Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (W.D. Wash. Oct. 18, 2019)

The decision

Court: U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington
Decided: October 18, 2019
Docket: Case No. 3:18-cv-05536-RJB
Stage: Discovery or evidence ruling
State: Washington

Outcome. The court granted in part and denied in part Toyota Motor Corporation's and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.'s renewed motion for a protective order, and set the final form of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices the plaintiff estate could use.

What the court held. In the Ninth Circuit, the scope of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is set by Rule 26 relevance and proportionality, and discovery is read liberally. A party seeking a protective order carries a heavy burden to show why discovery should be limited.

Issues decided: Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

Rudie Klopman-Baerselman; died

Who	Work	Where	When	Products
Rudie Klopman-Baerselman	owner of Toyota vehicles repaired in his garage	Rudie Klopman-Baerselman's garage (Toyota vehicles)	1965-1994	brakes, clutches and friction materials, gaskets and packing, Toyota brakes, clutches, gaskets and heat insulators
Rudie Klopman-Baerselman	Dutch merchant marine service (shipyards and maritime work)	Dutch merchant marines
Rudie Klopman-Baerselman		Tektronix

The defendants

Toyota Motor Corporation (manufacturer)
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (supplier)

Other decisions in this case

Other rulings from the same court in the same case, in our library:

Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (March 11, 2019). The court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to add DCo LLC as a defendant, over DCo's opposition.
Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (March 13, 2019). The district court denied O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff's claims against O'Reilly (Schuck's) go forward.
Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (April 22, 2019). The court granted in part and denied in part the estate's motion to compel, ordering O'Reilly to serve complete answers to the interrogatories and document requests by May 13, 2019, and declining to impose sanctions.
Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (June 4, 2019). The court denied National Automotive Parts Association's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so the plaintiff estate won this motion and the case against NAPA continues.
Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (August 5, 2019). The court granted Standard Motor Products' unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case because the plaintiff offered no evidence that the decedent was exposed to an SMP product.
Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (August 8, 2019). The court granted Cost Less Auto Parts, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case, ruling against the estate of Rudie Klopman-Baerselman.
Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (September 19, 2019). The court granted Henry Company LLC's motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case because the plaintiff offered no evidence that Henry made an asbestos-containing product the decedent used.
Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (September 20, 2019). The court granted summary judgment to Standard Motor Products and Parker-Hannifin and dismissed them from the case because the plaintiff could not show the decedent was exposed to asbestos-containing EIS brakes they made or sold.
Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (October 9, 2019). The court granted Air & Liquid Systems Corporation's motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case, because the plaintiff estate did not show the decedent was exposed to an asbestos product attributable to Air & Liquid.
Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (October 15, 2019). The federal district court granted Ingersoll-Rand's motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case, because the plaintiff did not show that the decedent was exposed to any asbestos-containing Ingersoll-Rand product.
Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (December 5, 2019). The court granted Crosby Valve's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Crosby Valve from the case, ruling against the plaintiff estate.
Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (December 5, 2019). The court denied the plaintiff estate's two motions for partial summary judgment against the defendants' affirmative defenses of alternative asbestos exposure in the Dutch Merchant Marine and at Tektronix, so the defendants kept those defenses.
Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (December 10, 2019). The court granted in part and denied in part Pneumo Abex's summary judgment motion: the Washington product liability claim survived for trial, while the plaintiff's other claims (negligence, conspiracy, Restatement 402A/402B strict liability, premises liability) were dismissed.
Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (December 12, 2019). The court denied Honeywell's summary judgment motion on the Washington product liability claim, granted it on plaintiff's other broad claims (negligence, conspiracy, 402A/402B, premises, catch-all), and denied it without prejudice on the inadequately briefed admission and punitive damages issues.
Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (December 16, 2019). The court granted Foster Wheeler's summary judgment motion and dismissed all claims against it for lack of product-identification evidence, and granted plaintiff's motion holding Foster Wheeler waived its Dutch-law limitations defense.

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

ERIC KLOPMAN-BAERSELMAN, as Personal Representative for the Estate of RUDIE KLOPMAN-

BAERSELMAN, deceased, Plaintiff,

AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, etal., Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-05536-RJB.

October 18, 2019.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma.

Rudie Klopman-Baerselman, deceased & Muriel Klopman-Baerselman, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexandra B. Caggiano, WEINSTEIN CAGGIANO PLLC & Brian Weinstein, WEINSTEIN CAGGIANO PLLC.

Eric Klopman-Baerselman, as Personal Representative for the estate of Rudie Klopman-Baerselman, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra B. Caggiano, WEINSTEIN CAGGIANO PLLC, Benjamin H. Adams, DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, pro hac vice, Brian Weinstein, WEINSTEIN CAGGIANO PLLC & Ethan A. Horne, DEAN OMAR BRANHAM SHIRLEY LLP, pro hac vice.

Borg Warner Morse Tec, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Gannon Crisera, BENNETT BIGELOW & LEEDOM, Michael J. Madderra, BENNETT BIGELOW & LEEDOM & Richard D. Ross, BENNETT BIGELOW & LEEDOM.

CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher S. Marks, TANENBAUM KEALE LLP, Erin P. Fraser, TANENBAUM KEALE LLP & Malika Johnson, TANENBAUM KEALE LLP.

Crosby Valve Inc, a Massachusetts corporation, Defendant, represented by Ronald C. Gardner, GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, sued as successor in interest Felt-Products Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by Allen Lockerman, HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP, pro hac vice, Christine E. Dinsdale, SOHA & LANG PS, Frances Lopez, HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel A. Rubin, SOHA & LANG PS & Todd N. Wade, HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG LLP, pro hac vice.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, a Delaware corporation & General Electric Company, a New York corporation, Defendants, represented by Christopher S. Marks, TANENBAUM KEALE LLP & Erin P. Fraser, TANENBAUM KEALE LLP. Genuine Parts Company, a Georgia corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeanne F. Loftis, BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC, Kevin E. Deenihan, RASMUSSEN DICKEY MOORE LLC, pro hac vice, Kurt L. Rasmussen, RASMUSSEN DICKEY MOORE LLC, pro hac vice, Mengsu Liu, RASOR HARRIS LEMON & REED, pro hac vice & Megan Uhle,

BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC.

