EXHIBIT F 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 1 of 24 PageID: 20094
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 Plaintiff and the Putative Class

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al.,

 Plaintiff,

 

 vs. 

BASF CATALYSTS, LLC, et al.,

 Defendants.

HONORABLE JOSE L. LINARES

 

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

PLAINTIFF DONNA WARE’S RESPONSE TO 

BASF CATALYSTS LLC’S SECOND SETS OF INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Kimberlee 

Williams objects and responds to Defendant BASF Catalysts LLC’s Second Sets of 

Interrogatories as follows. In addition, Plaintiff prefaces these responses by noting that:

As Plaintiffs’ Counsel has informed the Court, Plaintiff Donna Ware is incapacitated and 

is in the process of being substituted. Plaintiff Donna Ware and her personal representative, 

Randall Ware, have both died. Accordingly, acting Representative Sheila Ware (Randall’s 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 2 of 24 PageID: 20095
Ware’s surviving wife) answers on behalf of the Estate of Ralph Ware.

DEFENDANT BASF’S DEFINITIONS

1. “Action” means any federal or state litigation, arbitration, administrative agency 

proceeding, bankruptcy proceeding, claims process, or proceeding of any kind in any forum in 

which a claim for relief of any kind is made. 

2. The terms “And” and “Or” include each other within their meaning, whether both are 

referenced or otherwise. 

3. The terms “Any” and “All” include each other within their meaning, whether both are 

referenced or otherwise. 

4. “Asbestos” has the same meaning as that term is used in the Complaint.

5. “BASF” means defendant BASF Catalysts, LLC and any of its predecessors or 

successors in interest, all parents, subsidiaries, sisters, affiliates, and divisions, as well as current 

and former assigns, agents, employees, officers, directors, partners, attorneys and any other 

persons or entities acting or purporting to act on behalf of Any of them. 

6. “Communication(s)” or “Communicate” means any form of information, exchange, or 

attempted exchange, including but not limited to written, oral, or electronic exchanges; exchanges 

by letter, telephone, facsimile, email, face-to-face conversation, meeting or conference; any 

exchange whether or not written, taped, or recorded; any exchange without limit to the time, place, 

or circumstances of its occurrence; and/or any other transmittal of information by any media by 

any manner.

5. “BASF” means defendant BASF Catalysts LLC and any of its predecessors or successors 

in interest, all parents, subsidiaries, sisters, affiliates, and divisions, as well as current and former 

assigns, agents, employees, officers, directors, partners, attorneys and any other persons or entities 

acting or purporting to act on behalf of Any of them. 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 3 of 24 PageID: 20096
6. “Communication(s)” or “Communicate” means any form of information, exchange, or 

attempted exchange, including but not limited to written, oral, or electronic exchanges; exchanges 

by letter, telephone, facsimile, email, face-to-face conversation, meeting or conference; any 

exchange whether or not written, taped, or recorded; any exchange without limit to the time, place, 

or circumstances of its occurrence; and/or any other transmittal of information by any media by 

any manner.

7. “Complaint” means the “Second Amended Class Action Complaint” filed by You in 

Williams v. BASF Catalysts, Civil Action No. 11-cv-01754 (D.N.J.) on July 16, 2015. 

8. “Decedent” means [any of the following:] Charles L. Williams, Kathryn Darnell, Ralph 

Ware, Jennifer Graham or Steven Chernick.

9. The term “Document” is used herein in its customary and broadest sense under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1), and includes, without limitation: the original or a copy as well 

as drafts and all versions of all writings and recordings; material that is stored, compiled or 

organized by means of any electronic, magnetic, optical or mechanical device, such as by 

handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, or filming; agreements, analytical data, art work, 

audio recordings, books, bulletins, calendars, computer tapes, computer storage media, contracts, 

correspondence, diagrams, diaries, drawings, email, facsimiles, forms, interoffice 

communications, keypunch cards, letters, memoranda, messages, notes, papers, photographs, 

pictures, pleadings, proposals, reports, studies, surveys, sketches, telexes, telegrams, telecopies, 

telegraphs, telex communications, video recordings, and worksheets; and any writing or recording 

prepared on or with any other physical objects.

