Jack N. Frost, Jr. (025312005) Stephen R. Long (028811980 ...neveragainconsulting.com/Talc Toxicity Documents... · 11/10/2017 · A Delaware Limited Liability Partnership 600 Campus

91403514.1

Jack N. Frost, Jr. (025312005)

Stephen R. Long (028811980)

DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP

A Delaware Limited Liability Partnership

600 Campus Drive

Florham Park, NJ 07932-1047

Tel. 973-549-7000

Attorneys for Defendants

Johnson & Johnson and

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.

MICHELE CHAPMAN and RICHARD

CHAPMAN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BASF CATALYSTS LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

LAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY

DOCKET NO: MID- L-2911-17 AS

ASBESTOS LITIGATION

CIVIL ACTION

DEFENDANTS JOHNSON & JOHNSON

CONSUMER, INC. AND JOHNSON &

JOHNSON’S RESPONSES TO

PLAINTIFFS’ TO SUPPLEMENTAL

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS

FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

DATED NOVEMBER 10, 2017

Defendants Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. (“JJCI”) and Johnson & Johnson

(collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their attorneys, hereby provide their Responses

(“Responses”) to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Interrogatories (“Interrogatories”) and Supplemental

Requests for Production of Documents (“Requests”) stating as follows:

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT TO RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND

REQUESTS

91403514.1

- 2 -

Plaintiffs’ action concerns alleged exposure to Johnson’s® Baby Powder cosmetic talc

products sold in the United States (“JBP”).1 JBP have been manufactured and sold at various

periods of time by one or more of the Defendants and/or their predecessors, subsidiaries and

affiliates (the “J&J Companies”). JJCI is currently the entity primarily responsible for the

formulation, manufacture, testing, marketing and sale of Johnson’s® Baby Powder. Johnson &

Johnson is a holding company that does not design, manufacture, market or sell Johnson’s®

Baby Powder (or any other product).2 Accordingly, the overwhelming majority of documents

and information regarding JBP are in the possession of JJCI.

Johnson’s® Baby Powder has been sold for over a century and continues to be sold

today. Over the many decades that JBP has been sold, different entities, departments, and

employees – as well as third parties – have had responsibilities for various activities pertaining to

these products, including, but not limited to activities relating to formulation, manufacture,

testing, marketing and sale. Many of Plaintiffs’ claims relate to such activities which took place

in the mid to late 1900s and therefore many of the individuals who were involved in or had first-

hand knowledge of such activities have died or are no longer employed by any of the J&J

Companies.

In connection with personal injury actions against Defendants alleging exposure to JBP

(including actions alleging that such exposure caused ovarian cancer, mesothelioma, or other

diseases), Defendants have conducted reasonable searches at various times over the course of

many years to identify, collect and produce documents that relate in a reasonably direct manner

1 Defendants’ Document Production (as defined herein) also includes documents regarding Shower to

Shower® cosmetic talc products sold in the United States. One or more of the J&J Companies (as defined

herein) manufactured, marketed, and sold Shower to Shower® during the period from approximately 1960

to 2012. In 2012, Shower to Shower® was sold to Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (“Valeant”),

which currently manufactures, markets and sells the product. 2 For this reason, Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ collective allegations against JJCI and Johnson & Johnson

on the grounds that they are factually and legally incorrect and improper. By making this response,

Defendants do not concede that Johnson & Johnson is a proper defendant in this action.

91403514.1

- 3 -

to Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning JBP. Although Defendants’ searches generally have been

broad in scope, over the last several years, Defendants have expanded their searches to take into

account, among other factors, the development of the claims and defenses in talc personal injury

actions, discovery requests propounded on Defendants, and the overall increase in number and

scope of talc personal injury actions against Defendants. In addition, in late 2017, Defendants

re-visited sources from which documents were previously collected and made additional efforts

to identify documents that may not have been identified in connection with earlier searches.3

Responsive documents identified in connection with all of the foregoing search efforts are being

produced in this action, subject to the entry of a Protective Order in this action (the “Document

Production”).

Included within the scope of Defendants’ Document Production are documents

concerning the talc and talcum powder used in JBP (talc mining and the fabrication and

processing of talc powder, including sampling, testing and other quality control measures) as

well as documents concerning the following activities and/or subject matters: research,

formulation, specification, manufacture, quality control, labeling, sales, regulatory, adverse event

reports, health and safety-related testing, and other consideration of health and safety issues

reasonably related to JBP. Also included in the Document Production are documents that may

pertain to Johnson’s® Baby Powder sold outside the United States to the extent that they

reasonably relate to testing regarding asbestos or ovarian cancer. Reasonable efforts also have

been made to include in Defendants’ Document Production documents produced by Defendants

3 Because many of the documents collected in connection with the late 2017 search efforts were historic

paper documents, reasonable methods of de-duplicating such documents against those previously produced

are not available and, as a result, Defendants expect that many documents added to the production in

connection with the late 2017 search efforts are duplicative of documents previously produced.

91403514.1

- 4 -

(including documents obtained from certain third parties) in all personal injury actions against

Defendants involving JBP.4

In addition, Plaintiffs have served a number of sets of discovery (including these

Requests and Interrogatories) that relate to the alleged sale of JBP in the United Kingdom and

Canada (“Foreign-Related Discovery”). Notwithstanding the breadth and scope of the foregoing

searches, Defendants have undertaken additional investigation in connection with the Foreign-

Related Discovery. Defendants conducted additional reasonable searches specifically focused on

the types of information and documents sought in connection with the Foreign-Related

Discovery pertaining to Plaintiffs’ alleged exposure periods of 1969 to 2000 in the United

Kingdom and 2000 to 2003 in Canada. Defendants have not identified additional responsive

documents other than those described above as the Document Production.

By referring Plaintiffs in certain of their Responses to the materials described above,

Defendants are not stating, with respect to each and every Interrogatory or Request that they

have or have had responsive information or documents, that they agree with the characterizations

contained in the Interrogatories or Requests, or that all documents that may contain information

responsive to each and every Interrogatory and Request are included in the materials described

above. Rather, by such reference, including descriptions of what documents Defendants have a

reasonable and good faith belief would be included in the Document Production, Defendants are

stating that, if they have documents with responsive information, they have taken reasonable

steps to identify those documents and include them in the Document Production.

4 Defendants are making such documents available without waiver of their right to object to the authenticity

and/or admissibility of such documents on any ground, including but not limited to, hearsay, lack of

relevance and undue prejudice. To the extent that Defendants identify additional responsive documents in

connection with this or other personal injury actions against Defendants involving exposure to JBP, they

will supplement their Document Production and make them available in this case.

91403514.1

- 5 -

Defendants’ Document Production is in a reasonably usable, fully searchable form and

Plaintiffs can identify specific documents that may be responsive to particular Interrogatories or

Requests based on their own interpretation of such Interrogatories or Requests. Nevertheless, in

response to certain Interrogatories and Requests that are reasonably narrow in scope and specific,

Defendants have identified in their Responses by way of example Bates numbers of documents

that they have a reasonable and good faith belief are responsive to such Interrogatories and

Requests, based on their interpretation of those Interrogatories and Requests. Such references

are not intended to be a comprehensive listing of each and every document that may be

responsive to an Interrogatory or Request.

Pursuant to New Jersey Rule of Court 4:10-2(e)(2), any production of documents or

disclosure of information protected by any privilege, immunity, or doctrine, and/or any

production of a confidential document or confidential information, is not intended as, and shall

not be construed as, a waiver.

These Responses are made in a good faith effort to supply factual information and specify

legal contentions that are presently known. Defendants reserve the right to supplement and/or

amend their Responses based on information or documents discovered in connection with

ongoing investigation, discovery and/or trial preparation in accordance with the New Jersey

Rules of Court.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS

Defendants generally object to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and Requests, including but not

limited to the Instructions and Definitions, to the extent that they seek to impose obligations

beyond those set forth in the New Jersey Rules of Court, this Court’s Local Rules, Case

Management Orders or other orders entered by this Court in connection with this case, or any

91403514.1

- 6 -

other applicable law or rules. Defendants object to the definitions of the terms “defendant”,

“you”, “your”, and “your company” on the grounds that they are compound, vague, ambiguous,

and overbroad insofar as these terms as defined would refer to entities acting without any

authority from Defendants. Defendants object to the definitions of the terms “asbestos”,

“asbestos product” and “asbestos-containing product” on the grounds that they are compound,

vague, ambiguous, and overbroad insofar as they purport to include products beyond those at

issue in this litigation. Furthermore, they are as vague and ambiguous to the extent it fails to

distinguish between raw asbestos, asbestos contained in different types of products or product

components, and/or different types of asbestos fibers. Defendants never mined raw asbestos or

manufactured any asbestos-containing products. Defendants object to the definitions of the

terms “talc product” and “talc-containing product” on the grounds that they are compound,

vague, ambiguous, and overbroad insofar as they purport to include products beyond those at

issue in this litigation. Further, Defendants generally object to the extent that Plaintiffs’

Interrogatories and Request seek information and/or documents unrelated to JBP. In addition,

Defendants generally object to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and Requests to the extent that they

seek “all” information or “all documents” regarding a particular subject matter (or similarly

broad language) on the grounds that such Interrogatories and Requests (a) are vague and

ambiguous, (b) are overly broad, (c) seek information and/or documents that are not relevant, (d)

are unduly burdensome, and (e) seek information and/or documents protected from disclosure by

the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or both, as well as any other

privilege or protection recognized by law.

91403514.1

- 7 -

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS THAT APPLY TO MULTIPLE INTERROGATORIES AND

REQUESTS

Several of Defendants’ objections apply to more than one Interrogatory or Request. To

avoid repetition of objections that may apply to several of the Interrogatories and Requests, those

objections are set forth in the form of numbered paragraphs below. Where applicable, these

objections are specifically incorporated by reference to paragraph number—e.g., “Specific

Objection No. 2”—in Defendants’ Responses to particular Interrogatories and Requests below.

1. Privilege: Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and Requests to the

extent that they seek information and/or documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-

client privilege, the work product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest

doctrine, the self-critical analysis privilege, and/or any other privilege recognized by law.

2. Confidential, commercially sensitive and proprietary information: Defendants

object to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and Requests to the extent they seek information and/or

documents that are confidential, commercially sensitive and proprietary, including but not

limited to information and/or documents relating to their products’ design, testing, and

manufacturing. Defendants state that they are not withholding documents based on this

objection, but rather are producing such documents subject to the protective order entered in this

action. In addition, Defendants may redact certain of the information described above from such

documents and produce them in a redacted form.

