Exhibit 6

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 43 PageID: 43053
May 15, 2018

VIA ECF 

The Honorable Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

Special Discovery Master

Ballard Spahr LLP 

210 Lake Drive East, Suite 200 

Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002-1163

RE: Kimberlee Williams, et al. v. BASF Catalysts LLC, et al. 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01754 (JLL) (JAD)

Dear Justice Rivera-Soto: 

On March 15, 2018, Plaintiffs served the Third Set of Interrogatories and 

Fifth Requests for Production on BASF. Exhibit A, BASF’s Responses to the 

Third Set of Interrogatories and Fifth Requests for Production. Pertinent to this 

Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs’ interrogatories sought information relating to 

defense costs BASF paid to defend EMTAL talc claims from 1979 through 2017,

(Interrogatory No. 9), the number of Emtal claims that BASF resolved or 

terminated at or during certain stages of the claim or litigation for the years 1979-

2017, (Interrogatory No. 10), and the total amount of claim payments BASF paid 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 2 of 43 PageID: 43054 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516 Filed 05/15/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 30435
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 15, 2018 

Page 2

relating to Emtal claims for the years 1979-2017, and whether the claims were 

resolved by the payment, (Interrogatory No. 11).1

On April 16, 2018, BASF served objections to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories.

Exhibit A. Each interrogatory was objected to on the basis that Plaintiffs’ 

interrogatories exceed the number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

33(a)(1), and that because BASF answered Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories, 

Plaintiffs requests were improper and require no answer from BASF. In respect of

Interrogatory No. 9, BASF further objected on the grounds that the request was 

overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, is not proportional to 

the needs of this case, seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, 

work product doctrine, or other privileges and protections from discovery, and 

seeks confidential settlement information protected from disclosure in the absence 

of a showing of particularized need. With respect to Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 

11, BASF likewise objected on the grounds that the requests were overbroad, 

unduly burdensome, seek irrelevant information, are not proportional to the needs 

of this case, and seek confidential settlement information protected from disclosure 

in the absence of a showing of particularized need. BASF has not explained how it 

 

1 Plaintiffs met and conferred on this issue on May 8, 2018, and could not 

reach an agreement.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 3 of 43 PageID: 43055 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516 Filed 05/15/18 Page 2 of 12 PageID: 30436
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 15, 2018 

Page 3

is possible that it does not have the very basic information about the number of 

Emtal talc claims, the defense costs and payments made to claimants. It simply 

does not want to produce it. 

For the reasons set forth herein, BASF’s objections should be overruled and 

BASF should be compelled to provide full and complete responses to 

Interrogatories Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories.

ARGUMENT

A. In a Class Action, each Representative Plaintiff can serve 25 

interrogatories on each Defendant.

Because each Representative Plaintiff may serve 25 interrogatories on each 

defendant, BASF has no basis to object to the additional interrogatories.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1) provides: “[u]nless otherwise 

stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party no more 

than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

33(a)(1) (emphasis added). In a class action, each representative plaintiff is treated 

as a separate party for the purpose of serving interrogatories pursuant to Rule

33(a)(1). See Trevino v. ACB Am., Inc., 232 FRD 612 (N.D. Cal. 2006). In 

Trevino, two plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and others similarly 

situated, alleging that the two defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act and its state counter-part. Id. at 613-14. The plaintiffs jointly served 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 4 of 43 PageID: 43056 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516 Filed 05/15/18 Page 3 of 12 PageID: 30437
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 15, 2018 

Page 4

interrogatories on the defendants who objected, arguing that the plaintiffs served 

more than the 25 interrogatories allowed by Rule 33(a)(1). Id. at 614. The district 

court agreed that the plaintiffs jointly served 32 interrogatories on one defendant 

and 34 interrogatories on the other. Id. But the court disagreed that the plaintiffs 

violated Rule 33(a)(1). In explaining why the plaintiffs could serve more than the 

25 interrogatories allowed under Rule 33(a)(1), the district court reasoned that 

“[a]ccording to the Federal Rules, each plaintiff may serve each defendant with 25 

interrogatories.” Id. (emphasis added). The district court thus treated the first 25 

interrogatories as served by one plaintiff and the remaining interrogatories as 

served by the other plaintiff. Id.

Altogether here, Plaintiffs have served 32 interrogatories on BASF. So with 

6 Representative Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have served far less than the 150

interrogatories allowed under Judge Dickson’s October 17, 2016 Pretrial 

Scheduling Order. Compare (CM/ECF # 221) (“Maximum of twenty-five (25) 

additional interrogatories by each party to each other party”) (emphasis added), 

with Abarca v. Merck & Co., Civil Action No. 07-0388, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

27485, *18 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (“Interrogatories shall be limited to one set of not 

more than 25 interrogatories propounded to each defendant by plaintiffs 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 5 of 43 PageID: 43057 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516 Filed 05/15/18 Page 4 of 12 PageID: 30438
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 15, 2018 

Page 5

collectively”) (emphasis added). As a result, there is no basis to BASF’s objection 

that Plaintiffs have served more interrogatories than allowed under Rule 33(a)(1).

B. Even if Plaintiffs exceeded the number of interrogatories allowed, the 

Court should grant Plaintiffs leave to serve additional interrogatories 

and BASF should be compelled to respond.

