Docstoc

david garabrant 020711_1.ptx

Document Sample
david garabrant 020711_1.ptx Powered By Docstoc
					DAVID GARABRANT

                                                            Page 1
        SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

            FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

  CHESTER E. MORRISON and     *
                              *
  DIANNE MORRISON,            *
                              *
     Plaintiffs,              *
                              *
  VS.                         * CASE NO. BC441029
                              * (Pg. 1 - 51)
  ALFA LAVAL, INC. (sued      *
                              *
  individually and as         *
                              *
  successor-in-interest to    *
                              *
  SHARPLES CORPORATION) et    *
                              *
  al,                         *
                              *
                              *
     Defendants.              *




 ********************************************************

                TELEPHONIC ORAL DEPOSITION OF

                      DAVID GARABRANT

                     FEBRUARY 7TH, 2011

                         VOLUME 1

 ********************************************************




 Reported by:      TAMMY STAGGS,

                   C.S.R. No. 13176




                            HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                               HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                            Page 2
 1            SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
 2                 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
 3      CHESTER E. MORRISON and       *
                                      *
 4      DIANNE MORRISON,              *
                                      *
 5         Plaintiffs,                *
                                      *
 6      VS.                           * CASE NO. BC441029
                                      * (Pg. 1 - 51)
 7      ALFA LAVAL, INC. (sued        *
                                      *
 8      individually and as           *
                                      *
 9      successor-in-interest to      *
                                      *
10      SHARPLES CORPORATION) et      *
                                      *
11      al,                           *
                                      *
12                                    *
           Defendants.                *
13

14

15         TELEPHONIC ORAL DEPOSITION OF DAVID GARABRANT,
16    produced as a witness at the instance of the PLAINTIFFS,
17    and duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled and
18    numbered cause on the 7th of February, 2011, via
19    telephone, before TAMMY LEA STAGGS, Certified Shorthand
20    Reporter No. 13174 in and for the State of California,
21    reported by machine shorthand, via telephone, pursuant
22    to the California Rules of Civil Procedure and the
23    provisions stated on the record or attached hereto.
24

25



                           HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                              HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                        Page 3
 1                      A P P E A R A N C E S
 2                 (All appearances via telephone)
 3    FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
           LANIER LAW FIRM
 4         BY: Ari Freidman, Esq.
           2049 Century Park east
 5         Suite 1940
           Los Angeles, California 90067
 6         310.277.5100
 7
 8    FOR THE DEFENDANT, CATERPILLAR, INC.:
           SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD, L.L.P.
 9         BY: Sunny Shapiro, Esq.
           One Market Plaza Stuart Tower
10         8th Floor
           San Francisco, California 94105
11         415.781.7900
           sunny.shapiro@sdma.com
12
13
      FOR THE DEFENDANT, EUCLID-HITACHI HEAVY EQUIPMENT, LTD.:
14         BOWMAN AND BROOKE, LLP
           BY: Douglas J. Lief, Esq.
15         879 West 190th Street
           Suite 700
16         Gardena, California 90248
           310.380.6510
17         Douglas.Lief@bowmanandbrooke.com
18
19    FOR THE DEFENDANT, ARVINMERITOR, INC.:
           HAWKINS, PARNELL & THACKSTON
20         BY: Julia A. Gowin, Esq.
           444 S. Flower Street,
21         Suite 1100
           Los Angeles, California 90071
22         213.486.8000
           jgowin@hplegla.com
23
24
25


                        HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                           HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                           Page 4
 1                A P P E A R A N C E S (continued)
 2    FOR THE DEFENDANT, CRANE CO:
           K&L GATES, LLP
 3         BY: Stephen Farkas, Esq.
           10100 Santa Monica Boulevard
 4         Seventh Floor
           Los Angeles, California 90067
 5         310.552.5000
           Stephen.Farkas@klgates.com
 6
 7
      FOR THE DEFENDANTS, DANA COMPANIES, LLC and KELSEY HAYES
 8    COMPANY:
           McKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
 9         BY: Susan Gilefsky, Esq.
           444 South Flower Street
10         Eighth Floor
           Los Angeles, California 90071
11         213.243.6120
           SGilefsky@mckennalong.com
12
13
      FOR THE DEFENDANT, PNEUMO ABEX, LLC:
14         DEHAY & ELLISTON
           BY: Johan D. Flynn, Esq.
15         36 South Charles Street
           Suite 1300
16         Baltimore, Maryland 21201
           410.783.7225
17         jflynn@dehay.com
18
19    FOR THE DEFENDANT, CARLISLE CORPORATION and MOTION
      CONTROL INDUSTRIES, INC.:
20         THE RASMUSSEN LAW FIRM, LLP
           BY: Joseph Diozeghy, Esq.
21         9033 West Century Boulevard
           Suite 444
22         Los Angeles, California 90045
           310.641.1400
23         jdiozeghy@rwdmlaw.com
24
25


                        HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                           HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                        Page 5
 1                A P P E A R A N C E S (continued)
 2    FOR THE DEFENDANT, CUMMINS, INC.:
           JACKSON JENKINS RENSTROM
 3         BY: Catherine E. Golden, Esq.
           55 Francisco Street
 4         6th Floor
           San Francisco, California 94133
 5         415.982.3600
           CGolden@jjr-law.com
 6
 7
      FOR THE DEFENDANT, FLOWSERVE US, INC.:
 8         HAIGHT, BROWN, BONSTEEL
           BY: Jeffrey Vinnick, Esq.
 9         6080 Center Drive
           Suite 800
10         Los Angeles, California 90045
           310.215.7100
11         jvinnick@hbblaw.com
12
13    FOR THE DEFENDANT, STRICK TRAILERS; P&H MINING EQUIPMENT
      CO.; and WILLIAM POWELL COMPANY:
14         FOLEY & MANSFIELD
           BY: Lori A. Cataldo, Esq.
15         300 South Grand Avenue
           Suite 2800
16         Los Angeles, California 90071
           213.283.2120
17         lcataldo@foleymansfield.com
18
19    FOR THE DEFENDANT, PACCAR, INC.:
           BUTY & CURLIANO, LLP
20         BY: Robert Menchini, Esq.
           555 12th Street
21         Suite 1280
           Oakland, California 94607
22         510.267.3000
           mmlaw@yahoo.com
23
24
25


                        HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                           HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                        Page 6
 1                 A P P E A R A N C E S (continued)
 2    FOR THE DEFENDANTS, NACCO MATERIALS HANDLING GROUP, INC.
      and MANITOWOC CRANES, INC.:
 3         FOLEY & MANSFIELD
           BY: Holly E. Acevedo, Esq.
 4         300 South Grand Avenue
           Suite 2800
 5         Los Angeles, California 90071
           213.283.2120
 6         hacevedo@foleymansfield.com
 7

 8    FOR THE DEFENDANT, GENUINE PARTS COMPANY:
           POND NORTH, LLP
 9         BY: Timothy C. Pieper, Esq.
           350 South Grand Avenue
10         Suite 2850
           Los Angeles, California 90071
11         213.617.6170
           TPieper@pondnorth.com
12

13
      FOR THE DEFENDANT, IMO INDUSTRIES:
14         HOWARD ROME MARTIN & RIDLEY, LLP
           BY: Trina Clayton, Esq.
15         1775 Woodside Road
           Suite 200
16         Redwood City, California 94061
           650.365.7715
17         tclayton@hrmrlaw.com
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