3. Personal Information: Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and

Requests to the extent they seek personal or private information and/or documents containing

personal or private information about individuals other than Plaintiffs, including, but not limited

to, home addresses and phone numbers of Defendants’ current and former employees and

identifying information (including but not limited to medical information) regarding other

91403514.1

- 8 -

consumers of Defendants’ products. This information is not relevant, privileged, private, and/or

confidential, and Defendants are required by law to protect some or all of it from disclosure.

Defendants state that they are not withholding documents containing personal information based

on this objection, but rather are redacting personal information from documents and producing

them in a redacted form.

4. Unreasonable Scope: Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and

Requests to the extent that they are unreasonable, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not

proportional to the needs of the case (including but not limited to insofar as they are completely

unlimited as to time period or are not limited to a reasonable time period) on the grounds that

such Interrogatories and Requests violate Rule 4:10-2 of the New Jersey Rules of Court.

5. Foreign Entities: Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and Requests as

unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case because they seek to require

Defendants to obtain detailed information and documents from independent foreign entities that

may have manufactured, distributed, or sold JBP in the United Kingdom and/or Canada.

6. Discovery Regarding Relationship Among Corporate Entities: Plaintiffs object to

those requests that seek information regarding the relationship among different Johnson &

Johnson entities on the grounds that such requests are unduly burdensome and oppressive and the

information sought is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action, nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. While the Johnson & Johnson (J&J)

Defendants deny any liability in this action, to the extent any J&J entity is found liable, Johnson

& Johnson Consumer, Inc. (JJCI) is the entity that will accept such liability, regardless of

whether it was the J&J entity that manufactured, marketed or sold the product(s) at issue for the

91403514.1

- 9 -

entirety of Plaintiff’s exposure to those products, and without waiver of its position that each J&J

subsidiary and affiliate is a separate and distinct entity.

Subject to the qualifications set forth in the Introductory Statement and without waiver of

the objections stated above, Defendants respond to the individual Interrogatories and Requests as

follows.

ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. S1: State the full name, address, telephone number and

position of all corporate officers or other persons representing, providing information or

otherwise assisting you in answering these interrogatories.

ANSWER: These responses are served on behalf of Defendants JJCI and Johnson &

Johnson. Defendants’ attorneys prepared these responses after consultation with Defendants,

review of documents, and consideration of information that has been developed in the litigation.

These responses are verified by authorized agent(s) of Defendants as required by the applicable

rules. The verification form will identify the individual making the verification.

To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks additional or different information, Defendants

object on the grounds stated in Specific Objection No. 1 and 4.

INTERROGATORY NO. S2: Have any documents or records been used or referred to

in connection with the preparation of or answers to these interrogatories? If so, for each

document referred to, referenced or otherwise relied upon, state the following:

(a) The number of the interrogatory and its subpart(s) to which the document relates,

if applicable;

(b) The identity and title of the document;

91403514.1

- 10 -

(c) The name and location (including address) of the file in which the document was

found;

(d) The name and location (including address) of the file in which the document is

presently located;

(e) The originator or creator of the document.

ANSWER: Defendants’ attorneys prepared these responses after consultation with

Defendants, review of documents, and consideration of information that has been developed in

the litigation. Defendants state that they have a reasonable and good faith belief that the

materials described in the Introductory Statement include documents containing information

relating to the subject matter of this Interrogatory.


object on the grounds stated in Specific Objection No. 1 and 4.

INTERROGATORY NO. S3: As to Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in Illinois and North

Carolina between 2000 and 2016, identify and describe in detail:

(a) The location(s) at which the product packaging was designed (originally or at any

time between 2000 and 2016) or the design was altered in any way between 2000

and 2016;

(b) The names and addresses of the companies and persons responsible in any way

for the design of the version(s) of product packaging used from 2000 until 2016;

(c) The manufacturer(s), assembler(s) and distributor(s) of the product;

(d) The location(s) at which the product was manufactured and assembled;

(e) The packager(s) of the product;

(f) The location(s) at which the product was packaged;

(g) The name and address of all companies and entities in the chain of distribution

(i.e., distributor, supplier, shipper) of the products in Illinois and North Carolina,

by year if applicable;

(h) A description of the packaging for the product, including, but not limited to, size,

dimensions, colors, font, text, logos, and material (e.g., metal and plastic);

91403514.1

- 11 -

(i) A description of how the product was removed from its packaging for use,

including, but not limited to, whether there was a cap or lid; whether the cap or lid

was removable; whether the cap or lid had to be manipulated (e.g., twisted) in

order to apply the product; whether and how the product was sealed; and whether

any portion of the packaging was perforated and, if so, where;

(j) The retail and wholesale price of the product;

(k) The names and addresses of retailers that sold the product in Bloomington,

Illinois, and within twenty (20) miles thereof;

(l) The names and addresses of retailers that sold the product in Harrisburg, North

Carolina, and within twenty (20) miles thereof;

(m) The amount of talc in the product, by weight, percentage and/or other

measurement;

(n) The mine(s) from which the talc used in the product was sourced (including

reference to specific dates if the mine(s) changed);

(o) The mill(s) that processed the talc used in the product (including reference to

specific dates if the mill(s) changed);

(p) The supplier(s) of the talc used in the product (including reference to specific

dates if the supplier(s) changed);

(q) All individuals (including expert witnesses and consultants) and entities (e.g.,

laboratories) that have analyzed the product for the presence of asbestos;

(r) The results of the analyses performed in the immediately preceding subpart;

(s) All individuals (including expert witnesses and consultants) and entities (e.g.,

laboratories) that have analyzed for the presence of asbestos talc or ore from any

mine that was the source of talc for the product; and

(t) The results of the analyses performed in the immediately preceding subpart.

ANSWER: Defendants state that JBP has not contained and does not contain asbestos.

Without conceding any characterizations contained in this Interrogatory, Defendants state that

JJCI currently markets and sells JBP throughout the United States. One or more of the J&J

Companies marketed and sold JBP since approximately 1894. Defendants further state that JBP

is currently manufactured by PTI Royston, LLC/Pharma Tech Industries in Royston, Georgia,

91403514.1

- 12 -

pursuant to contract with JJCI. In addition, Defendants state that neither they nor any other of

the J&J Companies are currently engaged in the exploration for or mining of talc and that none

of the J&J Companies has owned a talc mine since 1989. Many documents relating to the mines

sold in 1989 were transferred to the purchaser, Cyprus Minerals, at the time of sale. Defendants

further state that they have a reasonable and good faith belief that the materials described in the

Introductory Statement include documents containing information relating to the subject matter

of this Interrogatory.

Defendants state that one or more of the J&J Companies have sourced talc ore for use in

JBP from mines located in Italy (Val Chisone), the United States (Hammondsville, Argonaut,

Rainbow, and Hamm (Windham), all located in Vermont), and China (Zhizhua quarry, Guping

quarry, Huamei mine, Shang Lang quarry, and Tongzi quarry).

For use in JBP, Defendants have a reasonable and good faith belief that talc was sourced

from the following locations during approximately the following periods:

DATE MINE SUPPLIER

1946–1964 Val Chisone, IT Charles Mathieu

1964–1966 Hammondsville, VT

Val Chisone, IT

Eastern Magnesia Talc Company

Charles Mathieu

1966–1979 Hammondsville Windsor Minerals


1980 Hammondsville

Val Chisone, IT

Windsor Minerals


1989–1990 Hammondsville

Argonaut

Rainbow

Cyprus Minerals


Argonaut

Rainbow

Hamm (Windham)

Cyprus Minerals

91403514.1

- 13 -

DATE MINE SUPPLIER


Argonaut

Rainbow

Hamm (Windham)

Luzenac

2000–2001 Argonaut

Rainbow

Hamm (Windham)

Luzenac

2001–2002 Argonaut Luzenac

2002–2003 Argonaut Luzenac

2003–2009 Zhizhua quarry

Guping quarry

Huamei mine

Shang Lang quarry

Tongzi quarry

Luzenac

2009–2010 Zhizhua quarry Rio Tinto (f/k/a Luzenac)

2010 Argonaut Rio Tinto (f/k/a Luzenac)

2010–Present Zhizhua quarry Imerys (f/k/a Rio Tinto (f/k/a Luzenac))

In addition, Defendants state that they have a reasonable and good faith belief that the materials

described in the Introductory Statement include documents containing information regarding talc

sources for JBP. JJCI’s current milling source is Imerys Talc America, Houston, TX. The

Johnson’s® Baby Powder is currently manufactured by PTI Royston, LLC/Pharma Tech

Industries (Royston, GA) pursuant to contract with JJCI. Talc used in Johnson’s® Baby Powder

may be sanitized by either Imerys Talc America or PTI Royston, LLC/Pharma Tech Industries.

Both Imerys and PTI Royston, LLC/Pharma Tech Industries also conduct testing in connection

with the functions they perform.

Defendants state that extensive testing to confirm that JBP has not contained and does not

contain asbestos or other contaminants has been and continues to be performed. Defendants

further state that various entities have performed testing on JBP and talc used in JBP and other

talc-containing products during the periods in which those products have been sold. Defendants

state that one or more of the J&J Companies have performed such testing, including at an

91403514.1

- 14 -

internal testing laboratory at a facility in Royston, Georgia. In addition, numerous third parties

have been involved in testing JBP and/or talc supplied for use in JBP and/or other talc-containing

products. Such third parties include contract manufacturers, suppliers, and laboratories

(independent, university, and governmental), including but not limited to the following5:

PTI Royston, LLC/Pharma Tech Industries

Imerys Talc America

Charles Mathieu

Cyprus Minerals

Windsor Minerals

Luzenac America

Rio Tinto

AMA Analytical

Forensic Analytical

McCrone Associates

EMV Associates

ES Laboratories

R.J. Lee Group

Battelle Memorial Institute

Colorado School of Mines

University College, Cardiff U.K.

Carnegie Mellon

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Princeton University

Harvard University School of Public Health

United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA)

United States Geological Survey (USGS)

National Institute of Occupational Health & Safety (NIOSH)

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Defendants further state that they have a reasonable and good faith belief that documents

concerning such testing are among the materials described in the Introductory Statement,

including but not limited to the following (beginning Bates numbers):

5 The listed entities did not necessarily provide testing for JBP, as that term is defined in

the Introductory Statement.

JNJ000384469 JNJ000280775 JNJ000239636

JNJ000383016 JNJ000382986 JNJ000423308

91403514.1

- 15 -


object on the grounds stated in Specific Objection Nos. 1 (including to the extent that this

Interrogatory seeks information regarding Defendants’ consulting experts for this or other

litigation or prematurely seeks the disclosure of Defendants’ testifying experts in this litigation),

2 and 4.