If the Court treats the Representative Plaintiffs collectively as a single party

for the purposes of Rule 33(a)(1) contrary to Judge Dickson’s October 17, 2016 

Pretrial Scheduling Order, the Court should still require BASF to answer the 

additional interrogatories. This is a complex class action involving multiple parties 

and claims that cover fraudulent conduct by Defendants that spans nearly thirty 

years and affected thousands of claimants who had been deprived of necessary 

evidence to establish their asbestos injury claims. See CM/ECF # 185, Second 

Amended Complaint, generally; CM/ECF # 419, Motion for Class Certification; 

Ott v. Mortg. Investors Co. of Ohio, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19050 (D. Or. 2015) 

(“Permitting the parties to exceed the limit pursuant to FRCP 33(a)(1) is 

appropriate in this complex proposed class action case involving multiple parties, 

claims, and affirmative defenses”). Otherwise, important issues such as damages 

would largely remain unaddressed in discovery contrary to the Special Discovery 

Master’s observation of Judge Linares’ directive to get this case “trial ready.” 

10/26/2017 Hr’g Tr., T134:5-7.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 6 of 43 PageID: 43058 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516 Filed 05/15/18 Page 5 of 12 PageID: 30439
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 15, 2018 

Page 6

C. BASF’s boilerplate objections violate Rule 26(g).

In objecting to Interrogatory No’s. 9, 10, and 11, BASF asserts only blanket 

objections and provides no factual basis for why it could not answer the requests. 

That is a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g), and BASF should be 

compelled to respond to the subject interrogatories.

In relevant part, Rule 26(g) provides:

(1) Signature Required; Effect of Signature. Every disclosure under 

Rule 26(a)(1) or (a)(3) and every disclosure request, response, or 

objection must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the 

attorney’s own name . . . By signing, an attorney or party certifies that 

to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed 

after a reasonable inquiry:

(A) with respect to a disclosure, it is complete and correct as of the 

time it is made; and

(B) with respect to a discovery request, response, or objection, it is:

(i) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or 

by a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing 

existing law, or for establishing new law;

(ii) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, 

cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; 

and

(iii) neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or expensive, 

considering the needs of the case, prior discovery in the case, the 

amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the 

action.

. . .

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 7 of 43 PageID: 43059 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516 Filed 05/15/18 Page 6 of 12 PageID: 30440
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 15, 2018 

Page 7

(3) Sanction for Improper Certification. If a certification violates this 

rule without substantial justification, the court, on motion or on it own 

must impose an appropriate sanction on the signer, the party on whose 

behalf the signer was acting, or both. The sanction may include an order 

to pay reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the 

violation.

Id. (emphasis added). As applied by courts, Rule 26(g) “requires all attorneys to 

engage in pretrial discovery in a responsible manner consistent with the spirit and 

purposes of liberal discovery.” Younes v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 312 F.R.D. 692, 703

(D.N.J. 2015) (citing Kosher Sport, Inc. v. Queens Balpark Co., LLC, Civil Action 

No. 10-2618, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86651, *7 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2011)). Under

the Rule, an attorney’s signature certifies that any disclosures were complete and 

accurate at the time they were made and that a reasonable inquiry was made.” Id.

(citing Singer v. Covista, Inc., Civil Action No. 10-6147, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

44474, *9 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2013)). In determining whether a certification is 

reasonable, an objective standard is used. Id.

Boilerplate objections that an interrogatory was overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, irrelevant and confidential are “inappropriate and result in the waiver 

of the objection.” Id. at 704. See also NE Tech., Inc. v. Evolving Systems, Inc., 

Civil Action No. 06-601, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85351, *5 (D.N.J. Sept. 12, 2008) 

(“When objecting to a discovery request, an objecting party must state with 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 8 of 43 PageID: 43060 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516 Filed 05/15/18 Page 7 of 12 PageID: 30441
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 15, 2018 

Page 8

specificity the grounds for the objection, and not the familiar litany that an 

interrogatory or document production request is overly broad, burdensome, 

oppressive and irrelevant”); Dicupe v. Liefeld & Co., Civil Action No. 86-1302, 

1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24231, *5 (E.D. Pa. June 13, 1986) (noting that courts look 

upon “blanket objection[s] to interrogatories an documentary requests” with 

“extreme displeasure” because “such objections are violative of both the letter and 

spirit” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) (emphasis added). Blanket 

objections such as the ones asserted by BASF in response to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 

10, and 11 are not permitted because “[b]road-based, non-specific objections are 

almost impossible to assess on their merits, and fall woefully short of the burden 

that must be borne by a party making an objection to an interrogatory or document 

request.” Younes, 312 F.R.D. at 704.

As the party seeking to limit discovery, BASF bears the burden of proving 

that good cause exists for the objections. Fed. R. Civ P. 26(c); see also 8 Charles 

Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and 

Procedure § 2035. As a result, BASF must identify a specific factual basis to 

object to the interrogatories. See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 

1121 (3d Cir. 1986) (“broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 

examples and articulated reasoning” do not suffice). That BASF has not is fatal to 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 9 of 43 PageID: 43061 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516 Filed 05/15/18 Page 8 of 12 PageID: 30442
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 15, 2018 

Page 9

its efforts to obstruct discovery. See Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & 

Surety Co., 129 F.R.D. 483, 485 (D.N.J. 1990). And therefore, BASF’s blanket 

objections are “meaningless,” “constitute a waste of time for opposing counsel and 

the Court,” and “violate the letter and spirit of Rule 26(g).” Younes, 312 F.R.D. at 

704-05 (quoting Weems v. Hodnett, Civil Action No. 10-1452, 2011 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 80746, *1-2 (D. La. July 25, 2011)).

