE, individually, 

as personal representative of the Estate of William Clark, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; MARILYN L. HOLLEY, as 

personal representative of the Estate of Kathryn Darnell, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; DONNA WARE, individually as 

personal representative of the Estate of Ralph Ware, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; and DONNETTE WENGERD, 

individually, as personal representative of the Estate of 

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

representative of others similarly situated, and 

ROSANNE CHERNICK, individually, as personal 

representative of the Estate of Steven Chernick, deceased 

on behalf of said estate, and as representative of others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BASF CATALYSTS LLC, CAHILL GORDON & 

REINDEL LLP, CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL, a 

partnership including a professional corporation, 

THOMAS D. HALKET, ARTHUR A. DORNBUSCH 

II, GLENN HEMSTOCK, HOWARD G. SLOANE 

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

JOHN DOE BUSINESS ENTITIES 1 to 100; JOHN 

DOE BUSINESS ENTITIES 101 to 200; JOHN DOE 

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

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

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

CIVIL ACTION

ANSWERS OF BASF CATALYSTS LLC TO INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY 

THE PLAINTIFFS

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

and Kirkland & Ellis LLP, answers the Interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs as follows:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 2 of 22 PageID: 34533 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 66 of 173 PageID:

43161
2

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

BASF’s answers to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories reflect information currently known and 

reasonably available to BASF. Many of the interrogatories seek information about events that 

took place over a span of decades related to a subsidiary of Engelhard Corporation that ceased 

operation in 1983, nearly twenty-five years before a BASF entity acquired Engelhard 

Corporation in 2006. BASF has used its best efforts and attempted in good faith to investigate 

and obtain the information required to answer Plaintiffs’ interrogatories. The following answers 

are based upon that investigation and the information obtained. Although BASF has made a 

reasonable effort to answer these interrogatories to the best of its present knowledge, 

information, and belief, under the circumstances, BASF cannot exclude the potential that further 

information may reveal additional information, in which case BASF reserves the right to 

supplement its answer.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Identify all documents in Your possession, custody, or control that identify, or can be used to 

identify, members or potential members of the proposed classes.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that a variety of documents 

identify individuals who previously filed Emtal-related claims against Engelhard and BASF, 

including but not limited to pleadings from the prior litigation, discovery requests and responses 

from the prior litigation, correspondence from the prior litigation, and databases that Cahill 

Gordon prepared in connection with the prior litigation. 

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 1 is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it asks 

BASF to identify “all documents” from an unlimited period of time that might be used to identify 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 3 of 22 PageID: 34534 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 67 of 173 PageID:

43162
3

unspecified individuals. BASF further objects that Interrogatory No. 1 seeks information not in 

the possession, custody, or control of BASF. BASF further objects that Interrogatory No. 1 

seeks information that can be more readily obtained from other sources that are more convenient, 

including Plaintiffs’ current or former counsel. BASF further objects to the extent it seeks 

information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. BASF further 

objects that any proposed class certification would be improper.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Identify all insurance and excess policies covering the claims set forth against You in Plaintiffs’

Second Amended Class Action Complaint, the limits of those policies, and whether any 

disclaimers or reservations of rights have been received by You regarding such claims.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that Engelhard’s potentially 

applicable primary general liability insurance policies were issued by Royal Insurance Company, 

Royal Globe Insurance Company, Royal Insurance Company of America, Newark Insurance 

Company, and Commercial Union Insurance Company, with a combined bodily injury coverage 

limit of $13.4 million. The effective dates of these policies range from 1967-1986. However, 

the products bodily injury coverage limits for certain of these policies have been exhausted, 

thereby triggering certain excess layer insurance policies. BASF further states that each of the 

potentially applicable insurance policies includes certain exclusions. BASF will continue to 

review whether coverage is available. 

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 2 seeks information that is not relevant to the claims 

and defenses in this case and that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as (i) it is not 

limited to any relevant time period; and (ii) it seeks information spanning a period of several 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 4 of 22 PageID: 34535 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 68 of 173 PageID:

43163
4

decades. BASF objects to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client 

privilege or work product doctrine.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

Identify all BASF personnel who worked on matters related to EMTAL Claims, including in 

your answer the time period(s) they worked on the claims, and their roles and responsibilities.

INTERROGATORY RESPONSE NO. 3:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF identifies the following individuals 

who were internal lawyers for Engelhard or BASF and whose work during certain periods of 

time related to personal-injury litigation based on alleged exposure to Emtal talc:

 Arthur Dornbusch (Vice President, General Counsel, & Secretary, Engelhard 

Corporation)

 Thomas Halket (Counsel, Engelhard Corporation)

 Lester Fliegel (counsel, Engelhard Corporation)

 John Peters (counsel, Engelhard Corporation)

 Michael Hassett (counsel, Engelhard Corporation)

 Jonathan Greenberg (counsel, Engelhard Corporation and BASF Corporation)

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 3 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly 

burdensome as (i) it is not limited to any relevant time period; (ii) it is not limited to matters that 

are relevant to the claims or defenses in this case; and (iii) it uses the phrase “worked on matters 

related to.” BASF further objects that any proposed class certification would be improper.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

State if, and when, each BASF personnel identified in Answer to Interrogatory #3 were aware of 

the following:

(a) The testimony of Dr. Hemstock, Mr. Triglia, and/or Mr. Gale given in the 

Westfall case;

(b) Any or all of the documents produced or developed in connection with the 

discovery in the Westfall case;

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 5 of 22 PageID: 34536 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 69 of 173 PageID:

43164
5

(c) The existence of documents showing the presence of asbestos or asbestos fibers in 

EMTAL talc finished products or talc ore samples taken from the Johnson Mine;

(d) Cahill Gordon’s and/or local counsel’s answers to discovery on BASF’s behalf in 

EMTAL claim litigation matters.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states:

(a) Arthur Dornbusch and Thomas Halket became aware of the testimony of 

Dr. Hemstock, Mr. Triglia, and/or Mr. Gale during the Westfall case. With 

respect to Michael Hassett, Lester Fliegel, Jonathan Greenberg, and John Peters, 

these individuals either were not aware of the testimony of Dr. Hemstock, 

Mr. Triglia, and/or Mr. Gale, or learned about the testimony in or after October 

2009. 

(b) BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 4(b) is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, 

unduly burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and that the burden or expense 

of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, as it is not limited to 

(i) any relevant time period, (ii) uses the phrase “developed in connection with,” 

(iii) asks about “any or all” documents from a Rhode Island case from 30 years 

ago, and (iv) asks about documents regardless of their nature or the party who 

produced and/or produced or prepared them. BASF further objects to the extent 

Interrogatory No. 4(b) seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege 

or work product doctrine. 

(c) By way of response, BASF refers to its Response to Interrogatory No. 4(a).

(d) BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 4(d) is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, 

unduly burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and that the burden or expense 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 6 of 22 PageID: 34537 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 70 of 173 PageID:

43165
6

of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, as it (i) asks about 

unspecified discovery responses over the span of decades, (ii) asks when multiple 

individuals may have been aware of those unidentified responses, regardless of 

when they were issued and when the person may have worked for Engelhard or 

BASF, and (iii) is not limited to any relevant time period. BASF further objects 

to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or 

work product doctrine.

BASF incorporates its objections to Interrogatory No. 3. BASF further objects that 

Plaintiffs’ use of subparts and reference to individuals identified in Interrogatory No. 3 comprise 

separate and discrete interrogatories under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1).

INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

Identify all BASF personnel who worked on matters related to Your document retention policies, 

including in your answer the time period(s) that they worked on such matters and their roles and 

responsibilities.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that in or around 1983 to 

1984, Engelhard engaged Cahill to research and draft an appropriate document retention policy 

for Engelhard. Certain Engelhard employees were involved in that process, including: 

 Arthur Dornbusch; 

 Thomas Halket.

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 5 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and that the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweighs its likely benefit, as (i) it is not limited to any relevant time period; (ii) it 

asks for identification of “all personnel” over the span of multiple decades; (iii) it asks about 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 7 of 22 PageID: 34538 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 71 of 173 PageID:

43166
7

unspecified document retention policies issued by multiple corporate entities; and (iv) uses the 

phrase “worked on matters related to.”

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

Identify and list in chronological order every EMTAL claimant and the date on which BASF was 

first on notice of the claimant’s EMTAL claim.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that Plaintiffs’ and/or their 

decedents filed their underlying actions on the following dates:

Claimant Date

Charles L. Williams March 19, 1992

William F. Clark April 4, 1994

Nancy Pease June 21, 1995

Kathryn Darnell November 14, 2000

Ralph Ware May 29, 2002

Jennifer Graham April 9, 2008

Steven Chernick August 30, 2001

BASF further states that, subject to an appropriate order under Fed. R. Evid. 502(d), it will 

produce the litigation database that Cahill prepared while it was defending Emtal-related cases.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 8 of 22 PageID: 34539 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 72 of 173 PageID:

43167
8

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 6 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and that the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit, as it asks BASF to list in chronological order every “claimant” over the course of 

multiple decades in multiple jurisdictions and asks BASF to determine when it or a corporate 

predecessor was on “notice” of each “claimant’s” claim. BASF further objects that Interrogatory 

No. 6 seeks information not in the possession, custody, or control of BASF. BASF further 

objects that Interrogatory No. 6 seeks information that can be more readily obtained from other 

sources that are more convenient, including the former counsel for individuals who previously 

filed Emtal-related claims. BASF further objects that Interrogatory No. 6 requests publicly 

available information already in the possession, custody, or control of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ 

agents, and/or counsel. BASF further objects that class certification would be improper.

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

Identify all Cahill personnel that BASF personnel interacted with in connection with:

(a) EMTAL claims;

(b) Insurance coverage matters relating to EMTAL Claims;

(c) BASF document retention policies, including, but not limited to, the preservation, 

storage, location, disposition, destruction or determination of fate of documents 

and discovery related to the Westfall case;

(d) BASF financial and accounting matters;

(e) The preservation, storage, location, disposition, destruction or determination of 

fate of BASF’s internal documents relating to EMTAL talc products or talc ore.

Include in your answer the time period(s) of the interaction and the description of the interaction.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 9 of 22 PageID: 34540 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 73 of 173 PageID:

43168
9

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that multiple Cahill partners, 

associates, and other personnel interacted with BASF and its predecessor’s employees over the 

course of decades on a variety of matters, including the following individuals:

 Howard G. Sloane;

 Ira Dembrow; 

 Allen Joslyn; 

 Thomas Kavaler;

 Immanuel Kohn;

 Eric Sarner;

 David Hyde;

 Leonard Spivak;

 Michael Sullivan.

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 7’s subparts comprise separate and discrete 

interrogatories under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). BASF further objects that Interrogatory No. 7 is 

vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and that the 

burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, as (i) it is not limited to 

any relevant time period; (ii) seeks information about unspecified “financial and accounting 

matters,” (iii) seeks information about “insurance coverage matters,” (iv) uses vague terms like 

“determination of fate,” (v) asks about unspecified document retention policies of multiple 

corporate entities, and (vi) references unspecified “BASF personnel.” BASF further objects that 

Interrogatory No. 7 seeks information not in the possession, custody, or control of BASF. BASF 

further objects that Interrogatory No. 7 seeks information that can be more readily obtained from 

other sources that are more convenient. BASF further objects to the extent that Interrogatory 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 10 of 22 PageID: 34541 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 74 of 173 PageID:

43169
10

No. 7 calls for information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product 

doctrine. BASF objects that any proposed class certification would be improper.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

Identify all physical and electronic locations where You stored or maintained records and 

documents relating to EMTAL talc products or ore and/or EMTAL claims.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that documents concerning 

Emtal talc and litigation based on alleged Emtal talc exposure were stored in different locations, 

including off-site storage maintained by Cahill Gordon & Reindel, Engelhard facilities, and 

BASF off-site storage. 

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 8 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and that the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweighs its likely benefit, as (i) it is not limited to any relevant time period; (ii) it 

seeks information spanning a period of several decades, (iii) it asks BASF to identify “all 

locations” where documents were kept by multiple corporate entities and employees, and (iv) it 

asks about unspecified documents “relating to” products and “claims.”

INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

Describe the process or procedure by which You answered and verified discovery in EMTAL 

Claims, including in your answer, the identity of all persons involved in that process or 

procedure and the sources of information relied upon.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that Cahill, as national 

counsel for Engelhard and later BASF in personal-injury litigation related to Emtal talc, was 

responsible from the 1980s until 2009 for managing discovery, for drafting responses to 

discovery requests, for providing information to local counsel that would form the basis for 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 11 of 22 PageID: 34542 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 75 of 173 PageID:

43170
11

discovery responses, and for reviewing and approving responses to discovery requests drafted by 

local counsel. In consultation with Cahill and based on Cahill’s review of documents, the 

discovery requests, and other materials, Charles Carter and Craig Stoneback verified discovery 

responses prepared by Cahill at various points of time. By way of further response, BASF refers

to its response to Interrogatory No. 3. 