                         HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                            HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                         Page 7
 1                                  INDEX
                                                          PAGE
 2    Appearances.....................................      3
 3    Exhibit List....................................      8
 4    Stipulations....................................     47
 5    DAVID GARABRANT:
 6         EXAMINATION BY MR. FREIDMAN................     9
 7

 8

 9    Reporter's Certificate..........................     49
10

11

12                     REQUESTED DOCUMENTS/INFORMATION
13                                 (None)
14

15                          CERTIFIED QUESTIONS
16                                 (None)
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



                            HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                               HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                         Page 8
 1                               EXHIBITS
 2    NO.    DESCRIPTION                                  PAGE
 3    1      Dr. Garabrant's CV.......................     12
 4    2      List of cases Dr. Garabrant has testified
 5           in during the past four years............     18
 6    3      Detailed Project Friction for Remediation
 7           Pursuant to Consent Decree, Oregon vs.
 8           Zidell Consent Judgment, Oregon vs.
 9           Zidell Consent Judgment Amendment, Oregon
10           DEQ Site Details Environmental Cleanup
11           Site Information, and a JPEG electronic
12           photograph of the Zidell                      21
13           shipyard.........
14    4      Dr. Garabrant's report dated January 21,
15           2011.....................................     22
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



                           HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                              HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                             Page 9
 1                        P R O C E E D I N G S
 2                     (Commencing at 12:03 (PST))
 3                      MR. FREIDMAN:   Okay.   Yeah, I guess we
 4    can go on the record and swear the witness in.      And can
 5    I get a stipulation that the reporter can administer the
 6    oath remotely?
 7                      MR. FLYNN:   That's fine, Ari.   For Abex
 8    that's fine.
 9                      MS. GILEFSKY:   So stipulated.
10                          DAVID GARABRANT,
11    Having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
12                      MR. FREIDMAN:   And just briefly before we
13    start, can I get a stipulation that an objection by one
14    is an objection for all -- for all parties present at
15    the deposition, and there's no need to opt out?
16                      MS. GILEFSKY:   So stipulated.
17                      MR. FLYNN:   Fine.
18                              EXAMINATION
19    BY MR. FREIDMAN:
20         Q.    Good morning.    Is it Dr. Garabrant?
21         A.    Yes.   Good morning.
22         Q.    Or good afternoon, I guess where you are.
23                      Could you please state your full name for
24    the record?
25         A.    David A. Garabrant.


                           HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                              HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                         Page 10
 1         Q.     And where are you currently located?
 2         A.     In Ann Arbor, Michigan.
 3         Q.     And what is your occupation?
 4         A.     I am a physician and professor and at the
 5    University of Michigan.
 6         Q.     And what do you teach at the University of
 7    Michigan?
 8         A.     Occupational and environmental medicine and
 9    epidemiology.
10         Q.     And what portion would you say your work is
11    done consulting?
12         A.     I spend approximately half of my time doing
13    consulting work.
14         Q.     And is that consulting work limited primarily
15    to testifying in asbestos litigation?
16         A.     No.
17         Q.     What -- could you briefly describe for me what
18    types of consulting jobs you do?
19         A.     I do litigation support, meaning I serve as an
20    expert witness; and I also do epidemiology research
21    studies; and I advise clients on issues within my area
22    of expertise.
23         Q.     How much of your total work would you say is
24    done consulting in connection with asbestos litigation?
25         A.     I would say perhaps somewhere between 15 and


                          HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                             HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                           Page 11
 1    25 percent.
 2         Q.    And you have -- you've mentioned part of your
 3    work is doing epidemiology research studies; is that
 4    correct?
 5         A.    Yes.
 6         Q.    And have you ever done any epidemiological
 7    research studies regarding asbestos exposure?
 8         A.    Yes.
 9         Q.    And could you briefly tell me what studies
10    those were?
11         A.    If you look on my CV, I think there are seven
12    or eight different studies.      I did a study of
13    mesothelioma incidence in Los Angeles County where we
14    evaluated the utility of using a job exposure matrix to
15    assign asbestos exposure to people who had mesothelioma.
16    I did a medi-analysis of lung cancer and mesothelioma
17    risks among brake mechanics.      I did a study -- a case
18    control study of lung cancer in welders where I believe
19    we had to assess their asbestos exposure as a potential
20    confounder.      There are a few others.
21         Q.    For the study you mentioned about brake
22    exposures, was that limited in any way to automobiles or
23    heavy duty equipment?
24                      MR. FLYNN:   Objection, overbroad, vague,
25    ambiguous, indefinite.


                            HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                               HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                              Page 12
 1         A.    That study included populations of workers who
 2    did motor vehicle repair work, including brake repair
 3    work on passenger vehicles, cars, trucks, busses, and
 4    some heavy equipment.
 5         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)    Do you recall if there were
 6    any people in that study who worked with braking systems
 7    on cranes?
 8         A.    I don't recall from memory.        I would have to
 9    look at that.
10         Q.    Okay.   Thank you.
11                      And you mentioned -- do you have a copy
12    of your CV with you?
13         A.    I do.
14         Q.    And is that current?
15         A.    Yes.
16         Q.    Is there anything on that -- or -- let me
17    strike that.
18                      Is there anything not on that CV that
19    you've done recently that you think should be on there?
20         A.    I'm sorry.   I don't understand.
21         Q.    Is there -- let me rephrase it this way.       Is
22    there anything you've done recently that is not
23    reflected on your CV?
24         A.    I don't think there's anything relevant to
25    this case today that's not on my CV.


                           HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                              HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                            Page 13
 1         Q.     Okay.
 2                     MR. FREIDMAN:   I would like to go ahead
 3    and mark that CV as Exhibit 1.
 4                     MR. FLYNN:   That's fine, Ari.   We'll mark
 5    that down as Exhibit 1, and I'll take custody of it and
 6    -- and get it to Tammy Staggs, our trusted court
 7    reporter.
 8                     MR. FREIDMAN:   Okay.   Thank you.
 9                     MR. FLYNN:   Sure, no problem.
10         Q.     (BY MR. FREIDMAN)    And Dr. Garabrant, what
11    matter do you understand you are testifying to today?
12         A.     I -- it's my understanding I'm testifying in
13    the case captioned Chester and Dianne Morrison vs. Alfa
14    Laval Incorporated, et al.
15         Q.     And who retained you?
16         A.     I've been retained by Mr. Diozeghy on behalf
17    of Carlisle Genuine Parts Corporation and Motion
18    Control.    I've been retained by Ms. Hawkins on behalf of
19    Strick Trailers.    I've been retained by Mr. Flynn on
20    behalf of Abex and Dana, and I've been retained by
21    Ms. Gowin on behalf of ArvinMeritor.
22                     MS. GILEFSKY:   And Dr. Garabrant, if
23    you're done, don't forget Kelsey Hayes as well.
24                     THE WITNESS:    Oh, thank you.   I
25    apologize.


