1
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION:MIDDLESEX COUNTY
2 DOCKET NO. L-2068-06
3 ERNEST HORVATH, individually
and as Executor of the Estate
4 of his wife,
FRANCES HORVATH,
5
Plaintiff, DEPOSITION UNDER
6 ORAL EXAMINATION
vs OF
7 MARJORIE A. DRUCKER
CHEVRON, USA, INC.,
8
Defendant.
9
10 TRANSCRIPT of the deposition of the
11 witness, called for Oral Examination in the
12 above-captioned matter, said deposition being
13 taken pursuant to Superior Court Rules of Practice
14 and Procedure by and before MIRIAM ALFANO, a
15 Notary Public and Certified Shorthand Reporter of
16 the State of New Jersey, at the Offices of
17 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD, LLP, Three
18 Gateway Center, Newark, New Jersey, on Wednesday,
19 November 28, 2007, commencing at approximately
20 10:25 in the forenoon.
21
22
BRODY DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.
23 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS & VIDEOGRAPHERS
90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 220
24 Woodbridge, New Jersey 07095
(732) 283-5737
25
2
1 A P P E A R A N C E S:
2
3 COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
4 127 Maple Avenue
5 Red Bank, New Jersey 07701
6 (732) 747-9003
7 BY: CHRISTOPHER M. PLACITELLA, ESQ.
8 RACHEL A. PLACITELLA, ESQ.
9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
10
11 SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
12 One South Dearborn
13 Chicago, Illinois 60603
14 (312) 853-7643
15 BY: TIMOTHY E. KAPSHANDY, ESQ.
16 Attorneys for Defendant, General Electric
17
18 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD, LLP
19 Three Gateway Center, 12th Floor
20 Newark, New Jersey 07102
21 (973) 820-1133
22 BY: CHISTOPHER J. KEALE, ESQ.
23 Attorneys for Defendant, General Electric
24
25
3
1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont’d):
2
3 WEINER LESNIAK, LLP
4 629 Parsippany Road
5 Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
6 (973) 403-1100
7 BY: HELEN CHALIER, ESQ.
8 Attorneys for Defendant, Manitowoc
9
10 GARRITY, GRAHAM, FAVETTA & FLINN, P.C.
11 One Lackawanna Plaza
12 Montclair, New Jersey 07042-4205
13 (973) 509-7500
14 BY: MICHAEL McGRATH, ESQ.
15 Attorneys for Defendant, State Insulation
16
17 SEGAL, McCAMBRIDGE, SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD.
18 103 Carnegie Center, Suite 103
19 Princeton, New Jersey 08540
20 (609) 452-1558
21 BY: MARIA CARLUCCI, ESQ.
22 Attorneys for Defendants, Garlock, Greene Tweed
23
24
25
4
1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont’d):
2
3 HARDIN, KUNDLA, McKEON & POLETTO, P.A.
4 673 Morris Avenue, P.O. Box 730
5 Springfield, New Jersey 07081-1512
6 (973) 912-5222
7 BY: JOSEPH A. PEREZ-MALTES, ESQ.
8 Attorneys for Defendant, Calon Insulation Corp.
9
10 MARON, MARVEL & CONSTANTINE, P.A.
11 1835 Market Street
12 Suite 2705
13 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
14 (215) 789-3555
15 BY: RYAN E. GILBERT
16 Attorneys for Defendant, Industrial Holdings
17 Corp., f/k/a Carborundum Co.
18
19 McELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP
20 1300 Mt. Kemble Avenue
21 P.O. Box 2075
22 Morristown, New Jersey 07962
23 (973) 993-8100
24 BY: JENNIFER MENDRZYCKI, ESQ.
25 Attorneys for Defendant, Chevron
5
1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont’d):
2
3 PICILLO, CARUSO & O’TOOLE, P.C.
4 60 Route 46 East
5 Fairfield, New Jersey 07004
6 (973) 667-6000
7 BY: HARRY ANAGNOSTOPOULOS, ESQ.
8 Attorneys for Defendant, Union Carbide
9
10 TIERNEY LAW OFFICES
11 116 Village Boulevard
12 Suite 200
13 Princeton Forrestal Village
14 Princeton, New Jersey 08540
15 (609) 734-7430
16 BY: TODD ARNO, ESQ.
17 Attorneys for Defendant, Elizabeth Industrial
18 Supply
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont’d):
2
3 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
4 216 Haddon Avenue
5 P.O. Box 2222
6 Westmont, New Jersey 08108
7 (856) 858-7200
8 BY: DAWN DEZII, ESQ.
9 Attorneys for Defendants, Washington
10 Group Int’l and Central Jersey Supply
11
12 ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
13 1515 Market Street, 9th Floor
14 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
15 (215) 851-8400
16 BY: RACHEL ROSSER, ESQ.
17 Attorneys for Defendant, CBS
18
19 LANDMAN, CORSI, BALLAINE & FORD, PC
20 One Gateway Center
21 Newark, New Jersey 07102
22 (973) 623-2700
23 BY: JONATHAN MEER, ESQ.
24 Attorneys for Defendant, Sequoia Ventures
25
7
1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont’d):
2
3 McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
4 100 Mulberry Street, Gateway 4
5 Newark, New Jersey 07102
6 (973) 622-4444
7 BY: MITCHELL KURTZ, ESQ.
8 Attorneys for Defendant, Wabco North America
9
10 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
11 220 Campus Drive
12 Florham Park, New Jersey 07932
13 (973) 360-7900
14 BY: MARISSA BANEZ, ESQ.
15 Attorneys for Defendant, Robert A. Keasbey
16
17 MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN
18 200 Lake Drive East, Suite 300
19 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08022
20 (856) 414-6000
21 BY: NADIRA KIRKLAND, ESQ.
22 Attorneys for Defendants, DB Riley, Inc.,
23 Henkels & McCoy
24
25
8
1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont’d):
2
3 HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST
4 & DOUKAS
5 40 Paterson Street – Box 480
6 New Brunswick, New Jersey 08902
7 (732) 545-4717
8 BY: KRISTY KULINA LYONS, ESQ.
9 Attorneys for Defendants, Pitt Mining,
10 Joy Mining Machinery
11
12 McGIVNEY & KLUGER, P.C.
13 23 Vreeland Road
14 Florham Park, New Jersey 07932
15 (973) 822-1110
16 BY: MARVIN BLAKELY, ESQ.
17 Attorneys for Defendants, Madsen & Howell,
18 Resco Holdings
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
1 I N D E X
2
3 WITNESS NAME PAGE NO.
4
5 MARJORIE A. DRUCKER
6
7 Direct by Mr. Placitella 13
8 Cross by Mr. Kapshandy 274
9 Redirect by Mr. Placitella 315
10 Cross by Mr. McGrath 337
11
12
13 E X H I B I T S
14
15 EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.
16
17 P-1 Notice to Take Deposition 12
18
19 P-2 Document entitled,
20 “Horvath List” 31
21
22 P-3A Drucker’s DVD 31
23
24 P-3B Drucker’s DVD 31
25
10
1 E X H I B I T S
2
3 EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.
4
5 P-3C Drucker’s DVD 31
6
7 P-4 CD Index 63
8
9 P-5 Set of General Electric
10 documents 116
11
12 P-6 Drucker’s document index 147
13
14 P-7 Letter from Hamilton to Swope,
15 12/14/33 191
16
17 P-8 Three-page report on West
18 Philadelphia plant 196
19
20 P-9 Two-page letter from Clark to
21 Hamilton, 2/13/34 199
22
23 P-10 Report of Bridgeport Production
24 Facilities by Joanna Haas,
25 1/1/76 205
11
1 E X H I B I T S
2
3 EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.
4
5 P-11 Safe Practice Bulletin,
6 April, 1942 212
7
8 P-12 Bartlett’s Memo to File,
9 11/22/72 242
10
11 P-13 Excerpt from Nov-Dec 1972 GE
12 Monogram brochure 248
13
14 P-14 General Electric Seminar,
15 January 12, 1973 259
16
17 P-15 Letter from Martelon,
18 2/21/73 266
19
20 P-16 Piece of paper dated Nov. 28,
21 2007 332
22
23 D-1 Letter from Hamilton to Swope,
24 5/11/34 275
25
12
1 (Notice to Take Deposition and
2 Demand for Production of
3 Documents is marked as P-1 for
4 Identification.)
5
6 VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning.
7 This is the videotape deposition of
8 Marjorie A. Drucker taken by Horvath
9 Plaintiff, in the matter of Horvath
10 versus Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., filed in
11 the Superior Court of New Jersey,
12 Middlesex County Law Division. Docket
13 number L-2068-06.
14 This deposition is being held at
15 Sedgwick, Detert located at Three
16 Gateway Center, Newark, New Jersey on
17 November 28, 2007.
18 My name is Ray Sigmond, from the
19 firm of Magna Legal Services. The
20 court reporter is Miriam Alfano from
21 Brody Depositions.
22 We are on the record at 10:25.
23 Counsel will now state their
24 appearances for the record.
25 MR. PLACITELLA: Chris
13
1 Placitella on behalf of the plaintiff.
2 MR. KAPSHANDY: Timothy
3 Kapshandy, Sidley Austin, on behalf of
4 General Electric Company.
5 (Discussion off record.)
6 MR. PLACITELLA: Just put them
7 on the written record. That’s fine.
8 VIDEOGRAPHER: The court
9 reporter will now swear in the
10 witness.
11
12 M A R J O R I E A. D R U C K E R,
13 876 Fifth Street, Manhattan
14 Beach, California, 90266,
15 called as a witness, having been
16 first duly sworn according to
17 law, testifies as follows:
18
19 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PLACITELLA:
20
21 Q Good morning, Ms. Drucker. How
22 are you?
23 A Hi. Good morning. Well.
24 Q As you know, my name is Chris
25 Placitella. I’m here for the purpose of
14
1 taking your deposition.
2 A Yes.
3 Q I know that you’ve had your
4 deposition taken many times, so I’m going to
5 relieve you of the burden of me giving you
6 instructions, because you could probably tell
7 me the instructions. True?
8 A We’ll find out.
9 Q Okay. Now, the first thing I
10 want to do is I want to have marked — I have
11 marked here P-1 for Identification, which was
12 the deposition notice in this case.
13 And pursuant to the deposition
14 notice, you’re appearing today as that
15 representative of General Electric with the
16 most knowledge concerning the equipment sold,
17 installed or repaired by General Electric at
18 Chevron, Perth Amboy, New Jersey, Standard
19 Oil of California, from 1945 to 1976.
20 Correct?
21 A My understanding is that I’m prepared
22 to represent certain parts of what you just
23 said; that you listed several things in the
24 deposition notice and that I am to address
25 numbers 4, 5 and 6.
15
1 Q That’s not my understanding. My
2 understanding is you’re being produced as the
3 person with the most knowledge pursuant to my
4 description, and that other documents were to
5 be produced.
6 MR. KAPSHANDY: No.
7 MR. PLACITELLA: The deposition
8 notice says that I’m supposed to get
9 the person with the most knowledge
10 concerning the equipment sold,
11 installed or repaired by this
12 defendant — by this defendant at
13 Chevron, U.S.A., Perth Amboy, New
14 Jersey, Standard Oil of California,
15 from ’45 to ’76. That’s who I was
16 supposed to get for today’s
17 deposition. Not two people, not a
18 half today, a half another time. So
19 this is all news to me.
20 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel, that’s
21 totally untrue. There have been
22 numerous depositions — discussions
23 between your office and Speziale &
24 Hawkins that there will be two
25 witnesses to cover, and we’ve entitled
16
1 to do that under the rules, the
2 subjects covered by this deposition.
3 MR. PLACITELLA: Can you show me
4 the correspondence, please, because
5 I’m not aware of any?
6 And I had a correspondence with
7 Ms. Hawkins about this particular
8 notice as late as this past weekend
9 saying that this is the person who is
10 going to be produced pursuant to my
11 notice.
12 So can show me the
13 correspondence that says that you’re
14 going to produce somebody else, other
15 than Ms. Drucker, who I prepared to
16 take the deposition for today.
17 MR. KAPSHANDY: Well, we’ll get
18 that for you, gladly. I didn’t bring
19 it today. I didn’t think there was
20 going to be a problem.
21 Your office was on notice. If
22 there would be two witnesses, the
23 first three subjects would be covered
24 by the turbine witness.
25 The knowledge subjects –
17
1 MR. PLACITELLA: When did you
2 give me that notice?
3 MR. KAPSHANDY: — four, five
4 and six would be covered.
5 MR. PLACITELLA: When did you
6 give me that notice, sir? Could we
7 take a break, please, and you get that
8 for me?
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: No, I can’t
10 bring that right now. We’ll take a
11 break later.
12 MR. PLACITELLA: We’ll take a
13 break and call your office and get
14 that stuff and show me.
15 Maybe I’m wrong, but right now
16 I’m prepared to take a different
17 deposition. Let’s just take a break.
18 MR. KAPSHANDY: This witness is
19 here to cover subjects four, five and
20 six.
21 MR. PLACITELLA: Four, five and
22 six are just documents that I’veve
23 asked for. that wasn’t the subject
24 matter of the deposition. The subject
25 matter of the deposition is very
18
1 clear. It says, “That person with the
2 most knowledge concerning –
3 MR. KAPSHANDY: Your office was
4 told –
5 MR. PLACITELLA: — the
6 equipment sold, installed or repaired
7 by this defendant at Chevron.
8 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel, Can you
9 please relax yourself?
10 MR. PLACITELLA: Let’s take a
11 break.
12 MR. KAPSHANDY: The person who
13 is going to cover turbines, your
14 office has been put on notice as had
15 surgery, is unavailable to cover the
16 turbines. There has been numerous
17 exchanges of correspondence about
18 that, in which case your office said
19 that that person can be produced when
20 he is recovered from surgery.
21 There have been many exchanges
22 of correspondence and I don’t think we
23 need to burden the record with
24 producing all that correspondence.
25 MR. PLACITELLA: I’d like to
19
1 have it on the record because I have
2 not seen it.
3 Now, Ms. Placitella will be here
4 soon and maybe she can clear it up.
5 MR. KAPSHANDY: If you’re not
6 going to proceed until we get the
7 correspondence, we’ll stop the
8 deposition. I’ll try and track down
9 Ms. Hawkins and get the
10 correspondence.
11 She is not in her office today.
12 I doubt that we’ll get it today. But
13 if you’re not prepared to proceed with
14 this witness who’s covering subjects
15 4, 5 and 6, then we’re finished. Is
16 that the case?
17 MR. PLACITELLA: You’re going to
18 bring her back another day?
19 MR. KAPSHANDY: No, we’re not.
20 She’s here. We’ve offered her to you
21 twice before, on August — excuse me,
22 October 27th and October 28th. And
23 those depositions, one was not
24 acceptable. The other was cancelled
25 by your office at the last minute.
20
1 We’ve had enough shenanigans about the
2 dates and production of this witness
3 and the exact location.
4 MR. PLACITELLA: You know what,
5 can you make sure you put him on the
6 video while he’s doing this
7 shenanigans? Could you take him while
8 he’s making a speech, because I want
9 to show it to the judge?
10 VIDEOGRAPHER: That has to be a
11 stipulation.
12 MR. PLACITELLA: No, he’s a
13 counsel. I want him on the video too.
14 You call what I’ve done in this
15 case shenanigans? You’re pro hoc in
16 this case, sir, are you not? Before
17 you start accusing a lawyer barred in
18 the State of New Jersey of
19 shenanigans, you better have a basis
20 for making that statement.
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel, we
22 offered her for deposition on October
23 25th. That was rejected. We offered
24 her on the 25th. That was accepted
25 and cancelled on October 22nd.
21
1 MR. PLACITELLA: Do you know the
2 reason for that, sir?
3 MR. KAPSHANDY: We were told
4 that — no, we weren’t give any
5 reason.
6 MR. PLACITELLA: You don’t know
7 the reason.
8 So before you start accusing me
9 of shenanigans, as a pro hocked lawyer
10 in this state, maybe you better think
11 very carefully about the words you’re
12 using.
13 MR. KAPSHANDY: I’m speaking
14 very carefully.
15 MR. PLACITELLA: So you think
16 shenanigans is what we’ve done with
17 this witness? Is that your statement,
18 sir?
19 MR. KAPSHANDY: You were put on
20 notice that the turbine witness has
21 had surgery. He was not available.
22 Your office decided to proceed with
23 the knowledge witness. You were told
24 there were two witnesses that were
25 covering the subject of this notice.
22
1 And if you’re telling us here –
2 MR. PLACITELLA: What is the
3 subject of the notice?
4 MR. KAPSHANDY: — that’s the
5 first time you’re hearing this –
6 MR. PLACITELLA: You have the
7 notice. What is the subject of the
8 notice? What does the deposition
9 notice say?
10 MR. KAPSHANDY: It requests a
11 person knowledgeable about the
12 equipment sold to Chevron Oil in Perth
13 Amboy, including — and it lists a
14 whole bunch of areas on the back,
15 which include knowledge for which the
16 turbine witness is not able to
17 discuss.
18 We have a second witness here –
19 MR. PLACITELLA: Who is the
20 turbine witness, sir?
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: His name is
22 David Skinner.
23 MR. PLACITELLA: What about the
24 other turbine witness you put up, that
25 starts with a B, that you had deposed
23
1 yesterday in Albany? How come he’s
2 not here?
3 MR. KAPSHANDY: He’s not
4 available to cover this one.
5 MR. PLACITELLA: Why not?
6 MR. KAPSHANDY: Because he’s too
7 busy with other commitments.
8 MR. PLACITELLA: Oh, he’s too
9 busy. Okay.
10 So Mr. Skinner, who I don’t know
11 about, who had surgery, I can’t depose
12 him. He’s not here.
13 And the other guy, who was
14 deposed yesterday on the same relevant
15 subjects for another case, he’s too
16 busy to come.
17 MR. KAPSHANDY: Mr. Skinner is
18 the one who investigated these job
19 sites and reviewed these files and is
20 prepared to discuss these turbines.
21 MR. PLACITELLA: When we take a
22 break you’ll get me the
23 correspondence, okay?
24 MR. KAPSHANDY: You’re prepared
25 to proceed without that
24
1 correspondence?
2 MR. PLACITELLA: I’m prepared to
3 proceed as the deposition is taken.
4 And if it turns out that I’m wrong,
5 fine. But if she’s the person most
6 knowledgeable, and that’s the person
7 who’s produced, then that’s what
8 you’re stuck with.
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: We’re producing
10 two witnesses. Your office has been
11 on notice about this for a long period
12 of time. So don’t feign surprise.
13 MR. PLACITELLA: We’ll see about
14 that. All right. Sorry about that.
15 BY MR. PLACITELLA:
16 Q Okay. So what are the areas in
17 my description, this paragraph that starts,
18 “that representative,” and ends with “1976,”
19 can you tell me what areas in that paragraph
20 you’re prepared to address?
21 A I’ll take a look at this?
22 Q Sure.
23 A It says, “that representative or those
24 representatives.”
25 Q Yes, I did. Keep going.
25
1 A Right, of this defendant. Yes, “of
2 this defendant with the most knowledge
3 concerning the equipment sold, installed,
4 repaired by this defendant at Chevron,
5 U.S.A., Perth Amboy, New Jersey.”
6 And as I mentioned before, it’s
7 my understanding that I am to address
8 numbers — you do have it listed as documents
9 to produce, numbers 4, 5 and 6, that’s what I
10 cover. And that there’s a turbine specialist
11 who will respond to your questions 1, 2 and
12 3.
13 Q Okay. So as my question stands,
14 you have no knowledge concerning the
15 equipment sold, correct?
16 A Well, I do have some knowledge. It’s
17 part of what I do in health and safety. I
18 know the historical background with regard to
19 the subject that we’re here for.
20 Q Right.
21 A And I also do have case specific
22 information. So I have some information.
23 I will tell you what I have, and
24 then the other part I would refer you to the
25 turbine specialist.
26
1 Q So you do have knowledge
2 concerning equipment sold to Chevron from
3 1945 to 1976, is that what you’re saying?
4 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
5 Asked and answered.
6 MR. PLACITELLA: Excuse me,
7 that’s not a proper objection under
8 New Jersey rules.
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: I object to the
10 form of the question. It’s been asked
11 and answered.
12 MR. PLACITELLA: It’s not a
13 proper objection, asked and answered.
14 If you continue to do that — please
15 mark every objection of counsel so I
16 can submit to it the court.
17 Q So you do have knowledge
18 concerning the equipment sold to Chevron by
19 General Electric from 1945 to 1976?
20 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection. Form
21 of the question.
22 A Not direct — the equipment wasn’t
23 directly sold by General Electric to Chevron.
24 That’s why the hesitance.
25 My understanding is that the
27
1 equipment was sold through another means, and
2 I would be happy to go over that with you.
3 Q Okay. So you do have that
4 knowledge.
5 And do you have knowledge
6 concerning the equipment installed by General
7 Electric at the Chevron, Perth Amboy facility
8 from 1945 to 1976?
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to the
10 form of the question.
11 MR. PLACITELLA: Excuse me.
12 What’s the problem with the form?
13 What’s the problem with the form of
14 the question?
15 MR. KAPSHANDY: It assumes facts
16 not evidence.
17 MR. PLACITELLA: That’s not a
18 proper objection under New Jersey
19 rules, sir.
20 MR. KAPSHANDY: Well, you asked
21 for the reason. I gave it to you.
22 MR. PLACITELLA: Well, that’s
23 not a proper — if you’re going to do
24 that each time — that’s not a proper
25 objection. It’s not a proper
28
1 objection under the court rules.
2 Please don’t do it.
3 Can you read my question back,
4 please?
5 (The following question is read
6 back:
7 “QUESTION: So you do have that
8 knowledge.
9 “And do you have knowledge
10 concerning the equipment installed by
11 General Electric at the Chevron, Perth
12 Amboy facility from 1945 to 1976?”)
13 Q Do you have knowledge?
14 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to the
15 form.
16 Go ahead.
17 A I have some knowledge at that — some
18 people were involved, and the means — let me
19 make this a little more clear. That there
20 was some GE equipment that ended up at the
21 Chevron location in Perth Amboy, not
22 necessarily having been sent from GE to
23 Chevron.
24 There are other means in which
25 it has been gotten to them, and I’d be happy
29
1 to go over that with you.
2 Q Okay. I’ll get to that.
3 Do you have knowledge concerning
4 the equipment repaired by General Electric at
5 the Chevron, Perth Amboy facility from ’45 to
6 ’76?
7 A No, I have no knowledge of that, if
8 that ever occurred.
9 Q Okay. You’ve been provided no
10 documents or anything to that effect?
11 A Yes. That’s my recollection.
12 Q Okay. Now, what did you do to
13 investigate what was requested in this
14 deposition notice?
15 A Well, I’ve done many things. And if
16 it would be easier, we could go through them
17 separately, 4, 5 and 6, and I could address
18 them that way, if you’d like.
19 Q No, I just want to know
20 generally, if that’s okay.
21 A Okay.
22 Q What did you do to investigate
23 what was requested in this deposition notice?
24 A Well, I’d say in general I’ve been
25 researching for over four years now GE’s
30
1 historical programs in health and safety,
2 including those related to asbestos. So I am
3 able to speak with knowledge about their uses
4 of asbestos, their historical sharing of
5 information, and many other aspects that I’ve
6 been able to reveal in over four years of
7 doing that.
8 In fact, there’s a report in the
9 files that were provided, I believe, to you
10 that contain a summary of the — a lot of the
11 four years of work that I’ve already done
12 relative to GE’s health and safety programs.
13 Q And what did you do to prepare
14 for this deposition that we’re here for
15 today?
16 A Well, sure. One thing is I always
17 refer to the set of documents that is called
18 the Drucker materials, and I’m pointing to
19 the CD-ROMs or DVDs that are right next to
20 you that were provided to you.
21 And I also looked at case
22 specific information to become knowledgeable
23 about the facts in this case.
24 Q Okay. And what case specific
25 information did you review?
31
1 A I have a list for you.
2 Q Great.
3 A Okay.
4 Q Why don’t we mark that P-2, if
5 that’s okay.
6 (The above-mentioned document
7 entitled, “Horvath List,” is
8 marked as P-2 for
9 Identification.)
10 MR. PLACITELLA: And why don’t
11 we mark these 3A, B and C?
12 (DVDs are marked respectively as
13 P-3A, B and C for
14 Identification.)
15 Q Okay. P-2, you’ve provided me a
16 list. You indicate you looked at the William
17 Horvath videotape deposition.
18 A Yes. It would help if I could see it,
19 if you wouldn’t mind.
20 Q Okay. Then I can’t see here.
21 A If you put it here, perhaps.
22 Q Well, you can read it to me and
23 then I’ll ask the questions.
24 A Yes, I reviewed the William Horvath
25 videotape deposition of November 7th, 2006.
32
1 Q Did you review any of his other
2 depositions?
3 A No.
4 Q Were they provided to you?
5 A No.
6 Q Okay.
7 A I’ve reviewed depositions of
8 Mr. Ernest Horvath.
9 Q Which ones?
10 A Of March 26, 2007, April 11th, 2007,
11 and October 12th, 2007.
12 Q Okay. So you haven’t seen his
13 latest deposition?
14 A If there’s one later than October
15 12th, I have not.
16 Q Okay.
17 A I also reviewed the Amended Complaint
18 dated October 17th, 2006.
19 Q Okay. And the purpose of that
20 was what?
21 A To become familiar with what some of
22 the issues were in this matter.
23 Q What, if any, significance did
24 the Amended Complaint have to you?
25 A You know, I’d have to look at it to
33
1 point out some things. I’d say in general
2 what it gave me is just general background
3 information. Okay?
4 Q Okay.
5 A And next I reviewed the expert medical
6 report.
7 Q Whose report?
8 A Dr. Steven Markowitz.
9 Q Did you review any other
10 reports?
11 A Medical reports?
12 Q Yes.
13 A No, not that I recall.
14 Q Okay. And what, if any,
15 significance was a report of Dr. Markowitz to
16 you?
17 A Well, I — again, without looking at
18 it — I recall a few things that I can point
19 out to you. And that is his discussion about
20 Mrs. Horvath’s illness and Mr. Horvath’s work
21 at the location that ended up being called
22 Chevron.
23 Q Okay. Next.
24 A The next, the deposition notice of
25 September 5th, 2007. National Safety Council
34
1 Sectional Officers, a document on that, dated
2 1927.
3 Q Why did you look at that?
4 A Why, pardon?
5 Q Uh-huh.
6 A Oh, I always in cases where I am
7 looking at things, I routinely look at the
8 National Safety Council documents to see who
9 was involved and who had the opportunity to
10 gain knowledge from the National Safety
11 Council, which was, and still in some ways,
12 is the premier holder and dispersal of safety
13 and health information throughout the
14 country.
15 So for many years, all different
16 kinds of companies and organizations,
17 municipalities, everything, belonged to the
18 National Safety Council. So it tells me that
19 when a company has a person who is a
20 sectional officer on a National Safety
21 Council going back to 1927, that they would
22 have been very knowledgeable about health and
23 safety.
24 Q Why did you pick 1927?
25 A I picked 1927 because that was the
35
1 earliest date that I could find in the
2 National Safety Council documents that it was
3 a predecessor to Chevron; that Barber Asphalt
4 was involved with the National Safety
5 Council. So it was the first date I found.
6 Q Okay. So what were you looking
7 for to see how far back Chevron had a
8 connection to the National Safety Council, is
9 that the object of your investigation?
10 A Yes, I’d say that was one, yes.
11 Q Okay.
12 A And also to find out, you know, what
13 they did. Obviously, this person was an
14 officer, so it told me there’s somebody
15 really in the know in that group.
16 Q And what’s the next thing you
17 looked at?
18 A And the next thing I looked at was an
19 aerial photograph of the facility, Chevron
20 facility, from Google.
21 Q You did that yourself?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Okay. And how recent was that
24 photograph? I thought they closed the
25 facility down.
36
1 A I saw it on line yesterday, as I
2 recall.
3 Q Okay. Now, the Drucker
4 materials, for lack of a better term, did you
5 review any of these materials specifically in
6 preparation for this deposition?
7 A Well, as I said, I’m always reviewing
8 them. But the National Safety Council
9 documents, of which that mentions Barber’s
10 links with the National Safety Council, goes
11 back to 1927. That is in these three DVDs.
12 And that’s what comes to mind.
13 If something else does as we’re doing it,
14 I’ll tell you.
15 Q Okay. That’s fine.
16 Now, did you review any specific
17 internal correspondence related to either
18 General Electric or Chevron in preparation
19 for this deposition?
20 A Internal — can you say that again?
21 Q Internal company correspondence.
22 A Any internal company correspondence?
23 Q Yes. Specifically in
24 preparation for this deposition.
25 A Well, I’d say in a broad sense there
37
1 is some company correspondence in the Drucker
2 materials that is not necessarily linked to
3 this case, but that has just some bearing on
4 the whole picture of health and safety
5 issues.
6 Q And when you say — are you
7 referring to General Electric correspondence
8 or Chevron correspondence?
9 A General Electric correspondence.
10 Q Okay. And did you review any
11 hygiene surveys in preparation for your
12 deposition that relate specifically to this
13 case?
14 A Yes, I would say I did. Yes, that are
15 also contained in the Drucker survey.
16 Q Which hygiene surveys did you
17 review?
18 A Well, within those three DVDs you’ll
19 find over 6000 separate industrial hygiene
20 air measurements that were taken during the
21 production of use of GE products.
22 And some of those products are
23 mentioned in this case, at least one. So I
24 reviewed that information.
25 Q What specifically, so I know
38
1 what to ask you about?
2 A As I recall, there was a mention of a
3 gasket. And I just — I looked at the gasket
4 information.
5 Q What gasket information did you
6 look at?
7 A There’s gasket industrial hygiene
8 data.
9 Q I understand that, but which
10 one?
11 A I should probably say that — take a
12 step back and clarify something.
13 As I recall, a gasket was
14 mentioned in relation to the turbine, to one
15 of the turbines. And it’s my understanding
16 that gaskets are not used in turbines around
17 the horizontal seal.
18 So there would not actually have
19 been a gasket that was described in the — in
20 Mr. Horvath’s testimony.
21 MR. PLACITELLA: Can you read my
22 question back?
23 (The following questions and
24 answer are read back:
25 “QUESTION: What gasket
39
1 information did you look at?
2 “ANSWER: There’s gasket
3 industrial hygiene data.
4 “QUESTION: I understand that,
5 but which one?”)
6 Q Let me ask the question this
7 way: What industrial hygiene data did you
8 look at relating to gaskets that relates to
9 this case?
10 A As relates to this case, I did not
11 review the gasket data.
12 Q Okay.
13 A Because there was, in my estimation,
14 my understanding, there was no gasket.
15 Q Okay. And –
16 A I’d like to clarify that.
17 Q You looked at some depositions
18 of Mr. Horvath and some depositions of his
19 brother, correct?
20 A Yes, I — the ones that I told you
21 about.
22 Q Okay. Tell me what questions
23 were asked by General Electric counsel about
24 turbines at the Chevron facility?
25 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
40
1 form.
2 Q To your knowledge.
3 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
4 form.
5 A I would have to have that
6 documentation in front of me. I don’t
7 recall, as I sit here right now.
8 Q Am I correct that not a single
9 question was asked by General Electric
10 counsel concerning turbines used at the
11 Chevron facility?
12 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
13 Form. This is highly inappropriate,
14 Counsel. She’s not here to comment
15 upon GE’s counsel.
16 MR. PLACITELLA: I want to know.
17 MR. KAPSHANDY: Well, you can
18 read the deposition, Counsel. This is
19 getting argumentative and in
20 insulting.
21 Go ahead and answer the
22 question. If you need to look at the
23 deposition, Ms. Drucker, look at it.
24 Q Why don’t we do this: We’ll
25 take a break. Your attorney will give you
41
1 the depositions to look at, and then I’ll ask
2 you to point to me the questions that were
3 asked relating to turbines by General
4 Electric at Chevron, okay?
5 A Okay.
6 Q This way we won’t hold things
7 up.
8 Now, did you speak –
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Well, on her
10 break, she’s going to take a break.
11 She’s not going to be working.
12 If you want to do it now, take a
13 break.
14 MR. PLACITELLA: She just agreed
15 to do it.
16 Q Now, Did you speak with any
17 witnesses as part of your investigation for
18 this case?
19 A Well, I’d say from my general
20 background on the health and safety programs
21 at GE, historical information, including
22 those for asbestos, yes, I’ve spoken to many
23 people.
24 Q What witnesses did you speak to
25 about this case?
42
1 A Well, as I said, to provide me general
2 understanding and background about GE’s
3 historical programs, I spoke to many people.
4 With specific regard to this
5 case, a name doesn’t come up. If as we’re
6 talking it does, I’ll let you know.
7 Q Okay. Did you speak to any
8 current or former company employees about
9 this case?
10 A Are you asking about GE employees or
11 whose employees?
12 Q Yes, GE. Any former GE company
13 employees or current employees about this
14 case?
15 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel, for the
16 record, is the knowledge of the
17 dangers of asbestos an issue in this
18 case?
19 MR. PLACITELLA: Is that a
20 statement or objection?
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: I’m just asking
22 you to qualify that. Can you clarify
23 the question?
24 MR. PLACITELLA: I’m not
25 clarifying anything. You got the
43
1 complaint. You know what the case is
2 about.