10. “Emtal Talc” means the talc mined, milled, manufactured, and processed at the talc 

mine and mill in Johnson, Vermont, operated by the Eastern Magnesia Talc Company from 1967 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 4 of 24 PageID: 20097
to 1983, which was marketed and sold under the brand name “Emtal” and distributed in various 

grade numbers, including, among others, 41, 42, 43, 44, 4190, 500, 549, and 599.

11. “Exposure” and “Exposed” have the same meaning as those terms are used in the 

Complaint.

12. “Identify” or “Identity” means: (a) when used in reference to a natural person, state his 

or her full name, address, and telephone number; (b) when used in reference to a corporation, state 

its full corporate name, any names under which it does business, and its place of incorporation; (c) 

when used in reference to a partnership, state its full name, any name under which it does business, 

the place or any certificate of partnership, state its full name, any name under which it does 

business, the place or any certificate of partnership (or other similar Document) filing, and the 

address of its principal place of business; (d) when used in reference to a Document, state the 

Document, litigation number or Bates number, if applicable, otherwise the number of pages and 

the nature of the Document (e.g., letter, memorandum, etc.), its title, its date, the name or names 

of its authors or recipients, and its present location or custodian; (e) when used in reference to a 

Communication, if any part of the Communication was written, identify the Document or 

Documents which refer to, relate to, or evidence the Communication, and, to the extent that the 

Communication was non-written, identify the Persons, participating in or witnessing the 

Communication, and state the date and substance of the Communication.

13. “Injury” has the same meaning as that term is used in the Complaint.

14. “Manufactured” means manufactured, fabricated, designed, modified, labeled, 

assembled, manufactured for others, or packaged.

15. “Other Defendant” means any of the defendants, aside from BASF, identified in the 

Complaint or, where specified, in the Underlying Action.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 5 of 24 PageID: 20098
16. “Person” means not only natural persons, but also firms, partnerships, associations, 

corporations, subsidiaries, divisions, departments, joint ventures, proprietorships, syndicates, 

trusts, groups, and organizations; federal state, state, or local governments or government agencies, 

offices, bureaus, departments, or entities; other legal, business, or government entities; and all 

subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, departments, branches, and other units thereof or any 

combination thereof, partnerships, associations, corporations, subsidiaries, divisions, departments, 

joint ventures, proprietorships, syndicates, trusts, groups, and organizations; federal state, state, or 

local governments or government agencies, offices, bureaus, departments, or entities; other legal, 

business, or government entities; and all subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, departments, branches, 

and other units thereof or any combination thereof.

17. “Product” and “Products” have the same meaning as those terms are used in the 

Complaint.

18. “Putative Class” means the putative class alleged in the Complaint.

19. “Relating To” means Relating To, reflecting, concerning, referring to, constituting, 

embodying, connected to, in connection with, comprising, regarding, evidencing, describing, 

identifying, stating, analyzing, containing information concerning, and/or in any way pertaining to 

the subject matter of this action.

20. “Sold” means sold, offered for sale, distributed, or marketed.

21. “Supplied” means supplied, distributed, or furnished.

22. “Underlying Action” means Charles L. Williams, et al. v. Abex Corp., et al., Case No. 

92-229108 filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio on or about March 19, 

1992, and removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on or about 

May 4, 1992 (Case No. 1:92-CV-10471) or the similar respective actions identified in the 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 6 of 24 PageID: 20099
Complaint filed by or behalf of the Decedents of the Named Plaintiff.

23. “You” and “Your” mean Kimberlee Williams[, Nancy Pease, Marilyn L. Holley, Donna 

Ware, Donnette Wengerd, and Rosanne Chernick], as well as all present and former agents, 

attorneys or representatives of Kimberlee Williams[, Nancy Pease, Marilyn L. Holley, Donna 

Ware, Donnette Wengerd, and Rosanne Chernick] or Decedent[s].

24. For purposes of construing the scope of these Requests: 

(a) The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural and vice versa. 

(b) The word “including” shall be construed to introduce a non-exhaustive list, and to mean 

“including but not limited to.” 