                          HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                             HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                                Page 14
 1                       MS. GILEFSKY:   Sorry.
 2                       MR. LIEF:   And Euclid.
 3                       THE WITNESS:    Thank you.
 4         Q.     (BY MR. FREIDMAN)      So if I understand correct,
 5    Doctor, Carlisle Genuine Parts, Motion Control, Strick
 6    Trailers, Abex and Dana, ArvinMeritor, Kelsey Hayes, and
 7    Euclid are the parties that retained you; is that
 8    correct?
 9         A.     I believe so.
10         Q.     And do you recall when you were first
11    retained?
12         A.     I think I was first retained in early January
13    of 2011.
14         Q.     And do you -- do you recall which party it was
15    that first retained you?
16         A.     I believe it was Ms. Hawkins at Foley &
17    Mansfield.
18         Q.     Were you contacted initially via E-mail or
19    phone?
20         A.     I believe E-mail.      I'm not sure though.
21         Q.     And after you agreed to accept this case, did
22    you have any further communications with any of the
23    parties that retained you?
24         A.     Yes.
25         Q.     And generally those communications that


                            HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                               HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                          Page 15
 1    occurred after you agreed to take representation in this
 2    case, do you recall generally what -- what you discussed
 3    with those parties?
 4           A.   Well, let's see, I knew there were a number of
 5    phone calls about who had retained me and who had
 6    retained me first.    And then there were phone calls or
 7    E-mails from other parties requesting my co-retention
 8    and then phone calls about working out co-retention with
 9    the other lawyers.    So there were -- there were a number
10    of communications back and forth about, let's just say,
11    logistics.   And then I had a telephone conference call
12    on February 4th with a number of the lawyers -- I don't
13    recall exactly everyone -- just to go over the case and
14    to be sure I was ready for my deposition.
15           Q.   So excluding the February 4th phone call you
16    had, would it be fair to say that those communications
17    really oriented around your representation of the
18    various entities in this case?
19           A.   Yes.   I should also mention that I met today
20    with Mr. Flynn for a little over an hour and a half.
21           Q.   And is Mr. Flynn in the room with you right
22    now?
23           A.   Yes.
24           Q.   And Dr. Garabrant, you've been deposed before;
25    is that correct?


                           HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                              HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                             Page 16
 1         A.     Yes.
 2         Q.     And you've been deposed before in connection
 3    with an asbestos litigation?
 4         A.     Yes.
 5         Q.     Do you know how many times you've given a
 6    deposition in an asbestos litigation?
 7                       MS. GILEFSKY:   Objection, overly broad.
 8         A.     I think I've been deposed in friction cases,
 9    which involve motor vehicle brakes, clutches, and
10    sometimes gaskets.      I'm not sure I know the exact
11    number.   Probably -- maybe six dozen times now over the
12    past ten years.     That's -- you know what, that may be
13    too high.   I'm not sure it was that high.       Let's say
14    that's probably a reasonable upper boundary.
15         Q.     (BY MR. FREIDMAN)      Okay.   Thank you, Doctor.
16                       And just -- just to follow up.     I think
17    you sort of gave your answer.       Do you recall the first
18    time you testified in an asbestos litigation -- or I'm
19    sorry.    Strike that.
20                       Do you recall the first time you sat for
21    a deposition in asbestos litigation?
22         A.     I need you to clarify what you mean by "an
23    asbestos litigation."      Are you talking about what I'm
24    referring to as friction cases?
25         Q.     Yes, or if -- you know, friction cases or any


                            HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                               HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                             Page 17
 1    case where the plaintiff was alleging harm because of
 2    exposure to asbestos.
 3                       DEFENSE COUNSEL:   Objection, overbroad,
 4    lack of foundation, vague.
 5         A.     Well, I -- I have also testified on occasion
 6    in cases where the allegation was that asbestos caused
 7    colon cancer or other forms of GI tract cancer.        And I
 8    believe in that setting I first testified somewhere in
 9    the mid-1980s by deposition.
10         Q.     (BY MR. FREIDMAN)     And would that time frame
11    change if I limited it to the first time you sat for a
12    deposition in connection with a friction case where the
13    plaintiff was alleging harm because of exposure to
14    asbestos?
15         A.     Yes.
16         Q.     And what year would that be, if you can
17    recall?
18         A.     I'm not sure I know exactly.       I think perhaps
19    2003 or 2002.
20         Q.     Okay.   Thank you, Doctor.
21                       Have you sat for any depositions in
22    connection with friction-related asbestos litigation
23    this year?
24         A.     I think I have.
25         Q.     Would that be just one time or would it be


                            HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                               HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                               Page 18
 1    more?
 2         A.    I'm not sure I recall.      I think I've been
 3    deposed once or twice this year.       I'm not sure I know
 4    the answer.
 5         Q.    Do you recall how many times last year you sat
 6    for a deposition in connection with a plaintiff alleging
 7    harm because of exposure to asbestos in a friction
 8    setting?
 9         A.    I don't know exactly.      I would estimate
10    perhaps five to eight times.
11         Q.    And do you keep a record of the time you've
12    been deposed in connection -- in an asbestos litigation
13    where the plaintiff was alleging harm because of
14    exposure to friction products?
15         A.    I keep a list of cases in which I have
16    testified during the past four years in response to
17    requests in federal court that I supply that list.         I
18    don't currently have it up-to-date though.
19         Q.    And in that list, does that list both times
20    you've testified in court and sat for a deposition?
21         A.    It does.
22         Q.    And when was the last time that list was
23    updated?
24         A.    Sometime last year.
25                     MR. FREIDMAN:    I would like to go ahead


                            HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                               HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                             Page 19
 1    and just mark that list as Exhibit 2.
 2           A.   I don't have it with me.
 3           Q.   (BY MR. FREIDMAN)     Do you think you can -- do
 4    you have access to it?
 5           A.   Well, I don't -- I don't have it at my
 6    deposition.      I have it stored away in my office.
 7                      MR. FLYNN:   Ari, this is Johan Flynn.   I
 8    figured you could send a letter to either Abex's local
 9    counsel, Joanne Latween (phonetic), or Dana's counsel,
10    Susie Gilefsky.     We can work on getting you a copy of
11    that.   Just send us a letter, and we'll work on that.
12                      MR. FREIDMAN:   Okay.   I will -- I will do
13    that.
14           Q.   (BY MR. FREIDMAN)     But just in the event -- to
15    the extent that you can locate that, Doctor, I would
16    like to attach that as Exhibit 2.
17                      MR. FREIDMAN:   I will get in contact with
18    local counsel out here.      And if we can get it that way,
19    I'm happy to sort of supplant that, but I would be more
20    comfortable marking that as Exhibit 2.
21           A.   Well, I don't have it with me today.    If
22    Mr. Flynn asks me to get ahold of it, I will.
23           Q.   (BY MR. FREIDMAN)     And when you say that that
24    list is back at your office, I mean, it is accessible to
25    you?    It's not lost or damaged or destroyed or anything?