3 MR. KAPSHANDY: Okay.
4 Ms. Drucker, if you understand the
5 question, go ahead and answer.
6 MS. DRUCKER: Yes.
7 A Do you mind having it repeated,
8 please?
9 Q I’ll ask it again.
10 A Okay.
11 Q Did you speak to any current or
12 former GE employees specifically about this
13 case?
14 A And can I just see the deposition
15 notice again?
16 Q Yes.
17 A Thank you.
18 Q Okay.
19 A And as I said, with my understanding,
20 I was going to address numbers 4, 5 and 6.
21 And number 4 is all documents concerning this
22 defendant’s historical knowledge of the
23 dangers of asbestos or asbestos-containing
24 products prior to 1977.
25 So yes, I did. I spoke to many
44
1 people, current and former people with the
2 company, to be able to address that issue
3 itself.
4 Q Tell me who those people are.
5 A There’s actually a list in those
6 documents. It’s called –
7 Q I just want to know your
8 recollection. I don’t need a list. Who did
9 you speak to about this case that you
10 remember?
11 A Well, I spoke to about 40 or so people
12 that are on that list. And I would like to
13 have the list in front of me. I could go
14 down it.
15 Q Have you discussed with any one
16 of those 40 people Mr. or Mrs. Horvath or
17 Chevron?
18 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
19 Form.
20 Q Did you discuss with any of
21 those 40 people Mr. or Mrs. Horvath or
22 Chevron?
23 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
24 Form.
25 A Specifically about the Horvaths, no, I
45
1 did not.
2 Q Okay. Now, you currently live
3 in Manhattan Beach, California, is that
4 correct?
5 A Yes.
6 Q And at one time you worked as an
7 industrial hygienist, correct?
8 A For over 30 years I’ve worked as an
9 industrial hygienist.
10 Q At one time you worked as an
11 industrial hygienist, correct? You don’t do
12 that now?
13 A Yes, I do.
14 Q When’s the last time you
15 conducted an industrial hygiene survey?
16 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
17 Form.
18 A Well, maybe I could step back and
19 answer –
20 Q Just, if you can answer that
21 question. When is the last time you
22 conducted an industrial hygiene survey?
23 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
24 Form. It’s a different question.
25 It’s argumentative.
46
1 A Well, if you’re talking about a
2 survey, doing actual sampling in the field as
3 an industrial hygienist, I’d say a few years
4 ago.
5 Q Okay.
6 A But I consider — if I can answer the
7 question –
8 Q No. That’s sufficient.
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Let her finish,
10 please.
11 MR. PLACITELLA: That’s
12 sufficient for me. I’ll go to the
13 next question
14 MR. KAPSHANDY: Go ahead and
15 finish.
16 A You know, I can’t not give you my
17 whole answer, so let me finish.
18 Q All right. You talk. I’m going
19 to read some documents. Keep going.
20 MR. KAPSHANDY: Quit insulting
21 the witness, Counsel.
22 Go ahead and answer.
23 Q Keep going.
24 A To be an industrial hygienist doesn’t
25 only mean that you go out in the field and
47
1 you take samples. That’s part of it. To be
2 an industrial hygienist means that you’re a
3 person who is trained and experienced in the
4 recognition, evaluation of control of
5 occupational and environmental exposure.
6 So in the sense of my being an
7 industrial hygienist, I have been over 30 or
8 35 years an industrial hygienist. I don’t
9 only relate it to, perhaps, the last time I
10 took some pumps out in the field and did some
11 sampling.
12 Q Okay. When is the last time you
13 did any kind of industrial hygiene survey out
14 in the field?
15 A As I recall, that would have been
16 around 2000 — perhaps 2001, 2002, something
17 like that.
18 Q Okay. And at some point in time
19 you had a career change, correct, in the last
20 few years?
21 A Well, in the last few years, yes, some
22 of the type of work that I’ve been doing has
23 changed somewhat, yes.
24 I’m still a consultant in the
25 general areas of occupational and
48
1 environmental health and safety.
2 Q And your current job is to act
3 as a professional expert witness, right?
4 A Well, I don’t consider myself a term
5 such as you’re using, a professional expert
6 witness. If I may answer, –
7 Q If you don’t consider
8 yourself — that’s fine. I’ll ask you the
9 question this way –
10 A Can I finish?
11 MR. KAPSHANDY: Let her finish,
12 please.
13 A We talked before about the rules of
14 the deposition. My understanding is that –
15 Q Okay. You tell me the rules.
16 A No, I’m not giving you the rules. My
17 understanding is that I’m allowed to answer
18 the question fully. So if you wouldn’t
19 mind –
20 Q You’re allowed to answer the
21 question that I asked you, not the one you
22 want to answer.
23 So I’ll withdraw the last
24 question and I’ll ask you this question: You
25 work 100 percent of the time now as an expert
49
1 witness, true?
2 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
3 Form.
4 A I work 100 percent of my time now as a
5 consultant who does some expert witnessing.
6 Q Well, your consultancy relates
7 100 percent of the time to litigation,
8 correct?
9 A I’d say at the present time, yes,
10 that’s correct.
11 Q And it has for the last number
12 of years, correct?
13 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
14 Form.
15 A I don’t know what you mean by number.
16 Q Well, in 2004 you started to
17 work 100 percent of the time on litigation;
18 that’s when you had your career change,
19 correct?
20 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
21 form.
22 A Well, as — yes, in 2004, I started
23 doing litigation work full time.
24 Q And that was for General
25 Electric?
50
1 A Yes, at that point that was for
2 General Electric.
3 Q So now we know that you’ve
4 changed careers around 2004, and now you work
5 100 percent of the time for General Electric
6 on litigation, correct?
7 A No.
8 Q You don’t work 100 percent of
9 the time on litigation?
10 A Your use of the term career change I
11 find very misleading.
12 Q Oh, okay.
13 A I have been, and I still am, a
14 professional person in health and safety, a
15 certified industrial hygienist and certified
16 safety professional.
17 I consider a lot of the
18 judgments that I’ve done before and after
19 doing expert work the same professional
20 judgments that I’ve made.
21 Q Yes, but, ma’am, you’re not here
22 for your judgments. You’re here as a fact
23 witness for General Electric.
24 Do you understand that?
25 A My understanding –
51
1 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
2 Form.
3 A I’m not an attorney and I could use
4 your help on the difference between fact and
5 the other.
6 My understanding is that I’m
7 here to address, in this instance, numbers 4,
8 5 and 6, and –
9 Q You understand you’re not here
10 to express any expert opinions, correct? You
11 understand that, right?
12 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
13 Form.
14 Q You’re here only as a
15 representative of General Electric for
16 factual matters; you understand that to be
17 true, correct?
18 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
19 Form.
20 Counsel, her report, which
21 you’re intending to recover, is in the
22 materials that’s been provided to you.
23 MR. PLACITELLA: She is not
24 being produced here as an expert, and
25 I have no intention of asking her
52
1 about anything about a report.
2 If we’re going to do expert
3 depositions, that will be at a totally
4 different time.
5 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel, as
6 we’ve said repeatedly, she’s here to
7 cover 4, 5 and 6. Whether you call
8 that fact, expertise, or corporate
9 representative covering those
10 subjects. She doesn’t understand the
11 legal definition of fact, expert,
12 corporate rep. You can have that
13 discussion with her all day.
14 She’s here to cover 4, 5 and 6,
15 and we’d appreciate it if you proceed.
16 MR. PLACITELLA: So was that an
17 objection or just a speech?
18 MR. KAPSHANDY: It’s a
19 suggestion that, perhaps, you stop
20 arguing with the witness and proceed
21 to cover subjects 4, 5 and 6. She’s
22 answered the question.
23 If you want to argue with her
24 over what the legal definition is of
25 fact, expert or corporate rep, you
53
1 know, spend your time. It’s your
2 eight hours.
3 Q Do you know whether you’re here
4 as an expert or a fact witness for General
5 Electric?
6 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
7 Asked and answered.
8 MR. PLACITELLA: Excuse me, sir.
9 That’s not a proper objection. Please
10 stop doing that.
11 MR. KAPSHANDY: I’m going to
12 object to the form of the question.
13 Go ahead and answer again,
14 Ms. Drucker.
15 MR. PLACITELLA: Are you able to
16 transmit any part of this
17 electronically at lunch time to the
18 Special Master?
19 COURT REPORTER: No.
20 MR. PLACITELLA: I am going to
21 reserve my right to bring this witness
22 back to answer each and every question
23 that I ask that you wrongfully object
24 to.
25 About 85 percent of your
54
1 objections so far have not been in
2 accordance with the New Jersey Court
3 rules. And when I consent to have
4 someone like you be admitted pro hock,
5 it’s with the understanding that you
6 comply with the court rules. You
7 understand that? Otherwise, Mr. Keale
8 can defend the deposition because he
9 knows the court rules.
10 Okay.
11 Q Now, do you know whether you are
12 here because you are an expert or a fact
13 witness?
14 MR. KAPSHANDY: Object to the
15 form of the question.
16 A My understanding is that the attorneys
17 make those decisions. My understanding is
18 I’m here to address whatever I’m able to in
19 numbers 4, 5 and 6 of your notice.
20 Q Let me go back to my early
21 question.
22 Since 2004, 100 percent of your
23 time has been working in litigation. Can we
24 agree on that?
25 A Yes, I think so.
55
1 Q And you’ve been paid by General
2 Electric close to a million dollars for that
3 information for that work, correct?
4 A I haven’t added it up. I don’t know
5 the sum.
6 Q Well, you get, what? In 2004
7 you charged $300,000, is that correct?
8 A In 2004, that sounds correct.
9 Q And in 2005 you charged another
10 $300,000?
11 A I’d say — I’m basing this on a range
12 of hours per month. So about 100 hours per
13 month comes around 2, 300,000 a year.
14 Q And then in 2006 we’re at
15 another $300,000, correct?
16 A No.
17 Q Oh, you did less than?
18 A Yes.
19 Q How much?
20 A I’d say the range of hours between
21 2006, 2007, is between 50 and 100 hours per
22 month.
23 Q Okay. So now that we’ve done
24 the math, we’re somewhere between $800,000
25 and a million dollars that General Electric
56
1 has paid you to be a corporate representative
2 or an expert witness, correct?
3 A Yes, I’d say about that.
4 Q Okay. And do you know currently
5 how many other employees that General
6 Electric has that are industrial hygienists?
7 A Currently?
8 Q Yes.
9 A I don’t know.
10 Q What about medical doctors, how
11 many medical doctors?
12 A I don’t know. I can tell you that
13 it’s in the list that I referred to before,
14 the people places list that, from talking to
15 the people on staff now, there are about a
16 thousand safety health and environmental
17 people throughout the company.
18 Q All right. And that includes
19 hygienists and doctors, correct?
20 A Yes, it would include hygienists,
21 safety people, doctors, yes, and
22 environmental engineers.
23 Q But General Electric didn’t
24 elect to bring any one of them here to New
25 Jersey, they decided to pay you over a
57
1 million dollars to testify, even though you
2 don’t work for them, right?
3 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
4 Form.
5 A Well, I think that’s — over a million
6 is different than the amount that you came up
7 with before.
8 Q 700,000 to a million dollars you
9 were paid to come here, we have established
10 that, correct?
11 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
12 Form. She wasn’t paid $700,000 to
13 come here today. That’s misleading
14 and argumentative.
15 Q You’ve been paid 700,000 to a
16 million dollars in preparation — scratch
17 that — by General Electric up until today
18 for your work in asbestos litigation, fair?
19 A I said I haven’t run a total. The
20 range sounds correct. I’ve been doing a
21 broad range of work for over four years.
22 Q And even though there’s at least
23 a thousand people in General Electric who
24 actually work there in industrial health and
25 safety, none of them are here to testify for
58
1 General Electric, true?
2 A Well, yes. My understanding is
3 because they wouldn’t have had the expertise
4 to be able to address the subjects that are
5 at hand.
6 Q Well, they could have read the
7 same stuff as you, right?
8 A Well, I’ve been researching this
9 matter, speaking to people, analyzing over
10 6000 air samples, researching the general
11 medical and scientific information, reviewing
12 documents, intensively doing historical
13 research for over four years. And I am not
14 aware of anybody else who’s done that breadth
15 of work to be able to come here and respond
16 to your questions.
17 Q Okay. Are you an employee of
18 General Electric?
19 A No.
20 Q Okay. Do you have the power to
21 make a single decision anywhere within
22 General Electric?
23 A No, not that I’m aware of.
24 Q Do you have the power to make a
25 single decision about occupational health and
59
1 safety in General Electric?
2 A Currently, no.
3 Q Do you have the power to make a
4 single decision about whether workers should
5 be warned about products that General
6 Electric uses or manufactures?
7 A Can you please repeat that?
8 Q I’ll rephrase it.
9 A Thank you.
10 Q Do you have the power to make a
11 single decision concerning how General
12 Electric employees work within the General
13 Electric factories?
14 A No, not currently.
15 Q Do you have the power to make a
16 single decision about what kind of warnings
17 or advisories General Electric should provide
18 to its customers concerning product safety?
19 A No, not currently.
20 Q Did you meet with any General
21 Electric executives who asked you to come
22 here and testify today?
23 A No.
24 Q Have you ever met with any
25 General Electric executive concerning the
60
1 work that you’re doing for General Electric
2 now?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Who?
5 A I had the opportunity to meet with the
6 current corporate medical director, and I met
7 with the current corporate head of
8 Occupational and Environmental Health and
9 Safety.
10 Q Could you give me their names,
11 please?
12 A Yes. The current corporate medical
13 director is Dr. Robert Galvin. And the
14 current corporate head of Environmental and
15 Occupational Health and Safety is Mr. Kurt
16 Krueger.
17 And I met with other people who
18 had been in managerial positions in health
19 and safety over the course of about the last
20 40, 50 years historically with the company.
21 So I did meet with a lot of people who were
22 executives related to health and safety.
23 Q That’s fair.
24 Did any person that you met
25 involved with health and safety at General
61
1 Electric authorize you to come here and speak
2 on behalf of General Electric today?
3 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
4 form.
5 A Not that I’m aware of.
6 Q The truth of the matter is,
7 ma’am, that you are a product created by
8 General Electric’s lawyers, aren’t you?
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
10 Form. That’s argumentative and
11 insulting.
12 A No.
13 Q Have you discussed your work for
14 General Electric for this deposition with
15 anyone other than the General Electric
16 lawyers?
17 A Not that I recall.
18 Q Okay. Now, the Drucker
19 materials that were marked 3A, B and C, they
20 say, disk one of one, two and three. Do you
21 recognize these materials, ma’am?
22 A Yes, I do.
23 Q And what are they?
24 A These three DVDs contain thousands of
25 documents that were put together into a set
62
1 of, a collection of documents that have some
2 bearing on either context at different points
3 in time, historically health and safety, GE
4 documents, GE industrial hygiene
5 measurements, a broad range of things that I
6 thought I could bring to bear in my
7 historical research on GE’s health and safety
8 programs.
9 Q So is it your testimony that
10 everything on these CDs is information that
11 you gathered yourself? Is that what you’re
12 telling this jury?
13 A No.
14 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
15 form.
16 A Pardon me. No, I’m not.
17 Q And, in fact, more than 90
18 percent of what’s on these CDs were provided
19 to you by the lawyers for General Electric,
20 true?
21 A No. May I explain?
22 Q Well, I’ll ask the next
23 question. Your answer is no?
24 A I said, may I explain?
25 Q I’m going to get to this and
63
1 I’ll have you explain.
2 MR. KAPSHANDY: Let her finish,
3 now, please.
4 MR. PLACITELLA: If you want to
5 ask her questions during your portion
6 of your deposition, you’re more than
7 welcome. I have a lot to do here.
8 MR. KAPSHANDY: Complete your
9 answer.
10 A My answer was: No, may I explain?
11 Q My answer is: No, you may not
12 explain. Okay?
13 A Okay.
14 MR. PLACITELLA: Now, could you
15 have this marked, please, next.
16 (A CD index is marked as P-4 for
17 Identification.)
18 Q I’m going to hand you what’s
19 been marked as P-4, which I understand to be
20 an index of everything that’s on the three
21 CDs that are entitled, “Drucker Material,
22 Sidley Austin, LLP and Affiliated
23 Partnerships.”
24 Now, have you ever seen an index
25 like this before?
64
1 A Yes. This appears to be the index –
2 it’s the same page copied over and over.
3 It’s page 1.
4 Q I hope it’s not.
5 A It’s page 1.
6 Q Oh, that’s not good. I’ll have
7 to copy the rest at the break. You’re right
8 about that. Okay.
9 This is what the index looks
10 like?
11 A This is what page 1 of the index looks
12 like.
13 Q Okay. And how many pages is the
14 index, to your knowledge?
15 A I don’t recall. I’d say about it’s
16 about three quarters to an inch thick.
17 Q Okay. And can you tell me what
18 percentage of the entries on the index that
19 you’re familiar with you had a hand in
20 preparing?
21 A Well, I’d say I had a hand in
22 preparing and organizing many things in here.
23 Some things I asked to be gotten
24 for me and I asked the attorneys to do that
25 for me, such as all the National Safety
65
1 Council documents.
2 Other things, such as medical
3 and scientific literature, I had seen or
4 might have been actually already accumulated.
5 But it’s things that I had seen throughout
6 the course of my career. I’m doing this for
7 over 30 years as a certified industrial
8 hygienist.
9 So there are a variety of
10 sources where these came from. I went to
11 some libraries and included some information.
12 It’s just a whole — many sources that I
13 assembled to put together to be able to shed
14 light on the historical aspects of GE’s
15 health and safety programs.
16 Q Did you personally put together
17 the majority of these materials, ma’am?
18 A Well, if you’re asking me did I
19 physically take pieces of paper and type it
20 into an index, such as the one that we’re
21 referring to, physically I did not.
22 Q Who did that?
23 A I would think somebody from the Sidley
24 firm did that for me.
25 Q Okay. And you directed them to
66
1 do that?
2 A Through Mr. Kapshandy, yes, I had
3 requested certain things and directed that
4 that be done.
5 Q Okay. Now, the materials on
6 these CDs, did you personally gather the
7 majority of the materials, or did the
8 lawyers?
9 A Well, again, some of the materials,
10 some of the documents on these CDs, I
11 personally gathered. And then to be included
12 into the major — the total index, I sent
13 them to Mr. Kapshandy. So those kinds of
14 items were included.
15 Other things that I told you
16 that were actually quite voluminous, like the
17 National Safety Council information, I had
18 asked to be gotten and to be included onto
19 the DVDs, as well as onto the index.
20 Q Do you have any idea what, other
21 than the National Safety Council minutes, you
22 asked the lawyers to research for you?
23 A Did I — I asked them to get for me,
24 okay?
25 Q Yes.
67
1 A I asked them — without looking at the
2 index, it’s hard for me to say, but let me
3 see what I can remember.
4 The National Safety Council
5 documents. I wanted all the membership
6 directories of the American Industrial
7 Hygiene Association going back in time up to
8 about OSHA. There were several DVDs, like a
9 movie, videos that I had put into these
10 documents.
11 Q That you got yourself or the
12 lawyers got for you?
13 A That I got myself that I provided to
14 the lawyers. And there are many books. This
15 continues, many books that over time I’ve
16 been able to gather and to have scanned and
17 put into these documents.
18 Q Okay. Let me ask — I’m trying
19 to short circuit. Maybe it’s not possible.
20 Who collected the majority of
21 the materials for you? Did you do it
22 yourself or did the lawyers do it for you?
23 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
24 Form.
25 A In terms of recommending and
68
1 suggesting and including what was in these –
2 this set of materials, I did.
3 Q Who physically went out and got
4 the materials and went to the medical
5 libraries and did all that and brought them
6 back and put them on the CDs? Did you do
7 that, other than the Alice Hamilton set that
8 you got from Harvard?
9 A Well, the Alice Hamilton, that’s an
10 example of a library. I went to Harvard and
11 Radcliffe and I did see her personal papers.
12 Q Other than the Alice Hamilton –
13 A Can I finish?
14 Q I’ll withdraw the last question.
15 I’m really trying to get past this line of
16 questions, okay?
17 Other than the Alice Hamilton
18 documents that you selected from the Harvard
19 library, did you personally yourself go and
20 get any of the documents physically that are
21 on these CDs?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Okay. Which ones?
24 A Many. And if we had the set — the
25 index, if you want to get that for me after
69
1 lunch, I’d be happy to go through that for
2 you.
3 Q That would be great. We’ll
4 print it out at lunchtime and we’ll save some
5 time. But I’m not allowed to give you any
6 work to do, so we’ll do it after lunch.
7 Okay?
8 A Okay.
9 Q Okay. Now, the materials on the
10 Drucker materials, are these materials that
11 General Electric actually had in its
12 possession before you asked for them?
13 A Well, many of the materials that are
14 included on the Drucker materials were not
15 from GE files. As you can imagine, the
16 company is a very old one. It goes back over
17 100 years. It’s been decentralized since its
18 inception, and so there was — there were
19 efforts made to go to other sources so that
20 we could include information on contacts and
21 other things that were going on in the field
22 of health and safety.
23 Q Okay. Let me ask the question
24 this way: Are you able to look at the index
25 and tell me which documents actually came
70
1 from General Electric versus some other
2 source?
3 A Yes. And actually, if you would the
4 index, you could tell on the index in one of
5 the right-hand columns, lists the source. So
6 it’s all on there for you.
7 Q Okay. Well, maybe we can do
8 that at — after lunch, because the index I
9 have doesn’t have a source. So maybe your
10 lawyers have a different index that I could
11 be provided with.
12 Are there general principles of
13 worker protection that have been recognized
14 by industrial hygienists historically?
15 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
16 Form.
17 A I — by industrial hygienists
18 historically — let me answer it this way:
19 Industrial hygiene in this country was really
20 started around the early 1900s by Dr. Alice
21 Hamilton, who was really the founder, the
22 pioneer of industrial hygiene and
23 occupational medicine.
24 I’d say what we were able to
25 find from her writings — in fact, she did a
71
1 series of surveys throughout General Electric
2 facilities in the 1920s, 1930s. And from
3 those, and from other writings that I’ve had
4 an opportunity to review, I would say that
5 there were certain industrial hygiene
6 principles, yes, that were — that have been
7 accepted by people in the field since way
8 back.
9 Q All right. So you agree with me
10 that there were certain industrial hygiene
11 principles that have been accepted by people
12 in the field going back at least to the
13 1930s, correct?
14 A Oh sure. I’d say going back to 1930s,
15 health and safety professionals worldwide
16 would have been familiar with certain types
17 of principles.
18 I’m assuming that you’re
19 relating to exposure reduction principles.
20 Is that what you’re on –
21 Q All right. Do you believe — is
22 it a recognized principle that a company
23 should know about the potential hazards
24 associated with the use of its products?
25
72
1 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
2 Form.
3 A Well, I think the real question comes
4 down to — one of the issues is that any
5 substance can be hazardous. And it depends
6 on how you work with any substance or
7 material safely.
8 So there probably isn’t any type
9 of product that a company puts out. Is that
10 your question, a company –
11 Q My question was simply: Is it a
12 recognized principle that a company should
13 know about the potential hazards associated
14 with the use of its products?
15 A And as I said as a preface, that
16 anything could be hazardous and anything can
17 be used safely.
18 With regard to a company, yes,
19 they should be aware of the hazards
20 associated with their own products.
21 Q With their own products, well,
22 we’ll get to that later on.
23 Is it a recognized principle
24 that had a company should warn consumers
25 about the dangers associated with the use of
73
1 its products?
2 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
3 Form.
4 Go ahead and answer.
5 A Maybe you could let me know about
6 which point in time you’re discussing.
7 Is it from things we know now or
8 from — just different times, what time
9 period are you talking about?
10 Q You said there were certain
11 principles recognized historically going back
12 to the ’30s.
13 Was it recognized going back to
14 the ’30s as a principle that a company should
15 warn consumers about the dangers associated
16 with the use of its products?
17 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
18 That’s a totally different question.
19 But go ahead and answer.
20 A Well, the question is a little
21 confusing to me. And this situation that
22 we’re talking about, the Horvath matter –
23 Q I’m not asking about Horvath,
24 ma’am. I don’t mean to cut you off. I’m
25 just trying to get a question — you to
74
1 answer my question.
2 If you can’t answer it, just
3 tell me you can’t answer it and I’ll go to
4 another question.
5 MR. KAPSHANDY: She’s answered
6 it.
7 MR. PLACITELLA: She’s not
8 answered it.
9 Q Is it a recognized principle in
10 industrial hygiene that a company should warn
11 consumers about the dangers associated with
12 the use of its products? That’s my question.
13 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
14 Form.
15 A The question is if — I need to give
16 you some background context to a question –
17 to answer that.
18 Q So is your answer to my question
19 you can’t answer it yes or no?
20 A I can answer it the way I can answer
21 it.
22 Q Can you answer the question yes
23 or no? That’s my question.
24 A It’s not a yes or no question. I’d be
25 happy to answer the question.
75
1 Q Here’s my question. Tell me if
2 you can answer this yes or no: Is it a
3 recognized principle in industrial hygiene
4 that a company should warn consumers about
5 the dangers associated with the use of its
6 products?
7 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
8 Form.
9 A You know, if we’re talking about a
10 company making a piece of sophisticated
11 machinery such as a turbine, one would hope
12 and assume that the customer is being highly
13 sophisticated, would, first of all, know what
14 they’re buying and be aware of any kind of
15 hazards that may be associated with that.
16 So your question –
17 Q Did my question have anything
18 about turbines in it, ma’am?
19 A Well, your question is so broad,
20 perhaps you can narrow it down for me.
21 Q Is your whole objective here,
22 ma’am, to blame Chevron for what happened to
23 the Horvaths?
24 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
25 form.
76
1 Q I didn’t ask you any questions
2 about turbines. Let me ask you the question,
3 again, ma’am.
4 Was it a recognized principle in
5 industrial hygiene that a company should warn
6 consumers about the dangers associated with
7 the use of its products?
8 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
9 Form.
10 A Well, it depends on what time periods
11 we’re looking at. What — what could have
12 even been knowable or foreseeable.
13 The question is very broad, and
14 I can answer it if you could narrow it down
15 for me.
16 Q Ma’am, does a company own
17 knowledge about the dangers of its products?
18 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
19 Form.
20 Q As a principle of industrial
21 hygiene?
22 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
23 Form.
24 A I didn’t understand. Did you say it
25 owns?
77
1 Q Yeah. Does a company own
2 exclusively the knowledge about the dangers
3 associated with the use of its products?
4 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
5 Form.
6 A Well, anything could be hazardous, and
7 anything could be used safely. So the –
8 we’re always looking at situations in
9 context. Is it a matter of dose –
10 Q Did I ask you that question,
11 ma’am? All I asked you was: In your
12 experience as an industrial hygienist, does a
13 company own exclusively the knowledge about
14 the dangers of its products?
15 MR. KAPSHANDY: I don’t
16 understand that. I’m objecting to
17 form.
18 Q Let me ask the question this
19 way, ma’am –
20 MR. KAPSHANDY: If you
21 understand it, Ms. Drucker, go ahead
22 and answer the question.
23 A I don’t understand the question.
24 Q All right. Is it a recognized
25 principle in industrial hygiene that a
78
1 company should share knowledge about the
2 product — the dangers associated with the
3 use of its products?
4 A Well, if you’re talking about the
5 product itself, the product that a company
6 makes, yes, I would assume that they would be
7 able to share information on that product
8 that they make.
9 Q Well, does that include the
10 component parts of the product, ma’am?
11 A And it’s not clear to me what mean by
12 component parts.
13 Q Well, I didn’t qualify my
14 answer, ma’am. I just asked you a question
15 that said, should a company share knowledge
16 associated with the products, dangers of the
17 products it produces?
18 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
19 Form. Asked and answered.
20 A And I said that a product that a
21 company makes itself, yes, I think that they
22 should provide information about what may be
23 inherent hazards with that product itself.
24 Q I understand you want to keep
25 using the word itself, and we’ll get to that
79
1 later on.
2 MR. KAPSHANDY: Is that a
3 question or comment, Counsel?
4 MR. PLACITELLA: It will become
5 evident later on, because I have read
6 her transcripts and I know how she
7 answers the questions, Counsel.
8 MR. KAPSHANDY: Well then just
9 ask her questions and refrain from the
10 comments, please.
11 Q Do you agree, ma’am, that as a
12 principle of industrial hygiene, a worker has
13 a right to know what an equipment company
14 knows about the hazards associated with the
15 use of its products?
16 A Well, we’re talking about a lot of
17 different things here.
18 First of all, we’re talking
19 about in context that anything could be
20 hazardous and anything can be used safely.
21 We’re talking about a matter of dose. We’re
22 also talking about a matter of knowledge at
23 different points in time, about things that
24 may be foreseeable or not foreseeable at
25 different points in time.
80
1 If you’re asking should a
2 company warn about a product that they don’t
3 make 20, 30, 40, 50 years later to somebody
4 who may happen upon this product, you know,
5 we’re talking about things that are not
6 foreseeable.
7 Q What are we talking about,
8 ma’am? Do you remember my question? What
9 was my question?
10 A I don’t recall.
11 Q You don’t remember my question?
12 A I was trying to answer it.
13 Q Okay. Well, what was the
14 question you were trying to answer that I
15 asked you, ma’am?
16 A I don’t recall. Could I have it read
17 back?
18 Q No. I’ll ask you the next
19 question.
20 Now, ma’am, would you agree that
21 a worker has a right to know what an
22 equipment company knows about the hazards
23 associated with the use of its products?
24 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
25 Form. Asked and answered.
81
1 A What an equipment company — what an
2 employee knows?
3 Q Let me ask the question again.
4 A Okay.
5 Q Would you agree that a worker
6 has a right to know what an equipment company
7 knows about the hazards associated with the
8 use of the equipment company’s products?
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
10 Asked and answered.
11 MR. PLACITELLA: Excuse me.
12 Excuse me. Just hold the thought.
13 I’m going to ask you, please,
14 one more time not to do, asked and
15 answered. It’s an improper
16 question — it’s an improper
17 objection.
18 MR. KAPSHANDY: I agree, it’s an
19 improper question.
20 MR. PLACITELLA: Please don’t do
21 it anymore. I don’t want you sending
22 any more signals to the witness.
23 Please just let me take my deposition,
24 please. Please, I’m asking you.
25 MR. KAPSHANDY: Try and move on,
82
1 please.
2 Q Ma’am, do you agree that a
3 worker has a right to know what an equipment
4 company knows about the hazards associated
5 with the use of the equipment company
6 products?
7 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to the
8 form of that question.
9 A Let me answer the question this way:
10 The way the laws have been written in this
11 country, as far as worker health and safety,
12 is that an employer is responsible for
13 assuring the health and safety of their
14 employees for assessing different types of
15 hazards and for coming up with solutions so
16 that people can remain healthy and safe on
17 the job.
18 Now, just because a piece of
19 equipment might be in somebody’s work
20 environment doesn’t necessarily mean that
21 it’s dangerous or that it’s not. It
22 requires — those situations require
23 professional assessment by the employer to
24 determine what relevant health and safety
25 solutions can be used to keep people healthy
83
1 and safe on the job.
2 That’s the way it works in this
3 country. That’s the way it works in this
4 field.
5 Q What was my question, ma’am?
6 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
7 Form.
8 Q What was my question that I just
9 asked you?
10 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
11 Form.
12 A I don’t recall the exact words of your
13 question.
14 Q Okay. Now, ma’am, tell me what
15 year you graduated law school.
16 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
17 Form.
18 A I didn’t graduate law school.
19 Q Okay. Do you agree, ma’am, that
20 a company should never mislead workers about
21 the safety of its products?
22 A Well, can you say that again, please?
23 Q Do you agree, ma’am, that a
24 company should never mislead workers about
25 the safety of its products?
84
1 A Well, in principle, of course. But it
2 depends on how information is transmitted to
3 employees, and that’s what is critical.
4 Different types of equipment,
5 different types of substances can be worked
6 with safely or unsafely. It’s incumbent upon
7 the employer to ensure that people are safe
8 on the job.
9 Q What was my question, ma’am?
10 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
11 Form.
12 A I don’t recall.
13 Q Okay. Do you agree, ma’am, that
14 a company should never mislead workers about
15 the safety of its products?
16 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
17 Form.
18 A And I’d like to add to what I
19 mentioned before, is that one can only impart
20 what’s known and knowable at different parts
21 in time.
22 Obviously, we know some things
23 now that weren’t known 20, 30, 40, 50 years
24 ago. So in terms of imparting information,
25 you can only known what’s known and knowable
85
1 at the time.
2 Q What was my question, ma’am?
3 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
4 form.
5 A I don’t recall.
6 Q Okay. Do you agree, ma’am, that
7 a company should never mislead workers about
8 the safety of its products?
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
10 Form.
11 A It’s unclear to me if you’re referring
12 to a company being the employer of the
13 employee, because in that case –
14 Q How about — okay, I’ll clarify
15 it.
16 Do you agree, ma’am, that a
17 company selling a product to be used by
18 somebody else should never mislead the
19 customer about the safety of its products?
20 Do you agree with that principle?
21 A I don’t understand the question.
22 Q Okay. What don’t you
23 understand, ma’am?
24 A The question.
25 Q Okay. Ma’am, do you agree that
86
1 a company should always tell the truth about
2 any dangers associated with the use of its
3 products?
4 A Well, certainly, as far as what is
5 known and knowable at different points in
6 time.