INTERROGATORY NO. S4: As to Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in the United

Kingdom between 1969 and 2000, identify and describe in detail:



and 2000;








(i.e., distributor, supplier, shipper) of the products in the United Kingdom, by year

if applicable;






JNJ000383087 JNJ000347608 JNJ000223427

JNJ000375817 JNJ000521581 JNJ000241173

JNJ000866688

91403514.1

- 16 -




(k) The names and addresses of retailers that sold the product in Iver,

Buckinghamshire, and within twenty (20) miles thereof;

(l) The amount of talc in the product, by weight, percentage and/or other

measurement;

(m) The mine(s) from which the talc used in the product was sourced (including


(n) The mill(s) that processed the talc used in the product (including reference to


(o) The supplier(s) of the talc used in the product (including reference to specific


(p) All individuals (including expert witnesses and consultants) and entities (e.g.,


(q) The results of the analyses performed in the immediately preceding subpart;

(r) All individuals (including expert witnesses and consultants) and entities (e.g.,



(s) The results of the analyses performed in the immediately preceding subpart.



they have a reasonable and good faith belief that Johnson & Johnson, Ltd., one of the J&J

Companies, marketed, distributed and sold JBP throughout the United Kingdom during the

period of time that Plaintiff alleges exposure. Defendants further state that, during the period of

time that Plaintiff alleges exposure, Johnson & Johnson, Ltd. sourced talc ore for use in JBP

from mines located in Italy (Val Chisone) until approximately 1985, Australia (Mount Seabrook)

from approximately 1985 to 1999 and China (Guiguang) starting in approximately 1999, and that

the talc was also milled at these locations. In addition, Defendants state that, during the period

91403514.1

- 17 -

of time that Plaintiff alleges exposure until approximately 1999, JBP sold in the United Kingdom

was manufactured at a plant located in Portsmouth, UK, where JBP was sanitized, tested for

purity, processed and bottled. In or around 1999, the manufacturing, sanitizing, testing for

purity, processing and bottling of JBP was moved to a facility in Guiguang, China. In addition,

as to subparts (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l), Defendants have conducted reasonable searches relating to

this Interrogatory and have not found responsive information. Defendants further state that they

have a reasonable and good faith belief that the materials described in the Introductory Statement

include documents containing information relating to the subject matter of this Interrogatory.





2, 4, 5 and 6.

INTERROGATORY NO. S5: As to Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in Ontario, Canada,

between 2000 and 2003, identify and describe in detail:



and 2003;







91403514.1

- 18 -


(i.e., distributor, supplier, shipper) of the products in Ontario, Canada, by year if

applicable;









(k) The names and addresses of retailers that sold the product in Kitchener, Ontario,

and within twenty (20) miles thereof;

(l) The names and addresses of retailers that sold the product in Ayr, Ontario, and

within twenty (20) miles thereof;

(m) The amount of talc in the product, by weight, percentage and/or other

measurement;

(n) The mine(s) from which the talc used in the product was sourced (including


(o) The mill(s) that processed the talc used in the product (including reference to


(p) The supplier(s) of the talc used in the product (including reference to specific


(q) All individuals (including expert witnesses and consultants) and entities (e.g.,


(r) The results of the analyses performed in the immediately preceding subpart;

(s) All individuals (including expert witnesses and consultants) and entities (e.g.,



(t) The results of the analyses performed in the immediately preceding subpart.



91403514.1

- 19 -

they have a reasonable and good faith belief that Johnson & Johnson Inc. Canada, one of the J&J

Companies, marketed, distributed and sold JBP throughout Canada during the period of time that

Plaintiff alleges exposure. Defendants further state that, during the period of time that Plaintiff

alleges exposure, the supplier of talc, miller, processor and manufacturer of JBP sold in Canada

were the same as the supplier of talc, miller, processor and manufacturer of JBP sold in the

United States and, therefore, Defendants refer to and incorporate herein their Response to

Interrogatory No. 3.





2, 4, 5 and 6.

INTERROGATORY NO. S6: Identify all individuals and entities that participated in

the design of any registered or unregistered trademark appearing on bottles of Johnson’s Baby

Powder sold in Illinois and North Carolina between 2000 and 2016.

ANSWER: Defendants object to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in Specific

Objection Nos. 4, 5 and 6, and on the additional grounds that that it seeks information that is not

relevant and/or not proportional to the needs of the case.



Powder sold in the United Kingdom between 1969 and 2000.

91403514.1

- 20 -






Powder sold in Ontario, Canada, between 2000 and 2003.




INTERROGATORY NO. S9: Identify the entities that, between 2000 and 2016,

registered or owned or otherwise controlled the rights to utilize any registered or unregistered

trademark appearing on bottles of Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in Illinois and North Carolina.






trademark appearing on bottles of Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in the United Kingdom.




91403514.1

- 21 -



trademark appearing on bottles of Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in Ontario, Canada.




INTERROGATORY NO. S12: Did you require, specify, demand, mandate, order or

otherwise control or influence Johnson & Johnson Ltd. or any other foreign subsidiaries to place

“Johnson & Johnson,” “Johnson’s” and/or “Baby Powder” on containers of Johnson’s Baby

Powder sold in the United Kingdom prior to 2000? If so:

(a) Identify all documents regarding said requirement, specification, demand,

mandate or order;

(b) State the purpose of said requirement, specification, demand, mandate or order;

and

(c) Identify all individuals (name, age and last known address, telephone number and

email address) with knowledge of said requirement, specification, demand,

mandate or order.




INTERROGATORY NO. S13: Did you require, specify, demand, mandate, order or

otherwise control or influence Johnson & Johnson Inc. (Canada) or any other foreign subsidiaries

to place “Johnson & Johnson,” “Johnson’s” and/or “Baby Powder” on containers of Johnson’s

Baby Powder sold in Ontario, Canada, between 2000 and 2003? If so:

91403514.1

- 22 -

(a) Identify all documents regarding said requirement, specification, demand,

mandate or order;

(b) State the purpose of said requirement, specification, demand, mandate or order;

and

(c) Identify all individuals (name, age and last known address, telephone number and

email address) with knowledge of said requirement, specification, demand,

mandate or order.




INTERROGATORY NO. S14: Identify all facts and documents that support your

contention, if any, that any analysis of Johnson’s Baby Powder demonstrating the presence of

asbestos was the result of contamination of the sample.

ANSWER: Defendants state that extensive testing to confirm that JBP has not

contained and does not contain asbestos or other contaminants has been and continues to be

performed. Defendants further state that various entities have performed testing on JBP and talc

used in JBP and other talc-containing products during the periods in which those products have

been sold. Defendants state that one or more of the J&J Companies have performed such testing,

including at an internal testing laboratory at a facility in Royston, Georgia. In addition,

numerous third parties have been involved in testing JBP and/or talc supplied for use in JBP

and/or other talc-containing products. Such third parties include contract manufacturers,

suppliers, and laboratories (independent, university, and governmental), including but not limited

to the following6:

PTI Royston, LLC/Pharma Tech Industries

Imerys Talc America

6 The listed entities did not necessarily provide testing for JBP, as that term is defined in

the Introductory Statement.

91403514.1

- 23 -

Charles Mathieu

Cyprus Minerals

Windsor Minerals

Luzenac America

Rio Tinto

AMA Analytical

Forensic Analytical

McCrone Associates

EMV Associates

ES Laboratories

R.J. Lee Group

Battelle Memorial Institute

Colorado School of Mines

University College, Cardiff U.K.

Carnegie Mellon

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Princeton University

Harvard University School of Public Health

United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA)

United States Geological Survey (USGS)

National Institute of Occupational Health & Safety (NIOSH)

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Defendants further state that they have a reasonable and good faith belief that documents

concerning such testing are among the materials described in the Introductory Statement,


Defendants state that testing methods used in connection with talc testing have varied

depending on the testing entity and the time period in which the test was conducted. Defendants

state that the following types of testing have been utilized by different testing entities at different

times:

x-ray diffraction;

JNJ000384469 JNJ000280775 JNJ000239636

JNJ000383016 JNJ000382986 JNJ000423308

JNJ000383087 JNJ000347608 JNJ000223427

JNJ000375817 JNJ000521581 JNJ000241173

JNJ000866688

91403514.1

- 24 -

differential thermal analysis;

scanning electron microscopy (SEM);

optical microscopy;

polarized light microscopy;

transmission electron microscopy (TEM); and

selected area electron diffraction (SAED).

Defendants state that they have a reasonable and good faith belief that the materials described in

the Introductory Statement include documents containing information regarding the subject

matter of this Interrogatory, including but not limited to the following (beginning Bates

numbers):


object on the grounds stated in Specific Objection Nos. 1 and 4, and on the additional grounds

that this Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and confusing.

INTERROGATORY NO. S15: Identify all samples of Johnson’s Baby Powder in your

possession that were manufactured for the United States market between 2000 and 2016.

ANSWER: Defendants have received multiple requests for production of various talc-

related materials across multiple venues. In connection with those requests, Defendants have

made reasonable efforts to identify such materials and have compiled inventories of such

materials. Without conceding that any of the materials were retained for purposes of testing or

are otherwise suitable for testing, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to such inventories, which will be

provided to Plaintiffs.

JNJ000061563 JNJ000061567 JNJ000133381

JNJ000245548 JNJ000294620 JNJ000358049

JNJ000866706 JNJ000876200

91403514.1

- 25 -


object on the grounds stated in Specific Objection Nos. 2 and 4


possession that were manufactured for the United Kingdom market between 1969 and 2000.

ANSWER: Defendants refer to and incorporate herein their Response to Interrogatory

No. 15.


object on the grounds stated in Specific Objection Nos. 2, 4 and 5.


possession that were manufactured for the Canadian market between 2000 and 2003.


No. 15. Defendants further state that, during the period of time that Plaintiff alleges exposure,

the supplier of talc, miller, processor and manufacturer of JBP sold in Canada were the same as

the supplier of talc, miller, processor and manufacturer of JBP sold in the United States and,

therefore, Defendants refer to the inventory of materials from JBP sold in the United States.



INTERROGATORY NO. S18: Identify all samples of talc or ore in your possession

from any mine that served as the source of talc for Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in the United

States between 2000 and 2016.


No. 15.

91403514.1

- 26 -


object on the grounds stated in Specific Objection Nos. 2 and 4.



Kingdom between 1969 and 2000.


No. 15.




from any mine that served as the source of talc for Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in Canada

between 2000 and 2003.