Not only are BASF’s objections groundless then because they are boilerplate 

and do not cite a specific factual basis for the objections, but also because the 

subject interrogatories seek information pertinent to claims and defenses in this 

matter. See Young v. Lukens Steel Co., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1462, *3 (E.D. Pa. 

1994) (recognizing that in light of the Rule 26’s purpose of allowing the parties to 

obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial, wide 

latitude should be afforded to the party seeking discovery). In particular, by 

seeking information on BASF’s defense costs, a response by BASF to 

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

well as data that will inform Plaintiffs’ expert on damages. See, e.g., Plaintiffs’ 

Class Certification Motion, generally. BASF’s response to Interrogatory No. 11

would likewise provide valuable information to Plaintiffs’ expert in creating a 

damages model. Id. So, too, Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 11 would be pertinent to a 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 10 of 43 PageID: 43062 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516 Filed 05/15/18 Page 9 of 12 PageID: 30443
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 15, 2018 

Page 10

number of issues such as numerosity and ascertainability, which are fundamental 

to the issue of class certification. See, e.g., Younes, 312 F.R.D. at 705 (“Although 

7-Eleven believes Project P is immaterial, there is no legitimate question that 

plaintiffs are entitled to pursue discovery to support their theory of the case, 

especially in light of the allegations in their complaint.”).

Finally, the attorney-client and work product privileges do not shield the 

information requested under the subject interrogatories from disclosure, and 

BASF’s assertion for privilege also violate Rule 26(g). As to Interrogatory No. 9,

BASF’s defense costs—i.e., attorney’s fees—are not privileged. See In re Grand 

Jury Investigation, 631 F.2d 17 (3d Cir. 1980) (attorney-client privilege does not 

apply to disclosure of fee payment information); United States v. Castro, Civil 

Action No. 94-223, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13852, *3 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (finding “no 

attorney-client privilege concerning payment of legal fees”). In much the same 

way, neither the number of claims brought against BASF nor the amounts BASF 

paid to resolve these claims can be privileged as that information if not entirely

public, is certainly not confidential as to Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members.

And in that regard, it is of no moment that BASF may have learned that 

information through counsel. Graves v. Biomedical Tissues Servs. (In re Human 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 11 of 43 PageID: 43063 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516 Filed 05/15/18 Page 10 of 12 PageID: 30444
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 15, 2018 

Page 11

Tissue Prods. Liab. Litig.), Civil Action No. 06-135, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

34436, *56-57 (D.N.J. Apr. 23, 2009) (internal citations omitted).

In sum, BASF cannot meet its “obligations by sticking its head in the sand 

and refusing to look for answers.” Younes, 312 F.R.D. at 705. Yet that is exactly 

what it has done here in asserting boilerplate objections with no indication that it 

has done any research or investigation as it must to comply with Rule 26(g) in 

answering the subject interrogatories. It is simply inconceivable that BASF does 

not have the information responsive to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 10 and 11 readily 

available to it and its counsel who filed these objections.

2 And so, the Court should 

regard BASF’s responses to Interrogatories No’s. 9, 10 and 11 as non-responsive

and compel BASF to answer the subject interrogatories.

CONCLUSION

In sum, BASF should be compelled to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 10 

and 11 of Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories directed to BASF as the service of 

those interrogatories complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1), and BASF cannot 

carry its burden to object to them.

 

2

 Plaintiffs do not believe that BASF, as the client responsible for paying the 

legal bills, does not know what its defense costs are. See, e.g., Exhibit B, 3/24/2004 

Jones Ltr. to Willis on payment of legal expenses for asbestos mattes during 2003.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 12 of 43 PageID: 43064 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516 Filed 05/15/18 Page 11 of 12 PageID: 30445
Justice Robert A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

May 15, 2018 

Page 12

Respectfully Submitted,

COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.

/s/ Christopher M. Placitella

Christopher M. Placitella, Esq.

(NJ Atty #: 027781981)

Michael Coren, Esq.

(NJ Atty #: 024871979)

Jared M. Placitella, Esq.

(NJ Atty #: 068272013)

Eric S. Pasternack, Esq.

(NJ Atty #: 015132011)

127 Maple Avenue

Red Bank, NJ 07701

(732) 747-9003

FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP

Jeffrey M. Pollock, Esq.

(NJ Atty #: 015751987)

Princeton Pike Corp. Center

997 Lennox Drive,

Building 3

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

(609) 896-7660

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative

Class

cc: All Counsel of Record (via ECF)

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 13 of 43 PageID: 43065 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516 Filed 05/15/18 Page 12 of 12 PageID: 30446
COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C. Christopher M. Placitella, Esq. 