7 Q So is the answer to my question
8 yes?
9 A Yes, as far as possible, what’s known
10 and knowable at different points in time.
11 Q Okay. Do you agree, ma’am, as
12 an industrial hygienist that safety should be
13 a primary concern when selling products to be
14 used in industrial facilities?
15 A Well, I think here we still get back
16 to the fact that any equipment and material
17 can be worked with safely or unsafely. It
18 depends on how it’s worked with.
19 So as far as — could I have the
20 question again so I direct the answer to part
21 of it, please?
22 Q Okay. Do you remember my
23 question?
24 A No. That’s why I’m asking you to
25 repeat it.
87
1 Q Okay. Do you agree that safety
2 should be a primary concern by a company when
3 they’re selling products to be used in an
4 industrial setting?
5 A Well, of course. But as we know,
6 anything can be worked with safely or
7 unsafely. So it depends on how the material
8 or equipment is worked. And that’s why it’s
9 an employer who’s responsible for assuring
10 the health and safety of their workers
11 utilizing this equipment or substance,
12 because they’re the ones in the position to
13 control the workplace, control the worker,
14 and that’s how those assessments are made to
15 assure safety.
16 Q Was my question, ma’am?
17 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
18 Form.
19 A I don’t recall your question.
20 Q Would you agree, ma’am, that a
21 company should always tell the truth about
22 the risks and benefits of the products it’s
23 going to sell for use in an industrial
24 setting?
25 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
88
1 Form.
2 A And maybe you could clarify to me what
3 you mean by risks and benefits, to whom?
4 Q Okay. Risks, health and safety
5 risks.
6 MR. KAPSHANDY: If that helps.
7 Q Benefits to the consumers. Does
8 that help you? Do you ever — let me
9 withdraw that question.
10 Is a risk benefit analysis ever
11 appropriate when considering health and
12 safety in your experience as an industrial
13 hygienist?
14 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
15 form.
16 A Is the question is it a risk benefit
17 analysis –
18 Q Yes.
19 A There are risk assessments that are
20 done in health and safety for different
21 things.
22 Q Okay. Would you agree, ma’am,
23 that a company should never withhold
24 information about the dangers associated with
25 the use of its products if they’re going to
89
1 be sold in an industrial setting?
2 A Well, first it depends on if any kind
3 of hazards are foreseeable. And it also
4 still comes down to the same issue that any
5 material or equipment can be worked with
6 safely or unsafely.
7 So it depends on how it’s worked
8 with. There has to be professional
9 assessment in each situation to assure that
10 people can stay healthy and safe.
11 Q What was my question, ma’am?
12 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
13 Form.
14 A Can I have it read back?
15 Q No. Do you know what my
16 question was, ma’am?
17 MR. KAPSHANDY: She asked if it
18 could be read back. Are you refusing
19 to allow her to have it read back?
20 MR. PLACITELLA: I’m conducting
21 the deposition, sir. Is that an
22 objection you’re making?
23 MR. KAPSHANDY: Are you
24 asking –
25 MR. PLACITELLA: Is that an
90
1 objection you’re making? You’re
2 saying, sir, pursuant to the New
3 Jersey Court rules?
4 MR. KAPSHANDY: At the beginning
5 of the deposition you agreed to some
6 rules and one of them was, in her mind
7 at least, that if something was
8 unclear she could ask you to clarify
9 it.
10 MR. PLACITELLA: She didn’t say
11 it was unclear, sir. I just asked her
12 if she knew what question I asked her
13 for about the tenth time.
14 MR. KAPSHANDY: She asked for
15 the question to be read back.
16 MR. PLACITELLA: If you have an
17 objection under The New Jersey Court
18 rules, please make it. Otherwise
19 please sit still like a potted plant.
20 MR. KAPSHANDY: I’m objecting to
21 your conduct of the deposition. When
22 a witness asks to have a question
23 reread, if you refuse, that’s rude,
24 inappropriate, and she should be
25 entitled to have the question read.
91
1 It’s a matter of simple courtesy.
2 MR. PLACITELLA: You know what,
3 sir, I’m happy to have the judge read
4 this transcript.
5 In fact, I’m going to send it to
6 her and she’ll make judgments about
7 how this deposition was conducted or
8 not conducted. Okay.
9 So let’s agree, you and I, that
10 you and I are making a record now
11 before the judge on how the deposition
12 is being conducted or not conducted.
13 THE WITNESS: Would now be a
14 good time to take a break?
15 MR. PLACITELL: I’m almost done,
16 and then I’ll let you take a break..
17 MR. KAPSHANDY: Are you refusing
18 to allow her to take a break? Are you
19 almost done?
20 MR. PLACITELLA: No, please.
21 Please take a break.
22 VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off
23 the record at 11:36.
24 (Off record.)
25 (Recess.)
92
1 MR. PLACITELLA: Let’s go back
2 on the record. We don’t have to go to
3 the video.
4 We started this deposition, it
5 was my belief that this witness was
6 being produced for all issues.
7 Counsel for General Electric
8 apparently has a different belief.
9 There’s been a representation
10 made that some other witness is sick.
11 I think the man’s name is Skinner. My
12 office has some recollection that
13 there was something about somebody
14 being sick. We don’t have the
15 specifics.
16 If counsel represents that those
17 representations were made, I’ll accept
18 those representations. I’ll apologize
19 for questioning, anything to the
20 contrary, if Counsel — I’ll take
21 Counsel’s representation, is good
22 enough for me. So we can move on and
23 keep going.
24 MR. KAPSHANDY: I appreciate
25 your correction, Counsel, and trust
93
1 your representation, that it was
2 entirely unintentional.
3 And I appreciate your generally
4 like concession, and I think we’re
5 prepared to move on and we will not
6 bother to address the issue any
7 further, other than that there will be
8 another witness who will address the
9 first three subjects sometime in the
10 future, as his health permits.
11 MR. PLACITELLA: To the extent
12 that it’s necessary.
13 MR. KAPSHANDY: If you chose to
14 do so, that’s fine. If not, that’s
15 fine too.
16 MR. PLACITELLA: Let’s see how
17 we do with this witness. She seems to
18 know some things. Let’s figure out
19 what it is.
20 Let’s go back on the record,
21 please.
22 VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the
23 beginning of tape number two of
24 today’s video deposition of Marjorie
25 Drucker. We are back on the record at
94
1 11:53.
2 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay. Let’s
3 pray that everybody got all the coffee
4 out of their system, including me, and
5 that tape number two is a more
6 pleasant experience than tape number
7 one.
8 Q All right. Would you agree with
9 me, as a principle of industrial hygiene,
10 that a company should never put profits
11 before a worker’s safety?
12 A Oh yes, I would agree with that. The
13 company should never put profits before a
14 worker safety, sure.
15 Q And would you agree with me, as
16 a principle of industrial hygiene, that the
17 greater the danger associated with the use of
18 a company’s products, the stronger the
19 warning that would be necessary?
20 A You know, we’re kind of using gray
21 terms here, and we don’t really use that
22 quite strong in the profession.
23 And again, if we acknowledge,
24 which is the case, that anything can be
25 worked with safely or unsafely, depending on
95
1 how it’s used, warnings would vary in
2 different situations.
3 Q And the greater the danger –
4 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel, I’m
5 sorry to interrupt, but this projector
6 is making it very hard for me to hear,
7 and I’m hearing impaired. I don’t
8 know if he’s picking it up on the
9 microphone.
10 VIDEOGRAPHER: No, it’s fine.
11 MR. PLACITELLA: You can get
12 closer. I won’t object.
13 MR. KAPSHANDY: I don’t want to
14 get too close.
15 MR. PLACITELLA: We’ll be back
16 for another day.
17 Q Would you agree, then, that the
18 greater the danger, the stronger the warning?
19 A Well, there are lots of kinds of
20 dangers. I mean, we’re using general terms.
21 I suppose layman’s terms, if we’re going to
22 take your phrase, the greater the danger, the
23 stronger the warnings, sure. It doesn’t
24 sound like a health and safety thing.
25 In health and safety
96
1 professional work, we don’t use those kinds
2 of general terms.
3 Q Okay. Now, from your review of
4 the materials, including all this stuff on
5 Drucker 3, A through C, and the stuff you
6 know about Chevron and Mr. Horvath, from your
7 review of all the materials, did General
8 Electric make any mistakes in terms of
9 protecting workers exposed to asbestos
10 installed or removed from General Electric
11 equipment at the Chevron facility?
12 A No, as far as I’ve been able to
13 determine.
14 Q So you would agree with me,
15 then, that if no mistakes were made, all
16 actions were deliberate?
17 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
18 Form.
19 A You know, I’m trying to — seriously,
20 I’m trying to answer your questions from a
21 professional standpoint.
22 If I could have that read back,
23 I’d like to address that.
24 Q All right. I’ll ask the
25 question again.
97
1 If no mistakes were made, would
2 you agree with me, then, that all actions
3 taken by General Electric were deliberate?
4 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
5 Form.
6 A No. And I don’t understand your
7 question.
8 Q How can you answer it no if you
9 don’t understand it?
10 A It just sounds wrong.
11 MR. KAPSHANDY: She’s agreeing
12 with you, is what she said.
13 A It just sounds wrong to me. I don’t
14 understand what you’re saying.
15 Q Okay. Did you see in anything,
16 in any of the materials that were reviewed,
17 that would indicate to you that the actions
18 taken by General Electric with respect to its
19 equipment at Chevron were anything other than
20 deliberate actions?
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
22 Form.
23 A I don’t know what you mean by
24 deliberate actions.
25 If you’d like me — I could
98
1 discuss some of the equipment that ended up
2 at what we now know as Chevron, and I’d be
3 happy to do that.
4 Q I’m going to get there. That,
5 unfortunately, wasn’t my question. I’ll ask
6 you that in the question next. How about we
7 agree with that?
8 A Well, I’m just trying to answer the
9 question as fully and accurately as I’m able
10 to.
11 Q So you can’t answer my question?
12 A Not if I don’t go into some
13 information that really is relevant.
14 Q Do you remember what my question
15 was?
16 A No. I’d like it read back, and then
17 if you’d be so kind as to let me speak, I’ll
18 answer your question.
19 Q Do you have any idea what my
20 question was?
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
22 Form.
23 A I don’t recall.
24 Q Okay. Now, tell me all of the
25 equipment that you’re aware that was
99
1 manufactured by General Electric that ended
2 up in the Chevron facility from 1946 through
3 1976?
4 A Well, I should probably say that
5 General Electric makes thousands and
6 thousands of products.
7 Those that I’m aware of that are
8 of some concern in this matter include three
9 turbines that ended up on this property
10 that’s now known as Chevron.
11 It’s my understanding that one,
12 possibly two of these turbines, were built
13 for the navy in 1942 and, for some reason,
14 ended up in what we now know as the Chevron
15 site in Perth Amboy, New Jersey.
16 The third turbine was
17 manufactured for Barber Asphalt in 1950, and
18 that is still — my understanding, that’s the
19 third turbine on site there in Perth Amboy.
20 Now, it’s my understanding that
21 GE had nothing to do with the selling, the
22 specing or installing or anything in relation
23 to thermal insulation on any of these
24 turbines.
25 So to give you my background,
100
1 when you asked the products that were there,
2 it’s my understanding that three GE
3 turbines — there’s even some question about
4 one of the turbines, whether it might have
5 been made by another manufacturer, but I’ll
6 say three GE turbines ended up there — two
7 General Electric had no control over
8 whatsoever because they were actually built
9 and sold to the navy.
10 Q Do you remember the question I
11 asked you?
12 A In general.
13 Q What was the question I asked
14 you, ma’am?
15 A What GE products were on this
16 location.
17 Q Your answer is, to your
18 knowledge, three turbines. Is that your
19 answer?
20 A That’s not what I said. If you listen
21 to the beginning of my answer, I said that
22 General Electric makes hundreds and thousands
23 of products.
24 My understanding of those that
25 are under some consideration in this instance
101
1 include the turbines, and I also recall a
2 mentioning of pumps, GE pumps.
3 Q When you say under
4 consideration, ma’am, what are you talking
5 about?
6 A I’m talking about what’s relevant or
7 what you’re asking me about the Horvath
8 matter.
9 Q Did I ask you any questions
10 about Mrs. Horvath or Mr. Horvath?
11 A I don’t recall you having mentioned
12 the name. But since I’m here today, and I
13 believe you are, to discuss the Horvath
14 matter, I’m trying to bring my answers
15 closely in line with what I believe we’re
16 discussing today.
17 Q Whose making the determination
18 of the relevance of my questions, is it you
19 or someone else?
20 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
21 form.
22 A You know, I’m here today to answer
23 your questions. I’m trying to do it the best
24 I can.
25 Q Okay. Do I understand that, to
102
1 your knowledge, there were three GE turbines
2 at the Chevron facility during the years 1946
3 to 1976?
4 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
5 Form.
6 MR. PLACITELLA: What’s wrong
7 with the form?
8 A Well –
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: It assumes that
10 the turbines were there in ’46 and
11 we’re not sure when any of them
12 arrived, except maybe the third one.
13 THE WITNESS: Right.
14 A As I mentioned to you before, two
15 turbines were sold to the navy in 1942. When
16 they ended up on the Chevron site, I don’t
17 know.
18 I know that the third one was
19 built for Barber Asphalt, which is a
20 predecessor to Chevron, in 1950. So I know
21 that was there in 1950.
22 Q What’s the source of your
23 information, ma’am, about the three turbines
24 at the Chevron site?
25 A The source of my information is that
103
1 was provided to me by Mr. Kapshandy.
2 Q What information did he give
3 you?
4 A It was the information that I just
5 mentioned to you. I’d be happy to say it
6 again.
7 Q Did he verbally tell you that,
8 or did he give you some kind of
9 documentation?
10 A He verbally told me that.
11 Q All right. So your testimony is
12 based upon what GE’s lawyer told you?
13 A Well, yes.
14 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
15 form.
16 A Yes. But may I finish? But yes, and
17 it’s my understanding that you will be
18 talking to a turbine specialist.
19 So I’m just trying to give you
20 answers to your questions as much as I can
21 today.
22 Q That’s all I’m asking, what you
23 know. And I’m just trying to find out what
24 you know and how you know it. Okay?
25 A Sure.
104
1 Q All right. So the only
2 information that you have about the GE
3 turbines came from what General Electric’s
4 lawyer told you, right?
5 A About the turbines on site there at
6 Chevron there now?
7 Q Right.
8 A Yes.
9 Q You don’t have any independent
10 knowledge about whether they were made for
11 the navy or not, right?
12 A Independent knowledge, no, I do not.
13 Q You don’t have any information
14 as to what GE told Chevron or didn’t tell
15 Chevron about the turbines, I take it,
16 correct?
17 A Well, are you talking about Chevron or
18 a predecessor because –
19 Q Chevron or Barber, its
20 predecessor.
21 A Well, it’s my understanding that the
22 third turbine that we’re talking about, the
23 one that was made for Barber Asphalt, that
24 the insulation was not spec’ed or installed or
25 anything by GE. My understanding was that
105
1 they just provided a bare turbine, and what
2 happened to it after –
3 Q Well, you know, for instance,
4 that General Electric had everything to do
5 with the installation and removal of the
6 insulation on that turbine numerous times,
7 don’t you?
8 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
9 form.
10 A First of all, the answer is no, we
11 don’t know if there was ever insulation on
12 it. We don’t know what the insulation was.
13 GE had — GE was not, to my
14 understanding, was not involved in
15 insulation, thermal insulation on the
16 turbines.
17 Q When you say we didn’t know or
18 to your understanding, where did you get that
19 from?
20 A That –
21 Q The information you just told
22 this jury about they never had anything to do
23 with the insulation, where did you get that
24 from?
25 A I got that from Mr. Kapshandy.
106
1 Q Do you know what the basis of
2 his information is?
3 A I know some of it.
4 Q What is it?
5 A It’s my understanding that there’s
6 some turbine files that are researched in
7 different matters, and that those were
8 researched for this. And that’s how that
9 information was passed along to me, and that
10 there’s a turbine specialist, who’s available
11 to you, who can go more fully into those
12 matters.
13 Q Well, I just want to test your
14 information, if that’s okay with you. I’ll
15 get to the turbine specialist if I need to.
16 Okay.
17 You’re not a turbine specialist,
18 I take it?
19 A No.
20 Q Okay. Making a representation
21 under oath before a jury and a court of law
22 that there was — GE had nothing to do with
23 the insulation on those turbines and whether
24 even there was asbestos on those turbines,
25 that’s a very serious statement. Would you
107
1 agree?
2 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
3 Form. You asked her what her
4 understanding was, Counsel, about a
5 subject that she’s not being tendered
6 on. Now you’re insulting her.
7 MR. PLACITELLA: I’m just asking
8 her. She’s making statements and I’m
9 asking her whether she understands
10 that’s a very serious statement.
11 MR. KAPSHANDY: Well, I’m going
12 to object. This is far beyond the
13 scope. She’s told you repeatedly that
14 there’s another witness who is
15 addressing the turbines files which
16 have been produced to you.
17 You insist on wasting your time
18 asking her about a subject that she is
19 not tendered for.
20 And It’s your eight hours. I
21 suggest that you move on.
22 MR. PLACITELLA: I’m glad that
23 you’re trying to teach me how to take
24 a deposition. But it was your
25 witness, for the record, that said,
108
1 let me tell you about the turbines and
2 what I know, let me tell you
3 everything that has been provided to
4 me. It was your witness who asked me
5 to do that, so that’s what I am going
6 to do. I want to know what her
7 information is, what the basis for the
8 information is. I’m entitled to know
9 that.
10 MR. KAPSHANDY: She’s told you
11 that and I’m telling you this is not a
12 subject for which she’s been tendered.
13 It’s far beyond the scope.
14 MR. PLACITELLA: Let’s just
15 leave that for another day.
16 MR. KAPSHANDY: It’s your time.
17 Q Your representation to this jury
18 is that General Electric had nothing to do
19 with the insulation on the turbines at
20 Chevron, correct?
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
22 Form.
23 A As I recall, I said my understanding
24 is that General Electric had nothing to do
25 with the selling or specifying thermal
109
1 insulation on these turbines. That’s my
2 understanding.
3 Q What about the installation and
4 removal of the insulation on the turbines, do
5 you know anything about that?
6 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
7 Beyond the scope.
8 A Well, it’s — it’s also my general
9 understanding that GE does not itself do
10 installation and remove thermal insulation.
11 Q Why is that important?
12 A You just asked me that.
13 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
14 form.
15 Q Why is it important? Why is it
16 important to you whether GE installed it or
17 removed it or not?
18 A I was answering your question. Could
19 you read –
20 Q I’m just asking you a question.
21 Why is that important to you?
22 A Oh, I think it’s relevant in this
23 matter because we’re talking about
24 Mr. Horvath, who had mentioned GE turbines.
25 Q Okay. Now, do you know what the
110
1 turbines were used for, the ones at Chevron
2 that were General Electric turbines? Do you
3 know what they were used for?
4 A No, I don’t recall.
5 Q Do you know who was involved in
6 the construction of the turbines?
7 A Well, we mentioned — I mentioned
8 before that GE made two for the navy in ’42,
9 and one for Barber Asphalt in ’50.
10 And if that’s what you mean by
11 construction, that would be my answer.
12 Q Okay. And were you provided
13 with any of the actual turbine files?
14 A No, I was not.
15 Q If you’re provided information
16 upon which you’re going to base your
17 testimony from your lawyers, would you hope
18 that that testimony was true and accurate?
19 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
20 Form. As I said repeatedly, Counsel,
21 she’s not being tendered on this
22 subject. There’s another witness who
23 will explain those files which have
24 been produced to you.
25 But if you want to waste your
111
1 time asking her about this subject,
2 we’re objecting. It’s far beyond the
3 scope.
4 MR. PLACITELLA: I understand –
5 MR. KAPSHANDY: She’s not the
6 corporate representative on those
7 subjects.
8 MR. PLACITELLA: I understand
9 that’s your position. I’ll give you a
10 continuing objection on that so you
11 don’t have to make the same speech
12 every time. How’s that?
13 Q Do you remember my question?
14 A Could you repeat it, please?
15 Q Okay. What is your
16 understanding of General Electric’s
17 involvement with these turbines after they
18 were installed?
19 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
20 Form. Scope.
21 A As I sit here right now, I don’t
22 recall GE having had anything to do with the
23 turbines after they somehow circuitously got
24 to where they are now at Chevron.
25 Q They were circuitous? Why do
112
1 you say circuitous, ma’am?
2 A Sure. Because I mentioned a few times
3 before that two of the turbines were built
4 for the Navy in 1942, and they somehow ended
5 up at what is Chevron now in Perth Amboy.
6 That’s what I meant by circuitous.
7 Q And the basis for that was what
8 your lawyer told you?
9 A I — that’s my understanding from GE’s
10 attorney, yes. And it’s also — I said this
11 before, there’s a turbine specialist who can
12 more fully go into these topics, as that is
13 his specialty.
14 Q Okay. Now, the turbines — we
15 can agree on one turbine, at least, that
16 wasn’t built for the Navy, that was the one
17 put in in 1950. Can we agree with that?
18 A Yes, that’s my understanding.
19 Q Okay. And did GE have anything
20 to do with the design specifications for that
21 turbine?
22 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
23 Form. Scope.
24 A I don’t really know what you mean by
25 design specifications, so I would refer you
113
1 to the turbine specialist on that.
2 Q You don’t know what a design
3 specification is, ma’am?
4 A It sounds very vague, and I’m just
5 going to say that you really should speak to
6 the turbine specialist.
7 Q Do you know who the contractor
8 was that installed the turbine?
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
10 Form. Scope.
11 MR. PLACITELLA: What was wrong
12 with the form?
13 MR. KAPSHANDY: It’s far beyond
14 the scope. This witness is not being
15 tendered on this subject.
16 MR. PLACITELLA: That’s not a
17 form objection.
18 MR. KAPSHANDY: Well, you’re
19 harassing and persisting in
20 questioning her on a subject that you
21 know she’s not being tendered for.
22 MR. PLACITELLA: I was not. The
23 witness said, ask me about the
24 turbines, I’ll tell you what I know.
25 So that’s what I’m doing.
114
1 Q Now, the installation conditions
2 for the General Electric turbine were far
3 from ideal. Am I correct?
4 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
5 Form.
6 MR. PLACITELLA: What was wrong
7 with the form?
8 MR. KAPSHANDY: Which turbines
9 are you talking about, ones put on
10 ships in 1942?
11 MR. PLACITELLA: The turbine
12 that was installed in 1950. That’s
13 the one I’m going to focus on because
14 we agree there was no circuitous route
15 for that turbine.
16 Q Can we agree on that?
17 A From my understanding, that it was
18 built for Barber Asphalt and put there in
19 1950.
20 Q No circuitous route, right?
21 A Right.
22 Q From GE to the Chevron or Barber
23 Asphalt facility?
24 A Barber.
25 Q Well, it eventually became
115
1 Chevron. Can we agree with that?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Now, the ideal — the conditions
4 during the installation of that turbine were
5 far from ideal. Can we agree with that?
6 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
7 Form.
8 A I haven’t come across anything like
9 that.
10 Q Okay. You are aware that
11 Mr. Horvath was working at the facility
12 during this period of time, are you not, in
13 1950?
14 A Yes. He — and we’re talking about
15 Mr. Ernest Horvath?
16 Q Yes, ma’am.
17 A Yes, he was working there.
18 Q And were you aware that when the
19 conditions — where was the turbine
20 installed, do you know?
21 A No, I don’t.
22 Q What was it used for?
23 A I don’t know.
24 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
25 Form.
116
1 A I don’t know, but you should speak to
2 the turbine specialist.
3 Q The turbine was inspected by
4 General Electric on a regular basis, the one
5 that was installed in 1950. Am I correct?
6 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
7 Form.
8 A I have no information about that.
9 Q Would it matter to you one way
10 or the other whether General Electric
11 installed — inspected the turbine on a
12 regular basis?
13 A I don’t understand what you mean by,
14 would it matter. What would matter?
15 Q Well, let me ask you the
16 question just so we have context for the rest
17 of your testimony. I’m going to come back –
18 well, no, let me stick with this. Bear with
19 me.
20 MR. PLACITELLA: Can we mark
21 this group of documents next?
22 (Set of General Electric
23 Documents are marked as P-5 for
24 Identification.)
25 Q I’m going to give you a set of
117
1 documents. I’ll represent to you these
2 documents were produced to me by General
3 Electric. They’re not every document. The
4 documents were feet high (indicating), but
5 they’re the documents I want to ask you
6 about.
7 If for some reason your attorney
8 thinks that I’m taking something out of
9 context, I’ll try to correct that. But the
10 documents are Bates numbered, or we’ve
11 rewritten the Bates number on the bottom as
12 given to us, and I’m going to ask you some
13 questions about certain documents.
14 A Okay.
15 Q While your attorney is looking
16 at those documents, I’ll share with you my
17 set. I’ll refer to number 236, and see where
18 it says at the bottom the date, “1/27/1950,”
19 and it’s mentioned, “C.F. Braun Construction
20 Engineer.”
21 Do you see that on the very
22 bottom? I’ve highlighted it for you, ma’am.
23 A I’m just going to look at these, if
24 it’s okay.
25 Q Well, I’m going to ask you –
118
1 not every document is related to the one
2 before it necessarily, so I’ll ask you the
3 questions. And if you need to read the whole
4 document, please. But they’re not a set in
5 terms of one contingent on the other.
6 Do you see the bottom right-hand
7 corner, it says, “1950,” ma’am?
8 A Right.
9 Q What does it say on the top?
10 A And we’re talking — is this the
11 number that you’ve given to it?
12 Q That’s the number that your
13 attorneys gave to it, ma’am.
14 A Okay. So we’re talking about Horvath
15 000236?
16 Q Yes, ma’am.
17 A Okay. You want the –
18 Q What does it say on the top,
19 ma’am?
20 A — title? “Design Specification,” and
21 it looks like, quote or “Quotation Summary.”
22 Q Is that for a General Electric
23 turbine, ma’am?
24 A I don’t know.
25 Q Could you flip to page 1038 in
119
1 there, ma’am?
2 A Where is that?
3 Q I’ll find it for you.
4 1038 is an October 16th, 1950
5 document. Do you see that?
6 A Yes. Right. 10/16/1950. Right.
7 Q And it’s on General Electric
8 stationery?
9 A It appears to be.
10 Q Could you read the highlighted
11 section, ma’am?
12 A “While working conditions on this
13 installation were anything but ideal, with
14 the roof open and no siding on the building,
15 the excellent cooperation received from all
16 after the beginning of this job and the two
17 excellent millwrights I had working with me
18 made this job an enjoyable one.”
19 Q So Chevron was doing everything
20 it could according to General Electric at
21 that point, correct?
22 A Was doing everything it could?
23 Q Well, I’ll withdraw the
24 question.
25 A It doesn’t say that.
120
1 Q Ma’am, could you –
2 A It says what it says.
3 MR. PLACITELLA: Are you done
4 with that set, Counsel?
5 MR. KAPSHANDY: No, actually.
6 MR. PLACITELLA: How long do you
7 think you’ll be?
8 MR. KAPSHANDY: Another five
9 minutes.
10 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay.
11 MR. KAPSHANDY: The problem is
12 you put together a bunch of unrelated
13 documents. One exhibit –
14 MR. PLACITELLA: You’re more
15 than welcome to bring the entire two
16 and a half feet in. I was trying to
17 short circuit –
18 MR. KAPSHANDY: We’re not
19 prepared because this witness has not
20 reviewed these and is not tendered to
21 discuss this subject. She’s not the
22 corporate representative on the
23 turbines and what was done on them.
24 As stated before, this is far
25 beyond the scope.
121
1 MR. PLACITELLA: Yes, ma’am –
2 yes, sir. I understand your position.
3 Q I’m going to show you a page 979
4 on November 20th, 1955, and indicating it’s
5 on General Electric stationery. “Subject,
6 Inspection Procedure.”
7 A Okay.
8 Q Have you ever seen that before,
9 ma’am?
10 THE WITNESS: Would you like to
11 see this first?
12 MR. KAPSHANDY: I have it.
13 Thank you.
14 Q He’s got it in front of him,
15 ma’am.
16 A As this is Bates your number Horvath
17 000979.
18 Q Yes, ma’am.
19 A The question is have I seen this
20 before?
21 Q Yes, ma’am.
22 A No.
23 Q Now, you see the item number
24 1?
25 This is on General Electric
122
1 stationery, by the way, ma’am, correct?
2 A It appears to be.
3 Q Okay. Could you read item
4 number 1 that I’ve highlighted to the jury,
5 please?
6 A Item number 1 says: “Remove outer
7 metal lagging and heat insulation.”
8 Q That is not exactly what your
9 lawyer told you about what went on with the
10 turbine at General Electric, is it?
11 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
12 Form.
13 A That — that totally misconstrues what
14 I said before. And you really should speak
15 to the turbine expert, because he’s the
16 person who can really address that for you.
17 Q I just want to address the
18 statements that you made, ma’am, about
19 General Electric having nothing to do with
20 insulation on the turbines at any point in
21 time. That was the information that you
22 really wanted to tell me about.
23 A I — can I –
24 Q Now, this particular document
25 also says, does it not, that the insurance
123
1 carrier inspected the turbine for defects?
2 MR. KAPSHANDY: What page are
3 you referring to, Counsel?
4 MR. PLACITELLA: The same page.
5 A It says in item number 7, “Lift out
6 turbine rotor, support same. Insurance
7 carrier can then test for defects.”
8 Q Yes, ma’am.
9 A It says that, yes.
10 Q Do you understand, ma’am, that
11 heat insulation back in the 1950s contained
12 asbestos?
13 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
14 Form.
15 MR. McGRATH: I’ll object to the
16 form.
17 A Back in the 1950s there were
18 alternatives. There were other types of
19 thermal insulation materials.
20 Q What other types of alternatives
21 were available back in the 1950s?
22 A Back in the 1950s, fiberglass. The
23 Navy had approved fiberglass for thermal
24 insulation in the ’50s.
25 Q For turbines, ma’am?
124
1 A Yes, sir. That’s my understanding.
2 Q So is your testimony that there
3 was fiberglass insulation on these turbines,
4 as opposed to asbestos?
5 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
6 Form.
7 A That’s not what I said, and you know
8 it.
9 Q I’m just asking you a question.
10 Was there fiberglass or asbestos
11 on these turbines, according to what your
12 lawyer told you?
13 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
14 Form.
15 A Well, according to the document, it
16 doesn’t say.
17 Q We’ll get there.
18 Now, did you understand that
19 valves on turbines were packed with
20 asbestos –
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
22 Form.
23 Q — containing material?
24 A My understanding is that there were no
25 valves in valve packing on turbines.
125
1 Q Okay.
2 MR. PLACITELLA: Can I have that
3 set of documents now so we can move
4 this through, please, sir?
5 MR. KAPSHANDY: Well, as long as
6 I can have one to refer to when you’re
7 questioning her.
8 MR. PLACITELLA: Why don’t you
9 take two minutes and we’ll wait and
10 make a set for yourself.
11 THE WITNESS: Can we take a
12 lunch break?
13 MR. PLACITELLA: Yes, we’ll take
14 one. Give me five minutes.
15 Q Where did you get the
16 understanding that there were no valves on
17 these turbines that had to be packed?
18 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
19 Form.
20 A My understanding comes from
21 Mr. Kapshandy, as well as I’ve read
22 deposition testimony of the experts.
23 Q I want to show you, ma’am, a
24 General Electric document, Bates number 1034,
25 dated January 12, 1959, concerning an
126
1 inspection and realignment.
2 We’ll break at 12:45. How’s
3 that?
4 A Yes.
5 Q This is on General Electric
6 stationery, ma’am?
7 A It appears to be.
8 Q Could you read the highlighted
9 section on the bottom, please?
10 A Yes. And I assume you’re starting
11 down here, right?
12 Q Yes, ma’am.
13 A “One cast iron packing gland for HP,
14 the high pressure valve stem, was cracked.
15 Replaced both packing glands with steel
16 units, repacked valves.”
17 Q Okay. That would not be
18 consistent with what your attorney told you
19 about the absence of valves on turbines –
20 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
21 form.
22 Q — correct?
23 MR. KAPSHANDY: She never said
24 that, and far beyond the scope.
25 A It’s — you really should speak to the
127
1 turbine specialist.
2 Q I’m asking you, ma’am. You tell
3 me what your lawyer told you. And I just
4 want to see whether what he told you was true
5 or not. Is that okay?
6 A Sure.
7 Q Okay. Now, did your lawyer ever
8 tell you about valves that had to be repacked
9 on the turbines, or did he tell you there
10 were no valves that had to be repacked?
11 MR. KAPSHANDY: Repacked with
12 steel it said, Counsel. Stop
13 misleading.
14 MR. PLACITELLA: It doesn’t say
15 repacked with steel.
16 MR. KAPSHANDY: Well, ask the
17 turbine expert, as she’s repeatedly
18 told you.
19 MR. PLACITELLA: She told me
20 there were no valves on the turbine.
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: She didn’t say
22 that.
23 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay. Let’s
24 keep going.
25 MR. KAPSHANDY: Stop
128
1 misstating –
2 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay.
3 Q Let’s skip right up to 1973.
4 That was after the time you had
5 actually worked for a short period of time as
6 an industrial hygienist for General Electric,
7 correct?
8 A Correct.
9 Q So this would be a time when you
10 were actually working as an industrial
11 hygienist?