No. 15. Defendants further state that, during the period of time that Plaintiff alleges exposure,

the supplier of talc, miller, processor and manufacturer of JBP sold in Canada were the same as

the supplier of talc, miller, processor and manufacturer of JBP sold in the United States and,




INTERROGATORY NO. S21: Identify all geologist you employed between 2000 and

2016.

91403514.1

- 27 -

ANSWER: Defendants state that Bill Ashton, who was employed by one or more of

the J&J Companies from the 1950s through the 1990s and died in 2003, assisted in identifying

talc sources.


object on the grounds stated in Specific Objection No. 4.

INTERROGATORY NO. S22: Identify all mineralogists you employed between 2000

and 2016.

ANSWER: Defendants state that Bill Ashton, who was employed by one or more of

the J&J Companies from the 1950s through the 1990s and died in 2003, assisted in identifying

talc sources.



INTERROGATORY NO. S23: State the amount of money or other financial support

have you provided annually to the Personal Care Products Council (f/k/a Cosmetics, Toiletry,

and Fragrance Association) since 1969?

ANSWER: Defendants state that they are a member of the Personal Care Products

Council. Defendants further state that they have a reasonable and good faith belief that the


regarding the Defendants’ membership in the Personal Care Products Council (formerly known

as Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association).



91403514.1

- 28 -

INTERROGATORY NO. S24: State the expenses you have incurred to analyze talc or

talc-containing products for the presence of asbestos annually since 1969?

ANSWER: Without conceding any characterizations contained in this Request,


contain asbestos or other contaminants has been and continues to be performed, including by

third parties such as contract manufacturers, talc suppliers, and independent, university, and

governmental laboratories. Defendants further state that they have a reasonable and good faith

belief that documents concerning such testing are among the materials described in the

Introductory Statement, including but not limited to the following (beginning Bates numbers):

To the extent that this

Interrogatory seeks additional or different information, Defendants object on the grounds stated

in Specific Objection No. 4.

INTERROGATORY NO. S25: Identify all facts and documents that support your

allegation, if any, that Michelle Chapman’s mesothelioma was not caused by exposure to

asbestos.

ANSWER: Defendants state that JBP has not contained and does not contain asbestos

and deny that they are responsible for Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries. Defendants further state that

discovery in this action is ongoing and continuing. Defendants state that they may supplement

this Response with additional information about their contentions as they are formed.



JNJ000384469 JNJ000280775 JNJ000239636

JNJ000383016 JNJ000382986 JNJ000423308

JNJ000383087 JNJ000347608 JNJ000223427

JNJ000375817 JNJ000521581 JNJ000241173

JNJ000866688

91403514.1

- 29 -

INTERROGATORY NO. S26: State the annual revenue from Johnson’s Baby Powder

sold in the United States annually since 2000.

ANSWER: Defendants state that they have a reasonable and good faith belief that the


relating to the subject matter of this Interrogatory, including but not limited to the following

(beginning Bates numbers):

Defendants further refer Plaintiffs to publicly-available 10-K and 10-Q filings, which may be

located, among other locations, at http://www.investor.jnj.com/sec.cfm.




sold in the United Kingdom annually between 1969 and 2000.


No. 26.




sold in Canada annually between 2000 and 2003.


No. 26.



JNJ000415584 JNJ000419388 JNJ000419674

JNJ000419675 JNJ000419676

91403514.1

- 30 -

INTERROGATORY NO. S29: Describe in full the terms of all agreements you had

with Johnson & Johnson Ltd. that were effective at any time between 1969 and 2000 regarding:

(a) The design, specifications, manufacture or distribution of Johnson’s Baby Powder

sold in the United Kingdom;

(b) The use of any of your registered or unregistered trademarks on containers of

Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in the United Kingdom; and

(c) Royalties, profit and other income related to Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in the

United Kingdom.




INTERROGATORY NO. S30: Describe in full the terms of all agreements you had

with Johnson & Johnson Inc. (Canada) that were effective at any time between 2000 and 2003

regarding:




Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in Canada; and

(c) Royalties, profit and other income related to Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in

Canada.




INTERROGATORY NO. S31: What percentage of Johnson & Johnson Ltd. have you

owned between 1969 and the date the complaint was filed?

91403514.1

- 31 -




INTERROGATORY NO. S32: What percentage of Johnson & Johnson Inc. (Canada)

have you owned between 2000 and the date the complaint was filed?




INTERROGATORY NO. S33: Has Johnson & Johnson Ltd., between 1969 and 2000,

ever qualified as a disregarded entity for your tax purposes in the United States?




INTERROGATORY NO. S34: Has Johnson & Johnson Inc. (Canada), between 2000

and 2003, ever qualified as a disregarded entity for your tax purposes in the United States?




RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: All documents consulted in preparation of

your responses to these requests for production.

91403514.1

- 32 -

RESPONSE: Defendants’ attorneys prepared these responses after consultation with

Defendants, review of documents, and consideration of information that has been developed in

the litigation. Defendants refer Plaintiffs to the materials described in the Introductory

Statement.

To the extent that this Requests seeks a different response, Defendants object on the

grounds stated in Specific Objection Nos. 1 and 4.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: All documents identified in your answers to

all parties’ interrogatories.

RESPONSE: Defendants refer Plaintiffs to their Responses to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories

and the documents identified therein, as well as the materials described in the Introductory

Statement.

To the extent that this Requests seeks a different response, Defendants object on the


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: All correspondence, memoranda, notes,

reports, documents and other materials of any type or form identifying the mines from which talc

was sourced that was used in Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in the United States between 2000

and 2016.

RESPONSE: Defendants refer Plaintiffs to the materials described in the Introductory

Statement, which Defendants have a reasonable and good faith belief include non-privileged

documents regarding the mines and suppliers from which talc for use in JBP was sourced by JJCI

or one or more of the J&J Companies from 2000 to 2016.

To the extent that this Request seeks a different response, Defendants object on the


91403514.1

- 33 -


reports, documents, and other materials of any type or form identifying the mines from which

talc was sourced that was used in Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in the United Kingdom between

1969 and 2000.



documents related to the subject matter of this Request.


grounds stated in Specific Objection Nos. 2, 4 and 5.


reports, documents and other materials of any type or form identifying the mines from which talc

was sourced that was used in Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in Ontario, Canada, between 2000

and 2003.






REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All correspondence, memoranda, reports,

documents and other materials of any type or form relating to analysis of the potential,

suspected, alleged or actual presence of asbestos in Johnson’s Baby Powder (or the talc used

therein) sold in the United States between 2000 and 2016.

91403514.1

- 34 -

RESPONSE: Without conceding any characterizations contained in this Request,








grounds stated in Specific Objection No. 4.




therein) sold in the United Kingdom between 1969 and 2000.

RESPONSE: Defendants state that JBP has not contained and does not contain

asbestos. Without conceding any characterizations contained in this Request, Defendants refer

Plaintiffs to the materials described in the Introductory Statement, which Defendants have a

reasonable and good faith belief include non-privileged documents related to the subject matter

of this Request.



JNJ000384469 JNJ000280775 JNJ000239636

JNJ000383016 JNJ000382986 JNJ000423308

JNJ000383087 JNJ000347608 JNJ000223427

JNJ000375817 JNJ000521581 JNJ000241173

JNJ000866688

91403514.1

- 35 -




therein) sold in Canada between 2000 and 2003.

RESPONSE: Defendants state that JBP has not contained and does not contain

asbestos. Without conceding any characterizations contained in this Request, Defendants refer

Plaintiffs to the materials described in the Introductory Statement, which Defendants have a


of this Request.



REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: All photographs and images depicting

containers of Johnson’s Baby Powder that was sold in the United Kingdom between 1969 and

2000.






REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: All photographs and images depicting

containers of Johnson’s Baby Powder that was sold in Canada between 2000 and 2003.

91403514.1

- 36 -






REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: All documents and other materials of any

type or form relating to communication from, to or with your suppliers, miners, millers or

distributors of talc regarding the alleged, potential, disputed, disproven or actual asbestos content

of talc used in Johnson’s Baby Power sold in the United States between 2000 and 2016.

RESPONSE: Defendants state that JBP has not contained and does not contain asbestos.

Without conceding any characterizations contained in this Request, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to

the materials described in the Introductory Statement, which Defendants have a reasonable and

good faith belief include non-privileged documents related to the subject matter of this Request.

To the extent this Request seeks a different response, Defendants object to this Request

on the grounds stated in Specific Objection No. 4.




of talc used in Johnson’s Baby Power sold in the United Kingdom between 1969 and 2000.





91403514.1

- 37 -






of talc used in Johnson’s Baby Power sold in Canada between 2000 and 2003.








reports, documents and other materials of any type or form relating to communication between

you and the CTFA or any other government agency, department or representative relating to

health hazards (potential, alleged, suspected, actual or otherwise) of asbestos.




good faith belief include non-privileged documents related to the subject matter of this Request,


JNJ000092018 JNJ000092073 JNJ000405234

JNJ000405302 JNJ000405464 JNJ000368256

JNJ000368262 JNJ000368455 JNJ000368539

91403514.1

- 38 -



REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: All documents supporting your allegation,

claim, position or contention that other parties or non-parties are responsible, wholly or partially,

for Michelle Chapman’s asbestos exposure or otherwise for the injuries as alleged in the

complaint.

RESPONSE: Defendants state that JBP has not contained and does not contain asbestos





grounds stated in Specific Objection No. 1 and 4.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: All documents relating in any way to the

potential, alleged, disputed, or actual health hazards associated with inhalation and/or ingestion

of asbestos from any products identified by Michelle Chapman or any other witness that were

not manufactured by you.

RESPONSE: Defendants object on the grounds stated in Specific Objection No. 4 and

on the additional grounds that this Request is vague, ambiguous and confusing as directed to

Defendants.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: All documents relating to your first

knowledge (and the development and evolution of said knowledge), research, notice or

JNJ000368592 JNJ000368673 JNJ000368703

91403514.1

- 39 -

awareness of the potential, alleged, disputed, or actual presence of asbestos in talc or talc-

containing products.










REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: All written, recorded, filmed, transcribed

and videotaped statements of all parties and non-party declarants pertaining to Michelle

Chapman’s medical history, work history, asbestos exposure, product usage or otherwise.

RESPONSE: Defendants state that their investigation in this matter, including

discovery, is ongoing and continuing. Defendants refer Plaintiffs to Plaintiff’s medical records

and to the materials described in the Introductory Statement, which Defendants have a


of this Request as it pertains to JBP.