Honeywell International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, formerly known as Allied-Products Liability Signal, Inc., successor in interest Bendix Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin P. Greene, WILCOX & SAVAGE PC, pro hac vice, Kristine E. Kruger, PERKINS COIE, Mary Z. Gaston, PERKINS COIE, Ricky A. Raven, REED SMITH LLP, pro hac vice & Joseph S. Pevsner, THOMPSON & KNIGHT, pro hac vice.

National Automotive Parts Association, a Georgia corporation also known as NAPA, Defendant, represented by Megan Uhle, BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC.

O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc, an Ohio corporation, Defendant, represented by Stephen Garrett Leatham, HEURLIN POTTER JAHN, LEATHAM, HOLTMAN & STOKER PS.

Pneumo Abex, LLC, a Delaware corporation, successor in interest Abex Corporation, Defendant, represented by Diane J. Kero, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.

Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, successor in interest Norton Company, Defendant, represented by John Michael Mattingly, RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC & Kevin Clonts, RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc, a California corporation, Defendant, represented by Jose Edward Gaitan, THE GAITAN GROUP, Virginia Leeper, THE GAITAN GROUP PLLC & John Earl Lenker, THE GAITAN GROUP PLLC.

Toyota Motor Corporation, a Japanese corporation, Defendant, represented by John Earl Lenker, THE GAITAN GROUP PLLC & Virginia Leeper, THE GAITAN GROUP PLLC.

DCO LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael Edward Ricketts, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION AND TOYOTA

MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.'S RENEWED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE

ORDER PROTECTING THEIR WITNESSES PRODUCED PURSUANT TO FED.

R. CIV. P. 30(B)(6)

ROBERT J. BRYAN, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants Toyota Motor Corporation ("TMC") and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.'s ("TMS") (collectively "Toyota Defendants") Renewed Motion for Protective Order Protecting Their Witnesses Produced Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) ("Renewed Motion"). Dkt. 399. The Court has considered the motion, all materials filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, and the remainder of the record herein, and it is fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, Toyota Defendants' Renewed Motion (Dkt. 399) should be granted, in part, and denied, in part.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 22, 2019, Toyota Defendants filed a Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 325), which the Court granted, in part, and denied, in part. Dkt. 353. The Court ruled that "Plaintiff should review, reconsider, amend, and re-serve all parts of the notices of deposition by September 24, 2019. If there is further concern about the notices, the parties should meet and confer before asking for the Court's intervention." Dkt. 353, at 7.

On October 3, 2019, Toyota Defendants filed the instant Renewed Motion. Dkt. 399. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the Renewed Motion. Dkt. 418. Toyota Defendants filed a reply in support of their Renewed Motion. Dkt. 420. Following the Court's prior ruling (Dkt. 353), Plaintiff and Toyota Defendants met and conferred twice, resulting in various revisions and a reduction in Matters of Examination ("Topics") and in Requests in the Schedule of Documents ("Requests"), as reflected in the Second Amended Notices of Deposition (Dkt. 419, at 269-300). Dkt. 399, at 2. Nevertheless, Toyota Defendants and Plaintiff were unable to agree on many of the Topics and Requests in the Second Amended Notices of Deposition. Dkts. 399; 418; and 420.

Toyota Defendants argue that the Second Amended Notices' Matters and Requests suffer from three primary defects: 1. Overbreadth and disproportionality as to time frame (Topics 3-4, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 27, 28, 38, 39, 42, and 49; Requests 3, 12, TMS Request 19/TMC Request 18,[1] TMS Request 20/TMC Request 19);

Overbreadth and disproportionality as to products at issue (Matters 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 11-24, 26, 28, 31-32, 35, 41-47, TMS Matter 53/TMC Matter 52; TMS Requests 2, 5, 6, 8-12); and
Invasion of attorney-client privilege and/or work product protections (Matters 5, 43-47, TMS Matter 52/TMC Matter 51, TMS Matter 53/TMC Matter 52; Requests 14, TMS Request 15/TMC Request 14, and

TMS Requests 22-24/TMC Requests 21-23).

Dkt. 399.

Toyota Defendants further request that the Court, in the alternative to ruling on the above requested limitations, permit the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to continue subject to a reservation of rights whereby objections can be dealt with later should a party file a subsequent motion. Dkt. 420, at 6.

Toyota Defendants provide a set of "red-lined `Revised Notices' that take into account each of their objections[.]" Dkt. 420, at 5. Dkts. 420-1; and 420-2. Toyota Defendants further provide that, "[i]f the Notices were revised in the fashion set forth, the depositions could continue as scheduled ... even without a reservation of rights." Dkt. 420, at 5. II. DISCUSSION

The rules guiding this order were laid out well by the Court in Boyer v. Reed Smith, LLP, C12-5815 RJB, 2013 WL 5724046, at [*2] (W.D. Wash. Oct. 21, 2013):

Pursuant to Fed. R.Civ. P. 30(b)(6), a party may serve notice on an organization that describes "with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested." The noticed organization must then "designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf." Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). "The persons so designated shall testify as to the matters known or reasonably available to the organization." Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6).

Although there is conflicting case law from other circuits on the proper scope of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition in light of its "reasonable particularity" requirement, districts in the Ninth Circuit have concluded that "[o]nce the witness satisfies the minimum standard [for serving as a designated witness], the scope of the deposition is determined solely by relevance under Rule 26, that is, that the evidence sought may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Detoy v. City and County of San Francisco, 196 F.R.D. 362, 367 (N.D. Cal. 2000); see also U.S. E.E.O. V. v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., 237 F.R.D. 428, 432 (D. Nev. 2006).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) provides that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense [and proportional to the needs of the case.]" The scope of discovery permissible under Rule 26 should be liberally construed; the rule contemplates discovery into any matter that bears on or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on any issue that is or may be raised in a case. Phoenix Solutions Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 254 F.R.D. 568, 575 (N.D. Cal. 2008). Discovery is not limited to the issues raised only in the pleadings, but rather it is designed to define and clarify the issues. Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 296 (C.D. Cal. 1992).