                            HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                               HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                          Page 20
 1         A.    It is not.
 2         Q.    Okay.   Thank you.
 3                      And, Doctor, have you ever testified at
 4    trial in an asbestos litigation where the plaintiff is
 5    alleging harm because of exposure to friction products?
 6         A.    Yes.
 7         Q.    And do you recall how many times that is?
 8         A.    I think I've testified at trial perhaps eight
 9    times, maybe nine times -- actually, eight to ten.
10    That's probably a better answer.
11         Q.    And have you testified at trial at all this
12    year in regards to an asbestos friction case?
13         A.    No.
14         Q.    And, Doctor, have you received any materials
15    in connection with your preparation for today's
16    deposition?
17         A.    Yes.
18         Q.    And what are those?
19         A.    The Plaintiff's Response to General Order
20    Standard Interrogatories Propounded by Defendants,
21    Plaintiff's Response to General Order Friction
22    Interrogatories, social security records, the deposition
23    of Chester Morrison Volumes 1 through 5, various medical
24    records for Chester Morrison.     Another document called
25    Plaintiff's Responses to General Order Standard


                           HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                              HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                            Page 21
 1    Interrogatories.    Another one called Verification to
 2    Plaintiff's Responses to General Ordered -- General
 3    Order Standard Interrogatories and General Order
 4    Friction Standard Interrogatories.      ArvinMeritor's
 5    Responses to Plaintiff's Standard Interrogatories to
 6    Friction Materials.    A document that's referred to
 7    electronically as Plaintiff's Case Report.
 8                      Then there are a number of documents
 9    regarding the Zidell shipyard.     One is called Detailed
10    Project Friction for Remediation Pursuant to Consent
11    Decree, Oregon vs. Zidell Consent Judgment, Oregon vs.
12    Zidell Consent Judgment Amendment, Oregon DEQ Site
13    Details Environmental Cleanup Site Information, and a
14    JPEG electronic photograph of the Zidell shipyard.
15         Q.    Are there any documents, Doctor, that you
16    asked for but have not received?
17         A.    No.
18         Q.    And is it safe to say, Doctor, that you relied
19    on these documents in forming your -- your opinions?
20         A.    Yes.
21         Q.    As to the various documents you received
22    regarding the Zidell shipyards, I would like to mark
23    those as Exhibit 3.
24                      MR. FLYNN:   Okay.   Ari, we can -- it's
25    probably about a stack of 3 inches thick.      We'll mark


                           HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                              HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                            Page 22
 1    all that collectively as group Exhibit 3.
 2                     MR. FREIDMAN:    Yeah, no need for any of
 3    the discovery or anything that, you know, we already
 4    have.   I just -- I don't know what that Zidell stuff is.
 5                     MR. FLYNN:   No problem.    I'll get that to
 6    the court reporter tomorrow when I get back to my
 7    office.
 8                     MR. FREIDMAN:    Thank you.
 9                     MR. FLYNN:   Sure.
10         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)     And, Doctor, have you or
11    anyone working at your supervision generated any
12    paperwork that you're relying on that we haven't
13    discussed?
14         A.    I have generated a report dated January 21,
15    2011.
16         Q.    Okay.   Yes -- okay.   Thank you.
17                     And that report, did that include your --
18    your list of references or is that a separate document?
19         A.    It includes the references that I had received
20    and reviewed as of January 21 when I wrote the report.
21                     MR. FREIDMAN:    I would like to go ahead
22    and mark the report as Exhibit 4.
23                     MR. FLYNN:   Okay.   We'll get that marked
24    as Exhibit 4.
25         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)     And apart from your report,


                          HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                             HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                           Page 23
 1    Doctor, did you or anyone working at your direction
 2    generate any sort of paperwork that you're relying on
 3    that we haven't discussed?
 4         A.     No.
 5         Q.     And how long would you say, Doctor, that
 6    you've spent reviewing or preparing for this deposition?
 7         A.     You mean including reading the materials and
 8    writing a report or just preparing for the deposition?
 9         Q.     Yes, just -- or let me strike that and
10    rephrase.
11                      Do you know, Doctor, how long you have
12    spent reviewing the file -- reviewing the file for
13    Mr. Morrison's exposure to asbestos -- no, that's --
14    that's junk.      Let me strike that.
15                      Doctor, do you know how long you have
16    spent reviewing materials you've received and preparing
17    for this deposition?
18         A.     Do you want to know how much time I've spent
19    on the case --
20         Q.     Yeah.
21         A.     -- up until now total?
22         Q.     Yeah, let's go with that.
23         A.     Okay.   That's probably six or seven hours.
24         Q.     And, Doctor, do you charge a retainer fee?
25         A.     No.


                            HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                               HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                           Page 24
 1         Q.    Do you bill by the hour?
 2         A.    I do.
 3         Q.    And what is that rate?
 4         A.    $625.
 5         Q.    And is there any sort of hour minimum that you
 6    -- you charge when you accept representation?
 7         A.    No.
 8         Q.    And is that per client or -- or is that split
 9    between your clients?
10         A.    Well, that's the total amount I charge, and
11    then that would be split among my clients.
12         Q.    Do you feel that after your review and
13    preparation of the files you've received that you're
14    prepared to offer an opinion in this matter?
15                     MR. FLYNN:   Objection, vague, ambiguous,
16    indefinite as to "feel."
17         A.    I am prepared to offer opinions in this
18    matter.
19         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)    And you mentioned that you
20    had a phone call, I believe, on February 4th with a
21    number of lawyers to go over the case and to be ready
22    for this deposition.    Am I stating that correctly?
23         A.    I believe I said I had a phone call with a
24    number of the attorneys.      They wanted to be sure that I
25    was ready for the deposition.


                          HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                             HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                          Page 25
 1         Q.    And has your opinion changed at all since this
 2    phone conversation?
 3         A.    No.
 4         Q.    And what are your opinions regarding
 5    Mr. Morrison's exposure to asbestos in this case?
 6                     MR. FLYNN:   Objection, vague, ambiguous,
 7    indefinite, overly broad.
 8         A.    One, Mr. Morrison's alleged exposure to brake
 9    repairs, clutch repairs, gasket replacements, and motor
10    vehicle repairs did not result in exposure to asbestos
11    fibers that placed him at increased risk of
12    mesothelioma.
13                     Number two, the epidemiologic studies
14    that have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific
15    literature do not support a conclusion that work in
16    occupations in which brake repairs and motor vehicle
17    repairs are performed is associated with increased risk
18    of mesothelioma.   Moreover, there is no scientific
19    evidence that performing brake repairs or motor vehicle
20    repairs places people at an increased risk of
21    mesothelioma.
22                     Number three, insofar as brake repair,
23    motor vehicle repair, and gasket replacement activities
24    are not known to place people at increased risk of
25    mesothelioma, there's no scientific basis for a


                          HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                             HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                           Page 26
 1    conclusion that brake repair, motor vehicle repair, and
 2    gasket replacement activities played any role whatsoever
 3    in the causation of Mr. Morrison's pleural mesothelioma.
 4                     Number four, Mr. Morrison was exposed to
 5    asbestos insulation, gaskets, lagging, and valve packing
 6    while he served on U.S. Navy ships.     It is my
 7    understanding that World War II era ships contained
 8    substantial amounts of amphibole insulation.
 9    Mr. Morrison's exposure to asbestos as a fireman and
10    boiler tender on U.S. Navy ships placed him at high risk
11    of mesothelioma and was the cause of his pleural
12    mesothelioma.
13                     Those opinions are contained in my report
14    on page 8.   In addition to that, I believe Mr. Morrison
15    had exposure to asbestos insulation -- thermal
16    insulation on ships that he was dismantling at Zidell
17    shipyards in 1964 to '66.    He worked as a member of the
18    boilermakers' union at that time, and I believe that
19    also was a cause of his pleural mesothelioma.      And those
20    are my opinions.
21         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)   Okay.   Thank you, Doctor.
22                     As to the first opinion on page 8 of
23    your report -- and I believe that states, sort of, the
24    first opinion you gave here.    What is the basis for your
25    belief that alleged exposure to brake repairs, clutch