(c) The terms “all,” “any,” and “each” shall each be construed as addressing any and all.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

All of the General Objections below are incorporated into each of the individual responses 

and have the same force and effect as if fully set forth therein. Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s

interrogatories to the extent that:

1. Defendant BASF’s definitions and instructions seek to impose obligations that

exceed or differ from the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. They seek to require responses or supplemental responses beyond the 

scope and/or requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3. They seek to establish or imply a waiver of Plaintiff’s right to challenge the

relevancy, materiality, or admissibility of the documents or information provided by Plaintiff, or 

to object to the use of documents or information in any subsequent proceeding or trial. In 

responding, Plaintiff does not waive the right to challenge the relevancy, materiality, and/or 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 7 of 24 PageID: 20100
admissibility of the documents or information provided by Plaintiff, or to object to the use of the 

documents or information in any later proceeding or trial.

4. They call for legal conclusions, non-testifying expert discovery or premature expert 

discovery.

5. They seek disclosure of documents, communications, information, and things 

protected by the attorney-client privilege or that constitute attorney work-product/trial preparation 

materials or any other privileged documents or information, as well as documents or information 

that were compiled or prepared at the request and direction of counsel in anticipation of, or in 

conjunction with, litigation that are protected by the attorney work product doctrine; items and 

information obtained by Plaintiff’s attorneys that involve their professional skill and experience; 

legal research, including delegated research—which includes research or investigation by 

Plaintiff’s attorneys, or by persons hired by Plaintiff’s attorneys and acting under their supervision; 

strategic litigation planning, mental impressions (or documents reflecting such planning or 

impressions); and documents gathered by Plaintiff’s attorneys while researching issues in this case. 

Further, it would also be unduly burdensome and oppressive to search for, compile, and make a 

description of the nature of each such document, communication, etc.

6. They seek documents or information within the exclusive possession, custody or 

control of Defendant.

7. They seek documents or information contained in the pleadings and other papers 

filed in this action.

8. They are “contention” type.

9. They seek to impose investigation, review, and production expense burdens that 

outweigh any likely benefits. 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 8 of 24 PageID: 20101
10. They are neither relevant to the subject matter of this litigation nor reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

11. They may cause or require Plaintiff to violate any protective or confidentiality 

order, or confidentiality agreement.

12. They may cause or require Plaintiff to violate any confidentiality or non-disclosure 

provision of a Bankruptcy or Settlement Trust. 

13. They are vague, ambiguous, oppressive, and not susceptible to a reasoned 

interpretation.

14. They are redundant to proceedings or requirements set by the Court or Special 

Discovery Master and to that extent Plaintiff view the interrogatory as preempted by the Court’s

management orders.

INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Describe all damages, losses, harm, or other relief for which You contend BASF is 

responsible, including but not limited to:

(a) The amount of damages, loss, harm or other relief;

(b) The method for calculating that damage, loss, harm, or other relief;

(c) The basis for calculating that damage, loss, harm, or other relief;

(d) How that damage, loss, harm, or other relief differs, if at all, from the damages 

Decedent claimed in his original complaint in the Underlying Action.

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

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 9 of 24 PageID: 20102
further provides these amended responses without waiver of objections based on the fact that 

information responsive to this interrogatory is in possession of the Defendants in this action and 

is otherwise set forth in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, and to the extent it calls for 

information protected by the attorney-client communication and work product privileges, 

particularly given that the definition of “You” includes present and former attorneys.

Plaintiff does not have first hand knowledge about the legal theories of damages or other 

available remedies and class certification and relies upon the lawyers who have been engaged to 

investigate and pursue this matter. Further, this interrogatory calls for the opinion of an expert 

witness or witnesses who, as set forth in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification filed by 

Plaintiffs’ counsel, will express opinions and calculations of damages and remedies in the 

manner set forth in the certification attached to the motion. As discovery is not yet complete, as 

set forth in the certification motion papers, the experts have not yet prepared their calculations 

and so the right to amend or supplement this response is reserved until such time as discovery is 

completed. For the reasons set forth in the Second Amended Complaint and the Motion for Class 

Certification, the elements of harms and losses apply on behalf of the Representative Plaintiffs

and members of the class of other asbestos claimants who sued Engelhard Corporation or BASF 

Catalysts, LLC as it is known following the 2006 merger of Engelhard Corporation into BASF.