In turn, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) provides that "[o]n motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that: (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) [the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1)]." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) provides that a court "may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or

expense." To establish "good cause," a party seeking a protective order for discovery materials must "present a factual showing of a particular and specific need for the protective order." Welsh v. City and County of San Francisco, 887 F.Supp. 1293, 1297 (N.D. Cal. 1995); see also Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Co., 481 F.2d 1204, 1212 (8th Cir. 1973). In determining whether to issue a protective order, courts must consider "the relative hardship to the non-moving party should the protective order be granted." Gen. Dynamics, 481 F.2d at 1212. Under the liberal discovery principles of the Federal Rules, a party seeking a protective order carries a heavy burden of showing why discovery should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). The court may fashion any order which justice requires to protect a party, or person, from undue burden, oppression, or expense. United States v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 666 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1982).

A. Meet and Confer Requirements

Rule 26(c)(1) provides, in part, that a motion for a protective order "must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action." Toyota Defendants certify that the parties met and conferred in a good faith attempt to resolve this discovery dispute without additional court action. See Dkt. 399, at 4. Therefore, the meet and confer requirements of Rule 26(c)(1) have been met. B. Second Amended Notices of Deposition

Toyota Defendants' red-lined revised notices were particularly helpful to the Court in resolving this large-scale, unusually acrimonious discovery dispute. Attached to this order are Final "Red-lined" Notices of Videotaped Deposition edited by the Court.[2] The Final Red-lined Notices of Videotaped Deposition reflect that the Court agrees with some, but not all, of the edits and limitations requested by Toyota Defendants.

Toyota Defendants' suggested edits and limitations fall within three categories (overbroad time frame, overbroad products, client privilege/work product). The Court need not and does not discuss each of Toyota Defendants' dozens of objections and suggested edits, but the Court briefly discusses the three categories of objections and edits below. 1. Overbreadth and disproportionality as to time frame

Plaintiff has included a limited time frame of 1965 to 1994 in many, but not all, of the Topics at issue. Given the alleged time frames of Decedent's exposure to asbestos-containing products, this appears proportionate to the needs of the case. Some of Plaintiff's Topics, however, are not limited to this time frame, and it appears that many such Topics relate to whether Toyota Defendants had notice or knowledge of the effects and possible harm of using asbestos-containing products. Toyota Defendants have not shown that all discovery related to such notice or knowledge should be limited to a timeframe of 1965 to 1994. See Phoenix Solutions Inc., 254 F.R.D. at 575 ("The scope of discovery ... should be liberally construed."); Miller, 141 F.R.D. at 296 ("Discovery is not limited to the issues raised only in the pleadings; but rather it is designed to define and clarify the issues.").

The Final Red-lined Notices of Videotaped Deposition were edited accordingly.

Overbreadth and disproportionality as to products at issue

Plaintiff's Topics are primarily concerned with four general types of asbestos-containing automotive parts: brakes, clutches, gaskets, and heat insulators. Toyota Defendants seek to limit the scope of many Topics to only asbestos-containing clutches and gaskets. But it appears that discovery into Toyota Defendants' brakes, clutches, gaskets, and heat insulators, as well as asbestos and asbestos-containing parts generally, may reasonably bear on or could reasonably lead to issues that are or may be raised in this case, including issues of notice or knowledge of the effects and possible harm of asbestos exposure. See Phoenix Solutions Inc., 254 F.R.D. at 575; Miller, 141 F.R.D. at 296.

The Final Red-lined Notices of Videotaped Deposition were edited accordingly.

Invasion of attorney-client privilege and/or work product protections

"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense [and proportional to the needs of the case.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Therefore, the Final Red-lined Notices of Videotaped Deposition include Toyota Defendants' requested additional language clearly excluding privileged materials. Regardless, the Court is not optimistic that the parties will now agree as to what is and is not privileged material. The Final Red-lined Notices of Videotaped Deposition were edited accordingly.

C. Conclusion

The Court agrees with some, but not all, of Toyota Defendants' requested edits and limitations. The attached Final Red-lined Notices of Videotaped Deposition reflect the Court's decision concerning the Second Amended Notices of Deposition at

issue. Having thus ruled on Toyota Defendants' requested edits and limitations, the Court need not and does not consider Toyota Defendants' alternative request that the Court permit a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Toyota Defendants to continue subject to a reservation of rights.

III. ORDER

THEREFORE, the Court hereby ORDERS that:

• Defendants Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.'s "Renewed Motion for

Protective Order Protecting Their Witnesses Produced Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) (Dkt. 399) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, as reflected in the attached Final Red-lined Notices of Videotaped Deposition edited by the Court. Rule 30(b)(6) depositions may be conducted on the subjects in said Notices. • The Court need not and does not consider Toyota Defendants' alternative request that the Court permit a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Toyota Defendants to continue subject to a reservation of rights.

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address.

FINAL RED-LINED NOTICE OF VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF TOYOTA

MOTOR CORPORATION

MATTERS OF EXAMINATION

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 1:

Toyota's knowledge of hazards of asbestos before 1994.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 2:

A description of what brakes, clutches, gaskets, and heat insulators looked like on Toyota passenger vehicles in the United States between 1965 and 1994, and a general description of Toyota's recommended work practices to replace them during this same time period.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 3:

Toyota's relationship with Chilton Book Company and Haynes Publishing Group with respect to the specific Chilton and Haynes Toyota automotive manuals in Rudie Klopman-Baerselman's garage that are dated between 1965 and 2007. MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 4:

Information regarding the meaning of Toyota's 2006 codes of conduct #1 and #3.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 5:

Toyota's position, subjective beliefs, and opinions about the proper and reasonable conduct of a manufacturer and seller of asbestos-containing automotive products in the United States between 1965 and 1994, without reference to privileged materials or work product.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 6:

Information regarding compensation for Toyota's designated 30(b)(6) witness(es) for their work and testimony in this lawsuit. MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 7:

Information about the history of Toyota on its website.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 8:

The identity of the suppliers of Toyota's asbestos-containing brakes, clutches, gaskets, and heat insulation between 1965 and 1994, including the time period (start date and end date) of such supply.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 9:

Information regarding all material safety data sheets (MSDS) that mention asbestos Toyota received, distributed, or is currently in possession, custody, or control of that are dated between 1965 and 1994.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 10:

The brand name, manufacturer, and supplier of the asbestos-containing brakes, clutches, gaskets, and heat insulators installed as original equipment in Rudie Klopman-Baerselman's Toyota vehicles manufactured between 1960 and 1994. MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 11:

Information about whether or not Toyota distributed asbestos-containing products clutches and gaskets to Oregon and Washington between 1965 and 1994.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 12:

Information regarding Toyota's position, statements, and recommendations regarding the importance of replacing OEM Toyota asbestos-containing parts with Toyota Genuine Parts between 1965 and 1994.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 13:

Information regarding Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA) documents that identify the brand name, manufacturer, or supplier of the asbestos-containing brakes, clutches, gaskets, and heat insulators installed as original equipment in Rudie Klopman-Baerselman's Toyota vehicles manufactured between 1965 and 1994.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 14:

Toyota's position, belief, and opinion regarding whether Rayloc brand brakes and clutches, Bendix brand brakes, Borg Warner brand clutches, EIS brand brakes, Victor brand gaskets, and Fel-Pro brand gaskets can be used as replacement parts with Toyota vehicles between 1965 and 2002.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 15:

The time period (start date and end date) when Bendix was a manufacturer of brakes for Toyota vehicles between 1965 and 1994 and any and all cautions, warnings, or notifications regarding asbestos ever received by Toyota from Bendix. MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 16:

Toyota's knowledge, understanding, information, position, and opinion regarding the frequency with which the brake shoes, brake pads, clutch components, gaskets, and heat insulators in its vehicles wear out, need to be replaced, and need to be inspected, including the time period and manner in which Toyota communicated such information between 1965 and 1994. MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 17:

Toyota's recommendations regarding how to properly inspect and/or remove and replace the brakes, clutches, gaskets, and heat insulators in its vehicles, including the work practices, procedures, and tools involved in such work, and the time periods when Toyota recommended such work practices between 1965 and 1994.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 18:

Toyota's knowledge regarding whether removing, replacing, and/or inspecting the brakes, clutches, gaskets, and heat insulators in its vehicles creates any dust, as well as the time period when Toyota knew this between 1965 and 1994. MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 19:

The time period (start date and end date) and manner in which Toyota recommended that its customers use compressed air when working with brakes, clutches, gaskets, and/or heat insulators on its vehicles between 1965 and 1994, and the time period when Toyota discontinued such recommendations.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 20:

The time period and manner in which Toyota recommended that its customers grind, file, scrape, or sand the brakes, clutches, and gaskets in its automobiles between 1965 and 1994, and the time period when Toyota discontinued such recommendations.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 21:

Toyota's knowledge of the temperatures reached by the catalytic converter and/or exhaust manifold areas in its vehicles between 1965 and 1992, and how those temperatures affect the gasket material on such components.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 22:

Information regarding Toyota's marketing, sale, distribution, or involvement in any way with dust suppression systems or equipment for brakes, clutches, or gaskets, including through any of its divisions, subsidiaries, distributors, or dealers between 1965 and 2017.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 23:

The time period when Toyota first learned that its vehicles included components that contained asbestos. MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 24:

The time period when Toyota learned the laws and regulations pertaining to asbestos in California, and the content of each such law and regulation, as well as any automobile certification Toyota had to obtain from California from 1958 to 1994. MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 25:

Toyota's knowledge and awareness of EPA recommendations regarding asbestos between 1965 and 1994, including the EPA "Don't Blow It Video" and EPA "Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics" (aka the EPA Gold Book), and any actions Toyota took in response to such publications.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 26:

The time period when and manner in which Toyota first learned that breathing asbestos dust could be hazardous to human beings.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 27:

Information regarding the existence of Toyota facilities where mechanics performed automotive repair and maintenance work in the United States between 1958 and 2002.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 28:

Toyota's knowledge of federal safety standards regarding asbestos in automotive parts, including the time period and extent of such knowledge and awareness between 1958 and 1994.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 29:

Toyota's membership in any and all automotive and engineering associations in Japan and the United States, and the time period of such membership before 1994.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 30:

Information regarding Toyota's investigation into the hazards of asbestos between 1965 and 1994.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 31:

Information regarding Toyota's advertising and slogan, "We Really Care," used in the 1980s.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 32:

Information regarding the earliest asbestos lawsuits filed against Toyota, including the allegations, disease type, occupation, and Toyota's response thereto.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 33:

Toyota's knowledge regarding whether its own employees were developing asbestosrelated lung disease, the time period of such knowledge, the identity of such individuals, the job title of such individuals, and Toyota's response thereto. MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 34:

Information regarding any and all testing, studies, research and development Toyota has performed or caused to be performed regarding asbestos, and the amount of money spent on the same between 1965 and 1994.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 35:

Any and all individuals and experts Toyota has hired to perform research and development regarding safety on the asbestos-containing components of Toyota vehicles between 1965 and 1994.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 36:

Toyota's control over the words on its packaging, including Toyota's ability to provide warnings about asbestos with its products.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 37:

Toyota's knowledge of "do-it-yourselfers" as referenced in Toyota's manuals between 1965 and 1994. MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 38:

All information regarding any warnings, cautions, or notifications Toyota gave anyone regarding asbestos between 1965 and 2017.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 39:

Information regarding any recall or removal of asbestos-containing parts or vehicles performed by Toyota between 1965 and 1994.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 40:

The meaning of NOTES, CAUTIONS, and WARNINGS sections in Toyota's manuals.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 41:

Information regarding Toyota's historical and current document retention policies from 1965 to 1994. MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 42:

Information regarding any writings in which Toyota has contended, stated, or indicated in any way that asbestos is hazardous or dangerous.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 43:

The basis of Toyota's contention, position, and opinion, if made, that it has been scientifically proven that asbestos in automobiles is safe, without reference to privileged materials or work product.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 44:

Toyota's knowledge and contentions regarding any public health or epidemiological institutions that have concluded there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos when it comes to mesothelioma risk, without reference to privileged materials or work product.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 45:

Information regarding Toyota's awareness of a single government, medical, regulatory, educational, scientific, or public health organization in the world (e.g., OSHA, EPA, American Cancer Society, World Health Organization, National Institutes of Health, IARC, etc.) that agrees with Toyota's contention, if made, that repeatedly grinding and sanding asbestos-containing clutches and gaskets does not increase a person's risk of developing mesothelioma, without reference to privileged materials or work product.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 46:

Information regarding any facts, documents and witnesses that support Toyota's contention that Rudie Klopman-Baerselman was exposed to asbestos in the Dutch merchant marines, including the names of all companies and entities that Toyota contends are responsible for exposing Mr. Klopman-Baerselman to asbestos in the merchant marines, to the extent known, and without reference to privileged materials or work product.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 47:

Information regarding any companies or entities other than Toyota that Toyota contends are responsible for exposing Rudie Klopman-Baerselman to asbestos, to the extent known, and without reference to privileged materials or work product. MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 48:

Information about the manner in which Toyota searched for information and documents and prepared for the topics identified in this deposition notice.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 49:

All documents reviewed and individuals interviewed in preparation to testify as the 30(b)(6) witness for Toyota Motor Corporation in asbestos litigation.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 50:

Toyota's positions, beliefs, and opinions regarding the accuracy of the testimony of the witnesses who have testified about Toyota in this case.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 51:

The facts, documents, and witnesses with information supporting Toyota's affirmative defenses, without reference to privileged materials or work product:

a) No. 1 that Plaintiff's claimed injuries and damages are the result of their or Plaintiffs' decedent's comparative or contributory fault;

b) No. 2 that Plaintiffs' claimed injuries and damages were due to actions of third parties beyond the control of TMC;

c) No. 11 that if Plaintiffs have incurred any injury or damage, which TMC denies, TMC alleges that the risk of such injury or damage to Plaintiffs was not foreseeable;

e) No. 17 that pursuant to RCW 4.22.070, the percentage of fault that allegedly caused Plaintiffs' injuries, if any, should be apportioned among the following parties or entities: A. Plaintiffs for failure to use or properly use safety equipment, improper use of asbestos-containing products, use of cigarettes or other tobacco products, and any other factors that future discovery may disclose regarding the degree of fault attributable to the Plaintiffs; B. The other named defendants in this lawsuit; C. Asbestos manufacturers and/or suppliers and/or contractors not named in this lawsuit whose products were present or likely to be present at any of Plaintiff's work sites; D. Asbestos manufacturers and/or suppliers and/or contractors that have filed bankruptcy petitions, to specifically include, but not limited to, Johns Manville Corporation, Celotex, Carey Canada, Eagle-Picher, H.K. Porter, Unarco Industries, Amatex Corporation, Standard Asbestos Company, Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc., and Keene Corporation and all related corporate entities of the same; E. Asbestos manufacturers and/or suppliers and/or contractors not named in this lawsuit who enter into settlement agreements or releases with the Plaintiffs; F. The employers of Plaintiffs who failed to provide a safe work environment and/or adequate warnings or instructions regarding the proper application and use of asbestos-containing products, including, when appropriate, the United States government for any military installation, naval shipyard or energy facility, and any other government entity where Plaintiffs were employed; G. Other named defendants or other entities that contributed to Plaintiffs' alleged injuries having specific factual or procedural defenses against them that bar Plaintiffs' cause of action against the defendants or entities; H. TMC reserves the right to amend the allegations of this section to, as future discovery may warrant, include additional parties or entities that may have contributed to Plaintiffs' alleged injuries;

f) No. 25 that as a result of Plaintiffs' decedent's education, training and experience, they were knowledgeable of the proper use of the product and any inherent risk of any improper use of the product. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs failed to utilize the product in a manner reasonable expected of a person with their training and experience.

g) No. 38 that at all times material herein there was no known substitute for asbestos in the products distributed by TMC. The unavoidable composition of the products is a bar to recovery in strict liability against TMC;

h) No. 40 that Plaintiffs' alleged injuries were solely and proximately caused or contributed to by their contributory negligence and/or their acts or omissions including, but not limited to, the following: A. Plaintiffs failed to exercise ordinary care for their own safety when they knew, or should have known, of the hazards incident to their work; B. Plaintiffs failed to use appropriate protective clothing and equipment when they knew, or should have known, that the materials with which they were working might be harmful; C. Plaintiffs failed to use products distributed by TMS [sic] in the proper and intended manner and subjected such product to abnormal uses not reasonably foreseeable by TMS [sic]; D. Plaintiffs failed to advise, request or demand that her employers provide appropriate protective clothing and equipment and/or a suitable and safe workplace; E. Plaintiffs failed to heed advice and warnings concerning proper and safe working conditions and use of the materials with which they were working; F. Plaintiffs failed to use the safety equipment provided by their employers and/or failed to follow their employers' safety procedures; G. Plaintiffs habitually used tobacco; H. Plaintiffs voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks that caused their damages, if any, therefore

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 52:

General information regarding Toyota's relationship with Toyota Tsusho Corporation of Japan, Toyota Tsusho South Pacific (TTSPH), Toyota Tsusho Inc. and Asco Motors, including whether Asco Motors is a fully approved Toyota automotive distributor.

SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 1:

All of Toyota's annual reports from 1965 to 1994 that include the word asbestos.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 2:

Toyota's advertising and marketing materials in which it used the slogan "We Really Care" and are dated in the 1980s. DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 3:

All communications between Toyota and Chilton Book Company and Haynes Publishing Group that reference asbestos or compressed air between 1965 and 2007.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 4:

All writings regarding Toyota's analysis of the cost and price difference between asbestos-containing and asbestos-free automotive component parts between 1965 and 1994.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 5:

Writings regarding the asbestos content of Toyota's brakes, clutches, gaskets, and heat insulators between 1965 and 1994. DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 6:

All writings regarding the identity of Toyota's suppliers of asbestos-containing brakes, clutches, gaskets, heat insulators in Toyota vehicles between 1965 and 1994.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 7:

All material safety data sheets (MSDS) Toyota received, distributed, or is currently in possession, custody, or control of that reference asbestos between 1965 and 1994.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 8:

All writings regarding the brand name, supplier, and distributor of each OEM asbestos-containing component (e.g., brakes, clutches, gaskets, heat insulators) of the specific make, model, and year of each Toyota vehicle identified at deposition by Eric Klopman-Baerselman, Thomas Klopman-Baerselman, Steven Klopman-Baerselman, Lorene Shoell, Michael Heyer, and Ray Smith in this case.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 9:

All Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA) documents pertaining to brakes, clutches, gaskets, heat insulators in Rudie Klopman-Baerselman's Toyota vehicles for model years between 1965 and 1994.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 10:

All writings in Toyota's possession, custody, or control that mention Bendix brakes associated with Toyota vehicles between 1965 and 1994.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 11:

All writings in which Toyota recommended that its customers grind, file, scrape, or sand the brakes, clutches, and gaskets associated with Rudie Klopman-Baerselman's Toyota vehicles for model years between 1965 and 1994.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 12:

All writings in Toyota's possession, custody, or control relating to Toyota's marketing, sale, distribution, or involvement in any way with dust suppression systems for brakes, clutches, or gaskets, including through any of its divisions, subsidiaries, distributors, or dealers between 1965 and 1994.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 13:

All writings, if any, documenting when Toyota first learned that breathing asbestos dust could be hazardous to human beings.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 14:

All literature and publications of any kind in Toyota's possession, custody, or control that Toyota considered in concluding that the asbestos in automotive friction products is safe, without reference to privileged materials or work product. DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 15:

All writings regarding any and all testing, studies, research and development Toyota has performed or caused to be performed regarding asbestos between 1965 and 1994, without reference to privileged materials or work product. DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 16:

All writings regarding any and all individuals and experts Toyota hired, if any, to perform research and development on the asbestos-containing components of Toyota vehicles between 1965 and 1994.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 17:

All writings regarding any warnings, cautions, or notifications Toyota gave anyone regarding asbestos, including the original and legible copies of said warnings, between 1965 and 1994.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 18:

All writings in which Toyota has contended, stated, implied, or indicated in any way that asbestos is hazardous, dangerous or harmful, including to the environment, to human beings, to mechanics, to families, to wives, or to children. DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 19:

Any and all writings regarding Toyota's sale, marketing, or distribution of equipment to minimize, clean, wet down or vacuum asbestos dust, brake dust, clutch dust, gasket dust, or any other kind of dust.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 20:

All writings in which Toyota references the EPA Gold Book/Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 21:

All writings that support any contention by Toyota that Rudie Klopman-Baerselman was exposed to asbestos in the Dutch merchant marines or at Tektronix, without reference to privileged materials or work product.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 22:

All writings supporting Toyota's contention that any companies or entities other than Toyota are responsible for exposing Rudie Klopman-Baerselman to asbestos, without reference to privileged materials or work product.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 23:

The writings supporting each of Toyota's below affirmative defenses, without reference to privileged materials or work product:.

a) No. 1 that Plaintiff's claimed injuries and damages are the result of their or Plaintiffs' decedent's comparative or contributory fault;

b) No. 2 that Plaintiffs' claimed injuries and damages were due to actions of third parties beyond the control of TMC;

c) No. 11 that if Plaintiffs have incurred any injury or damage, which TMC denies, TMC alleges that the risk of such injury or damage to Plaintiffs was not foreseeable;

d) No. 13 that the state of the medical and scientific knowledge, as well as the published literature and other materials reflecting the state of the medical and scientific knowledge, at all times pertinent to TMC's asbestos-containing products was such that TMC neither knew, nor could have known, that its asbestos-containing products presented a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' decedent in the normal and expected use of the products; e) No. 17 that pursuant to RCW 4.22.070, the percentage of fault that allegedly caused Plaintiffs' injuries, if any, should be apportioned among the following parties or entities: A. Plaintiffs for failure to use or properly use safety equipment, improper use of asbestos-containing products, use of cigarettes or other tobacco products, and any other factors that future discovery may disclose regarding the degree of fault attributable to the Plaintiffs; B. The other named defendants in this lawsuit; C. Asbestos manufacturers and/or suppliers and/or contractors not named in this lawsuit whose products were present or likely to be present at any of Plaintiff's work sites; D. Asbestos manufacturers and/or suppliers and/or contractors that have filed bankruptcy petitions, to specifically include, but not limited to, Johns Manville Corporation, Celotex, Carey Canada, Eagle-Picher, H.K. Porter, Unarco Industries, Amatex

Corporation, Standard Asbestos Company, Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc., and Keene Corporation and all related corporate entities of the same; E. Asbestos manufacturers and/or suppliers and/or contractors not named in this lawsuit who enter into settlement agreements or releases with the Plaintiffs; F. The employers of Plaintiffs who failed to provide a safe work environment and/or adequate warnings or instructions regarding the proper application and use of asbestos-containing products, including, when appropriate, the United States government for any military installation, naval shipyard or energy facility, and any other government entity where Plaintiffs were employed; G. Other named defendants or other entities that contributed to Plaintiffs' alleged injuries having specific factual or procedural defenses against them that bar Plaintiffs' cause of action against the defendants or entities; H. TMC reserves the right to amend the allegations of this section to, as future discovery may warrant, include additional parties or entities that may have contributed to Plaintiffs' alleged injuries;

i) No. 46 that at all times since its enactment, TMC fully complied with the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder; and

j) No. 47 that complete and adequate instructions and warnings accompanied the product and were given to purchasers and, therefore, TMC owned no additional duty to Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs decedent.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 24:

If Toyota has withheld any document based on a claim of privilege, please produce a privilege log identifying all such documents.