                          HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                             HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                          Page 27
 1    repairs, gasket replacements, and motor vehicle repairs
 2    do not result in exposure to asbestos fibers placing
 3    someone at increased risk of mesothelioma?
 4         A.    The basis for that opinion is the scientific
 5    literature that demonstrates all of the following:
 6                     The asbestos that's present in some brake
 7    products is chrysotile asbestos.     I've never seen any
 8    documentation of any other fiber type.
 9                     Number two, there are many studies that
10    have measured the exposures of brake repair workers and
11    motor vehicle repair workers who are doing brake,
12    clutch, and gasket repair work; and they have shown that
13    the overwhelming majority of the dust to which mechanics
14    are exposed in those activities is not asbestos dust.
15    It's non-fibrous material.
16                     Thirdly, the measurements of asbestos
17    dust itself in the course of doing brake repair work and
18    motor vehicle repair work have shown that those
19    exposures have always been under the OSHA permissible
20    exposure limit as an eight-hour time-weighted average.
21                     Fifth [sic], the epidemiologic studies
22    that have been conducted on motor vehicle mechanics and
23    brake repair workers show no increased risk of
24    mesothelioma among people who do that work for their
25    careers.


                          HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                             HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                          Page 28
 1                     Sixth, the epidemiologic evidence looking
 2    at the incidence and mortality from mesothelioma among
 3    cohorts of workers exposed to different types of
 4    mesothelioma [sic] demonstrate that amphibole forms,
 5    specifically amosite and crocidolite asbestos, carry
 6    very high risks of mesothelioma.     And that chrysotile
 7    either carries no risk at all or carries a very small
 8    risk.   Mesothelioma risks have been studied in numerous
 9    cohort studies of chrysotile exposed workers, and the
10    only instances in which there has been an excess of
11    mesothelioma that I'm aware of have been in the mining
12    industry.
13                     And so putting all of that together, I
14    believe that is a very strong foundation for saying that
15    Mr. Morrison's alleged exposure to brake repairs, clutch
16    repairs, gasket replacements, and motor vehicle repairs
17    did not result in exposure to asbestos fibers that
18    placed them at increased risk of mesothelioma.
19         Q.     Doctor, I believe the second, sort of, basis
20    you had for that opinion, you mentioned studies that
21    have measured exposure on brake and motor repair vehicle
22    personnel for brake, clutch, and gasket repair work .
23    Do you have any specific studies in mind that support
24    that?
25         A.     Well, it would take me a while to scan through


                          HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                             HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                             Page 29
 1    my bibliography; but, yes, I could probably highlight a
 2    dozen or 15 different studies that support that.       Would
 3    you like me to take the time to do that?
 4         Q.    Please.
 5                     DEFENSE COUNSEL:    Just an objection that
 6    it's overly broad.
 7         A.    The first two would be -- we can just do it by
 8    number on my report bibliography.
 9         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)    That -- that's fine,
10    Doctor.
11         A.    Number 52 and 53 by Blake.     The first one is
12    Assessment of Airborne Asbestos Exposure During the
13    Servicing and Handling of Automotive -- Automobile
14    Asbestos-Containing Gaskets.     The second is Blake,
15    Airborne Asbestos Concentration from Brake Changing Does
16    Not Exceed Permissible Exposure Limit.
17                     Number 55, Boelter and Yates, Exposure
18    Assessment Engine Gaskets Removal and Replacement, 1963,
19    '64 Chevrolet Impala.
20                     Number 56, Boelter and Yates, McCord
21    (phonetic), Gasket Removal and Replacement, 1966 Ford
22    Mustang.
23                     Number 83, Cha, Simulation of Automobile
24    Ware -- Brake Wear Dynamics, an Estimation of Emissions.
25                     Number 86, Chang, Asbestos Exposure in


                           HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                              HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                            Page 30
 1    the Motor Vehicle Repair and Servicing Industry in Hong
 2    Kong.
 3                     Number 100, Cohen, Asbestos Exposures of
 4    Mechanics Performing Clutch Service on Motor Vehicles.
 5                     Number 152, Finley, Accumulative Asbestos
 6    Exposure for U.S. Automobile Mechanics Involved in Brake
 7    Repair, circa 1950s to 2000.
 8                     Number 207, Pinkish, Exposure to Asbestos
 9    During Brake Maintenance.    Number 208, Exposure to
10    Asbestos During Brake and Clutch Maintenance.
11                     Number 266, Kauppinen, Exposure to
12    Asbestos During Brake Maintenance of Automobile Vehicles
13    by Different Methods.
14                     Number 301, Luikenon, Asbestos Exposure
15    from Gaskets During Disassembly of a Medium Duty Diesel
16    Engine.
17                     Number 302, Lorimer, Asbestos Exposure of
18    Brake Repair Workers in the United States.
19                     Number 304, Lynch, Brake Lining
20    Decomposition Products.
21                     Number 305, Madl, Exposure to Chrysotile
22    Asbestos Associated with Unpacking and Repacking Boxes
23    of Automobile Brake Pads and Shoes.
24                     Number 408, Paustenbach, Chrysotile
25    Asbestos Exposure Associated with Removal of Automobile


                          HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                             HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                             Page 31
 1    Exhaust Systems by Mechanics, Results of A Simulation
 2    study.
 3                      Number 407, Paustenbach, Environmental
 4    and Occupational Health Hazards Associated With the
 5    Presence of Asbestos in Brake Linings and Pads, 1900 to
 6    the present.
 7                      Richter, No. 442, An Evaluation of
 8    Short-Term Exposures of Brake Mechanics to Asbestos
 9    During Automotive and Truck Brake Cleaning and Machining
10    Activities.
11         Q.    Did you say 442?
12         A.    442.
13         Q.    Okay.
14         A.    444, Rodelsperger, Asbestos Dust Exposure
15    During Brake Repair.
16                      Number 456, Rohl, R-O-H-L, Asbestos
17    Content to Dust Encountered in Brake Maintenance and
18    Repair.
19                      457, Rohl, Asbestos Exposure During Brake
20    Lining Maintenance and Repair.
21                      Number 463, Rowson, Chrysotile Content of
22    the Wear and Debris of Brake Lining.
23                      Number 466, Sakai, Asbestos Exposures
24    During Reprocessing of Automobile Brakes and Clutches.
25                      Smither, No. 499, Asbestos Content of


                           HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                              HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                           Page 32
 1    Dust Encountered in Brake Maintenance and Repair.
 2                      Number 501, Spencer, Asbestos Exposure
 3    Assessment During the Removal of Engine Gasket
 4    Materials.   I think that's it.
 5         Q.    Okay.   Thank you, Doctor.
 6         A.    Is anyone there?
 7         Q.    Yeah, I'm sorry.     Thank you, Doctor.
 8                      Would those -- would those references
 9    that you just listed they also include -- did those
10    include epi studies done to show there was no risk of
11    meso for people who worked in the automotive repair
12    industry during their career?
13         A.    No.
14                      DEFENSE COUNSEL:   Overly broad.
15         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)      Would those epi studies --
16    so are -- are those epi studies listed on your -- your
17    reference list?
18         A.    Yes.
19         Q.    And what -- could you identify what those epi
20    studies are on your reference list?
21         A.    Yes.
22                      MR. FLYNN:   Epi studies in terms of
23    mechanics not at an increased risk of developing
24    mesothelioma?
25                      MR. FREIDMAN:   Yes, I believe when I