The damages sought on my behalf as well as that of the class will depend on the type of 

class that the Court ultimately certifies. Accordingly, below are the possible remedies that 

Plaintiffs will pursue:

A. With respect to claims on behalf of the Estate of Ralph Ware

1. Loss of the right to a fair trial of Ralph’s underlying asbestos claims by having to rely 

upon an evidentiary record in that matter which did not, as a result of Defendants’ wrongful 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 10 of 24 PageID: 20103
conduct, contain evidence that Emtal talc contained asbestos. On information, I believe that this 

is a type of damage or loss that the jury determines the value and amount in accordance with the 

instructions of the court prior to deliberation.

2. Loss of the right to receive fair and full compensation for the injury and losses involved 

in the Plaintiff’s Underlying Claim. On information, I understand that this is a type of damage or 

loss that the jury determines the value in accordance with the instructions of the court. On 

information, I also believe that under the circumstances of this case the court may allow expert 

testimony on case values as well as permit the jury to make an adverse inference against 

Defendants and in favor of my family in determining valuation and assessment issues. The loss is 

far greater than any of the token or nominal considerations that Engelhard/BASF paid in 

settlements to other claimants from whom they concealed the fact Emtal talc contained asbestos.

3. Loss of the right and ability to timely develop and pursue the underlying claims, 

including the lost opportunity to access witnesses, information and documents from sources that 

are no longer available. On information, I believe that this is a type of damage or loss that the 

jury determines the value and amount in accordance with the instructions of the court prior to 

deliberation.

4. Loss of the time value of money up to the date of judgment on the amount of fair 

compensation that was not paid. On information, I understand that this is a type of damage or 

loss that the jury determines the value in accordance with the instructions of the court. On 

information, I also believe that under the circumstances of this case the court may allow expert 

testimony to assist the jury determining this amount.

5. Loss of the sums paid for court costs and litigation expenses related to underlying claim. 

This will be based on information provided from court records or from the records of the 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 11 of 24 PageID: 20104
attorneys handling the underlying case.

B. With respect to claims of the Class Members

1. Disgorgement into a trust fund under auspices of the court and to be distributed to the 

members of the putative class by a court-approved method of (a) the fees that Engelhard/BASF 

paid to Cahill, (b) savings in liability and settlement payments, attorneys’ fees, other defense 

costs and expenses Englehard/BASF realized as a result of their fraudulent concealment and 

deceitful wrongdoings. On information, I believe that this remedy will be based upon documents 

and other responses to discovery requests directed to the Defendants and their insurers as well as 

through expert testimony on valuing asbestos claims and defense costs through methods that are 

used in asbestos bankruptcy claims estimations, asbestos trusts, asbestos claims facilities, 

establishment of loss and loss adjustment reserves by insurers and self-insureds, business 

acquisition pricing and other business purposes.

2. The costs of this litigation, including counsel fees, to establish the fraudulent concealment 

and fraud claims against Defendants. On information, I believe the court will determine this 

amount and mold the jury verdict based on information provided it by my attorneys concerning 

these fees and costs. I understand the rules and case law provide the manner of calculation. 

3. The costs of creating an archive of presently existing documents and information and 

determining what documents or other information Defendants destroyed or spoliaited that cannot 

be reproduced. The amount is presently unknown and will be the subject, I am informed and 

believe, of expert testimony.

4. The costs of locating and notifying the class, including the cost of locating and 

determining deceased class members next of kin, to inform them of the findings and declarations 

concerning Defendants’ liability for fraudulent concealment and fraud. 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 12 of 24 PageID: 20105
5. Loss of the time value of money up to the date of judgment. On information, I understand 

that this is a type of damage or loss that the jury determines the value in accordance with the 

instruction of the court. On information, I also believe that under the circumstances of this case 

the court may allow expert testimony to assist the jury determining this amount.

6. Punitive damages.

Other than item A.2. above, all of the above items are different from the damages 

Decedent claimed in Ralph’s original complaint in the Underlying Action.

Plaintiff reserve the right to supplement this response as discovery continues.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Identify each and every Person who previously filed an Action against BASF based on 

exposure to Emtal Talc, including for each Person: 

(a) The Person’s Name; 

(b) The Person’s Address; 

(c) The Person’s current legal representative, if any; 

(d) The case name, number, and venue for the Person’s previously-filed Action(s) against 

BASF;

(e) All other Action(s) for relief filed by the Person against any Other Defendant or nonparty based on exposure to Asbestos;

(f) The counsel of record for the Person’s previously-filed Action(s);

(g) The Person’s Asbestos-related Injury, if any;

(h) The circumstances of the Person’s exposure to Emtal Talc;

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 13 of 24 PageID: 20106
(i) The Person’s total damages attributable to Asbestos exposure;

(j) The Person’s portion of total damages attributable to BASF;

(k) The Person’s damages attributable to the fraud and/or fraudulent concealment alleged 

in the Second Amended Complaint.