(027781981) Michael Coren, Esq. (024871979) 

Jared M. Placitella, Esq. (068272013) 

Eric S. Pasternack, Esq. (015132011) 

127 Maple Avenue 

Red Bank, NJ 07701 

(732) 747-9003

FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 

Jeffrey M. Pollock, Esq. (015751987) 

997 Lenox Drive, Building 3 

Princeton Pike Corporate Ctr. Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 

(609) 896-3600

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al.

 

 Plaintiffs,

 vs.

BASF CATALYSTS LLC, et al.

 

 Defendants.

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

CIVIL ACTION

CERTIFICATION OF 

COUNSEL

CHRISTOPHER M. PLACITELLA, of full age, hereby certifies as follows:

1. I am an attorney at law in the State of New Jersey and a shareholder with the law 

firm of Cohen, Placitella and Roth, P.C.

2. I am familiar with the facts and circumstances of the within action.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 14 of 43 PageID: 43066 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-1 Filed 05/15/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 30447
3. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the BASF Catalysts LLC’s 

Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories.

4. Attached as Exhibit B is true and correct copy of the March 24, 20014 leter from 

Lynette Jones of Royal & SunAlliance to Pat Willis of Engelhard Corporation.

I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the 

foregoing statements by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.

/s/ Christopher M. Placitella

CHRISTOPHER M. PLACITELLA

Dated: May 15, 2018

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 15 of 43 PageID: 43067 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-1 Filed 05/15/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 30448
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, individually, as personal 

representative of the Estate of Charles L. Williams, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; NANCY PEASE, individually, 

as personal representative of the Estate of William Clark, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; MARILYN L. HOLLEY, as 

personal representative of the Estate of Kathryn Darnell, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; DONNA WARE, individually as 

personal representative of the Estate of Ralph Ware, 

deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of 

others similarly situated; and DONNETTE WENGERD, 

individually, as personal representative of the Estate of 

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

representative of others similarly situated, and ROSANNE 

CHERNICK, individually, as personal representative of 

the Estate of Steven Chernick, deceased on behalf of said 

estate, and as representative of others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BASF CATALYSTS LLC, CAHILL GORDON & 

REINDEL LLP, CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL, a 

partnership including a professional corporation, 

THOMAS D. HALKET, ARTHUR A. DORNBUSCH 

II, GLENN HEMSTOCK, HOWARD G. SLOANE 

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

JOHN DOE BUSINESS ENTITIES 1 to 100; JOHN 

DOE BUSINESS ENTITIES 101 to 200; JOHN DOE 

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

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

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

CIVIL ACTION

BASF CATALYSTS LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES

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

Kirkland & Ellis LLP, responds to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories as follows:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 16 of 43 PageID: 43068 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 1 of 23 PageID: 30449
2

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiffs have exceeded their number of interrogatories allowable under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 33(a)(1) and the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 

221 (allowing a “[m]aximum of twenty-five (25) additional interrogatories by each party to each 

other party.”). Because of this, plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories are not permitted and do not 

require a substantive response by BASF. 

Additionally, independent of the fact that plaintiffs’ interrogatories now exceed the 

limitations of the federal rules and the Court’s order, responding to these interrogatories and their 

subparts would require an enormous investment of resources which is disproportionate to the issues 

in this case. This is especially true where, as here, the plaintiffs have waited until the waning weeks 

of discovery to serve these interrogatories. Below are BASF’s objections to plaintiffs’ 

interrogatories on these and other grounds. 

OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Identify every BASF or Engelhard department and each person in Your organization who 

has or who ever had a role in, or were assigned responsibility for, reviewing, approving, auditing, 

paying, budgeting, coordinating, controlling, managing, monitoring, or recovering reimbursement 

of Defense Costs that You or anyone on Your behalf, including without limitation any insurance 

companies, incurred or paid relating to EMTAL Claims.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may 

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” 

BASF further objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 17 of 43 PageID: 43069 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 2 of 23 PageID: 30450
3

(allowing a “[m]aximum of twenty-five (25) additional interrogatories by each party to each other 

party.”). Because BASF has answered Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance 

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 

Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF. 

BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 1 on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not proportional to the needs of this case. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Were any policies, procedures or guidelines established, adopted or otherwise utilized by 

You or anyone acting on Your behalf to review, manage, pay, control or track Defense Costs that 

You or anyone on Your behalf, including without limitation any insurance companies, incurred or 

paid relating to EMTAL Claims? If so please identify and describe each one and identify all 

documents relating to same.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 

BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may 

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” 

BASF further objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 

(allowing a “[m]aximum of twenty-five (25) additional interrogatories by each party to each other 

party.”). Because BASF has answered Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance 

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 

Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF. 

BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not proportional to the needs of this case. BASF 

further objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the grounds that it seeks information protected by the 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 18 of 43 PageID: 43070 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 3 of 23 PageID: 30451
4

attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other privileges and protections from discovery. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

Were any accounting records, accounts, ledgers, internal controls or internal control 

procedures used or maintained to review, pay, manage, control or track Defense Costs You or 

anyone on Your behalf, including without limitation any insurance companies, incurred or paid 

relating to EMTAL Claims? If so please identify and describe each one and identify all documents 

relating to same.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may 

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” 

BASF further objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 

(allowing a “[m]aximum of twenty-five (25) additional interrogatories by each party to each other 

party.”). Because BASF has answered Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance 

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 

Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF. 

BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 3 on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not proportional to the needs of this case. BASF 

further objects to Interrogatory No. 3 on the grounds that it seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other privileges and protections from discovery. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

Did You maintain records, summaries or other numerical or statistical data with respect to 

the amount of Defense Costs and Claim Payments relating to EMTAL Claims either on a case, 

claim, aggregate or some other basis? If so, by whom were they maintained, how, when and for 

what purpose(s). Please include in your response the identity of all documents relating to such 

records along with the identity of the person who is the document’s currently custodian.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 19 of 43 PageID: 43071 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 4 of 23 PageID: 30452
5

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 

BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may 

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” 

BASF further objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 

(allowing a “[m]aximum of twenty-five (25) additional interrogatories by each party to each other 

party.”). Because BASF has answered Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance 

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 

Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF. 

BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 4 on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not proportional to the needs of this case. BASF 

further objects to Interrogatory No. 4 on the grounds that it seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other privileges and protections from discovery. 

BASF further objects to Interrogatory No. 4 to the extent it seeks confidential settlement 

information protected from disclosure in the absence of a showing of particularized need. See, e.g., 

Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Props., Inc., 257 F.R.D. 418, 423 (D.N.J. 2009) (party seeking 

discovery of settlement agreements “must make a heightened, more particularized showing of 

relevance”). 

INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

Were any management reports, internal or external accounting reports, auditing or financial 

reports or budgets prepared with respect to or relating to EMTAL Claims? If so please identify each 

report, its author and recipients and its current custodian.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 20 of 43 PageID: 43072 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 5 of 23 PageID: 30453
6

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 

BASF objects to Interrogatory No. 5 on the grounds that is seeks information already in the 

possession, custody, or control of plaintiffs. BASF further objects that the number of 

interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may serve on any other party no more than 25 

written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” BASF further objects that the number of 

interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the number allowed by the Court’s October 

17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 (allowing a “[m]aximum of twenty-five (25) 

additional interrogatories by each party to each other party.”). Because BASF has answered 

Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance with the requirements of Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of 

Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF. 

BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 5 on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not proportional to the needs of this case. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

Were any management reports, internal or external accounting reports, auditing or financial 

reports or budgets prepared with respect to or relating to Defense Costs of Emtal Claims? If so 

please identify each report, its author and recipients and its current custodian.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 

BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may 

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” 

BASF further objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 21 of 43 PageID: 43073 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 6 of 23 PageID: 30454
7

(allowing a “[m]aximum of twenty-five (25) additional interrogatories by each party to each other 

party.”). Because BASF has answered Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance 

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 

Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF. 

BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not proportional to the needs of this case. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

Were any management reports, internal or external accounting reports, auditing or financial 

reports, or budgets prepared with respect to or relating to Claim Payments on Emtal Claims? If so 

please identify each report, its author and recipients and its current custodian.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 

BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may 

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” 

BASF further objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 

(allowing a “[m]aximum of twenty-five (25) additional interrogatories by each party to each other 

party.”). Because BASF has answered Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance 

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 

Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF. 

BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not proportional to the needs of this case. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

Identify by specific type, element or category all Defense Costs You or anyone on Your 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 22 of 43 PageID: 43074 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 7 of 23 PageID: 30455
8

behalf incurred or paid in defending Emtal Claims, including without limitation any insurance 

companies.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 

BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may 

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” 

BASF further objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 

(allowing a “[m]aximum of twenty-five (25) additional interrogatories by each party to each other 

party.”). Because BASF has answered Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance 

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 

Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF. 

BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on the grounds that it is vague, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not proportional to the needs of the case. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

For each year during the Time Period, and excluding expenditures relating solely to the 

defense of the present Williams case, state: (a) the total aggregate amount of Defense Costs You or 

anyone on Your Behalf, including without limitation any insurance company, paid to defend 

EMTAL Claims asserted against You during the year; (b) the total number of EMTAL Claim 

Claimants with actions pending against You during any portion of the year; (c) the highest total 

amount of Defense Costs paid by You or on Your behalf during the year in defending a single 

EMTAL Claim Claimant’s EMTAL Claim; (d) the lowest total amount of Defense Costs paid by 

You or on Your behalf during the year in defending a single EMTAL Claim Claimant’s EMTAL 

Claim; (e) the arithmetic average (mean) total expenditure amount paid by You or on Your behalf 

in defending a single EMTAL Claim Claimant’s EMTAL Claim during the year; and (f) the median 

expenditure paid by You or on Your behalf for defending a single EMTAL Claim Claimant’s 

EMTAL Claims during the year 

Please use the following matrix to supply this data:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 23 of 43 PageID: 43075 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 8 of 23 PageID: 30456
9

Interrogatory No. 9 Table

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 24 of 43 PageID: 43076 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 9 of 23 PageID: 30457
10

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 

BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may 

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” 

BASF further objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 25 of 43 PageID: 43077 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 10 of 23 PageID: 30458
11

number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 

(allowing a “[m]aximum of twenty-five (25) additional interrogatories by each party to each other 

party.”). Because BASF has answered Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance 

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 

Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF.

BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 9 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not proportional to the needs of this case. BASF 

further objects to Interrogatory No. 9 on the grounds that it seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other privileges and protections from discovery. 