                           HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                              HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                            Page 33
 1    asked him, sort of, the support for one of the opinions
 2    he listed that there were epi studies that showed no
 3    increase of risk of meso for people who basically did
 4    friction work for their careers.
 5                     MR. FLYNN:   Okay.
 6                     MR. FREIDMAN:   I was just wondering if he
 7    could just identify what those were on his reference
 8    list.
 9         A.    Yes, okay.   Let's go back through it then.
10    All right.   Those would be No. 5 by Gudo (phonetic),
11    No. 99 by Coggin, No. 176 by Goodman, No. 186 by
12    Gustavson, No. 192 by Hanson, No. 195 by the Health and
13    Safety Executive, No. 196 by the Health and Safety
14    Executive, No. 206 by Hethel (phonetic), No. 218 by
15    Hodgson, 246 by Jarhom, No. 279 by Laden (phonetic),
16    No. 331 by McDonald, No. 353 by McElvenny, No. 364 by
17    Milham, No. 392 by NIOSH, No. 399 by Olsen, No. 413 by
18    Pieto (phonetic), No. 436 by Rake, No. 458 by Roland,
19    No. 464 by Rushton, No. 504 Spurtis, No. 517 by Teshki,
20    No. 519 by Teta, No. 554 by Woitowitz, No. 557 by Wong.
21    That's it.
22         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)     Okay.   Thank you, Doctor.
23                     Now, you mentioned also that you felt
24    there was his exposure while he was in the Navy to
25    asbestos insulation, gaskets, lagging, and valve


                          HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                             HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                              Page 34
 1    packing; is that correct?      I'm sorry.     Let -- let me
 2    rephrase that.
 3                      It's also your opinion that his exposure
 4    to asbestos insulation, gaskets, lagging, and valve
 5    packing when Mr. Morrison was in the United States Navy
 6    placed him at high risk of mesothelioma and was the
 7    cause of his pleural mesothelioma; is that correct?
 8                      DEFENSE COUNSEL:   Misstates testimony.
 9                      MR. FLYNN:   Objection, form.    Misstates
10    the witness's testimony, vague and ambiguous as to what
11    the witness felt.
12         A.    I think that it is my opinion his exposure to
13    asbestos as a fireman and boiler tender on U.S. Navy
14    ships placed him at high risk of mesothelioma and was
15    the cause of his pleural mesothelioma.
16         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)    And in your report on page
17    5, in that first paragraph of text, I believe the fourth
18    sentence, you say that (as read):      He repaired many
19    types of pumps, valves, steam traps, blowers, fuel oil
20    purifiers, and their associated gaskets.
21                      Did I read that correctly, Doctor?
22         A.    Yes.
23         Q.    And if you can recall, what types of pumps did
24    Mr. Morrison work with?
25                      DEFENSE COUNSEL:   Overbroad, calls for


                           HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                              HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                             Page 35
 1    speculation.
 2                     DEFENSE COUNSEL:   Lacks foundation,
 3    vague.
 4         A.    I don't recall the types of pumps.
 5         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)     Do you recall the brand
 6    names of any of the pumps he worked with?
 7         A.    I do not.
 8                     DEFENSE COUNSEL:   Same objections.
 9                     THE REPORTER:   I'm sorry, Doctor, I
10    didn't hear your answer.
11                     THE WITNESS:    I said I do not.
12                     THE REPORTER:   Thank you.
13         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)     And as to valves, Doctor,
14    do you recall any types or brand names of valves that
15    Mr. Morrison worked with?
16                     DEFENSE COUNSEL:   Overbroad, vague, calls
17    for speculation.   The plaintiff's testimony speaks for
18    itself.   Lacks foundation.
19         A.    I don't recall the names of the valve
20    companies.
21         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)     Do you recall the types of
22    valves Mr. Morrison worked with?
23                     DEFENSE COUNSEL:   Same objections.
24         A.    I would have to look back at his deposition.
25    I don't recall from memory.


                          HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                             HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                             Page 36
 1         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)    Okay.   Thank you.
 2                      And is the same true for steam traps?
 3         A.    Yes.
 4         Q.    Would that also be true for blowers?
 5         A.    Yes.
 6         Q.    And fuel oil purifiers?
 7         A.    Yes.   I -- I don't recall the manufacturers'
 8    names on any of that equipment.
 9         Q.    Do you recall any of the brand names of
10    gaskets that Mr. Morrison testified to using associated
11    with those equipments?
12                      DEFENSE COUNSEL:   Vague, overbroad, calls
13    for speculation, lacks foundation.
14         A.    No.
15         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)    The next sentence in that
16    same paragraph says, (as read):      He removed allegedly
17    asbestos-containing insulation from the turbines to get
18    to the fuel oil pumps he had to work on.
19                      Did I read that correctly, Doctor?
20         A.    Yes.
21         Q.    And do you know the brand name or type of any
22    of those turbines?
23         A.    Not from memory.    I would have to go back and
24    look at his deposition.
25         Q.    And then the sentence after that, (as read):


                           HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                              HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                             Page 37
 1    He removed asbestos gaskets from the pumps with a
 2    scraper and then wire brushed the surface clean and then
 3    put a new gasket on.
 4                      Did I read that correctly, Doctor?
 5         A.    Yes.
 6         Q.    And as to any of the asbestos gaskets on those
 7    pumps that he removed with a scraper and then wire
 8    brushed, you cannot remember the brand name or type of
 9    asbestos gasket; is that correct?
10                      DEFENSE COUNSEL:   Overbroad, vague and
11    ambiguous, calls for speculation.
12         A.    I don't recall.    I would have to go back and
13    find those sections in his testimony to recall his
14    answers.
15         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)    And then the next sentence,
16    Doctor, it says (as read):     Many of the valves and
17    gaskets had insulation covering them that had to be
18    removed for repairs.
19                      Did I read that correctly?
20         A.    Yes.
21         Q.    And do you know what type of insulation was
22    covering those valves?
23         A.    I'm not sure what you mean by "what type of
24    insulation."     I -- I believe it was thermal insulation.
25         Q.    And do you know if that thermal insulation was


                           HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                              HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                           Page 38
 1    asbestos-containing?
 2         A.    I don't know for sure.     It is my understanding
 3    that World War II era ships required the use of amosite
 4    insulation -- amosite in thermal insulation on a fairly
 5    broad basis.     But as to exactly which devices that had
 6    thermal insulation on them, it may or may not have had
 7    amosite.   I don't know.
 8         Q.    And in reviewing Mr. Morrison's testimony, was
 9    his method of removing gaskets from those pieces of
10    equipment consistent with your understanding of how
11    gaskets are normally removed?
12                     MR. FLYNN:   Objection, form, vague and
13    ambiguous, indefinite, overly broad, calls for
14    speculation, beyond the designation for this witness,
15    beyond the scope of expertise.
16                     DEFENSE COUNSEL:    Lacks foundation.
17         A.    I wouldn't say that I have expertise in
18    removing old packing or gaskets on naval vessels.        I --
19    I don't know.
20                     DEFENSE COUNSEL:    And Ari, we've been
21    going a little over an hour here.      I just want to give
22    you heads up.
23                     MR. FREIDMAN:   I don't have too much
24    left.   If that's all right, Doctor, do you feel
25    comfortable just powering through or would you rather