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 9 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and that the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit, as (i) it is not limited to any relevant time period; (ii) it seeks information spanning a 

period of several decades; (iii) seeks information about unspecified “discovery” in dozens of 

cases in multiple jurisdictions over the course of decades; and (iv) asks about the process that 

multiple corporate entities, employees, and others may have undertaken to respond to 

unspecified “discovery.” BASF further objects to the extent that Interrogatory No. 9 asks for 

information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. 

BASF further objects that any proposed class certification would be improper.

INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

Identify all persons and participants involved in the development, drafting, revising, 

dissemination, and execution of the March 7, 1984 memorandum issued by Dr. Glen Hemstock 

(attached as Ex. 3 to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Class Action Complaint).

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF identifies: Glen Hemstock; Arthur 

Dornbusch; Thomas Halket; and attorneys from Cahill Gordon. 

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 10 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, as 

it asks BASF to identify “all persons and participants” who were “involved in” any aspect of 

preparing, disseminating, or responding to a memorandum that was sent multiple decades ago by 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 12 of 22 PageID: 34543 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 76 of 173 PageID:

43171
12

employees of a corporate predecessor. BASF further objects to the extent that Interrogatory 

No. 10 calls for information in the possession of other parties.

INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

Identify all persons and participants involved in the development, drafting, revising, 

dissemination, and execution of the May 8, 1989 affidavit of Mr. William H. Ashton (attached as 

Ex. 4 to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Class Action Complaint).

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that Cahill attorneys, 

including Peter Sloane and Ira Dembrow, drafted, revised, and worked with William Ashton to 

finalize and sign the May 8, 1989 affidavit of William H. Ashton. Attorneys for Johnson & 

Johnson also were involved. BASF further states that, in addition to various other materials that 

varied by case, Cahill attorneys disseminated Mr. Ashton’s May 8, 1989 at various points in time 

while Cahill served as national counsel in Emtal-related personal-injury litigation from 1989 

until the 2000s. In addition to various other materials that varied by case, local counsel acting at 

Cahill’s direction also disseminated Mr. Ashton’s affidavit at various points in time from 1989 

until the 2000s. 

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 11 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and that the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweigh its likely benefit, as it asks BASF to identify “all persons and participants” 

who were “involved in” any aspect of preparing, signing, or disseminating an affidavit that was 

prepared multiple decades ago. BASF further objects that Interrogatory No. 11 calls for 

information in the possession of other parties. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

Identify all persons and participants involved in the researching, development, drafting, revising, 

dissemination, and execution of any affidavit verified by Mr. Charles D. Carter (such as those 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 13 of 22 PageID: 34544 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 77 of 173 PageID:

43172
13

attached as Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Class Action Complaint) 

submitted to claimants and/or their counsel in connection with EMTAL Claims.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that Cahill attorneys, 

including Peter Sloane and Ira Dembrow, drafted, revised, and worked with Charles Carter to 

finalize and sign affidavits regarding Emtal talc and the Johnson talc mine. Arthur Dornbusch 

and Lester Fliegel were at times involved in facilitating Cahill’s communications with 

Mr. Carter. BASF further states that, in addition to various other materials that varied by case, 

Cahill attorneys disseminated affidavits signed by Mr. Carter at various points in time while 

Cahill served as national counsel in Emtal-related personal-injury litigation from 1989 until the 

2000s. In addition to various other materials that varied by case, local counsel acting at Cahill’s 

direction may also have disseminated some or all of Mr. Carter’s Emtal-related affidavits at 

various points in time from the late 1980s until the 2000s.

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 12 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and that the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweigh its likely benefit, as it asks BASF to identify “all persons and participants” 

who were “involved in” any aspect of preparing, signing, or disseminating an affidavit that was 

prepared multiple decades ago. BASF further objects that Interrogatory No. 12 calls for 

information in the possession of other parties.

INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

Identify all BASF personnel knowledgeable about, or involved in, the matter captioned as Martin 

v. Uniroyal, Inc., et al., P.C. No. 01-3735 (“Martin”) filed in the Superior Court of the State of 

Rhode Island.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 14 of 22 PageID: 34545 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 78 of 173 PageID:

43173
14

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that Engelhard employees 

Arthur Dornbusch and Michael Hassett were aware of the Martin case and communicated with 

the Cahill attorneys who defended Engelhard in the Martin case. 

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 13 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and that the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit as it asks BASF to identify “all personnel” who were “knowledgeable about” or were 

“involved in” a litigation matter that was filed and settled years ago by a corporate predecessor.

INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

Identify all BASF personnel knowledgeable about the EMTAL talc product samples tested by 

the R.J. Lee Group in 1993.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that it presently does not 

know which Engelhard employees, if any, were aware in 1993 of the testing that R.J. Lee Group 

conducted on Emtal talc samples. 

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 14 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and that the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweighs its likely benefit, as it asks BASF to identify “all personnel” who were 

“knowledgeable about” a test conducted by a third party several decades ago.

INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

Was your Board of Directors ever given reports on EMTAL Claims? If so, state when your 

Board of Directors were advised, by whom, and the nature and substance of the information 

reported.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 15 of 22 PageID: 34546 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 79 of 173 PageID:

43174
15

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that Engelhard’s Board of 

Directors received general litigation updates from Cahill attorneys and/or from Arthur 

Dornbusch from time to time. 

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 15 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly 

burdensome, as (i) it is not limited to any time period; (ii) asks about unspecified “reports,” and 

(iii) asks about updates to the Board of Directors of multiple corporate entities over a period of 

decades. BASF further objects that Interrogatory No. 15 calls for information protected from 

disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrines.

INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

State why You discharged Cahill as your attorneys.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 16 calls for information protected from disclosure 

by the attorney-client and work-product privileges. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

How much did You pay Cahill for its legal services throughout the tenure of Cahill’s 

representation of BASF?

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 17 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and that the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweighs its likely benefit as it asks BASF to identify amounts that it or a corporate 

predecessor paid to Cahill during an unlimited period of time to handle unspecified legal matters, 

regardless of their subject or nature. 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 16 of 22 PageID: 34547 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 80 of 173 PageID:

43175
16

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

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

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

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

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

objects that certain interrogatories incorrectly suggest that all Emtal talc contained asbestos. 

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

uncertain and speculative by encompassing “affiliated entities.”

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

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

specific claims.

5. BASF objects that Instruction No. 3 calls for corporate knowledge of any and all 

individuals employed by a corporate entity spanning a period of several decades.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(g) identify any custodian or records no longer known to BASF. 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 17 of 22 PageID: 34548 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 81 of 173 PageID:

43176
17

7. BASF objects that the definitions and instructions impose upon BASF 

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

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

unreasonably burden of inquiry.

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

to a reasoned interpretation.

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

of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 

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

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

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

claims.

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

“every,” BASF objects that the interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it would 

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

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

13. BASF objects that the interrogatories request information already in the 

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

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 18 of 22 PageID: 34549 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 82 of 173 PageID:

43177
18

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

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

reasonably expect to find documents responsive to these interrogatories.

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

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

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

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

obtainable by less burdensome or less invasive means.

17. BASF objects that the interrogatories seek information protected from disclosure 

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

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

information is not a waiver of any privilege.

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

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

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

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

secrets, or other confidential business information.

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

exceed the number allowed by the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

21. BASF does not concede that any of its answers are or will be admissible evidence 

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

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 19 of 22 PageID: 34550 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 83 of 173 PageID:

43178
19

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

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

BASF expressly incorporates its General Objections into each of its answers above.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 20 of 22 PageID: 34551 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 84 of 173 PageID:

43179
20

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I certify that on this day counsel for the following parties were served electronically with 

Defendant BASF Catalysts LLC’s Answers to Interrogatories Propounded by Plaintiffs:

Christopher M. Placitella, Esquire

Micheal Coren, Esquire

Cohen Placitella & Roth PC

127 Maple Avenue

Red Bank, NJ 07701

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

John K. Villa, Esquire

David S. Blatt, Esquire

Grant A. Geyerman, Esquire

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP

725 Twelfth Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

Robert E. Ryan, Esquire

Marc D. Haefner, Esquire

Craig Demareski, Esquire

Connell Foley LLP

85 Livingston Avenue

Roseland, NJ 07068

Attorneys for Defendants Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP,

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

Eric Tunis, Esquire

Oliver Salvagno, Esquire

Greenbaum Rowe Smith & Davis LLP

99 Wood Avenue South

Iselin, NJ 08830

Attorneys for Defendant Thomas D. Halket

Kevin Marino, Esquire

John A. Boyle, Esquire

Marino, Tortorella & Boyle PC

437 Southern Blvd.

Chatham, NJ 07928

Attorneys for Defendant Arthur A. Dornbusch II

__s/ Justin T. Quinn______

Justin Quinn 

Dated: December 23, 2016 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 21 of 22 PageID: 34552 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 85 of 173 PageID:

43180
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 22 of 22 PageID: 34553 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 86 of 173 PageID:

43181
EXHIBIT C 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 22 PageID: 34532 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 87 of 173 PageID:

43182
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, individually, as personal 

representative of the Estate of Charles L. Williams, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; NANCY PEASE, individually, 

as personal representative of the Estate of William Clark, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; MARILYN L. HOLLEY, as 

personal representative of the Estate of Kathryn Darnell, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; DONNA WARE, individually as 

personal representative of the Estate of Ralph Ware, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; and DONNETTE WENGERD, 

individually, as personal representative of the Estate of 

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

representative of others similarly situated, and 

ROSANNE CHERNICK, individually, as personal 

representative of the Estate of Steven Chernick, deceased 

on behalf of said estate, and as representative of others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BASF CATALYSTS LLC, CAHILL GORDON & 

REINDEL LLP, CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL, a 

partnership including a professional corporation, 

THOMAS D. HALKET, ARTHUR A. DORNBUSCH 

II, GLENN HEMSTOCK, HOWARD G. SLOANE 

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

JOHN DOE BUSINESS ENTITIES 1 to 100; JOHN 

DOE BUSINESS ENTITIES 101 to 200; JOHN DOE 

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

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

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

CIVIL ACTION

ANSWERS OF BASF CATALYSTS LLC TO INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY 

THE PLAINTIFFS

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

and Kirkland & Ellis LLP, answers the Interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs as follows:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 2 of 22 PageID: 34533 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 88 of 173 PageID:

43183
2

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

BASF’s answers to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories reflect information currently known and 

reasonably available to BASF. Many of the interrogatories seek information about events that 

took place over a span of decades related to a subsidiary of Engelhard Corporation that ceased 

operation in 1983, nearly twenty-five years before a BASF entity acquired Engelhard 

Corporation in 2006. BASF has used its best efforts and attempted in good faith to investigate 

and obtain the information required to answer Plaintiffs’ interrogatories. The following answers 

are based upon that investigation and the information obtained. Although BASF has made a 

reasonable effort to answer these interrogatories to the best of its present knowledge, 

information, and belief, under the circumstances, BASF cannot exclude the potential that further 

information may reveal additional information, in which case BASF reserves the right to 

supplement its answer.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Identify all documents in Your possession, custody, or control that identify, or can be used to 

identify, members or potential members of the proposed classes.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that a variety of documents 

identify individuals who previously filed Emtal-related claims against Engelhard and BASF, 

including but not limited to pleadings from the prior litigation, discovery requests and responses 

from the prior litigation, correspondence from the prior litigation, and databases that Cahill 

Gordon prepared in connection with the prior litigation. 

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 1 is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it asks 

BASF to identify “all documents” from an unlimited period of time that might be used to identify 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 3 of 22 PageID: 34534 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 89 of 173 PageID:

43184
3

unspecified individuals. BASF further objects that Interrogatory No. 1 seeks information not in 

the possession, custody, or control of BASF. BASF further objects that Interrogatory No. 1 

seeks information that can be more readily obtained from other sources that are more convenient, 

including Plaintiffs’ current or former counsel. BASF further objects to the extent it seeks 

information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. BASF further 

objects that any proposed class certification would be improper.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Identify all insurance and excess policies covering the claims set forth against You in Plaintiffs’

Second Amended Class Action Complaint, the limits of those policies, and whether any 

disclaimers or reservations of rights have been received by You regarding such claims.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that Engelhard’s potentially 

applicable primary general liability insurance policies were issued by Royal Insurance Company, 

Royal Globe Insurance Company, Royal Insurance Company of America, Newark Insurance 

Company, and Commercial Union Insurance Company, with a combined bodily injury coverage 

limit of $13.4 million. The effective dates of these policies range from 1967-1986. However, 

the products bodily injury coverage limits for certain of these policies have been exhausted, 

thereby triggering certain excess layer insurance policies. BASF further states that each of the 

potentially applicable insurance policies includes certain exclusions. BASF will continue to 

review whether coverage is available. 