12 A Yes, I was working.
13 Q Okay. Now –
14 A Well, I was working as an industrial
15 hygienist at General Electric too.
16 Q Yes, ma’am. I don’t doubt that.
17 I want to show you page 730 –
18 actually, 731. This is a June 25th, 1973,
19 General Electric Installation and Service
20 Engineering Department document addressed,
21 “Chevron Oil.”
22 Do you see that?
23 A Do you want this back?
24 Q Yes, ma’am. I’d just ask you to
25 take a look at that document.
129
1 Can you read in reference to
2 your statement that General Electric never
3 had anything to do with insulation on the
4 turbines, can you read number 1, please?
5 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
6 Form.
7 A I believe my words were with
8 installing or spec’ing thermal insulation on
9 their turbine. That’s how I had answered
10 your previous question.
11 Q Oh, okay.
12 A And you want me to read number 1, is
13 that right?
14 Q Yes, ma’am.
15 A Okay. “Remove and replace lagging and
16 insulation from turbine. Customer to supply
17 insulation if needed.”
18 Q All right. So do we agree now
19 that from sometime in the 1950s into the
20 1970s, General Electric was involved in the
21 removal and replacement of insulation on the
22 turbine that was installed in 1950?
23 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
24 Form.
25 A Well, that’s not clear from that. And
130
1 also we’re talking about a 1950 turbine. Who
2 knows how many times it had been removed and
3 installed by whomever. So –
4 Q That wasn’t my question, ma’am.
5 Can we agree that General
6 Electric was involved in the insulation — in
7 the removal and installing of the insulation
8 on this turbine in the 1950s and in the
9 1970s?
10 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
11 Form. Scope. Misleading.
12 A I don’t know. You really should speak
13 to the turbine specialist.
14 Q Is there something that is
15 unclear from that statement that I need a
16 turbine specialist to read to me, ma’am?
17 MR. KAPSHANDY: Perhaps.
18 A Yeah.
19 MR. PLACITELLA: Do you want
20 take the oath, Counsel?
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel, we’re
22 telling you repeatedly there’s another
23 witness who is –
24 MR. PLACITELLA: Please don’t
25 answer the question.
131
1 MR. KAPSHANDY: — that can
2 address these questions.
3 MR. PLACITELLA: Your witness is
4 the one that said, ask me about the
5 turbines, and we didn’t put any
6 asbestos on and we had nothing to do
7 with it.
8 MR. KAPSHANDY: No, Counsel, you
9 asked her what her understanding was.
10 She’s said she’s not here to testify
11 about that. And you go on ad nauseam
12 to the point where it’s harassing,
13 burdensome, argumentative and
14 insulting. That’s the basis of my
15 objection.
16 On top of that, it’s misleading
17 in that this document specifically
18 says the customer is responsible for
19 the insulation. She’s tried to read
20 this for you and explain that to you.
21 She’s not binding the company on
22 these responses. She’ not tendered
23 for this subject. She’s here for
24 subjects 4, 5 and 6, which you have
25 astutely avoided so far.
132
1 MR. PLACITELLA: I’m going to
2 get to that and it’s very relevant to
3 these questions, and you’ll see that
4 this afternoon, I promise you. You
5 won’t be disappointed.
6 A Yes.
7 Q Does it take a turbine
8 specialist, ma’am, to read number 1?
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
10 Form.
11 A Okay. First of all, this is a post
12 OSHA document. It’s dated June, 1973. And
13 when I read to you, “Remove and replace
14 lagging,” lagging can be different things.
15 Lagging can be metal covers, which are
16 frequently on this type of equipment.
17 Q Yes, ma’am.
18 A When they’re talking about insulation,
19 who knows what they’re talking about. I
20 don’t know.
21 Q When you say a post OSHA
22 document, why do you say that? Why is that
23 important?
24 A Why is that important?
25 Q Yes.
133
1 A Because post OSHA there were very
2 detailed rules and regulations by which many
3 materials were to be handled, including
4 asbestos. So I think that is relevant in
5 terms of –
6 Q Well, after OSHA were you even
7 allowed to put asbestos back on these
8 turbines?
9 A As I recall, around that time — first
10 of all, there were warnings on products from
11 the ’60s on. But also certain types of pipe
12 and block information — pipe and block
13 insulation could not be reinstalled. And
14 insulation, asbestos-containing thermal
15 insulation is actually harder to get around
16 this time.
17 Q It was actually against the law
18 to install asbestos insulation after 1973 on
19 these turbines, was it not?
20 A It may have been. I’d have to check
21 that.
22 Q Okay. Now, you have a set of
23 documents in front of you now. I think your
24 attorney has a set.
25 A Okay.
134
1 Q Okay. Let’s skip to 1975.
2 We agree that that’s well after
3 OSHA, ma’am?
4 A The year 1975, yes.
5 Q Yes, ma’am. And can you look at
6 the number 717 in this set of documents? If
7 you need me to find it for you, I’ll be happy
8 to do that.
9 A Yes. It’s a handwritten document. Is
10 that –
11 Q Yes, ma’am.
12 A Yes.
13 Q Can you see, it says, it’s May
14 19th, 1975. Do you see that, ma’am?
15 A Where do you see that?
16 Q Right here (indicating).
17 A Yes.
18 Q Right up here. Okay?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And what does item number 2 say?
21 A Item number 2 says, “Remove metal
22 lagging. Place outside and cover with
23 plastic.”
24 Q And what does item number 4 say?
25 A “Remove turbine insulation and put in
135
1 55 gallon drums.”
2 Q Why would they want to put
3 insulation in 55 gallon drums if it wasn’t
4 asbestos after OSHA?
5 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
6 Form.
7 A Because it could have been
8 contaminated with something else.
9 Q Okay.
10 A It’s — we don’t know.
11 Q Could you go down to the final
12 paragraph where it says, “Even though”?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Could you read that out loud to
15 the jury, please?
16 A Yes. “Even though Marshall
17 Maintenance brought in their gang boxes, it
18 was still necessary to use Chevron Tool and
19 Store room for special wrenches, asbestos
20 blankets, plastic bags, Fel-Pro penetrating
21 oil, one gallon and one quart cans for bolts.
22 It is also necessary to get a fire permit
23 every day to use torches or welding
24 electrodes.”
25 Q So when they wanted to put the
136
1 asbestos back on, they went to the Chevron
2 storeroom and got asbestos blankets?
3 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
4 form.
5 Q Would that have been illegal to
6 do in 1975, ma’am?
7 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
8 form.
9 A I’m just reviewing this.
10 Q Please.
11 A It doesn’t say what they’re doing with
12 them. I don’t know what they’re doing with
13 them from the wording on here.
14 Q Well, what do you think they
15 were doing with the asbestos blankets with
16 reference to a turbine, given your knowledge
17 of a turbine, ma’am? They weren’t taking
18 them off, right? These were new blankets
19 they’re talking about?
20 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
21 Form.
22 Q Doesn’t it say up on the top of
23 the document that they took the old stuff off
24 and put it in a drum, and now they’re getting
25 new asbestos out of the storeroom and putting
137
1 it on the turbine?
2 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
3 Q Isn’t that what this says?
4 A That’s not clear to me. I don’t know
5 that’s what this is intended to say.
6 Q If they did that, that would
7 have been illegal, right, ma’am?
8 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
9 Form.
10 A Well, I’m not a lawyer.
11 Q Okay. Ma’am, did you know that
12 General Electric didn’t take the asbestos off
13 these turbines until 1979? Did you know
14 that?
15 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
16 Form.
17 A I don’t even know why you’re saying
18 that.
19 Q Well, would that have been
20 important to you to know, that General
21 Electric had asbestos on its turbines all the
22 way until 1979?
23 MR. KAPSHANDY: Ojbection.
24 Form.
25 A Well, first of all, as I said before,
138
1 General Electric didn’t install or spec
2 thermal insulation for the third turbine that
3 we are calling number 3. That was sold to
4 Barber.
5 Q And then the basis for that
6 statement is what, ma’am, that General
7 Electric did not sell or spec?
8 MR. KAPSHANDY: Let her finish,
9 please.
10 A You’re cutting me off. You cut off my
11 last answer. You’ve cut me off.
12 Q Because I’m not going to let
13 that statement go unaddressed.
14 MR. KAPSHANDY: Let her finish,
15 please.
16 Q What is the basis for your
17 statement that General Electric did not sell
18 or spec the insulation that went on the
19 turbine, the 1950 turbine?
20 A I received that from Mr. Kapshandy.
21 Q Okay.
22 A And I didn’t finish my last answer.
23 Q All right. Now, please, finish.
24 A Could I have the question read back?
25 Q Do you remember what the
139
1 question was?
2 A No. You cut me off.
3 Q Then I’ll withdraw the question
4 and move on.
5 A No, I want to finish the question.
6 Q It’s my deposition, ma’am. I’ve
7 withdrawn the question.
8 A That’s not fair. I want to answer the
9 question.
10 Q Your lawyer can ask you anything
11 he wants, ma’am, when it’s his turn. Okay?
12 A Okay.
13 Q Okay. The last set of questions
14 before lunch.
15 Could you look at number 1218,
16 please?
17 A I have it here.
18 Q Okay. This is dated December
19 21, 1979, ma’am. See in the upper right-hand
20 corner?
21 A Yes, thank you. I do.
22 Q And this is a General Electric
23 correspondence?
24 A It appears to be.
25 Q And it says at the top, it’s
140
1 from the Installation Service Engineering
2 Business Division?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Do you see that?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Do you see that?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Okay. Can you go to the second
9 page, ma’am?
10 A Okay.
11 Q See the top line? See where it
12 says, “Insulation”?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Could you read that, please?
15 A Yes. It says, “Insulation – removal
16 of asbestos insulation and installation of
17 new insulation.”
18 Q Yes, ma’am. And do we now know
19 that this turbine had asbestos insulation on
20 it up until 1979?
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
22 form.
23 A Can I look at this document a little
24 more?
25 Q Please. This is the last
141
1 document I’m going to ask you about before
2 lunch, so please take your time. It’s very
3 important.
4 A All right.
5 Yes. And the question again,
6 please.
7 Q We now know from looking at this
8 document, ma’am, that the turbine, the
9 General Electric turbine installed at
10 Chevron, had asbestos on it until 1979,
11 correct?
12 A That’s not — no, that’s not
13 necessarily the case.
14 Q What does it say on the top
15 line, ma’am?
16 A The top line in number 1,
17 “Insulation”?
18 Q Yes, ma’am.
19 A We don’t know where the asbestos
20 insulation was removed, whether it was on the
21 turbine itself or auxiliary equipment around
22 it. It’s not clear from here. We don’t
23 know.
24 Q Is this — look on the first
25 page, ma’am. You see where it says,
142
1 “Equipment Description and Number”? Do you
2 see that?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Does it say turbine number
5 83535?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Does it say anything, and
8 equipment around it?
9 A No, it doesn’t. But as we’re looking
10 down the list on the second page, 1 to 16, it
11 appears to be a lot of other equipment. And
12 for this, I would refer you to the turbine
13 specialist.
14 Q Hold on to that for a second,
15 would you, please?
16 A Sure.
17 Q Could you read on the second
18 page, all the way down at the bottom?
19 A Okay.
20 Q See where it says, “Insulation”?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Okay. Does this say, insulation
23 about equipment around the turbine?
24 A Does it say about — where? I’m
25 sorry.
143
1 Q Does it say anything about
2 insulation around the turbine?
3 A No, it doesn’t, but –
4 Q But –
5 A No, I’m trying to answer your
6 question.
7 Q Could you read for the jury what
8 it says, please?
9 A Sure. It says, “Insulation. The old
10 asbestos insulation was removed and replaced
11 with asbestos-free insulation. The old
12 insulation was bagged and disposed of in
13 accordance with OSHA regulations. A new
14 two-inch thick block insulation was installed
15 and covered with insulating cement.”
16 Q Does it say anywhere on this
17 document that some company, other than
18 General Electric, was involved in the removal
19 of the asbestos insulation?
20 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
21 form. You’ve only given her part of
22 the document.
23 MR. PLACITELLA: You can give
24 her anything you like at lunchtime.
25 MR. KAPSHANDY: We did mention
144
1 before, Counsel, bring documents for
2 her because this is not the turbine
3 witness.
4 MR. PLACITELLA: She is the one
5 that said, ask me about the turbines.
6 MR. KAPSHANDY: We’re not here
7 to address the turbines, Counsel.
8 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay.
9 A Well, it appears to me from the list
10 of 1 through 16 that some of this other
11 equipment was not the turbine itself. It was
12 related.
13 I don’t know what they’re
14 talking about when they’re saying the old
15 asbestos insulation was removed. We don’t
16 know where that’s from from this description.
17 Q Number 2 says, “Rotor and
18 Diaphragms.” That’s part of the turbine,
19 isn’t it?
20 A You really need to speak to the
21 turbine specialist.
22 Q Do you have any information, as
23 you sit here, that any of these items 2
24 through 16 are anything other than parts of a
25 turbine, or are you just speculating?
145
1 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
2 Form. Scope.
3 A Pressure gauges for the main steam
4 inlet, first stage and extraction, that
5 sounds to me like it’s on the outside. It’s
6 not related to the turbine.
7 Q Outside of what, ma’am?
8 A Outside of the turbine proper. And I
9 suggest that you speak to the turbine
10 specialist for that.
11 Q Thank you for your suggestion.
12 Let me ask you this question:
13 Do we agree that as of 1979, General Electric
14 was involved in the removal of asbestos
15 insulation at Chevron? Can we agree at least
16 on that?
17 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
18 Q Based upon this document.
19 MR. KAPSHANDY: Form.
20 A First of all, I don’t have the entire
21 document.
22 Second of all, it’s my
23 understanding that GE used insulation
24 contractors to do any insulation work. So I
25 really can’t answer just based on that sheet
146
1 of paper.
2 Q Is there any information on this
3 document, ma’am, that indicates that other
4 contractors were involved?
5 All I asked you was: Can we
6 agree that General Electric was involved in
7 the removal of asbestos insulation in 1979,
8 given the fact that it’s on their document?
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to the
10 form. Asked and answered. Beyond the
11 scope.
12 A I don’t know what you mean when you
13 say involved. I have no indication that,
14 from this, that they did hands-on work with
15 insulation.
16 Q Would you agree that there was
17 at least asbestos still on the turbine in
18 1979, given the fact that somebody was taking
19 it off and it was written down by a General
20 Electric employee? Would you agree with
21 that?
22 A Well, possibly in certain locations it
23 may have been.
24 Q Okay. Well, I’ll stop my
25 questioning based upon the fact that you
147
1 agree with me on one thing, and we’ll pick it
2 up this afternoon.
3 MR. PLACITALLA: How’s 45
4 minutes? 45 minutes?
5 MR. KAPSHANDY: That’s fine.
6 VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off
7 the record at 12:47.
8 (Off record.)
9 (Luncheon recess taken.)
10 (Drucker’s document index is
11 marked as P-6 for
12 Identification.)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
148
1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N
2
3 VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on
4 the record at 13:32.
5 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay.
6
7 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION BY
8 MR. PLACITELLA:
9
10 Q Good afternoon, Ms. Drucker.
11 How are you?
12 A Good, thank you.
13 Q Okay. Over the lunch Mr. Keale
14 and I tried some technology manipulation. I
15 think I have the index that we’re talking
16 about.
17 A Okay.
18 Q I actually had to put the index
19 in Excel form, because the Word form wouldn’t
20 look at the third column. I don’t know why.
21 But I’ve sorted the index by date, because I
22 want to ask you some questions about dates
23 and things.
24 A Okay
25 Q But I’m going to ask you to take
149
1 a look at it and see if this is the form of
2 the index that you recognize?
3 (The witness complies.)
4 Q Do you understand the index to
5 your documents to be four separate columns?
6 A You know, I don’t recall. Your first
7 question was it looks familiar. It’s a
8 little out of order.
9 As you said, you changed it by
10 date.
11 Q I sorted it by date because I
12 thought it would go faster.
13 A Okay. Sure.
14 Q Now, the first column has
15 numbers on it like D-18, D-129, H-1, H-7.
16 Do you have any idea why those
17 numbers are used?
18 A Yes. We just used just lettering
19 system to differentiate some of the
20 materials.
21 Q Tell me why you used a
22 D versus A versus an F?
23 A D was for historical documents, okay?
24 You know, I’m not familiar with
25 it. These look like some historical
150
1 documents as well.
2 Q Were you the one that decided
3 that numbering system, or is that what the
4 lawyers decided?
5 A There was some part of an outline that
6 was done prior to me, and then after I
7 decided which should go where. So it was
8 both.
9 Q Now, the second column,
10 describe –
11 A C’s. There’s a lot of National Safety
12 Council Information.
13 Q Right.
14 A Okay.
15 Q The second column describes the
16 document itself?
17 A Yes, it does.
18 Q Okay. The third column, what is
19 that?
20 A That appears to be the author in some
21 situations or the source.
22 Q Okay. There’s a lot of source
23 that says Rachel Maines. Who is that?
24 A Yes. Rachel Maines wrote a book, I
25 believe, dated in 2006 called, “Asbestos and
151
1 Fire.” And she had a lot of good references
2 in her book, so we obtained those references.
3 And so the source of those documents was
4 Rachel Maines.
5 Q Where it’s blank, how do I know
6 what the source is?
7 A Maybe I could help you. So if you’ve
8 got something in mind I could –
9 Q Well, I’m kind of limited in
10 time. There’s like maybe 200 pages there, so
11 I’ll try to spot test it.
12 A Okay. You could see some of them.
13 Here is the libraries, the Harvard Radcliffe
14 Library. This is the Schenectady Museum and
15 Library. That’s where those came from. So
16 if you want to pick out a few, sure.
17 Q And the last is the date, the
18 date of the publication or reference?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Okay. Now, I just want to
21 understand — and this will go quickly.
22 Do you know anything about
23 General Electric’s involvement at Chevron
24 with the middle distillate hydro treater?
25 A No, I don’t.
152
1 Q Do you know anything about
2 General Electric’s involvement with cooling
3 tower number 1 in the hexane unit?
4 A At Chevron?
5 Q Yes.
6 A No.
7 Q Do you know anything about
8 General Electric’s involvement in the
9 catalytic reformer number 2?
10 A No.
11 Q Do you know anything about
12 General Electric’s involvement in crude unit
13 number 3 and cat reformer number 2?
14 A No.
15 Q Do you know anything about
16 General Electric’s involvement in the
17 construction of crude unit number 4 in 1957?
18 A No.
19 Q Do you know anything about
20 General Electric’s involvement in the
21 construction of the recovery project in 1957?
22 A No.
23 Q Do you know anything about
24 General Electric’s involvement with the cat
25 reformer number 2 in 1958?
153
1 A No.
2 Q Do you know anything about
3 General Electric’s involvement in power plant
4 number 2 in 1958?
5 A No.
6 Q Do you know anything about
7 General Electric’s involvement in the
8 separator improvement construction in 1960?
9 A No.
10 Q Do you know anything about
11 General Electric’s involvement in the
12 construction of the anhydride plant in 1962
13 and 1963?
14 A No.
15 Q Do you know who would know that?
16 A No.
17 Q That wouldn’t be the turbine
18 expert, right?
19 A I don’t know.
20 Q So there was — if General
21 Electric was involved in all these activities
22 at Chevron, that’s not something you’re
23 prepared to address?
24 A Those things that you just stated,
25 that’s correct.
154
1 Q Okay. Now, are you aware of
2 what information was supplied by General
3 Electric when offering equipment for sale to
4 Barber Asphalt or Chevron?
5 A About any — excuse me, in any type of
6 information?
7 Q Yes.
8 A I haven’t come across something like
9 that.
10 Q When offering alternatives, did
11 General Electric specify any risks involved
12 in the use of asbestos to either Barber
13 Asphalt or Chevron?
14 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
15 form.
16 A Well, it’s — it’s my understanding
17 that GE did offer alternatives, as far as
18 insulation materials, if they were so
19 involved.
20 And that — my understanding is
21 that when you’re dealing with a company as
22 highly sophisticated as Barber Asphalt, being
23 a member of the National Safety Council since
24 1927, that — and they being the decider of
25 which materials they would use, it’s my
155
1 understanding that they would have had the
2 relevant type of information to make those
3 kinds of informed decisions.
4 Q What was my question?
5 A I don’t recall the exact wording.
6 Q Okay. Now, when a turbine is
7 sold to a place like Barber Asphalt or
8 Chevron, your understanding is that you could
9 use asbestos or non-asbestos products in
10 conjunction with that turbine. Is that what
11 you’re telling me?
12 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
13 Form.
14 A My understanding is that prior to the
15 early 1970s, if GE was asked to even make a
16 specification for insulation, that the
17 customer would have been provided
18 alternatives of insulation materials.
19 Q And what alternatives would they
20 be, ma’am?
21 A My understanding is that there would
22 possibly be asbestos, non-asbestos types of
23 materials.
24 Q And your understanding was that
25 you could use non-asbestos materials on the
156
1 General Electric turbines interchangeably
2 with asbestos materials. Is that what you’re
3 saying?
4 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
5 form.
6 A Well, partly. It’s really, you’re
7 asking a technical question. You should
8 speak — ask the turbine specialist.
9 Q No, ma’am. I’m just addressing
10 your prior answer.
11 A Let me finish.
12 Q Okay.
13 A But it’s also my understanding that
14 thermal insulation didn’t have to be used at
15 all.
16 Q All right. So there were three
17 alternatives: No thermal insulation,
18 asbestos insulation or non-asbestos
19 insulation. They were the three options
20 available to the customer when they were
21 going to purchase a General Electric turbine.
22 Is that you’re saying?
23 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
24 form.
25 A That’s my general understanding prior
157
1 to the ’70s.
2 Q Okay. Well, we’ll limit it to
3 prior to the ’70s, okay?
4 Now, can you tell me when those
5 alternatives were made known to the customer,
6 what specifically did General Electric tell
7 the customer about the risks and benefits
8 from a health perspective from each
9 alternative?
10 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
11 Form.
12 A Well, I really don’t know what GE
13 could have told a highly sophisticated
14 company such as Barber Asphalt that they
15 wouldn’t have already known.
16 Q That wasn’t my question, ma’am.
17 Could you please answer my question so we can
18 get out of here sometime today?
19 MR. PLACITELLA: Can you read my
20 question back, please?
21 (The following question is read
22 back:
23 “QUESTION: Now, can you tell me
24 when those alternatives were made
25 known to the customer, what
158
1 specifically did General Electric tell
2 the customer about the risks and
3 benefits from a health perspective
4 from each alternative?”)
5 Q Are you able to answer that
6 question, ma’am?
7 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel, are you
8 speaking generally or with regard to
9 the 1950 turbine?
10 MR. PLACITELLA: However she
11 thinks she can answer it, all right?
12 MR. KAPSHANDY: Well, we need to
13 have a clarification, because she
14 previously told you that the 1950
15 turbines, there is no specification.
16 MR. PLACITELLA: She doesn’t
17 know that. She got that from you.
18 She doesn’t know anything about that.
19 Why don’t we just put you under oath?
20 MR. KAPSHANDY: Exactly. This
21 is what I’m saying all along. There
22 is another witness who is here — will
23 be here to address these issues.
24 MR. PLACITELLA: Please, don’t
25 testify anymore, please.
159
1 Q Ma’am, one of the alternatives
2 was putting asbestos on a General Electric
3 turbine in the 1950s. Do we agree with that?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Okay. Can you tell me what
6 General Electric told its customers generally
7 about the dangers of asbestos when they were
8 weighing what product to put on the turbine?
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
10 Form.
11 A I haven’t come across anything
12 specifically on that, but I don’t know what
13 more GE could have told a sophisticated
14 customer such as Barber Asphalt, because
15 being a member of the National Safety Council
16 from 1927 on, which was — had to abide by
17 the New Jersey threshold limit value for
18 asbestos from 1938 on, I don’t know what more
19 GE could have told them. That –
20 Q Do you remember my question,
21 ma’am?
22 A I do.
23 Q What was it?
24 A You asked what information did GE
25 offer as far as the relative — the different
160
1 types of materials that could be used.
2 And my answer was, I don’t know
3 what more they could tell a sophisticated
4 customer.
5 Q What did they tell the customer?
6 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
7 Form.
8 Q What did they tell the customer,
9 ma’am?
10 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
11 Form.
12 A I said — my answer was I haven’t come
13 across something like that, but I don’t know
14 why there would be anything.
15 Q The truth of the matter is –
16 MR. KAPSHANDY: Let her finish,
17 please.
18 Q — that nothing was ever told to
19 the customer about the dangers of asbestos
20 before the 1970s; isn’t that the truth,
21 ma’am?
22 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
23 Form.
24 Q Isn’t that the truth?
25 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
161
1 Form.
2 Q Under oath before a jury and a
3 court of law, isn’t that the truth?
4 MR. KAPSHANDY: How many
5 questions are you going to ask? Can
6 she answer them, please?
7 A Can I have them one at a time?
8 Q Yes.
9 Isn’t it the truth, ma’am, under
10 oath, that you have no information whatsoever
11 to indicate that General Electric ever told a
12 single customer before the 1970s, that using
13 asbestos on a General Electric turbine could
14 be potentially hazardous to human health?
15 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
16 form.
17 A In fact, they did.
18 Q They did?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Who did they tell?
21 A Well, they told the world.
22 Q They told the world?
23 A They told the world.
24 Q What did they tell Mr. Horvath,
25 ma’am?
162
1 A Look, Mr. Horvath –
2 Q Isn’t Mr. Horvath part of the
3 world?
4 MR. KAPSHANDY: Let her finish,
5 please, Counsel.
6 Q They told the world?
7 A They told the world.
8 Q Okay. Did they tell Mr. Horvath
9 that if he worked around insulation that was
10 asbestos on a General Electric turbine, that
11 that could be potentially hazardous to his
12 health and his family’s health? Did they
13 tell him that?
14 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
15 Form.
16 A Well, I could tell you that the GE
17 health and safety people shared information
18 that was known at the time, the state of the
19 art at different points of time, with the
20 world, with health and safety people
21 throughout the world.
22 Q They told Mr. Horvath, is that
23 what you’re telling this jury?
24 A Well, the way it works in health and
25 safety is that health and safety people at a
163
1 location, say where Mr. Horvath worked, get
2 the relevant information that they need to
3 make health and safety decisions, and then
4 enact them for that particular location.
5 It doesn’t work that each and
6 every single employee goes out and gets
7 information. That wouldn’t work. The
8 employer is responsible for assuring a safe
9 workplace for very employee there.
10 Q So is it your testimony, ma’am,
11 that General Electric had no responsibility
12 whatsoever to the workers, to tell the
13 workers what it knew about the dangers of
14 asbestos at the Chevron or Barber refinery?
15 Is that your testimony?
16 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
17 Form.
18 A General Electric told the world about
19 the relevant hazards of asbestos at different
20 points in time.
21 MR. PLACITELLA: Could you read
22 my question back, please?
23 (The following question is read
24 back:
25 “QUESTION: So is it your
164
1 testimony, ma’am, that General
2 Electric had no responsibility
3 whatsoever to the workers, to tell the
4 workers what it knew about the dangers
5 of asbestos at the Chevron or Barber
6 refinery? Is that your testimony?”)
7
8 A Well, if you’re asking me is it
9 reasonable and practical for a company that
10 doesn’t own a premises, that doesn’t control
11 the worker, that didn’t make a product to go
12 on site, somehow, magically, get on site and
13 go up to each and every worker and say, I’m
14 from GE, I think I need to tell you what the
15 hazards are associated with any of your work
16 products, it doesn’t work that way.
17 The way it works in real health
18 and safety — and I’ve been doing this work
19 for over 30 years –
20 Q I know. That’s scary.
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: Could you let
22 her finish, please, without
23 commenting?
24 Go ahead.
25 A The way it works is that employers are
165
1 tasked with getting relevant information and
2 making workplaces safe for every employee.
3 They’re the ones who control the workplaces.
4 they’re the ones that know all the processes
5 and all the substances involved, and that’s
6 how it works in the real health and safety
7 world.
8 Q That’s how it works in the real
9 world, ma’am?
10 Can you tell me — you’re aware
11 that General Electric had somebody on site
12 while the turbine was being installed, were
13 you not?
14 A You know, I’ll tell you, as I sit here
15 right now, I don’t know.
16 But what I can tell you is this:
17 That if a turbine specialist was there, that
18 person is a specialist technical person on
19 the turbine.
20 Q Does he know anything about the
21 dangers of asbestos, that turbine specialist?
22 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
23 A In fact, that GE person, if they were
24 there, is required to comply with the health
25 and safety mandates of the premise owner.
166
1 So, in fact, the GE person would
2 be under the health and safety direction of,
3 in this case, the Chevron or Barber people.
4 Q Okay. So we agree, ma’am, that
5 there was a General Electric person on site
6 during the construction of the General
7 Electric turbine. Do you know that to be a
8 fact?
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
10 form.
11 A I already answered that. I said I
12 don’t know.
13 Q Okay. Do you know that there
14 was a General Electric person on site every
15 time asbestos was removed or installed on a
16 General Electric turbine at the Chevron
17 facility? Did you know that?
18 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
19 Form.
20 A If it even was. No, I don’t.
21 Q Okay. So if there was a person
22 on site, that person would have the ability
23 to tell other people what General Electric
24 told him, wouldn’t he?
25 A Well, let me tell you this: This is
167
1 how it works in the real world –
2 Q I know your real world. Please
3 answer my question.
4 MR. KAPSHANDY: She’s trying to,
5 Counsel.
6 Q I said would that person have
7 the ability to tell other people what he
8 knows?
9 A I can only tell you what I know. And
10 if you’d be so kind as to permit me to answer
11 your question, I would really like to.
12 The way it works in the real
13 world is that people take direction from
14 their supervisors. Why? Because that’s who
15 gives them the instruction. That’s who knows
16 what they’re doing. That’s who’s responsible
17 for their health and safety on a job.
18 If — think of it, you know
19 you’re on a job and some stranger comes up to
20 you and says, hey, I’m with GE. We really
21 know health and safety, and we’d really like
22 to take care of you. I think this is what
23 you should do.
24 Well, that doesn’t make any
25 sense, because the person wouldn’t
168
1 necessarily listen to somebody who’s not
2 there.
3 Q Who’s the expert man about GE
4 turbines?
5 A Who’s –
6 Q Who knows more — who in the
7 world knows more about GE turbines than
8 General Electric?
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: I thought we
10 were talking about the insulation,
11 Counsel.
12 MR. PLACITELLA: Are you under
13 oath again?
14 MR. KAPSHANDY: I’m just trying
15 to clarify.
16 MR. PLACITELLA: Why are you
17 talking? Are you going to continue to
18 do this? Are you going to continue to
19 attempt to key this witness all
20 afternoon.
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
22 Form.
23 Q Do you remember what my question
24 was?
25 A It had something to did with who was
169
1 more expert on a GE turbine than GE.
2 Q Yeah. Who was more expert on a
3 General Electric turbine than General
4 Electric? Can you answer that question?
5 A Well, on the turbine itself, which is
6 a piece of metal machinery, if it were made
7 by General Electric, General Electric would
8 be the expert on that piece of metal
9 machinery.
10 Q And the machinery — let me ask
11 you a question. You understand that the
12 insulation goes over the turbine, do you
13 understand that part?
14 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
15 Form.
16 Q And then a general — then a
17 case of metal goes over the insulation; do
18 you understand that part?
19 A Well, my understanding is that all
20 that varies. And it varies by year, by model
21 number, by many, many things. And it’s
22 actually specific to each unit.
23 So for that, you would really
24 need to speak to the turbine specialist.
25 Q Okay. Let me ask the question
170
1 this way: Have you ever seen a General
2 Electric turbine?
3 A I’ve seen pictures of them, yes.
4 Q Have you ever seen a logo of
5 General Electric on the turbine?
6 A As I recall, I saw pictures of the
7 logo on a GE turbine.
8 Q Have you also seen warnings on
9 the turbine about electrocution and things
10 like that?
11 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
12 Form.
13 A Not that I recall.
14 Q Do you know that they exist, as
15 a person who worked for General Electric in
16 health and safety, do you know whether
17 warnings related to electrocution and things
18 like that ever appeared on turbines?
19 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
20 Form.
21 A Well, turbines weren’t part of our
22 group’s products, and I don’t recall.
23 Q Okay. Do you know, as you sit
24 here today, whether there were ever any
25 warnings on the outside of a General Electric
171
1 turbine indicating that if you disturb the
2 asbestos on the turbine, it could be
3 dangerous to your health?
4 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
5 Form.
6 A Well, I haven’t come across
7 information like that for many good reasons.
8 There really is no one size fits all warning
9 that you could put on insulation on a
10 turbine, which is not a product made by GE.
11 I don’t know why –
12 Q Are you saying they never made
13 insulation material?
14 MR. KAPSHANDY: Can she finish,
15 Counsel?
16 A In over 30 years of doing this work, I
17 haven’t come across one manufacturer warned
18 about another manufacturer’s products. And
19 GE is really not in a position to give a one
20 size fits all safety warning. It makes
21 absolutely no sense.
22 In the cases that — what we’re
23 talking about today, we have two turbines
24 that were built in 1942 and one in 1950.
25 Q That’s what your lawyer told
172
1 you, right; you don’t know that?
2 A Well, give me different years. It
3 doesn’t matter.