BASF further objects to Interrogatory No. 9 on the ground that it seeks confidential settlement 

information protected from disclosure in the absence of a showing of particularized need. See, e.g., 

Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Props., Inc., 257 F.R.D. 418, 423 (D.N.J. 2009) (party seeking 

discovery of settlement agreements “must make a heightened, more particularized showing of 

relevance”).

INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

For each year during the Time Period, and excluding the present Williams case, state the 

number of Emtal Claim Claimants’ Emtal Claims that resolved or terminated at or during each of 

the following claim or litigation stages: 

a. Prior to filing of suit or adjudicative claim. 

b. At or upon filing of suit or adjudicative claim 

c. Filing of Motion to dismiss complaint. 

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

as to Engelhard or BASF. 

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

f. Motion for Summary Judgment or similar dispositive motions 

g. Pretrial proceedings 

h. Trial 

i. During Appeal 

Please use the following matrix to supply this data:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 26 of 43 PageID: 43078 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 11 of 23 PageID: 30459
12

Interrogatory No. 10 Table

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 27 of 43 PageID: 43079 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 12 of 23 PageID: 30460
13

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 28 of 43 PageID: 43080 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 13 of 23 PageID: 30461
14

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 

BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may 

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” 

BASF further objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 

(allowing a “[m]aximum of twenty-five (25) additional interrogatories by each party to each other 

party.”). Because BASF has answered Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 29 of 43 PageID: 43081 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 14 of 23 PageID: 30462
15

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 

Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF. 

BASF objects to Interrogatory No. 10 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly 

burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not proportional to the needs of this case. BASF 

further objects to Interrogatory No. 10 on the ground that it seeks confidential settlement 

information protected from disclosure in the absence of a showing of particularized need. See, e.g., 

Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Props., Inc., 257 F.R.D. 418, 423 (D.N.J. 2009) (party seeking 

discovery of settlement agreements “must make a heightened, more particularized showing of 

relevance”).

INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

For each year during the Time Period please state the total amount of Claim Payments You 

or anyone on Your Behalf, including without limitation any insurance company, paid relating to 

Emtal Claims; (b) the number of EMTAL Claim Claimants whose EMTAL Claims were terminated 

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

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

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

Please use the following matrix to supply this data:

Interrogatory No. 11 Table:

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 30 of 43 PageID: 43082 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 15 of 23 PageID: 30463
16

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 31 of 43 PageID: 43083 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 16 of 23 PageID: 30464
17

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 

BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each party “may 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 32 of 43 PageID: 43084 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 17 of 23 PageID: 30465
18

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” 

BASF further objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs exceeds the 

number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 221 

(allowing a “[m]aximum of twenty-five (25) additional interrogatories by each party to each other 

party.”). Because BASF has answered Plaintiffs’ prior interrogatories and subparts in compliance 

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33(a)(1) and the October 17, 2016 

Order, Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories is improper and requires no answer from BASF.

BASF also objects to Interrogatory No. 11 on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome,

seeks irrelevant information and is not proportional to the needs of this case. BASF further objects 

to Interrogatory No. 11 on the ground that seeks confidential settlement information protected from 

disclosure in the absence of a showing of particularized need. See, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. 

Edgewood Props., Inc., 257 F.R.D. 418, 423 (D.N.J. 2009) (party seeking discovery of settlement 

agreements “must make a heightened, more particularized showing of relevance”).

DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1. A copy of all documents You identify or refer in response to the above interrogatories.

2. A copy of all documents relating to or containing any information requested in the above 

interrogatories.

3. A copy of all documents You based your responses to above interrogatories upon, including 

any data or information you provide.

RESPONSE: BASF objects to the above document requests on the ground that they seek 

information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other privileges 

and protections from discovery. BASF further objects to the above documents requests on the 

grounds that they are unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of this case. BASF 

further objects to the document requests on the grounds that they seek confidential settlement 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 33 of 43 PageID: 43085 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 18 of 23 PageID: 30466
19

information protected from disclosure in the absence of a showing of particularized need. See, e.g., 

Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Props., Inc., 257 F.R.D. 418, 423 (D.N.J. 2009) (party seeking 

discovery of settlement agreements “must make a heightened, more particularized showing of 

relevance”).

To date, BASF has already produced relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to 

these Requests, including the database at FRE_408_00000003 and documents identified through 

the parties’ agreed-upon search protocol. Indeed, in responding to plaintiffs’ many requests, BASF 

has conducted an extensive search of documents spanning decades and has supplemented its 

production with additional documents located in the course of preparing its responses to plaintiffs’ 

previous interrogatories and requests for production. Under the circumstances, BASF’s efforts have 

been more than reasonable. BASF cannot exclude the potential that further investigation may 

reveal additional information, in which case BASF reserves the right to supplement its production. 

Finally, BASF notes that documents responsive to these requests have been produced, and continue 

to be produced, in response to plaintiffs’ subpoenas to BASF’s insurers.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1. BASF objects that the definitions of “You,” “Your,” and “BASF” are overly broad, 

vague, ambiguous, and speculative by encompassing “affiliated entities.”

2. BASF objects that the definition of “asbestos,” “asbestos fibers,” “asbestiform,” and 

“fibers” are overly broad, vague, ambiguous, uncertain, and speculative.

