Exhibit Y

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 1 of 32 PageID: 48710
·1· · · · · · · IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

·2· · · · · · · · FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

·3

·4· · KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS,· · · · ) CASE NO. 2:11-CV-01754

· · · et al.,· · · · · · · · · · ) (JLL)(JAD)

·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)

· · · · · · · · ·Plaintiffs,· · ·)

·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)

· · · versus· · · · · · · · · · ·)

·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) DEPOSITION OF

· · · BASF CATALYSTS, LLC,· · · ·)

·8· · et al.,· · · · · · · · · · ) GAYLE WILLIAMS

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)

·9· · · · · · · ·Defendants.· · ·)

10· · · · · · · · · · · · ·- - - - - - -

11

12· · · · ·Deposition of GAYLE WILLIAMS, a Plaintiff herein,

13· · called by the Defendants for Cross-Examination pursuant

14· · to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, taken before

15· · me, the undersigned, Anika W. Patrick, a Registered

16· · Merit Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter and Notary

17· · Public in and for the State of Ohio, at the offices of

18· · Thompson Hine, LLP, 3900 Key Center, 127 Public Square,

19· · Cleveland, Ohio, on Thursday, April 5, 2018, at

20· · 9:00 a.m.

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 2 of 32 PageID: 48711
Page 2

·1· · APPEARANCES:

·2

· · · · · ·On Behalf of the Plaintiffs:

·3

· · · · · · · ·Harry M. Roth, Esq.

·4· · · · · · ·Cohen, Placitella & Roth

· · · · · · · ·Two Commerce Square

·5· · · · · · ·2001 Market Street, Suite 2900

· · · · · · · ·Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

·6· · · · · · ·215.567.3500

· · · · · · · ·hroth@cprlaw.com

·7· · · · · · ·- - - and - - -

· · · · · · · ·Jared M. Placitella, Esq.

·8· · · · · · ·Cohen, Placitella & Roth

· · · · · · · ·127 Maple Avenue

·9· · · · · · ·Red Bank, New Jersey 07701

· · · · · · · ·732.747.9003

10· · · · · · ·jmplacitella@cprlaw.com

11

· · · · · ·On Behalf of the Defendant BASF Catalysts, LLC:

12

· · · · · · · ·Eugene F. Assaf, Esq.

13· · · · · · ·Peter A. Farrell, Esq.

· · · · · · · ·Brandon Stone, Esq.

14· · · · · · ·Kirkland & Ellis, LLP

· · · · · · · ·655 Fifteenth Street, Northwest, Suite 1200

15· · · · · · ·Washington, D.C. 20005

· · · · · · · ·202.879.5000

16· · · · · · ·Eugene.assaf@kirkland.com

· · · · · · · ·Peter.farrell@kirkland.com

17· · · · · · ·Brandon.stone@kirkland.com

18

· · · · · ·On Behalf of the Defendants Cahill Gordon &

19· · · · ·Reindel, LLP, Howard G. (Peter) Sloane, and Ira J.

· · · · · ·Dembrow:

20

· · · · · · · ·Kyle A. Dolinsky, Esq.

21· · · · · · ·Pepper Hamilton, LLP

· · · · · · · ·3000 Two Logan Square

22· · · · · · ·Eighteenth and Arch Streets

· · · · · · · ·Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-4750

23· · · · · · ·215.981.4000

· · · · · · · ·dolinskyk@pepperlaw.com

24

25

Page 3

·1· · APPEARANCES (Continued):

·2

· · · · · ·On Behalf of the Defendant Thomas D. Halket: (Via

·3· · · · ·Telephone):

·4· · · · · · ·Eric Tunis, Esq.

· · · · · · · ·Herold Law, PA

·5· · · · · · ·25 Independence Boulevard

· · · · · · · ·Warren, New Jersey 07059

·6· · · · · · ·908.647.1022

· · · · · · · ·Etunis@heroldlaw.com

·7

·8· · · · ·On Behalf of the Defendant Arthur Dornbusch (Via

· · · · · ·Telephone):

·9

· · · · · · · ·John A. Boyle, Esq.

10· · · · · · ·Marino, Tortorella & Boyle, PC

· · · · · · · ·437 Southern Boulevard

11· · · · · · ·Chatham Township, New Jersey 07928

· · · · · · · ·973.824.9300

12· · · · · · ·Jboyle@khmarino.com

13

14· · · · · · · · · · · · ·- - - - - - -

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 4

·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·I N D E X

·2

·3· · EXAMINATION BY· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE

·4· · Mr. Assaf· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·5

·5

·6· · PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS MARKED

·7· · None

·8

·9· · DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS FIRST REFERENCE· · · · · ·PAGE

10· · 1,· ·Second Amended Class Action Complaint· · · ·20

11· · 12,· Plaintiff's Responses to Motions for

· · · · · ·Summary Judgment Filed on Behalf of the

12· · · · ·BFGoodrich Company· · · · · · · · · · · · · 62

13· · 131, Plaintiff Nancy Pease's Supplemental

· · · · · ·Answers to BASF Catalysts LLC's First Set

14· · · · ·of Interrogatories· · · · · · · · · · · · · 25

15· · 133, Clark v. Owens Complaint· · · · · · · · · · 37

16· · 134, Order in Clark v. Owens Case· · · · · · · · 37

17· · 135, Memorandum in Support of Motion for

· · · · · ·Summary Judgment for Lack of Product

18· · · · ·Identification on Behalf of Eastern

· · · · · ·Magnesia Talc Company· · · · · · · · · · · ·38

19· · 136, Notice of Dismissal, Clark v. Owens· · · · ·46

20· · 137, Nancy Pease v. Owens Complaint· · · · · · · 46

21· · 138, Pease v. Owens Motion for Summary Judgment

· · · · · ·and to Dismiss on Behalf of Eastern

22· · · · ·Magnesia Talc Company· · · · · · · · · · · ·46

23· · 139, Summary Judgment withdrawn as Moot· · · · · 64

24· · 141, Release· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·53

25· · 142, Redacted Bevan Document· · · · · · · · · · ·51

Page 5

·1· · WHEREUPON,

·2· · · · · · · · · · · · GAYLE WILLIAMS,

·3· · · · · · after being first duly sworn, as hereinafter

·4· · · · · · certified, testified as follows:

·5· · · · · · · · · · · CROSS-EXAMINATION

·6· · BY MR. ASSAF:

·7· · Q.· ·Good morning, Ms. Williams.

·8· · A.· ·Good morning.

·9· · Q.· ·Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit before

10· · · · ·this one?

11· · A.· ·Yes.

12· · Q.· ·Could you tell me about that?

13· · A.· ·I had a swimming pool installed that I had paid

14· · · · ·full price for that the gentleman never finished.

15· · · · ·So we had taken him to court.

16· · Q.· ·Okay.· Other than that, have you been involved in

17· · · · ·any lawsuits?

18· · A.· ·Not -- no, not that I remember.

19· · Q.· ·Okay.· Have you ever testified before?

20· · A.· ·No.

21· · Q.· ·Okay.· So I'm going to ask you some questions.· If

22· · · · ·you don't understand them, just tell me and I'll

23· · · · ·try again.· And I want to make sure you understand

24· · · · ·the question --

25· · A.· ·Okay.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 3 of 32 PageID: 48712
Page 6

·1· · Q.· ·-- before you answer it.· Okay?

·2· · A.· ·Yes.

·3· · Q.· ·The lawsuit that you're here for today, do you

·4· · · · ·have any understanding of the facts?· In other

·5· · · · ·words, were you involved in the underlying cases

·6· · · · ·with your parents?

·7· · A.· ·As far as, like, being in meetings?

·8· · Q.· ·Yeah.

·9· · A.· ·No.

10· · Q.· ·Okay.

11· · A.· ·I read -- since my sister -- my sister was the

12· · · · ·point person, and since she can no longer do it,

13· · · · ·since then I have read things, but --

14· · Q.· ·When you say "since then," what time are you

15· · · · ·talking about?

16· · A.· ·I think it was a year ago Thanksgiving that my

17· · · · ·brother-in-law, my other sister asked if I would

18· · · · ·take over as the point person for the family.· So

19· · · · ·it was sometime after that.

20· · Q.· ·So late 2016, early 2017?

21· · A.· ·Yes.

22· · Q.· ·Okay.· So prior to late 2016 --

23· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

24· · Q.· ·-- did you have any personal knowledge of the

25· · · · ·events in the 1990s and 2000s regarding the

Page 7

·1· · · · ·litigation against Engelhard?· Or did you --

·2· · A.· ·Just from what I've heard from my sister and

·3· · · · ·brother-in-law, yes.

·4· · Q.· ·Okay.· Just from what you've heard from your

·5· · · · ·sister and brother-in-law?

·6· · A.· ·Right.

·7· · Q.· ·Okay.· You --

·8· · A.· ·I didn't see any documents or anything like that.

·9· · Q.· ·And you weren't -- withdrawn.

10· · · · · · · · · Do you know Mr. Bevan?

11· · A.· ·I met Mr. Bevan for the first time yesterday.

12· · Q.· ·Okay.

13· · A.· ·But I had never met or spoke to Mr. Bevan before

14· · · · ·that.

15· · Q.· ·Okay.· So your knowledge of this lawsuit and the

16· · · · ·facts in this lawsuit all come from reading things

17· · · · ·over the last year.· Fair?

18· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form.· You can

19· · · · · · ·answer.

20· · A.· ·It comes from reading things.· I've had

21· · · · ·conversations with my attorneys and talking to my

22· · · · ·brother-in-law.

23· · Q.· ·Okay.

24· · A.· ·So that's where my facts have come from.

25· · Q.· ·Okay.· And what about from conversations with

Page 8

·1· · · · ·Mr. Bevan?

·2· · A.· ·No.· I never had a conversation with Mr. Bevan.

·3· · Q.· ·Okay.· You met Mr. Bevan yesterday?

·4· · A.· ·Yes.

·5· · Q.· ·Could you tell me about that?

·6· · A.· ·I had a meeting there to meet Harry and Jared, and

·7· · · · ·Mr. Bevan came and introduced himself to me.· But

·8· · · · ·I had never met him before.

·9· · Q.· ·Had you met Mr. Roth and Mr. Placitella before

10· · · · ·that?

11· · A.· ·In person?

12· · Q.· ·Yes.

13· · A.· ·No.

14· · Q.· ·Okay.· Had you met any of the Plaintiffs' lawyers

15· · · · ·in person?

16· · A.· ·No.

17· · Q.· ·Okay.· Had you talked to them on the phone?

18· · A.· ·Yes.

19· · Q.· ·Okay.· And when is the first time you talked to a

20· · · · ·Plaintiffs' lawyer in this case, Mr. Roth or

21· · · · ·Mr. Placitella or a gentleman named Mr. Coren?

22· · · · ·When is the first time you talked to them?

23· · A.· ·Well, it would have been after that Thanksgiving.

24· · · · ·I think it was after the first of the year, so

25· · · · ·early 2017?

Page 9

·1· · Q.· ·Okay.