4 What we do know in health and
5 safety is that everything changed over those
6 40, 50 years, and certainly after OSHA. The
7 relevant standards went down, work practices
8 were somewhat different. There is no one
9 size fits all. There could be no warning
10 that would be responsible to put on.
11 Q Was there ever any kind of
12 warning anywhere on a General Electric
13 turbine telling people to be careful when
14 they installed or removed asbestos –
15 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
16 Q — on the turbine?
17 A No, I don’t know why there would be.
18 They didn’t make the product. I’ve never
19 come across one manufacturer warn about
20 another manufacturer’s product in over 30
21 years.
22 MR. PLACITELLA: Could you read
23 my question back?
24 Q Could you try to answer this
25 question, please?
173
1 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
2 Form. That’s getting argumentative
3 and insulting, Counsel. She did.
4 MR. PLACITELLA: We’ll let the
5 judge decide what’s argumentative and
6 insulating.
7 (The following question is read
8 back:
9 “QUESTION: Was there ever any
10 kind of warning anywhere on a General
11 Electric turbine telling people to be
12 careful when they installed or removed
13 asbestos on the turbine?)”
14 Q Can you answer that question,
15 please, ma’am?
16 A My answer was and is: No, but I don’t
17 know why there would be. I’ve never come
18 across a situation where one manufacturer
19 warns about another manufacturer’s product in
20 over 30 years.
21 Q Ma’am, the asbestos was put on
22 the General Electric turbine, was it not?
23 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
24 Form. Asked and answered.
25 A Maybe; maybe not.
174
1 MR. PLACITELLA: Look –
2 A We’ve gone over that.
3 MR. PLACITELLA: I’m going to
4 ask you one more time, then I’m
5 calling the judge, okay? I’m going to
6 ask you one more time to knock it off.
7 You can’t keep coaching her. You
8 can’t keep saying, asked and answered.
9 They’re improper objections.
10 I’m asking you one more time,
11 all right? Otherwise, I’m going to
12 file a motion and you’re going to go
13 to the judge and explain why you keep
14 doing it. Okay? I’m asking you
15 please, politely, don’t do it anymore.
16 MR. KAPSHANDY: I’m asking you,
17 please, politely, to move on. She’s
18 already told you that. I’m not going
19 to suggest to her what the answer was.
20 I’m asking you to move on, Counsel.
21 MR. PLACITELLA: I haven’t
22 gotten an answer yet.
23 MR. KAPSHANDY: Well, that’s
24 your opinion.
25 Q Have you ever seen any kind of
175
1 warning on a General Electric turbine related
2 to the hazards of asbestos? Can you answer
3 that question?
4 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to the
5 form of the question, again.
6 A No, but I don’t know why there would
7 be. I have never seen one manufacturer warn
8 about another manufacturer’s product.
9 Q Ma’am, asbestos was used on
10 General Electric turbines, true?
11 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
12 Form. Again.
13 A Maybe; maybe not.
14 Q Okay. When asbestos was used on
15 the General Electric turbine, there was no
16 warning about disturbing the asbestos on that
17 turbine, true, at any point in time?
18 A No, but I don’t know why there would
19 be. GE didn’t make the insulation, and I
20 have never come across a case where one
21 manufacturer warned about another
22 manufacturer’s product.
23 I’m not a lawyer, but I think
24 that you could get in trouble by doing that.
25 Q Oh, really. And what is your
176
1 basis for that, ma’am, that you couldn’t –
2 you would get in trouble by telling somebody
3 like Mr. Horvath, don’t disturb the asbestos
4 on this insulation because it could kill you?
5 You would get in trouble for
6 that as an industrial hygienist, ma’am?
7 A Well, you just totally contorted what
8 I said. But what are you going to tell
9 Mr. Horvath back in, say, 1940 or 1950? What
10 are you going to telling him, that maybe in
11 about 30 years there’s going to be something
12 called OSHA that’s going to come out and have
13 permissible exposure limits and in 1972 –
14 Q How about you tell him what you
15 know, ma’am?
16 MR. KAPSHANDY: Let her finish,
17 Counsel, please.
18 Q How about you tell Mr. Horvath
19 what you knew how about that?
20 MR. KAPSHANDY: I’m objecting to
21 the form of the question. You’re
22 interrupting her.
23 MR. PLACITELLA: I’ll withdraw
24 the question.
25 Q How about you tell Mr. Horvath
177
1 about what you knew about the dangers of
2 asbestos in the 1940s?
3 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
4 Form.
5 Q Did you do that?
6 A Mr. Horvath — may I answer the
7 question, please? Mr. Horvath was not a
8 health and safety specialist.
9 What, in fact, GE did was they
10 shared with other health and safety
11 specialists the information that they did
12 know that was relevant at different time
13 periods.
14 So, in a sense, GE did tell.
15 They shared information with the world.
16 Q There’s a picture of Mr. Horvath
17 up on the screen. See that? That’s a
18 picture of his wife. She’s dead from
19 mesothelioma.
20 And tell me what you told
21 Mr. Horvath about the dangers of asbestos.
22 MR. KAPSHANDY: Object to the
23 form of the question.
24 A Well, what I can tell you is that the
25 General Electric Company health and safety
178
1 professionals told other health and safety
2 professionals throughout the world relevant
3 information at different time periods.
4 And that’s the way things work
5 in this field. The health and safety people
6 of an employer devise protective measures to
7 make sure that people are healthy and safe on
8 a job.
9 Q Ma’am, did you ever tell
10 Mr. Horvath, did General Electric tell
11 Mr. Horvath that working around the asbestos
12 on a General Electric turbine could be
13 hazardous to his health?
14 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
15 Form.
16 Q Do you ever do it?
17 A I don’t know whether I’m supposed to
18 stop because of the film.
19 Q I want you to answer that
20 question.
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
22 Form.
23 A If you would kindly repeat it.
24 MR. PLACITELLA: Switch the
25 tape.
179
1 VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the end
2 of tape two of today’s video
3 deposition of Ms. Marjorie Drucker.
4 We’re going off the record for change
5 of tape at 14:00.
6 (Off record.)
7 VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the
8 beginning of tape three of today’s
9 video deposition of Marjorie Drucker.
10 We are back on the record at 14:04.
11 BY MR. PLACITELLA:
12 Q Would you agree with me, ma’am,
13 that an honest and unbiased witness will give
14 an answer, truthful answer to a simple
15 question?
16 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
17 Form.
18 A Sure.
19 MR. KAPSHANDY: It’s
20 inappropriate to ask her about the
21 credibility of another witness. You
22 know that, Counsel.
23 MR. PLACITELLA: I’m not asking
24 about another witness.
25 A Could you ask it again, please?
180
1 Q Would you agree that an honest
2 and unbiased witness will give a simple
3 answer to the simple question?
4 A Well, give the correct answer to a
5 question.
6 Q Ma’am, when was the potential
7 danger of asbestos exposure first made known
8 to General Electric?
9 A Well, as I mentioned before, to give
10 some context to this –
11 Q Excuse me. I want to withdraw
12 the question.
13 Ma’am, please listen to my
14 question. I don’t want to know about the
15 rest of the world. I want to know what –
16 I’m asking you about General Electric, okay?
17 Now, please listen to my question.
18 When, to your knowledge, from
19 your review of the materials and talking to
20 whoever you talked to –
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: Do you want to
22 go off the record, Counsel?
23 MR. PLACITELLA: No.
24 Q Ma’am, when was the potential
25 danger of exposure to asbestos first made
181
1 known to General Electric?
2 A And as I mentioned before, to give
3 some context to this, any material can be
4 hazardous and any material can be worked with
5 safely.
6 In the case of asbestos, the
7 term asbestosis was first coined in 1927 for
8 a fibrotic lung condition caused by large
9 amounts of asbestos exposure.
10 Now, we know from a memorandum
11 from Dr. Alice Hamilton, who I mentioned
12 before was a consultant to GE, who had read a
13 Dr. Cowle’s report, who was familiar with
14 Dr. Merriwether’s study that was done in
15 England in 1930 about asbestos and disease,
16 so I’d say from the early 1930s, GE health
17 and safety professionals would have been
18 aware of a condition called asbestosis from
19 high concentrations of asbestos dust.
20 Q And when was the possible
21 association between asbestos and cancer first
22 made known to General Electric?
23 A Well, that’s a little more difficult
24 to say. There really was no consensus in
25 this country about asbestos and cancer.
182
1 Q Withdraw the question.
2 Ma’am, I’m not asking you about
3 consensus. I’m just asking you about what
4 General Electric knew, please.
5 Ma’am, from your review of the
6 materials, when is the first time that
7 General Electric became aware of a potential
8 relationship between exposure to asbestos and
9 cancer?
10 A To give you my answer, I have to give
11 you the full answer. So I’m trying to do my
12 best.
13 Now, may I begin?
14 Q I’ll try it again. Sure.
15 A It’s a little more difficult to say.
16 There really was no consensus in this country
17 until about the mid ’60s or 1970 about
18 asbestos and cancer. Up to that point in
19 time, the thought was that cancer was a
20 progression from asbestosis. And if you kept
21 the dust levels down below that which would
22 cause asbestosis, you would also be
23 preventing cancer.
24 But I think it’s safe to say by
25 around the mid ’60s, 1970s, the GE health and
183
1 safety professionals would have been aware of
2 a risk of cancer from exposure to asbestos
3 from certain materials, such as insulation.
4 But that didn’t seem to be too much of an
5 issue at GE, since they weren’t making
6 insulation and they weren’t seeing disease.
7 Q What was my question?
8 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
9 Form.
10 A Your question was when did GE become
11 aware of asbestos and cancer.
12 Q That wasn’t my question. I’ll
13 move to the next one.
14 When was General Electric first
15 made aware that some scientists believed that
16 asbestos exposure could cause mesothelioma?
17 A Could you say that again, please?
18 Q When was General Electric made
19 aware that some scientists believed there was
20 an association between asbestos exposure and
21 mesothelioma?
22 A Well, I — I mean, I answered for
23 cancer. For me, it was for cancer and
24 mesothelioma. There wasn’t much to
25 distinguish between the two back then.
184
1 So my answer from before was
2 that there really was no consensus until
3 around the mid ’60s, 1970s.
4 Q Yes, ma’am. I’m not asking
5 about consensus. I’m asking you about when
6 was the first notice that respected
7 scientists believed that asbestos could cause
8 cancer?
9 I didn’t ask you about
10 consensus, did I?
11 A You just changed your questions.
12 Q Did I ever ask you about
13 consensus?
14 A No. I answered –
15 Q Yes, I know that’s how you
16 answered. So let me ask the question again.
17 When is the first time that
18 General Electric became aware that there were
19 respected scientists that believed that
20 asbestos may cause cancer?
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
22 Form.
23 A Well, I tried to give you the answer
24 when I described that before; that there
25 really was no consensus in this country. I
185
1 put the General Electric health and safety
2 professionals in with that group.
3 Q You’re just not going to answer
4 the question, are you? Did I ask you about
5 consensus? Let me ask the question again.
6 When is the first time that
7 General Electric learned that respected
8 scientists, whether or not there was a
9 consensus, believed there may be an
10 association between asbestos and cancer?
11 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
12 form.
13 A Well, in my reviewing the documents, I
14 haven’t come across something that locks in a
15 day. But I can say that in general, the
16 health and safety professionals would have
17 been aware of prevailing information on
18 constituents of their products, including
19 asbestos, one thing out of thousands of
20 materials that they used.
21 And that’s why I told you before
22 that there really was no consensus in this
23 country up until around the mid ’60s or
24 1970s. The thought was that cancer was a
25 progression from asbestosis, and if you kept
186
1 the dust levels down, you prevented
2 asbestosis, you also would be preventing
3 cancer.
4 So I went on to say that it
5 was — it was fair to say that the GE health
6 and safety professionals would have been
7 aware about the mid ’60s, 1970s, that there
8 may be a risk of cancer from exposure to
9 certain products, such as insulation, but
10 that didn’t seem to be an issue at GE since
11 they weren’t making insulation and they
12 weren’t seeing disease.
13 Q What was my question, ma’am?
14 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
15 form.
16 A I don’t recall the exact –
17 MR. KAPSHANDY: Please ask the
18 court reporter if you want to have it
19 read back.
20 Q I just want to know what
21 question you’re answering.
22 A Well, I’m endeavoring to answer each
23 of your questions.
24 Q Which question did you just
25 answer, ma’am? You don’t even know, do you?
187
1 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
2 Counsel, you’re commenting, and that’s
3 inappropriate.
4 Q Now, ma’am, –
5 MR. KAPSHANDY: Withdraw that,
6 Counsel.
7 MR. PLACITELLA: Please do not
8 tell me how to conduct my deposition.
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Go ahead.
10 Q Ma’am, before Workers’
11 Compensation laws were passed in the United
12 States, you’re aware that –
13 A Can I interrupt for a second?
14 Q No. I’m asking a question,
15 ma’am.
16 A I’m sorry.
17 Q Please listen to my question.
18 A I can’t hear it. That’s why I’m
19 saying that. I hear some background noise
20 and I can’t hear your –
21 Q I can’t help that. This is this
22 very fancy law firm and they have a very
23 fancy heating system, so I’ll try to speak
24 louder.
25 A That’s why I was interrupting, because
188
1 I couldn’t hear. It sounds like — something
2 is going on. All right.
3 Q You’re aware that back in the
4 1930s that people were unable — scratch
5 that.
6 You’re aware that back in the
7 1930s people were suing their employers for
8 dust disease before Workers’ Compensation
9 laws were passed, true?
10 A I don’t recall that.
11 Q You don’t remember that?
12 A I don’t recall that.
13 Q When is the first time that
14 General Electric was sued by one of its
15 employees for dust disease, disease related
16 to dust?
17 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
18 Beyond the scope.
19 Go ahead.
20 A You know, as I sit here right now, I
21 don’t know.
22 Q In fact, it was in the 1930s,
23 wasn’t it?
24 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
25 form. Scope.
189
1 A As I say, as I sit here right now, I
2 don’t know. I could tell the first time we
3 were sued for asbestosis. That was 1971.
4 Q That’s not my question, ma’am.
5 My question is: When is the
6 first time that General Electric was sued by
7 one of its employees for lung injury related
8 to inhalation of dust?
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
10 form.
11 A And as I said, at I sit here right
12 now, I don’t know.
13 Q Okay. Do you know whether
14 General Electric was part of an effort by
15 industry to get Workers’ Compensation laws
16 passed to prevent employees from suing their
17 employers for dust-related disease?
18 A I haven’t come across something like
19 that.
20 Q You mentioned Alice Hamilton.
21 A Yes.
22 Q And you’ve been to the archives
23 where Alice Hamilton left her materials at
24 Harvard, correct?
25 A Yes.
190
1 Q And Alice Hamilton was a
2 respected occupational health physician in
3 the early part of this century, would you
4 agree with that?
5 A Yes.
6 Q In fact, she served as an
7 advisor to General Electric on issues of
8 occupational health and safety, true?
9 A Sure, from the early ’20s to the mid
10 ’30s, yes.
11 Q And that included the subject of
12 asbestos as well, true?
13 A Yes. True.
14 Q And one of the things that Alice
15 Hamilton suggested to General Electric was
16 that a survey be done of their plants that
17 were using asbestos in order to fight
18 lawsuits that may be brought against General
19 Electric by their employees, true?
20 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
21 form.
22 A That really misstates what she said.
23 I know what you are alluding to, but I’d have
24 to see her words exactly.
25 Q Okay. Well, I’m going to put
191
1 them up on the screen and I’ll give you the
2 document.
3 A Okay.
4 MR. PLACITELLA: Maybe you could
5 move that over a little, Jim. It’s
6 really just for the people here.
7 MR. KAPSHANDY: This might be
8 73, Counsel. I’m not sure it’s the
9 right one. Alice Hamilton is from the
10 1930s.
11 MR. PLACITELLA: You’re right.
12 Sorry about that. You’re right. You
13 are correct. Okay.
14 (Discussion off record.)
15 MR. PLACITELLA: Can we have
16 this marked the next document, please?
17 (A letter from Hamilton to Swope
18 dated 12/14/33, is marked as P-7
19 for Identification.)
20 Q I’m going to show you what’s
21 been marked as P-7, ma’am, which is the
22 actual document. This is a December 14th
23 letter from Alice Hamilton to the president
24 of General Electric company, correct?
25 A Yes.
192
1 Q And this is a document that
2 you’re familiar with, correct?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Okay. And if we go down to the
5 second paragraph, do you see that?
6 A Yes.
7 Q There’s a letter — a sentence
8 that says, “There is, however.” Do you see
9 that?
10 That’s what I have up on the
11 screen, but the screen is hard to see because
12 of the light. Do you see where it says,
13 “There is, however, a matter we think should
14 be attended to now”?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Okay. It says, “There is,
17 however, a matter we think should be attended
18 to now. This is the question of asbestos
19 dust. It has lately come into prominence
20 because a combination of not very scrupulous
21 lawyers” –
22 MR. PLACITELLA: They’re not
23 talking about me, right?
24 MR. KAPSHANDY: Obviously.
25 Q And “not very scrupulous lawyers
193
1 and doctors have been pushing civil suits
2 against certain companies for alleged injury
3 from asbestos.”
4 Do you see that?
5 A Yes, I do.
6 Q Okay. And it says, “The
7 Johns-Manville Company and the Multibestos
8 have had a great deal of trouble from such
9 claims, many of them I believe quite
10 justified, but not all.”
11 Did I read that correctly?
12 A Yes, you read it correctly.
13 Q Now, go down a little bit
14 further. Do you see in the next paragraph
15 where it says, “Now you have”?
16 A Yes.
17 Q “Now you have asbestos dust in
18 Bridgeport and in York. I think you told me
19 that the York plant was destined to be closed
20 in the near future. Still that would not
21 prevent the bringing of suits. I think the
22 only safe thing to do is to have the
23 situation looked over by Philip Drinker and
24 dust counts made, so that if suits do develop
25 you will be prepared in advance.”
194
1 Did I read that correctly?
2 A Yes, you did.
3 Q All right. So what Alice
4 Hamilton did in 1933 is they told — she told
5 General Electric that they should do dust
6 counts in their plants related to asbestos to
7 help them in civil suits should they ever get
8 sued; right?
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
10 Form.
11 Q Is that what this says?
12 A Right. That if suits should develop,
13 they would be prepared in advance. That’s
14 what she says.
15 Q And in fact, General Electric
16 followed Alice Hamilton’s advice, true?
17 A They did some test — some surveys in
18 some plants, yes.
19 Q One of the plants they went to
20 was a plant in West Philadelphia, correct?
21 A Yes, that’s correct.
22 Q All right. And when they went
23 to West Philadelphia, what they found was
24 that somebody there had asbestosis, correct?
25 A Yes, they found one case of
195
1 asbestosis, yes.
2 Q And at that point in time,
3 protective measures were taken to protect
4 employees in the future. Do we agree with
5 that?
6 A Yes, that I — if you want me to read
7 there, she lists certain protective measures
8 that were taken for the person remaining
9 there, yes.
10 Q And the protective measures that
11 were taken for the people that were left
12 included working with a positive pressure air
13 helmet, true?
14 A Yes.
15 Q What is a positive pressure air
16 helmet?
17 A A positive pressure air helmet is a
18 helmet, something that covers your face and
19 your head and supplies fresh air across your
20 breathing zone so that you’re breathing clean
21 air.
22 Q And does it have a hose attached
23 to it?
24 A Yes, it does.
25 Q So it brings in clean air?
196
1 A It brings in clean air, and that’s
2 what you get into your breathing zone, yes.
3 MR. PLACITELLA: Could we have
4 this one marked next?
5 (A three-page report of West
6 Philadelphia plant is marked as
7 P-8 for Identification.)
8 Q And I want to show you what’s
9 been marked as P-8 for Identification.
10 You’re familiar with this, are
11 you not?
12 A Yes, I am.
13 Q This is a report concerning
14 Schenectady back in 1934, correct?
15 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
16 form.
17 Q I put it up on the screen,
18 January 20, 1934.
19 MR. KAPSHANDY: It concerns West
20 Philadelphia.
21 A You said Schenectady.
22 Q Well, actually, Schenectady, but
23 it means West Philadelphia. Correct. My
24 fault.
25 A It –
197
1 Q It pertains to the West
2 Philadelphia plant?
3 A Yes, West Philadelphia.
4 Q Where they used asbestos?
5 A Yes.
6 Q They said what they did is they
7 discovered the case of asbestosis and they
8 removed the man from the environment. True?
9 A True.
10 Q And then what they did is the
11 other guy who was doing the work had to use
12 one of these airline respirators to protect
13 himself; right?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And they also made sure there
16 was exhaust put in to protect the worker,
17 correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And they also took X-rays,
20 correct?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Okay. And the remainder of this
23 document gives very specific detail about, at
24 that point in time, what this writer thought
25 asbestos was doing to the body or could do to
198
1 the body, true?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Okay. Now, in addition to the
4 West Philadelphia plant, Alice Hamilton
5 wanted to look at other plants, correct?
6 A Yes.
7 Q And one of the plants that she
8 wanted to look at was Bridgeport, right?
9 A That’s correct.
10 Q What were they making in
11 Bridgeport?
12 A They were making some asbestos wire
13 and cable. Not all the wire cable, but there
14 was some made there.
15 Q And in Bridgeport they weren’t
16 using raw asbestos; they were using a
17 finished product, true?
18 A I don’t recall. I’d have to look at
19 that report.
20 Q Why don’t we get to that.
21 And in Bridgeport, they went –
22 they asked Bridgeport, do they have any
23 asbestos problem, true?
24 A I’d have to see the document.
25 Q Sure.
199
1 MR. PLACITELLA: Mark this,
2 please.
3 (A two-page letter from Clark to
4 Hamilton dated 2/13/33, is
5 marked as P-9 for
6 Identification.)
7 Q Can you look at, P-9?
8 (The witness complies.)
9 Q P-9 is a letter from the Manager
10 of the Bridgeport Works dated February 13th,
11 1934, and I put that up on the screen.
12 Do you see that?
13 A Yes.
14 Q It says, “General Electric
15 Company, Merchandise Department,” and the
16 letter is to Dr. Alice Hamilton, correct?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And it’s in response to a letter
19 where she asks, do you have any problems with
20 asbestos at your plant, right?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And what this manager says
23 basically is, we had somebody with a problem
24 with asbestos, but he’s not there now
25 anymore. We don’t have to worry about it.
200
1 A Maybe you can tell me where you’re
2 pointing to.
3 Q It says in the third paragraph,
4 “It seems to me that we had one man in the
5 early days of our operation of this
6 department who had some indications of
7 trouble from asbestos dust but I do not think
8 it was serious and the man is no longer
9 working for us.”
10 Did I read that correctly?
11 A You read that correctly.
12 Q And when it says, “early days,”
13 how early are we talking?
14 A My understanding is that wire and
15 cable started — some wire and cable used
16 with asbestos starting in the 1930s. So it
17 seems to be early ’30s from this.
18 Q All right. So sometime before
19 1934 the manager of the plant, it was made
20 known to the manager of the plant that
21 somebody was getting sick from asbestos. Is
22 that a fair reading?
23 A Well, that’s not what she says.
24 Q It’s not she; it’s Stewart
25 Clark.
201
1 A Oh, you’re right. Yes, you’re
2 correct.
3 Q What he says is that, “It seems
4 to me we had one man in the early days of our
5 operation of this department who had some
6 indications of trouble from asbestos dust,”
7 correct?
8 A Yes, that’s what it says.
9 Q But I don’t think it was
10 serious, and the man’s no longer working for
11 us, right?
12 A That’s what it says, yes.
13 Q In other words, we’re not
14 worried about it?
15 A Well, I don’t think he’s adding that
16 callous remark to something like that.
17 Q Well, did Alice Hamilton go do a
18 survey of the Bridgeport plant after this
19 letter of reassurance was sent to her by the
20 manager of the plant?
21 A I would have to look through the
22 documents, but I can tell you that Alice
23 Hamilton was an extremely dedicated and
24 caring person.
25 Q Yes, ma’am.
202
1 A And a pioneer in her field.
2 Q I don’t doubt that for a minute,
3 ma’am.
4 What I’m saying is after this
5 letter of reassurance from the manager of the
6 General Electric plant in Bridgeport, no
7 survey was done, true?
8 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
9 form.
10 A Well, we don’t know. I don’t know.
11 I’d have to look at the documents, and I
12 don’t know, as I sit here right now.
13 Q What do you need to look at?
14 A I could look at some documents and see
15 if something — a subsequent visit to
16 Bridgeport was made.
17 Q Well, you don’t know as you sit
18 here whether a visit was made, is that what
19 you’re saying?
20 A That’s correct. I don’t know if
21 there’s another report subsequent to this
22 where she might have visited Bridgeport. I
23 don’t recall.
24 Q You agree with me, ma’am, that
25 this, from a public health perspective, ended
203
1 up to be a horrible situation for the people
2 in Bridgeport, right?
3 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
4 Form.
5 A Well, maybe you could tell me what
6 you’re thinking about.
7 Q Why don’t you tell the ladies
8 and gentlemen what happened to the people who
9 worked in Bridgeport in terms of
10 mesothelioma? Why don’t you tell the jury
11 what happened to those people?
12 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
13 form.
14 These people that she’s talking
15 about?
16 MR. PLACITELLA: No, the workers
17 at Bridgeport.
18 Q Tell the jury what happened to
19 the workers at Bridgeport in terms of
20 mesothelioma.
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
22 form.
23 A Well, it’s a little difficult to say.
24 And if I may, I think I mentioned what I
25 think you are referring to, and then discuss
204
1 that report. I — are you — maybe you can
2 tell me the document you’re referring to.
3 Was it by a Dr. Simpson or Joanna Haas. I’d
4 like to explain it to you.
5 Q How many documents are you aware
6 of about what happened to the people at
7 Bridgeport? I was only aware of one.
8 A Well, as far as I know, both documents
9 are available to you in these materials.
10 Q Well, what documents are you
11 referring to, ma’am?
12 A Okay. This letter, as you know, is
13 dated February 13, 1934. There is a report
14 in the Drucker Materials, and it was written
15 by a Dr. Joanna Haas of Cornell University
16 Medical School, in which she says that she
17 was asked by the doctor at Bridgeport to see
18 if there was something related to the cancer
19 that was — that appeared to be in the
20 Bridgeport plant.
21 The doctor was concerned enough
22 that he thought it might be excessive, and he
23 wanted it studied by an independent examiner.
24 Q When did that happen, ma’am?
25 A That happened in 1975, because her
205
1 report of her findings was dated 1976.
2 Q Yes, ma’am.
3 A So we’re talking about — we’re
4 talking about many, many years difference.
5 Q And what that report found,
6 ma’am, was that there was an excess of
7 mesothelioma of workers at the Bridgeport
8 plant. Correct?
9 A I’d have to see the exact wording. I
10 don’t think it was — it wasn’t conclusive.
11 that was one of the — it was suspected.
12 Q Did it say excessive, ma’am?
13 A I’d like to see the document.
14 Q Well, you don’t know if they’re
15 in the documents, ma’am? They’re your
16 materials.
17 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel, it’s 46
18 boxes. If you want to ask her about
19 one, put it in front of her.
20 MR. PLACITELLA: I’m just asking
21 the question.
22 Can we mark this next, please?
23 (A report of Bridgeport
24 Production Facilities by Joanna
25 Hass, 1/1/76, is marked as P-10
206
1 for Identification.)
2 Q Ms. Drucker, you’re familiar
3 with this document, are you not?
4 A Yes. That’s the one that I just
5 mentioned to you by Dr. Joanna Haas.
6 Q And that was January 1, 1976,
7 the date of the document?
8 A Yes, correct.
9 Q Could you turn to page 8,
10 please?
11 (The witness complies.)
12 A Yes.
13 Q You see under, “Findings,”
14 ma’am?
15 A Yes, I do.
16 Q It says, number 1, “A dramatic
17 excess of mesothelioma deaths was observed
18 during the period 1967 – 1974.”
19 Did I read that correctly,
20 ma’am?
21 A Yes, you did.
22 Q Now, can you tell me, ma’am,
23 what surveys were done at the Bridgeport
24 facility, to your knowledge, between 1934,
25 when the letter of reassurance was written,
207
1 until 1975?
2 A What kinds of surveys?
3 Q Yes.
4 A Sure, I could tell you that –
5 Q At the Bridgeport plant.
6 A I worked out of that plant. My office
7 was in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
8 Q Great.
9 A okay. And then I worked for the
10 doctor who was the head of the plant.
11 Q Great.
12 A We worked very closely together and,
13 he had a longstanding medical industrial
14 hygiene program.
15 Q I don’t doubt it.
16 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel, could
17 you please let her finish without the
18 interjections? That’s very rude.
19 MR. PLACITELLA: It’s not very
20 rude. I’m trying to get an answer to
21 my question.
22 Q What surveys were done between
23 1934 and 1975? That’s my question.
24 MR. KAPSHANDY: She’s answering.
25 Q I don’t need the whole history
208
1 of who did what. I just want to know what
2 surveys are you aware of? That’s my
3 question.
4 A I’m just trying to give you my best
5 answer.
6 Q Well, please limit your best
7 answer to answering my question.
8 A Sure.
9 Q What surveys were done?
10 A Okay. And I could tell you that
11 because I worked out of that plant and I
12 worked with the doctor and the industrial
13 hygienist who was there, that there were
14 industrial health and hygiene and safety
15 surveys done for decades throughout that
16 facility.
17 So there were many, many surveys
18 done over time in the plant, including air
19 dust surveys, prior to 1975.
20 Q Okay. And did any of those
21 surveys turn up people getting cancer before
22 1976?
23 A I haven’t come across that.
24 Q Did any of those surveys look at
25 X-rays of people to see if they were getting
209
1 cancer before 1976?
2 A I don’t recall.
3 Q Did any of those surveys –
4 A You know, I should say something; that
5 before ’76 I know that it was routine for GE
6 to do preplacement physicals when people came
7 aboard for — they had preplacement X-rays,
8 and some people might have had periodic. I
9 just don’t recall.
10 Q Were ever X-rays given for
11 people in the plant to determine whether
12 asbestos was causing cancer in those people
13 before 1976? That’s my question.
14 A Could I have that read back, please?
15 (The following question is read
16 back:
17 “QUESTION: Were ever X-rays given
18 for people in the plant to determine
19 whether asbestos was causing cancer in
20 those people before 1976?”)
21 A You know, I don’t know. I haven’t
22 come across some medical records. I just
23 don’t know or I don’t recall.
24 Q Okay, that’s fair. I’m actually
25 looking for my notes.
210
1 So as of 1934, General Electric
2 is aware the way you can protect people from
3 exposure to asbestos is to give them air line
4 respirators, true?
5 A In certain circumstances. There is no
6 one size fits all.
7 Q I’m just asking you generally,
8 ma’am.
9 One of the ways you could
10 protect people from exposure to asbestos is
11 to give them air line respirators, true?
12 A In certain situations.
13 Q All right. Another way is to
14 segregate the asbestos operation from other
15 operations. True?
16 A Yes, I’d say that was true, as a
17 general industrial hygiene principle.
18 Q Okay. Another way was to make
19 sure that proper exhaust systems were in
20 place so people would not be exposed to dust
21 containing asbestos, true?
22 A Yeah, in certain situations. And
23 again, that’s a general industrial hygiene
24 principle.
25 Q And then, do you know when
211
1 Mr. Horvath started work at the Chevron
2 facility?
3 A Yes. In — are you asking me when?
4 Q Yes, ma’am.
5 A Yes. In 1948.
6 Q Thank you, ma’am.
7 And before Mr. Horvath ever set
8 foot in the Chevron or Barber Asphalt
9 facility, General Electric was aware of the
10 need to protect workers’ families from
11 exposure to asbestos, true?
12 A Oh no, I wouldn’t say that. That’s
13 not true.
14 Q That’s not true?
15 A No.
16 Q By 1942, General Electric
17 required their employees to change their
18 clothing if they were exposed to asbestos
19 before they went home, true?
20 A I don’t recall having come across
21 something like that.
22 Q You mean your lawyers never gave
23 you that?
24 MR. KAPSHANDY: I object to
25 that.
212
1 Q Let me show you this.
2 MR. PLACITELLA: Mark this next.
3 MR. KAPSHANDY: You mean as the
4 document she gave you?
5 MR. PLACITELLA: I don’t think
6 this is the one she gave you. That’s
7 what I’m going to find out.
8 MR. KAPSHANDY: It’s in her
9 materials, Counsel.
10 MR. PLACITELLA: It is?
11 MR. KAPSHANDY: Yes.
12 THE WITNESS: It’s in the
13 materials.
14 MR. PLACITELLA: Oh, it is.
15 MR. KAPSHANDY: She was trying
16 to tell you earlier, but you cut her
17 off.
18 MR. PLACITELLA: Let’s mark
19 this.
20 Do you know about this document?
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: Yes. She gave
22 it to you.
23 MR. PLACITELLA: All right. Why
24 don’t we mark this?
25 (Safe Practice Bulletin, April,
213
1 1942, is marked as P-11 for
2 Identification.)
3 Q You have in front of you P-11.
4 A Yes.
5 Q Let me ask you a question, by
6 the way. I’m going to put up here on the
7 screen, and I’ll have a copy of the document.
8 If you know about it, that’s fine; if you
9 don’t, that’s fine.
10 You’re aware of Dr. Heuper’s
11 textbook from 1942 discussing asbestos in
12 cancer?