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 2 seeks information that is not relevant to the claims 

and defenses in this case and that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as (i) it is not 

limited to any relevant time period; and (ii) it seeks information spanning a period of several 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 4 of 22 PageID: 34535 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 90 of 173 PageID:

43185
4

decades. BASF objects to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client 

privilege or work product doctrine.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

Identify all BASF personnel who worked on matters related to EMTAL Claims, including in 

your answer the time period(s) they worked on the claims, and their roles and responsibilities.

INTERROGATORY RESPONSE NO. 3:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF identifies the following individuals 

who were internal lawyers for Engelhard or BASF and whose work during certain periods of 

time related to personal-injury litigation based on alleged exposure to Emtal talc:

 Arthur Dornbusch (Vice President, General Counsel, & Secretary, Engelhard 

Corporation)

 Thomas Halket (Counsel, Engelhard Corporation)

 Lester Fliegel (counsel, Engelhard Corporation)

 John Peters (counsel, Engelhard Corporation)

 Michael Hassett (counsel, Engelhard Corporation)

 Jonathan Greenberg (counsel, Engelhard Corporation and BASF Corporation)

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 3 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly 

burdensome as (i) it is not limited to any relevant time period; (ii) it is not limited to matters that 

are relevant to the claims or defenses in this case; and (iii) it uses the phrase “worked on matters 

related to.” BASF further objects that any proposed class certification would be improper.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

State if, and when, each BASF personnel identified in Answer to Interrogatory #3 were aware of 

the following:

(a) The testimony of Dr. Hemstock, Mr. Triglia, and/or Mr. Gale given in the 

Westfall case;

(b) Any or all of the documents produced or developed in connection with the 

discovery in the Westfall case;

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 5 of 22 PageID: 34536 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 91 of 173 PageID:

43186
5

(c) The existence of documents showing the presence of asbestos or asbestos fibers in 

EMTAL talc finished products or talc ore samples taken from the Johnson Mine;

(d) Cahill Gordon’s and/or local counsel’s answers to discovery on BASF’s behalf in 

EMTAL claim litigation matters.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states:

(a) Arthur Dornbusch and Thomas Halket became aware of the testimony of 

Dr. Hemstock, Mr. Triglia, and/or Mr. Gale during the Westfall case. With 

respect to Michael Hassett, Lester Fliegel, Jonathan Greenberg, and John Peters, 

these individuals either were not aware of the testimony of Dr. Hemstock, 

Mr. Triglia, and/or Mr. Gale, or learned about the testimony in or after October 

2009. 

(b) BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 4(b) is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, 

unduly burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and that the burden or expense 

of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, as it is not limited to 

(i) any relevant time period, (ii) uses the phrase “developed in connection with,” 

(iii) asks about “any or all” documents from a Rhode Island case from 30 years 

ago, and (iv) asks about documents regardless of their nature or the party who 

produced and/or produced or prepared them. BASF further objects to the extent 

Interrogatory No. 4(b) seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege 

or work product doctrine. 

(c) By way of response, BASF refers to its Response to Interrogatory No. 4(a).

(d) BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 4(d) is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, 

unduly burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and that the burden or expense 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 6 of 22 PageID: 34537 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 92 of 173 PageID:

43187
6

of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, as it (i) asks about 

unspecified discovery responses over the span of decades, (ii) asks when multiple 

individuals may have been aware of those unidentified responses, regardless of 

when they were issued and when the person may have worked for Engelhard or 

BASF, and (iii) is not limited to any relevant time period. BASF further objects 

to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or 

work product doctrine.

BASF incorporates its objections to Interrogatory No. 3. BASF further objects that 

Plaintiffs’ use of subparts and reference to individuals identified in Interrogatory No. 3 comprise 

separate and discrete interrogatories under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1).

INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

Identify all BASF personnel who worked on matters related to Your document retention policies, 

including in your answer the time period(s) that they worked on such matters and their roles and 

responsibilities.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that in or around 1983 to 

1984, Engelhard engaged Cahill to research and draft an appropriate document retention policy 

for Engelhard. Certain Engelhard employees were involved in that process, including: 

 Arthur Dornbusch; 

 Thomas Halket.

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 5 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and that the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweighs its likely benefit, as (i) it is not limited to any relevant time period; (ii) it 

asks for identification of “all personnel” over the span of multiple decades; (iii) it asks about 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 7 of 22 PageID: 34538 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 93 of 173 PageID:

43188
7

unspecified document retention policies issued by multiple corporate entities; and (iv) uses the 

phrase “worked on matters related to.”

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

Identify and list in chronological order every EMTAL claimant and the date on which BASF was 

first on notice of the claimant’s EMTAL claim.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that Plaintiffs’ and/or their 

decedents filed their underlying actions on the following dates:

Claimant Date

Charles L. Williams March 19, 1992

William F. Clark April 4, 1994

Nancy Pease June 21, 1995

Kathryn Darnell November 14, 2000

Ralph Ware May 29, 2002

Jennifer Graham April 9, 2008

Steven Chernick August 30, 2001

BASF further states that, subject to an appropriate order under Fed. R. Evid. 502(d), it will 

produce the litigation database that Cahill prepared while it was defending Emtal-related cases.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 8 of 22 PageID: 34539 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 94 of 173 PageID:

43189
8

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 6 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and that the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit, as it asks BASF to list in chronological order every “claimant” over the course of 

multiple decades in multiple jurisdictions and asks BASF to determine when it or a corporate 

predecessor was on “notice” of each “claimant’s” claim. BASF further objects that Interrogatory 

No. 6 seeks information not in the possession, custody, or control of BASF. BASF further 

objects that Interrogatory No. 6 seeks information that can be more readily obtained from other 

sources that are more convenient, including the former counsel for individuals who previously 

filed Emtal-related claims. BASF further objects that Interrogatory No. 6 requests publicly 

available information already in the possession, custody, or control of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ 

agents, and/or counsel. BASF further objects that class certification would be improper.

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

Identify all Cahill personnel that BASF personnel interacted with in connection with:

(a) EMTAL claims;

(b) Insurance coverage matters relating to EMTAL Claims;

(c) BASF document retention policies, including, but not limited to, the preservation, 

storage, location, disposition, destruction or determination of fate of documents 

and discovery related to the Westfall case;

(d) BASF financial and accounting matters;

(e) The preservation, storage, location, disposition, destruction or determination of 

fate of BASF’s internal documents relating to EMTAL talc products or talc ore.

Include in your answer the time period(s) of the interaction and the description of the interaction.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 9 of 22 PageID: 34540 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 95 of 173 PageID:

43190
9

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that multiple Cahill partners, 

associates, and other personnel interacted with BASF and its predecessor’s employees over the 

course of decades on a variety of matters, including the following individuals:

 Howard G. Sloane;

 Ira Dembrow; 

 Allen Joslyn; 

 Thomas Kavaler;

 Immanuel Kohn;

 Eric Sarner;

 David Hyde;

 Leonard Spivak;

 Michael Sullivan.

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 7’s subparts comprise separate and discrete 

interrogatories under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). BASF further objects that Interrogatory No. 7 is 

vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and that the 

burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, as (i) it is not limited to 

any relevant time period; (ii) seeks information about unspecified “financial and accounting 

matters,” (iii) seeks information about “insurance coverage matters,” (iv) uses vague terms like 

“determination of fate,” (v) asks about unspecified document retention policies of multiple 

corporate entities, and (vi) references unspecified “BASF personnel.” BASF further objects that 

Interrogatory No. 7 seeks information not in the possession, custody, or control of BASF. BASF 

further objects that Interrogatory No. 7 seeks information that can be more readily obtained from 

other sources that are more convenient. BASF further objects to the extent that Interrogatory 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 10 of 22 PageID: 34541 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 96 of 173 PageID:

43191
10

No. 7 calls for information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product 

doctrine. BASF objects that any proposed class certification would be improper.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

Identify all physical and electronic locations where You stored or maintained records and 

documents relating to EMTAL talc products or ore and/or EMTAL claims.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that documents concerning 

Emtal talc and litigation based on alleged Emtal talc exposure were stored in different locations, 

including off-site storage maintained by Cahill Gordon & Reindel, Engelhard facilities, and 

BASF off-site storage. 

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 8 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and that the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweighs its likely benefit, as (i) it is not limited to any relevant time period; (ii) it 

seeks information spanning a period of several decades, (iii) it asks BASF to identify “all 

locations” where documents were kept by multiple corporate entities and employees, and (iv) it 

asks about unspecified documents “relating to” products and “claims.”

INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

Describe the process or procedure by which You answered and verified discovery in EMTAL 

Claims, including in your answer, the identity of all persons involved in that process or 

procedure and the sources of information relied upon.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that Cahill, as national 

counsel for Engelhard and later BASF in personal-injury litigation related to Emtal talc, was 

responsible from the 1980s until 2009 for managing discovery, for drafting responses to 

discovery requests, for providing information to local counsel that would form the basis for 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 11 of 22 PageID: 34542 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 97 of 173 PageID:

43192
11

discovery responses, and for reviewing and approving responses to discovery requests drafted by 

local counsel. In consultation with Cahill and based on Cahill’s review of documents, the 

discovery requests, and other materials, Charles Carter and Craig Stoneback verified discovery 

responses prepared by Cahill at various points of time. By way of further response, BASF refers

to its response to Interrogatory No. 3. 

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 9 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and that the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit, as (i) it is not limited to any relevant time period; (ii) it seeks information spanning a 

period of several decades; (iii) seeks information about unspecified “discovery” in dozens of 

cases in multiple jurisdictions over the course of decades; and (iv) asks about the process that 

multiple corporate entities, employees, and others may have undertaken to respond to 

unspecified “discovery.” BASF further objects to the extent that Interrogatory No. 9 asks for 

information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. 

BASF further objects that any proposed class certification would be improper.

INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

Identify all persons and participants involved in the development, drafting, revising, 

dissemination, and execution of the March 7, 1984 memorandum issued by Dr. Glen Hemstock 

(attached as Ex. 3 to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Class Action Complaint).

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF identifies: Glen Hemstock; Arthur 

Dornbusch; Thomas Halket; and attorneys from Cahill Gordon. 

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 10 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, as 

it asks BASF to identify “all persons and participants” who were “involved in” any aspect of 

preparing, disseminating, or responding to a memorandum that was sent multiple decades ago by 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 12 of 22 PageID: 34543 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 98 of 173 PageID:

43193
12

employees of a corporate predecessor. BASF further objects to the extent that Interrogatory 

No. 10 calls for information in the possession of other parties.

INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

Identify all persons and participants involved in the development, drafting, revising, 

dissemination, and execution of the May 8, 1989 affidavit of Mr. William H. Ashton (attached as 

Ex. 4 to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Class Action Complaint).

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that Cahill attorneys, 

including Peter Sloane and Ira Dembrow, drafted, revised, and worked with William Ashton to 

finalize and sign the May 8, 1989 affidavit of William H. Ashton. Attorneys for Johnson & 

Johnson also were involved. BASF further states that, in addition to various other materials that 

varied by case, Cahill attorneys disseminated Mr. Ashton’s May 8, 1989 at various points in time 

while Cahill served as national counsel in Emtal-related personal-injury litigation from 1989 

until the 2000s. In addition to various other materials that varied by case, local counsel acting at 

Cahill’s direction also disseminated Mr. Ashton’s affidavit at various points in time from 1989 

until the 2000s. 