JNJ000384469 JNJ000280775 JNJ000239636

JNJ000383016 JNJ000382986 JNJ000423308

JNJ000383087 JNJ000347608 JNJ000223427

JNJ000375817 JNJ000521581 JNJ000241173

JNJ000866688

91403514.1

- 40 -



REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: All samples of Johnson’s Baby powder in

your possession, custody or control that were manufactured for sale in the United States between

2000 and 2016.

RESPONSE: Defendants have received multiple requests for production of various talc-

related materials across multiple venues. In connection with those requests, Defendants have

made reasonable efforts to identify such materials and has compiled inventories of such

materials. Without conceding that any of the materials were retained for purposes of testing or

are otherwise suitable for testing Defendants refers Plaintiffs to such inventories, which will be

provided to Plaintiffs. In addition, an order has been entered in In re: Johnson & Johnson

Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL

No. 16-2738 (“New Jersey MDL”), governing the handling and division of the foregoing

samples. Defendants will comply with that order, a copy of which is attached hereto.

To the extent that this Request seeks an additional or different response, Defendants


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: All samples of Johnson’s Baby Powder in

your possession, custody or control that were manufactured for sale in the United Kingdom


RESPONSE: Defendants refer to and incorporate herein their Response to Request No.

19.



91403514.1

- 41 -


your possession, custody or control that were manufactured for sale in Canada between 2000 and

2003.


19. Defendants further state that, during the period of time that Plaintiff alleges exposure, the

supplier of talc, miller, processor and manufacturer of JBP sold in Canada were the same as the

supplier of talc, miller, processor and manufacturer of JBP sold in the United States and,




REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: All statements, obtained by you, your

counsel or otherwise, that relate to facts, circumstances, incidents, injuries or damages that form

the basis of the complaint.


discovery, is ongoing and continuing. Defendants refer Plaintiffs to the materials described in

the Introductory Statement, which Defendants have a reasonable and good faith belief include

non-privileged documents related to the subject matter of this Request as it pertains to JBP.


grounds stated in Specific Objection Nos. 1 and 4 and on the additional grounds that this Request

is premature, vague, ambiguous and confusing.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: All sworn, recorded or substantially

verbatim statements of any person with information relevant to this matter.

91403514.1

- 42 -


discovery, is ongoing and continuing. Defendants refer Plaintiffs to the materials described in

the Introductory Statement, which Defendants have a reasonable and good faith belief include

non-privileged documents related to the subject matter of this Request as it pertains to JBP.


grounds stated in Specific Objection Nos. 1 and 4, and on the additional grounds that this

Request is premature, vague, ambiguous and confusing.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: All transcripts of testimony and other sworn

statements (including exhibits thereto) of any witness who you may call at the trial of this matter.

RESPONSE: Defendants state that they will identify their testifying witnesses at the

time and to the extent required by the New Jersey Rules of Court and applicable scheduling

orders.



REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: All transcripts, including exhibits, of

testimony (deposition, trial or otherwise) by any of your employees or representatives in asbestos

litigation or otherwise relating to your talc-containing cosmetic or personal hygiene products.



documents related to the subject matter of this Request. Defendants further refer Plaintiffs to the

following depositions of persons most knowledgeable taken in cases wherein it is alleged that

cosmetic talcum powder products contained asbestos and caused or contributed to a person’s

91403514.1

- 43 -

development of an asbestos-related disease or caused or contributed to a person’s ovarian cancer,

the transcripts of which are equally available to Plaintiffs:

I. Ovarian Cancer Litigation

II. Asbestos Litigation Deponent’s

Name

Case Name Deposition Date Court Reporter

John Hopkins Durham v. Met Life Ins.

Case No. 05C-01-

136ASB

March 6, 2007 Gail Inghram Verbano

Miller-Verbano Reporting

(302) 449-0528

Payan v. CBS Corp.

Case No. BC 608412

August 24, 2016 Giselle Girard

U.S. Legal Support

(415) 362-4346

Herford v. AT&T Corp.

Case No. BC 46315

Etheridge v. Brenntag N.

Am.

Case No. MID-L-0932-

17 AS

Teuscher v. Brenntag N.

Am.

Case No. MID-L-7249-

16 AS

Verdolotti v. Brenntag N.

Am.

Case No. MID-L- 5973-

16 AS

August 15-18,

2017

(Testified as a

30(b)(6) witness)

Deirdra Jordan

Priority One Court Reporting

Services, Inc. – A Veritext

Co.

(718) 983-1234

Deponent’s Name Case Name Deposition Date Court Reporter

Hopkins, John Berg v. J&J Consumer

Cos.

Case No. 4:09-CV-04179-

KES

October 19, 2012 Merrill Corporation-

Mississippi

(800) 372-3376

Telofski, Lorena Berg v. J&J Consumer

Cos.

Case No. 4:09-CV-04179-

KES

October 15, 2012 Merrill Corporation-

Mississippi

(800) 372-3376

Echeverria v. J&J

Case No. BC628228

June 29, 2017 Golkow Litigation

Services

(877) 370-3377

Waldstreicher,

Janet

Ingham v. J&J

Case No. 1522-CC10417-

01

April 19, 2017 Golkow Litigation

Services

(877) 370-3377

91403514.1

- 44 -

Grabowski v. Brenntag

N. Am., et al., Case No.

L-6805-16 (AS)

February 1, 2018

(Testified as a

30(b)(6) witness)

Hindy Freilich

Magna Legal Services

(866) 624-6221

Grabowski v. Brenntag

N. Am., et al., Case No.

L-6805-16 (AS)

February 9, 2018

(Testified as a

30(b)(6) witness)

Marc Brody

Brody Deposition Services

235 East Broad Street, Suite 1

Westfield, New Jersey 07090

908.789.2000

Roger Miller Westfall v. Whittaker,

Clark, & Daniels

Case No. 79-0269

October 29, 1982 Lynne Irons

Woods & Irons

(401) 331-6434

Maggie v. Owens-

Corning Fiberglas Corp.

Case No. multiple

Michigan cases

June 12, 1991 Leslee Unti

Leslee Unti & Co.

(206) 447-0872

Ritter v. Cyprus (W.D.

Mo.)

Case No. 93-5121-CV-

SW-8

April 6, 1995 Lauri Donaldson

Continental Reporting

Service

(206) 624-3377

Lopez v. ACandS, Inc.

Case No. 434980

January 16, 2007 Joanne Balboni

Tooker & Ants Court

Reporting & Video Servs.

(415) 392-0650

Lopez v. BASF

Case No. BC 468419

April 20, 2012 Paul J. Frederickson

HG Litigation Services

(888) 656-3376

Donald Hicks Ratcliff v. In re Asbestos

Litigation (King Co.,

WA)

Case No. 16-2-18128-7-

SEA

January 23, 2018 Evamarie Walsh

Priority One Court Reporting

Services, Inc., A Veritext Co.

(718) 983-1234

www.veritext.com/myveritext



REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: All documents regarding the manufacturing,

quality, safety, consistency and/or purity specifications for Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in the

United States between 2000 and 2016.

91403514.1

- 45 -


Statement, which Defendants have a reasonable and good faith belief include documents related

to the subject matter of this Request as it pertains to JBP, including documents containing

information regarding formulas and specifications of JBP, see, e.g., documents located under the

custodian “APR.”




quality, safety, consistency and/or purity specifications for Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in the

United Kingdom between 1969 and 2000.







quality, safety, consistency and/or purity specifications for Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in

Canada between 2000 and 2003.






91403514.1

- 46 -

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: All contracts and agreements with your

suppliers, miners, millers and distributors of talc used in Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in the

United States between 2000 and 2016.

RESPONSE: Defendants state that they have a reasonable and good faith belief that the


relating to distribution of JBP, including but not limited to the following (beginning Bates

numbers):




suppliers, miners, millers and distributors of talc used in Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in the






grounds stated in Specific Objection Nos. 2, 4 and 5


suppliers, miners, millers and distributors of talc used in Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in Canada





JNJ000100896 JNJ000512970 JNJTALC000375163

91403514.1

- 47 -



REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: All documents, correspondence,

memoranda, reports and other materials of any type or form relating to the 2000 National

Toxicology Program (“NTP”) nomination of talc for listing in the 10th Report on Carcinogens.



documents related to the subject matter of this Request, including but not limited to the following





memoranda, reports and other materials of any type or form relating to the 2005 NTP nomination

of talc for listing in the 12th Report on Carcinogens.







JNJ000448325 JNJ000055145

JNJ000368435 JNJ00036917 JNJ000369173

JNJ000369177

91403514.1

- 48 -


memoranda, reports and other materials of any type or form relating to the International Agency

for Research on Cancer’s (“IARC”) re-evaluation of talc.








memoranda, reports and other materials of any type or form relating to the testing of talc,

including, but not limited to, test methods (e.g., J4-1 Method), procedures, audits, and

specifications.


Statement, which Defendants have a reasonable and good faith belief include documents

regarding testing methods used by different testing entities at different times, including but not

limited to the following (beginning Bates numbers):



JNJ000368435 JNJ000368654 JNJ000368845

JNJ000369085

JNJ000061563 JNJ000061567 JNJ000133381

JNJ000245548 JNJ000294620 JNJ000358049

JNJ000866706 JNJ000876200 JNJ000237313

JNJ000061385

91403514.1

- 49 -


memoranda, reports and other materials of any type or form relating to all talc-related Food and

Drug Administration (“FDA”) citizen petitions.








memoranda, reports and other materials of any type or form relating to FDA testing and FDA

surveys of talc.



documents related to the subject matter of this Request as it pertains to JBP.

RESPONSE: To the extent that this Request seeks a different response, Defendants



memoranda, reports and other materials of any type or form relating to internal talc safety

reviews.



JNJ000405098 JNJ000405133 JNJ000405464

JNJ000425861

91403514.1

- 50 -

documents reflecting internal reviews concerning talc and safety, including but not limited to

minutes of meetings of a “Talc Advisory Group” during the period 1974 to 1977 (see, e.g., JNJ

000250479 - JNJ 000250481; JNJ 000250491 - JNJ 000250494; JNJ 000252564 - JNJ

000252568; JNJ 000252669 - JNJ 000252672; JNJ 000252685 - JNJ 000252688; JNJ

000252691 - JNJ 000252693; JNJ 000252942 - JNJ 000252944; JNJ 000299771 - JNJ

000299775; JNJ 000329782 - JNJ 000329785; JNJ 000329956 - JNJ 000329957.)


on the grounds stated in Specific Objection Nos. 1 and 4.


memoranda, reports and other materials of any type or form relating to your claim, assertion,

defense and/or argument that your talc-containing products did not contain asbestos or were

“asbestos free.”



contain asbestos or other contaminants has been and continues to be performed. Defendants

refer Plaintiffs to the materials described in the Introductory Statement, which Defendants have a

reasonable and good faith belief include non-privileged documents regarding testing of JBP and

talc used in JBP by one or more of the J&J Companies and numerous third parties including

contract manufacturers, suppliers, and laboratories (independent, university, and governmental),


JNJ000384469 JNJ000280775 JNJ000239636

JNJ000383016 JNJ000382986 JNJ000423308

JNJ000383087 JNJ000347608 JNJ000223427

JNJ000375817 JNJ000521581 JNJ000241173

JNJ000866688

91403514.1

- 51 -




memoranda, reports and other materials of any type or form relating to CTFA testing methods.








memoranda, reports and other materials of any type or form relating to efforts to support,

prompt, influence, or otherwise affect the publication of medical and/or scientific literature (peer

reviewed or otherwise) relating to the health hazards of talc or talc-containing products or

asbestos in talc or talc-containing products by you, any other party, or any other entity identified

by Plaintiffs or any other witness in this case.


