In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Products Liability Litigation

Filing 3624

FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - DECLARATION of Ledger in Support re: (157 in 1:04-cv-04973-SAS) MOTION for Summary Judgment for Lack of Evidence Pertaining to Causation.. Document filed by Coastal Chem, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit #01, #2 Exhibit #02, #3 Exhibit #03, #4 Exhibit #04, #5 Exhibit #05, #6 Exhibit #06, #7 Exhibit #07)Filed In Associated Cases: 1:00-cv-01898-SAS-DCF, 1:04-cv-04973-SAS(Allen, Brent) Modified on 3/18/2013 (db).

EXHIBIT 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X

Master File C.A.
No. 1:00-1898
MDL No. 1358 (SAS)

In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE")
Products Liability Litigation

X
This document refers to: City of Riverside v. Atlantic Richfield Co., et al.
Quincy Comm. Serv. Dist. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., et al.
California-American Water Company v. Atlantic Richfield Co., et al.
City of Roseville v. Atlantic Richfield, et al.
Orange County Water District v. Unocal, et al.
People of the State of California, et al. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., et al.
Martin Silver, et al. v. Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al.
City of Fresno, et al. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.

VALERO DEFENDANTS' ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS
TO PLAINTIFFS' PRELIMINARY SET OF INTERROGATORIES
(RE: DEFENDANT IDENTIFICATION'
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in accordance with Case
Management Order #3, Ultramar, Inc., Valero Energy Corporation, Valero Marketing and
Supply Company, Valero Refining and Marketing Company, and Valero Refining CompanyCalifornia (collectively "Valero Defendants") hereby submit the following Answers
Objections to Plaintiffs' Preliminary Set of Interrogatories (Re: Defendant Identification).
Dated: August

, 2004

.11 4LAAA,‘AA

1

J. Clifford Gunter
Tracie J. Renfroe
M. Coy Connelly
BRACEWELL & PATTERSON, L.L.P.
711 Louisiana St., Suite 2900
Houston, Texas 77002-2781
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: [phone]

and

Attorneys for Defendants
ULTRAMAR, INC., VALERO
ENERGY CORPORATION, VALERO
MARKETING AND SUPPLY COMPANY,
VALERO REFINING AND MARKETING
COMPANY, and VALERO REFINING
COMPANY-CALIFORNIA

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Valero Defendants' Answers and
Objections to Plaintiffs' Preliminary Set of Interrogatories (Re: Defendant Identification) was
served electronically upon counsel for Plaintiffs listed below by serving Plaintiffs' Liaison
Counsel, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., and to all defense counsel of record by service on
Defendants' Liaison Counsel, McDermott, Will & Emery on the SCAO,, day of August, 2004.
Mr. Victor M. Sher
Sher. Leff LLP
450 Mission Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, California 94105
Mr. Scott Summy
Baron & Budd, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75219-4281
Mr. Duane C. Miller
Miller, Axline & Sawyer
1050 Fulton Avenue, Suite 100
Sacramento, California 95825
Mr. Stanley N. Alpert
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.
180 Maiden Lane
New York, New York 10038