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 11 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and that the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweigh its likely benefit, as it asks BASF to identify “all persons and participants” 

who were “involved in” any aspect of preparing, signing, or disseminating an affidavit that was 

prepared multiple decades ago. BASF further objects that Interrogatory No. 11 calls for 

information in the possession of other parties. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

Identify all persons and participants involved in the researching, development, drafting, revising, 

dissemination, and execution of any affidavit verified by Mr. Charles D. Carter (such as those 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 13 of 22 PageID: 34544 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 99 of 173 PageID:

43194
13

attached as Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Class Action Complaint) 

submitted to claimants and/or their counsel in connection with EMTAL Claims.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that Cahill attorneys, 

including Peter Sloane and Ira Dembrow, drafted, revised, and worked with Charles Carter to 

finalize and sign affidavits regarding Emtal talc and the Johnson talc mine. Arthur Dornbusch 

and Lester Fliegel were at times involved in facilitating Cahill’s communications with 

Mr. Carter. BASF further states that, in addition to various other materials that varied by case, 

Cahill attorneys disseminated affidavits signed by Mr. Carter at various points in time while 

Cahill served as national counsel in Emtal-related personal-injury litigation from 1989 until the 

2000s. In addition to various other materials that varied by case, local counsel acting at Cahill’s 

direction may also have disseminated some or all of Mr. Carter’s Emtal-related affidavits at 

various points in time from the late 1980s until the 2000s.

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 12 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and that the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweigh its likely benefit, as it asks BASF to identify “all persons and participants” 

who were “involved in” any aspect of preparing, signing, or disseminating an affidavit that was 

prepared multiple decades ago. BASF further objects that Interrogatory No. 12 calls for 

information in the possession of other parties.

INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

Identify all BASF personnel knowledgeable about, or involved in, the matter captioned as Martin 

v. Uniroyal, Inc., et al., P.C. No. 01-3735 (“Martin”) filed in the Superior Court of the State of 

Rhode Island.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 14 of 22 PageID: 34545 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 100 of 173 PageID:

43195
14

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that Engelhard employees 

Arthur Dornbusch and Michael Hassett were aware of the Martin case and communicated with 

the Cahill attorneys who defended Engelhard in the Martin case. 

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 13 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and that the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit as it asks BASF to identify “all personnel” who were “knowledgeable about” or were 

“involved in” a litigation matter that was filed and settled years ago by a corporate predecessor.

INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

Identify all BASF personnel knowledgeable about the EMTAL talc product samples tested by 

the R.J. Lee Group in 1993.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that it presently does not 

know which Engelhard employees, if any, were aware in 1993 of the testing that R.J. Lee Group 

conducted on Emtal talc samples. 

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 14 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and that the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweighs its likely benefit, as it asks BASF to identify “all personnel” who were 

“knowledgeable about” a test conducted by a third party several decades ago.

INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

Was your Board of Directors ever given reports on EMTAL Claims? If so, state when your 

Board of Directors were advised, by whom, and the nature and substance of the information 

reported.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 15 of 22 PageID: 34546 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 101 of 173 PageID:

43196
15

Subject to and without waiving its objections, BASF states that Engelhard’s Board of 

Directors received general litigation updates from Cahill attorneys and/or from Arthur 

Dornbusch from time to time. 

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 15 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly 

burdensome, as (i) it is not limited to any time period; (ii) asks about unspecified “reports,” and 

(iii) asks about updates to the Board of Directors of multiple corporate entities over a period of 

decades. BASF further objects that Interrogatory No. 15 calls for information protected from 

disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrines.

INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

State why You discharged Cahill as your attorneys.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 16 calls for information protected from disclosure 

by the attorney-client and work-product privileges. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

How much did You pay Cahill for its legal services throughout the tenure of Cahill’s 

representation of BASF?

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

BASF objects that Interrogatory No. 17 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and that the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweighs its likely benefit as it asks BASF to identify amounts that it or a corporate 

predecessor paid to Cahill during an unlimited period of time to handle unspecified legal matters, 

regardless of their subject or nature. 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 16 of 22 PageID: 34547 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 102 of 173 PageID:

43197
16

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

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

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

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

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

objects that certain interrogatories incorrectly suggest that all Emtal talc contained asbestos. 

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

uncertain and speculative by encompassing “affiliated entities.”

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

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

specific claims.

5. BASF objects that Instruction No. 3 calls for corporate knowledge of any and all 

individuals employed by a corporate entity spanning a period of several decades.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(g) identify any custodian or records no longer known to BASF. 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 17 of 22 PageID: 34548 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 103 of 173 PageID:

43198
17

7. BASF objects that the definitions and instructions impose upon BASF 

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

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

unreasonably burden of inquiry.

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

to a reasoned interpretation.

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

of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 

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

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

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

claims.

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

“every,” BASF objects that the interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it would 

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

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

13. BASF objects that the interrogatories request information already in the 

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

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 18 of 22 PageID: 34549 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 104 of 173 PageID:

43199
18

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

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

reasonably expect to find documents responsive to these interrogatories.

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

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

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

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

obtainable by less burdensome or less invasive means.

17. BASF objects that the interrogatories seek information protected from disclosure 

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

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

information is not a waiver of any privilege.

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

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

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

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

secrets, or other confidential business information.

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

exceed the number allowed by the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

21. BASF does not concede that any of its answers are or will be admissible evidence 

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

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 19 of 22 PageID: 34550 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 105 of 173 PageID:

43200
19

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

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

BASF expressly incorporates its General Objections into each of its answers above.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 20 of 22 PageID: 34551 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 106 of 173 PageID:

43201
20

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I certify that on this day counsel for the following parties were served electronically with 

Defendant BASF Catalysts LLC’s Answers to Interrogatories Propounded by Plaintiffs:

Christopher M. Placitella, Esquire

Micheal Coren, Esquire

Cohen Placitella & Roth PC

127 Maple Avenue

Red Bank, NJ 07701

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

John K. Villa, Esquire

David S. Blatt, Esquire

Grant A. Geyerman, Esquire

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP

725 Twelfth Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

Robert E. Ryan, Esquire

Marc D. Haefner, Esquire

Craig Demareski, Esquire

Connell Foley LLP

85 Livingston Avenue

Roseland, NJ 07068

Attorneys for Defendants Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP,

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

Eric Tunis, Esquire

Oliver Salvagno, Esquire

Greenbaum Rowe Smith & Davis LLP

99 Wood Avenue South

Iselin, NJ 08830

Attorneys for Defendant Thomas D. Halket

Kevin Marino, Esquire

John A. Boyle, Esquire

Marino, Tortorella & Boyle PC

437 Southern Blvd.

Chatham, NJ 07928

Attorneys for Defendant Arthur A. Dornbusch II

__s/ Justin T. Quinn______

Justin Quinn 

Dated: December 23, 2016 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 21 of 22 PageID: 34552 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 107 of 173 PageID:

43202
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-4 Filed 05/21/18 Page 22 of 22 PageID: 34553 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 108 of 173 PageID:

43203
EXHIBIT D 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 22 PageID: 34554 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 109 of 173 PageID:

43204
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, individually, as personal 

representative of the Estate of Charles L. Williams, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; NANCY PEASE, individually, 

as personal representative of the Estate of William Clark, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; MARILYN L. HOLLEY, as 

personal representative of the Estate of Kathryn Darnell, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; DONNA WARE, individually as 

personal representative of the Estate of Ralph Ware, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; and DONNETTE WENGERD, 

individually, as personal representative of the Estate of 

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

representative of otherssimilarly situated, and ROSANNE 

CHERNICK, individually, as personal representative of 

the Estate of Steven Chernick, deceased on behalf of said 

estate, and as representative of others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BASF CATALYSTS LLC, CAHILL GORDON & 

REINDEL LLP, CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL, a 

partnership including a professional corporation, 

THOMAS D. HALKET, ARTHUR A. DORNBUSCH 

II, GLENN HEMSTOCK, HOWARD G. SLOANE 

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

JOHN DOE BUSINESS ENTITIES 1 to 100; JOHN 

DOE BUSINESS ENTITIES 101 to 200; JOHN DOE 

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

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

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

CIVIL ACTION

BASF CATALYSTS LLC’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS 

TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES

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

Kirkland & Ellis LLP, answers the Interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs as follows:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 2 of 22 PageID: 34555 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 110 of 173 PageID:

43205
2

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

BASF’s answers to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories reflect information currently known and 

reasonably available to BASF. Many of the interrogatories seek information about events that took 

place over a span of decades related to a subsidiary of Engelhard Corporation that ceased operation 

in 1983, nearly twenty-five years before a BASF entity acquired Engelhard Corporation in 2006. 

BASF has used its best efforts and attempted in good faith to investigate and obtain the information 

required to answer Plaintiffs’ interrogatories. The following answers are based upon that 

investigation and the information obtained. Although BASF has made a reasonable effort to answer 

these interrogatories to the best of its present knowledge, information, and belief, under the 

circumstances, BASF cannot exclude the potential that further information may reveal additional 

information, in which case BASF reserves the right to supplement its answers.

ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Please identify all settlements You entered into between January 1, 1983 and December 31, 

2009, inclusive, where the plaintiff or claimant (or his/her personal representative) claimed an 

injury due to alleged exposure to EMTAL talc. For each such settlement please include in your 

answer:

a. The asbestos related disease the plaintiff or claimant alleged he or she suffered 

from;

b. Whether You contested the diagnosis of the asbestos related disease alleged by the 

plaintiff or claimant;

c. The nature of the alleged exposure to EMTAL talc, including whether exposure 

allegedly occurred with EMTAL talc itself or as an ingredient of another product 

using EMTAL talc, such as Bondo;

d. The jurisdiction where the case was filed;

e. The amount of the settlement;

f. The name of the plaintiff or claimant’s lawyer;

g. The amount paid by Your insurance carriers to settle the case;

h. The amount paid directly by You to settle the case;

i. The amount paid by or on behalf of You to Your attorneys prior to the dismissal of 

the plaintiffs claim;

j. Whether any attorney for You ever represented to the lawyer for the plaintiff or 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 3 of 22 PageID: 34556 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 111 of 173 PageID:

43206
3

claimant that there was no asbestos in EMTAL talc, including the Attorney’s name

who made the representation;

k. Whether You ever represented to the lawyer for the plaintiff or claimant that there 

was no evidence of asbestos in EMTAL talc, including the name of the person who 

made the representation and his or her authority;

l. Whether the plaintiff or claimant’s lawyer was given a copy of Mr. Ashton’s 

affidavit and if so by whom and why;

m. Whether the plaintiff or claimant’s lawyer was given a copy of any affidavit signed 

by Mr. Charles Carter as affiant, and if so by whom and why;

n. Whether You had in Your possession at the time of dismissal any evidence 

indicating EMTAL talc was sold to plaintiff or claimant’s employer; and

o. Whether the reason for the amount of the settlement was reported to the insurance

carrier for You

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific Objections, pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), BASF refers plaintiffs to the database produced at 

FRE_408_00000003 for information responsive to these interrogatories. BASF further refers 

plaintiffs to the documents, databases, and other information in the possession, custody, or control 

of the lawyers who represented plaintiffs in past litigation matters. Based on discovery to date, 

lawyers for past plaintiffs possess substantial information that is responsive to this interrogatory 

but have asserted objections and refused to produce responsive information, particularly as to 

members of the putative class.

Further responding, BASF states that the plaintiffs in past cases claimed that the asbestos 

or asbestos-containing products distributed or used by dozens of entities allegedly caused them to 

develop a variety of asbestos-related conditions. The prevalence of the alleged injuries varied by 

jurisdiction, by lawyer, by time, and based on other factors. A portion of the plaintiffs alleged they 

developed lung cancer or mesothelioma due to asbestos or asbestos-containing products distributed 

or used by dozens of different entities. Some other plaintiffs claimed that they developed pleural 

effusions or varying levels of asbestosis. The vast majority of the plaintiffs alleged that they 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 4 of 22 PageID: 34557 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 112 of 173 PageID:

43207
4

developed pleural plaques or similar non-malignant conditions that were generally asymptomatic 

and not progressive.

Defendants, courts, and others contested and/or raised questions about many of the 

diagnoses and/or injuries claimed by past plaintiffs. For example, the United States District Court 

for the District of Kansas concluded in 1990 that “many, if not most, of the tire worker cases are in 

fact without merit.” Raymark Indus. v. Stemple, No. 88-1014-K, 1990 WL 72588, at *63-64 (D. 

Kan. May 30, 1990). In addition, in 1991, Judge Carl B. Rubin of the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Ohio published a paper concluding that the majority of tireworker 

plaintiffs did not have an asbestos-related condition. The Use of Court Experts in Asbestos 

Litigation, 137 F.R.D. 35, 39 (1991). The American Bar Association also reviewed many such 

claims and concluded that the majority of plaintiffs “did not have, and probably would never get an 

impairing asbestos-related disease” and would therefore settle their claims for minimal amounts 

that were “arguably a windfall.” Am. Bar Ass’n, Comm’n on Asbestos Litig., Report to the House 

of Delegates, at 6, 10 (Feb. 2003). Plaintiffs and their lawyers did not properly disclose these 

issues. More information became available over time, as courts and others questioned the medical 

basis for thousands of claims. As a result, Engelhard and other defendants may or may not have 

contested each plaintiff’s alleged diagnosis in any particular case, relying instead on other defenses. 