13 A I’m aware of some of Dr. Heuper’s
14 work. I don’t recall if I’ve seen this book
15 in particular.
16 Q So you’re not aware — who is
17 Dr. Heuper, by the way?
18 A Dr. Heuper was a physician who worked
19 for the Public Health Services.
20 Q Wasn’t he also head of the
21 National Cancer Institute?
22 A I don’t recall.
23 Q And you’re not aware that he
24 wrote a textbook in 1942 talking about
25 asbestos in cancer?
214
1 A As I sit here right now, I don’t
2 recall it.
3 Q Okay. Now, you have in front of
4 you what document, ma’am?
5 A It’s been marked as P-11, and it’s got
6 a cover stating it’s from the Commonwealth of
7 Pennsylvania, Department of Labor and
8 Industry, Safe Practice Bulletin,
9 Occupational Disease Prevention, Exhausting
10 Asbestos Fiber and Dust in Wire Insulation
11 Manufacture, dated April, 1942.
12 Q And the significance of this –
13 well, strike that.
14 Ma’am, at this point in time,
15 General Electric had one or two plants in the
16 State of Pennsylvania?
17 A Is that a question.
18 Q Yes. Do you know?
19 A Did they have one or two?
20 Q Yes.
21 A As I recall, they had at least two;
22 one being York.
23 Q And this particular document
24 pertains directly to one of the General
25 Electric plants; true?
215
1 A Yes. It’s the York wire mill.
2 Q And inside, if you go to the –
3 and I put the document up on the screen.
4 Part of the document is written by the
5 assistant to the manager at the General
6 Electric York Works; true?
7 A Oh yes.
8 Q Okay. And the products that
9 they used in this plant were not raw
10 asbestos, true?
11 A I’d have to review this. I don’t
12 recall.
13 Q Well, look at the first page of
14 the writing where it says, “Edited by Robert
15 L. Houts.” Do you see that?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And I put the section up on the
18 screen, but it’s a little bit hard to see.
19 Do you see where it says, the –
20 on the second paragraph down.
21 A Yes.
22 Q It says, “We find two general
23 types of asbestos supply, one of the yarn
24 asbestos in spool form.” Do you see that?
25 A Yes.
216
1 Q That’s not raw asbestos, right?
2 A That’s right.
3 Q And it also talks about the
4 other being a batt or lap. Do you see that?
5 A Yes.
6 Q That’s not raw asbestos either,
7 is it?
8 A Yes.
9 Q A batt or lath is what asbestos
10 blankets were made out of, true?
11 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
12 form.
13 A I didn’t hear the last two words you
14 said.
15 Q A batt or a lap is what asbestos
16 blankets were made from?
17 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
18 form.
19 A It’s not the same as –
20 Q And go to the — on that same
21 page. And I put the slide up. You see where
22 it says, “However, this asbestos byproduct.”
23 Do you see that?
24 A Yes.
25 Q That’s not — that’s not raw
217
1 asbestos; that’s a finished product, right?
2 A Well, right. I think it talks about
3 part of the materials that they’re using,
4 right.
5 Q And it says, “If allowed to
6 escape into the workroom, would soon float
7 into the far boundaries of the plant and hang
8 like Spanish moss, even from the rafters, and
9 settling on belts, pulleys and equipment.”
10 Did I read that correctly?
11 A Yes, you did.
12 Q “It soon gets beyond the control
13 of good housekeeping.” Did I read that
14 correctly?
15 A Yes.
16 Q “If unremoved at its origin.”
17 Do you see that?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Okay. Now, if you flip over to
20 where it says page 1, after the intro.
21 A Okay.
22 Q All right. This part is written
23 by General Electric, right?
24 A It is.
25 Q Okay. And if you go to page 3,
218
1 the author talks about a product known as
2 Deltabeston. Do you see that?
3 A Yes — no, I don’t.
4 Q I’m sorry, page 2. My fault.
5 A Okay. Okay, page 2, Deltabeston,
6 right.
7 Q All right. And if you flip over
8 to where it says page 3.
9 (The witness complies.)
10 A Okay.
11 Q This is a product that they’re
12 going use to make insulating wire, right?
13 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
14 form. I think you have it backwards,
15 Counsel.
16 Q They’re going to use these
17 raw — they’re making asbestos insulated wire
18 at this plant, is that fair?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Okay. And what they’re worried
21 about is controlling the fly of short
22 asbestos from the other finished product,
23 right?
24 A Yes, they say that.
25 Q Okay. And they talk about the
219
1 things they’re going to do here to protect
2 the worker. Do you see that, on page 3?
3 One of the things it says is
4 “the installation of adequate ventilating
5 equipment and control measures at York has
6 effectively eliminated these conditions as
7 well as any semblance of health hazard.”
8 Right?
9 A Yes.
10 Q So they put control measures in
11 not to protect against somebody using raw
12 asbestos, but somebody using a finished
13 product, true?
14 A Somebody using almost an intermediate
15 product, yes.
16 Q And one of the things they do is
17 they give specific instructions and warnings
18 to the workers at that plant on how to
19 protect themselves, right?
20 A If you could show me that.
21 Q Well, you’re aware, ma’am, that
22 they actually distributed booklets about the
23 dangers and had people sign for them?
24 A It sounds as though they would because
25 this was a model program.
220
1 Q Right.
2 A I just don’t see which page it’s on.
3 Q If you go to page 5.
4 A Okay.
5 Q At the bottom. I put it up on
6 the screen.
7 A Thank you.
8 Q Do you see where it says, number
9 2, “A distribution of GE Company booklets on
10 general safety requirements requiring
11 employees signatures”?
12 A Yes.
13 Q So not only did the employees –
14 were the employees warned, they had to sign
15 to show they were warned; right?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Okay. Did any booklet like this
18 ever get distributed to employees at Exxon
19 who were working around the General Electric
20 turbines — I mean, Chevron?
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
22 form.
23 A Well, I think the beauty of a document
24 such as this indicated how General Electric
25 shared information with the world.
221
1 Q No, that is you how they shared
2 with their own employees?
3 MR. KAPSHANDY: Please let her
4 finish, Counsel.
5 A May I finish this, please?
6 Q No, because you’re going to
7 answer my question. So I’ll withdraw it and
8 I’ll ask another question.
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: No, she’s going
10 to finish this.
11 MR. PLACITELLA: She’s not going
12 to. She did not answer my question.
13 I’ll withdraw the question.
14 I’ll ask it a different way, just to
15 be clear.
16 Q Were booklets like this ever
17 distributed by General Electric to the people
18 who worked around General Electric turbines
19 at the Chevron refinery?
20 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
21 form.
22 Q That’s my question.
23 A Well, if you’re asking why a company
24 that was not an employer –
25 Q No, ma’am. I’m going to cut you
222
1 off. That’s not my question.
2 I’m asking you: Did it happen?
3 I didn’t ask you why. I didn’t ask you for
4 background. I asked you, did it happen.
5 Did General Electric ever
6 distribute a booklet to employees at Chevron
7 who were going to work around the turbines
8 made by General Electric?
9 That’s my question.
10 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
11 form.
12 A No, but I don’t know why they would
13 have.
14 Q Okay. That’s for somebody else
15 to decide.
16 It also says that a thorough
17 physical examination and preemployment
18 history was also given.
19 Do you see that?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Yes, ma’am. And it says that on
22 the next page.
23 Do you see the next page?
24 A Yes.
25 Q It said they had lockers for
223
1 street clothing, one for work clothing. Do
2 you see that?
3 A Yes, I do.
4 Q And it says, showers and baths,
5 fifteen minutes were allowed in the work
6 schedule for showers and baths. Correct?
7 A Correct.
8 Q So they wouldn’t bring asbestos
9 home on their clothing, right?
10 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
11 form.
12 Q That was a model program?
13 A Or on their person.
14 Q Or on their person, exactly.
15 It says, “Employees enter the
16 plant through the locker room provided,
17 street clothes are deposited in special
18 locker rooms and working clothes provided are
19 worn during factory operations.”
20 Did I read that correctly?
21 A You did.
22 Q The reverse cycle is carried out
23 at the close of the workday. Correct?
24 A Yes.
25 Q “General Electric was very
224
1 careful with its employees to make sure that
2 they did not bring asbestos home on their
3 person or their work clothes.”
4 Would you agree with that?
5 A Absolutely. That’s why the State of
6 Pennsylvania put their cover sheet on this
7 policy and basically distributed it to the
8 world. So anybody in the health and safety
9 community throughout the entire world would
10 have been aware of everything that GE knew in
11 1942 about how to protect their workers as GE
12 was protecting their own.
13 Q So we do agree now, that as of
14 1942, General Electric knew to protect people
15 to tell their own workers not to bring
16 asbestos home on their clothing to there
17 families, right?
18 A Absolutely. And they shared it with
19 the world.
20 Q And they shared it with
21 Mr. Horvath, right?
22 A Well –
23 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
24 form.
25 Go ahead.
225
1 A They shared it with the health and
2 safety professionals.
3 Q Did they give this to Chevron?
4 A Can I finish that, please?
5 Q No. I asked you if they shared
6 it with Mr. Horvath.
7 Did they give this booklet to
8 Mr. Horvath when he was working around a
9 General Electric turbine?
10 A May I please give you my answer?
11 Q If the question (sic) is yes or
12 no, you can. I don’t need you to give me a
13 tome about what you’ve rehearsed. So let me
14 ask the question again to be clear.
15 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to the
16 form.
17 Q Was this booklet ever provided
18 to Mr. Horvath, or anybody else at Chevron,
19 for that matter, who worked around the
20 General Electric turbines?
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
22 form.
23 A You know, I can tell you, as somebody
24 who’s done this work for over 30 years, you
25 could have given every single person in that
226
1 location at Chevron this study. You could
2 have given them all the other materials that
3 GE put out, a book by Sax, a toxicologist at
4 GE that’s about four inches thick, all kinds
5 of speeches done by industrial hygiene and
6 safety people given to the National Safety
7 Council on asbestos safety going way back,
8 you could have put it on the Fleisher Drinker
9 report, you could have been put it on the
10 Drinker report, you could have put it on
11 everything.
12 What does a person do when
13 they’re handed materials like this? They
14 don’t know. They’re not health and safety
15 professionals.
16 The way it works is that health
17 and safety information like this goes from
18 professional to professional. And the,
19 professionals, the employer at that location,
20 was responsible for interpreting and
21 understanding what would have been relevant
22 at that location so that they could devise
23 protective measures that would have been
24 suitable for all the employees there.
25 That’s how it works.
227
1 Q Are you done?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Did they give the same booklet
4 to Mr. Horvath that they gave their own
5 employees?
6 MR. KAPSHANDY: In 1942?
7 MR. PLACITELLA: Yeah, the
8 1942 one.
9 Q Did they give him that?
10 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
11 Form.
12 Q Did they give him the same
13 courtesy that they gave their own employees
14 about telling them about what they knew? How
15 about that?
16 A How about that? As I mentioned to
17 you, they could have given him and his
18 co-workers the world’s literature, and it
19 just doesn’t work that way.
20 What is somebody supposed to do
21 to pick up a document like this? It is not
22 their job to devise measures that protect
23 themselves at a workplace.
24 Q Okay, ma’am –
25 A Their employer –
228
1 Q Thank you for your answer. I
2 appreciate it. We’ll let the jury decide.
3 MR. PLACITELLA: All right.
4 We’ll take a break, now.
5 VIDEOGRAPHER: We’re going off
6 the record at 14:53.
7 (Recess.)
8 VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on
9 the record at 15:03.
10 BY MR. PLACITELLA:
11 Q Ms. Drucker, would you agree
12 with me that the Horvaths deserve the same
13 respect as the General Electric employees?
14 A Well, I think all employees deserve
15 respect from their employers, of course.
16 Q Did the Horvaths deserve the
17 same respect from General Electric as General
18 Electric gave their own employees?
19 A Well, one would hope that the
20 Horvaths’ employer were as conscientious as
21 GE’s employers were to their people. GE
22 can’t control other employers.
23 Q Did they deserve the same
24 respect as GE gave their own employees?
25 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
229
1 form.
2 A Well, according to our occupational
3 health and safety laws, yes, every employee
4 deserves respect by their employer.
5 Q Only their employer, ma’am, no
6 one else has to respect the health and safety
7 of the worker other than their employer; is
8 that your testimony?
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Well, objection
10 to form. She didn’t say that.
11 A Well, we’re here today to talk about
12 the workplace, so I made that mention about
13 the employer’s relation to the worker.
14 Of course, everybody, we hope
15 everybody respects everybody else.
16 Q Now, ma’am, you’re aware that
17 there was an article that appeared in the
18 Journal of American Medical Association
19 before the Horvaths were married on
20 asbestosis and lung cancer?
21 A If you’re talking about an unsigned
22 editorial from JAMA, I — maybe you could
23 show it to me, if that’s –
24 Q I’m looking at your list, B-84.
25 You list as one of the materials that you
230
1 rely upon an article entitled, “Asbestosis
2 and Lung Cancer,” editorial. Are you
3 familiar with that?
4 A Yes, I think I am. And I’d be happy
5 to look at the document to make sure — there
6 are thousands of documents there.
7 Q Right. And I couldn’t bring
8 thousands with me today. I’m just asking
9 what you know.
10 And you’re aware that in 1951,
11 the same William Heuper, whose textbook I
12 showed you before, published an article on
13 environmental lung cancer related to — which
14 included asbestos. Correct?
15 A May I see that, if that’s on my list?
16 Q It’s your B-30 on your list,
17 ma’am.
18 A Thank you.
19 Which one? Could you show me?
20 I can’t — you circled this?
21 Q I circled it.
22 A Yes.
23 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel, I’m
24 sorry, you said it was B-89? Because
25 I’m not finding that.
231
1 MR. PLACITELLA: B-84.
2 MR. KAPSHANDY: Thank you.
3 A Yes. I see that that was published in
4 1951.
5 Q And the next year he published
6 another article with a Dr. Mancuso on
7 occupational cancer, which again mentioned
8 asbestos as a possible cause of lung cancer;
9 true?
10 A May I see that?
11 Q You don’t remember what’s in
12 your materials, ma’am?
13 A There are thousands of documents.
14 Q Okay.
15 A And I’d appreciate seeing the index.
16 There’s a 1952 article entitled,
17 “Studies of Occupational Cancer.” Yes, B-95.
18 Q And then, actually, one of the
19 medical directors of an asbestos company
20 published an article in 1955 about asbestos
21 and lung cancer; true.
22 A Maybe you could show it to me. As I
23 sit here right now, I don’t recall.
24 Q Yes, ma’am. B-9, Sir Richard
25 Doll, “Mortality from Lung Cancer in Asbestos
232
1 Workers.” That’s on your materials.
2 A I’m familiar with Doll in 1955.
3 Q He was knighted for his work,
4 was he not?
5 A Yes, sir. He was Sir Richard Doll. I
6 heard him speak when I was at Harvard.
7 Q But you don’t remember his
8 publications about asbestos and cancer?
9 A I do.
10 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel, she
11 asked to see it.
12 A I said I did.
13 Q Now, are you familiar with a man
14 named Eisenstadt, a respected physician named
15 Eisenstadt?
16 A Not that I recall.
17 Q Is there a reason why you left
18 out of your materials articles written about
19 mesothelioma in refinery workers from the
20 1950s?
21 A If, in fact –
22 Q Since that’s what Mr. Horvath
23 did?
24 A Maybe — I’m sorry. I interrupted
25 you. Would you mind repeating the question?
233
1 Q Yes.
2 Is there a reason why you left
3 out of your materials articles on people
4 getting mesothelioma in refineries during the
5 1950s?
6 A You know, there are thousands and
7 thousands of articles out there, and they’re
8 not all included. There isn’t necessarily a
9 reason why anything was left out.
10 Q Are you aware of the article
11 from 1956 from Eisenstadt describing
12 malignant mesothelioma of the pleura in a
13 refinery foreman? Are you aware of this
14 article?
15 A And the date is what?
16 Q 1956.
17 A Not that I recall.
18 Q Okay. The lawyers didn’t give
19 you this article?
20 A Well, I’ve seen many articles from
21 Harvard on, and I just don’t recall if I’ve
22 seen this one.
23 Q How about this one from
24 Eisenstadt, again in 1960, “Finding Primary
25 Malignant Mesothelioma in an Employer in Two
234
1 Refinery Foremen.”
2 Is there a reason why you left
3 that out of your materials?
4 A As I said, Dr. Selikoff said as late
5 as 1978, there were 3000 articles out there.
6 There are many thousands of
7 articles in my materials and they’re not all
8 included.
9 Q You would agree that this was
10 known or knowable to General Electric; true?
11 A It was published where?
12 Q Lancet. That’s a respected
13 journal, is it not?
14 A The Lancet is. And yes, I would
15 expect that if GE medical doctors got the
16 Lancet, so would Chevron doctors. It would
17 have been available to medical doctors
18 countrywide.
19 Q And this is somebody — these
20 are people who got mesothelioma and they
21 never even worked with the product; they were
22 foreman, right?
23 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
24 form.
25 A I’d have to look at the study.
235
1 Q But the lawyers, when they
2 provided you all this material, never gave
3 you articles about refinery people with
4 mesothelioma, even though this is about
5 somebody who worked in a refinery?
6 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
7 Form.
8 A Well, I don’t know if — I don’t
9 recall if there are no refinery papers. I
10 just don’t recall.
11 I know that I made some
12 decisions about thousands of documents, and
13 some are included and some are not.
14 Q All right. You told me before
15 that General Electric didn’t have any
16 information on mesothelioma until some time
17 in the ’60s.
18 Now we find out they had
19 information available ’56, 1960?
20 MR. KAPSHANDY: She just said
21 the opposite, Counsel.
22 Q Do you want to revise your
23 earlier testimony? This information was
24 available to General Electric about refinery
25 foremen with mesothelioma in the ’50s and
236
1 1960?
2 MR. KAPSHANDY: That wasn’t your
3 earlier question at all.
4 And if you’re suggesting that
5 she’s changing her answer, that’s an
6 inappropriate comment.
7 MR. PLACITELLA: The jury will
8 decide that.
9 Q Is that correct?
10 A Did you want me to answer that
11 question?
12 Q I’d rather have you answer it
13 than your lawyer.
14 A Okay. Could I have it read back,
15 please?
16 Q Okay. We agree now that there
17 was information available to General Electric
18 about mesothelioma and refinery workers in
19 the 1950s and in 1960?
20 A The GE doctors may or may not have
21 gotten that.
22 What I discussed before, for
23 cancer and mesothelioma –
24 Q This wasn’t known to the world?
25 A May I finish?
237
1 Q Okay. Sure.
2 A — was the general consensus of what
3 was known by health and safety professionals.
4 Q I understand that’s your
5 testimony.
6 I’m asking you what notice they
7 had of people getting sick who were working
8 in refineries. And here are published
9 medical articles on people –
10 MR. KAPSHANDY: That wasn’t the
11 question at all.
12 MR. PLACITELLA: I’m not even
13 finished with my question. Could you
14 stop testifying?
15 MR. KAPSHANDY: I’m objecting.
16 MR. PLACITELLA: Well, then say
17 objection to the form and sit there
18 like a potted plant, please.
19 MR. KAPSHANDY: I’m objecting to
20 the form of the question. It’s
21 argumentative, insulting and
22 mischaracterizes.
23 MR. PLACITELLA: It’s insulting?
24 All right. I’ll move on.
25 MR. KAPSHANDY: Thank you.
238
1 Q Can you tell me why the lawyers
2 for General Electric determined that it was
3 better to blame the contractor and the
4 employer, rather than tell the customer about
5 the dangers of asbestos?
6 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
7 Form. It’s misleading, argumentative.
8 It’s inappropriate for her to comment
9 on something we’ve not even — an
10 issue we’ve not even taken, Counsel.
11 MR. PLACITELLA: What’s
12 misleading? What’s misleading, sir?
13 I asked her a question. What’s
14 misleading?
15 MR. KAPSHANDY: Suggesting or
16 blaming the employer rather than doing
17 something else.
18 MR. PLACITELLA: That never
19 happened?
20 MR. KAPSHANDY: That’s not what
21 we’re saying.
22 MR. PLACITELLA: That’s not what
23 you’re saying, okay. I didn’t think
24 so.
25 MR. KAPSHANDY: Ask your
239
1 question. It assumes facts not in
2 evidence.
3 MR. PLACITELLA: I’m going to
4 put it in evidence right now. Don’t
5 worry about it.
6 Q Remember when we were talking
7 about in 1972, those documents where General
8 Electric was involved in the removal and
9 installation of insulation on the turbine at
10 the Chevron refinery? Remember those
11 documents from this morning?
12 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
13 Form.
14 A Well, as I recall, we looked at some
15 documents this morning, and I think what you
16 just — you mischaracterized them.
17 Q This is too important for me to
18 mischaracterize, so I’m going to go back and
19 make sure we’re on the same page.
20 Let’s go to 1973. That was at
21 least after you were there, right?
22 A After I was at General Electric?
23 Q Yes, ma’am.
24 A Yes, I was — I had been there.
25 Q So whatever effect you were
240
1 going to have on health and safety at General
2 Electric would have taken place by 1973,
3 right?
4 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to the
5 form.
6 A I was gone by then. I left in ’72.
7 Q Well, hopefully, you put things
8 in place when you were in industrial hygiene
9 there to make sure people were protected, and
10 they would have been followed even after you
11 left, right?
12 A That’s what I do as a health and
13 safety professional.
14 Q Yes, ma’am.
15 A That’s what I’ve done in my career.
16 Q And document 731, just to be
17 clear, talks about removing and replacing
18 lagging insulation on turbines; right?
19 A This document, number 731, makes a
20 statement, “Remove and replace lagging and
21 insulation from turbine.”
22 Q The statement is on a General
23 Electric letterhead, right?
24 A It appears to be.
25 Q All right. And that’s the same
241
1 turbine we found out that they took the
2 asbestos out of in 1979, right?
3 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
4 Misstates. Form.
5 A You know, I don’t –
6 Q We’ll let the record speak for
7 itself.
8 A I don’t know because — may I say
9 something?
10 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel, the
11 1979 turbine is a different number, so
12 you’re confusing things here.
13 MR. PLACITELLA: So there’s more
14 than one turbine? You want to testify
15 too?
16 MR. KAPSHANDY: There’s some
17 confusion as to whether that turbine
18 went to Perth or not, but you’ll have
19 to ask the turbine expert about that.
20 MR. PLACITELLA: Oh, okay.
21 Do you want to tell her anything so we
22 can get it straight?
23 MR. KAPSHANDY: I’m saying
24 you’re misleading, and I’ll clarify.
25 Q Now, in 1972, while you — after
242
1 you left, it was the policy of General
2 Electric at the direction of its lawyers to
3 blame the contractors, right?
4 MR. KAPSHANDY: You know,
5 Counsel, this is really getting out of
6 hand. It’s totally objectionable.
7 MR. PLACITELLA: It’s getting
8 out of hand? All right.
9 Q Is that correct, ma’am?
10 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
11 Form.
12 A I have never come across anything like
13 that.
14 Q That would be criminal, wouldn’t
15 it, if that was the case?
16 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
17 Form.
18 A I don’t know what you’re talking
19 about.
20 Q Okay. That’s fair, ma’am. Let
21 me get right to it.
22 MR. PLACITELLA: Can we mark
23 this, please?
24 (Memo to File from Bartlett,
25 11/22/72, is marked as P-12 for
243
1 Identification.)
2 Q I put up on the screen, while
3 your lawyer is looking at the document, a
4 memo dated November 22nd, 1972, from a
5 Mr. Bartlett entitled, “General Electric
6 Company, Use of Asbesos and OSHA
7 Considerations.”
8 Have you ever seen this document
9 before?
10 A I may have.
11 Q The first paragraph says, “Roth
12 and Bartlett.” Do you know who they are?
13 A No.
14 Q “Spoke to Mr. James Nelson on
15 November 22, 1972, with regard to above
16 subject.”
17 The subject is use of asbestos
18 and OSHA consideration. Is that correct?
19 A Yes.
20 Q “Mr. Nelson is concerned with
21 the product exposure with General Electric
22 customers.” Right?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Why is he worried about product
25 exposure with General Electric customers if
244
1 there’s no responsibility to them, according
2 to your testimony?
3 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
4 Form.
5 Q Do you know?
6 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel, you’re
7 assuming this is a GE document or
8 something.
9 MR. PLACITELLA: Oh, okay. Now
10 you’re going to say it’s not your
11 document?
12 MR. KAPSHANDY: It’s not.
13 MR. PLACITELLA: So your dog
14 doesn’t bite, is that what you’re
15 saying?
16 MR. KAPSHANDY: It’s a Manville
17 document.
18 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay. We’ll
19 get there.
20 A Yes. Now, when you asked if I had
21 seen it before, I have. And it’s from the
22 Manville Trust. It’s not a GE document.
23 Q This has nothing to do with
24 General Electric, ma’am? It’s not — it’s
25 not authored by a General Electric employee;
245
1 is that what your testimony is?
2 A Can I look at it so — give me a
3 minute.
4 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel, it
5 appears to be from the Manville Trust
6 document by a Manville employee.
7 MR. PLACITELLA: I know it’s not
8 one of the documents you gave
9 Ms. Drucker to prepare for the
10 deposition. I get that part.
11 A I believe this is in these materials.
12 It is.
13 Q Oh, it is?
14 MR. KAPSHANDY: It may be.
15 Q So let’s go over it, then.
16 A Okay.
17 Q Okay. All right.
18 So this is in the materials that
19 you relied upon?
20 A It’s my recollection that I’ve seen
21 this before.
22 Q Okay.
23 A Okay. If it’s not in the materials,
24 I’ve seen it in a deposition.
25 Q It says, “Mr. Nelson –”
246
1 A So it might be an attachment to one of
2 my depositions.
3 Q It says, “Mr. Nelson is
4 concerned with the product exposure with
5 General Electric customers. He is in
6 Schenectady, New York.”
7 Did I read that correct?
8 A You did.
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
10 form.
11 Q Isn’t that where General
12 Electric had their headquarters, Schenectady,
13 New York?
14 A No.
15 Q No, they didn’t have a plant up
16 there?
17 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
18 Form.
19 A They had a factory up there.
20 Q Dr. Steven Anderson. Do we have
21 any idea who he is?
22 A No.
23 Q “Has the public health concern
24 and Mr. Ed Deck is responsible for any
25 in-house problems caused by the use of
247
1 asbestos.”
2 Do you see that?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Okay. Then it goes down further
5 and it says, “Mr. Nelson stated there was no
6 corporate pronouncement nor policy to
7 eliminate asbestos across the board.”
8 Correct?
9 A Yes, that’s what it says.
10 Q “At this date, the Plastics
11 Group –” that’s who you worked for, right?
12 A That was part of our group, yes.
13 Q “Has made their own decision to
14 eliminate asbestos from plastic compounds,”
15 right?
16 A Right.
17 Q And in fact, when you worked
18 there, there was no — they decided to take
19 the asbestos out of the plastic compounds,
20 right?
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
22 Form.
23 A During that time period. I was there
24 when they were still using it.
25 Q You worked in the phenolics
248
1 where they made phenolics that contained
2 asbestos, right?
3 A Yes, that was one of my plants.
4 Q And one of the things that
5 happened when you were there is asbestos was
6 removed because of the health hazards
7 associated with asbestos. Right?
8 A Well –
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
10 Form.
11 A There are many reasons. There were
12 many reasons. I’d be happy to elaborate, if
13 you want.
14 Q Well, that’s what your boss told
15 the world, that it was because of asbestos
16 health hazards, right?
17 A Who are you referring to as my boss?
18 Q Well, maybe he’s not your boss.
19 Let me move this.
20 MR. PLACITELLA: Can we mark
21 this, please?
22 Hold that to the side for a
23 second. We’ll come back to it
24 (Excerpt form Nov-Dec, 1972, GE
25 Monogram brochure is marked as
249
1 P-13 for Identification.)
2 A Okay.
3 Q Ma’am, who is Kenneth R. Barr?
4 A Ken Barr?
5 Q Yes.
6 A He was somebody in the plastics
7 division.
8 Q Okay. And he wouldn’t write
9 anything down to be distributed to customers
10 and tell the world if it isn’t true, would
11 he?
12 A I don’t know Mr. Barr that well. If
13 you want me to look at something –
14 Q Well, he was the manager of the
15 division you worked for, right?
16 A He was — he was one of the managers
17 in one of the divisions that I was
18 responsible for.
19 Q All right. And here’s a
20 brochure Monogram General Electric. It looks
21 like December 15, 1972.
22 Do you see that?
23 A Yes.
24 Q All right. I attached page 30,
25 and it talks about freeing phenolics from the
250
1 asbestos hazard. Do you see that?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Could you read the third
4 paragraph where it says, “While,” as to what
5 your boss was telling the world about why you
6 took asbestos out of phenolics?
7 A Okay. “‘While General Electric’s
8 manufacturing facility meets with current
9 OSHA requirements,’ explains Kenneth R. Barr,
10 manager of the Phenolics Products Section,
11 ‘we felt strongly about removing a potential
12 health hazard from our material. So, we made
13 the technology available to help develop a
14 replacement. By replacing asbestos, we can
15 reduce significantly any danger to our
16 customers,’ he said. The new materials are
17 labeled ‘GENAL-E,’ the E is a symbol of the
18 ‘Ecological Revolution.’”
19 Q So the division you were working
20 for, ma’am, to your credit, took asbestos out
21 of its products, but the turbine division
22 took no such action at this point in time;
23 true?
24 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
25 form.
251
1 A Well, we’re mixing a couple things
2 here. When we’re talking about the article
3 from the GE Monogram — of course, these are
4 both post OSHA. This is 1972. And yes, the
5 plastics division had decided to go asbestos
6 free for many reasons, some of which Mr. Barr
7 mentions. But –
8 Q Well, he didn’t mention –
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Let her finish
10 please, Counsel.
11 MR. PLACITELLA: She was done.
12 THE WITNESS: No, I’m not.
13 MR. KAPSHANDY: She can say when
14 she’s done, please.
15 A Okay. When we’re looking at this
16 other memorandum –
17 Q Hold it. I’m not asking about
18 the other memorandum.
19 A Yes, that’s what you asked.
20 Q I’m going to go back to that in
21 a second. I’m just asking about this
22 memorandum.
23 MR. KAPSHANDY: Let her finish.
24 Q I don’t want to know about this
25 memorandum. I’ll go back to it.
252
1 What I’m asking you is that from
2 this memo, it’s clear — that’s P-13.
3 A Yes.
4 Q — that the phenolics division
5 took asbestos out of products because of the
6 concern for asbestos hazards, while the
7 turbine division took no such action at that
8 point in time?
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
10 Form.
11 Q That’s my question.
12 A That’s not true.
13 Q Oh, so they did take asbestos
14 out of their products in 1973?
15 A May I explain? First of all, you
16 should speak to the turbine specialist.
17 But as I mentioned before, in
18 the early 1970s, asbestos was taken off as an
19 option for any kind of insulation materials
20 that a customer may or may not choose to put
21 on their machine.
22 So what you said, that while –
23 I’ll leave it at that. I’m sorry.
24 Q And this talks about
25 responsibility to customers, right?
253
1 MR. KAPSHANDY: What is “this,”
2 Counsel?
3 MR. PLACITELLA: P-13.
4 A And you’re on Mr. Barr’s –
5 Q There, he was worried about
6 significantly reducing any danger to his
7 customers. Right?
8 A Sure. And to the GE people as well,
9 sure. They were very –
10 Q How come the turbine people
11 weren’t worried about dangers to their
12 customers?
13 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
14 Form.
15 A GE did not make thermal insulation.
16 Q Oh, okay. We’ll get there too.
17 Okay. Now –
18 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel, would
19 you refrain from the comments and –
20 Q Let’s move back.
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: — conduct
22 yourself a little more appropriately?
23 MR. PLACITELLA: All we need is
24 responsive questions to my answers –
25 answers to my questions and we won’t
254
1 have a problem.
2 Q Let’s go back to the other
3 document we have.
4 A Okay. This is P-12?
5 Q Right.
6 A Yes.
7 Q It says, “Mr. Nelson stated that
8 there was no corporate pronouncement nor
9 policy to eliminate asbestos across the
10 board.”
11 Do you see that?
12 A I see that’s what he wrote.
13 Q “At this date, the Plastics
14 Group –” that was you, right?
15 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
16 Form.
17 A Right.
18 Q “– has made their own decision
19 to eliminate asbestos from plastic
20 compounds.” Correct?
21 A Right.
22 Q And the reason — well, let me
23 just skip down to the next paragraph.
24 “Mr. Nelson talked to the large
25 steam turbine people.” That’s General
255
1 Electric, right?
2 A Maybe; maybe not. It just says,
3 “large steam turbine people.”
4 Q All right.
5 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection. Form
6 Q “Who have no in-house problem.”
7 Do you see that?
8 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
9 Form.
10 A I see those words on the page.
11 Q “When they make a field
12 installation they are concerned about its use
13 as lagging.”
14 Do you see that?
15 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
16 Form.
17 Q They’re talking about asbestos,
18 right?
19 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
20 Form.
21 A No, it doesn’t say that.
22 Q Okay. “But the General Electric
23 lawyers have told them that their exposure is
24 minimal since this lagging work is done under
25 contract with outsiders and the primary
256
1 responsibility would rest with the General
2 Electric customer who would normally be a
3 Utility.”
4 Did I read that correctly?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Okay. So what we know is that
7 the General Electric lawyers are telling the
8 turbine people, don’t worry about it, it’s
9 the customer’s responsibility; right?