HOUSTON\1734816.1

-2-

GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
Valero Defendants object to the instructions and definitions set forth in Plaintiffs'
1.
Preliminary Set of Interrogatories (Re: Defendant Identification) ("Plaintiffs' Interrogatories"), to
the extent they deviate from or purport to impose requirements other than or in addition to those
required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules for the Southern
District of New York.
2.
Valero Defendants object to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories to the extent that they seek
documents or information covered by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or
any other applicable privilege or immunity. None of these responses are intended as, or should
be construed as, a waiver or relinquishment of any part of the protections afforded by the
attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privileges or
immunities.
3.
Valero Defendants object to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories to the extent that they seek
information beyond that in the possession, custody, or control of Valero Defendants.
4.
Valero Defendants object to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories to the extent that they seek
information from Valero Defendants' subsidiary or affiliated companies that are not parties to
this case because such infounation is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent Valero Defendants provide information for
subsidiary or affiliated companies, it shall not be construed as waiving this objection.
Additionally, Valero Defendants will respond to these interrogatories only for the period of time
that affiliates of Valero Defendants owned the refineries at issue.
5.
Valero Defendants object to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories to the extent that they seek
information relating to events that occurred from "the date of first MTBE use in the [specified
areas]" through the present on the grounds that such Interrogatories are overbroad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive, and on the further grounds that they seek information not relevant to
the subject matter of this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Additionally, "the date of first MTBE use in the [specified areas]" may not
be known to Valero Defendants.
Valero Defendants also object to the definition of "MTBE Product" in Plaintiffs'
Interrogatories because it is overbroad, burdensome, requires speculation by Valero Defendants,
and is not calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. More specifically, whether
MTBE was added to conventional gasoline after sale by Valero Defendants may not be within
the scope of Valero Defendants' knowledge.
Valero Defendants object to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories because they contain
7.
undefined terms which make them vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome and
oppressive, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Pursuant to the Court's rulings at the May 11, 2004 status conference, Valero
8.
Defendants expressly limit their answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories to the information that can
be obtained after a reasonable search of their electronic data or other readily available records
and interviews of knowledgeable company employees. See Affidavit attached.
HOUSTOM\1734816.1

-3-

9.
Valero Defendants object to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories because they request
information beyond the limitations and parameters agreed among the parties and/or imposed by
the Court at the May 11, 2004 status conference. Valero Defendants' responses are subject to all
such limitations and parameters and incorporate by reference the limits imposed by the Court at
the May 11, 2004 status conference.
10.
Valero Defendants' investigation into the facts alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint is
continuing, and Valero Defendants continue to search for information responsive to Plaintiffs'
Interrogatories. As additional information becomes available, Valero Defendants will amend,
modify, and/or supplement these answers and objections as appropriate.
11.
Valero Defendants' decision to provide information notwithstanding the
objectionable nature of any of the discovery requests is not to be construed as an admission that
the information is relevant, a waiver of Valero Defendants' general or specific objections, or an
agreement that future requests for similar discovery will be treated in a similar manner.
Valero Defendants reserve the right to amend or supplement their answers as well
12.
as the right to object to other discovery directed to the subject matter of Plaintiffs'
Interrogatories.
These General Objections and Limitations apply to each of Plaintiffs'
13.
Interrogatories as though restated in full in Valero Defendants' answers thereto. To the extent
Valero Defendants assert objections to individual questions, those objections shall apply equally
to any subparts of the questions.
Documents referenced herein pursuant to Local Civil Rule 33.1 will be produced
14.
subject to protective orders and/or confidentiality agreements acceptable to Valero Defendants at
the offices of Valero Defendants' counsel, Bracewell & Patterson, L.L.P., 711 Louisiana, Suite
2900, Houston, Texas 77002, on dates mutually agreeable to the parties.

HOUSTON\11734816.1

-4-

ANSWERS & OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Please identify the name and address of each entity (including You, if applicable) that supplied
You with MTBE Products for ultimate delivery into the [specified areas] at any time since the
date of first MTBE use in the [specified areas], the dates or date ranges when each such entity
supplied You with MTBE Products, and the name and address of each Refinery from which such
MTBE Products were supplied.

ANSWER:
Valero Defendants object to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. Valero Defendants also object that this
interrogatory requires Valero Defendants to speculate as to matters outside of the scope of
information within Valero Defendants' possession, custody, or control by requiring Valero
Defendants to identify, among other things, gasoline containing MTBE that may have eventually
been sold or distributed in the specified areas by unaffiliated companies after leaving Valero
Defendants' possession. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, or the General
Objections and Limitations set forth above, Valero Defendants respond as follows:
Valero Defendants and their affiliates do not, in the ordinary course of business, create or
maintain data or records that track the ultimate destination of gasoline containing MTBE refined,
manufactured, or sold; therefore, Valero Defendants cannot answer this interrogatory as phrased.
For example, all documents and information needed to confirm whether gasoline containing
MTBE supplied to a Valero Defendant or affiliate by a third party for sale or delivery outside the
specified areas was ultimately delivered or sold in the specified areas by third parties are not
within the possession, custody, or control of Valero Defendants. Until Valero Defendants can
review such documents, among others, they cannot answer the question as phrased.
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 33.1, Valero Defendants further answer this interrogatory by
reference to product supply reports (derived from invoice and inventory receipts data)
maintained by Valero Defendants and/or their affiliates. These product supply reports identify:
a.