The decision to settle cases involved “an individualized question, requiring case-by-case 

determinations.” See Harnish v. Widener Univ. Sch. of Law, 833 F.3d 298, 309–10 (3d Cir. 2016). 

Because many plaintiffs did not have asbestos-related injuries or had weak claims overall, their 

settlements demands to Engelhard and other talc defendants often were low, ranging from a few 

hundred dollars to a few thousand dollars. As a result, from time to time, Engelhard and other 

defendants opted to settle cases instead of fully contesting the plaintiffs’ diagnoses, claims of 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 5 of 22 PageID: 34558 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 113 of 173 PageID:

43208
5

product identification, and other aspects of the plaintiffs’ burden of proof. Information about the 

amounts paid in settlement is available in the database produced at FRE_408_00000003, in 

documents produced by BASF (see, e.g., 5/25/01 S. Martillotta Ltr. to T. Bevan, 

BASF_WILLIAMS000022010; 1/7/02 T. Bevan Ltr. to S. Martillotta, 

BASF_WILLIAMS000022006, 1/10/02 S. Martillotta Ltr. to T. Bevan, 

BASF_WILLIAMS000044069), and from the lawyers who represented plaintiffs in past 

cases. Overall, Engelhard and BASF paid more than $1.5 million in settlements to past plaintiffs. 

Most settlements were paid or reimbursed by Engelhard’s insurers.

Many plaintiffs did not identify Emtal talc as a product they used or were exposed to and 

thus may not have resolved their claim through settlement. For example, when asked which brands 

of talc she used, plaintiff Wengerd’s relative Jennifer Graham identified “Vanderbilt.” (7/3/08 J. 

Graham Dep. at 35:18-25.) Similarly, documents produced by the Rothenberg Law Firm show that 

many plaintiffs did not identify Emtal talc as one of the products they used. (See, e.g., A. Hawkins 

Client Questionnaire, P-ROTH-0000436, at 464, 468; P. Hlavac Client Questionnaire, P-ROTH0001547, at 1575, 1579.) For plaintiffs who did claim exposure to Emtal talc, the nature of the 

claimed exposure varied by plaintiff, with some claiming direct exposure to raw talc, others 

claiming indirect exposure to raw talc, others claiming exposure to talc as an ingredient in other 

products, and so on. The dose, duration, frequency, and circumstances of exposure also varied. For 

some plaintiffs, Engelhard possessed evidence of Emtal sales to the plaintiff’s employer. For other 

plaintiffs, Engelhard did not have evidence of Emtal sales to the plaintiff’s employer. Because 

many plaintiffs did not identify Emtal talc or lacked evidence of product identification, many past 

cases against Engelhard or BASF were defended and/or dismissed based on the lack of product 

exposure. 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 6 of 22 PageID: 34559 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 114 of 173 PageID:

43209
6

In addition to the foregoing, Engelhard asserted a variety of other defenses in response to 

asbestos claims, including defenses based on the expert opinion of William Ashton. Engelhard’s 

counsel sent Dr. Ashton’s expert affidavit to the plaintiff’s counsel in some but not all cases. For 

example, because some lawyers who represented plaintiffs continued to file dozens or hundreds of 

additional cases against Engelhard even after receiving Dr. Ashton’s expert opinion, Engelhard’s 

counsel may or may not have sent Dr. Ashton’s expert affidavit to those lawyers again. Similarly, 

some past asbestos cases were resolved or dismissed based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with 

the statute of limitations, with court standing orders, and other reasons. See, e.g., 

BASF_WILLIAMS000391400 (order in Poth, et al. v. A.C.&S, No. AC 92-09-351 (Summit Cnty., 

Ohio), granting Emtal’s motion to dismiss wrongful death claim on statute of limitations grounds 

and motion to dismiss for failure to comply with court’s Standing Order); 

BASF_WILLIAMS000391417 (order in Johnson v. A. C. & S., Inc., No. AC 92-05-1855 (Summit 

Cnty., Ohio) granting Emtal’s motion to dismiss three plaintiffs’ claims for failure to comply with 

the court’s Standing Order). In those circumstances, Dr. Ashton’s opinions may not have been 

called for since the plaintiff’s claims failed for other reasons. Because of the individualized nature 

and number of past cases, it would be unduly burdensome to try to identify on a case-by-case basis 

whether Dr. Ashton’s expert affidavit was sent to a plaintiff’s lawyer and which lawyer for 

Engelhard sent it. 

Subpart m of Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 1 asks about “any affidavit signed by Mr. Charles 

Carter as affiant” but does not identify a particular affidavit or affidavits. In connection with 

Engelhard’s defense of past cases, Mr. Carter signed multiple affidavits. Several affidavits 

addressed whether and to what extent Engelhard had evidence of Emtal sales to particular 

customers. (See, e.g., 10/5/1988 Carter Aff. (BASF_WILLIAMS000215386); 12/14/1990 Carter 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 7 of 22 PageID: 34560 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 115 of 173 PageID:

43210
7

Aff. (BASF_WILLIAMS000226456).) Another affidavit addressed whether, at the time Mr. Carter 

signed the affidavit, Engelhard currently possessed testing data regarding Emtal talc. (See

8/18/1989 Carter Aff. (BASF_WILLIAMS000087087).) Other affidavits addressed whether 

Engelhard owned one or more than one talc mine, the location of the mine, and Engelhard’s years 

of ownership. (See, e.g., 9/20/1988 Carter Aff. (BASF_WILLIAMS000063589); 6/19/1989 Carter 

Aff. (BASF_WILLIAMS000063599).) Because of the individualized nature and number of past 

cases, it would be unduly burdensome to identify on a case-by-case basis in response to an 

interrogatory whether and which of Mr. Carter’s other affidavits were sent to a plaintiff’s lawyer 

and which lawyer for Engelhard sent it. Documents concerning these topics have been produced 

to plaintiffs, including documents identified using plaintiffs’ search terms.

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

and unduly burdensome. BASF further objects to Interrogatory No. 1 on the grounds that it seeks 

information already in the possession, custody, or control of plaintiffs or putative class 

members. BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 1 on the grounds that it contains 15 subparts and 

exceeds the limit on interrogatories set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1). BASF 

further objects to Interrogatory No. 1 to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the 

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

Finally, BASF incorporates its Response to Interrogatory No. 4.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Please identify all settlements by You entered into on or after January 1, 2010 where the 

plaintiff or claimant (or his/her personal representative) claimed an injury due to alleged exposure 

to EMTAL talc. For each such settlement please include in your answer:

a. The asbestos related disease the plaintiff or claimant alleged he or she suffered from;

b. Whether You contested the diagnosis of the asbestos related disease alleged by the 

plaintiff or claimant;

c. The nature of the alleged exposure to EMTAL talc including whether exposure 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 8 of 22 PageID: 34561 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 116 of 173 PageID:

43211
8

allegedly occurred with EMTAL talc itself or as an ingredient of another product 

using EMTAL talc, such as Bondo;

d. The jurisdiction where the case was filed;

e. The amount of the settlement;

f. The name of the plaintiff or claimant’s lawyer;

g. The amount paid by Your insurance carriers to settle the case;

h. The amount paid directly by You to settle the case;

i. The amount paid by or on behalf of You to Your attorneys prior to the dismissal of 

the plaintiffs claim;

j. Whether any attorney for You ever represented to the lawyer for the plaintiff or 

claimant that there was no asbestos in EMTAL talc, including the Attorney’s name 

who made the representation;

k. Whether You ever represented to the lawyer for the plaintiff there was no evidence 

of asbestos in EMTAL talc, including the name of the person who made the 

representation and his or her authority;

l. Whether the plaintiff or claimant’s lawyer was given a copy of Mr. Ashton’s 

affidavit and if so by whom and why;

m. Whether the plaintiff or claimant’s lawyer was given a copy of any affidavit signed 

by Mr. Charles Carter as affiant, and if so by whom and why;

n. Whether You had in Your possession at the time of dismissal any evidence 

indicating EMTAL talc was sold to the plaintiff or claimant’s employer; and

o. Whether the reason for the amount of the settlement was ever reported to the 

insurance carrier for You.

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

burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 

2 on the grounds that it contains 15 subparts and exceeds the limit on interrogatories set forth in 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1). In addition, BASF objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the 

grounds that it seeks confidential settlement information protected from disclosure in the absence 

of a showing of particularized need. See, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Props., Inc., 257 

F.R.D. 418, 423 (D.N.J. 2009) (party seeking discovery of settlement agreements “must make a 

heightened, more particularized showing of relevance”). BASF further objects to Interrogatory No. 

2 on the grounds that it seeks irrelevant information about individuals who are not part of the 

putative class. Plaintiff’s counsel has acknowledged that cases defended by BASF after January 1, 

2010 were defended appropriately. Interrogatory No. 2 therefore seeks irrelevant information 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 9 of 22 PageID: 34562 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 117 of 173 PageID:

43212
9

because it is limited to only those settlements BASF “entered into on or after January 1, 2010.” 

BASF further objects to Interrogatory No. 2 to the extent it seeks information that is protected by 

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

discovery.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

Please identify all cases against Engelhard or BASF where the plaintiff or claimant (or 

his/her personal representative) alleged exposure to EMTAL talc prior to 2010 that were dismissed 

without payment. For each such case please also specify:

a. The name of the plaintiff or claimant;

b. The asbestos related disease the plaintiff or claimant alleged he or she suffered from;

c. Whether You contested the diagnosis of the asbestos related disease alleged by the 

plaintiff or claimant, and if so how;

d. The nature of the alleged exposure to EMTAL talc including whether exposure 

allegedly occurred to EMTAL talc itself or as an ingredient of a product using 

EMTAL talc such as Bondo;

e. The jurisdiction where the case was filed;

f. The reason for the dismissal if known or documented;

g. The name of the plaintiff or claimant’s lawyer;

h. The amount paid by or on behalf of You to Your attorneys prior to the dismissal of 

the plaintiffs claim;

i. Whether You ever represented to the lawyer for the plaintiff or claimant that there 

was no asbestos in EMTAL talc;

j. Whether any attorney for You ever represented to the lawyer for the plaintiff or 

claimant that there was no asbestos in EMTAL talc, including the Attorney’s name 

who did;

k. Whether You ever represented to the lawyer for the plaintiff or claimant that there 

was no evidence of asbestos in EMTAL talc, including the Attorney’s name who 

did;

l. Whether the plaintiff or claimant’s lawyer was given a copy of Mr. Ashton’s 

affidavit and if so by whom and why;

m. Whether the plaintiff or claimant’s lawyer was given a copy of any affidavit signed 

by Mr. Charles Carter as affiant, and if so by whom and why;

n. Whether You had in Your possession at the time of dismissal any evidence 

indicating EMTAL talc was sold to the plaintiff or claimant’s employer; and

o. Whether the reason for dismissal was ever reported to the insurance carrier for You;

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific Objections, pursuant to Federal 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 10 of 22 PageID: 34563 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 118 of 173 PageID:

43213
10

Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), BASF refers plaintiffs to the database produced at 

FRE_408_00000003 for information responsive to these interrogatories. BASF further refers 

plaintiffs to the documents, databases, and other information in the possession, custody, or control 

of the lawyers who represented plaintiffs in past litigation matters. Based on discovery to date, 

lawyers for past plaintiffs possess substantial information that is responsive to this interrogatory 

but have asserted objections and refused to produce responsive information, particularly as to 

members of the putative class.

Further responding, BASF states that the plaintiffs in past cases claimed that the asbestos 

or asbestos-containing products distributed or used by dozens of entities allegedly caused them to 

develop a variety of asbestos-related conditions. The prevalence of the alleged injuries varied by 

jurisdiction, by lawyer, by time, and based on other factors. A portion of the plaintiffs alleged they 

developed lung cancer or mesothelioma due to asbestos or asbestos-containing products distributed 

or used by dozens of different entities. Some other plaintiffs claimed that they developed pleural

effusions or varying levels of asbestosis. The vast majority of the plaintiffs alleged that they 

developed pleural plaques or similar non-malignant conditions that were generally asymptomatic 

and not progressive.

Defendants, courts, and others contested and/or raised questions about many of the 

diagnoses and/or injuries claimed by past plaintiffs. For example, the United States District Court 

for the District of Kansas concluded in 1990 that “many, if not most, of the tire worker cases are in 

fact without merit.” Raymark Indus. v. Stemple, No. 88-1014-K, 1990 WL 72588, at *63-64 (D. 