·2· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· When you end with a question

·3· · · · · · ·mark, we all understand that you're giving an

·4· · · · · · ·approximation.

·5· · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Okay.

·6· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· But for the court reporter

·7· · · · · · ·you've just got to say --

·8· · A.· ·Sometime earlier in 2017.

·9· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· It's a difference between a

10· · · · · · ·transcript, a deposition and a real

11· · · · · · ·conversation.

12· · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Uh-huh.

13· · Q.· ·And what --

14· · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Bless you.

15· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· That doesn't happen much,

16· · · · · · ·either.

17· · Q.· ·And best you can, can you tell me what your

18· · · · ·brother or sister-in-law said to you regarding you

19· · · · ·getting involved in the case?

20· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection to the form.

21· · A.· ·Okay.· It's my sister and brother-in-law.

22· · Q.· ·Sorry.

23· · A.· ·That's okay.· I know Gary and my sister Nancy,

24· · · · ·Nancy was the point person and she passed away,

25· · · · ·but in November when they asked me, he had gone to

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 4 of 32 PageID: 48713
Page 10

·1· · · · ·my sister Karen, who is next oldest from Nancy --

·2· · Q.· ·Right.

·3· · A.· ·-- and asked her if she wanted to take over and

·4· · · · ·said no, and she said that I would be a better

·5· · · · ·candidate.· And I'm the next oldest, so I think we

·6· · · · ·just went down.· So that's -- so Gary came to me,

·7· · · · ·my brother-in-law, and said, "I talked to Karen,

·8· · · · ·Karen thinks we should ask you.· Are you willing

·9· · · · ·to take over?"· And I said yes.

10· · Q.· ·And what is your understanding of what your role

11· · · · ·is in this case?

12· · A.· ·As far as the whole overlying case?

13· · Q.· ·Yes.

14· · A.· ·Or just from my family's role?

15· · Q.· ·Let's do -- let's break that apart.

16· · A.· ·Okay.

17· · Q.· ·So what do you think your role is as a class

18· · · · ·representative?

19· · A.· ·Well, to answer any questions you ask me to the

20· · · · ·best of my ability and honestly, and represent the

21· · · · ·class for the betterment of the class and not take

22· · · · ·my personal interests into it.· Do what's best for

23· · · · ·everyone, not just myself.

24· · Q.· ·And what's your understanding of what input, if

25· · · · ·any, you have on how the litigation's conducted?

Page 11

·1· · · · ·Strategic decisions about trial and whether to

·2· · · · ·settle, things like that?

·3· · A.· ·Can you ask me that again?· I'm sorry.

·4· · Q.· ·Sure.· What role do you think you have in terms

·5· · · · ·of, for example, a decision to settle the class

·6· · · · ·action?

·7· · A.· ·I think my role is to listen to all the input and

·8· · · · ·relying on my lawyers, because I'm no specialist

·9· · · · ·or anything, and just rely on their expert

10· · · · ·knowledge of, you know, how to proceed or, you

11· · · · ·know, whether the settlement is fair, not fair or

12· · · · ·reasonable or not reasonable.· I mean, I would not

13· · · · ·have any idea what would be a

14· · · · ·reasonable -- because I've never been in anything

15· · · · ·like this or -- so I guess that's my role, is to

16· · · · ·pay attention, listen, answer the best as I can

17· · · · ·and rely on my counsel to help me make those

18· · · · ·decisions and then go from there.

19· · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you know if a mediation had been

20· · · · ·conducted in this case?

21· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Privilege.· You

22· · · · · · ·can answer under -- excuse me, under 502(d).

23· · · · · · ·Is that an agreement?

24· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· Sure.

25· · A.· ·No, I don't know if there was a mediation.

Page 12

·1· · Q.· ·Do you know whether there were settlement

·2· · · · ·discussions in this case?

·3· · A.· ·In --

·4· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.

·5· · Q.· ·The class action.

·6· · A.· ·Oh.· Was there a settlement offered?

·7· · Q.· ·Was there settlement discussions?

·8· · A.· ·I don't know.

·9· · Q.· ·Okay.· As a class representative, do you view your

10· · · · ·role as being entitled to know whether there are

11· · · · ·settlement discussions taking place?· Or is that a

12· · · · ·lawyer thing?

13· · A.· ·I would -- well, I would think if there's

14· · · · ·settlement discussions -- I'm not sure because of

15· · · · ·the class action.· I'm thinking if I was just me

16· · · · ·in a suit, then definitely I would need to know if

17· · · · ·there was a settlement.· But I think if I'm

18· · · · ·representing the class, one of the representatives

19· · · · ·representing the class as a whole and there's a

20· · · · ·settlement discussion, I guess yes.

21· · Q.· ·And so if, taking your last example, in your case,

22· · · · ·your personal case --

23· · A.· ·If it was just me, uh-huh.

24· · Q.· ·Yeah, if it was just you and there was a defendant

25· · · · ·who had, for example, put money on the table, said

Page 13

·1· · · · ·we will pay you --

·2· · A.· ·Right.

·3· · Q.· ·-- $10,000, do you think as a client you should

·4· · · · ·hear about that offer?

·5· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

·6· · · · · · ·You may answer.

·7· · A.· ·Yes.

·8· · Q.· ·And similarly in a class action --

·9· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

10· · Q.· ·-- if somebody put money on the table, say

11· · · · ·$100,000 --

12· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

13· · Q.· ·-- do you think as a class representative you

14· · · · ·should hear that that was, in fact, put on the

15· · · · ·table?

16· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

17· · A.· ·I think I would say yes.

18· · Q.· ·I think you would be right.

19· · A.· ·Okay.

20· · Q.· ·So --

21· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Move to strike.

22· · Q.· ·So -- and as a class representative, what have you

23· · · · ·done to prepare yourself for this lawsuit and for

24· · · · ·acting as a class representative?

25· · A.· ·Over the course of the last -- since we started in

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 5 of 32 PageID: 48714
Page 14

·1· · · · ·early -- I have read any documentation that I've

·2· · · · ·been sent regarding the case.

·3· · Q.· ·And do you have that documentation?

·4· · A.· ·With me?

·5· · Q.· ·Yes.

·6· · A.· ·No.

·7· · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you have it at home?

·8· · A.· ·Well, I have some in an e-mail on my phone.

·9· · Q.· ·Okay.

10· · A.· ·But as far as a printed out, I do have it at home,

11· · · · ·yes.

12· · Q.· ·Okay.· By the way, and I apologize again, it's

13· · · · ·your --

14· · A.· ·Brother-in-law.

15· · Q.· ·Brother-in-law and sister?

16· · A.· ·My brother-in-law.

17· · Q.· ·Your brother-in-law?

18· · A.· ·Yes.· My brother-in-law Gary was married to my

19· · · · ·sister Nancy who passed away.

20· · Q.· ·Got it.

21· · A.· ·Then I have a sister Karen.· When I refer to

22· · · · ·my -- so I've referred to my sister twice and

23· · · · ·there's two sisters.· If I'm confusing you, I

24· · · · ·apologize.

25· · Q.· ·And the one sister was Ms. Nancy Pease; is that

Page 15

·1· · · · ·right?

·2· · A.· ·Yes.· Yes.

·3· · Q.· ·And the other sister's name, did you say Kathy?

·4· · A.· ·Karen.

·5· · Q.· ·Karen, okay.· Did Nancy -- withdrawn.

·6· · · · · · · · · You mentioned that you have things by

·7· · · · ·e-mail.· Is that how you've communicated with your

·8· · · · ·lawyers?

·9· · A.· ·Most -- yes.

10· · Q.· ·Mostly?

11· · A.· ·Yes.

12· · Q.· ·Okay.· And you keep those e-mails?

13· · A.· ·Yes.

14· · Q.· ·Have you communicated with Mr. Bevan by e-mail?

15· · A.· ·No.

16· · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you know whether your sister Nancy,

17· · · · ·Ms. Nancy Pease --

18· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

19· · Q.· ·-- had e-mail?

20· · A.· ·From anybody?

21· · Q.· ·Yeah.· Well, yeah, just an e-mail account.

22· · A.· ·No, she did not.

23· · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you know how she communicated with the

24· · · · ·lawyers?

25· · A.· ·No.

Page 16

·1· · Q.· ·Do you know how she communicated with Mr. Bevan,

·2· · · · ·if at all?

·3· · A.· ·Well, I know she had met with Mr. Bevan.· I would

·4· · · · ·just be guessing to say by phone, but --

·5· · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you know whether she had any documents

·6· · · · ·related to either the class action lawsuit or your

·7· · · · ·father's lawsuit, you know, that was handled by

·8· · · · ·Mr. Bevan?

·9· · A.· ·I mean, I didn't see her have any documents.

10· · Q.· ·Okay.· And do you know a woman named Ms. Erin

11· · · · ·Clark who works with Mr. Bevan?

12· · A.· ·Yes.· I met her yesterday also.

13· · Q.· ·Okay.· In the same meeting with Mr. Bevan?

14· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection to form.

15· · A.· ·Well, it wasn't really a meeting with Mr. Bevan.

16· · · · ·When I got there, she's the one who came out to

17· · · · ·the lobby to introduce herself to me, and so I

18· · · · ·just talked briefly with her.

19· · Q.· ·Okay.· What did she say to you?

20· · A.· ·Well, she had paperwork for me that she wanted to

21· · · · ·know if I wanted a copy of that made me executor

22· · · · ·or executrix of my parents, all the other stuff

23· · · · ·that goes on with my parents.

24· · Q.· ·The other lawsuits and litigation?

25· · A.· ·Whatever, yes.

Page 17

·1· · Q.· ·Okay.· So do you have an attorney-client

·2· · · · ·relationship with Mr. Bevan and his firm for other

·3· · · · ·litigation matters?

·4· · A.· ·Yes.

·5· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection to form and

·6· · · · · · ·foundation.

·7· · A.· ·I would say yes.

·8· · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you have any understanding with

·9· · · · ·Mr. Bevan regarding whether he will be compensated

10· · · · ·for this lawsuit, the class action?

11· · A.· ·I have no idea.

12· · Q.· ·Have you ever discussed it with him?

13· · A.· ·No.

14· · Q.· ·Do you know what --

15· · A.· ·I've never had a discussion with Mr. Bevan about

16· · · · ·any of these cases.

17· · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you have a signed retainer agreement

18· · · · ·with Mr. Bevan's law firm?

19· · A.· ·I do not.

20· · Q.· ·Okay.· Does the estate?

21· · A.· ·I would think so.

22· · Q.· ·Okay.

23· · A.· ·I don't --

24· · Q.· ·All right.

25· · A.· ·I don't know.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 6 of 32 PageID: 48715
Page 18

·1· · Q.· ·With respect to Mr. Bevan or Ms. Clark, did they

·2· · · · ·tell you anything about the class action and --

·3· · A.· ·No.

·4· · Q.· ·No?· Okay.· Did you have any discussions with your

·5· · · · ·sister, Ms. Nancy Pease, regarding the class

·6· · · · ·action that you're now a class representative for?

·7· · A.· ·Not with Nancy.