3. BASF objects that the definition of “Cahill” is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, 

uncertain and speculative by encompassing “affiliated entities.”

4. BASF objects that the definition of “Defense Costs” is overly broad, vague, and 

ambiguous by encompassing expenses not related to litigation. 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 34 of 43 PageID: 43086 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 19 of 23 PageID: 30467
20

5. BASF objects that the definition of “EMTAL Claim” is overly broad, vague, 

ambiguous, uncertain and speculative by encompassing alleged litigation beyond Plaintiffs’ 

specific claims.

6. BASF objects that the definition of “Time Period” encompasses alleged litigation 

beyond Plaintiffs’ specific claims.

7. BASF objects that the definitions and instructions call upon BASF to: (a) create 

documents not presently existing; (b) describe unsuccessful efforts to respond to particular 

interrogatories; (c) interpret, alter, modify, or change the meaning of any interrogatory from the 

plain meaning thereof; (d) respond in all ways to interrogatories susceptible of multiple 

interpretations; (e) respond to any aspect of an interrogatory not described with reasonable 

particularity; (f) locate or interview former employees or any other non-BASF employee; or (g) 

identify any custodian or records no longer known to BASF. 

8. BASF objects that the definitions and instructions impose upon BASF requirements 

exceeding those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

9. BASF objects that the interrogatories are overly broad and impose an unreasonably 

burden of inquiry.

10. BASF objects that the interrogatories are vague, ambiguous, and not susceptible to 

a reasoned interpretation.

11. BASF objects that the interrogatories seek information that the burden or expense 

of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 

12. BASF objects that the interrogatories are redundant, not reasonably particular, not 

limited to a relevant period of time and the interrogatory seeks information spanning a period of 

several decades or that relates to decades-old information that has no bearing on Plaintiffs’ claims.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 35 of 43 PageID: 43087 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 20 of 23 PageID: 30468
21

13. To the extent that any interrogatory inquires about “all,” “each,” “any,” or “every,” 

BASF objects that the interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it would be 

unreasonable to expect, even after a reasonably diligent search, that “all,” “each,” “any,” or “every” 

individual, document, or thing falling within a description can or has been located. 

14. BASF objects that the interrogatories request information already in the possession, 

custody, or control of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ agents, and/or Plaintiffs’ counsel.

15. BASF objects that the interrogatories purport to impose a duty on it to undertake a 

search for documents and individuals beyond a diligent search of the files where it would 

reasonably expect to find documents responsive to these interrogatories.

16. BASF objects that the interrogatories call for BASF to gather and summarize 

information contained in voluminous papers or papers that are a matter of public record. 

17. BASF objects that the interrogatories seek information equally available to 

Plaintiffs, previously produced to Plaintiffs, in the public record, or which may be readily 

obtainable by less burdensome or less invasive means.

18. BASF objects that the interrogatories seek information protected from disclosure by 

the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and other privileges and immunities 

recognized by law. BASF expressly states that any and all inadvertent disclosures of protected 

information is not a waiver of any privilege.

19. BASF objects that the interrogatories seek confidential and private information 

about individuals who are not parties to this action, the disclosure of which would violate their right 

to privacy as established and protected by the federal and state Constitutions.

20. BASF objects that the interrogatories seek proprietary business information, trade 

secrets, or other confidential business information.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 36 of 43 PageID: 43088 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 21 of 23 PageID: 30469
22

21. BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs 

exceeds the number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which states that each 

party “may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete 

subparts.”

22. BASF objects that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs 

exceeds the number allowed by the Court’s October 17, 2016 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 

221 (allowing a “[m]aximum of twenty-five (25) additional interrogatories by each party to each 

other party.”).

23. BASF does not concede that any of its objections are or will be admissible evidence 

at trial. BASF does not waive any objection, on any ground, whether or not asserted, at the time of 

trial. Where BASF has answered any of the interrogatories without objection, BASF does not agree 

to the relevancy, materiality, or admissibility of any information sought.

24. BASF expressly incorporates its General Objections into each of its objections 

above.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 37 of 43 PageID: 43089 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 22 of 23 PageID: 30470
23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that, on this 16th day of April 2018, the following counsel were served 

electronically with BASF Catalysts LLC’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of 

Interrogatories:

Christopher M. Placitella, Esquire

Michael Coren, Esquire

Jared Placitella, Esquire

Cohen Placitella & Roth PC

127 Maple Avenue

Red Bank, NJ 07701

Nina M. Gussack

Barry H. Boise

Angelo A. Stio, III

Pepper Hamilton LLP

3000 Two Logan Square

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Attorneys for Defendants Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP,

Cahill Gordon & Reindel, Howard Sloane, and Ira J. Dembrow

Eric Tunis, Esquire

Herold Law

25 Independence Blvd.

Warren, NJ 07059-6747

Attorney for Defendant Thomas D. Halket

Kevin Marino, Esquire

John A. Boyle, Esquire

Marino, Tortorella & Boyle PC

437 Southern Blvd.

Chatham, NJ 07928

Attorneys for Defendant Arthur A. Dornbusch II

April 16, 2018 /s/ Justin T. Quinn 

 Justin T. Quinn

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 38 of 43 PageID: 43090 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-2 Filed 05/15/18 Page 23 of 23 PageID: 30471
March 24, 2004