Kan. May 30, 1990). In addition, in 1991, Judge Carl B. Rubin of the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Ohio published a paper concluding that the majority of tireworker 

plaintiffs did not have an asbestos-related condition. The Use of Court Experts in Asbestos 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 11 of 22 PageID: 34564 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 119 of 173 PageID:

43214
11

Litigation, 137 F.R.D. 35, 39 (1991). The American Bar Association also reviewed many such 

claims and concluded that the majority of plaintiffs “did not have, and probably would never get an 

impairing asbestos-related disease” and would therefore settle their claims for minimal amounts 

that were “arguably a windfall.” Am. Bar Ass’n, Comm’n on Asbestos Litig., Report to the House 

of Delegates, at 6, 10 (Feb. 2003). Plaintiffs and their lawyers did not properly disclose these 

issues. More information became available over time, as courts and others questioned the medical 

basis for thousands of claims. As a result, Engelhard and other defendants may or may not have 

contested each plaintiff’s alleged diagnosis in any particular case, relying instead on other defenses.

The decision to resolve cases involved “an individualized question, requiring case-by-case 

determinations.” See Harnish v. Widener Univ. Sch. of Law, 833 F.3d 298, 309–10 (3d Cir. 2016). 

Many plaintiffs did not identify Emtal talc as a product they used or were exposed to and thus chose 

to dismiss their claims. For example, when asked which brands of talc she used, plaintiff 

Wengerd’s relative Jennifer Graham identified “Vanderbilt.” (7/3/08 J. Graham Dep. at 35:18-

25.) Similarly, documents produced by the Rothenberg Law Firm show that many plaintiffs did 

not identify Emtal talc as one of the products they used. (See, e.g., A. Hawkins Client 

Questionnaire, P-ROTH-0000436, at 464, 468; P. Hlavac Client Questionnaire, P-ROTH-0001547, 

at 1575, 1579.) For plaintiffs who did claim exposure to Emtal talc, the nature of the claimed 

exposure varied by plaintiff, with some claiming direct exposure to raw talc, others claiming 

indirect exposure to raw talc, others claiming exposure to talc as an ingredient in other products, 

and so on. The dose, duration, frequency, and circumstances of exposure also varied. For some 

plaintiffs, Engelhard possessed evidence of Emtal sales to the plaintiff’s employer. For other 

plaintiffs, Engelhard did not have evidence of Emtal sales to the plaintiff’s employer. Because 

many plaintiffs did not identify Emtal talc or lacked evidence of product identification, many past 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 12 of 22 PageID: 34565 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 120 of 173 PageID:

43215
12

cases against Engelhard or BASF were defended and/or dismissed based on the lack of product 

exposure.

In addition to the foregoing, Engelhard asserted a variety of other defenses in response to 

asbestos claims, including defenses based on the expert opinion of William Ashton. Engelhard’s 

counsel sent Dr. Ashton’s expert affidavit to the plaintiff’s counsel in some but not all cases. For 

example, because some lawyers who represented plaintiffs continued to file dozens or hundreds of 

additional cases against Engelhard even after receiving Dr. Ashton’s expert opinion, Engelhard’s 

counsel may or may not have sent Dr. Ashton’s expert affidavit to those lawyers again. Similarly, 

some past asbestos cases were resolved or dismissed based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with 

the statute of limitations, with court standing orders, and other reasons. See, e.g., 

BASF_WILLIAMS000391400 (order in Poth, et al. v. A.C.&S, No. AC 92-09-351 (Summit Cnty., 

Ohio), granting Emtal’s motion to dismiss wrongful death claim on statute of limitations grounds 

and motion to dismiss for failure to comply with court’s Standing Order); 

BASF_WILLIAMS000391417 (order in Johnson v. A. C. & S., Inc., No. AC 92-05-1855 (Summit 

Cnty., Ohio) granting Emtal’s motion to dismiss three plaintiffs’ claims for failure to comply with 

the court’s Standing Order). In those circumstances, Dr. Ashton’s opinions may not have been 

called for since the plaintiff’s claims failed for other reasons. Because of the individualized nature 

and number of past cases, it would be unduly burdensome to try to identify on a case-by-case basis 

whether Dr. Ashton’s expert affidavit was sent to a plaintiff’s lawyer and which lawyer for 

Engelhard sent it. 

Subpart m of Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 3 asks about “any affidavit signed by Mr. Charles 

Carter as affiant” but does not identify a particular affidavit or affidavits. In connection with 

Engelhard’s defense of past cases, Mr. Carter signed multiple affidavits. Several affidavits 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 13 of 22 PageID: 34566 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 121 of 173 PageID:

43216
13

addressed whether and to what extent Engelhard had evidence of Emtal sales to particular 

customers. (See, e.g., 10/5/1988 Carter Aff. (BASF_WILLIAMS000215386); 12/14/1990 Carter 

Aff. (BASF_WILLIAMS000226456).) Another affidavit addressed whether, at the time Mr. Carter 

signed the affidavit, Engelhard currently possessed testing data regarding Emtal talc. (See

8/18/1989 Carter Aff. (BASF_WILLIAMS000087087).) Other affidavits addressed whether 

Engelhard owned one or more than one talc mine, the location of the mine, and Engelhard’s years 

of ownership. (See, e.g., 9/20/1988 Carter Aff. (BASF_WILLIAMS000063589); 6/19/1989 Carter 

Aff. (BASF_WILLIAMS000063599).) Because of the individualized nature and number of past 

cases, it would be unduly burdensome to try to identify on a case-by-case basis in response to an 

interrogatory whether and which of Mr. Carter’s other affidavits were sent to a plaintiff’s lawyer 

and which lawyer for Engelhard sent it. Documents concerning these topics have been produced 

to plaintiffs, including documents identified using plaintiffs’ search terms.

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

and unduly burdensome. BASF further objects to Interrogatory No. 3 on the grounds that it seeks 

information already in the possession, custody, or control of plaintiffs or putative class 

members. BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 3 on the grounds that it contains 15 subparts and 

exceeds the limit on interrogatories set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1). BASF 

further objects to Interrogatory No. 3 to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the 

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

Finally, BASF incorporates its Response to Interrogatory No. 4.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4 :

List separately by year, starting with 1988 to the present, all law firms, including Cahill, 

and lawyers within those firms whom Engelhard and/or BASF retained to represent, defend or 

otherwise advise it with respect to the defense or other response to Emtal Claims asserted against 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 14 of 22 PageID: 34567 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 122 of 173 PageID:

43217
14

You, and please include in Your response the amount of legal fees and costs paid each year to each 

such firm, the basis upon which such fees were computed (e.g. hourly rates, fixed fee per case or 

other basis), and the hourly rates and time expended by each lawyer or other person for whom you 

were billed. To the extent an insurer or a third party paid the fee in whole or in part, or reimbursed 

BASF in whole or in part, please identify who made such payment, how much was paid or 

reimbursed, whether the payment was made under reservation or rights or any other reservation or 

condition.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific Objections, BASF states that Cahill 

Gordon & Reindel LLP represented Engelhard and BASF with respect to the defense of Emtal 

Claims during the period from 1988 through much of 2009. Various lawyers at Cahill worked on 

the Emtal cases at varying times. Those lawyers included Ira Dembrow, Allen Joslyn, Scott Martin, 

Eric Sarner, Howard G. Sloane, and Leonard Spivak.

From time to time, and in varying cases and jurisdictions, numerous other law firms 

represented Engelhard and/or BASF with respect to the defense of Emtal claims during the period 

from 1988 through December 31, 2009. Those firms, which typically served as local counsel 

working with Cahill, included:

• Bennett Bricklin & Saltzburg LLC

• Blackwell Sanders Matheny Weary & Lombardi L.C.

• Boyle, Morrissey & Campo, P.C.

• Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

• Buty & Curliano LLP

• Butzel Long

• Conroy Simberg & Ganon, P.A.

• Faruki Ireland Cox Rhinehart & Dusing PLL

• Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 15 of 22 PageID: 34568 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 123 of 173 PageID:

43218
15

• Harkins Cunningham LLP 

• Hilburn, Calhoun, Harper, Pruniski & Calhoun, Ltd.

• Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

• Kasiborski, Ronayne & Flaska PC

• Lasky, Haas, Cohler & Munter

• Liner Grode Stein Yankelevitz Sunshine Regenstreif & Taylor LLP

• Littleton Park Joyce Ughetta & Kelly LLP 

• McCutchen, Black, Verleger & Shea (n/k/a Baker & Hostetler LLP)

• Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP

• Ott & Purdy 

• Paduano & Weintraub LLP

• Partridge, Snow & Hahn LLP

• Portnoy, Leader, Pidgeon & Roth, P.C.

• Roberts, Carroll, Feldstein & Peirce Inc.

• Ropes & Gray LLP

• Vetter & White

• Weston Hurd LLP

• Wise & Marsac (n/k/a Williams Mullen)

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

the attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine. BASF further objects to 

Interrogatory No. 4 on the grounds that it seeks irrelevant information, including but not limited to 

information about billing rates, fees paid, and information about law firms which represented BASF 

in connection with cases that are not part of the putative class. BASF further objects to 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 16 of 22 PageID: 34569 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 124 of 173 PageID:

43219
16

Interrogatory No. 4 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional 

to the needs of this case.

DOCUMENT REQUEST

1. Please provide a copy of all documents relating to or containing any information requested 

in the above interrogatories, including their subparts.

RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving the Specific and General Objections below, BASF 

answers that it has conducted an extensive and reasonable search, and to date has produced 

thousands of non-privileged documents responsive to this Request, including the database at 

FRE_408_00000003 and documents identified through the parties’ agreed-upon search protocol. 

Together with these Responses and Objections, BASF is supplementing its production with 

additional documents located in the course of preparing its responses to these interrogatories. 

Under the circumstances, BASF cannot exclude the potential that further investigation may reveal 

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

BASF objects to this request for the production of documents on the grounds that it is vague, 

overly broad, and unduly burdensome, including because it seeks “all documents” “relating to” or 

“containing” a wide array of information from a period of several decades. BASF further objects 

to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected by the attorney-client 

privilege, work product doctrine, and other protections from disclosure. BASF further objects on 

the grounds that this request seeks confidential settlement information protected from disclosure in 

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

Inc., 257 F.R.D. 418, 423 (D.N.J. 2009) (party seeking discovery of settlement agreements “must 

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

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 17 of 22 PageID: 34570 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 125 of 173 PageID:

43220
17

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

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

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

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

uncertain and speculative by encompassing “affiliated entities.”

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

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

specific claims.

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

documents not presently existing; (b) interpret, alter, modify, or change the meaning of any

interrogatory from the plain meaning thereof; (c) respond in all ways to interrogatories susceptible 

of multiple interpretations; and (d) respond to any aspect of an interrogatory not described with 

reasonable particularity.

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

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

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

burden of inquiry.

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

a reasoned interpretation.

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

of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 

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

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

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 18 of 22 PageID: 34571 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 126 of 173 PageID:

43221
18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reasonably expect to find documents responsive to these interrogatories.

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

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

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

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

obtainable by less burdensome or less invasive means.

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

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

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

information is not a waiver of any privilege.

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

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

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

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

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 19 of 22 PageID: 34572 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 127 of 173 PageID:

43222
19

secrets, or other confidential business information.

18. BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceed 

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

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

19. BASF does not concede that any of its answers are or will be admissible evidence 

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

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

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

20. BASF expressly incorporates its General Objections into each of its answers above.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 20 of 22 PageID: 34573 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 128 of 173 PageID:

43223
Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 21 of 22 PageID: 34574 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 129 of 173 PageID:

43224
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that, on this 7th day of March 2018, the following counsel were served 

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

Interrogatories:

Christopher M. Placitella

Michael Coren

Jared Placitella

Cohen Placitella & Roth PC

127 Maple Avenue 

Red Bank, NJ 07701 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Nina M. Gussack

Barry H. Boise

Pepper Hamilton LLP 

3000 Two Logan Square 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Angelo A. Stio, III 

Pepper Hamilton LLP 

301 Carnegie Center 

Princeton, NJ 08543 

Attorneys for Defendants Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, 

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

Eric Tunis

Herold Law

25 Independence Blvd.

Warren, NJ 07059-6747 

Attorney for Defendant Thomas D. Halket 

Kevin Marino 

John A. Boyle 

Marino, Tortorella & Boyle PC 

437 Southern Blvd. 

Chatham, NJ 07928 

Attorneys for Defendant Arthur A. Dornbusch II 

March 7, 2018 /s/ Justin T. Quinn 

 Justin T. Quinn

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-5 Filed 05/21/18 Page 22 of 22 PageID: 34575 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 130 of 173 PageID:

43225
EXHIBIT E 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-6 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 20 PageID: 34576 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 131 of 173 PageID:

43226
Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.