·8· · Q.· ·Okay.· With whom?

·9· · A.· ·Gary.

10· · Q.· ·With Gary?

11· · A.· ·Right.

12· · Q.· ·Your brother-in-law?

13· · A.· ·Yes.

14· · Q.· ·Okay.· These are discussions regarding we need

15· · · · ·somebody to take Nancy's place?

16· · A.· ·Yes.

17· · Q.· ·And were there any discussions of the underlying

18· · · · ·facts of the lawsuit?

19· · A.· ·Early on, and I couldn't tell you when, he did

20· · · · ·tell me, my sister, my brother about the case,

21· · · · ·that there was a class action that he and Nancy

22· · · · ·were our spokespersons for, and he kind of gave us

23· · · · ·a little background of what was going on.· But

24· · · · ·that was several years ago.

25· · Q.· ·And did he tell you how he learned about the case?

Page 19

·1· · A.· ·No.· If he did, I don't remember.

·2· · Q.· ·Okay.· Did he tell you anything about compensation

·3· · · · ·in the case?

·4· · A.· ·No.

·5· · Q.· ·Did he tell you anything about the original

·6· · · · ·lawsuit that your father had against Engelhard?

·7· · A.· ·The only thing that I knew was when he told us

·8· · · · ·that there was a company that we either settled

·9· · · · ·with or dismissed because they said there was no

10· · · · ·asbestos in their talc and came to -- it came to

11· · · · ·find out that there was and now there was a new

12· · · · ·suit.· That's the gist of what he told us.

13· · Q.· ·Did he tell you how he learned that?

14· · A.· ·No.

15· · Q.· ·Do you -- was he involved in the underlying

16· · · · ·lawsuit against Engelhard regarding talc?

17· · A.· ·You mean the very original one?

18· · Q.· ·Yeah.

19· · A.· ·He and my sister have always been the point person

20· · · · ·from the very beginning when my dad first got

21· · · · ·sick, or when these things first started.· So

22· · · · ·I -- I don't know what he knew, when he knew it or

23· · · · ·how he knew it.

24· · Q.· ·All right.· Okay.· So you don't know whether he

25· · · · ·heard that from Mr. Bevan or he heard that from

Page 20

·1· · · · ·Mr. Roth or --

·2· · A.· ·I have no idea who contacted him about it.

·3· · Q.· ·Or he learned it from somebody else?

·4· · A.· ·Right.

·5· · Q.· ·And does your brother-in-law Gary, as far as you

·6· · · · ·know, keep documents related to all of these

·7· · · · ·litigation matters that he's been involved in?

·8· · A.· ·I -- I don't know what he's kept or not kept.

·9· · Q.· ·Okay.· As the point person, did -- when he was the

10· · · · ·point person --

11· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

12· · Q.· ·-- did you expect him to keep his documents

13· · · · ·related to the settlements and the lawsuits?

14· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

15· · A.· ·I honestly had no expectations of him doing

16· · · · ·anything.

17· · Q.· ·Okay.

18· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· There are people on the phone.

19· · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Uh-huh.

20· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Okay.

21· · Q.· ·Let me show you, this is the second amended

22· · · · ·complaint in this case.

23· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

24· · Q.· ·Have you seen this before?

25· · A.· ·I have seen this, yes.

Page 21

·1· · Q.· ·Have you reviewed it?

·2· · A.· ·I have reviewed some of it.

·3· · Q.· ·Not all of it?

·4· · A.· ·No.

·5· · Q.· ·Okay.· When did you review it?

·6· · A.· ·I reviewed it, let's see, earlier this week.

·7· · Q.· ·Okay.· Is that the first time you reviewed it?

·8· · A.· ·Yes.· I've gotten a lot of things that I've looked

·9· · · · ·at and sometimes they -- but this, yes.

10· · Q.· ·Okay.· First time you reviewed the complaint in

11· · · · ·this case was last week?

12· · A.· ·Earlier this week.

13· · Q.· ·Earlier this week, sorry.

14· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

15· · Q.· ·First time you reviewed the complaint in this case

16· · · · ·was earlier this week, the week of --

17· · A.· ·April 1st.

18· · Q.· ·April 1st?

19· · A.· ·Yes.

20· · Q.· ·2018?

21· · A.· ·Yes.

22· · Q.· ·Could you turn your attention to page 21,

23· · · · ·Ms. Williams?

24· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

25· · Q.· ·Paragraphs 20, 21, and 22 talk about Ms. Nancy

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 7 of 32 PageID: 48716
Page 22

·1· · · · ·Pease.· Do you see that --

·2· · A.· ·Yes.

·3· · Q.· ·-- in paragraph 20?

·4· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

·5· · Q.· ·Have you read these paragraphs before?

·6· · A.· ·No.

·7· · Q.· ·No?

·8· · A.· ·(Witness shaking head from side to side.)

·9· · Q.· ·Okay.· So as we sit here, you and I today -- this

10· · · · ·might short-circuit a lot of things -- do you have

11· · · · ·any personal knowledge of anything that's said in

12· · · · ·the complaint?· Do you know something from being

13· · · · ·around the witnesses or the meetings or the

14· · · · ·litigation?· Do you have any knowledge or do you

15· · · · ·just know what you've learned over the last week?

16· · A.· ·Well, I know my dad worked at the rubber company.

17· · · · ·I know he had mesothelioma.

18· · Q.· ·Right.

19· · A.· ·I know he passed away from it at a pretty young

20· · · · ·age for a man.· Yes, I know some things about the

21· · · · ·case.

22· · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you know about the Engelhard case?

23· · A.· ·Through conversations with my brother-in-law and

24· · · · ·my counsel.

25· · Q.· ·Okay.· And these conversations with your

Page 23

·1· · · · ·brother-in-law, these are recent conversations?

·2· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection to form and

·3· · · · · · ·foundation.

·4· · A.· ·In the last year or two, yes.

·5· · Q.· ·Okay.· These were the conversations where he said

·6· · · · ·there was a prior lawsuit on talc and we had

·7· · · · ·settled or dismissed it?

·8· · A.· ·That was the first conversation, yes.· And then it

·9· · · · ·was probably another year or two after that that

10· · · · ·it came back up.

11· · Q.· ·Okay.· Prior to that conversation with your

12· · · · ·brother-in-law --

13· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

14· · Q.· ·-- which was a year ago or so --

15· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

16· · Q.· ·-- did you have any knowledge from any source,

17· · · · ·your sister or your brother-in-law, regarding your

18· · · · ·father's lawsuit against Engelhard?

19· · A.· ·Not Engelhard specifically.

20· · Q.· ·Okay.· Against the talc companies?

21· · A.· ·I knew we had lawsuits against several talc

22· · · · ·companies.

23· · Q.· ·Okay.· And other than knowing there were lawsuits

24· · · · ·against talc companies, did you know anything else

25· · · · ·about them?

Page 24

·1· · A.· ·I was not involved in any conversations.

·2· · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you have any understanding -- withdrawn.

·3· · · · · · · · · Prior to a year ago when having a

·4· · · · ·discussion with your brother-in-law --

·5· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

·6· · Q.· ·-- did you have any understanding of how the talc

·7· · · · ·lawsuits were resolved?· Whether they were

·8· · · · ·settled?· Whether they were dismissed?· Whether

·9· · · · ·you received any money?

10· · A.· ·We did receive settlements from different suits.

11· · Q.· ·And how do you know about that?

12· · A.· ·Because I received a settlement.

13· · Q.· ·Okay.· From whom?

14· · A.· ·The correspondence came from Bevan's office.· Are

15· · · · ·you asking me from what talc companies from whom

16· · · · ·the settlements were from?

17· · Q.· ·Yes.

18· · A.· ·I couldn't give you -- I couldn't tell you that

19· · · · ·right now.

20· · Q.· ·And do you -- did you have any discussions with

21· · · · ·Mr. Bevan or anybody else regarding why the cases

22· · · · ·were being settled?

23· · A.· ·No.

24· · Q.· ·Did you have any discussions with your

25· · · · ·brother-in-law or anybody in your family at the

Page 25

·1· · · · ·time regarding why the cases were being settled?

·2· · A.· ·No.

·3· · Q.· ·After receiving the money --

·4· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

·5· · Q.· ·-- from the talc settlement, have you had any

·6· · · · ·discussions with Mr. Bevan regarding why the cases

·7· · · · ·were settled?

·8· · A.· ·No.

·9· · Q.· ·After receiving the money from the talc

10· · · · ·settlements, have you had any discussions with

11· · · · ·your brother-in-law regarding why the lawsuits

12· · · · ·were settled?

13· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form and

14· · · · · · ·foundation.

15· · A.· ·No.

16· · Q.· ·As we sit here today, do you have any

17· · · · ·understanding of why the talc cases were settled?

18· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

19· · A.· ·No.· I mean, I have no -- I wasn't involved in any

20· · · · ·conversations on any of the settlements.

21· · Q.· ·So I'm going to show you now what's been marked as

22· · · · ·Defendant's Exhibit 131.

23· · A.· ·I got it.· Thank you.

24· · Q.· ·It's entitled "Plaintiff Nancy Pease's

25· · · · ·Supplemental Answers to BASF Catalysts' First Set

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 8 of 32 PageID: 48717
Page 26

·1· · · · ·of Interrogatories."· And I'd like to ask you to

·2· · · · ·take a moment and look through these and see if

·3· · · · ·they're familiar to you.· Okay, Ms. Williams?

·4· · A.· ·Uh-huh.· Okay.

·5· · Q.· ·Have you seen these interrogatory responses

·6· · · · ·before?

·7· · A.· ·Yes.

·8· · Q.· ·When did you see them?

·9· · A.· ·Oh, I honestly couldn't tell you when I saw them.

10· · · · ·I've seen different interrogatories at different

11· · · · ·times, so I think the first time I got any was,

12· · · · ·like, after October of last year.· So most

13· · · · ·recently in the last -- earlier this week I was

14· · · · ·given copies, e-mailed copies.

15· · Q.· ·Okay.

16· · A.· ·But I didn't look at them then.· But I have seen

17· · · · ·these interrogatories earlier.· Sorry.

18· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· It's Jerry who will be mad.

19· · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I'm sorry, Jerry.

20· · Q.· ·Regarding the last page, the verification.

21· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

22· · Q.· ·Where were you when you signed that?

23· · A.· ·I was at my home.

24· · Q.· ·Okay.· Were there any attorneys with you?

25· · A.· ·No.

Page 27

·1· · Q.· ·Okay.· Did you discuss any of these with

·2· · · · ·Mr. Bevan, any of these interrogatory responses?

·3· · A.· ·No.

·4· · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you -- let's go through them.· Regarding

·5· · · · ·interrogatory 4, which is on -- the pages aren't

·6· · · · ·numbered, but I'd like to turn your attention to

·7· · · · ·interrogatory number 4.

·8· · A.· ·Okay.· Okay.

·9· · Q.· ·Okay.· It says, identify all resolutions of claims

10· · · · ·or dispositions with any Defendant named in the

11· · · · ·underlying action, parties to settlement, amount

12· · · · ·of settlement, dates of the settlement and why the

13· · · · ·claim was settled.

14· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

15· · Q.· ·And there's a listing of settlements.· Do you see

16· · · · ·that?

17· · A.· ·Uh-huh.· Yes.· I'm sorry.

18· · Q.· ·Does that strike you as the right list of the

19· · · · ·settlements of your father's litigations over the

20· · · · ·years?

21· · A.· ·I mean, I don't know all these by heart, but yes,

22· · · · ·it looks good.

23· · Q.· ·Okay.

24· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· And then there's --

25· · Q.· ·And in the middle of the page there's a reference

Page 28

·1· · · · ·to talc defendants.

·2· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

·3· · Q.· ·A consortium of defendants including Georgia Talc,

·4· · · · ·Harwick Chemical, Eastern Magnesia Talc, also

·5· · · · ·referred to as EMTAL, International Talc, R.T.

·6· · · · ·Vanderbilt, Johnson & Johnson, Cyprus Industrial

·7· · · · ·Mineral, Southern Talc, Akrochem, and Milwhite.

·8· · · · ·Do you see that?

·9· · A.· ·Uh-huh.· Yes.

10· · Q.· ·It says 9/9/1997.

11· · A.· ·Yes.

12· · Q.· ·Does that refresh your recollection as to whether

13· · · · ·there was a settlement with talc companies and the

14· · · · ·dates of those -- of that settlement?

15· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Sorry.· Objection.

16· · · · · · ·Form, foundation.

17· · A.· ·Yes.

18· · Q.· ·But regarding that settlement now, those talc

19· · · · ·settlements --

20· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

21· · Q.· ·-- do you have any memory regarding any of the

22· · · · ·circumstances regarding those talc settlements?

23· · A.· ·No.

24· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· Let's go off the record a

25· · · · · · ·second.

Page 29

·1· · · · · · · · · (Discussion off the record.)

·2· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· Go back on the record.

·3· · BY MR. ASSAF:

·4· · Q.· ·Ms. Williams, did you discuss with your

·5· · · · ·brother-in-law or anybody else in your family

·6· · · · ·whether there was a mediation or whether there

·7· · · · ·were settlement discussions in this case?

·8· · A.· ·No.

·9· · Q.· ·Your brother-in-law or your sister, Ms. Pease,

10· · · · ·never mentioned to you anything about a mediation?

11· · A.· ·I don't remember anything about that.

12· · Q.· ·Do you know that -- have you ever

13· · · · ·heard -- withdrawn.

14· · · · · · · · · Have you ever heard the term "aggregate

15· · · · ·settlements"?

16· · A.· ·I don't recall.

17· · Q.· ·Okay.

18· · A.· ·It sounds familiar, but --

19· · Q.· ·All right.· Could you open the complaint back up

20· · · · ·to paragraph 227?

21· · A.· ·Okay.

22· · Q.· ·Okay.· Have you read this portion of the complaint

23· · · · ·before regarding aggregate settlements?

24· · A.· ·No.

25· · Q.· ·Okay.· During the 1990s, did you have any

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 9 of 32 PageID: 48718
Page 30

·1· · · · ·discussions with anybody in your family or

·2· · · · ·Mr. Bevan or anyone regarding aggregate

·3· · · · ·settlements?

·4· · A.· ·I don't recall any discussion about aggregate

·5· · · · ·settlements.

·6· · Q.· ·Okay.· And from the 1990s until today, have you

·7· · · · ·ever discussed with anybody aggregate settlements?

·8· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection to form, foundation,

·9· · · · · · ·privilege.

10· · A.· ·If I did, the term aggregate settlements was

11· · · · ·not -- I'm going to say no.

12· · Q.· ·If I wanted to talk to somebody who knew about

13· · · · ·aggregate settlements, would it be better for me

14· · · · ·to talk to your brother-in-law or Mr. Bevan or

15· · · · ·somebody else?· Or you don't know?

16· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Object to the form and

17· · · · · · ·foundation.

18· · A.· ·Gary was the one -- Gary and Nancy were always in

19· · · · ·the meetings.· If anybody knows anything, Gary and

20· · · · ·Nancy would have -- would have known.· Does he

21· · · · ·know about it?· I don't know.

22· · Q.· ·Okay.

23· · A.· ·I'm sorry.· That was a long way to go for "I don't

24· · · · ·know," but --

25· · Q.· ·It's okay.· When you said Gary was always in the

Page 31

·1· · · · ·meetings, you mean the meetings with Mr. Bevan and

·2· · · · ·your father or your sister-in-law?

·3· · A.· ·My sister.

·4· · Q.· ·Okay.

·5· · A.· ·I just know that Nancy was the executor.· Gary did

·6· · · · ·all the communicating.· I'm -- I know that anytime

·7· · · · ·Nancy had a meeting, Gary was with her.· I don't

·8· · · · ·know who talked in these meetings or who knew

·9· · · · ·what, actually.· But Gary was always our -- he

10· · · · ·always disseminated all the information to us, was

11· · · · ·Gary.

12· · Q.· ·So could you turn back into the interrogatories?

13· · · · ·I'm sorry.

14· · A.· ·I could.· Where do you want me?

15· · Q.· ·The first one, interrogatory 1.

16· · A.· ·Okay.

17· · Q.· ·It says "Identify all persons with knowledge

18· · · · ·relating to your claims against BASF."

19· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

20· · Q.· ·Do you see that?

21· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

22· · Q.· ·Do you think that -- and I'm sorry.· What's Gary's

23· · · · ·last name?· Is it Pease?

24· · A.· ·Pease, uh-huh.

25· · Q.· ·Should Gary Pease be listed as somebody with

Page 32

·1· · · · ·knowledge about the underlying claims against

·2· · · · ·BASF?

·3· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

·4· · A.· ·I would -- he is aware, so I would say yes.

·5· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Just to be clear --

·6· · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Okay.

·7· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· -- the interrogatory is asking

·8· · · · · · ·about the underlying claims versus the

·9· · · · · · ·Williams' claims.· The class action.

10· · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Oh.

11· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· I think she said that Gary

12· · · · · · ·was involved in all sorts of meetings with

13· · · · · · ·Mr. Bevan regarding any --

14· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· I don't know that -- I'm not

15· · · · · · ·going to --

16· · Q.· ·Well, let's take it this way.· Hold on.

17· · A.· ·And I'm assuming he was.

18· · Q.· ·Correct.· Let's take it this way:· You don't have

19· · · · ·any knowledge of Gary Pease -- withdrawn.

20· · · · · · · · · You don't have any knowledge of Mr. Bevan

21· · · · ·being involved with any meetings with anybody in

22· · · · ·your family regarding this class action, correct?

23· · A.· ·Correct.

24· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection to form and

25· · · · · · ·foundation.

Page 33

·1· · A.· ·Ask me that again.

·2· · Q.· ·Sure.· Mr. Bevan is your family's attorney for

·3· · · · ·asbestos cases?

·4· · A.· ·Yes.

·5· · Q.· ·Mr. Bevan is not your family's attorney for this

·6· · · · ·Williams class action, correct?

·7· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

·8· · A.· ·As I understand it, yes.

·9· · Q.· ·And when you talk about Gary Pease being involved

10· · · · ·in meetings --

11· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

12· · Q.· ·-- those meetings are with Mr. Bevan to discuss

13· · · · ·the family's asbestos litigation, correct?

14· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

15· · A.· ·Yes.

16· · Q.· ·The family's asbestos litigation includes

17· · · · ·litigation against talc companies, correct?

18· · A.· ·Yes.

19· · Q.· ·And Mr. Bevan represented your family in the

20· · · · ·asbestos litigation against talc companies,

21· · · · ·correct?

22· · A.· ·Yes.

23· · Q.· ·And if anybody from your family were to have

24· · · · ·involvement with Mr. Bevan and the resolution of

25· · · · ·the talc asbestos suits, based upon what you know,

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 10 of 32 PageID:

48719
Page 34

·1· · · · ·it would probably be your brother-in-law Gary

·2· · · · ·Pease?· Fair?

·3· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Objection.· Form,

·4· · · · · · ·foundation.

·5· · A.· ·Well, let me clarify this.

·6· · Q.· ·Okay.

·7· · A.· ·Gary is the one who disseminated information to

·8· · · · ·us, the rest of us kids.· For all I know, though,

·9· · · · ·Nancy could have been meeting with Bevan and then

10· · · · ·told Gary and Gary told us.· I don't know for a

11· · · · ·fact that my brother-in-law sat in with meetings

12· · · · ·with Mr. Bevan.

13· · Q.· ·But I thought just earlier you said Gary was the

14· · · · ·point person and would have attended --

15· · A.· ·Gary --

16· · Q.· ·-- attended all of the meetings?

17· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

18· · · · · · ·Now you can answer.

19· · A.· ·Okay.· Gary and Nancy went to all the meetings.

20· · · · ·Whether Gary sat in the room or was in the actual

21· · · · ·meeting, I don't know.· I assumed he was, but --

22· · Q.· ·Well, you know your family.

23· · A.· ·I could be wrong.· Right.

24· · Q.· ·I've never met Gary.

25· · A.· ·Right.

Page 35

·1· · Q.· ·So you just have to know -- drawing upon all of

·2· · · · ·your knowledge of Gary, I think you described him

·3· · · · ·as the point person, right?

·4· · A.· ·Well, him and Nancy were -- are -- yes.

·5· · Q.· ·And based upon your family dynamic that you know

·6· · · · ·of --

·7· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

·8· · Q.· ·-- it -- would Gary drive your sister to

·9· · · · ·Mr. Bevan's office and then wait outside for her

10· · · · ·to go to the meeting with Mr. Bevan --

11· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.

12· · Q.· ·-- and then hear about it?

13· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form.

14· · Q.· ·Or would he likely attend the meeting?

15· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

16· · A.· ·I don't know.· I mean, I really don't know if he

17· · · · ·was invited into the meeting or not.· I mean, he

18· · · · ·could have very well just taken her and she had

19· · · · ·the meeting.· I don't know how -- I don't know.

20· · Q.· ·Would you be able to find out?

21· · A.· ·Could I call Gary and ask him if he was in the

22· · · · ·meetings?

23· · Q.· ·Yeah.

24· · A.· ·Yeah, that's --

25· · Q.· ·Okay.· Could you do that at the break?

Page 36

·1· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· No, I don't think so.

·2· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· Why not?

·3· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Because I'm saying no.

·4· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· Well, I think it should have

·5· · · · · · ·been in the interrogatories to begin with.

·6· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Maybe, maybe not.· Or maybe

·7· · · · · · ·she's wrong.

·8· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· Okay.· Interesting.

·9· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Yeah.

10· · Q.· ·When you said that Gary Pease would disseminate

11· · · · ·the information to the other --

12· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

13· · Q.· ·-- children, would he disseminate it by mail?· By

14· · · · ·e-mail?· By dropping materials off?· How did it

15· · · · ·happen?

16· · A.· ·A lot of times we have a -- we have a family

17· · · · ·meeting twice a year and he would always kind of

18· · · · ·keep us posted on -- update what's going on.