supplies of MTBE gasoline (or other products) to Valero Defendants;

b.

the name and address of the supplier or exchange partner for gasoline containing MTBE
(or other products);

c.

the county and state where transactions of gasoline containing MTBE (or other products)
occurred;

d.

the terminal or facility where Valero Defendants received the gasoline containing MTBE
(or other products);

e.

the mode of transportation;

f.

whether the transaction was an exchange;

HOUSTON\I 734816.1

-5-

g.

the volume involved;

h.

the year of the transaction.

Copies of such documents will be produced to Plaintiffs pursuant to General Objection and
Limitation No. 14 above. Additionally, the name, address, and dates of Valero ownership for the
Valero refineries that could have supplied (but did not necessarily supply) gasoline into the
California market are listed below:
Benicia Refinery (Valero owned 2000-present)
3400 East Second Street
Benicia, CA 94510-1097
Golden Eagle Refinery (Valero owned 2000-2002)
150 Solano Way
Martinez, CA 94553-1487
Wilmington Refinery (Valero owned 1988-present)
2402 East Anaheim
Wilmington, CA 90744
Valero Defendants note that the product supply reports and other documents maintained by
Valero Defendants do not necessarily indicate whether such products supplied to the Valero
Defendants "were ultimately delivered" into the specified areas.
INTERROGATORY NO 2:
Please identify the name and address of each entity from which You obtained neat MTBE for use
at any Refinery owned or operated by You that supplied gasoline for ultimate delivery into the
[specified areas], the dates or date ranges when MTBE was acquired from each such supplier,
and the name and address of Your Refmery(ies).
ANSWER:
Valero Defendants object to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. Valero Defendants also object that this
interrogatory requires Valero Defendants to speculate as to matters outside of the scope of
information within Valero Defendants' possession, custody, or control by requiring Valero
Defendants to identify gasoline containing MTBE that may have eventually been sold or
distributed in the specified areas by unaffiliated companies after leaving Valero Defendants'
possession. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, or the General Objections
and Limitations set forth above, Valero Defendants respond as follows:
Valero Defendants and their affiliates do not, in the ordinary course of business, create or
maintain data or records that track the ultimate destination of MTBE or gasoline containing
MTBE refined, manufactured or sold; therefore, Valero Defendants cannot answer this

HOUSTON11734816.1

-6-

interrogatory as phrased. For example, all documents and information needed to confirm
whether MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE supplied to a Valero Defendant or affiliate by a
third party for sale or delivery outside the specified areas was ultimately delivered or sold in the
specified areas by third parties are not within the possession, custody, or control of Valero
Defendants. Until Valero Defendants can review such documents, they cannot answer the
question as phrased.
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 33.1, Valero Defendants further answer this interrogatory by
reference to product supply reports (derived from invoice and inventory receipts data)
maintained by Valero Defendants and/or their affiliates. These product supply reports identify:
a.

supplies of MTBE (or other products) to Valero Defendants;

b.

the name and address of the supplier or exchange partner for MTBE (or other products);

c.

the county and state where transactions of MTBE (or other products) occurred;

d.

the terminal or facility where Valero Defendants received the MTBE (or other products);

e

the mode of transportation;

f.

whether the transaction was an exchange;

g.

the volume involved;

h.

the year of the transaction.

Copies of such documents will be produced to Plaintiffs pursuant to General Objection and
Limitation No. 14 above. Additionally, the name, address, and dates of Valero ownership for the
Valero refineries that could have supplied (but did not necessarily supply) gasoline into the
California market are listed below:
Benicia Refinery (Valero owned 2000-present)
3400 East Second Street
Benicia, CA 94510-1097
Golden Eagle Refinery (Valero owned 2000-2002)
150 Solano Way
Martinez, CA 94553-1487
Wilmington Refinery (Valero owned 1988-present)
2402 East Anaheim
Wilmington, CA 90744
Additionally, Valero Defendants identify the following suppliers or exchange partners from
whom they purchased neat MTBE, but without review of additional records not currently in their
possession, cannot state whether such neat MTBE was added to gasoline that was sold or
distributed in the specified areas.