Defendants refer Plaintiffs to the materials described in the Introductory Statement, which

Defendants have a reasonable and good faith belief include non-privileged documents related to

JNJ000092018 JNJ000092073 JNJ000405234

JNJ000405302 JNJ000405464 JNJ000368256

JNJ000368262 JNJ000368455 JNJ000368539

JNJ000368592 JNJ000368673 JNJ000368703

91403514.1

- 52 -

scientific research conducted and/or supported by one or more of the J&J Companies that

pertains to the health and safety of talc and JBP, including with respect to asbestos, including but

including but not limited to the following (beginning Bates numbers): JNJ000538189,

JNJ000404913, JNJ000016696, JNJ000237881, and JNJ000238903.

Defendants further refer Plaintiffs to the publicly-available, published medical literature

for studies concerning the safety of talc.



REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: All documents relating to your actions or

other efforts to provide or otherwise disseminate information to your customers, competitors,

suppliers, industry associations or the public regarding the safety of talc or talc-containing

products. This request includes all documents pertaining to consultants you hired or otherwise

consulted or retained and websites you supported, funded or otherwise sanctioned regarding the

safety of talc or talc-containing products.





To the extent this Request seeks a different response, Defendants object on the grounds

stated in Specific Objection Nos. 1 (including to the extent that this Request seeks documents

regarding Defendants’ consulting experts for this or other litigation or prematurely seeks the

JNJ000405231 JNJ000356310 JNJ000405580

JNJ000426147 JNJ000424856 JNJ000424856

JNJ000870344 JNJ000874367 JNJ000874377

JNJTALC000022912

91403514.1

- 53 -

disclosure of Defendants’ testifying experts in this litigation) and 4, and on the additional

grounds that this Request is vague, ambiguous and confusing.


memoranda, reports and other materials of any type or form relating to your analysis, testing or

other evaluation of competitor products for the presence (or potential presence) of any

carcinogen, including, but not limited to, asbestos.

RESPONSE: Defendants object to this Request on the grounds stated in Specific

Objection No. 4, and on the additional grounds that this Request is vague, ambiguous and

confusing as to the term “competitor products.”


memoranda, reports, submissions, and other materials of any type or form relating to your

review, analysis, strategy, research, lobbying, consideration, and/or objections pertaining to the

regulation of talc or talc-containing products, including, but not limited to, regulation (or

potential regulation) by the FDA or any other government agency or any non-governmental or

industry organization.

RESPONSE: Defendants state that they have a reasonable and good faith belief that the

materials described in the Introductory Statement include documents related to communications

regarding JBP with governmental and non-governmental organizations, including but not limited

to The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).


stated in Specific Objection Nos. 1 and 4, and to the extent it seeks information protected by the

First Amendment or the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine.

91403514.1

- 54 -

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: All documents regarding J4-1 method,

including, but not limited to documents regarding the adequacy, accuracy, cost, usefulness,

development, endorsements, support, funding, or criticisms thereof.






stated in Specific Objection No. 4.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: All documents regarding your quality

assurance process for talc and talc-containing products, including those that utilized detection

precautions in addition to the J4-1 method, such as transmission electron microscopy.


Statement, which Defendants have a reasonable and good faith belief include documents related

to the subject matter of this Request, including but not limited to the following (beginning Bates

numbers):



JNJTALC000348027 JNJTALC000348067 JNJTALC000348078

JNJTALC000348115 JNJ000092063

JNJ000061563 JNJ000061567 JNJ000133381

JNJ000245548 JNJ000294620 JNJ000358049

JNJ000866706 JNJ000876200 JNJ000237313

JNJ000061385

91403514.1

- 55 -

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: All documents that you contend support

your position or argument that Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in the United States between 2000

and 2016 did not fit the definition of “adulterated” pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 361.










REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: Exhibits that will or may be relied upon at

the time of trial.

RESPONSE: Defendants state that they will produce an appropriate exhibit list at the

time and to the extent required by the New Jersey Rules of Court and applicable scheduling

orders.



JNJ000384469 JNJ000280775 JNJ000239636

JNJ000383016 JNJ000382986 JNJ000423308

JNJ000383087 JNJ000347608 JNJ000223427

JNJ000375817 JNJ000521581 JNJ000241173

JNJ000866688

91403514.1

- 56 -


memoranda, reports and other materials of any type or form relating to corroboration (including

meetings) with any outside agencies, consultants, or legal groups hired to assist with regulatory

and scientific issues regarding talc, including but not limited to, consulting agreements and

correspondences with the Center For Regulatory Effectiveness.








disclosure of Defendants’ testifying experts in this litigation) and 4.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: All documents related to the Talc Interested

Party Task Force.





JNJ000375447 JNJ000375365 JNJ000232296

JNJ000375429

JNJ000000112 JNJ000013667 JNJ000016693

JNJ000022667 JNJ000373733

91403514.1

- 57 -



REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: All documents related research performed

by the Talc Interested Party Task Force.


50.



REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: All documents related to funding of the Talc

Interested Party Task Force.


50.



REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: All documents related to the 1993 FDA Talc

Symposium.





JNJ000011720 JNJ000011726 JNJ000374512

JNJ000374531 JNJ000016508

91403514.1

- 58 -



REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: All documents regarding the CTFA’s

“Round Robin” testing (a/k/a CTFA Task Force on Round Robin Testing of Consumer Talcum

Products for Asbestiform Amphibole Minerals) of talc to determine the presence of asbestos

therein.




good faith belief include non-privileged documents related to the subject matter of this Request,




REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: All documents regarding your and your

employees’ (current and former) membership in and/or attendance at meetings of the CTFA

(including any subcommittee thereof), including, but not limited to, membership lists, meeting

minutes, meeting summaries, fees and other financial contributions.





JNJ000250613 JNJ000265120 JNJ000283869

JNJ000092018 JNJ000092073 JNJ000405234

JNJ000405302 JNJ000405464 JNJ000368256

91403514.1

- 59 -



REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: All documents regarding your requests to

your talc suppliers that talc be certified as asbestos free.




good faith belief include non-privileged documents containing related to the formulation of JBP.




memoranda, reports and other materials of any type or form relating to communication with any

government or regulatory agency (including, without limitation the Food and Drug

Administration, National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health

Sciences, World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, and/or the

Center for Regulatory Effectiveness) or industry association regarding talc, including, but not

limited to, all such documents containing the words/phrases “asbestos,” “asbestiform,” “fibrous,”

“transition fiber,” “cleavage fragment,” “chrysotile,” “amphibole,” “amosite,” “crocidolite,”

“tremolite,” “anthophyllite,” “actinolite,” “arsenic,” “lead,” and/or “silica.”

JNJ000368262 JNJ000368455 JNJ000368539

JNJ000368592 JNJ000368673 JNJ000368703

91403514.1

- 60 -






REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: All documents evidencing or regarding your

or your employees’, agents’ or consultants’ receipt, analysis, dissemination, acceptance,

criticism, consideration or possession of the following scientific, medical or industry

publications or articles regarding the potential, alleged, disputed or actual health hazards

associated with exposure to talc or talc-containing products:

(a) Acheson E, Gardner MJ, Pappard EC, and Grime LP. 1992. Mortality of two

groups of women who manufactured gas masks from chrysotile and crocidolite

asbestos: A 40-year follow-up. Br J Med 39: 344-48.

(b) Anonymous. 1977. Cosmetic talc powder [editorial]. Lancet: 1348-49.

(c) Anteby SO, Mos Yosef S, and Schenker JC. 1983. Ovarian cancer: Geographical,

host and environmental factors-An overview. Arch Gynecol234 (2): 131-48.

(d) Barrett JC, Lamb PW, and Wiseman RW. 1989. Multiple mechanisms for the

carcinogenic effects of asbestos and other mineral fibers. Environ Health Perspect

81: 81-89.

(e) Barrett JC. 1994. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of asbestos carcinogenicity:

Implications for biopersistence. Environ Health Perspect 102, Supp. 5: 19-23.

(f) Berry G, Newhouse ML, and Wagner JC. 2000. Mortality from all cancers of

asbestos factory workers in east London 1933-80. Occup Environ Med 57 ( 11):

782-85.

(g) Blejer HP and Arion R. 1973. Talc: A possible occupational and environmental

carcinogen. J Occup Med 15 (2): 92-97.

(h) Blount AM and Vassiliou AH. 1983. Identification of chlorite and serpentine in

cosmetic or pharmaceutical talc. Environ Health Perspect 51: 379-85.

91403514.1

- 61 -

(i) Blount AM. 1991. Amphibole content of cosmetic and pharmaceutical tales.

Environ Health Perspect 94-225-30.

(j) Booth M, Beral V, Smith P. 1989. Risk factors for ovarian cancer: A case-control

study. Br J Cancer 60: 592-598.

(k) Campos JRM, Werebe EC, Vargas FS, Jatene FB, Light RW. 1997. Respiratory

failure due to insufflated talc [research letter]. Lancet 349 (9047): 251-52.

(l) Chang S and Risch HA. 1997. Perineal talc exposure and risk of ovarian

carcinoma. Cancer 79: 2396-2401.

(m) Chen Y, Wu PC, Lang JH, Ge WJ, Hartge P, and Brinton LA. 1992. Risk factors

for epithelial ovarian cancer in Beijing, China. Int J Epidemiol21: 23-29.

(n) Cook LS, Kamb ML, and Weiss NL. 1997. Perineal powder exposure and the risk

of ovarian cancer. Am J Epidemiol145: 459-465.

(o) Cornelison TLK, Natarajan N, Piver MS, and Mettlin CJ. 1997. Tubal ligation

and the risk of ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Detect Prev 21(1): 1-6.