                           HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                              HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                            Page 39
 1    take a break.
 2                      MR. FLYNN:   I would prefer to take a
 3    five-minute break.
 4                      MR. FREIDMAN:   Okay.   Why don't we do
 5    that.   We'll go off the record for five minutes.
 6                      MR. FLYNN:   Thanks.
 7                      (Recess held, 1:09 p.m. to 1:15 p.m.)
 8         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)      Dr. Garabrant, you earlier
 9    testified before the break that it was your knowledge
10    that World War II era ships required the use of asbestos
11    insulation.      Did I -- did I recall that correctly?
12         A.    I think I said required the use of amphibole
13    asbestos insulation.
14         Q.    All right.    Thank you, Doctor.
15                      And what is your basis of that opinion?
16         A.    I have seen reports in other cases written by
17    naval officers who had responsibility for the propulsion
18    systems on World War II era ships who've reconstructed
19    the military specifications for those ships and gave
20    opinions that World War II era ships of various classes
21    required the use of tons of amosite asbestos in thermal
22    insulation products.
23         Q.    Have you reviewed anything specific to the
24    ships Mr. Morrison served on that -- that demonstrated
25    any of the thermal insulation on board those ships was


                            HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                               HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                               Page 40
 1    amphibole asbestos-containing?
 2                       MR. FLYNN:   Objection, vague, ambiguous,
 3    lacks foundation, calls for speculation, beyond the
 4    scope of the notice.
 5           A.   I have not seen materials specific to those
 6    two ships.
 7           Q.   (BY MR. FREIDMAN)     Okay.   Thank you.
 8                       Continuing on with that same paragraph we
 9    were discussing earlier, I believe the next sentence
10    says, (as read):     He also repacked valves by first
11    pulling out all of the old packing which came out in
12    fibers as he described it.
13                       Did I read that correctly, sir?
14           A.   Yes.
15           Q.   And do you recall any of the brand name or
16    type of packing Mr. Morrison testified to using?
17                       DEFENSE COUNSEL:    Calls for speculation,
18    lacks foundation, vague and ambiguous.          I believe the
19    testimony speaks for itself.
20                       DEFENSE COUNSEL:    Asked and answered.
21           A.   I don't.
22           Q.   (BY MR. FREIDMAN)     And the next sentence talks
23    about the -- the sheet gaskets Mr. Morrison would have
24    cut.   But, again, your testimony will be similar that
25    you don't recall any of the brand names of -- of the


                             HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                                HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                           Page 41
 1    sheet gasket Mrs. Morrison used?
 2         A.    That's correct.
 3         Q.    And as to the next sentence, (as read):       He --
 4    he recalls others doing boiler repair and replacing pipe
 5    insulation.
 6                      Did I read that correctly?
 7         A.    Yes.
 8         Q.    And do you recall the brands names or type of
 9    boiler that Mr. Morrison did repairs on?
10         A.    I do not.
11         Q.    And do you recall a brand name or type of pipe
12    insulation that Mr. Morrison would have worked on or
13    that he testified to working on?
14         A.    No.
15         Q.    And for that work of -- in the Navy, do you
16    have an opinion as to the levels of asbestos exposure
17    Mr. Morrison would have received from his work with
18    thermal insulation?
19                      DEFENSE COUNSEL:   Objection, vague.
20         A.    I do not.   I'm not an expert in naval vessels.
21         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)    Do you have an opinion
22    regarding any state-of-the-art issues relating to the
23    use of asbestos-containing materials for any of the
24    entities you're representing today?
25                      DEFENSE COUNSEL:   Objection, form, vague


                           HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                              HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                             Page 42
 1    and ambiguous, indefinite, overly broad.
 2         A.    I'm not sure I understand your question.      Do I
 3    have an opinion about the state-of-the-art?    I'm not
 4    sure what that implies.
 5         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)   It implies sort of the
 6    history and development of the, sort of, scientific
 7    state-of-the-art knowledge regarding the hazards of
 8    asbestos over time.
 9                     DEFENSE COUNSEL:   Same objections,
10    overbroad, vague.
11         A.    I have not evolved opinions in that area for
12    this case.
13         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)   And then -- then it -- it
14    would be true then that you couldn't comment on what any
15    defendant that you are representing knew or didn't know
16    about the hazards of asbestos over time?
17                     DEFENSE COUNSEL:   Objection, vague,
18    ambiguous, indefinite, overly broad, calls for
19    speculation as to what any retaining defendant or other
20    company knew at any given time, argumentative.
21         A.    I -- I don't have any knowledge of what they
22    knew at various times.
23         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)   Okay.   Thank you, Doctor.
24                     And do you have an opinion as to the
25    evolution of threshold limit values as established by


                          HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                             HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                           Page 43
 1    private organizations and government agencies?
 2                     DEFENSE COUNSEL:   Objection, form, vague
 3    and ambiguous, indefinite, overly broad.
 4                       As to all TLVs or...
 5         A.    I don't think I understand your question.    I'm
 6    not sure what you mean by opinion about the evolution of
 7    TLVs.   I'll try to answer it.   I didn't prepare on any
 8    issue that had to do with regulations or recommended
 9    exposure levels and how they were promulgated.
10         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)   And that's fine, Doctor,
11    thank you.   I'm just trying to round out some questions
12    here.   I'm just about done.
13                     And -- and do you have an opinion
14    regarding history of warnings of asbestos?
15                     DEFENSE COUNSEL:   Objection, form, vague
16    and ambiguous, indefinite, overly broad, lacks
17    foundation, beyond the scope of this witness's
18    designated testimony, calls for speculation.
19         A.    I didn't prepare on that topic and have not
20    formed any opinions for this case.
21         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)   Okay.   Thank you.
22                     And turning your attention, Doctor, to
23    page 6 of your report, the first paragraph, the first
24    full paragraph that there begins with the words "at
25    Zidell from 1964 to 1966."     Do you see that paragraph,


                          HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                             HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                              Page 44
 1    Doctor?
 2         A.    Yes.
 3         Q.    In your review of Mr. Morrison's testimony, do
 4    you recall his work with cranes?
 5                      DEFENSE COUNSEL:   Objection, vague,
 6    ambiguous, indefinite, overly broad.
 7         A.    Well, I recall that he was a rigger clearly,
 8    that he was -- he was the man who was qualified and
 9    experienced enough to actually rig up the lifting lines
10    to pick up equipment off the decks of the ships.
11         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)    Do you recall any of
12    Mr. Morrison's testimony regarding any maintenance he
13    may have done on those cranes?
14                      DEFENSE COUNSEL:   Same objections.
15         A.    I -- I don't.    I would have to look back at
16    his testimony.
17         Q.    (BY MR. FREIDMAN)    And then just one more
18    follow-up then.    Is it safe to presume, Doctor, that you
19    don't have an opinion regarding the exposure to asbestos
20    that Mr. Morrison may or may not have had in his
21    maintenance of the brakes on those cranes?
22                      DEFENSE COUNSEL:   Objection, form, vague
23    and ambiguous, indefinite, overly broad, lacks
24    foundation, assumes facts.
25         A.    Well, I'm not sure I understand exactly what