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

Plaintiff further objects that information responsive to this interrogatory is in possession of the 

Defendants in this action and has otherwise been provided to Defendants in discovery, to the 

extent that it is available. 

Plaintiff and her counsel do not currently know all of the information responsive to this 

interrogatory though as set forth in deposition testimony in a related case, all of the case files of 

those who filed lawsuits against Engelhard/BASF have been collected and are maintained in a 

searchable form by BASF’s current attorneys. Plaintiff therefore reserves the right to supplement 

this response as discovery continues.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

Identify each and every Person who did not file an Emtal-related claim against BASF 

because of the fraud and fraudulent concealment alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, 

including for each Person:

(a) The Person’s Name; 

(b) The Person’s Address; 

(c) The Person’s current legal representative, if any; 

(d) All other Action(s) for relief filed by the Person against any Other Defendant or nonparty based on exposure to Asbestos;

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 14 of 24 PageID: 20107
(e) The counsel of record for the Person’s previously-filed Action(s); 

(f) The person’s Asbestos-related Injury, if any; 

(g) The circumstances of the Person’s exposure to Emtal Talc; 

(h) The Person’s total damages attributable to Asbestos exposure; 

(i) The Person’s portion of total damages attributable to BASF; 

(j) The Person’s damages attributable to the fraud and/or fraudulent concealment alleged 

in the Second Amended Complaint.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: As set forth in the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 

Certification, asbestos claimants who did not file any suit against BASF for injuries due to Emtal 

talc are not within the definition of the the class members the District Court is being asked to 

certify in our motion for class certification. As such, this interrogatory is no longer relevant nor 

will it lead to the discovery of evidence that is admissible at trial and thus a response is not 

required.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

Describe whether each Putative Class representative and Putative Class member has the 

“original” Documents (as opposed to copies or electronically scanned versions) from their 

Underlying Actions, including:

(a) Whether and when each Putative Class member’s or Putative Class representative’s 

“original” Documents were destroyed, discarded, or not retained; 

(b) Whether and when copies, electronically scanned versions, or other reproductions of 

the Documents were made, including who made them; 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 15 of 24 PageID: 20108
(c) Whether You have copies, electronically scanned versions, or other reproductions of 

all Documents from the Underlying Action; 

(d) Whether the Putative Class representative’s or Putative Class member’s Documents 

were subject to a document-retention policy. 

(e) Whether any Document (original or copy) from the Underlying Action is no longer 

available, including the reason(s) the Documents are no longer available; and

(f) Whether each Putative Class representative and Putative Class member contends that 

copies, electronically-scanned versions, or other reproductions of “original” Documents are 

adequate substitutes for the “original” Documents.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: In accordance with Order docketed at ECF 404, and 

the discovery hearing held before Special Master Rivera-Soto, Plaintiff has not supplemented 

this response. In addition to the General Objections set forth above, Plaintiff objects to this 

Interrogatory as seeking information beyond the scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. As posed the questions are also vague, ambiguous, harassing, unduly 

burdensome and not in good faith and presume and/or suggest a duty upon me and/or Ralph who 

was the Plaintiff in any Underlying Action that did and does not exist. To the extent it seeks case 

specific information from putative absent class members it is improper absent class member 

discovery.

Plaintiff further objects on the basis that information and documents responsive to this 

interrogatory may already be in the possession, custody or control of the Defendants from the 

proceedings and discovery in each of their respective Decedents’ Underlying Actions.

To the extent I have documents responsive to this interrogatory, they or their copies, as 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 16 of 24 PageID: 20109
permitted by FRCP 34(2)(B) have been provided or identified as privileged in response to 

Defendants’ requests for production of documents.

To the extent this interrogatory concerns documents in the possession of putative class 

members, I have no information upon which to form a response at this time. 

Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response as discovery continues.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

As Putative Class representative, describe Your trial plan for this case, including but not 

limited to Your trial plan for the following issues:

(a) Your process for establishing, without undertaking person-by-person inquiries, the 

existence of injury for a particular plaintiff, causation for a particular plaintiff, reliance by a 

particular plaintiff, materiality for a particular plaintiff, and the amount of any damages for that 

particular plaintiff;

(b) Your process for determining, without undertaking person-by-person inquiries, 

whether a person is a member of the Putative Class you seek to represent;

(c) Your process for identifying and providing notice to Putative Class members;

(d) Your process for determining whether heirs or other individuals have legal authority 

to act on behalf of Putative Class members who may be deceased;

(e) Your process for calculating and distributing any damages that may be awarded in this

case to Putative Class members.

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

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome and not 

proportionate discovery. This interrogatory is also objectionable to the extent it calls for 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 17 of 24 PageID: 20110
information protected by the attorney-client communication and work product privileges. The 

interrogatory calls for the opinions of expert or experts in in class action procedures and class 

action notice and benefit administration, which is not a proper fact question to pose to the 

representative. 

I have been involved in creating a trial plan, and am not aware of any Individual Plaintiff 

or Class Member who has been, as the plaintiffs in the Williams case are relying upon their 

attorneys to prepare and submit one. Thus, per the Special Discovery Master’s instruction, I

supplement their response to this interrogatory by reference to the information contained in the 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. There, Plaintiffs’ Counsel has outlined the trial plan as 

well as matters of claims administration matters, such as notice, qualifying class membership, 

and distribution of any funds recovered. Counsel describes that a claims administrator will be 

eventually appointed who will have the job of gathering information from the Defendants and 

BASF’s insurers’ records and databases on claimants who had sued BASF, as well as, making 

requests under the court’s auspices to the law firms who can be identified in Defendants’ and 

their insurers’ records as representing people who had sued BASF to provide information to the 

administrator for use in notifying potential class members and thereafter determining actual class 

membership qualification. The class definition is such that documents can be used to determine 

class membership. As the court has not yet determinized what forms of remedy will be permitted 

and no determination made regarding any funds, I cannot comment further on how any funds 

obtained in this suit will be assessed or distributed beyond saying that distribution plans have 

been used to distributed funds allocated to large groups of asbestos claimants in situations where 

the asbestos defendant was found bankrupt, and that in connection with these bankruptcy plans 

experts were able to calculate the amount of the injured claimants’ damages and losses on a mass 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 18 of 24 PageID: 20111
claimant basis to a court’s satisfaction. 

Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response if needbe at the conclusion of class 

issue discovery.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

Identify all common questions of law or fact that You contend exist under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 23(a) (2) and/or predominate under Rule 23(b) (3) and state specifically:

(a) The Identity of the putative class(es) that you contend satisfies Rule 23(a)(2) 

commonality and Rule 23(b)(3) predominance;

(b) Each issue that You contend satisfies Rule 23(a) (3) commonality and Rule 23(b) (3) 

predominance;

(c) Each material fact that supports Your contention(s);

(d) The Documents that support your contention(s).

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

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. It is also an 

objectionable contention interrogatory. 

This interrogatory is further objectionable to the extent it calls for information protected 

by the attorney-client communication and work product privileges. 

Without waiver of objections, I do not have first hand knowledge about the legal theories 

of damages or other available remedies and class certification and rely upon the lawyer who have 

been engaged to investigate and pursue this matter. Information responsive to this interrogatories 

comes from those lawyers and through their investigation. Defendants are referred to Plaintiffs’

Second Amended Complaint which lists numerous common questions responsive to this 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 19 of 24 PageID: 20112
interrogatory, along with the documents attached to the Complaint. Defendant is also referred to 

the testimony of the following witnesses and documents marked during their depositions:

1. Depositions of Ellen Poole in Paduano case (October 14, 2010; May 25, 2010) and the 

Sampson case (May 23, 2012 and April 2, 2014).

2. Deposition of Glenn A. Hemstock, Ph.D. in Sampson May 9, 2012 (Vol. I); May 29, 

2012 (Vol II); June 25, 2012 (Vol. III); and June 27, 2012 (Vol. IV).

3. Deposition of David Swanson June 15, 2009 in Paduano

4. Deposition of Daniel Steinmetz dated July 18, 19, and August 2, 2017 in Sampson and 

on October 11, 2017 in Ross.

