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

Filing 3930

DECLARATION of Michael A. Walsh in Support re: (364 in 1:07-cv-10470-SAS, 34 in 1:14-cv-01014-SAS, 3927 in 1:00-cv-01898-SAS-DCF) MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.. Document filed by Tauber Oil. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)Filed In Associated Cases: 1:00-cv-01898-SAS-DCF, 1:07-cv-10470-SAS, 1:14-cv-01014-SAS(Walsh, Michael)

EXHIBIT B

In
Methyl. Tertiary Butyl
Products Liability Litigation

("MTBE")

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

This Document Refers to:

OF

DEFENDANT CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL PUERTO RICO CORE LLC'S
SECOND AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET
OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
TO DEFENDANTS REGARDING SUl)PLY AND DISTRIBUTION
Pursuant

to Rule 36(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

Defendant

Chevron

Phillips Chemical Puerto
For Production

to

of Documents

Respectfully submitted,

LLP
e 5100
7701 0-3095
Telephone: [phone]
""",,,un.v. 71
1-5246
Houston,

Attorneys for Defendant
Chevron Phillips Chemical Puerto Rico Core LLC

81462587.1

was
Liaison Counsel
email to =:!.!..!..=~=~=:.!.!.!.

814625871

- 2-

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 26(b)(2)(B), the Defendant

CHEVRON

PHILLIPS

CHEMICAL PUERTO RICO CORE LLC objects to these Requests to the extent they seek
electronically-stored information that is not reasonably accessible because of the undue burden
and cost associated with retrieving and producing any such information. Defendant CHEVRON
PHILLIPS CHEMICAL PUERTO RICO CORE LLC, like most litigants, has information
contained in sources that are not reasonably accessible. At any given time, such sources may
include deleted, fragmentary, corrupted or residual data, data with orphaned or missing links,
retired computers, broken hard drives, legacy systems, disconnected data, obsolete or retired
hardware or software, disaster recovery tapes, electronic files with unknown file extensions,
unknown password protections or viruses.

Defendant CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL

PUERTO RICO CORE LLC has taken reasonable measures to preserve documents (including
electronic stored information)

from their active information systems that are potentially

responsive to the claims made, the defenses asserted, and the discovery propounded, making
unnecessary the search, review and production of any not reasonably available media described
above.

81462587.1

-3-

SECOND AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
INTERROGATORIES

1.

For any time during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, state whether YOU manufactured,
refined, blended or produced within the RGA (i) FUEL containing detectible levels of
MTBE, (ii) NEAT MTBE and/or (iii) FUEL not containing detectible levels of MTBE. If
so, provide the following for each year of the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD:
(a)

Identify each FACILITY where YOU manufactured, refined, blended or produced
each of (i) FUEL containing detectible levels of MTBE, (ii) NEAT MTBE and
(iii) FUEL not containing detectible levels of MTBE;

(b)

Identify the type and volume in gallons manufactured, refined, blended or
produced for each FACILITY for each of (i) FUEL containing detectible levels of
MTBE, (ii) NEAT MTBE and (iii) FUEL not containing detectible levels of
MTBE that YOU manufactured, refined, produced, supplied, stored and/or
delivered; and

(c)

Identify the percentage of MTBE present in FUEL containing detectible levels of
MTBE.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad in scope and
time period, duplicative, and seeks irrelevant information. Defendant further objects to this
interrogatory because it seeks irrelevant information about "FUEL not containing detectible
levels of MTBE" and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Subject to these objections, Defendant responds: From mid-1982 until March 2000,
the Core facility blended MTBE with some batches of gasoline. The Core facility blended
gasoline without MTBE from the late 1960s until March 2001. Defendant never manufactured
MTBE in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. For information regarding the type and volume of
gasoline containing MTBE and/or gasoline not containing MTBE, as well as the percentage of
MTBE blended in particular batches of gasoline, Defendant refers Plaintiff to the blending
tickets produced in response to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Production no. 35.
Defendant further refers Plaintiffs to Exhibit A to Defendant's Responses to Plaintiffs First Set
of Interrogatories Dated September 15, 2008 and any amendments thereto.
2.