19· · · · ·Phone calls.

20· · Q.· ·Family meeting, did the family meeting also

21· · · · ·discuss asbestos litigation?

22· · A.· ·Only if there was -- he knew that we were -- a

23· · · · ·settlement might be coming or something, he might

24· · · · ·have said.

25· · Q.· ·Did you talk to Gary Pease this week in

Page 37

·1· · · · ·preparation for your deposition?

·2· · A.· ·I talked to Gary this week.· Not in preparation

·3· · · · ·for this.

·4· · Q.· ·Did you talk about the lawsuit?

·5· · A.· ·I talked to -- I told him I was coming here.

·6· · Q.· ·And what did he say?

·7· · A.· ·He said, "Good luck with that."

·8· · Q.· ·Is that it?

·9· · A.· ·Pretty much.· We were at a funeral, so --

10· · Q.· ·Did you talk to him -- withdrawn.

11· · · · · · · · · Did you talk to Mr. Bevan about today's

12· · · · ·deposition?

13· · A.· ·No.

14· · Q.· ·133, 134, 135.· Let me show you what's been marked

15· · · · ·as Defendant's Exhibit 133.· Defendant's Exhibit

16· · · · ·133 is the original complaint from 19 -- April

17· · · · ·4th, 1994 against a number of defendants,

18· · · · ·including Eastern Magnesia Talc, subsidiary of

19· · · · ·Engelhard.· Have you seen the complaint, including

20· · · · ·in preparation for today's deposition?

21· · A.· ·This?

22· · Q.· ·Yeah.

23· · A.· ·No.

24· · Q.· ·No?· Okay.· Let me show you Exhibit 134.

25· · · · ·Exhibit 134 -- sorry.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 11 of 32 PageID:

48720
Page 38

·1· · A.· ·That's all right.

·2· · Q.· ·Is a four-page document bearing Bates numbers BASF

·3· · · · ·Williams 46197 through 46200.· And it's an order

·4· · · · ·by Judge Victor dismissing the William Clark case

·5· · · · ·because of a failure to provide a witness list.

·6· · · · ·Have you seen this document before?

·7· · A.· ·No.

·8· · Q.· ·Do you have any understanding that Mr. Bevan

·9· · · · ·caused your father's case to be dismissed because

10· · · · ·he failed to provide the requirements to the

11· · · · ·court?

12· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

13· · A.· ·No.

14· · Q.· ·Did you ever hear of that from Gary or from

15· · · · ·Mr. Bevan?

16· · A.· ·No.

17· · Q.· ·Is that something that you would have expected to

18· · · · ·hear?

19· · A.· ·No.

20· · Q.· ·Let me show you what's been marked as Defendant's

21· · · · ·Exhibit 135.· Exhibit 135 is a multiple-page

22· · · · ·document.· It's a memorandum in support of the

23· · · · ·motion for summary judgment for lack of product

24· · · · ·identification on behalf of EMTAL, bearing Bates

25· · · · ·numbers BASF Williams 51891 through 897.· Have you

Page 39

·1· · · · ·heard the term "product identification"?

·2· · A.· ·In general?

·3· · Q.· ·Yeah.

·4· · A.· ·Sure.

·5· · Q.· ·Within the asbestos litigation that's been -- that

·6· · · · ·your family's been involved in, do you have an

·7· · · · ·understanding that product identification relates

·8· · · · ·to being able to identify that a certain company's

·9· · · · ·product was involved with a plaintiff?· In other

10· · · · ·words, that your father was exposed to a certain

11· · · · ·company's talc.· Have you heard that?

12· · A.· ·Yes.

13· · Q.· ·Okay.· And from your involvement with asbestos

14· · · · ·litigation over the years, you understand that

15· · · · ·product identification is a significant issue for

16· · · · ·a plaintiff?· In other words, a plaintiff has to

17· · · · ·be able to show that they were exposed to a

18· · · · ·certain company's product, right?

19· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form and

20· · · · · · ·foundation.

21· · A.· ·Ask me again.

22· · Q.· ·Sure.· Do you know whether your father worked with

23· · · · ·talc?

24· · A.· ·Yes.

25· · Q.· ·Okay.· Did he work with talc?

Page 40

·1· · A.· ·I know he worked -- when you say he worked with

·2· · · · ·talc, I mean, I -- I don't know to what exposure,

·3· · · · ·what extent.· It's not like I knew he -- I know he

·4· · · · ·worked in maintenance and -- I mean, my dad never

·5· · · · ·said, "Oh, my gosh, I worked with talc."

·6· · Q.· ·Right.

·7· · A.· ·So I guess I'm kind of in a gray area of -- I

·8· · · · ·mean, I -- yes, I know he cleaned different things

·9· · · · ·that they used talc with, like when he was in the

10· · · · ·tank lining process -- you know, cleaned out the

11· · · · ·tank linings.· I couldn't tell you specifically

12· · · · ·where he came in contact with the talc in the

13· · · · ·rubber plant.

14· · Q.· ·Okay.· You know he worked with asbestos, too,

15· · · · ·right?

16· · A.· ·No.

17· · Q.· ·No?

18· · A.· ·Well, when you say "asbestos," I was thinking the

19· · · · ·talc with asbestos in it.

20· · Q.· ·You don't think he -- based upon your involvement

21· · · · ·with the talc -- withdrawn.

22· · · · · · · · · Based upon your involvement with the

23· · · · ·asbestos litigation over the years on behalf of

24· · · · ·your family --

25· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

Page 41

·1· · Q.· ·-- you don't have any understanding that your

·2· · · · ·father was exposed to raw asbestos?

·3· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form and

·4· · · · · · ·foundation.

·5· · A.· ·Right.

·6· · Q.· ·Okay.· So Exhibit 135 -- withdrawn.

·7· · · · · · · · · On the talc, do you have any

·8· · · · ·understanding of whether your father was exposed

·9· · · · ·to talc from Southern Talc or Georgia Talc or

10· · · · ·Vanderbilt talc or EMTAL talc?

11· · A.· ·No.

12· · Q.· ·You would agree with me that if your father was

13· · · · ·exposed to talc from, say, Southern Talc and not

14· · · · ·talc from my client, that my client shouldn't have

15· · · · ·to pay?· Fair?

16· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

17· · A.· ·If he was never exposed to your client's talc,

18· · · · ·ever, then I would say no.

19· · Q.· ·He shouldn't receive compensation, correct?

20· · A.· ·If he --

21· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

22· · · · · · ·You can answer.

23· · A.· ·If he was never exposed to your client's talc?

24· · Q.· ·Then he should not get compensation, correct?

25· · A.· ·Correct.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 12 of 32 PageID:

48721
Page 42

·1· · Q.· ·Okay.· So over the years of working with

·2· · · · ·Mr. Bevan, you have come to trust Mr. Bevan as a

·3· · · · ·lawyer, correct?

·4· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

·5· · · · · · ·From all those conversations you've had.

·6· · A.· ·I have -- I trust my brother-in-law.· I've never

·7· · · · ·had any contact with Mr. Bevan to know whether to

·8· · · · ·trust, but I trust my sister and my brother-in-law

·9· · · · ·in their dealings.

10· · Q.· ·In their dealings?

11· · A.· ·Right.· Or my sister's dealings.

12· · Q.· ·And you don't know whether your brother-in-law had

13· · · · ·dealings?

14· · A.· ·I assumed he did.· I don't know.· I can't tell you

15· · · · ·for sure.

16· · Q.· ·Okay.· Exhibit 135 is a motion for summary

17· · · · ·judgment on behalf of EMTAL for product

18· · · · ·identification.· And do you see it in front of

19· · · · ·you?

20· · A.· ·Uh-huh.· Yes.

21· · Q.· ·And do you see on page 2, the top of it, it says,

22· · · · ·"EMTAL talc has not been identified as having been

23· · · · ·used at any specific work site of any Plaintiff in

24· · · · ·this action"?

25· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

Page 43

·1· · Q.· ·Do you see that?

·2· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

·3· · Q.· ·And it says, "No Plaintiff or representative has

·4· · · · ·testified that he has worked with or was exposed

·5· · · · ·to EMTAL talc."

·6· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

·7· · Q.· ·Do you see that?

·8· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

·9· · Q.· ·Then it says, "No co-worker or other witness

10· · · · ·testified that EMTAL talc was present at any of

11· · · · ·the Plaintiffs' specific work sites."· Do you see

12· · · · ·that?

13· · A.· ·Yeah.

14· · Q.· ·"Not one of Plaintiffs' supposed product

15· · · · ·identification witnesses was able to place EMTAL

16· · · · ·talc within proximity of any of the Plaintiffs

17· · · · ·during the relevant time period."· Do you see

18· · · · ·that?

19· · A.· ·Yep.

20· · Q.· ·In the mid-1990s, did you hear from any source

21· · · · ·that your father was unable to show that he was

22· · · · ·exposed to EMTAL talc?

23· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

24· · · · · · ·What happened to this motion?

25· · Q.· ·You can answer the question.

Page 44

·1· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Okay.

·2· · A.· ·What question am I answering?

·3· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· You don't know what the ruling

·4· · · · · · ·of this motion was.· Somebody else does.

·5· · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Right.

·6· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Repeat your question.

·7· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· Mr. Roth is trying to testify

·8· · · · · · ·now.

·9· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· No, I'm not trying to testify.

10· · · · · · ·I'm trying to point out the unfairness of

11· · · · · · ·this question.

12· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· Do you have anything else,

13· · · · · · ·Mr. Roth?

14· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Yeah, I repeat my objection to

15· · · · · · ·the form and foundation.

16· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· Would you like to say

17· · · · · · ·anything else?· Please do.

18· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· I would like to say more, but

19· · · · · · ·I will not.

20· · Q.· ·In the mid-1990s, do you recall hearing that your

21· · · · ·father was unable to show that he was exposed to

22· · · · ·EMTAL talc?

23· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection to form and

24· · · · · · ·foundation.

25· · A.· ·I did not hear that.

Page 45

·1· · Q.· ·Now, in this motion for summary judgment there is

·2· · · · ·nothing, and you can look through it, about

·3· · · · ·whether EMTAL talc contains or doesn't contain

·4· · · · ·asbestos.

·5· · A.· ·In this?

·6· · Q.· ·Correct.

·7· · A.· ·Well, I haven't read all of this.

·8· · Q.· ·All right.· You can take your time and look

·9· · · · ·through it, if you'd like.

10· · A.· ·Well, all of this was -- is previous, though, to

11· · · · ·when it was discovered that it did have it.

12· · Q.· ·Okay.· And how do you know that?

13· · A.· ·Because I -- I knew when Gary and Nancy told us

14· · · · ·that there was this suit because it was discovered

15· · · · ·that one of the companies had given information

16· · · · ·that there was no asbestos in their talc and it

17· · · · ·was later found out that there was.· So --

18· · Q.· ·And do you know whether Mr. Gary Pease or

19· · · · ·Ms. Nancy Pease or William Clark or your mother

20· · · · ·were ever told that there was no asbestos in

21· · · · ·Engelhard's talc?· Do you know that?