Pat Willis

Engelhard Corporation

101 Wood Avenue

P.O. Box 770 

Iselin,NJ 08830-0770

Re: Cuyahoga County Legal Invoices

Dear Ms. Willis:

Pursuant to our agreement, attached is Royal’s payment history for legal expenses incurred for

Cuyahoga County asbestos matters during 2003. Royal pays 100% ofthe invoices during the

year and seeks reimbursement of 10% from Engelhard at year-end. Based on the amounts paid

by Royal, please issue a check to Royal for the amount of $397.20. Royal’s tax identification

number is 13-5358230.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Lynette Jones, CPCU

MCU Specialist

Environmental Claim Department

Royal & SunAlliance

(704) 522-2869

(704) 522-2888 fax 

Lynette Jones@,rsausa.com

Enclosures

ARROWOOD052684

ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 39 of 43 PageID: 43091 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-3 Filed 05/15/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 30472
LYNETTE

JONES/PYRA/ROYAL-SSD

03/23/2004 11:41 AM

Jo "Kennealy.John" <John.Kennealy@CNA.com>

cc

bcc

Subject Re: Engelhard

Dear John,

Hope you are doing well. I apologize that it has taken me so long to respond to this. Busy as bee! Still 

trying to catch up from the Christmas holidays.

I haven’t received a status report for 4th qtr 2003 yet. There is a new assistant risk manager at Engelhard

so I will follow up this week to make sure Cahill Gordon gets something in to us. This account had very

little activity during 2003. 3 new lawsuits were received during the year. There were 2 indemnity

settlements (Bevan cases - 311 plaintiffs settled for $44,572 from Engelhard and a premises case

(Mueller) settled for $48,000). Royal paid a total of $95,693 in defense costs and $76,059.43 for indemnity

during 2003.1 have not made any 2004 projections but I do not expect much of anything to change. I have 

received 3 new complaints thus far for 2004.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards,

Lynette Jones,CPCU

MCU Specialist

Royal & SunAlliance

Environmental Claim Dept.

(704) 522-2869 direct

(704) 522-2888 facsimile

"Kennealy,John" <John.Kennealy@CNA.com>

"Kennealy.John"

<John.Kennealy@CNA.com>

01/06/2004 10:26 AM

Jo <lynetteJones@rsausa.com>

cc

Subject Engelhard

Lynette:

I'm sending you this briefnote as a reminder to continue forwarding any quarterly reports you

may receive that help tell the story ofEnglehard's ongoing asbestos problem Also, ifyou've

done any cost projections for 2004, it would be helpful to know what you think Englehard will

incur in defense and indemnity for this year.

Thanks very much for your help and Happy New Year!!

John J. Kenneaiy, ARM

ARROWOOD052685

ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 40 of 43 PageID: 43092 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-3 Filed 05/15/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 30473
Law Department

E&MTC

CNA Insurance

(732)398-4569

(732)398.5115 (fax)

email; john.kennealy{i icna.com

ARROWOOD052686

ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 41 of 43 PageID: 43093 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-3 Filed 05/15/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 30474
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al.,

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

BASF CATALYSTS, LLC, et al.,

 

Defendants.

HONORABLE JOSE L. LINARES

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify a true and accurate copy of the foregoing attached Motion to Compel is 

being served on all counsel for the parties of record listed below on this 15th day of May 2018

date via electronic delivery only. 

Eugene F. Assaf, P.C.

Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 

655 15th St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

eassaf@kirkland.com

Peter A. Farrell, Esq.

Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 

655 15th St., N.W.

Facsimile: (202) 879-5200

pfarrell@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

Kevin H. Marino, Esq.

Marino, Tortorella & Boyle, P.C.

437 Southern Boulevard

Chatham, New Jersey 07928

kmarino@khmarino.com

John A. Boyle, Esq.

Marino, Tortorella & Boyle, P.C.

437 Southern Boulevard

Chatham, New Jersey 07928

jboyle@khmarino.com

Attorneys for Defendant Arthur Dornbusch

Eric Tunis, Esq.

Herold Law, P.A.

25 Independence Boulevard

Warren, New Jersey 07059

etunis@heroldlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Thomas Halkett

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 42 of 43 PageID: 43094 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-4 Filed 05/15/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 30475
Barry H. Boise, Esquire

Anthony Vale, Esquire

Nina M. Gussack, Esquire 

Pepper Hamilton LLP

3000 Two Logan Square

18th & Arch Streets

Philadelphia, PA 19103

boiseb@pepperlaw.com

valea@pepperlaw.com

gussackn@pepperlaw.com

Angelo A. Stio, III, Esquire

Pepper Hamilton LLP

301 Carnegie Center, Suite 400

Princeton, New Jersey 08543

stioa@pepperlaw.com

Jessica S. Russell, Esquire

Pepper Hamilton LLP 

333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 400

Redwood City, CA 94065

russellj@pepperlaw.com

Attorneys for Cahill Defendants

COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH PC

/s/ CHRISTOPHER M. PLACITELLA 

_________________________________

CHRISTOPHER M. PLACITELLA

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: May 15, 2018

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 600-8 Filed 06/25/18 Page 43 of 43 PageID: 43095 Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 516-4 Filed 05/15/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 30476