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

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

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

127 Maple Avenue

Red Bank, NJ 07701

(732) 747-9003

Fox Rothschild LLP

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

Princeton Pike Corp. Center

997 Lennox Drive, Building 3

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

(609) 896-7660

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

BASF CATALYSTS, LLC, et al.,

 

Defendants.

HONORABLE JOSE L. LINARES

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

PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES AND FIFTH SET OF 

DOCUMENT REQUESTS ADDRESSED TO 

DEFENDANT BASF CATALYSTS, LLC, 

Plaintiffs propound the following interrogatories and document requests upon BASF 

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

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

DEFINITIONS

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

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

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-6 Filed 05/21/18 Page 2 of 20 PageID: 34577 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 132 of 173 PageID:

43227
2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

any division or subsidiary of the above-named entities.

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

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

crocidolite, tremolite, and anthophyllite. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-6 Filed 05/21/18 Page 3 of 20 PageID: 34578 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 133 of 173 PageID:

43228
3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

costs, filings fees, transcript fees, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-6 Filed 05/21/18 Page 4 of 20 PageID: 34579 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 134 of 173 PageID:

43229
4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

manufactured.

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

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

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

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-6 Filed 05/21/18 Page 5 of 20 PageID: 34580 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 135 of 173 PageID:

43230
5

Claims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and/or contradicting. 

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

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

distort the clear meaning.

INSTRUCTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

completely. 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-6 Filed 05/21/18 Page 6 of 20 PageID: 34581 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 136 of 173 PageID:

43231
6

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

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

information is a matter of personal knowledge. 

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

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

to that interrogatory. 

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

that asks to identify persons, state the following: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

obtained and/or prepared. 

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

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

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

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-6 Filed 05/21/18 Page 7 of 20 PageID: 34582 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 137 of 173 PageID:

43232
7

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

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

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

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

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

INTERROGATORIES

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

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

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

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

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

Claims.

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

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

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

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

describe each one and identify all documents relating to same.

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

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

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

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-6 Filed 05/21/18 Page 8 of 20 PageID: 34583 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 138 of 173 PageID:

43233
8

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

one and identify all documents relating to same.

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

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

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

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

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

currently custodian.

. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

custodian.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-6 Filed 05/21/18 Page 9 of 20 PageID: 34584 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 139 of 173 PageID:

43234
9

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

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

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

current custodian.

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

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

without limitation any insurance companies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-6 Filed 05/21/18 Page 10 of 20 PageID: 34585 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 140 of 173 PageID:

43235
10

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

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

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

Claims during the year

Please use the following matrix to supply this data:

Interrogatory No. 9 Table

Year (a)

Total Defense 

Expenditures

(b)

Number of 

EMTAL Claim

Claimants

Pending

(c)

Highest single 

EMTAL Claim 

Defense Cost 

expenditure 

during period

(d)

Lowest single 

EMTAL claim 

Defense Cost 

expenditure

(e)

Arithmetic 

Average 

(mean) 

Defense Cost 

expenditure 

(F)

Median 

Defense Cost 

expenditure 

1979

$ $ $ $ $

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-6 Filed 05/21/18 Page 11 of 20 PageID: 34586 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 141 of 173 PageID:

43236
11

Year (a)

Total Defense 

Expenditures

(b)

Number of 

EMTAL Claim

Claimants

Pending

(c)

Highest single 

EMTAL Claim 

Defense Cost 

expenditure 

during period

(d)

Lowest single 

EMTAL claim 

Defense Cost 

expenditure

(e)

Arithmetic 

Average 

(mean) 

Defense Cost 

expenditure 

(F)

Median 

Defense Cost 

expenditure 

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-6 Filed 05/21/18 Page 12 of 20 PageID: 34587 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 142 of 173 PageID:

43237
12

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

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

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

a. Prior to filing of suit or adjudicative claim.

b. At or upon filing of suit or adjudicative claim

c. Filing of Motion to dismiss complaint. 

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

full as to Engelhard or BASF.

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

f. Motion for Summary Judgment or similar dispositive motions

g. Pretrial proceedings

h. Trial

i. During Appeal

Please use the following matrix to supply this data:

Interrogatory No. 10 Table

Year a b c d e f g h i

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-6 Filed 05/21/18 Page 13 of 20 PageID: 34588 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 143 of 173 PageID:

43238
13

Year a b c d e f g h i

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-6 Filed 05/21/18 Page 14 of 20 PageID: 34589 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 144 of 173 PageID:

43239
14

Year a b c d e f g h i

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

in relation to a single Emtal Claim Claimant. 

Please use the following matrix to supply this data:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-6 Filed 05/21/18 Page 15 of 20 PageID: 34590 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 145 of 173 PageID:

43240
15

Interrogatory No. 11 Table

Year (a)

Total Amount of Claim 

Payments Paid During Year

(b)

Number of 

Emtal Claim 

Claimants 

Claim 

Payments

resolved

(c)

Highest Claim 

Payment to a Single 

EMTAL Claim 

Claimant during 

period

(d)

Lowest Claim 

Payment to a Single 

EMTAL Claim 

Claimant during 

period

1982

$ $ $

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-6 Filed 05/21/18 Page 16 of 20 PageID: 34591 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 146 of 173 PageID:

43241
16

Year (a)

Total Amount of Claim 

Payments Paid During Year

(b)

Number of 

Emtal Claim 

Claimants 

Claim 

Payments

resolved

(c)

Highest Claim 

Payment to a Single 

EMTAL Claim 

Claimant during 

period

(d)

Lowest Claim 

Payment to a Single 

EMTAL Claim 

Claimant during 

period

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

DOCUMENT REQUESTS.

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

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-6 Filed 05/21/18 Page 17 of 20 PageID: 34592 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 147 of 173 PageID:

43242
17

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

interrogatories. 

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

above interrogatories.

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

including any data or information you provide. 

Dated: March 15, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,

COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.

/s/ Michael Coren 

Of Counsel:

Harry M. Roth, Esq. 

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Robert L. Pratter, Esq.

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

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

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

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

127 Maple Avenue

Red Bank, NJ 07701

(732) 747-9003

Fox Rothschild LLP

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

Princeton Pike Corp. Center

997 Lennox Drive, Building 3

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

(609) 896-7660

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-6 Filed 05/21/18 Page 18 of 20 PageID: 34593 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 148 of 173 PageID:

43243
18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

BASF CATALYSTS, LLC, et al.,

 

Defendants.

HONORABLE JOSE L. LINARES

CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1754 (JLL) 

(JAD)

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES AND

FOURTH SET OF DOCUMENT 

REQUESTS ADDRESSED TO 

DEFENDANT BASF CATALYSTS, 

LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

via Email:

Eugene F. Assaf, P.C.

Peter Farrell, Esq.

Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 

655 15th St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

eassaf@kirkland.com

Justin T. Quinn, Esq.

Robinson Miller LLC 

One Newark Center, 19th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102 

jquinn@rwmlegal.com

Attorneys for Defendant, BASF Catalysts, LLC

John K. Villa, Esq.

David Blatt, Esq.

Grant A. Geyerman, Esq.

Williams & Connolly, LLP

725 12th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

jvilla@wc.com

ggeyerman@wc.com

Robert E. Ryan, Esq.

Jennifer C. Critchley, Esq.

Connell Foley, LLP

85 Livingston Avenue

Roseland, New Jersey 07068

rryan@connellfoley.com

Attorneys for Cahill Defendants

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-6 Filed 05/21/18 Page 19 of 20 PageID: 34594 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 149 of 173 PageID:

43244
19

Kevin H. Marino, Esq.

John A. Boyle, Esq

Marino, Tortorella & Boyle, P.C.

437 Southern Boulevard

Chatham, New Jersey 07928

kmarino@khmarino.com

jboyle@khmarino.com

Attorneys for Defendant Arthur Dornbusch

Eric Tunis, Esq.

Herold Law, P.A.

25 Independence Boulevard

Warren, New Jersey 07059

etunis@heroldlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Thomas Halket

COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.

/s/ Michael Coren 

Of Counsel:

Harry M. Roth, Esq. 

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Robert L. Pratter, Esq.

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

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

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

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

127 Maple Avenue

Red Bank, NJ 07701

(732) 747-9003

Fox Rothschild LLP

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

Princeton Pike Corp. Center

997 Lennox Drive, Building 3

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

(609) 896-7660

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-6 Filed 05/21/18 Page 20 of 20 PageID: 34595 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 150 of 173 PageID:

43245
EXHIBIT G 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 151 of 173 PageID: Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-8 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 34620

43246
From: Robert Pratter <RPratter@cprlaw.com>

Date: April 18, 2018 at 2:10:11 PM EDT

To: pfarrell <pfarrell@kirkland.com>, eassaf <eassaf@kirkland.com>

Cc: "Harry M. Roth" <HRoth@cprlaw.com>, Michael Coren <MCoren@cprlaw.com>

Subject: Third Set of Interrogatories- BASF Objections and Responses 

Peter, We have received your Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories. We 

want to schedule a time to meet and confer promptly in an effort to address your position before we take 

the matter to the Discovery Master. Please address your response to Harry or Mike, as I will be out of 

town for the next several days on family matters. 

Thank you for your attention. 

Robert L Pratter

C / P / R

Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.

Two Commerce Square

2001 Market Street, Suite 2900 / Philadelphia, PA 19103

215.567.3500 / 215.567.6019 (fax)

rpratter@cprlaw.com

IMPORTANT CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY/CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND/OR ATTORNEY WORK 

PRODUCT. This message and attachments may contain privileged and confidential information. 

If you are not an intended recipient of this message, any use, distribution or copying is 

prohibited; please notify Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C. immediately at (215) 567-3500 or by 

email reply; and permanently delete all copies. Any tax advice contained in this message and 

attachments may not be used for purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal 

Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax-related 

matter.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 152 of 173 PageID: Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-8 Filed 05/21/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 34621

43247
EXHIBIT H 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 153 of 173 PageID: Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-9 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 34622

43248
From: Farrell, Peter A. 

Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 4:08 PM

To: 'Robert Pratter' <RPratter@cprlaw.com>; Assaf, Eugene F. <eassaf@kirkland.com>

Cc: Harry M. Roth <HRoth@cprlaw.com>; Michael Coren <MCoren@cprlaw.com>

Subject: RE: Third Set of Interrogatories- BASF Objections and Responses 

Bob -- We’re happy to schedule a time to talk, as there are issues we’re waiting to hear back on too -- Bevan 

emails/agreements, Science Day, and dep scheduling, to name three. If Harry or Mike want to discuss those issues 

tomorrow, we can find a time and add BASF’s interrogatory responses to the agenda. Harry/Mike -- please let us 

know.

Peter A. Farrell

------------------------------------------------------------

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

655 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005

T +1 202 879 5959 F +1 202 879 5200

------------------------------------------------------------

peter.farrell@kirkland.com

From: Robert Pratter <RPratter@cprlaw.com> 

Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 2:10 PM

To: Farrell, Peter A. <pfarrell@kirkland.com>; Assaf, Eugene F. <eassaf@kirkland.com>

Cc: Harry M. Roth <HRoth@cprlaw.com>; Michael Coren <MCoren@cprlaw.com>

Subject: Third Set of Interrogatories- BASF Objections and Responses 

Peter, We have received your Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories. We want to 

schedule a time to meet and confer promptly in an effort to address your position before we take the matter to 

the Discovery Master. Please address your response to Harry or Mike, as I will be out of town for the next several 

days on family matters. 

Thank you for your attention. 

Robert L Pratter

C / P / R

Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.

Two Commerce Square

2001 Market Street, Suite 2900 / Philadelphia, PA 19103

215.567.3500 / 215.567.6019 (fax)

rpratter@cprlaw.com

IMPORTANT CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY/CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND/OR ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. This 

message and attachments may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not an intended 

recipient of this message, any use, distribution or copying is prohibited; please notify Cohen, Placitella & 

Roth, P.C. immediately at (215) 567-3500 or by email reply; and permanently delete all copies. Any tax 

advice contained in this message and attachments may not be used for purposes of (i) avoiding penalties 

under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person 

any tax-related matter.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 154 of 173 PageID: Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-9 Filed 05/21/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 34623

43249
EXHIBIT I 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-10 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 34624 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 155 of 173 PageID:

43250
From: Harry M. Roth <HRoth@cprlaw.com> 

Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 5:00 PM

To: Assaf, Eugene F. <eassaf@kirkland.com>; Farrell, Peter A. <pfarrell@kirkland.com>

Cc: Robert Pratter <RPratter@cprlaw.com>; Barbara Driscoll <bdriscoll@cprlaw.com>

Subject: Meet and confer

Will you have time sometime Monday to discuss our view regarding defendant’s responses to plaintiffs’ 

third interrogatories and 5th requests for production of documents. Included are the following we want 

to discuss:

Listing of what BASF paid in settlements (rog answers re: economics) (see attached Interrog. No. 4, 

7, 11)

Listing of what BASF paid in defense costs (rog answers re: economics) (see attached Interrog. No. 