FINAL RED-LINED NOTICE OF VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF TOYOTA

MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

MATTERS OF EXAMINATION

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 1:

Toyota's knowledge of hazards of asbestos before 1994.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 2:

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 3:

Information regarding the meaning of Toyota's 2006 codes of conduct #1 and

#3.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 5:

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 6:

Information regarding compensation for Toyota's designated 30(b)(6) witness(es) for their work and testimony in this lawsuit. MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 7:

Information about the history of Toyota on its website.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 8:

The identity of the suppliers of Toyota's asbestos-containing brakes, clutches, gaskets, and heat insulation between 1965 and 1994, including the time period (start date and end date) of such supply.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 9:

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 10:

Information about whether or not Toyota distributed asbestos-containing vehicles and replacement parts to Oregon and Washington between 1965 and 1994.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 12:

Information regarding Toyota's position, statements, and recommendations regarding the importance of replacing OEM Toyota asbestos-containing parts with Toyota Genuine Parts between 1965 and 1994.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 13:

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 14:

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 15:

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 18:

The time period (start date and end date) and manner in which Toyota recommended that its customers use compressed air when working with brakes, clutches, gaskets, and/or heat insulators on its vehicles between 1965 and 2007, and the time period when Toyota discontinued such recommendations.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 20:

The time period and manner in which Toyota recommended that its customers grind, file, scrape, or sand the brakes, clutches, and gaskets in its automobiles between 1965 and 2017, and the time period when Toyota discontinued such recommendations.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 21:

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 22:

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 23:

The time period when Toyota first learned that its vehicles included components that contained asbestos. MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 24:

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 26:

The time period when and manner in which Toyota first learned that breathing asbestos dust could be hazardous to human beings.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 27:

Information regarding the existence of Toyota facilities where mechanics performed automotive repair and maintenance work in the United States between 1958 and 1994.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 28:

Toyota's knowledge of federal safety standards regarding asbestos in automotive parts, including the time period and extent of such knowledge and awareness between 1958 and 1994.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 29:

Toyota's membership in any and all automotive and engineering associations in Japan and the United States, and the time period of such membership before 1994.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 30:

Information regarding Toyota's investigation into the hazards of asbestos between 1965 and 1994.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 31:

Information regarding Toyota's advertising and slogan, "We Really Care," used in the 1980s.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 32:

Information regarding the earliest asbestos lawsuits filed against Toyota, including the allegations, disease type, occupation, and Toyota's response thereto.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 33:

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 35:

Any and all individuals and experts Toyota has hired to perform research and development regarding safety on the asbestos-containing components of Toyota vehicles between 1965 and 1994.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 36:

Toyota's control over the words on its packaging, including Toyota's ability to provide warnings about asbestos with its products.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 37:

Toyota's knowledge of "do-it-yourselfers" as referenced in Toyota's manuals between 1965 and 1994. MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 38:

All information regarding any warnings, cautions, or notifications Toyota gave anyone regarding asbestos between 1965 and 2017.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 39:

Information regarding any recall or removal of asbestos-containing parts or vehicles performed by Toyota between 1965 and 2007.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 40:

The meaning of NOTES, CAUTIONS, and WARNINGS sections in Toyota's manuals.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 41:

Information regarding Toyota's historical and current document retention policies from 1965 to 1994. MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 42:

Information regarding any writings in which Toyota has contended, stated, or indicated in any way that asbestos is hazardous or dangerous.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 43:

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 44:

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 45:

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 46:

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 47:

Information about the manner in which Toyota searched for information and documents and prepared for the topics identified in this deposition notice.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 49:

Information regarding Toyota Motor Sales's investigation into the hazards of asbestos in automobiles that began in approximately 2000.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 50:

All documents reviewed and individuals interviewed in preparation to testify as the 30(b)(6) witness for Toyota Motor Corporation in asbestos litigation.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 51:

Toyota's positions, beliefs, and opinions regarding the accuracy of the testimony of the witnesses who have testified about Toyota in this case.

MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 52:

The facts, documents, and witnesses with information supporting Toyota's affirmative defenses, without reference to privileged materials or work product:

a) No. 1 that Plaintiff's claimed injuries and damages are the result of their or Plaintiffs' decedent's comparative or contributory fault;

b) No. 2 that Plaintiffs' claimed injuries and damages were due to actions of third parties beyond the control of TMC;

c) No. 11 that if Plaintiffs have incurred any injury or damage, which TMC denies, TMC alleges that the risk of such injury or damage to Plaintiffs was not foreseeable;

used tobacco; H. Plaintiffs voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks that caused their damages, if any, therefore MATTER OF EXAMINATION NO. 53: General information regarding Toyota's relationship with

Toyota Tsusho Corporation of Japan, Toyota Tsusho South Pacific (TTSPH), Toyota Tsusho Inc. and Asco Motors, including whether Asco Motors is a fully approved Toyota automotive distributor.

SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 1:

All of Toyota's annual reports from 1965 to 1994 that include the word asbestos.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 2:

Toyota's advertising and marketing materials in which it used the slogan "We Really Care" and are dated in the 1980s. DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 3:

All communications between Toyota and Chilton Book Company and Haynes Publishing Group that reference asbestos or compressed air between 1965 and 2007.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 4:

All writings regarding Toyota's analysis of the cost and price difference between asbestos-containing and asbestos-free automotive component parts between 1965 and 1994.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 5:

Writings regarding the asbestos content of Toyota's brakes, clutches, gaskets, and heat insulators between 1965 and 1994. DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 6:

All writings regarding the identity of Toyota's suppliers of asbestos-containing brakes, clutches, gaskets, heat insulators in Toyota vehicles between 1965 and 1994.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 7:

All material safety data sheets (MSDS) Toyota received, distributed, or is currently in possession, custody, or control of that reference asbestos between 1965 and 1994.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 8:

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 9:

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 10:

All writings in Toyota's possession, custody, or control that mention Bendix brakes associated with Toyota vehicles between 1965 and 1994.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 11:

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 12:

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 13:

All writings, if any, documenting when Toyota first learned that breathing asbestos dust could be hazardous to human beings.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 14:

All of the literature Toyota reviewed during its investigation into the hazards of asbestos that began in 2000, including any and all literature that supports Toyota's contention, position, or opinion that the asbestos in automotive products is safe, without reference to privileged materials or work product.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 15:

All writings regarding any and all individuals and experts Toyota hired, if any, to perform research and development on the asbestos-containing components of Toyota vehicles between 1965 and 1994.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 18:

All writings regarding any warnings, cautions, or notifications Toyota gave anyone regarding asbestos, including the original and legible copies of said warnings, between 1965 and 1994.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 19:

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 21:

All writings in which Toyota references the EPA Gold Book/Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 22:

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 23:

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 24:

The writings supporting each of Toyota's below affirmative defenses, without reference to privileged materials or work product:.