For any time during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, state whether YOU sold or
supplied to or from a FACILITY within the RGA (i) FUEL containing detectible levels
of MTBE, (ii) NEAT MTBE and/or (iii) FUEL not containing detectible levels of MTBE.
If so, provide the following for each year of the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD:
(a)

Identify the type and volume in gallons sold and/or supplied (specifying which) at
or from each FACILITY for each of (i) FUEL containing detectible levels of
MTBE, (ii) NEAT MTBE and (iii) FUEL not containing detectible levels of
MTBE;

(b)

For the FUEL sold and/or supplied, identify the percentage of MTBE present in
FUEL containing detectable levels ofMTBE;

81462587.1

-4-

(c)

For each FACILITY, identify to whom YOU sold and/or supplied (i) FUEL
containing detectible levels of MTBE, (ii) NEAT MTBE and (iii) FUEL not
containing detectible levels of MTBE; and

(d)

For each FACILITY, identify the terms of the sale (e.g., F.O.B.) and method of
delivery (e.g., pipeline, tanker ship, tank truck) utilized for each sales transaction
of (i) FUEL containing detectible levels of MTBE, (ii) NEAT MTBE and (iii)
FUEL not containing detectible levels of MTBE.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad in scope and
time period, duplicative, and seeks irrelevant information. Defendant further objects to this
interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory because it
seeks irrelevant information about "FUEL not containing detectible levels of MTBE" and is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these
objections, Defendant responds: Phillips Puerto Rico Core Inc. never manufactured MTBE.
During the relevant time period, Phillips Petroleum Company arranged for the supply of MTBE
to the Core facility. Shipments of MTBE were supplied to the Core facility via Core's marine
dock. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 1 supra.
3.

For any time during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, state whether YOU transported
within or to the RGA (i) FUEL containing detectible levels of MTBE (ii) NEAT MTBE
and/or (iii) FUEL not containing detectible levels of MTBE. If so, provide the following
for each year of the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD:
(a)

Identify the type and volume in gallons of each shipment delivered of each of (i)
FUEL containing detectible levels of MTBE, (ii) NEAT MTBE and (iii) FUEL
not containing detectible levels of MTBE;

(b)

Identify the percentage of MTBE present in FUEL containing detectable levels of
MTBE;

(c)

Identify from where each shipment originated for each shipment of (i) FUEL
containing detectible levels of MTBE, (ii) NEAT MTBE and (iii) FUEL not
containing detectible levels of MTBE;

(d)

Identify the destination of each shipment for each shipment of (i) FUEL
containing detectible levels of MTBE, (ii) NEAT MTBE and (iii) FUEL not
containing detectible levels of MTBE;

(e)

Identify the terms of sale (e.g., F.O.B.) of each shipment of (i) FUEL containing
detectible levels of MTBE, (ii) NEAT MTBE and (iii) FUEL not containing
detectible levels of MTBE;

(f)

Identify the PERSON selling the (i) FUEL containing detectible levels of MTBE,
(ii) NEAT MTBE and (iii) FUEL not containing detectible levels of MTBE; and

(g)

Identify the PERSON purchasing the (i) FUEL containing detectible levels of
MTBE, (ii) NEAT MTBE and (iii) FUEL not containing detectible levels of
MTBE.

81462587.1

-5 -

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad in scope and
time period, duplicative, and seeks irrelevant information. Defendant further objects to this
interrogatory because it seeks irrelevant information about "FUEL not containing detectible
levels of MTBE" and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Subject to these objections, Defendant responds: From mid-1982 until March 2000,
MTBE was blended with some batches of gasoline at Phillips Puerto Rico Core Inc. Gasoline
that did not contain MTBE was also blended at the Core facility from the late 1960s until March
2001. During the relevant time period, Phillips Petroleum Company arranged for the supply of
MTBE to the Core facility. Shipments of MTBE were supplied to the Core facility via Core's
marine dock. MTBE was delivered by ocean-going vessels to be blended with gasoline at the
Core facility. Defendant never manufactured MTBE in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Defendant did not transport gasoline to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Defendant refers
Plaintiffs to documents produced in response to Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Requests for Production
nos. 5 and 44.
4.