22· · A.· ·No, I don't know that.

23· · Q.· ·Okay.

24· · A.· ·If they were ever told.

25· · Q.· ·Okay.· Now I'm going to show you Defendant's

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 13 of 32 PageID:

48722
Page 46

·1· · · · ·Exhibit 136.· Defendant's Exhibit 136 is a notice

·2· · · · ·of dismissal filed by Tom Bevan --

·3· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

·4· · Q.· ·-- on behalf of William F. Clark.

·5· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

·6· · Q.· ·It says, "Please take notice that the above-titled

·7· · · · ·action is dismissed pursuant to Civil Rule 41(A)1

·8· · · · ·with respect to Plaintiffs William F. Clark and

·9· · · · ·Norma Clark only."· Do you see that?

10· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

11· · Q.· ·Do you have any recollection in 1995 of hearing

12· · · · ·that Mr. Bevan decided to dismiss your father's

13· · · · ·case?

14· · A.· ·No.

15· · Q.· ·Let me show you Exhibit 137.· Defendant's Exhibit

16· · · · ·137 is a new complaint, this one filed in Cuyahoga

17· · · · ·County, Ohio.· The previous lawsuit was filed in

18· · · · ·Summit County, Ohio.

19· · A.· ·Okay.

20· · Q.· ·And this is a lawsuit against various defendants,

21· · · · ·including a number of talc companies.· Have you

22· · · · ·seen this complaint before?

23· · A.· ·(Witness shaking head from side to side.)· No.

24· · Q.· ·Okay.· Let me show you Exhibit 138.

25· · A.· ·Thank you.

Page 47

·1· · Q.· ·In 19 -- withdrawn.

·2· · · · · · · · · Exhibit 138 is June 18th, 1997, motion

·3· · · · ·for summary judgment and to dismiss EMTAL or

·4· · · · ·Eastern Magnesia Talc Company filed in Cuyahoga

·5· · · · ·County.· I'd like to take a minute to look at this

·6· · · · ·document.

·7· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Is there a Bates number?

·8· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· I don't have a Bates number

·9· · · · · · ·on this.

10· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Was this produced to the

11· · · · · · ·Plaintiffs?

12· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· Sure it was.· I don't know.

13· · · · · · ·I assume it's from Bevan's files, but I'm not

14· · · · · · ·sure.

15· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Well, if it came from us and

16· · · · · · ·Bevan's file, it would be marked.

17· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· Anyway, it's a public record,

18· · · · · · ·public document.· I'm sure it's been produced

19· · · · · · ·either through Bevan or through us.

20· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Well, if it came from Bevan,

21· · · · · · ·it would have a stamp on it.· If it came from

22· · · · · · ·you, it would have a stamp on it.

23· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· Are you saying it's --

24· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· I'm asking whether it's been

25· · · · · · ·produced to us?

Page 48

·1· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· I don't know.· I assume it's

·2· · · · · · ·been produced.· We'll check on that.

·3· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Thank you.

·4· · Q.· ·Okay.· Turning your attention to the first page,

·5· · · · ·it says, "EMTAL moves for summary judgment in its

·6· · · · ·favor pursuant to Rule 56 of the Ohio Rules of

·7· · · · ·Civil Procedure on the grounds that the statute of

·8· · · · ·limitations has run on claims by the Estate of

·9· · · · ·William Clark and any wrongful death claim against

10· · · · ·EMTAL or to dismiss the consortium claim for

11· · · · ·insufficient service and lack of personal

12· · · · ·jurisdiction."· Do you see that?

13· · A.· ·Yes.

14· · Q.· ·Do you have any recollection of hearing in 1997

15· · · · ·that EMTAL moved to dismiss your father and

16· · · · ·mother's cases for insufficient service, statute

17· · · · ·of limitations and lack of personal jurisdiction?

18· · A.· ·No.

19· · Q.· ·Okay.· Mr. Bevan's never told you or your family

20· · · · ·that, as far as you know?

21· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

22· · A.· ·Correct.

23· · Q.· ·Okay.· Now, you mentioned earlier that you heard

24· · · · ·from your brother-in-law, Mr. Gary Pease, that

25· · · · ·something came up showing that one of the talc

Page 49

·1· · · · ·companies had asbestos in the talc and that was

·2· · · · ·significant.· When Mr. Pease talked to you about

·3· · · · ·this class action --

·4· · A.· ·Okay.

·5· · Q.· ·-- he told you that this company Engelhard had

·6· · · · ·asbestos in its talc?

·7· · A.· ·Yes.

·8· · Q.· ·Okay.· And was it your understanding that if

·9· · · · ·there's asbestos in the talc, then the

10· · · · ·compensation for a lawsuit should be more

11· · · · ·significant than if the talc has no asbestos?

12· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection to form and

13· · · · · · ·foundation.

14· · A.· ·You're saying if the talc had absolutely no

15· · · · ·asbestos in it?

16· · Q.· ·Correct.

17· · A.· ·Should there be compensation for an asbestos

18· · · · ·claim?

19· · Q.· ·Yes.

20· · A.· ·I wouldn't think so, but I'm no expert.

21· · Q.· ·Okay.· Now, take the other side of that.· If a

22· · · · ·talc company had asbestos in its talc --

23· · A.· ·Yes.

24· · Q.· ·-- would you, as a plaintiff, think you're

25· · · · ·entitled to more money for an asbestos injury?

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 14 of 32 PageID:

48723
Page 50

·1· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection to form and

·2· · · · · · ·foundation.

·3· · A.· ·More money than -- what do you mean, "more money"?

·4· · Q.· ·Than a company that doesn't have asbestos in the

·5· · · · ·talc.

·6· · · · · · · · · Step back.· Let's take it this way:· You

·7· · · · ·know that there were talc settlements.· You and I

·8· · · · ·talked about that earlier.

·9· · A.· ·Yes.

10· · Q.· ·Against a number of talc companies, correct?

11· · A.· ·Yes.

12· · Q.· ·Do you have any understanding of whether those

13· · · · ·talc companies had asbestos in their talc?

14· · A.· ·No.

15· · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you believe that they did not have

16· · · · ·asbestos in their talc?

17· · A.· ·No.

18· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Object.

19· · Q.· ·Why?

20· · A.· ·I -- because I assumed if my dad died due to

21· · · · ·asbestos exposure, that the companies that

22· · · · ·settled, whether -- that were in the case were

23· · · · ·companies that had asbestos in their talc.

24· · Q.· ·Okay.· Yeah, because of the thing.· So let me show

25· · · · ·you --

Page 51

·1· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· And I think this might answer

·2· · · · · · ·your prior question, Mr. Roth.

·3· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Thank you.

·4· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· Defendant's Exhibit 142,

·5· · · · · · ·which does not bear Bates numbers and is, I'm

·6· · · · · · ·sure, not produced by us because it's from

·7· · · · · · ·the files of Tom Bevan and it's highly

·8· · · · · · ·redacted.· So I guess that there are

·9· · · · · · ·documents being produced from Mr. Bevan

10· · · · · · ·without Bates-stamped numbers.· Because I can

11· · · · · · ·assure you we would not have had Mr. Bevan's

12· · · · · · ·internal talc files for the Tire Workers

13· · · · · · ·Litigation Project, too, and we would not

14· · · · · · ·have redacted the information.

15· · · · · · ·Mr. Placitella, am I wrong on that?

16· · · · · · · · · MR. PLACITELLA:· I don't know.· I'll have

17· · · · · · ·to check that, Gene.

18· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· You think that this is coming

19· · · · · · ·from us?

20· · · · · · · · · MR. PLACITELLA:· I don't know where this

21· · · · · · ·is coming from.

22· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· Okay.· Well, maybe you could

23· · · · · · ·check that.

24· · · · · · · · · MR. PLACITELLA:· Sure.· And you could

25· · · · · · ·check where 138 comes from?

Page 52

·1· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· I will.

·2· · · · · · · · · MR. PLACITELLA:· Okay.· What was

·3· · · · · · ·the -- this -- 142.· Is this the original or

·4· · · · · · ·is that an extra?

·5· · Q.· ·Okay.· Exhibit 142 is what we have received from

·6· · · · ·Mr. Bevan.· In the upper left-hand corner is

·7· · · · ·handwritten "Talc."· In the upper right-hand

·8· · · · ·corner is "TWLP2," and then there are a bunch of

·9· · · · ·what we call redactions.

10· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

11· · Q.· ·I didn't do that.· I think your lawyers or

12· · · · ·Mr. Bevan did that.· So I know it's hard to read,

13· · · · ·but up top it says "Nancy Pease," and handwritten

14· · · · ·there is "$7,500."· Do you see that?

15· · A.· ·I see 7,500, uh-huh.

16· · Q.· ·Yep, you see 7,500.· And then there's a voluntary

17· · · · ·dismissal at the end of a number of companies that

18· · · · ·are talc companies.· If you go to the very --

19· · A.· ·Okay.

20· · Q.· ·The second-to-last page, it's a dismissal with

21· · · · ·prejudice against Akrochem, Cyprus Industrial,

22· · · · ·Milwhite, Georgia Talc, Harwick Chemical, Eastern

23· · · · ·Magnesia Talc, International Talc,

24· · · · ·R.T. Vanderbilt, J&J and Southern Talc.· Do you

25· · · · ·see that?

Page 53

·1· · A.· ·Sorry.· No, I don't.· Where are you?

·2· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· It goes on to the next page.

·3· · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Oh, up here.· Sorry.

·4· · Q.· ·Do you have any understanding of -- I think we

·5· · · · ·started off with the interrogatories.· If you can

·6· · · · ·pull those back out, the ones that you signed,

·7· · · · ·showing that on 9/9/1997 there was a settlement

·8· · · · ·with talc companies?

·9· · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I have some in my lap, too.

10· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· No, that's not the

11· · · · · · ·interrogatories.

12· · Q.· ·Interrogatory number 4.· You got it?

13· · A.· ·Okay.· Yes.

14· · Q.· ·Do you see where -- and these are the

15· · · · ·interrogatories you signed?

16· · A.· ·Yes.

17· · Q.· ·And 9/9/1997 is listed as a settlement with a

18· · · · ·consortium of defendants.

19· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

20· · Q.· ·Okay.· And then there's a dismissal here in 1998

21· · · · ·against a number of defendants.· They seem to be

22· · · · ·the same defendants.· And to put it all together,

23· · · · ·here's Exhibit 141, which is the release signed by

24· · · · ·your sister against all of these talc defendants

25· · · · ·who were dismissed:· Georgia Talc, Harwick Talc,

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 15 of 32 PageID:

48724
Page 54

·1· · · · ·EMTAL, International Talc, R.T. Vanderbilt, J&J,

·2· · · · ·and Southern Talc.· Okay.· Do you have an

·3· · · · ·understanding that at some point in 1997, 1998,

·4· · · · ·your sister, on behalf of your father and

·5· · · · ·mother --

·6· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

·7· · Q.· ·-- settled with a consortium of talc defendants?

·8· · A.· ·I understand that from you giving me this.