(p) Cralley LJ, Key MM, Groth DH, Lainhart WS, and Ligo RM. 1968. Fibrous and

mineral content of cosmetic talcum products. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 29 (4): 350-54.

(q) Cramer DW, Welch WR, Scully RE, and Wojciechowski CA. 1982. Ovarian

cancer and talc: A case-control study. Cancer 50: 372-376.

(r) Cramer DW. 1999. Perineal talc exposure and subsequent epithelial ovarian

cancer [letter]. Obstet Gynecol 94 ( 1 ): 160-61.

(s) Cramer DW, Liberman RF, Titus-Emstoff L, Welch WR, Greenberg ER, Baron

JA, and Harlow BL. 1999. Genital talc exposure and risk of ovarian cancer. Int J

Cancer 81: 351-356.

(t) Daly M and Obrams Gl. 1998. Epidemiology and risk assessment for ovarian

cancer. Semin Oncol25: 255-64.

(u) DeBoer CH. 1972. Transport of particulate matter through the human female

genital tract. J Reprod Fert 28: 295-97.

(v) Dement JM. 1984. [Letter re fiber in New York talc -responding to letter from

Dunn JR (apparently Chairman of Schering-Plough Corp.)]. Am Ind Hyg Assoc 45

(4): B-8 to B-9.

(w) Egli GE and Newton M. 1961. The transport of carbon particles in the human

female reproductive tract. Fertil Steril12: 151-55.

91403514.1

- 62 -

(x) Germani D, BelliS, Bruno C, Grignoli M, Nesti M, Pirastu R, Comba P. 1999.

Cohort mortality study of women compensated for asbestosis in Italy. Am J lnd

Med 36: 129-34.

(y) Gertig DM, Hunter DJ, Cramer DW, Colditz GA, Speizer FE, Willett WC, and

Hankinson SE. 2000. Prospective study of talc use and ovarian cancer. J Natl

Cancer Inst 92: 249-252.

(z) Godard B, Foulkes WD, Provencher D, Brunet JS, Tonin PN, Mes-Masson AM,

Narod SA, and Ghadirian P. 1998. Risk factors for familial and sporadic ovarian

cancer among French Canadians: A case-control study. Am J Obstet Gynecol179:

403-10.

(aa) Green A, Purdie D, Bain C, Siskind V, Russell P, Quinn M, and Ward B. 1997.

Tubal sterilisation, hysterectomy and decreased risk of ovarian cancer. Int J

Cancer 6 (71): 948-51.

(bb) Grexa RW and Parmentier CJ. 1979. Cosmetic talc properties and specifications.

Cosmetics & Toiletries 94: 29-33.

(cc) Gross AJ and Berg PH. 1995. A meta-analytical approach examining the potential

relationship between talc exposure and ovarian cancer. J Expo Anal Environ

Epidemiol 5: 181-95.

(dd) Hamer DH, Rolle FR, and Schelz JP. 1976. Characterization of talc and

associated minerals. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 5 (37): 296-304.

(ee) Hankinson SE, Hunter DJ, Dolditz GA, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Rosner B,

Hennekens CH, and Speizer FE. Tubal ligation, hysterectomy, and risk of ovarian

cancer: A prospective study. 1993. JAMA 270: 2813-18.

(ff) Comments on above article by Hankinson et al. Myers ER and Silver A-LS. 1994.

[Letter] JAMA 71 (16): 1235-37.

(gg) Harlow BL and Weiss NS. 1989. A case-control study of borderline ovarian

tumors: The influence of perineal exposure to talc. Am J Epidemiol 130: 390-394.

(hh) Harlow BL, Cramer DW, Bell DA, and Welch WR. 1992. Perineal exposure to

talc and ovarian cancer risk. Obstet Gynecol 80: 19-26.

(ii) Harlow BL and Hartge PA. 1995. A review of perineal talc exposure and risk of

ovarian cancer. Regul Toxicol Phannacol 21: 254-60.

(jj) Hartge P, Hoover R, Lesher LP, and McGowan L. 1983. Talc and ovarian cancer

[letter]. JAMA 250: 1844.

91403514.1

- 63 -

(kk) Hartge P and Stewart P. 1994. Occupation and ovarian cancer: a case-control

study in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, 1978-1981. J Occup Med 36:

924-27.

(ll) Heller DS, Gordon RE, Clement PB, Turnnir R, and Katz N. 1999. Presence of

asbestos in peritoneal malignant mesotheliomas in women. Int J Gynecol Cancer

9: 452-55. mm.

(mm) Heller DS, Gordon RE, Westhoff C, and Gerber S. 1996. Asbestos exposure and

ovarian fiber burden. Am J Indust Med 29: 435-39.

(nn) Heller DS, Westhoff C, Gordon RE, and Katz N. 1996. The relationship between

perineal cosmetic talc usage and ovarian talc particle burden. Am J Obstet

Gyneco/174: 1507-1510.

(oo) Heller DS, Gordon RE, Katz N. 1999. Correlation of asbestos fiber burdens in

fallopian tubes and ovarian tissue. Am J Obstet Gynecol181 (2): 346-47.

(pp) Henderson WJ, Joslin CA, Turnbull AC, and Griffiths K. 1971. Talc and

carcinoma of the ovary and cervix. J Obstet Gynecol Br Commonw 78: 226-72.

(qq) Henderson WJ, Hamilton TC, and Griffiths K. 1979. Talc in normal and

malignant ovarian tissue [letter]. Lancet 1 (8114): 499.

(rr) Hildick-Smith GY. 1976. The biology of talc. Br J Ind Med 33 (4): 217-29.

(ss) Hildick-Smith G. 1977. [Letter] J Toxicol Environ Health 2 (5): 1221-22.

(tt) Kasper CS and Chandler PJ. 1995. Possible morbidity in women from talc on

condoms [letter]. J Amer Med Ass 273: 846-47.

(uu) Keal EE. 1960. Asbestos and abdominal neoplasms. Lancet 2: 1211-16.

(vv) Krause JB. 1977. Mineralogical characterization of cosmetic talc products [letter].

J Toxicol Environ Health 2 (5): 1223-26.

(ww) Krause JB and Ashton WH. 1978. Misidentification of asbestos in talc. In

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 506. Proceedings of the

Workshop on Asbestos: Definitions and Measurement Methods, NBS,

Gaithersburg, MD, July 180-20, 1977, pp. 339-52.

(xx) Longo DL and Young RC. 1979. Cosmetic talc and ovarian cancer. Lancet ii:

349.

(yy) Marconi A, Maccione M, Rossi L. 1986. Asbesto E. Talco: Determinazione del

contenuto di particelle minerali fibrose in polveri di talco commerciali mediante

tehcniche associate di microscopia ottica [Asbestos and talc: Determination of

91403514.1

- 64 -

mineral fibre content in commercial talc using combined optical microscope

techniques]. Med Lav 77: (5): 496-510.

(zz) Mossman B, Light W, Wei E. 1983. Asbestos: Mechanisms of toxicity and

carcinogenicity in the respiratory tract. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol23: 595-615.

(aaa) Muscat JE and Barish M. 1998. Epidemiology of talc exposure and ovarian

cancer: A critical assessment. Comments Toxicol, Special Issue on Talc 6 (5):

327-35.

(bbb) Muscat JE and Wynder EL. 1997. Re: Perineal powder exposure and the risk of

ovarian cancer [letter]. Am J Epidemiol146 (9): 786.

(ccc) Natow AJ. 1986. Talc: Need we beware? Cutis 37 (5): 328-29.

(ddd) Ness RB, Grisso JA, Cottreau C, Klapper J, Vergona R, Wheeler JE, Morgan M,

and Schlesselman JJ. 2000. Factors related to inflammation of the ovarian

epithelium and risk of ovarian cancer. Epidemiology 11: 111-117.

(eee) Ness RB and Cottreau C. 2000. Response: re: possible role of ovarian epithelial

inflammation in ovarian cancer [letter]. J Natl Cancer lnst 92 (2): 163.

(fff) Newhouse ML, Berry G, Wagner JC, and Turok ME. 1972. A study of the

mortality of female asbestos workers. Brit J Indus Med 29: 134-41.

(ggg) Paoletti L, Caiazza S, Donelli G, and Pocchiari F. 1984. Evaluation by electron

microscopy techniques of asbestos contamination in industrial, cosmetic, and

pharmaceutical tales. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol4 (3): 222-35.

(hhh) Parazinni F, Freseschi S, LaVecchia D, and Fasoli M. 1991. The epidemiology of

ovarian cancer -review. Gynecol Oncol 43: 9-23.

(iii) Parmentier CJ and Gill CJ. 1978. Practical aspects of talc and asbestos. In

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 506. Proceedings of the

Workshop on Asbestos: Definitions and Measurement Methods, NBS,

Gaithersburg, MD, July 180-20, 1977, pp. 403-11.

(jjj) Phillips JC, Young PJ, Hardy J, and Gangolli SD. 1978. Studies on the absorption

and disposition of H-labelled talc in the rat, mouse, guinea-pig and rabbit. Fd

Cosmet Toxicol 16: 161-63.

(kkk) Phillipson IM. 1980. Talc quality [letter]. Lancet 1 (8158): 48.

(lll) Purdie D., Green A, Bain C, Siskind V, Ward B, Hacker N, Quinn M, Wright G,

Russell P, and Susil B. 1995. Reproductive and other factors and risk of epithelial

ovarian cancer: An Australian case-control study. Survey of Women’s Health

Study Group. Int J Cancer 62: 678-684.

91403514.1

- 65 -

(mmm) Research Committee of the British Thoracic Association and the Medical

Research Council Pneumoconiosis Unit. 1979. A survey of the long-term effects

of talc and kaolin pleurodesis. Br J Dis Chest 73: 285-88.

(nnn) Rohl AN. 1974. Asbestos in talc. Environ Health Perspect 9: 129-32.

(ooo) Rohl AN and Langer AM. 1974. Identification and quantitation of asbestos in

talc. Environ Health Perspect 9: 95-109.

(ppp) Rohl AN, Langer AM, Selikoff U, Tordini A, Klimentidis R, Bowes DR, and

Skinner DL. 1976. Consumer talcums and powders: Mineral and chemical

characterization. J Toxicol Environ Health 2 (2): 255-84.

(qqq) Rosenblatt KA, Szklo M, and Rosesshein NB. 1992. Mineral fiber exposure and

the development of ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol45: 20-25.