10 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
11 Form.
12 A Well –
13 Q Isn’t that what it says?
14 A Actually, it’s the United States
15 Department of Labor. OSHA is telling
16 everybody that it’s the employer’s
17 responsibility.
18 Q Where does it say that? To me
19 it looks like it says, General Electric
20 lawyers, ma’am. Where does it say OSHA in
21 this sentence?
22 It says, “but the General
23 Electric lawyers have told them that their
24 exposure is minimal.”
25 Now, they’re not talking about
257
1 asbestos exposure here, are they; they’re
2 talking about financial exposure?
3 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel –
4 Q Product liability exposure,
5 aren’t they?
6 MR. KAPSHANDY: You’re far
7 afield now, having her comment on some
8 GE lawyer’s opinion by some Manville
9 person who took it firsthand.
10 MR. PLACITELLA: It’s in her
11 documents.
12 MR. KAPSHANDY: It isn’t in her
13 documents, Counsel. I just checked.
14 She’s been shown this at a deposition
15 before. That’s where she’s seen it.
16 MR. PLACITELLA: You told me it
17 was in her documents. You’ve got to
18 stop testifying because you’re messing
19 things up. If you’d stop testifying
20 we’d get somewhere. But you testified
21 it was in her documents.
22 THE WITNESS: I said –
23 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel –
24 MR. PLACITELLA: So let me
25 withdraw the question and I’ll start
258
1 again. Okay?
2 Q This document indicates that the
3 General Electric lawyers have made an
4 assessment that exposure is minimal because
5 it’s the customer’s responsibility and not
6 General Electric’s, right? Isn’t that what
7 this says?
8 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
9 Form. Foundation. Far beyond the
10 scope.
11 A That’s what the words on the paper
12 says.
13 Q Yes, ma’am. Thank you very
14 much.
15 Now, right around now, no one
16 has to hit you over the head with a bat,
17 right? Your customers are complaining that
18 removing the asbestos from the turbines is
19 dusty; did you know that?
20 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
21 Unintelligible.
22 A I don’t know what you’re saying.
23 Q Okay. Were you aware that
24 roughly around the same time, the General
25 Electric customers were complaining to
259
1 General Electric that when you remove the
2 asbestos from their turbines, it was creating
3 dust in the field? Did you know that?
4 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
5 A Well, we don’t know if that is, in
6 fact, the case.
7 Q Okay. Well, I guess we’re going
8 to have to visit with another document.
9 MR. PLACITELLA: Can we mark
10 this, please?
11 We’ll take a break now and we’ll
12 come back and talk about this.
13 VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the end
14 of tape number three of today’s
15 videotape deposition of Marjorie
16 Drucker. We are going off the record
17 for change of tape at 15:33
18 (A General Electric Seminar,
19 January 12, 1973, is marked as
20 P-14 for Identification.)
21 (Recess.)
22 VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the
23 beginning of tape number 4 of today’s
24 video deposition of Marjorie Drucker.
25 We are back on the record at
260
1 15:40.
2
3 BY MR. PLACITELLA:
4 Q I just have to wait for your
5 lawyer.
6 I put in front of you a document
7 dated January 12th, 197 — January 3rd, I’m
8 sorry, 1973. And the subject — probably,
9 this is probably a Manville document too. It
10 says, “General Electric Seminar, January 12,
11 1973, Mr. James Nelson, Schenectady, New
12 York, Consultant-Product environmental
13 Compatibility.”
14 Have you ever seen this document
15 before?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And in what context?
18 A I believe it’s in my materials.
19 Q Okay. And it talks about a
20 seminar –
21 A Pardon me. It’s not.
22 Q Oh, your lawyer just told you it
23 wasn’t?
24 MR. KAPSHANDY: I just looked,
25 Counsel. It wasn’t.
261
1 A I apologize. I’ve seen it before, and
2 it might have been in a deposition.
3 Q Okay.
4 MR. PLACITELLA: So can I just
5 ask her the questions, or do you have
6 to jump in every time and tell her
7 whether she saw a document before or
8 not, because the record may not
9 reflect that in the middle of my
10 question you jumped in and said, oh
11 no, it’s not?
12 MR. KAPSHANDY: I told you that
13 previously.
14 MR. PLACITELLA: I just want to
15 make sure the record is clear.
16 MR. KAPSHANDY: I want to make
17 sure the record is clear. They are
18 Manville documents, not provided by GE
19 files.
20 MR. PLACITELLA: Most of the
21 stuff in here isn’t from GE files.
22 It’s stuff you went out and got and
23 gave to her.
24 MR. KAPSHANDY: Make your
25 argument later. I’m just correcting
262
1 her misstatement.
2 MR. PLACITELLA: Exactly. So,
3 please, in the middle of my question
4 you’re not, under any rule in any
5 state, are you allowed to tell her
6 what the answer is in the middle of a
7 question, please.
8 She could say, I don’t know; I
9 made a mistake; you know, Chris go
10 home, I’ve had enough of you.
11 All that is okay, but not okay
12 for you.
13 MR. KAPSHANDY: Go ahead.
14 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay. Now –
15 VIDEOGRAPHER: Timothy, could
16 you turn your microphone on, please?
17 MR. PLACITELLA: If you’re going
18 to object and testify, at least put
19 the mike on.
20 BY MR. PLACITELLA:
21 Q Okay. Now, this document you’ve
22 seen before, correct?
23 A Yes, I have seen it before.
24 Q And it’s about a seminar that
25 was given at General Electric, right?
263
1 A Yes.
2 Q And the second paragraph says,
3 “He would only add one specific question -
4 the Utility customer of General Electric
5 periodically takes down turbine generators.”
6 Do you know what “takes down
7 turbine generators” means?
8 A No. I’d refer you to the specialist
9 on that.
10 Q Okay. “The insulation lagging,
11 which goes on the turbine as a wet mud, is,
12 of course, removed” — “is, of course,
13 removed at the time of dismantling in a very
14 dry dusty state.”
15 Do you see that?
16 A Yes, I do.
17 Q “GE –” that’s General Electric,
18 right?
19 A I assume so.
20 Q “– has had complaints about
21 this dusty operation from Utility customers.”
22 Do you see that?
23 A I do.
24 Q “The question is what can they
25 do about controlling this problem so as to
264
1 protect workers and eliminate the local
2 complaints.”
3 Correct?
4 A Yes, that’s what it says.
5 Q And they’re not talking about
6 protecting GE workers, they’re talking about
7 the customer’s workers; right?
8 A It appears so.
9 Q All right. Now, at the same
10 time that these complaints were being
11 registered with General Electric about very
12 dusty conditions, the medical director for
13 your company sent out a bulletin to everybody
14 in the company that exposure to very little
15 asbestos could be disastrous; true?
16 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
17 Form.
18 A If you could show me the document. I
19 think I know what you’re talking about, but I
20 I’d like to check its wording.
21 Q Well, do you recall that, ma’am;
22 that the medical director from your company
23 sent out a bulletin right around this time
24 for internal purposes only that said exposure
25 to a little bit of asbestos could be
265
1 disastrous? Do you remember that?
2 A I remember a letter by a Dr. Martelon,
3 but I’d to have look at that to see what it
4 said.
5 Q When was the last time you were
6 asked about that letter, ma’am, in a
7 deposition?
8 A I don’t recall.
9 Q Well, was it within the last two
10 weeks?
11 A Not that I recall.
12 Q Are you sure about that?
13 A About the Dr. Martelon letter?
14 Q Yes.
15 A I don’t recall having had a deposition
16 within the last two weeks, other than today.
17 Q The last time you were deposed
18 were you asked about this letter, the
19 Martelon letter?
20 A Not that I recall.
21 Q Okay.
22 MR. KAPSHANDY: What is the
23 Martelon letter?
24 MR. PLACITELLA: I’m going to
25 have it marked.
266
1 Can you mark this, please?
2 (A letter from Martelon dated
3 2/21/73 is marked as P-15 for
4 Identification.)
5 Q Are you familiar with this
6 letter, ma’am?
7 A Yes.
8 Q This letter was written within a
9 month of the prior exhibit talking about
10 customers complaining about dust from your
11 turbines, right?
12 A Well, what I should say about that is
13 the P-14 that you’re saying, the other memo
14 talking about dust, that’s not a GE document.
15 This is apparently a document
16 from Manville supposedly reiterating some
17 discussion, which may or may not be true. So
18 I don’t know about the credence of that.
19 I do know that this is –
20 appears to be Dr. Martelon’s letter dated
21 February 21st, 1973.
22 Q Do you remember what my question
23 was, ma’am?
24 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel, if I
25 may, please, I apologize. I would
267
1 like to correct the record.
2 The document you’ve marked as
3 P-14 is in the materials as E-22. I
4 apologize for the confusion of
5 misleading you.
6 Q Do you remember what my question
7 was, ma’am?
8 A No. Could you please repeat it?
9 Q Okay. This letter was sent by
10 the medical director of the Components and
11 Materials Group, right?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And his name is Dr. Martelon and
14 the subject is asbestos, right?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And he sent it to all department
17 managers within that group?
18 A Right, within that group.
19 Q And it’s entitled,
20 “Environmental Newsletter,” right?
21 A Right.
22 Q And how much asbestos does he
23 say you need to have in order to have
24 disastrous results, ma’am?
25 A Well, if you’re alluding to what he
268
1 says in paragraph 2?
2 Q Yes, what he wrote.
3 A What he wrote in paragraph 2 is that
4 “The very important point is made that at the
5 time of exposure and the level of exposure to
6 asbestos need only be very small to
7 precipitate rather disastrous results.”
8 Q So what the medical director for
9 GE is telling people internally is that the
10 asbestos exposure needs only to be very small
11 to cause disastrous results, right?
12 A That’s what it says.
13 Q Okay. When did you tell that to
14 Mr. Horvath or his wife?
15 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
16 form.
17 A Well, I know Dr. — I knew
18 Dr. Martelon, and I know that when the OSHA
19 regulations came out for asbestos, we went
20 over them in great detail.
21 So I would think that the
22 information that was available to
23 Dr. Martelon on which to base his letter
24 within the company would have been available
25 to all employers everywhere, including those
269
1 at Chevron.
2 Q All right. When did General
3 Electric tell Mr. Horvath that very small
4 exposures could cause disastrous results?
5 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
6 Form.
7 A I don’t see how it’s feasible or
8 reasonable for General Electric to try to
9 communicate with somebody else’s employee on
10 somebody else’s premises using somebody
11 else’s product.
12 Q We’ll let the jury determine
13 that, ma’am.
14 So it never happened, is that
15 true?
16 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
17 Form.
18 Q Mr. Horvath was never told by
19 General Electric that a very small amount of
20 asbestos can cause disastrous results; true?
21 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
22 Form.
23 Q Never happened?
24 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
25 Form.
270
1 A As I said, I don’t know why that kind
2 of communication could have even happened.
3 Q Oh, okay. We’ll let somebody
4 else decide that.
5 Ma’am, in the same year that
6 asbestos blankets were being taken off and
7 put back on the General Electric turbine,
8 1975, is when General Electric got the
9 results of the cancer study in the Bridgeport
10 plant, right?
11 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
12 Form.
13 Q The same year?
14 MR. KAPSHANDY: You’re off by a
15 year, Counsel.
16 MR. PLACITELLA: No, I’m not.
17 MR. KAPSHANDY: It’s dated
18 January 1st, 1976.
19 MR. PLACITELLA: That’s the date
20 of the report. That’s not the date of
21 when the agreement was signed.
22 MR. KAPSHANDY: To do the study.
23 They didn’t know the results when they
24 did the study.
25 MR. PLACITELLA: Are you still
271
1 testifying?
2 MR. KAPSHANDY: Well, stop
3 misleading her. Two years. ’75 and
4 ’76 are different years, Counsel.
5 MR. PLACITELLA: Excuse me, when
6 are you going to stop testifying?
7 MR. KAPSHANDY: It’s not her job
8 to try and guess when you’re
9 misleading her.
10 MR. PLACITELLA: When are you
11 going to stop testifying, sir?
12 You’ve broken every rule in the
13 deposition protocol in the State of
14 New Jersey here today, despite my
15 repeated requests for you not to do
16 it, and you continue to do it. Why?
17 Q Ma’am, this study was initiated
18 in 1975, correct?
19 A The Joanna Haas, yes.
20 Q Yes. And what you did is you
21 asked your insurance carrier, Metropolitan
22 Life, to go run their mortality numbers for
23 people who worked in that plant, right?
24 A I don’t know if those are the exact
25 words, but there’s something to that effect;
272
1 that they did go to the insurance, yes.
2 Q Right. And they only did it for
3 a seven-year period, right, 1967 to what,
4 1974?
5 A The dates are stated in there.
6 Q Okay. And for seven years
7 alone, the finding was a dramatic excess of
8 mesothelioma deaths was observed during the
9 period ’67 to ’74, right?
10 A In that one plant. That’s one of her
11 findings, yes.
12 Q And in that same year, you put
13 the asbestos back on the turbine at Chevron;
14 you being GE, right?
15 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
16 Form.
17 A Well, first, it’s not clear at all if
18 you’re talking about the blanket. It’s not
19 even clear who did that.
20 So I think you’re mixing two
21 things completely differently.
22 Q Okay. We’ll let the jury
23 decide.
24 Now, after having gone through
25 today, and seeing all the evidence that we’ve
273
1 gone through, is it still your testimony that
2 General Electric made no mistakes whatsoever
3 in terms of protecting the health and safety
4 of employees at the Chevron facility?
5 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
6 Form.
7 A And your question was: Is it still my
8 contention –
9 Q Yes, ma’am.
10 A — that they made no mistake?
11 Yes, that’s my contention.
12 Q Thank you.
13 MR. PLACITELLA: That’s all the
14 questions I have.
15 MR. KAPSHANDY: Anyone else?
16 (No response.)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
274
1 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KAPSHANDY:
2
3 Q Ms. Drucker, I have a few
4 questions for follow-up on some things that
5 Mr. Placitella –
6 MR. PLACITELLA: Just keep in
7 mind if you’re going to ask her
8 questions, I’m going to have a lot
9 more questions. So it’s your
10 decision. It’s up to you.
11 Q He asked you about a case of a
12 problem, do you recall that, at the
13 Bridgeport plant with asbestos that — more
14 specifically, do you recall that? I can’t
15 recall which exhibit it was.
16 A Yes.
17 Q Do you happen to know which one
18 it is? I think it was –
19 A Is this it, that one?
20 Q X-9. That’s it. Thank you very
21 much. Let me hand you what we’ll mark –
22 MR. KAPSHANDY: How do you want
23 to handle this, Counsel, Defendant’s
24 Exhibit 1?
25 MR. PLACITELLA: I guess. You
275
1 want to show me the document?
2 MR. KAPSHANDY: Sure.
3 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay.
4 MR. KAPSHANDY: Should we mark
5 it?
6 MR. PLACITELLA: However you
7 want to. D-1.
8 MR. KAPSHANDY: Can we mark
9 this, please, as, Defendant’s Exhibit
10 1?
11 (A letter from Hamilton to Swope
12 dated 5/11/34 is marked as D-1
13 for Identification.)
14 Q Go ahead. I have a copy.
15 Do you recognize Defendant’s
16 Exhibit 1 as one of the Alice Hamilton
17 materials that was in your collection of
18 documents?
19 A Yes, I do.
20 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
21 Leading.
22 Q How is it that you came across
23 this document?
24 A I came across this document in a few
25 ways. I found copies, carbon copies of the
276
1 same documents in many locations; some in the
2 Harvard library, some additional copies of
3 the same document at the Schenectady Museum
4 Library.
5 So I came across them from
6 public libraries, basically.
7 Q And this was in the materials
8 that were on the DVDs provided to
9 Mr. Placitella?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And the date of this document,
12 does it post date the document, Plaintiff’s
13 Exhibit 9? Is it after that?
14 A Yes, it is.
15 Q It’s dated what?
16 A This is dated May 11, 1934.
17 Q And the document Mr. Placitella
18 was asking you about, P-9, was from February,
19 1934?
20 A Yes.
21 Q And he asked you if you knew if
22 there, at any time, was any follow-up visit
23 by Dr. Hamilton to the Bridgeport Works in
24 response to the suggestion by Mr. Clark.
25 Do you recall that question?
277
1 A Yes, I do.
2 Q And although this document is
3 very hard to read, being a very old onion
4 skin copy, does it answer that question as to
5 whether Dr. Hamilton went to the Bridgeport
6 Works after that communication from Mr. Clark
7 in February of 1934?
8 A Yes, it appears that she did go, in
9 May.
10 Q Now, you told us a little bit
11 about Dr. Hamilton. And I believe you said
12 she consulted to the General Electric Company
13 from 1923 to the 1930s, is that correct?
14 A That’s correct.
15 Q And where was she employed at
16 the time that she was retained by GE?
17 A At the time she was retained as a
18 consultant by GE she was on the faculty at
19 Harvard University Medical School and School
20 of Public Health.
21 Q She was a medical doctor at the
22 early part of the 20th century, I believe you
23 said?
24 A Yes, she was a medical doctor.
25 Q Before she became a professor at
278
1 Harvard, did they have any female faculty
2 members at Harvard?
3 A No. She was the first female
4 professor at Harvard.
5 Q In your research of the General
6 Electric Company’s health and safety
7 programs, did you, in reviewing her materials
8 and GE materials, learn how it was that she
9 became retained by the president of General
10 Electric and what her mandate was?
11 A Yes. She had known the president of
12 General Electric and his wife for some years.
13 And as it turned out, when Gerard Swope
14 became president of General Electric, he
15 invited Dr. Hamilton to go through all the GE
16 plants as often as she wanted to go, for as
17 long as she wanted to do it, and make any
18 recommendations that she felt that were
19 applicable for health and safety.
20 Her recommendation went directly
21 to him, Mr. Swope, the president, and then
22 they were enacted, put in place.
23 Q Have you come across any
24 instances where either her recommendations
25 were not followed or ignored by General
279
1 Electric Company?
2 A No, I haven’t.
3 Q At any point in time while she
4 was retained by GE, did she make
5 recommendations to GE that it should stop
6 using asbestos in any of its products?
7 A No, she did not.
8 Q At that point in time, how was
9 it and in what sort of products did GE use
10 asbestos from your research?
11 A Well, GE used asbestos in a few types
12 of electrically related products. One was a
13 molded product. It was molded products and
14 laminates, and that was one of the plastics
15 we had discussed before.
16 And the other was in some of the
17 wire and cable, and that was for the wire and
18 cable for only the highest temperature wire.
19 Q And in the West Philadelphia
20 plant, I believe where Mr. Placitella asked
21 you about the case of asbestosis that was
22 discovered, what were they making there?
23 A They were making a molded product
24 there, molded arc chutes, we believe.
25 Q And in your research and review
280
1 of General Electric and other historical
2 documents, when did you come across another
3 case of asbestos-related disease amongst
4 General Electric employees?
5 A That would have been in 1971.
6 Q And how was it and where did you
7 find that in your research?
8 A That was in a set of Workers
9 Compensation records that were kept on cards
10 by a third party insurer. And all the
11 cards — there were tens of thousands of
12 them — were gone over at a certain point
13 prior to my starting this project.
14 And it’s my understanding that
15 anything related to lung disease, asbestos,
16 anything like that, was pulled. And the
17 first date of any asbestos-related disease
18 appeared to be 1971.
19 Q And just to follow up sort of in
20 chronological order, after Alice Hamilton
21 left, I believe Mr. Placitella showed you a
22 document from the Pennsylvania Department of
23 Health.
24 Do you have that handy?
25 A Yes.
281
1 Q What exhibit was that?
2 A It’s P-11.
3 Q Now, can you tell us a little
4 bit historically about the origin of that
5 document? Who actually did the report and
6 who published it? Because there’s a little
7 bit of confusion about that.
8 A Yes. It’s my understanding that the
9 report, the content, the technical content,
10 was prepared by GE. It was their policy that
11 was in effect at the York wire mill. And the
12 State of Pennsylvania thought that this
13 practice was so exemplary that they wanted
14 really to share it with the world.
15 So the State of Pennsylvania
16 basically put a cover sheet on it and sent it
17 out as an exemplary program on how to handle
18 asbestos in a number of ways in a healthy and
19 safe manner. And that would have been
20 available to people from April, 1942, on.
21 Q Now, Mr. Placitella asked you
22 about the type of asbestos they were using
23 there. He called it yarn and lap.
24 Do you recall that?
25 A Yes.
282
1 Q And they were making what sort
2 of product with that?
3 A They were making wire.
4 Q And the product, although it’s
5 refined, is still what percent asbestos?
6 A The product is still –
7 Q The lap.
8 A The lap?
9 Q Right.
10 A The lap is 100 percent asbestos.
11 Q Now, moving along historically
12 in time, did you come across in your research
13 other instances where General Electric shared
14 what research it had about the health and
15 safety of materials, including asbestos, with
16 the industrial hygiene world?
17 A Yes, I have come across numerous
18 instances.
19 Q What others, besides the
20 Pennsylvania Department of Health that you’ve
21 already discussed here with us today?
22 A Well, there are several. One, in
23 fact, actually dates back to before 1919.
24 In 1919, GE made — put out a
25 publication about its safe — about its
283
1 practices in their manufacturing facilities.
2 And a large section in that book was actually
3 discussing safety and medical considerations.
4 And there were some very sophisticated
5 concepts that were put out to all the
6 industry from that document from 1999 on.
7 From there, we could go up to
8 about 1951. I mentioned the book before by
9 the GE toxicologist, Dr. Irving Sax, and that
10 was put out in 1951. It was really the first
11 of its kind. It was a compilation of hazards
12 on thousands and thousands of materials, one
13 being asbestos.
14 So that basically has been a
15 reference book for health and safety people
16 over the years. It’s even used today in
17 updated forms.
18 There was also a health and
19 safety expert by the name of Dr. Howard
20 Fawcett at GE, and he was a real specialist
21 on chemicals and substance safety. He gave a
22 talk at the National Safety Council in 1957
23 and published a paper, which again, was
24 sophisticated for its time. It discussed
25 asbestos, among other types of particular
284
1 materials. It discussed the use of
2 respirators and other work methods.
3 And that, again, National Safety
4 Council, was basically available to anyone,
5 anywhere, at no charge. Anybody, a member or
6 not, could contact the National Safety
7 Council and get information from them.
8 Also, there was a management
9 specialist, a safety management specialist by
10 the name of Dr. John Grimaldi who was GE from
11 about the mid 1950s to the mid 1960s. He
12 actually was one of the small number of
13 people who was tapped by president Nixon to
14 form Federal OSHA.
15 I met with Dr. Grimaldi several
16 times, and we’ve spoken also on the phone
17 many times. And he wrote a book; he wrote a
18 series of books, one while he was at GE on
19 safety management. And it’s still actually
20 one of the books that the National Safety
21 Council recommends to this day when somebody
22 wants to know what is basically the best
23 safety management book that there is.
24 So there have been many, many
25 ways, through many organizations. The
285
1 American Industrial Hygiene Association, the
2 Industrial Hygiene Foundation, where GE
3 health and safety people shared information,
4 participated actively, and were very involved
5 in the health and safety community.
6 MR. PLACITELLA: I’m sorry, what
7 was the question?
8 Q Now, Ms. Drucker, between the
9 asbestosis case in 1934 and the one that was
10 identified, I believe you said in 1971, have
11 you come across any other instances within
12 the GE industrial hygiene or health and
13 safety records or published literature that
14 you reviewed of GE employees contracting
15 asbestos-related disease from using, making
16 or handling asbestos products?
17 A No.
18 Q Raw asbestos or refined
19 products?
20 A No, none.
21 Q Now, there came a point in time,
22 which Mr. Placitella discussed with you, in
23 1975, it was published in 1976 when General
24 Electric did a, what’s known as a, I believe,
25 proportionate mortality study of Bridgeport
286
1 employees, deaths from 1967 to 1974; correct?
2 MR. PLACITELLA: I object to the
3 leading form of the question.
4 Are you representing that was a
5 published study?
6 MR. KAPSHANDY: No, I’m not. It
7 was published to GE.
8 MR. PLACITELLA: Published to
9 GE, but not to anybody else?
10 MR. KAPSHANDY: We’ll get to
11 that.
12 MR. PLACITELLA: All right. I
13 just want to know.
14 Q Do you recall — and I believe
15 that’s — if you have it handy there,
16 Plaintiff’s Exhibit –
17 A 10.
18 Q — 10?
19 A P-10.
20 Q Now, there’s some other
21 materials and published studies related to
22 mesothelioma mortality in your materials, is
23 there not?
24 A Yes.
25 Q In fact, why don’t you tell us
287
1 what happened after this study in terms of
2 communications between GE and health
3 officials who were interested in studying
4 mesothelioma in the State of Connecticut?
5 A Yes. GE was very open and brought
6 this initially forward, as I mentioned
7 before, to Dr. Haas to do a study,
8 preliminarily to see what may be going on.
9 They also got involved with one
10 of the researchers at Yale University, a
11 Dr. J. Wister Meigs, who I knew. I used to
12 work with him when I was at Yale. And
13 Dr. Meigs was also the head of the
14 Connecticut Cancer Registry.
15 So GE brought this information
16 forward to study what was going on. And in
17 fact, from this point on, from around ’76 all
18 the way up through the ’80s to about 1990, GE
19 collected death certificates from every
20 single person who had — who was still
21 working at GE, or who was retired from GE.
22 So for fifteen years they
23 collected tens of thousands of death
24 certificates trying to study this situation
25 further, find out what was going on.
288
1 Q Now, was an attempt made in this
2 study, and subsequent, to determine, for
3 example, whether any of the mesothelioma
4 cases in Bridgeport were associated with
5 people making wire where they were working
6 with 100 percent chrysotile asbestos?
7 A Well, that would have been included in
8 this and in further studies, yes.
9 Q In this study that was dated
10 January of 1976, they had identified how many
11 cases?
12 A They had identified, I believe, six
13 cases.
14 Q And were any of those associated
15 with employment in the wire mill?
16 A They didn’t seem to be, no.
17 Q What, if anything, was a
18 hypothesis that Dr. Haas was working with at
19 the time she published the study in 1976?
20 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection to
21 the form. Published.
22 A One of Dr. Haas’ conclusions at the
23 end of this study was that she associated
24 people who had been working in the fan
25 department at Bridgeport with disease.
289
1 Q And in particular, I believe she
2 speculated that there might have been some
3 insulation exposure?
4 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
5 Leading.
6 Q There on page 5, I think it was.
7 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
8 Leading.
9 A Yes. Dr. Haas did mention that she
10 thought that there was some damaged
11 insulation there.
12 Q And there’s a comment on this
13 one and a handwritten note, which I believe
14 you determined was from whom?
15 A I think it looks like Dr. –
16 MR. PLACITELLA: Excuse me.
17 Objection. Leading. No foundation.
18 A It appears to me to be Dr. Martelon’s
19 handwriting or Dr. Simpson’s handwriting as
20 one of the doctors.
21 Q Dr. Simpson. Who was
22 Dr. Simpson? Did you know him?
23 A I did. Dr. Simpson was the medical
24 director for the Bridgeport facility.
25 Q And what did he note with regard
290
1 to that insulation exposure in the fan
2 assembly area?
3 A Dr. Simpson went there, looked at it,
4 and determined that the insulation was not a
5 problem in the fan part of the facility.
6 Q I believe that’s on page 9. I
7 misspoke. If I could direct your attention
8 to that.
9 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
10 Leading.
11 Q Where he makes that comment to
12 that.
13 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
14 Leading. You’re her lawyer. You
15 can’t tell her where to look and read
16 to her and tell her what it says.
17 A Okay. Page 9, at the bottom I see
18 that there are handwritten notes. Would you
19 like me to read that?
20 Q Yes, if you could, please.
21 A “In a brief tour of now vacant –” I’m
22 sorry, I can’t read one word.
23 Q Could that be Howes, the word?
24 A I don’t know what that is. “In July,
25 ’75, I showed Miss B –” and it looks like
291
1 something with an R, “insulated pipes. There
2 were no clouds and I am not sure it is
3 asbestos.”
4 So he apparently didn’t see any
5 kind of damage on the insulation on the
6 pipes.
7 Q Now, have you been personally in
8 this area, the fan assembly area?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And she attempts to associate
11 several of the cases with working in the fan
12 assembly area, correct?
13 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
14 Leading.
15 A Yes.
16 Q What opinion –
17 MR. PLACITELLA: Do me a favor.
18 Do me a favor. Please do me a favor.
19 Before she answers, let me put my
20 objection on the record. Then she can
21 answer. Thank you.
22 Q What opinion, if any, do you
23 have about her conclusion that those cases
24 seem to have been associated with working in
25 the fan assembly area?
292
1 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
2 This person is not being offered as an
3 expert today. This is a fact
4 deposition. It’s an improper
5 question.
6 MR. KAPSHANDY: I’ll rephrase
7 it.
8 Q What, in your experience, having
9 worked there personally at the Bridgeport
10 plant, were the practices with regard to who
11 got assigned to the fan assembly area?
12 A Well, just about everybody got
13 assigned to the fan area.
14 What happened was that if work
15 slowed down in one part of the plant, they
16 sent people over to the fan area to keep them
17 working so that they wouldn’t have to be laid
18 off.
19 So little by little, everybody
20 kind of rotated through the fan department.
21 Q Now, subsequent to this study, I
22 believe you said GE collected death
23 certificates. Is that correct?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And over the course of a dozen
293
1 or more years, did they discover other
2 mesothelioma cases out of the Bridgeport
3 facility?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And have you made an attempt to
6 look at these people’s occupational history
7 and exposure to further examine the possible
8 association with asbestos or not at this
9 facility?
10 A Yes.
11 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
12 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
13 Q What, if anything, did you
14 uncover in your investigation?
15 A Well, I uncovered, I found a total of
16 about ten — ten cases. And I attempted to
17 look at what kind of work that they had done
18 while they were at Bridgeport, what kind of
19 military history they had prior to going
20 there. And there really didn’t seem to be
21 any significant trend.
22 There were a few people who had
23 military experience. A few people who — a
24 couple people who actually worked in the wire
25 mill. I think one is a manager, apparently.
294
1 So there really were not significant trends
2 that we could gather from these cases.
3 Q And, in fact, did some of them
4 have clerical jobs?
5 A Yeah. There was at least one person
6 who had a clerical job. She was a secretary.
7 And before she had gotten there, she actually
8 worked for a movie company in the area.
9 Q What did you do, if anything, to
10 investigate other possible sources for the
11 meso, or even asbestos exposure, amongst
12 these people?
13 A Well, one thing that came to mind is
14 that in the surroundings of Bridgeport, the
15 town next door is Stratford, Connecticut, and
16 in Stratford there had been a longstanding
17 plant there of Raybestos. And they had made
18 a lot of asbestos products. That Stratford
19 Raybestos plant is now an EPA Super Fund
20 site.
21 And it’s not only there where
22 Raybestos was, but what Raybestos did was
23 they would give away their waste, including
24 their asbestos waste, as donations to ball
25 parks and recreational areas and school
295
1 grounds and just all kind of areas throughout
2 the surrounds of Stratford, Connecticut. So
3 all of those areas, in fact, are part of the
4 EPA Super Fund site now for remediation.
5 So I have looked into that. I
6 spoke to the former head of health and safety
7 there at Raybestos, and I did determine that
8 they were using amphibole-type asbestos
9 products in their product. So I did attempt
10 to look further into that.
11 Q Now, Mr. Placitella asked you a
12 series of questions about communicating this
13 information, if you recall, directly to
14 Mr. Horvath.
15 Do you recall that?
16 A I did.
17 Q And, in fact, I believe, he
18 asked you about the Pennsylvania Department
19 of Health study in 1942?
20 A Yes, he did.
21 Q Now, based upon your experience
22 in occupational health and safety, are you
23 aware of any authority regulations,
24 practices, which would support the notion
25 that a turbine sold to the United States Navy
296
1 in 1942 should have had stapled to it or
2 stuck in the back of the manual, the 1942
3 Department, Pennsylvania Department of
4 Health, report on General Electric’s
5 industrial hygiene practices at a mill where
6 it made wire insulated with asbestos? Have
7 you ever come across anything remotely like
8 that?
9 A No.
10 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection to
11 the form of the question.
12 A No, no, I have not.
13 MR. PLACITELLA: It’s also
14 beyond the scope of what this witness
15 was asked to come to, which was
16 factual information and possession of
17 General Electric documents and what
18 they did, not her opinions.
19 Q And I’ll ask that same question
20 with a turbine sold directly to Barber
21 Asphalt in 1950.
22 Did you come across any
23 information, authorities, regulations,
24 experience or practices which would suggest
25 it would be either reasonable or feasible to
297
1 insert scientific literature, studies,
2 General Electric documents on its wire mill
3 or any other worldwide literature in the back
4 of a turbine manual that was sold to Barber
5 Insulation (sic) in the 1950s?
6 A No.
7 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection to
8 form.
9 Let me just try to put down what
10 I, hopefully, learned in law school,
11 and then you can say anything you
12 want.
13 A No, I’ve never come across something
14 like that.
15 Q Now, Mr. Placitella asked you
16 also about other forms of communication that
17 GE might have considered communicating
18 directly with Mr. Horvath.