·9· · Q.· ·Yes.· Okay.· Now, did she ever tell you, in words

10· · · · ·or in substance, that she was settling because the

11· · · · ·talc companies had no asbestos in their talc?

12· · A.· ·No.

13· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection to form and

14· · · · · · ·foundation.

15· · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Sorry.

16· · A.· ·No.

17· · Q.· ·Okay.· Did you ever hear that they were -- that

18· · · · ·your sister settled because she was told, in words

19· · · · ·or in substance, there was no asbestos in the talc

20· · · · ·of the defendants?

21· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

22· · A.· ·Are you asking me if I was told in 19 -- when

23· · · · ·these were signed?

24· · Q.· ·Correct.

25· · A.· ·No.

Page 55

·1· · Q.· ·Okay.· So now let's go fast-forward.

·2· · A.· ·Okay.

·3· · Q.· ·Have you been told at any time that the reason

·4· · · · ·that your sister settled was because she was told

·5· · · · ·there was no asbestos in the talc of any of the

·6· · · · ·talc defendants?

·7· · A.· ·Yes.

·8· · Q.· ·Okay.· When did you learn that?

·9· · A.· ·When she told me about the class action suit.

10· · · · ·That that was the reason for the class action

11· · · · ·suit.

12· · Q.· ·Okay.· I understand the reason for the class

13· · · · ·action, but did she tell you at that time that she

14· · · · ·settled because there was no asbestos in the

15· · · · ·products of any of the talc companies?

16· · A.· ·I don't remember her using those exact words.

17· · Q.· ·Did she use words like that?

18· · A.· ·I re -- I remember being told that this class

19· · · · ·action came about because they had -- because they

20· · · · ·had settled, and I don't know for money or no

21· · · · ·money, but that they had settled because the

22· · · · ·companies showed they had no talc in their

23· · · · ·asbestos and that subsequently was found that they

24· · · · ·did.

25· · Q.· ·All right.

Page 56

·1· · A.· ·So that's the gist of the conversation that I had.

·2· · Q.· ·With your sister?

·3· · A.· ·With Gary.

·4· · Q.· ·With Gary, sorry.

·5· · A.· ·Sorry.

·6· · Q.· ·I keep forgetting about Gary.

·7· · A.· ·Gary's been my brother-in-law since I was seven

·8· · · · ·years old.· He's like a dad almost.

·9· · Q.· ·So you had that --

10· · A.· ·He was the man in the relationship.

11· · Q.· ·And I think you said he's the -- as far as you

12· · · · ·recalled, he was the point person on a lot of this

13· · · · ·litigation?

14· · A.· ·Nancy was the executor.· I don't know -- he's the

15· · · · ·one who disseminated information to us.· If he had

16· · · · ·meetings with -- if he was in all the other

17· · · · ·meetings, I really don't know.· But he is the one

18· · · · ·who told us kids, this is what's going on.

19· · Q.· ·And he told you about the reason for the class

20· · · · ·action?

21· · A.· ·Yes.

22· · Q.· ·Okay.· Now, did he tell you that --

23· · A.· ·Sorry.· I can't read with them and I can't see you

24· · · · ·without them.

25· · Q.· ·Okay.· Sorry.· Did Gary or anyone tell you at the

Page 57

·1· · · · ·time of this class action that your sister would

·2· · · · ·have wanted more money to settle if she had known

·3· · · · ·there was asbestos in the talc?

·4· · A.· ·No.

·5· · Q.· ·Because she was going to settle with all the

·6· · · · ·defendants whether there was asbestos in their

·7· · · · ·talc or not.· True?

·8· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

·9· · A.· ·I don't know what her intentions were.

10· · Q.· ·Gary didn't tell you that she and Mr. Bevan knew

11· · · · ·there was asbestos in the talc of some defendants

12· · · · ·but wanted to settle anyway?

13· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Object.

14· · A.· ·No.

15· · Q.· ·Would that surprise you?

16· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

17· · A.· ·Would what surprise me?· That they didn't discuss

18· · · · ·that with us?

19· · Q.· ·No, that -- we've established that there is a

20· · · · ·settlement with a number of talc companies,

21· · · · ·correct?

22· · A.· ·Right.· Yes.

23· · Q.· ·And let's say it was for $7,500.

24· · A.· ·Okay.

25· · Q.· ·Okay?· Mr. Bevan and your sister, Nancy Pease,

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 16 of 32 PageID:

48725
Page 58

·1· · · · ·knew that some of these talc companies had

·2· · · · ·asbestos in the talc.

·3· · A.· ·Okay.

·4· · Q.· ·True?

·5· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Object.

·6· · A.· ·I don't know what they knew.

·7· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection to form and

·8· · · · · · ·foundation.

·9· · Q.· ·We'll, would you have -- if there was asbestos in

10· · · · ·the talc of any of these talc defendants --

11· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

12· · Q.· ·-- would you have expected more money than $7,500?

13· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

14· · A.· ·I wouldn't know how much money to expect.

15· · Q.· ·Well, we know that your sister accepted $7,500.

16· · A.· ·Okay.

17· · Q.· ·On behalf of several talc companies, correct?

18· · A.· ·Okay.

19· · Q.· ·And with respect to those talc companies --

20· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

21· · Q.· ·-- did Gary or anybody tell you that those talc

22· · · · ·companies, some of them, had asbestos in their

23· · · · ·talc?

24· · A.· ·No, I -- we never had a conversation about this,

25· · · · ·period.

Page 59

·1· · Q.· ·Okay.· Even when he told you that one of the

·2· · · · ·reasons the case settled was that you were told

·3· · · · ·there was asbestos -- withdrawn.

·4· · · · · · · · · When you found out about the class

·5· · · · ·action --

·6· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

·7· · Q.· ·-- Gary told you --

·8· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

·9· · Q.· ·-- that somebody had been told there was no

10· · · · ·asbestos in the talc, correct?

11· · A.· ·Yes.

12· · Q.· ·Okay.· And I think you testified that it would

13· · · · ·matter to you to know whether a company had

14· · · · ·asbestos in its talc?

15· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.

16· · Q.· ·Correct?

17· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

18· · A.· ·Yes.

19· · Q.· ·So let me show you what's been

20· · · · ·marked -- withdrawn.

21· · · · · · · · · At the time of the talc settlement with

22· · · · ·all the talc defendants --

23· · A.· ·These group -- this group here?

24· · Q.· ·Correct.

25· · A.· ·Okay.

Page 60

·1· · Q.· ·Mr. Bevan knew that there was asbestos in the

·2· · · · ·product of some talc companies.· True?

·3· · A.· ·In some of these?

·4· · Q.· ·Yes.

·5· · A.· ·I don't know --

·6· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

·7· · · · · · ·You can answer.

·8· · A.· ·I don't know what Mr. Bevan knew.

·9· · Q.· ·Okay.· Well, if Mr. Bevan knew there was asbestos

10· · · · ·in the talc of one of the Defendants and he was

11· · · · ·still recommending that you take this group

12· · · · ·settlement for $7,500, you would think that's

13· · · · ·still a fair settlement, correct?

14· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

15· · Q.· ·Withdrawn.· Do you have any reason to believe that

16· · · · ·the $7,500 settlement was not fair with the talc

17· · · · ·defendants?

18· · A.· ·I have no basis of knowing whether that was fair

19· · · · ·or not fair.

20· · Q.· ·Okay.· And if I'm able to show you that Mr. Bevan

21· · · · ·knew that the talc defendants, at least one of

22· · · · ·them, had asbestos in their talc, would you agree

23· · · · ·with me that if another company had asbestos in

24· · · · ·its talc, too, that would be up to Mr. Bevan to

25· · · · ·decide to settle?

Page 61

·1· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· I'm sorry?

·2· · Q.· ·Withdrawn.· Bad question.· With respect to the

·3· · · · ·talc consortium settlement --

·4· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

·5· · Q.· ·-- if Mr. Bevan knew there was asbestos in the

·6· · · · ·talc of one of the defendants, would that matter

·7· · · · ·to you?

·8· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection to form.

·9· · A.· ·Would it matter to me if Mr. Bevan knew that some

10· · · · ·of these -- any of these had talc in their --

11· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Asbestos in their talc.

12· · A.· ·Yeah, asbestos in their talc?· I don't know.

13· · Q.· ·Okay.· Well, because when Gary tells you, oh, we

14· · · · ·settled this case years ago and we've now found

15· · · · ·out that one of the companies we settled with had

16· · · · ·asbestos in the talc, did he seem surprised to

17· · · · ·you?

18· · A.· ·Did he seem -- to find out that one of the

19· · · · ·companies that said they had no talc ended up -- I

20· · · · ·mean had no asbestos ended up that they did?

21· · Q.· ·Yeah.

22· · A.· ·Yeah, I would say he was -- I don't know if he was

23· · · · ·surprised, but --

24· · Q.· ·Did he think that he or the family should have

25· · · · ·been entitled to more money because of that?

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 17 of 32 PageID:

48726
Page 62

·1· · A.· ·I don't know what he thought as far as whether

·2· · · · ·there should be more money or no more money or --

·3· · Q.· ·Let me show you what's been marked as -- do we

·4· · · · ·have a DX on this?· Oh, it was previously marked

·5· · · · ·Defendant's Exhibit 12.· Previously marked as

·6· · · · ·Defendant's Exhibit 12.· And Defendant's

·7· · · · ·Exhibit 12 is Plaintiffs' Responses to Motions for

·8· · · · ·Summary Judgment on Behalf of the BFGoodrich

·9· · · · ·Company.· And I'd like to turn your attention to

10· · · · ·page 15.

11· · A.· ·I'm on page 15.

12· · Q.· ·Okay.· At the bottom.· Number 2, "Plaintiffs refer

13· · · · ·the court to a September 10th, 1971 Harwick

14· · · · ·document in which Plaintiffs have highlighted a

15· · · · ·barely legible note written by Harwick personnel

16· · · · ·which states:· Jan Scotland has informed us that

17· · · · ·BFGoodrich is discontinuing the purchase of

18· · · · ·Code 26, A-White Talc, due to the asbestos

19· · · · ·content.· He indicated that this is not a new

20· · · · ·problem."· Do you see that?

21· · A.· ·Yes.

22· · Q.· ·And it goes on to say, "BFGoodrich, however, did

23· · · · ·not create a 'no asbestos' talc specification

24· · · · ·until seven years later.· See Exhibit 25.· Also,

25· · · · ·BFGoodrich did not remove asbestos-containing

Page 63

·1· · · · ·'White Talc' from Southern Talc from its supplier

·2· · · · ·list until 1980.· See Exhibit 26."· Do you see

·3· · · · ·that?

·4· · A.· ·Yes.

·5· · Q.· ·And this is submitted, if you turn to the page 18,

·6· · · · ·it's submitted by your attorney, Tom Bevan.· Do

·7· · · · ·you see that?

·8· · A.· ·Yes.

·9· · Q.· ·And then if you turn to the end, Mr. Bevan informs

10· · · · ·the court -- I'll show you.· It's entitled "Raw

11· · · · ·Materials Department Technical Confirmation Sheet

12· · · · ·June 11th, 1980."· I'll just hand this to you.