For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, state whether YOU purchased for import, delivery
to, or ultimate use in the RGA each of (i) FUEL containing detectible levels of MTBE,
(ii) NEAT MTBE and (iii) FUEL not containing detectible levels of MTBE. If so,
provide the following for each year of the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD:
(a)

Identify the type and volume in gallons for each of (i) FUEL containing detectible
levels of MTBE, (ii) NEAT MTBE and (iii) FUEL not containing detectible
levels of MTBE;

(b)

Identify the percentage of MTBE present in FUEL containing detectable levels of
MTBE;

(c)

Identify each FACILITY where YOU received each of (i) FUEL containing
detectible levels of MTBE, (ii) NEAT MTBE and (iii) FUEL not containing
detectible levels of MTBE;

(d)

Identify from and for whom YOU received each of (i) FUEL containing detectible
levels of MTBE, (ii) NEAT MTBE and (iii) FUEL not containing detectible
levels of MTBE; and

(e)

Identify the method of delivery (e.g., pipeline, tanker ship, truck) for each of (i)
FUEL containing detectible levels of MTBE, (ii) NEAT MTBE and (iii) FUEL
not containing detectible levels of MTBE.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad in scope and
time period, duplicative, and seeks irrelevant information. Defendant further objects to this
interrogatory because it seeks irrelevant information about "FUEL not containing detectible
levels of MTBE" and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Subject to these objections, Defendant responds: See response to Interrogatory No.3
supra.

81462587.1

-6-

15.

Describe in detail the process by which YOUR FUEL can be traced from a contaminated
site in the RGA to a PIPELINE and/or FACILITY where the FUEL was manufactured,
produced, stored, blended or refined.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad and unduly
burdensome in scope, not tailored to the designated trial sites and seeks irrelevant information
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further
objects that the phrase "can be traced" is vague and undefined. Defendant further objects to the
extent this Interrogatory calls for information protected by the work product privilege.
Defendant further objects to the extent this Interrogatory requests information more appropriate
for expert discovery. Subject to these objections, Defendant responds: The Core facility sold
gasoline to the wholesale market in Puerto Rico and elsewhere. Defendant did not track where
the gasoline was ultimately distributed after it left the Core facility.
16.

Describe in detail the process by which YOUR MTBE can be traced from a contaminated
site in the RGA to a PIPELINE and/or FACILITY where the FUEL was manufactured,
produced, stored, blended or refined.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad and unduly
burdensome in scope, not tailored to the designated trial sites and seeks irrelevant information
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further
objects that the phrase "can be traced" is vague and undefined. Defendant further objects to the
extent this Interrogatory calls for information protected by the work product privilege.
Defendant further objects to the extent this Interrogatory requests information more appropriate
for expert discovery. Subject to these objections, Defendant responds:
See response to
Interrogatory No. 15 supra.
17.

For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, state whether YOU conducted the tracing process
and analysis described in response to Interrogatory No. 16 at any site contaminated with
MTBE within the RGA. If so, provide the following for each year of the RELEV ANT
TIME PERIOD:
(a)

The site where the FUEL leak or contamination occurred; and

(b)

The PIPELINE, TERMINAL, REFINERY or FACILITY to which the FUEL leak
or contamination was traced.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad and unduly
burdensome in scope, not tailored to the designated trial sites and seeks irrelevant information
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further
objects that the phrase "conducted the tracing process" is vague and undefined. Defendant
further objects to the extent this Interrogatory calls for information protected by the work product
privilege. Defendant further objects to the extent this Interrogatory requests information more
appropriate for expert discovery. Subject to these objections, Defendant responds: No.

81462587.1

- 12-