a) No. 1 that Plaintiff's claimed injuries and damages are the result of their or Plaintiffs' decedent's comparative or contributory fault;

b) No. 2 that Plaintiffs' claimed injuries and damages were due to actions of third parties beyond the control of TMS;

c) No. 4 that Plaintiffs' claimed injuries and damages are the direct and proximate result of knowing assumption of risk;

d) No. 5 that Plaintiffs have failed to join a necessary and/or indispensable party.

e) No. 7 that Plaintiffs' damages, if any, were caused by alteration and/or unintended use and/or misuse of the product;

f) No. 8 that if Plaintiffs have incurred any injury or damage, which TMS denies, TMS alleges that the risk of such injury or damage to Plaintiffs was not foreseeable;

g) No. 10 that the state of the medical and scientific knowledge, as well as the published literature and other materials reflecting the state of the medical and scientific knowledge, at all times pertinent to TMS's asbestos-containing products was such that TMS neither knew, nor could have known, that its asbestos-containing products presented a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' decedent in the normal and expected use of the products;

h) No. 12 that pursuant to RCW 4.22.070, the percentage of fault that allegedly caused Plaintiffs' injuries, if any, should be apportioned among the following parties or entities: A. Plaintiffs for failure to use or properly use safety equipment, improper use of asbestos-containing products, use of cigarettes or other tobacco

products, and any other factors that future discovery may disclose regarding the degree of fault attributable to the Plaintiffs; B. The other named defendants in this lawsuit; C. Asbestos manufacturers and/or suppliers and/or contractors not named in this lawsuit whose products were present or likely to be present at any of Plaintiff's work sites; D. Asbestos manufacturers and/or suppliers and/or contractors that have filed bankruptcy petitions, to specifically include, but not limited to, Johns Manville Corporation, Celotex, Carey Canada, Eagle-Picher, H.K. Porter, Unarco Industries, Amatex Corporation, Standard Asbestos Company, Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc., and Keene Corporation and all related corporate entities of the same; E. Asbestos manufactures and/or suppliers and/or contractors not named in this lawsuit who enter into settlement agreements or releases with the Plaintiffs; F. The employers of Plaintiffs who failed to provide a safe work environment and/or adequate warnings or instructions regarding the proper application and use of asbestos-containing products, including, when appropriate, the United States government for any military installation, naval shipyard or energy facility, and any other government entity where Plaintiffs were employed; G. Other named defendants or other entities that contributed to Plaintiffs' alleged injuries having specific factual or procedural defenses against them that bar Plaintiffs' cause of action against the defendants or entities; H. TMS reserves the right to amend the allegations of this section to, as future discovery may warrant, include additional parties or entities that may have contributed to Plaintiffs' alleged injuries;

i) No. 20 that as a result of Plaintiffs' decedent's education, training and experience, they were knowledgeable of the proper use of the product and any inherent risk of any improper use of the product. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs failed to utilize the product in a manner reasonable expected of a person with their training and experience;

j) No. 25 that at all times material herein there was no known substitute for asbestos in the products distributed by TMS. The unavoidable composition of the products is a bar to recovery in strict liability against TMS;

k) No. 27 that Plaintiffs' alleged injuries were solely and proximately caused or contributed to by their contributory negligence and/or their acts or omissions including, but not limited to, the following: A. Plaintiffs failed to exercise ordinary care for their own safety when they knew, or should have known, of the hazards incident to their work; B. Plaintiffs failed to use appropriate protective clothing and equipment when they knew, or should have known, that the materials with which they were working might be harmful; C. Plaintiffs failed to use products distributed by TMS in the proper and intended manner and subjected such product to abnormal uses not reasonably foreseeable by TMS; D. Plaintiffs failed to advise, request or demand that her employers provide appropriate protective clothing and equipment and/or a suitable and safe workplace; E. Plaintiffs failed to heed advice and warnings concerning proper and safe working conditions and use of the materials with which they were working; F. Plaintiffs failed to use the safety equipment provided by their employers and/or failed to follow their employers' safety procedures; G. Plaintiffs habitually used tobacco; H. Plaintiffs voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks that caused their damages, if any, therefore barring this action and/or reducing their recovery; and I. TMS reserves the right to add additional acts or omissions by Plaintiffs as discovery may warrant; 1) No. 29 that Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' decedent were not injured by products for which TMS is responsible. The asbestos, if any, contained in said products was not harmful in the amounts, if any, expected to be released, was locked in, encapsulated and firmly bound so that it did not release fibers sufficient to pose any health hazard;

m) No. 33 that at all times since its enactment, TMS fully complied with the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder; and

n) No. 34 that complete and adequate instructions and warnings accompanied the product and were given to purchasers and, therefore, TMS owned no additional duty to Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs decedent.

DOCUMENT REQUEST CATEGORY NO. 25:

If Toyota has withheld any document based on a claim of privilege, please produce a privilege log identifying all such documents.

[1] Plaintiff prepared separate but almost identical notices of deposition for TMC and TMS. Compare Dkt. 419, at 269-287, with Dkt. 419, at 289-300.

[2] The Court is not providing red-lined edits in the sense that it has tracked its changes made to the notices; the Court simply colored the disputed portions of the Final Red-lined Videotaped Notices in red, for the convenience of the parties. The Court made no edits to the Second Amended Notices more limiting than those edits brought to the attention of the Court by Toyota Defendants' red-lined revised notices. Moreover, the Court notes that the parties appear to have sometimes agreed to a limited time frame in one notice but not the other (e.g., Topics 19-20, 27, and 39; compare Dkt. 420-1 with Dkt. 420-2). Similarly, Toyota Defendants objected to Request 10 in the notice to TMS but not in the notice to TMC. Such incongruencies remain in the Final Red-lined Videotaped Notices edited by the Court.

Sources

This page is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Every asbestos case turns on its own facts, exposure history, diagnosis, deadlines, available evidence, and applicable law. Reviewing this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice about your specific situation, call 833-4-ASBESTOS for a free case review.

Asbestos

Exposure

Look it up

By location

Cell types

Treatment & help

Cancers

Lung disease

Not sure

Trust claims

Lawsuits

Benefits

Guides & deadlines

Look up

History

Read & watch

The firm

Reach us

Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (W.D. Wash., Oct. 18, 2019)

The decision

The people and their exposure

The defendants

Other decisions in this case

The court's opinion

Sources

How to cite it

Talk with an asbestos lawyer