13· · · · ·Mr. Bevan includes for the court in Exhibit 26 to

14· · · · ·his motion a document showing that there was an

15· · · · ·indication of asbestos in Southern Talc.· Do you

16· · · · ·see that?

17· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

18· · Q.· ·And then you now know Mr. Bevan recommended that

19· · · · ·you settled with Southern Talc, correct?

20· · A.· ·Uh-huh.

21· · Q.· ·And Southern Talc was part of this $7,500

22· · · · ·consortium settlement, correct?

23· · A.· ·Yes.

24· · Q.· ·Even though Mr. Bevan knew that Southern Talc had

25· · · · ·asbestos in it, correct?

Page 64

·1· · A.· ·Yes.

·2· · Q.· ·And do you have any problem with Mr. Bevan

·3· · · · ·recommending that settlement even though he knew

·4· · · · ·there was asbestos in the talc?

·5· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection to form, foundation.

·6· · A.· ·I have to rely on Mr. Bevan's expertise on what's

·7· · · · ·reasonable or not reasonable.

·8· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· Let's take a break.

·9· · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Thank you.

10· · · · · · · · · (Recess was taken.)

11· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· If we go back on the record,

12· · · · · · ·I'm going to ask and we'll follow it up with

13· · · · · · ·a note that you check, confirm that the

14· · · · · · ·motion for summary judgment --

15· · · · · · · · · MR. PLACITELLA:· Twelve?

16· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Yeah.· We couldn't recall

17· · · · · · ·where it had been previously marked.

18· · · · · · · · · MR. FARRELL:· In the Holley deposition.

19· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· In the first or second?

20· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· First one.

21· · BY MR. ASSAF:

22· · Q.· ·Let me show you what's been marked as Defendant's

23· · · · ·Exhibit 139, just to fill out these documents.

24· · · · ·This is a signed order that the motion for summary

25· · · · ·judgment is withdrawn as moot -- I'm sorry.· The

Page 65

·1· · · · ·motion by EMTAL for summary judgment is withdrawn

·2· · · · ·as moot, September 28, 1997 by Judge Hanna, Nancy

·3· · · · ·Pease versus Owens-Corning, et al.· Do you see

·4· · · · ·this document?

·5· · A.· ·Yes, I do.

·6· · Q.· ·In 1997, did you have any understanding that the

·7· · · · ·EMTAL motion was withdrawn?· That's the EMTAL

·8· · · · ·motion for product identification, statute of

·9· · · · ·limitations, all these procedural issues, that

10· · · · ·that was being withdrawn?

11· · A.· ·No.

12· · Q.· ·Okay.

13· · · · · · · · · MR. PLACITELLA:· Gene, quick question.

14· · · · · · ·Was that Exhibit 139, you said?

15· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· 139.

16· · · · · · · · · MR. PLACITELLA:· Okay.· Thanks.

17· · Q.· ·Have you asked your brother-in-law Gary Pease

18· · · · ·whether he has any documents related to the

19· · · · ·underlying litigation?

20· · A.· ·No, I have not asked him.

21· · Q.· ·Okay.· Could you?

22· · A.· ·Yes, I'm capable of that.

23· · Q.· ·All right.· Would you?

24· · A.· ·Yes.

25· · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you know if your attorneys have asked

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 18 of 32 PageID:

48727
Page 66

·1· · · · ·him?

·2· · A.· ·I don't know if my attorneys have asked him for

·3· · · · ·documents.

·4· · Q.· ·Do you know if your attorneys have ever met with

·5· · · · ·Gary Pease?

·6· · A.· ·I don't know for a fact that they've met with Gary

·7· · · · ·Pease, no.

·8· · Q.· ·Do you know whether they've talked to him?

·9· · A.· ·Yes.

10· · Q.· ·Do you know whether they talked to him before

11· · · · ·January 29th, 2018?· The day you signed the

12· · · · ·verification --

13· · A.· ·Oh.

14· · Q.· ·-- for the interrogatories.· So did they talk to

15· · · · ·him before January of 2018?

16· · A.· ·I know -- I think my sister had.

17· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· No, the question is

18· · · · · · ·whether --

19· · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Gary did?

20· · A.· ·I don't know if Gary did.

21· · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you know whether, as the point person,

22· · · · ·Gary keeps files on the litigation?

23· · A.· ·I don't know.

24· · Q.· ·You don't know one way or the other?

25· · A.· ·I don't know one way or another.

Page 67

·1· · Q.· ·You don't know whether anybody's ever checked with

·2· · · · ·him on that?

·3· · A.· ·I don't know.

·4· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· Objection.· Form, foundation.

·5· · Q.· ·In terms of your deposition preparation yesterday,

·6· · · · ·where did it occur again?· At the Bevan office?

·7· · A.· ·At Bevan's office.

·8· · Q.· ·And how long did it occur?

·9· · A.· ·A couple hours.

10· · Q.· ·Okay.· Who was there?

11· · A.· ·In the deposition -- in the --

12· · Q.· ·Yes.

13· · A.· ·Just myself and Jared and --

14· · Q.· ·Harry?

15· · A.· ·Yeah, Harry.· Sorry.

16· · Q.· ·And were you shown documents?

17· · A.· ·What -- no.

18· · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· You didn't show me

19· · · · · · ·documents, did you?· No.

20· · Q.· ·No documents, okay.· Were you --

21· · A.· ·I know it was just yesterday, but --

22· · Q.· ·Were you shown anything up on a television or

23· · · · ·computer screen?

24· · A.· ·No.

25· · Q.· ·Okay.· It was just discussion?

Page 68

·1· · A.· ·Conversation.

·2· · Q.· ·Okay.· All right.· Thanks very much for your time.

·3· · · · ·We're done.

·4· · A.· ·We are?

·5· · Q.· ·Yeah.

·6· · A.· ·Oh, thank you.

·7· · Q.· ·You're welcome.

·8· · · · · · · · · MR. ASSAF:· Any cross?

·9· · · · · · · · · MR. ROTH:· No, I'm good.

10· · · · · · · · · MR. DOLINSKY:· No questions.

11· · · · · · · · · MR. BOYLE:· John Boyle.· No questions for

12· · · · · · ·me.

13· · · · · · · · · MR. TUNIS:· And this is Eric Tunis.· No

14· · · · · · ·questions for me, either.

15· · · · · · · · · · · · ·- - - - - - -

16· · · · · (Signature was not waived by the Witness.)

17· · · · · · · · · · · · ·- - - - - - -

18· · · · ·(The deposition was concluded at 10:41 a.m.)

19· · · · · · · · · · · · ·- - - - - - -

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 69

·1· · · · · · ·W I T N E S S· C E R T I F I C A T E

·2

·3· · · · ·I, GAYLE WILLIAMS, do hereby certify that I have

·4· · read my deposition taken on April 5, 2018, in the case

·5· · of Kimberlee Williams, et al. Versus BASF Catalysts,

·6· · LLC, et al., consisting of 71 pages, and that said

·7· · deposition is a true and correct transcription of my

·8· · testimony with changes as noted on the errata sheet.

·9

10· · · · · · · · · · · ___________________________________

· · · · · · · · · · · · Gayle Williams

11

12· · Dated this ________ day of ________________, 2018.

13

14

15

· · · · · ·Sworn to and subscribed before me this _________

16

17· · day of ________________, 2018.

18

19

· · · · · · · · · · · · __________________________________

20· · · · · · · · · · · Notary Public

21

· · · My commission expires ______________________________.

22

23

24

25

· · · AP

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 19 of 32 PageID:

48728
Page 70

·1· · · · · · · · · · · · ·ERRATA SHEET

·2· · Witness Name:· Gayle Williams

·3· · Date of Deposition:· April 5, 2018

·4· · Case:· Kimberlee Williams, et al. Versus BASF

· · · Catalysts, LLC, et al.

·5

·6· · Page· ·Line· ·Change and Reason for Change

·7· · ____· ·____· ·_____________________________________

·8· · ____· ·____· ·_____________________________________

·9· · ____· ·____· ·_____________________________________

10· · ____· ·____· ·_____________________________________

11· · ____· ·____· ·_____________________________________

12· · ____· ·____· ·_____________________________________

13· · ____· ·____· ·_____________________________________

14· · ____· ·____· ·_____________________________________

15· · ____· ·____· ·_____________________________________

16· · ____· ·____· ·_____________________________________

17· · ____· ·____· ·_____________________________________

18· · ____· ·____· ·_____________________________________

19· · ____· ·____· ·_____________________________________

20· · ____· ·____· ·_____________________________________

21· · ____· ·____· ·_____________________________________

22· · ____· ·____· ·_____________________________________

23· · ____· ·____· ·_____________________________________

24· · ____· ·____· ·_____________________________________

25· · ____· ·____· ·_____________________________________

· · · AP

Page 71

·1· · · · · · · · · · ·C E R T I F I C A T E

·2· · STATE OF OHIO, )

· · · · · · · · · · ·) SS:

·3· · SUMMIT COUNTY. )

·4· · · · ·I, Anika W. Patrick, a Registered Merit Reporter,

· · · Certified Realtime Reporter and Notary Public within

·5· · and for the State of Ohio, duly commissioned and

· · · qualified, do hereby certify that the within-named

·6· · Witness, GAYLE WILLIAMS, was by me first duly sworn to

· · · testify the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the

·7· · truth in the cause aforesaid; that the testimony so

· · · given by her was by me reduced to Stenotypy in the

·8· · presence of said witness; afterwards prepared and

· · · produced by means of Computer-Aided Transcription, and

·9· · that the foregoing is a true and correct transcription

· · · of the testimony so given by her as aforesaid.

10

· · · · · ·I do further certify that this deposition was

11· · taken at the time and place in the foregoing caption

· · · specified, and was completed without adjournment.

12

· · · · · ·I do further certify that I am not a relative,

13· · employee of or attorney for any party or counsel, or

· · · otherwise financially interested in this action.

14

· · · · · ·I do further certify that I am not, nor is the

15· · court reporting firm with which I am affiliated, under

· · · a contract as defined in Civil Rule 28(D).

16

17· · · · ·IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand

· · · and affixed my seal of office at Akron, Ohio, this 6th

18· · day of April, 2018.

19

20

· · · · · · · · ·__________________________________________

21· · · · · · · ·Anika W. Patrick, RMR, CRR & Notary Public

· · · · · · · · ·My commission expires March 13, 2020

22

23

24

25

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 20 of 32 PageID:

48729
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 21 of 32 PageID:

48730
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 22 of 32 PageID:

48731
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 23 of 32 PageID:

48732
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 24 of 32 PageID:

48733
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 25 of 32 PageID:

48734
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 26 of 32 PageID:

48735
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 27 of 32 PageID:

48736
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 28 of 32 PageID:

48737
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 29 of 32 PageID:

48738
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 30 of 32 PageID:

48739
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 31 of 32 PageID:

48740
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 621-28 Filed 07/23/20 Page 32 of 32 PageID:

48741