                           HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                              HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                            Page 45
 1    your question is getting at.      It is my understanding
 2    that work on friction equipment, such as brakes on
 3    various pieces of heavy equipment, including cranes and
 4    lifts and derricks and hoists, does not generate
 5    exposures that are such that would cause mesothelioma.
 6         Q.     (BY MR. FREIDMAN)    Now, would that opinion be
 7    sort of wrapped up in the earlier opinion you gave me
 8    about his work on, sort of, automotive and heavy
 9    equipment friction products?
10                       DEFENSE COUNSEL:   Objection, vague,
11    ambiguous.
12         A.     Yes.
13         Q.     (BY MR. FREIDMAN)    And would the basis then of
14    your opinion about the work with friction products on
15    cranes be similar to that of work on automotive friction
16    products?
17         A.     Well, it would be work on motor vehicle
18    friction products.
19         Q.     And I'm not trying to narrow the, sort of,
20    topic.    I just want to make sure the, sort of, basis for
21    those would -- would really be the same.
22                       DEFENSE COUNSEL:   Objection, misstates
23    the witness's testimony, vague and ambiguous, lacks
24    foundation.
25         A.     The basis is the scientific evidence that


                            HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                               HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                                 Page 46
 1    shows no increased risk of mesothelioma among people who
 2    do repair work on motor vehicles regardless of what they
 3    are.
 4           Q.   (BY MR. FREIDMAN)      And in your opinion that
 5    would include cranes?
 6                       DEFENSE COUNSEL:     Same objections.
 7           A.   Yes.   Many cranes are motor vehicles.     In
 8    fact, they all have motors of some sort on them and some
 9    are mobile, some are stationary.
10           Q.   (BY MR. FREIDMAN)      Okay.   Thank you, Doctor.
11                       MR. FREIDMAN:   I think that's all the
12    questions I have for Dr. Garabrant.         Is there any follow
13    up?
14                       DEFENSE COUNSEL:     Johan Flynn on behalf
15    of Abex, I have no follow-up questions.        I'm not sure if
16    any other defendants on the phone have any questions.
17                       MS. GILEFSKY:   Should we go off the
18    record and figure out what to do with the transcript and
19    payment?
20                       MR. FLYNN:   Sure.   That sounds like a
21    good idea to me.     What do you think, Ari?
22                       MR. FREIDMAN:   Well, I mean, I can do the
23    normal stip on the record for the transcript.
24                       MS. GILEFSKY:   Great.
25                       MR. FREIDMAN:   And then I can just go off


                            HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                               HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                           Page 47
 1    the record and get me -- I'll give Dr. Garabrant my
 2    E-mail and if he just E-mails me an invoice, I'll take
 3    care of the payment.
 4                     MR. FLYNN:   I guess the biggest question
 5    then is does the Doctor wish to read and sign or does he
 6    wish to waive.
 7                     MR. FREIDMAN:   That was my next question.
 8                     THE WITNESS:    I would be happy to waive
 9    reading it.
10                     MR. FREIDMAN:   Okay.   That -- that makes
11    things a little bit easier.
12                     MS. GILEFSKY:   Ari, you want to go ahead
13    and state the stip on the record then?
14                     MR. FREIDMAN:   Sure.   I propose the
15    following stip that the court reporter be relieved of
16    her statutory duty to maintain custody of the original.
17    That when the transcript is completed, it be sent to me
18    here at the Lanier Law Firm where I will maintain
19    custody of it and make such available upon reasonable
20    notice.   If in any event that the original is lost,
21    destroyed, or cannot be found, that a certified copy
22    will be deemed usable for all relative purposes.     And I
23    think that's all I need to do.
24                     MS. GILEFSKY:   Yeah, so stipulated.    You
25    relieved of her responsibilities under the Code, right?


                          HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                             HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                           Page 48
 1                     MR. FREIDMAN:   Yes.
 2                     MS. GILEFSKY:   Okay.
 3                     MR. FREIDMAN:   We're done.   Go off the
 4    record.
 5                     (Deposition concluded at 1:28 p.m. (PST))
 6                     (Signature waived.)
 7                     (Exhibits 1 - 4 marked.)
 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



                          HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                             HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                          Page 49
 1                      C E R T I F I C A T E
 2    Case Name: Chester E. Morrison and Dianne Morrison vs.
                 Alfa Laval, inc., et al
 3    Case No.: BC441029
      County:    Los Angeles
 4    Deponent: DAVID GARABRANT
      Reporter: Tammy Lea Staggs, CSR 13174
 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13               I, Tammy Lea Staggs, Certified Shorthand
14    Reporter in and for the State of California, hereby
15    certify to the following:
16               That the foregoing deposition of
17    DAVID GARABRANT, was taken before me and completed on
18    FEBRUARY 7TH, 2011, and thereafter transcribed under my
19    direction; that the deposition transcript is a full,
20    true, and accurate translation of the testimony of said
21    witness, including all questions, answers, objections,
22    and exceptions;
23               That the witness, before examination, was duly
24    sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
25    but the truth; that the witness waived signature;

                         HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                            HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                          Page 50
 1               That the amount of time used by each party at
 2    the deposition is as follows:
 3                     Mr. Ari Freidman - (1:25)
 4                     Ms. Sunny Shapiro - (0:00)
 5                     Mr. Douglas J. Lief - (0:00)
 6                     Ms. Julia A. Gowin - (0:00)
 7                     Mr. Stephen Farkas - (0:00)
 8                     Ms. Susan Gilefsky - (0:00)
 9                     Mr. Johan D. Flynn - (0:00)
10                     Mr. Joseph Diozeghy - (0:00)
11                     Ms. Catherine E. Golden - (0:00)
12                     Mr. Jeffrey Vinnick - (0:00)
13                     Ms. Lori A. Cataldo - (0:00)
14                     Mr. Robert Menchini - (0:00)
15                     Ms. Holly E. Acevedo - (0:00)
16                     Mr. Timothy C. Pieper - (0:00)
17                     Ms. Trina Clayton - (0:00)
18

19

20

21               That I am not a relative, employee, attorney,
22    or counsel of any party to the action or a relative or
23    employee of any such attorney or counsel, and I am not
24    financially interested in the said action or the outcome
25    thereof;


                          HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                             HGLITIGATION.COM
     DAVID GARABRANT

                                                           Page 51
 1               That I am herewith securely sealing the
 2    deposition transcript of DAVID GARABRANT and delivering
       AU Th fil
 3    the same to Mr. Ari Freidman, Counsel for Plaintiffs.
         TH e o e w ing
 4               IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
 5
           EN rig as
      hand and affixed my official seal this ____ day of
 6
             TI ina ele alL
      ________________, 2011.
               C
 7               C
 8
                  O
                    PY tifie ica l te
                     l c ct

 9
                        us



                        er ron ga

10                            _______________________________
                              Tammy Lea Staggs
11                            Shorthand Reporter in and for the
                            d
                            R




                              State of California.
                              e



                              E-

12                            License No.: 13176
                              Expir. Date: September 30, 2011
                                Tr gn lo

13                            Henjum Goucher Reporting Services
                                  e



                                  an e gy
                                  lly ch



                              1.888.656.DEPO
                                     sc d

14
                                     si no

                                       rip

15
                                           t

16

17

18
                                             .




19

20

21

22

23

24

25



                         HG LITIGATION SERVICES
                            HGLITIGATION.COM

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:13
posted:10/17/2011
language:English
pages:51