4, 6, 9)

Reasons why cases were dismissed (data re: source of the dismissal count and reasons for 

dismissal)

Sorry for the late in the day note – I was supposed to send around noon. That kind of day. Let us know 

whether you have time on Monday to talk. Best, Harry

Harry M. Roth, Esquire

 

C / P / R 

Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.

Two Commerce Square

2001 Market Street, Suite 2900 / Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215) 567-3500/ 215.567.6019 (fax)

http://www.cprlaw.com/

PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY/CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND/OR ATTORNEY WORK 

PRODUCT. This message and attachments may contain privileged and confidential information. If you 

are not an intended recipient of this message, any use, distribution or copying is prohibited; please notify 

Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C. immediately at (215) 567-3500 or by email reply; and permanently delete 

all copies.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-10 Filed 05/21/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 34625 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 156 of 173 PageID:

43251
EXHIBIT J 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-11 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 34626 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 157 of 173 PageID:

43252
From: Farrell, Peter A. 

Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 5:20 PM

To: 'Harry M. Roth' <HRoth@cprlaw.com>; Assaf, Eugene F. <eassaf@kirkland.com>

Cc: Robert Pratter <RPratter@cprlaw.com>; Barbara Driscoll <bdriscoll@cprlaw.com>

Subject: RE: Meet and confer

On Monday, we will be preparing our court-ordered summaries and working with witnesses for the 

science day hearing on Wednesday. So we would suggest that we find time on a break at the hearing on 

Wednesday.

Peter A. Farrell

------------------------------------------------------------

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

655 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005

T +1 202 879 5959 F +1 202 879 5200

------------------------------------------------------------ peter.farrell@kirkland.com

From: Harry M. Roth <HRoth@cprlaw.com> 

Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 5:00 PM

To: Assaf, Eugene F. <eassaf@kirkland.com>; Farrell, Peter A. <pfarrell@kirkland.com>

Cc: Robert Pratter <RPratter@cprlaw.com>; Barbara Driscoll <bdriscoll@cprlaw.com>

Subject: Meet and confer

Will you have time sometime Monday to discuss our view regarding defendant’s responses to plaintiffs’ 

third interrogatories and 5th requests for production of documents. Included are the following we want 

to discuss:

Listing of what BASF paid in settlements (rog answers re: economics) (see attached Interrog. No. 4, 

7, 11)

Listing of what BASF paid in defense costs (rog answers re: economics) (see attached Interrog. No. 

4, 6, 9)

Reasons why cases were dismissed (data re: source of the dismissal count and reasons for 

dismissal)

Sorry for the late in the day note – I was supposed to send around noon. That kind of day. Let us know 

whether you have time on Monday to talk. Best, Harry

Harry M. Roth, Esquire

 

C / P / R Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.

Two Commerce Square

2001 Market Street, Suite 2900 / Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215) 567-3500/ 215.567.6019 (fax)

http://www.cprlaw.com/

PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY/CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND/OR ATTORNEY WORK 

PRODUCT. This message and attachments may contain privileged and confidential information. If you 

are not an intended recipient of this message, any use, distribution or copying is prohibited; please notify 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-11 Filed 05/21/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 34627 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 158 of 173 PageID:

43253
Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C. immediately at (215) 567-3500 or by email reply; and permanently delete 

all copies.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-11 Filed 05/21/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 34628 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 159 of 173 PageID:

43254
EXHIBIT K 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-12 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 34629 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 160 of 173 PageID:

43255
From: Farrell, Peter A. 

Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 7:33 AM

To: 'Harry M. Roth' <HRoth@cprlaw.com>; Assaf, Eugene F. <eassaf@kirkland.com>

Cc: Robert Pratter <RPratter@cprlaw.com>; Barbara Driscoll <bdriscoll@cprlaw.com>

Subject: RE: Meet and confer

Harry -- I sent an email on April 19 offering to speak to you and Michael about the interrogatories (and 

other issues) on April 20. Plaintiffs never responded and let more than a week pass. I could’ve done the 

call on April 20 or on other days last week (when we spoke on other issues). I just can’t do it today or 

tomorrow, when we will be expending considerable time preparing for the science day hearing, 

including meeting with witnesses who have flown in for the hearing. As I said in my earlier email, I 

would be happy to discuss the interrogatories on Wednesday during a break at the hearing (or later in 

the week, if you would prefer).

Peter A. Farrell

------------------------------------------------------------

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

655 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005

T +1 202 879 5959 F +1 202 879 5200

------------------------------------------------------------

peter.farrell@kirkland.com

From: Harry M. Roth <HRoth@cprlaw.com> 

Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 7:12 PM

To: Farrell, Peter A. <pfarrell@kirkland.com>; Assaf, Eugene F. <eassaf@kirkland.com>

Cc: Robert Pratter <RPratter@cprlaw.com>; Barbara Driscoll <bdriscoll@cprlaw.com>

Subject: RE: Meet and confer

Peter, Thanks for the reply. I would have imagined you’d be able to find some time on Monday 

notwithstanding your preparation. I wouldn’t expect the meet and confer to take very long. Maybe if 

you take a break to eat? 

From: Farrell, Peter A. [mailto:pfarrell@kirkland.com] 

Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 5:20 PM

To: Harry M. Roth <HRoth@cprlaw.com>; eassaf <eassaf@kirkland.com>

Cc: Robert Pratter <RPratter@cprlaw.com>; Barbara Driscoll <bdriscoll@cprlaw.com>

Subject: RE: Meet and confer

On Monday, we will be preparing our court-ordered summaries and working with witnesses for the 

science day hearing on Wednesday. So we would suggest that we find time on a break at the hearing on 

Wednesday.

Peter A. Farrell

------------------------------------------------------------ KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

655 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005

T +1 202 879 5959 F +1 202 879 5200

------------------------------------------------------------

peter.farrell@kirkland.com

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-12 Filed 05/21/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 34630 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 161 of 173 PageID:

43256
From: Harry M. Roth <HRoth@cprlaw.com> 

Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 5:00 PM

To: Assaf, Eugene F. <eassaf@kirkland.com>; Farrell, Peter A. <pfarrell@kirkland.com>

Cc: Robert Pratter <RPratter@cprlaw.com>; Barbara Driscoll <bdriscoll@cprlaw.com>

Subject: Meet and confer

Will you have time sometime Monday to discuss our view regarding defendant’s responses to plaintiffs’ 

third interrogatories and 5th requests for production of documents. Included are the following we want 

to discuss:

Listing of what BASF paid in settlements (rog answers re: economics) (see attached Interrog. No. 4, 

7, 11)

Listing of what BASF paid in defense costs (rog answers re: economics) (see attached Interrog. No. 

4, 6, 9)

Reasons why cases were dismissed (data re: source of the dismissal count and reasons for 

dismissal)

Sorry for the late in the day note – I was supposed to send around noon. That kind of day. Let us know 

whether you have time on Monday to talk. Best, Harry

Harry M. Roth, Esquire

 

C / P / R Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.

Two Commerce Square

2001 Market Street, Suite 2900 / Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215) 567-3500/ 215.567.6019 (fax)

http://www.cprlaw.com/

PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY/CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND/OR ATTORNEY WORK 

PRODUCT. This message and attachments may contain privileged and confidential information. If you 

are not an intended recipient of this message, any use, distribution or copying is prohibited; please notify 

Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C. immediately at (215) 567-3500 or by email reply; and permanently delete 

all copies.

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, 

and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP. 

Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you 

have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return email or by email to postmaster@kirkland.com, 

and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-12 Filed 05/21/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 34631 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 162 of 173 PageID:

43257
EXHIBIT L 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-13 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 34632 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 163 of 173 PageID:

43258
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

BASF CATALYSTS LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 Civil Action No. 

 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD

 Newark, New Jersey

 Friday, October 14, 2016

 10:40 a.m.

TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE

BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOSEPH A. DICKSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiffs: Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.

By: CHRISTOPHER M. PLACITELLA, ESQ.

127 Maple Avenue

Red Bank, NJ 08801

Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.

By: JARED M. PLACITELLA, ESQ.

MICHAEL COREN, ESQ.

Two Commerce Square

2001 Market Street, Suite 2900

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Transcription Company: KLJ Transcription Service, LLC

P.O. Box 8627

Saddle Brook, NJ 07663

(201)703-1670 - Fax (201)703-5623

Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript

produced by transcription service.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-13 Filed 05/21/18 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 34633 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 164 of 173 PageID:

43259
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

APPEARANCES (Cont.):

For Defendant 

BASF Catalysts, LLC: Robinson Miller, LLC

By: JUSTIN T. QUINN, ESQ.

One Newark Center

 Newark, NJ 07102

Kirkland & Ellis, LLP

By: EUGENE F. ASSAF, ESQ.

PETER A. FARRELL, ESQ.

655 15th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

For Defendant 

Arthur A. Dornbusch, II: Marino, Tortorella & Boyle, P.C.

By: KEVIN H. MARINO, ESQ.

JOHN A. BOYLE, ESQ.

437 Southern Boulevard

Chatham, NJ 07928

For Defendant Cahill,

Gordon & Reindel: Connell Foley, LLP

By: ROBERT F. RYAN, ESQ.

85 Livingston Avenue

Roseland, NJ 07068

Williams & Connolly, LLP

By: JON K. VILLA, ESQ.

GRANT A. GEYERMAN, ESQ.

725 Twelfth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

APPEARANCES (Telephonically):

For Defendant 

Thomas D. Halket: Herold Law, P.A.

By: ERIC TUNIS, ESQ.

25 Independence Boulevard

Warren, NJ 07059

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-13 Filed 05/21/18 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 34634 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 165 of 173 PageID:

43260
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

I N D E X

 PAGE

Colloquy re Scheduling Order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 42 

Colloquy re Spoliation Issue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-13 Filed 05/21/18 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 34635 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 166 of 173 PageID:

43261
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Colloquy 15

THE COURT: I accept your apology on behalf of the

Court. I cannot speak for your co-counsel.

MR. TUNIS: I’ll have to make it up to them.

THE COURT: Well, I think they’re okay.

MR. TUNIS: Okay. 

THE COURT: Now, we’re all in agreement that -- make

sure I’m reading both of these correctly -- that we’re not

having any fights over the -- well, I don’t know if we’re in

agreement or not. I don’t think -- again, if I miss this, Mr.

Assaf, you’ll tell me. But the plaintiffs suggest 20 -- no

more than 25 additional or supplemental -- or they say

additional interrogatories by each party to each other party. 

Everybody in agreement with that?

(Discussion among counsel, off the record.)

MR. ASSAF: That’s fine, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Then they also have language on 

the -- on how many fact discovery depositions to be taken by

each side. All defendants together being considered as one

side. Do we have agreement on that? That’s number 8 on page 

6 of their order.

(Discussion among counsel, off the record.)

MR. ASSAF: Yeah. Your Honor, I -- that, I don’t

think that we’re going to be able to agree to. And we may

have to do this in stages, but here we have a class of -- a

putative class of 10 to 16,000 people. As Your Honor asked

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-13 Filed 05/21/18 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 34636 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 167 of 173 PageID:

43262
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

I, TERRY L. DeMARCO, court-approved transcriber,

certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the

electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the aboveentitled matter recorded on October 14, 2016 from 10:40:45 a.m. 

to 11:34:22 a.m.

 10/18/16 S / Terry L. DeMarco 

 Date Terry L. DeMarco, AD/T 566

KLJ Transcription Service 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-13 Filed 05/21/18 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 34637 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 168 of 173 PageID:

43263
EXHIBIT M 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-14 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 34638 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 169 of 173 PageID:

43264

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-14 Filed 05/21/18 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 34640 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 171 of 173 PageID: 43266

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this day I caused a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing documents to be served via ECF upon all counsel of record.

Dated: May 21, 2018 By: s/ Justin T. Quinn

Justin T. Quinn

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 529-15 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 34642 Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-9 Filed 06/25/18 Page 173 of 173 PageID:

43268