HOUSTON\ 1734816.1

-7-

Suppliers of Neat MTBE to. Valero
2003 200212001 200011999;1998 1997

Supplier

.

AMERICAN AGIP CO, INC







ARCO PRODUCTS COMPANY



Ni

ASTRA OIL CO INC










BENETO INC

  

BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC
BUCK PETROLEUM COMPANY
C & N ENERGY LTD



VV

V

CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY







CHEVRON U.S.A., INC.



CHEVRON USA - CONCORD
CHEVRON USA PRODUCTS COMPANY



V V



V V

 

V

CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY
COOL TRANSPORT INC
COX PETROLEUM TRANSPORT
DUKE ENERGY MERCHANTS
DUKE ENERGY MERCHANTS CALIF., INC.

Ni

DUKE ENERGY MERCHANTS, LLC
ECOFUEL S.P.A.



.7


ENRON CLEAN FUELS COMPANY
EOTT ENERGY OPERATING LIMITED






 




EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC.



EQUIVA TRADING COMPANY




V V

EXXON MOBIL REFINING & SUPPLY CO

V




EXXON COMPANY, U.S.A.













EXXONMOBIL OIL CORP
FLINT HILLS RESOURCES LP
FORTUM OIL & GAS
FROST OIL COMPANY INC



V

GATX TERMINAL CORP.







GENERAL PETROLEUM RESOURCES INC

,/

GIANT INDUSTRIES INC
GIANT REFINING COMPANY
GLENCORE LTD

HOUSTOMI 734816.

-8-

Suppliers of Neat MTBE to Valero
I 2003 I 2002F2001 2000 I 199911998 ! 1997

Su_pplier
GOODSPEED TANK LINES .......

V

HESS ENERGY TRADING COMPANY, LLC
J & S SUPPLY INC
JACO OIL COMPANY



KERN OIL & REFINING COMPANY







KOCH OIL COMPANY
MIECO, INC











V



MOBIL OIL CORP
NELLA OIL COMPANY



NESTE CANADA INC .....



V
V
.7

V







V








NAPA VALLEY PETROLEUM, INC.

NESTE USA LLC
NEW WEST PETROLEUM
NOBLE AMERICAS CORP.









OCEANA PETROCHEMICALS AG
OLYMPIAN OIL CO
PETRO-DIAMOND INCORPORATED
PILOT CORPORATION





V

PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC
7 V

PRO PETROLEUM, INC



REDWOOD OIL CO



SABIC AMERICAS, INC.

V
V

SAN FRANCISCO PETROLEUM COMPANY
SC FUELS
SHELL OIL COMPANY



SHELL OIL PRODUCTS US





SHELL TRADING (US) COMPANY













SOUTHERN COUNTIES OIL CO
TESORO PETROLEUM CORPORATION
TESORO REFINING





TESORO REFINING AND MARKETING















TESORO REFINING, MARKETING & SUPPLY
TEXACO REFINING AND MKTG, INC.
TNB, INC DBA BUCK PETROLEUM



TOSCO CORP



HOLISTON\1734816.1

-9-



Stipp' ers
Supplier

Neat MTBE to Valero
12003120021200112000 1999 199811997



TOSCO REFINING CO

/

TOSCO REFINING LP

VV./






TRAFIGURA AG
TRAMMOCHEM


V

V



TOWER ENERGY GROUP



/

V



V



TREK PETROLEUM
ULTRAMAR INC.









UNOCAL CORPORATION
USA PETROLEUM CORP
VALERO REFINING COMPANY - CALIFORNIA
VITOL S.A., INCORPORATED
WESTPORT PETROLEUM, INC.







INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Please identify each Terminal You use or used to supply gasoline for ultimate delivery into the
Relevant Area at any time since the date of first MTBE use in the [specified areas] and the dates
or date ranges when you have used such Terminal. For each Terminal You use or used, please
also state whether You owned or operated such Terminal or were a Terminalling Partner at such
Terminal.

ANSWER:
Valero Defendants object to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. The request for information about "gasoline"
unrelated to MTBE is overbroad, burdensome, and not likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Valero Defendants also object that the request for dates or date ranges of
terminal use for gasoline unrelated to M1BE is overbroad, burdensome and not likely to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Valero Defendants also object that this interrogatory
requires Valero Defendants to speculate as to matters outside of the scope of information within
Valero Defendants' possession, custody, or control by requiring Valero Defendants to identify
gasoline that may have eventually been sold or distributed in the specified areas by unaffiliated
companies after leaving Valero Defendants' possession. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing objections, or the General Objections and Limitations set forth above, Valero
Defendants respond as follows:
Valero Defendants and their affiliates do not, in the ordinary course of business, create or
maintain data or records that track the ultimate destination of gasoline refined, manufactured, or
sold; therefore, Valero Defendants cannot answer this interrogatory as phrased. For example, all
documents and information needed to confirm whether gasoline supplied to a Valero Defendant

110USTON\1734816.1

-10-

or affiliate by a third party for sale or delivery outside the specified areas was ultimately
delivered or sold in the specified areas by third parties are not within the possession, custody, or
control of Valero Defendants. Until Valero Defendants can review such documents, they cannot
answer the question as phrased.
Valero Defendants further answer this interrogatory by identifying the following terminals or
facilities used by Valero Defendants in California. Valero Defendants are continuing their
search for information pertaining to dates of terminal use and Tei ► inalling Partner arrangements
and will supplement this answer. None of the terminals or facilities listed below has been owned
or operated by Valero Defendants.

CALIFORNIA TERMINALS
Butte County
Kinder Morgan Pacific
2570 Hegan Lane
Chico, CA 95927
Contra Costa County
Shell Oil Products US
(Martinez Terminal)
1801 Marina Vista
Martinez, CA 94553
Chevron Products Company
Richmond Terminal
155 Castro St
Richmond, CA 94801
Fresno County
Kinder Morgan Pacific
4149 South Maple Avenue
Fresno, CA 93715
Humboldt County
Chevron Products Company
3400 Christie Street
Eureka, CA 95501

HOUSTON\1734816.1

Imperial County
Kinder Morgan
Imperial Terminal
345 W Aten Rd
Imperial, CA 92251
Kern County
Kern Oil & Refining Company
7724 East Panama Lane
Bakersfield, CA 93307
Shell Oil Products US
(Bakersfield Terminal)
2436 Fruitvale Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Los Angeles County
Kinder Morgan
2000 E. Sepulveda Blvd.
Carson, CA 90810
Shell Oil Products US
(Carson Terminal)
20945 South Wilmington Avenue
Carson, CA 90810
Shell Oil Products US
(Van Nuys Terminal)
8100 North Haskell Avenue
Van Nuys, CA 91406
Shell Oil Products
Wilmington Terminal
1926 E Pacific Coast Hwy
Wilmington, CA 90744
Orange County
Kinder Morgan Pacific
1350 North Main Street
Orange, CA 92667

HOUSTON \I734816.1

-12-

Sacramento County
Kinder Morgan pacific
(Bradshaw Terminal)
Folsom Boulevard & Bradshaw Road
Sacramento, CA 95800
San Bernadino County
Kinder Morgan
Colton Terminal
2359 S Riverside Ave
Bloomington, CA 92316
Cal Nev Pipeline
Barstow Terminal
34277 Daggett Yermo Rd
Daggett, CA 92357
San Diego County
Kinder Morgan Pacific
9950 San Diego Mission
San Diego, CA 92108
Shell Oil Products US
(Mission Valley Terminal)
9950 San Diego Mission Boulevard
San Diego, CA 92109
Shell Oil Products US
(San Diego Terminal)
9966 San Diego Mission Road
San Diego, CA 92108
San Joaquin County
BP/Arco Products Company
2700 West Washington Street
Stockton, CA 95203
Shell Oil Products US
(Stockton Terminal)
3515 Navy Drive
Stockton, CA 95203