By way of further reply, Plaintiff’s counsel describe the common issues of law and fact in 

the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Defendants are referred to that Motion. Plaintiff

reserves the right to supplement this response if needbe at the conclusion of class issue 

discovery.

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

Identify all Facts, including Documents, that support Your contention that the Putative 

Class representatives satisfy the requirements of typicality and/or adequacy under Rules 23(a) 

(3)-(4).

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

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. This 

interrogatory is also objectionable to the extent it calls for information protected by the attorneyclient communication and work product privileges. 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 20 of 24 PageID: 20113
Without waiver of objections, Plaintiff does not have first hand knowledge about the 

legal theories of damages or other available remedies and class certification and rely upon the 

lawyers who have been engaged to investigate and pursue this matter. Information responsive to 

this interrogatories comes from those lawyers and through their investigation. Defendants are 

referred to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint which explains how and why they and their 

claims are typical. 

By way of further reply, Plaintiff’s counsel addresses the typicality of claims in the 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Defendants are referred to that Motion. Plaintiff

reserves the right to supplement this response if needbe at the conclusion of class issue 

discovery. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

Identify all Facts, including Documents, that support Your contention that the Putative 

Class satisfies the superiority requirement of Rule 23(b) (3), including the reasons why You 

contend that a class action method of adjudication is superior to alternative methods.

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

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. This 

interrogatory is also objectionable to the extent it calls for information protected by the attorneyclient communication and work product privileges. 

Without waiver of objections, I do not have first hand knowledge about the legal theories 

of damages or other available remedies and class certification and rely upon the lawyer who have 

been engaged to investigate and pursue this matter. Information responsive to this interrogatory

comes from those lawyers and through their investigation. Defendants are referred to Plaintiffs’

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 21 of 24 PageID: 20114
Second Amended Complaint which explains how and why a class action adjudication of 

thousands of similar fraudulent concealment and fraud claims arising out of Defendants’

common spoliation of evidence and uniform fraudulent misrepresentations and concealment is 

superior to alternative methods.

By way of further reply, Plaintiffs’ counsel outlines how and why class adjudication of 

Plaintiffs’ claims is superior to alternative methods in the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 

Certification and Defendants are referred to that Motion. Plaintiff reserves the right to 

supplement this response if need be at the conclusion of class issue discovery. 

Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response at such time as after the class 

certification memoranda is filed and briefed.

Dated: January 29, 2018 COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.

 

 /s/ Jared M. Placitella u 

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

 As to Objections 

 FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP

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

 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 22 of 24 PageID: 20115
VERIFICATION

I, Sheila Ware, being of full age, upon her verification states the following:

1. I am the Plaintiff in the within action.

2. I have read the foregoing Answers to BASF Catalysts LLC’s Second Set of 

Interrogatories, and these responses are true to my own personal knowledge. I am aware 

that if any of the foregoing responses are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

___________________________

Sheila Ware

Dated:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 23 of 24 PageID: 20116
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 29, 2018, I served the foregoing Plaintiff’s Responses to 

Defendant BASF’s Catalysts Second Set of Interrogatories on the following attorneys via email:

COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.

 

 /s/ Jared M. Placitella 2

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

Eugene F. Assaf, P.C.

Michael F. Williams, Esq.

Kirkland & Ellis, LLP

655 15th St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

eassaf@kirkland.com

mwilliams@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 A. Boyle, Esq.

Marino, Tortorella & Boyle, P.C.

437 Southern Boulevard 

Chatham, New Jersey 07928

jboyle@khmarino.com

Attorneys for Defendant Dornbusch

John K. Villa, Esq.

David Blatt, Esq.

Williams & Connolly, LLP

725 12th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

jvilla@wc.com

dblatt@wc.com

Robert E. Ryan, Esq.

Connell Foley, LLP

85 Livingston Avenue

Roseland, New Jersey 07068

rryan@connellfoley.com

Attorneys for Cahill Defendants

Eric Tunis, Esq.

Herold Law, P.A.

25 Independence Boulevard

Warren, New Jersey 07059

etunis@heroldlaw.com

Attorney for Defendant Halket

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 431-6 Filed 02/12/18 Page 24 of 24 PageID: 20117