(rrr) Rosenblatt KA and Thomas DB. 1996. Reduced risk of ovarian cancer in women

with tubal ligation or hysterectomy. The World Health Organization Collaborative

Study of Neoplasia and Steroid Contraceptives. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers

Prev 5 (11): 933-35.

(sss) Russell RS, Merz RD, Sherman WT, and Silvertson JN. 1979. The determination

of respirable particles in talcum powder. Fd Cosmet Toxicol 11: 117-22.

(ttt) Shoham Z. 1994. Epidemiology, etiology, and fertility drugs in ovarian epithelial

carcinoma: Where are we today? Fertil Steril 62: 433-448.

(uuu) Shushan A, Taltiel 0, Iscovich J, Elchalkal U, Peretz T, and Schenker JG. 1996.

Human menopausal gonadotropin and risks of epithelial ovarian cancer. Fertil

Steril 65: 13-18.

(vvv) Tavani A, Negri E, Franceschi S, Parazzini F, LaVecchia C. 1993. Risk factors

for epithelial ovarian cancer in women under age 45. Eur J Cancer 29A (9):

1297-12301. www.

(www) Tortolero-I:.una G, Mitchell MF, and Rhodes-Morris H. 1994. Epidemiology and

screening of ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol Clinics N Amer 21 (1): 1-23.

(xxx) Tzonou A., Polychronopoulou A, Hsieh CC, Rebelakos A, Karakatsani A, and

Trichopoulos D. 1993. Hair dyes, analgesics, tranquilizers and perineal talc

application as risk factors for ovarian cancer. Int J Cancer 55: 408-410.

(yyy) Venter PE and Iturralde S. 1979. Migration of a particulate radioactive tracer from

the vagina to the peritoneal cavity and ovaries. S Afr Med J 55: 917-19.

(zzz) Vigliani EC, Ghezzi I, Maranzana P, Pernis B. 1969. Epidemiology study of

asbestos workers in northern Italy. Med Lav 59 (8): 481-85.

91403514.1

- 66 -

(aaaa) Voytek P, Anver M, Thorslund T, Conley J, and Anderson E. 1990. Mechanisms

of asbestos carcinogenicity. J Am Coli Toxicol 9: 541-546.

(bbbb) Walker C, Everitt J, Barrett JC. 1992. Possible cellular and molecular

mechanisms for asbestos carcinogenicity. Am J Ind Med 21 (2): 253-73.

(cccc) Wehner AP, Hall AS, Weller RE, Lepel EA, and Schirmer RE. 1985. Do particles

translocate from the vagina to the oviducts and beyond? Fd Chern Toxicol23:

367¬72.

(dddd) Wehner AP, Weller RE, and Lepel EA. 1986. On talc translocation from the

vagina to the oviducts and beyond. Fd Chern Toxicol 24: 329-38.

(eeee) Wehner AP. 1994. Biological effects of cosmetic talc. Food Chern Toxicol 32:

1173-84.

(ffff) Wehner AP. 1998. Is cosmetic talc “safe”? Comments Toxicol, Special Issue on

Talc 5 (6): 336-66.

(gggg) Werebe EC, Pazetti R, De Campos JRM, Fernandez PP, Capelozzi VL, Jatene FB,

and Vargas FS. 1999. Systemic distribution of talc after intrapleural

administration in rats. Chest 115 (1): 190-93.

(hhhh) Weissberg D and Ben-Zeev I. 1993. Talc pleurodesis: Experience with 360

patients. J Thor Card Surg 106 (4): 689-95.

(iiii) Whittemore AS, Wu ML, Paffenbarger RS Jr., Sarles DL, Kampert JB, Grosser S,

Jung DL, Bailon S, and Hendrickson M. 1988. Personal and environmental

characteristics related to epithelial ovarian cancer. II. Exposures to talcum

powder, tobacco, alcohol, and coffee. Am J Epidemiol 128: 1228-1240.

(jjjj) Whittemore AS, Harris R, Itnyre J, and the Collaborative Ovarian Cancer Group.

1993. Characteristics relating to ovarian cancer risk: Collaborative analysis of 12

US case-control studies. II. Invasive epithelial ovarian cancers in white women.

Am J Epidemiol 137 (8): 928-29.

(kkkk) Whysner J. and Mohan M. 2000. Perineal application of talc and cornstarch

powders: Evaluation of ovarian cancer risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol 3 ( 182): 720-

724.

(llll) Wignall BK and Fox AJ. 1982. Mortality of female gas mask assemblers. Br J

Indus Med 39: 34-38.

(mmmm) Wong C, Hempling RE, Piver MS, Natarajan N, and Mettlin CJ. 1999.

Perineal talc exposure and subsequent epithelial ovarian cancer: A case-control

study. Obstet Gynecol93: 372-376.

91403514.1

- 67 -

(nnnn) Zazenski R, Ashton WH, Briggs, D, Chudkowski M, Kelse JW, MacEachern L,

McCarthy EF, Nordhauser MA, Roddy, MT, and Teetsel NM. 1995. Talc:

Occurrence, characterization, and consumer applications. Regul Toxicol

Pharmacol21: 218-29

(oooo) Zazenski RJ. 1998. The commercial significance of talc. Comments Toxicol,

Special Issue on Talc 5 (6): 313-26.

(pppp) Gordon RE, Fitzgerald S, Millette J. 2015. Asbestos in commercial cosmetic

talcum powder as a cause of mesothelioma in women. Int J Occup Environ Health

20(4): 318-32.

(qqqq) Anderson EL, Sheehan PJ, Kalmes RM and Griffin JR. 2016. Assessment of

Health Risk from Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder. Risk Analysis.



documents related to the subject matter of this Request, including documents related to

monitoring of the publicly-available, published medical and scientific literature regarding talc

and safety issues by one or more of the J&J Companies.



REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: All documents relating to communication to,

from or between you and professor Seymour Lewin.







JNJ000232574 JNJ000245216 JNJ000245218

JNJ000247492 JNJ000248845

91403514.1

- 68 -

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: All documents relating to the testing of talc

and talc-containing products performed by professor Seymour Lewin, New York University, Mt.

Sinai Hospital, Dr. Arthur Langer, Dr. Arthur Rohl or Dr. Irving Selikoff.





RESPONSE: To the extent this Request seeks a different response, Defendants object to

this Request on the grounds stated in Specific Objection No. 4.


memoranda, reports and other materials of any type or form relating to corroboration (including

meetings) with any outside agencies, consultants, or legal groups hired to assist with regulatory

and scientific issues regarding talc, including but not limited to, consulting agreements and

correspondences with the Center For Regulatory Effectiveness.


49.


grounds stated in Specific Objection No. 4, and on the additional ground that this Request is

duplicative because it is identical to Request No. 49.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62: All documents regarding the topics outlined

in plaintiffs’ supplemental interrogatory 3, including its subparts.

JNJ000232574 JNJ000245216 JNJ000245218

JNJ000247492 JNJ000248845

91403514.1

- 69 -








disclosure of Defendants’ testifying experts in this litigation), 2 and 4.









disclosure of Defendants’ testifying experts in this litigation), 2, 4 and 5.



JNJ000384469 JNJ000280775 JNJ000239636

JNJ000383016 JNJ000382986 JNJ000423308

JNJ000383087 JNJ000347608 JNJ000223427

JNJ000375817 JNJ000521581 JNJ000241173

JNJ000866688

91403514.1

- 70 -







disclosure of Defendants’ testifying experts in this litigation), 2, 4 and 5.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65: All documents regarding the design of any

registered or unregistered trademark appearing on bottles of Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in

Illinois and North Carolina between 2000 and 2016.


Objection Nos. 4, 5 and 6, and on the additional grounds that that it seeks documents that are not



registered or unregistered trademark appearing on bottles of Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in the






registered or unregistered trademark appearing on bottles of Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in

Ontario, Canada, between 2000 and 2003.

91403514.1

- 71 -




REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 68: All documents regarding the registration,

ownership or control of the rights to utilize any registered or unregistered trademark appearing

on bottles of Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in Illinois and North Carolina between 2000 and 2016.






on bottles of Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in the United Kingdom between 1969 and 2000.






on bottles of Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in Canada between 2000 and 2003.






91403514.1

- 72 -









REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 73: All documents that support your contention,

if any, that any analysis of Johnson’s Baby Powder demonstrating the presence of asbestos was

the result of contamination of the sample.










JNJ000384469 JNJ000280775 JNJ000239636

JNJ000383016 JNJ000382986 JNJ000423308

JNJ000383087 JNJ000347608 JNJ000223427

JNJ000375817 JNJ000521581 JNJ000241173

JNJ000866688

91403514.1

- 73 -


your possession that were manufactured for the United States market between 2000 and 2016.


19.




your possession that were manufactured for the United Kingdom market between 1969 and 2000.


19.




your possession that were manufactured for the Canadian market between 2000 and 2003.








91403514.1

- 74 -

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 77: All samples of talc or ore in your possession


States between 2000 and 2016.


19.





Kingdom between 1969 and 2000.


19.




from any mine that served as the source of talc for Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in Canada







91403514.1

- 75 -



REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80: All documents that support your allegation,

if any, that Michelle Chapman’s mesothelioma was not caused by exposure to asbestos.

ANSWER: Defendants state that JBP has not contained and does not contain asbestos






REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 81: All agreements you had with Johnson &

Johnson Ltd. that were effective at any time between 1969 and 2000 regarding:




Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in the United Kingdom; and

(c) Royalties, profit and other income related to Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in the

United Kingdom.




REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 82: All agreements you had with Johnson &

Johnson Inc. (Canada) that were effective at any time between 2000 and 2003 regarding:



91403514.1

- 76 -


Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in Canada; and

(c) Royalties, profit and other income related to Johnson’s Baby Powder sold in

Canada.




REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 83: All documents evidencing the following:

(a) The identities of the directors of Johnson & Johnson Ltd. between 1969 and the

date the complaint was filed;

(b) The identities of the directors of Johnson & Johnson Inc. (Canada) between 2000

and the date the complaint was filed;

(c) The identities of the directors of Johnson & Johnson between 1969 and the date

the complaint was filed;

(d) The identities of the directors of Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. between 1969

and the date the complaint was filed;

(e) Your sharing of funding, research and information with regarding Johnson’s Baby

Powder with Johnson & Johnson Ltd. between 1969 and 2000;

(f) Your sharing of funding, research and information with regarding Johnson’s Baby

Powder with Johnson & Johnson Inc. (Canada) between 2000 and 2003;

(g) Your control over Johnson & Johnson Ltd. between 1969 and the date the

complaint was filed; and

(h) Your control over Johnson & Johnson Inc. (Canada) between 1969 and the date

the complaint was filed.