110USTON\1734816.1

-13-

ST Services
2941 Navy Drive
Stockton, CA 95206-1149

San Mateo County
Kinder Morgan Pacific
950 Tunnel Avenue
Brisbane, CA 94005

Santa Clara County
Kinder Morgan
2150 Kruse Avenue
San Jose, CA 95121
Shell Oil Products US
(San Jose Terminal)
2165 O'Toole Ave.
San Jose, CA 95131

Solano County
Valero Benicia Refinery
3400 East Second Street
Benicia, CA 94510-1097
(Prior to May 2000-Exxon Benicia Refinery)

Ventura County
Shell Oil products
Ventura Terminal
3284 N. Ventura Ave.
Ventura, CA 93001

HOUSTON'\ 734816.1

-14-

IN THE; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE:

Master File C.A. No.
I:00-1898 (SAS)

METHYL-TERTIARY BUTYL ETHER
("MTBE") PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION

MDL 1358

This document refers to: all cases.
AFFIDAVIT OF THE VALERO DEFENDANTS
IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' PRELIMINARY DISCOVERY
1.

My name is Rick Baker and I am over twenty-one (21) years of age, and I am fully
competent to make this affidavit. I am an accounting manager in the Budget and Forecast
Department. I have held this office since November, 2003. I am generally familiar with
the business and operations of Valero Marketing and Supply Company and its affiliated
companies. In my prior 3 'A years 'with the Valero organization, I worked in the
Hydrocarbon Accounting Department.

2.

I have reviewed portions of the transcript of the May 11, 2004 status conference. I
understand that the purpose of the preliminary discovery is to allow Plaintiffs to identify
additional companies (not already named as defendants) who supplied neat MTBE or
gasoline containing MTBE in areas at issue in these cases. Without commenting on
which companies would be proper defendants and in accordance with the Court's
instructions at the May 11, 2004 status conference, I make this affidavit to describe the
investigation made by Valero Marketing and Supply Company and its affiliated entities
in answering the preliminary discovery.

3.

Valero Energy Corporation is a holding company that does not refine crude oil, own
refineries, operate gas stations, or make or distribute gasoline. However, Valero Energy
Corporation owns, either directly or indirectly, several companies that are also defendants
in these cases, including Valero Marketing and Supply Company; Valero Refining and
Marketing Company; Valero Refining Company-Louisiana; Valero Refining CompanyNew Jersey; Diamond Shamrock Refining and Marketing Company; Ultramar Energy,
Inc.; Ultramar Limited; and Ultramar, Inc. Valero Marketing and Supply Company
performs the primary gasoline sale and distribution functions for these affiliated

companies, and therefore possesses more of the information requested by Plaintiffs in
their preliminary discovery than other Valero entities. Thus, Valero Marketing and
Supply Company answers Plaintiffs' interrogatories on behalf of itself and the affiliated
companies described above which are collectively referred to in the answers as the
Valero Defendants.
4.

The information provided in the Valero Defendants' interrogatory answers is based on a
good-faith, yet preliminary, effort to gather the information requested. The search for
responsive information and the process of gathering that information is described below.
However, the interrogatory answers are not a complete compilation of the facts they
address. I anticipate that the answers will have to be supplemented as the Valero
Defendants' investigations into these matters continue. Furthermore, the answers are not
intended to reflect the information that might be available from a complete review of
documents relevant to the topics at issue, as no such document review has been
undertaken at this time. Rather, as described below, the interrogatory answers are based
on a brief investigation of readily available data, documents, and witnesses. Specifically,
we have not undertaken a review of archived files or data, nor have we made an effort to
interview all employees or former employees who may have relevant information.
However, the Valero Defendants have made the following efforts to gather the requested
information.

5.