19 Do you recall that?
20 A Yes.
21 Q On the other extreme, as opposed
22 to stapling all of the studies and reports to
23 the turbine, he suggested, wouldn’t, perhaps,
24 it have been helpful to give a basic warning
25 such asbestos is hazardous.
298
1 Do you recall that?
2 A (Witness nods head.)
3 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
4 That’s not what I said, but you can
5 ask her anything you want.
6 A Yes.
7 Q Well, without regard to what he
8 said, based upon your experience or practice
9 in the area, would it have been reasonable or
10 feasible back in 1942 or 1950 to put some
11 sort of generic warning about the hazards of
12 asbestos on these turbines to somebody who
13 might be working around them in the 1960s or
14 1970s in a crane while the turbine was,
15 perhaps, being worked on?
16 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection. You
17 can answer.
18 A No.
19 Q Why not?
20 A Well, for many reasons. For one
21 thing, there is no one size fits all warning.
22 There’s nothing that you can put on a label
23 that will be something that will stand –
24 first of all, tell somebody how to work
25 safely or that will stand the test of time.
299
1 Health and safety, as you’re
2 well aware, I’m sure, is always evolving.
3 The standards changed from, say, 1950 when
4 this turbine was put in place at Barber
5 Asphalt, the standards changed from 1971,
6 ’72, ’76, ’86 and ’94.
7 What could you possibly put on a
8 label at all that would anticipate that
9 something called OSHA would come in, that
10 standards would be lowered, that respirators
11 would be classified very differently, and how
12 treacherously, dangerous it is to just grab
13 any respirator in any situation and assume
14 it’s going to make you safe?
15 No, that’s not the way it works.
16 The way it works is that the health and
17 safety people of the employer determine what
18 the actual hazards are on any given site.
19 They come up with safety measures for that,
20 and those — that’s what’s enacted to keep
21 people safe on a job.
22 Q Well –
23 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
24 Move to strike. Nonresponsive.
25 Q Couldn’t GE have put on the side
300
1 of its turbine installed from the navy in
2 1942, always wear a respirator?
3 A Well, that could be really dangerous.
4 For one thing, respirators have changed
5 significantly over the years, and I’m sure
6 you’re aware not all respirators are created
7 equally.
8 There are some that supply air;
9 there are some that supply oxygen; there are
10 some — there are most that don’t. It’s not
11 infrequent that multiple tragedies happen
12 when somebody grabs the wrong respirator and
13 assumes they’re going to be safe in a
14 situation.
15 So these are highly
16 sophisticated health and safety
17 determinations that have to be made that are
18 unique to any one working situation.
19 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
20 Move to strike. Nonresponsive.
21 Q What about some of the other
22 methods that were discussed in the
23 Pennsylvania Department of Health bulletin
24 that GE published in the Pennsylvania
25 Department of Health distributed, such as
301
1 ventilation or wet methods? Couldn’t they
2 put that on the turbine?
3 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
4 Leading.
5 A Well, for wet methods, for one thing,
6 yes, wet methods are one way that you can
7 suppress asbestos dust, as well as possibly
8 other dust. But you wouldn’t want to use wet
9 methods around electrical equipment because
10 then you could be electrocuted.
11 So it’s always been an informed
12 decision in health and safety as to what
13 methods you choose to configure to ensure
14 that a person is safe in anything they do.
15 If you’re on a ship and some sticker says,
16 increase ventilation, and you decide to punch
17 a hole in the ship, that could really cause a
18 problem as far as how the ship is going to
19 act and react.
20 So no, there are no one size
21 fits all slogans that you can put on
22 something that would keep people working
23 safely. It doesn’t work that way.
24 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
25 Mvoe to strike. Nonresponsive.
302
1 Q Well, what about, as
2 Mr. Placitella asked you, a General Electric
3 turbine engineer walks into this refinery.
4 Doesn’t he, based upon your experience in
5 this area, have some opportunity to instruct
6 the employees of Chevron on how to use these
7 other people’s products?
8 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
9 Leading.
10 A Well, no.
11 Q And why not?
12 A For one reason, it’s — this person is
13 a specialist on the turbine. They are not a
14 health and safety specialist. So they would
15 not be the ones who make an informed decision
16 and recommendation as to what should be done
17 to protect people in that given situation.
18 For another thing, the person on
19 the site, the GE person on another employer’s
20 site, has to comply with the rules of the
21 site owner itself. So if anything, it’s the
22 opposite, where the GE person has to comply
23 to what the site manager wants them to do.
24 So no, it doesn’t work that way.
25 Q Now, Mr. Placitella suggested
303
1 that you were somehow blaming Chevron. Do
2 you recall that question?
3 A Yes.
4 Q You’re not here today to blame
5 Chevron for something, are you?
6 A No.
7 Q When you’re describing your
8 understanding of the regulations in the work
9 place practices, based upon your years of
10 experience, you’re just doing what? You’re
11 here to blame Chevron or are you –
12 A I’m not here to blame –
13 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
14 Leading. Form.
15 A I’m not here to blame Chevron. I did
16 mention that the way the laws are written is
17 that an employer was responsible. That’s
18 true for all employers.
19 Q And if you come across anything
20 in your review of the GE documentation and
21 the NSC documentation and some of these
22 publications that Mr. Placitella showed you
23 here today, that would suggest that Chevron
24 was somehow unaware of OSHA regulations or
25 the hazards of asbestos in the 1970s?
304
1 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection as to
2 form.
3 A No, I’ve come across nothing to
4 indicate that; that a company like Chevron
5 would have been unaware of OSHA regulations
6 in the 1970s.
7 Q He showed you several articles
8 from the 1950s and 1960 by Eisenstadt that
9 were published in Chest and Lancet. Do you
10 recall that?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Are those publications widely
13 reviewed and respected in the medical
14 profession?
15 A They are. My understanding is they’re
16 British publications, and I — at Harvard I
17 know the documents. Whether everybody in the
18 industry gets them, I don’t know.
19 Q Well, was GE in the petroleum
20 refinery business?
21 A No.
22 Q Have you come across anything in
23 your research or literature to suggest that
24 GE was following closely studies in the
25 petroleum industry?
305
1 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
2 A No.
3 Q Would you have expected a
4 petroleum refinery in the United States to,
5 perhaps, be following those sorts of studies
6 with a little more interest than the General
7 Electric Company?
8 A Yeah.
9 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
10 Leading. Beyond the scope that this
11 witness is here to talk about. It’s
12 not about her expectations. It’s
13 about what General Electric knew and
14 what they didn’t.
15 Q You can go ahead and answer.
16 A No. Wait. Could you repeat the
17 question? I’m sorry.
18 Q Sure. I mean, how was it that
19 in reviewing and collecting literature on
20 what GE knew about the hazards of asbestos,
21 you determined, out of the thousands of
22 articles, what to include and what to not
23 include?
24 I mean, some are published, some
25 are General Electric. What was your
306
1 criteria?
2 A Well, there are different criteria.
3 Some are landmark studies and some are others
4 that seemed to be more applicable to the
5 products that GE made. So that’s what my
6 interest was, GE made electrical and other
7 related products, and that’s what I kind of
8 focused in on.
9 Q And when it came to the
10 published literature, GE, not being in the
11 refining business, you didn’t necessarily
12 seek out articles about petroleum refineries,
13 did you?
14 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
15 Leading.
16 A No.
17 MR. KAPSHANDY: Now, Counsel, do
18 you have the Eisenstadt studies?
19 Could I put them in front of the
20 witness?
21 MR. PLACITELLA: I just showed
22 her what I had on my Power Point.
23 MR. KAPSHANDY: Are you going to
24 make that part of the record?
25 MR. PLACITELLA: I’m going to
307
1 copy the Power Point and make it part
2 of the record.
3 MR. KAPSHANDY: You wouldn’t
4 mind pulling them up?
5 MR. PLACITELLA: You want me to
6 pull up what I showed her?
7 MR. KAPSHANDY: Sure. Thank
8 you.
9 MR. PLACITELLA: You’re going to
10 mess me up. Because I was going to –
11 I’m all set up ready to ask her on
12 Redirect.
13 MR. KAPSHANDY: I’d hate to do
14 that.
15 MR. PLACITELLA: Yes. Why don’t
16 you ask her some questions. I’m all
17 set up and ready to go.
18 I’m sure you have the studies in
19 your computer.
20 Q Well, Ms. Drucker, from your
21 recollection of the studies, which counsel
22 won’t pull up for us, do you recall if
23 there’s any suggestion in those studies that
24 asbestos from GE turbines was somehow
25 contributing to mesothelioma amongst
308
1 petroleum refinery workers?
2 A No.
3 Q Now, he showed you some Manville
4 documents, as I recall?
5 A Yes.
6 Q And there were some discussions
7 in there about GE removing asbestos from a
8 plastics product. Do you recall that?
9 A I do.
10 Q That was in 1973, I believe?
11 A 1972, yes.
12 Q And I believe you were trying to
13 tell him that at about the same time, 1973,
14 the turbine business changed its practice
15 with regard to specifications for thermal
16 insulation?
17 A Yes.
18 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
19 Leading.
20 MR. KAPSHANDY: Just trying to
21 provide context, Counsel.
22 MR. PLACITELLA: Just ask her an
23 open-ended question, instead of
24 testifying, please.
25 Q Could you, please, now answer
309
1 the question that he wouldn’t permit you to
2 answer as to what, if anything, the turbine
3 business did at that very same time that it
4 took asbestos out of the plastic product?
5 A Sure. What the turbine business did
6 is that they eliminated asbestos-containing
7 insulation as one of the possibilities that
8 they would write a spec for. So it was off
9 the table. Same time.
10 Q Now, these Manville documents,
11 how is it that those eventually were
12 collected and included in these materials you
13 did on the history of GE’s health and safety
14 programs, in particular on asbestos?
15 A My understanding is that any of the
16 Manville documents that had to do with
17 General Electric were collected as a group.
18 There were other companies’
19 files there that were not also searched if
20 they had anything to do with General
21 Electric.
22 Q What other places besides
23 General Electric did you look for any
24 documents that might reflect on what GE knew
25 or did with regard to asbestos over the
310
1 years?
2 A Well, I went and searched files. I
3 went and looked at the Schenectady Museum and
4 library where they had GE documents.
5 As I mentioned, I went to the
6 Harvard and Radcliffe libraries and I
7 searched files at Bridgeport and Schenectady.
8 And then I spoke to many, many people who had
9 been with the company, many of whom I knew
10 way back over 35 years. And then talked to
11 them and asked them about different things
12 about asbestos over the years and had an
13 opportunity, in many instances, to study
14 their industrial hygiene reports that were in
15 the file, that are all available here on
16 these DVDs.
17 Q And what about state or Federal
18 governmental records?
19 A Yes, it’s my understanding Freedom of
20 Information record searches were made for
21 various states, and those records were also
22 obtained and they are part of this Drucker
23 the materials.
24 Q With regard to your methodology,
25 how, if at all, were you restricted in what
311
1 you could look at and who you could talk to
2 in researching this question?
3 A I was not restricted. I was — I
4 did — I looked at what I wanted to. I
5 searched out what I wanted to. I spoke with
6 whomever I wanted to. I wasn’t restricted in
7 doing this work.
8 Q Now, Mr. Placitella asked you
9 about risk benefit analysis before products
10 were put into the market. Do you recall
11 that?
12 A Yes.
13 Q With regard to the one or
14 possibly two turbines that were built in 1942
15 and sold to the United States Navy, would it
16 have been appropriate or even feasible or
17 reasonable to do a risk benefit analysis
18 before selling that piece of equipment to the
19 U.S. Navy?
20 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
21 It’s way beyond the scope of this
22 deposition, way beyond.
23 A No.
24 Q What, in fact, is your
25 understanding as to the consequences of a
312
1 supplier who would have refused to provide
2 materials requested for procurement by the
3 Federal Government during the World War II
4 from 1942 to 1945?
5 A Right, this was 1942. It was
6 during –
7 MR. PLACITELLA: Same objection.
8 THE WITNESS: Pardon me.
9 A 1942 was during World War II, and it’s
10 my understanding that companies could be
11 fined and actually taken over, nationalized
12 by the government, if they didn’t supply the
13 type of equipment that the military needed to
14 win the war.
15 Q Now, in your research about the
16 histories and uses of asbestos, did you come
17 across any understanding or practices, or
18 even studies, about how asbestos was used by
19 the United States Navy in insulating these
20 turbines that it was putting on ships in the
21 1940s?
22 MR. PLACITELLA: The same
23 objection.
24 A Yes, there were — there were several
25 studies done by the Maritime Commission, and
313
1 also by the United States Navy, on various
2 aspects of asbestos health and safety.
3 MR. PLACITELLA: Ma’am, before
4 the next question, I assume you’re
5 going to give me plenty of time to ask
6 questions and you’re not going to go
7 right up to five a clock asking
8 questions about the navy when I’m
9 done. I’m assuming you’re going to
10 leave me time.
11 MR. KAPSHANDY: If we started on
12 time we might have had a little –
13 MR. PLACITELLA: I had a little
14 trouble with traffic. I was here
15 fifteen minutes late.
16 MR. KAPSHANDY: I understand
17 that.
18 MR. PLACITELLA: I assume I’m
19 going to get the opportunity to ask
20 questions, so long as what you’re
21 asking what happened to somebody if
22 they — whatever. Just that’s all I’m
23 saying, okay?
24 Q Just to provide historical
25 context –
314
1 MR. KAPSHANDY: Do you need to
2 stop?
3 (Discussion off record.)
4 VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off
5 the record at 16:34.
6 (Off record.)
7 VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on
8 the record at 16:36.
9 MS. PLACITELLA: We’re on the
10 record.
11 MR. KAPSHANDY: Pardon?
12 MS. PLACITELLA: We’re on the
13 record.
14 MR. KAPSHANDY: I know. I
15 appreciate it.
16 I think that’s all I have.
17 Thank you very much.
18 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
315
1 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PLACITELLA:
2
3 Q The Workers’ Compensation
4 records that you said you reviewed?
5 A Yes.
6 Q They were given to you by the
7 lawyers, right?
8 A Yes, they were.
9 Q So if the lawyers had records in
10 their possession, other records in their
11 possession, you’d never know that, would you?
12 A That’s not true.
13 Q Well, you looked at all the
14 records the lawyers had?
15 A No. There are other ways. In doing
16 this study –
17 Q What study, ma’am?
18 A Okay, my historical research on GE’s
19 health and safety programs, including
20 asbestos. There were various cross checks.
21 So yes, I did have the Workers’
22 Compensation records, but I also had hundreds
23 and hundreds of industrial hygiene surveys
24 that were done throughout the company for
25 about 30, 40 years. And industrial hygiene
316
1 studies frequently do include information
2 about other things that are going on in the
3 plant related to health and safety.
4 I also had a chance to talk to
5 30, 40 people who had worked for GE, as had I
6 back in the early ’70s, and I didn’t come
7 across anything that contradicted what I
8 found in those Workers’ Compensation records.
9 Q Do you remember my question,
10 ma’am?
11 A Yes.
12 Q What was it?
13 A I don’t remember the exact words.
14 Q Okay. Now, ma’am, in these
15 three disks, Drucker Materials, did you
16 review these disks before today’s deposition?
17 Do you know what’s on these three disks that
18 were given to me?
19 A Well, assuming it’s the same that’s on
20 my three disks. And I always review them. I
21 try to review them on a continuing basis.
22 There are thousands here, and I review
23 them –
24 Q Do you know if these disks have
25 the same information on them that you have in
317
1 other material? Did you ever look at these
2 disks?
3 A Did I ever look at those specific
4 disks?
5 Q Yes, ma’am.
6 A No.
7 Q Okay. Now, ma’am, we agree that
8 Alice Hamilton was an excellent and respected
9 physician, correct?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And she told General Electric
12 everything they needed to do to protect their
13 workers, right?
14 A Insofar as she could at that point in
15 time.
16 Q Right.
17 A Sure.
18 Q And those principles stayed in
19 place for decades?
20 A Well, sure. She set a good tone,
21 yeah.
22 Q And the reason that there was
23 less disease in the General Electric plants
24 is because they followed the principles that
25 Ms. Hamilton told them to follow, right?
318
1 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
2 form.
3 A That, and also — they did have health
4 and safety people, as I mentioned to you,
5 going back to before Dr. Hamilton was there,
6 into the 19 teens.
7 So yes, it was their — it was
8 their way of running the company. They were
9 one of the founding members of the National
10 Safety Council in 1913. So from thus forth,
11 they had a dedication to health and safety,
12 yes, and they followed what Dr. Hamilton said
13 as well.
14 Q My question was what?
15 A If you could repeat it for me.
16 Q Oh, okay.
17 Now, the reason there was less
18 disease than you would expect in GE’s
19 facilities is because they tried to follow
20 the recommendations of Dr. Hamilton and
21 others; true?
22 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
23 Form.
24 A Well, one would hope, yes; that they
25 would have been conscientiously following
319
1 health and safety principles that were out
2 there for everybody to follow.
3 Q And that included educating
4 employees to the same appreciation of the
5 risks that would involve being exposed to
6 asbestos, right?
7 A I don’t understand.
8 Q Well, you’re familiar with the
9 Merriwether study; you told us about that
10 before, right?
11 A Yes.
12 Q And what Merriwether said is if
13 you want to protect employees, you have to
14 educate them to a sane appreciation of the
15 risks involved. Isn’t that the exact quote
16 in his article?
17 A I recall the educating. I don’t
18 recall those exact words.
19 Q Okay. And that same principle
20 was followed by General Electric, correct?
21 A Well, sure, as part of their health
22 and safety programs they did do worker
23 education, yes.
24 Q In fact, we know from 1942 they
25 actually handed out pamphlets; we went
320
1 through that, correct?
2 A Yes, we did.
3 Q And all those recommendations
4 that Alice Hamilton — who was a great
5 physician, correct?
6 A Yes.
7 Q — gave you, correct?
8 A She actually gave them to the world.
9 Let me explain. May I?
10 Q I’ll withdraw the question. I
11 don’t have time for that. Okay?
12 All of the recommendations that
13 Alice Hamilton gave to General Electric they
14 attempted to follow, true?
15 A Sure.
16 Q None of those recommendations
17 were ever provided by General Electric to
18 Mr. Horvath, true?
19 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
20 form.
21 A Well, if you’re asking, you know,
22 would it –
23 Q I’m not asking that. I’m asking
24 were any of the recommendations made by Alice
25 Hamilton about how to protect yourself from
321
1 exposure to asbestos ever communicated by
2 General Electric to Mr. Horvath? That is my
3 question.
4 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
5 Form.
6 A Yes, to Mr. Horvath’s employer.
7 Q And yes to Mr. Horvath? They
8 were not given to Mr. Horvath by General
9 Electric, true?
10 MR. KAPSHANDY: Well, objection.
11 Form.
12 A Well, as I said before –
13 Q Ma’am –
14 A — health and safety –
15 Q General Electric never warned
16 Mr. Horvath of the same things that Alice
17 Hamilton warned them about, true?
18 MR. KAPSHANDY: Was he making –
19 Q Mr. Horvath himself, true?
20 A With all due respect, the question is
21 somewhat nonsensical.
22 Q Well, okay. I’ll leave it at
23 that. It’s nonsensical. A jury will decide.
24 Ma’am, and despite the best
25 efforts of General Electric, 30 years later,
322
1 the people in the plant that were making the
2 asbestos got mesothelioma; right?
3 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
4 Form.
5 Q At an excessive rate, correct?
6 MR. KAPSHANDY: You just said
7 the opposite.
8 Go ahead and answer.
9 A Is that the question?
10 Q Yes, ma’am,
11 A Could you repeat it, please?
12 Q Yes, ma’am.
13 The article that you referred
14 to — by the way, this article from Haas,
15 January 1, 1976, that you were just asked
16 about by your lawyer, this was never
17 published to the rest of the world, was it?
18 A My understanding, that a further study
19 that was done based on this, by Dr. Meigs at
20 Yale and some other researchers, was
21 published, yes, in the published literature.
22 Q Ma’am, was this study ever
23 published to the rest of the world, this
24 January 1, 1976, study? That’s my question,
25 not what happened years later when someone
323
1 looked at some of the stuff that was in here.
2 My question is: Was this study
3 published to the rest of the world?
4 A My understanding is that the
5 scientific findings were included in a
6 published study.
7 Q All right. So there was a
8 published study that said that there was a
9 dramatic excess of mesothelioma deaths
10 observed in Bridgeport workers, is that what
11 you’re saying? There’s a published study to
12 that effect?
13 A No, that’s not what I said.
14 Q No, ma’am, because these
15 findings were kept secret by General
16 Electric, weren’t they?
17 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
18 Q The findings that a dramatic
19 excess of mesothelioma dust was observed for
20 just a seven-year period, this was kept
21 secret, was it not?
22 A Absolutely not.
23 Q Oh, so tell me who you told in
24 the medical world that there was a dramatic
25 excess of mesothelioma deaths observed in
324
1 this plant for only a seven-year period. Who
2 did you tell?
3 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
4 Form.
5 A Well, GE medical people shared that
6 with Dr. Meigs, who is the head of
7 occupational epidemiology at Yale University,
8 where I was. And Dr. Meigs was also the head
9 of the Connecticut Cancer Tumor Registry.
10 So this information wasn’t kept
11 secret. This information was put out there
12 with academics to find out what was going on.
13 Q Now, so everybody out there knew
14 that there was a dramatic excess of
15 mesothelioma deaths in the Bridgeport plant,
16 is that what you’re telling this jury?
17 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
18 Form. Getting harassing now, Counsel.
19 A I don’t know exactly what general
20 people were — I can tell you that Dr. Meigs
21 and the Connecticut Cancer Registry was aware
22 of that.
23 Q Tell me what Dr. Meigs told
24 Mr. Horvath.
25 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
325
1 Argumentative.
2 A I don’t know what Dr. Meigs could have
3 told Mr. Horvath that his own employer
4 couldn’t have told him a lot better.
5 Q But you’re not blaming the
6 employer.
7 Now, let me ask you another
8 question.
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Is this a
10 question, Counsel?
11 Q You made a statement –
12 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to the
13 form of that, if you’re going to
14 comment on her testimony before. Ask
15 questions.
16 Q You made a statement about what
17 the findings were in this report, and you
18 said they couldn’t figure out what the cause
19 was.
20 Isn’t that what you said this
21 report said?
22 A Yes. There were — there were, right,
23 some open questions.
24 Q All right. Well, the problem
25 is, what they tried to do is blame it on the
326
1 pipe covering in the fan plant. And what the
2 doctor told them was, hey, it ain’t the pipe
3 covering, it’s what’s going on in that plant.
4 Isn’t that what happened in this study?
5 I mean, you were just asked 25
6 minutes of questions about people in the fan
7 plant. Do you remember, you were there? Do
8 you recall that?
9 A Uh-huh. I was.
10 Q But what happened here is they
11 tried to blame it on the pipe covering. And
12 what they said in the study was, it ain’t the
13 pipe covering; it’s what you were doing in
14 that operation. Isn’t that what happened?
15 A Absolutely not.
16 Q Okay. Do you have your copy of
17 the document, ma’am?
18 A Yes, I do.
19 Q Turn to page 9.
20 (The witness complies.)
21 A Okay.
22 Q See the bottom of page 9?
23 A Yes.
24 Q All right. The whole paragraph
25 ahead talks about what could have happened in
327
1 the fan assembly. Do you see that?
2 A Could you direct me to where you’re
3 looking?
4 Q See where it says, “Most cases
5 they could be traced to fan assembly”? Do
6 you see that part?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Okay. Then there was that stuff
9 couldn’t read but your lawyer could read. Do
10 you remember that part?
11 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
12 A Well, I did as best I could to read it
13 into the record.
14 Q I’m sure you did. I don’t
15 quarrel with you, ma’am.
16 And then it says down on the
17 second line, “Similarly pertinent work
18 exposures prior to employment at GE cannot be
19 eliminated from consideration.”
20 Do you see that?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And then it says, “Such
23 exposures are unlikely to explain all cases.”
24 Correct?
25 A That’s what it says.
328
1 Q “These alternate explanations
2 are not as likely as on-the-job exposure to a
3 carcinogen. Most likely, asbestos, since
4 this is the agent most clearly implicated in
5 mesotheliomas.” Right? Isn’t that what that
6 says?
7 A That’s what that says.
8 Q But that’s not what your lawyer
9 asked you about before this jury, was it?
10 I’ll withdraw the question.
11 MR. KAPSHANDY: It’s not a
12 question.
13 Q Ma’am, you know that
14 Mrs. Horvath passed away from mesothelioma,
15 correct?
16 A Yes, yes.
17 Q What does her doctor say it came
18 from, your review of his medical report?
19 A As I recall, he said it was from
20 Mr. Horvath bringing home cheese cloth
21 contaminated with asbestos and her using it
22 around the house to clean the furniture.
23 Q Is that the only thing he said,
24 ma’am?
25 A No. I was continuing.
329
1 Q Okay, please.
2 A And the other thing that he mentioned
3 was that asbestos may have been on
4 Mr. Horvath’s work clothes that were brought
5 home, and she laundered them.
6 Q Ma’am, as you sit here today,
7 can you tell the jury what General Electric
8 did to warn Mr. Horvath not to bring asbestos
9 contaminated clothing home to his wife, like
10 they warned their own employees in 1942?
11 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection. I
12 think that’s been asked a few hundred
13 times before, Counsel.
14 But go ahead, Ms. Drucker. He
15 seems to like it.
16 A Well, what General Electric did was
17 they published that information to the world
18 in 1942, through the State of Pennsylvania,
19 and every employer could have picked up that
20 information on that exemplary program and
21 enacted those same safety precautions.
22 Q What did General Electric tell
23 Mr. Horvath about what they knew, ma’am?
24 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection.
25 Form. It’s getting harassing.
330
1 MR. PLACITELLA: It’s not
2 harassing. I just need an answer to
3 my question, please.
4 MR. KAPSHANDY: She’s answered
5 it.
6 Q What did General Electric tell
7 Mr. Horvath about protecting his family,
8 ma’am?
9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
10 form. Asked and answered.
11 Go ahead.
12 A I don’t know what somebody’s
13 non-employer, non-premises owner, not
14 manufacturer, tells somebody on somebody
15 else’s work site who works for somebody else
16 completely. That’s not the way it’s done.
17 Q What was my question, ma’am?
18 A Your question was what did General
19 Electric do. And my answer is –
20 Q That wasn’t my question, ma’am.
21 A Okay. Could you repeat it, please?
22 Q My question was: What did
23 General Electric tell Mr. Horvath?
24 And the answer to the question,
25 is it not, ma’am, absolutely nothing; isn’t
331
1 that the truth?
2 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to
3 form. Asked and answered.
4 Q Isn’t that the truth, ma’am?
5 MR. KAPSHANDY:
6 Mischaracterizes.
7 A It mischaracterizes what I’ve been
8 trying to tell you. And I’m telling you the
9 way it works in real health and safety, and
10 that somebody — it was not somebody’s
11 employer, does not control the premises, does
12 not control the employee, doesn’t even know
13 what they’re doing and working with at any
14 given time.
15 What do — somebody from the
16 outside can’t go in. There are agencies that
17 do that. OSHA was there. There were
18 agencies prior to OSHA.
19 If you’re expecting GE to walk
20 into a plant and say, hey, I hear OSHA is a
21 little short-handed today, and so we’re here
22 to take over, and we’re going to tell you
23 what to do. We’ll go to each and every
24 worker and tell you what you should do to be
25 safe.
332
1 It doesn’t work that way. Of
2 course not.
3 Q I’m going to try a different
4 way.
5 MR. PLACITELLA: What’s today’s
6 date?
7 COURT REPORTER: The 28th.
8 MR. PLACITELLA: November 28,
9 2007.
10 Could you mark this, please?
11 (Piece of paper dated Nov. 28,
12 2007, is marked as P-16 for
13 Identification.)
14 Q Please take your time, ma’am,
15 and write down on this piece of paper exactly
16 what General Electric told Mr. Horvath about
17 the dangers of asbestos. Please do that.
18 Here’s a pen.
19 A Thank you.
20 And as I mentioned to you –
21 Q No, no, ma’am. I don’t want –
22 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel, this is
23 inappropriate.
24 MR. PLACITELLA: Excuse me.
25 Excuse me.
333
1 Q I’m not asking for a verbal
2 response, ma’am. I’m asking you to write
3 down on a piece of paper what exactly
4 Mr. Horvath was told by General Electric
5 about the dangers of asbestos.
6 I’m not asking for a verbal
7 response, ma’am. I’m asking you to write it
8 down.
9 A Well, I’ll verbalize it as well.
10 Q No, I don’t want you to
11 verbalize it. My direction to you is to
12 please write it down, ma’am. Write it down.
13 MR. KAPSHANDY: I’m objecting to
14 this form, method of proceeding. It’s
15 highly inappropriate.
16 Q Please write down for me, ma’am,
17 exactly what General Electric told
18 Mr. Horvath and his family about the dangers
19 of asbestos. Please write it down on that
20 piece of paper.
21 I’m not asking you for any
22 verbal information, ma’am. I’m asking you to
23 write it down. Please write it down.
24 A I’m going to give you my answer
25 verbally.
334
1 Q So you refuse to write it down,
2 ma’am?
3 A I have never been –
4 Q Do you refuse to write it down,
5 ma’am?
6 A I have never been talked to like this
7 in a deposition ever.
8 If you want my answer, I’m more
9 than happy to give you my answer.
10 Q No, ma’am. I want you to write
11 it down. Please write down on the piece of
12 paper the warning that was provided to
13 Mr. and Mrs. Horvath about the dangers of
14 asbestos from General Electric. Please write
15 it down.
16 MR. KAPSHANDY: I object to the
17 form of the question, and the method
18 of proceeding as well.
19 A And as I said before, General Electric
20 health and safety people shared information
21 on all kinds of toxic materials with the
22 world, with health and safety professionals
23 all over.
24 And they shared that information
25 with Mr. Horvath’s employers, who could have
335
1 enacted what was necessary and important for
2 him at any given time when he was doing his
3 job. That’s the way it works.
4 Q Okay, ma’am. Now please write
5 it down. What is the warning that General
6 Electric gave to Mr. and Mrs. Horvath about
7 the dangers of asbestos, now that you’ve had
8 a chance to narrate?
9 Please write it down, so I can
10 show the jury exactly what the warning was.
11 MR. KAPSHANDY: Object to the
12 form and method of proceeding.
13 Harassment.
14 MR. PLACITELLA: It’s not
15 harassment.
16 MR. KAPSHANDY: Insulting and
17 repetitive nature of the question.
18 Do you have anything else,
19 because if not, we’re done?
20 MR. PLACITELLA: No, we’re not
21 done. We want her to write it down.
22 Q Could I write it for you, ma’am?
23 The answer, isn’t it, is zero;
24 right, ma’am; zero? That’s what they told
25 them, right?
336
1 If it’s not zero, turn it
2 over and write down what they told
3 Mr. and Mrs. Horvath?
4 A I could tell you the way it works in
5 this field. I’ve done it for over 30 years.
6 Q Ma’am, I’m asking you to write
7 down –
8 A Somebody who is not in control of an
9 employee, does not control a premise, does
10 not have the right or information to go and
11 intrude on somebody else’s worker and start
12 telling them what to do.
13 It would be foolhardy. It would
14 be very dangerous.
15 Q Ma’am, that’s your version of
16 the state of the law.
17 What I’m asking you to do,
18 please –
19 A That’s my knowledge.
20 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel, you
21 can’t comment on her testimony.
22 Q Do you refuse to write down on
23 this piece of paper, do you refuse to write
24 down on this piece of paper, as the
25 representative of General Electric, who’s
337
1 been paid more than $700,000 to prepare for
2 litigation, do you refuse to write down on
3 this piece of paper what General Electric
4 told Mr. and Mrs. Horvath about the dangers
5 of asbestos? Do you refuse?
6 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection to the
7 form of the question.
8 A Well, essentially, General Electric
9 told the world, and the Horvaths were
10 included.
11 Q Oh, so they told the — thank
12 you, ma’am. Thank you, ma’am.
13 MR. PLACITELLA: No more
14 questions.
15 MR. McGRATH: I have a question.
16 MR. KAPSHANDY: Are you done?
17
18 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. McGRATH:
19
20 Q Several times today you’ve used
21 the phrase, you wanted to share it with the
22 world.
23 By the way, I’m Michael McGrath,
24 and I represent the State Insulation
25 Corporation.
338
1 I want to make sure I understand
2 this statement, I wanted to share it with the
3 world. Were you saying the world of health
4 and safety professionals?
5 A Sure. Because that’s the way it
6 works.
7 Q Or did you mean anybody other
8 than the world of health and safety
9 professionals?
10 A Well, it’s a big world. It’s a big,
11 wide world in health and safety
12 professionals.
13 Q This 1942 document that was
14 circulated by the State of Pennsylvania, do
15 you have any information as to who it went
16 to?
17 A Well, I don’t have a distribution
18 list. I do know that it was available to
19 anyone who wanted it.
20 Q Was that information distributed
21 to hardware stores?
22 A I haven’t come across something like
23 that.
24 Q Have you come across any
25 information that they sent that information
339
1 to electrical wholesale distributors,
2 electrical parts distributors?
3 A I haven’t seen something like that.
4 Q Have you seen any information
5 that they sent it to the general contractors?
6 A The general contractors?
7 Q Right.
8 A I haven’t come across that.
9 Q And have you come across any
10 information to indicate they sent it to
11 insulation contractors?
12