In response to Plaintiffs' preliminary discovery, the Valero Defendants conducted
meetings with counsel, members of my staff, and with other Valero Defendant
employees. These meetings were to determine, to the best of these individuals'
knowledge and memory, those entities that have supplied Valero with neat MTBE and/or
gasoline containing MTBE. Additionally, various Valero Defendant employees in the
company's San Antonio, Texas corporate office, were involved in accessing electronic
databases, analyzing readily available hard copy records, and contacting Valero
Defendant employees for the purpose of identifying such suppliers. I did not personally
review every electronic or hard copy record obtained through this internal search, and
was not personally involved in searching for all of these records. The internal search for
records and information included the following:
•

In preparing the answers to Plaintiffs' Preliminary Interrogatories a search was
undertaken and continues involving (1) systems applications for the creation of
reports showing supply and sale transactions of neat MTBE and MTBE-related
products; and (2) inquiries of various personnel who arc involved in the supply,
marketing, operations, and accounting functions within the Valero Defendant
companies related to the same products.

•

The systems utilized in the search include the Valero SAP system, the LIDS SAP
system, the Valero AS/400 system, the UDS Lawson system, the Valero CMS
system, the TPI Lanier system, the Basis AS/400 system and the UDS StaLsby
system. We have developed supply reports (derived from invoice and inventory
receipts data) that identify our exchange partners and include the state and county
where transactions involving neat MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE occurred,
the name and address of the supplier, the terminal or facility where Valero entities
-2-

took the product into inventory, the mode of transportation, the type of product,
whether the transaction was an exchange, the volume involved, and the year of
the transaction

•

6.

Generally speaking, the information gathered from those parties identified in
Valero Marketing's answer to Interrogatory No. 71 in the Suffolk County Water
Authority litigation was reviewed and utilized. In addition, I am aware that other
personnel, including Troy Haby, Jennifer Robertson and Laura Pett (of the
Accounting Department), as well as Paulette Allen (of the Excise Tax
Department) were interviewed. Inquiries regarding Interrogatory No. 3 were
made of Greg Kaneb, Roger Griffin, Danny Oliver, Lee Rahmberg and Suzzane
McCarty (of the Wholesale Marketing, Refined Products Trading, and Market
Analysis Departments).

Valero Defendants do not, in the ordinary course of business, create or maintain data or
records that track the ultimate destination of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE that
they acquired from third parties and re-sold. Therefore, based on information currently
available to the Valero Defendants, the answers provided to Plaintiffs' 'interrogatories
should not be construed as admissions that any particular transaction was for ultimate
delivery into the counties specified by Plaintiffs.

Rick Baker

Given under my hand and seal of office this

A

C

day of July, 2004.

Notary Public in and for
The State of Texas
(seal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE:

Master File C.A. No.
1:00-1898 (SAS)

METHYL-TERTIARY BUTYL ETHER
("MTBE") PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION

MDL 1358

This document refers to: all cases.

VERIFICATION OF THE VALERO DEFENDANTS
IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' PRELIMINARY DISCOVERY
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF BEXAR §

I, Rick Baker, state in support of this verification that I was asked by counsel to
assist in providing the information to respond to Plaintiffs' Preliminary Set of
Interrogatories directed to the Valero Defendants in this action; that some but not all the
matters stated in the Valero Defendants' Answers and Objections to Plaintiffs' Preliminary
Set of Interrogatories (Re: Defendant Identification) are within my personal knowledge;
that to the best of my knowledge there is no single officer or employee of the Valero
Defendants who has personal knowledge of all such matters; that the facts stated in the
answers have been assembled by authorized employees of and counsel for the Valero
Defendants; and that I am informed and believe that these answers are true and correct

based on reasonably available information gathered pursuant to the Court's instructions
regarding the level of research required and on what I have been told by others. Further
information concerning how the data provided in these answers was collected is contained
in my Affidavit, which is incorporated herein by reference.

RICK BAKER

DATE

Sworn to and subscribed before me this
A.LIIJAAAJAAAL&AAAAALAAAAAAAA

IAARIAVERA SIMMS
Notary Public
STATE OF TEXAS
Ems. 0 1.73.23Q

a3

day of

JL
■

s

NOTARY PUBLIC

My commission expires:

HOUSTON \ I 722760. I

, 2004.

-2-