STATE OF CONNECTICUT
`
`IN RE: BRIDGEPORT ASBESTOS
`LITIGATION
`
`SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL
`DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD AT
`BRIDGEPORT
`DOCKET NO: FBT-CV23-61200928S
`
`
`
`
`
`CONRADJOHNSandELIZABETHJOHNS
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`VS.
`
`ALFA LAVAL, INC., individually And as
`successor in interest to DeLaval Purifier and
`Sharples Corp.,et al.,
`Defendants.
`a)
`
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION’S
`REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER
`SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to Practice Book Sec. 11-10(b), defendant International Business Machines
`
`Corporation (“IBM”) respectfully submits this Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of
`
`its Motion to Strike plaintiffs’ claims against it, and in further support of its motion fora protective
`
`order staying discovery against it pending the resolution of this motion.
`
`
`
`IN RE: BRIDGEPORT ASBESTOS
`LITIGATION
`
`SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL
`DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD AT
`BRIDGEPORT
`DOCKET NO: FBT-CV23-61200928S
`
`
`
`
`
`CONRADJOHNSandELIZABETHJOHNS
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`VS.
`
`ALFA LAVAL, INC., individually And as
`successor in interest to DeLaval Purifier and
`Sharples Corp.,et al.,
`Defendants.
`a)
`
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION’S
`REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER
`SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to Practice Book Sec. 11-10(b), defendant International Business Machines
`
`Corporation (“IBM”) respectfully submits this Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of
`
`its Motion to Strike plaintiffs’ claims against it, and in further support of its motion fora protective
`
`order staying discovery against it pending the resolution of this motion.
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT IN REPLY
`
`PLAINTIFFS DO NOT DISPUTE THAT UNDER CONNECTICUT LAW,
`PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST IBM ARE BARRED BY THE
`
`WORKERS’ COMPENSATION EXCLUSIVITY DEFENSE
`
`IBM’s motionto strike was predicated upon the proposition that, under the Connecticut
`
`Workers' Compensation Act (WCA), “[a]n employer who complies with the requirements of
`
`subsection (b) of this section shall not be liable for any action for damages on account of
`
`personal injury sustained by an employeearising out of and in the course of his employment or
`
`on account of death resulting from personal injury so sustained... .” See Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann.
`
`§ 31-284 (a). IBM set forth case law establishing that the Connecticut Supreme Court interprets
`
`“the exclusivity provision of the act .. . as a total bar to common law actions brought by
`
`employees against employers for job related injuries with one narrow exception that exists when
`
`the employer has committed an intentional tort or where the employer has engaged in wilful or
`
`serious misconduct.” See Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp., 229 Conn. 99, 106 (1994).
`
`Plaintiffs “object” to [BM’s motionto strike. See plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in
`
`Support of Plaintiffs’ Objection to Defendant International Business Machines Corporation’s
`
`Motion to Strike (hereinafter, “Pls.” Mem.”) at p. 1. But rather than provide any factualor legal
`
`argumentthat the exclusivity provision of the Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Act does not
`
`bar plaintiffs’ claims against IBM,plaintiffs instead assert that they “have groundsto pursue a
`
`cause of action against IBM underthe laws of the State of Texas.” Pls’ Mem.at 2.
`
`As a threshold matter, plaintiffs’ argument regarding Texas law is improper. The
`
`allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint only refer to Mr. Johns being injured asa result of his
`
`employment at IBM, and nothing more. Accordingly, since Connecticut is a fact pleadingstate,
`
`and becausethe allegations in the Complaint do not include the allegation that Mrs. Johns has a
`
`
`
`potential claim under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, plaintiffs are confined to what they
`
`have alleged. They should not now be allowed to introduce new facts in opposition to a Motion
`
`to Strike that were not alleged in the complaint.
`
`Plaintiffs’ attempt to raise this new claim in opposition to IBM’s motionto strike also
`
`violates both sections of Practice Book § 10-3. Section 10-3(a) providesthat:
`
`Whenany claim made in a complaint, cross complaint, special defense, or other
`pleading is groundedona statute, the statute shall be specifically identified by its
`number.
`
`Practice Book § 10-3(a). Asplaintiffs’ complaint contains no mention of Texas Workers’
`
`Compensation Act § 408.001(b), they should not be heard to raise that statute now, in opposition
`
`to IBM’s motionto strike.
`
`Further, Section 10-3(b) provide that:
`
`A party to an action whointendsto raise an issue concerning the law of any
`jurisdiction or governmental unit thereof outside this state shall give notice in his
`or her pleadings or other reasonable written notice.
`
`Practice Book § 10-3(b). It cannot be said that raising this foreign statute for the first time in
`
`opposition to IBM’s motionto strike constitutes “reasonable notice.”
`
`But plaintiffs’ claim that they have a viable cause of action under Texas Workers’
`
`Compensation law suffers from substantive defects as well. Leaving aside for the moment the
`
`question of why, exactly, such a claim should be brought and heard in a Connecticut court
`
`against a New York corporation,! plaintiffs concede that the ostensible Texas claim is not even
`
`ripe, as a Texas court would nothear it until such time as plaintiff Conrad Johns passes away.
`
`1 Tf, for some reason, IBM’s motiontostrikeis not granted,or plaintiffs seek to replead those
`claims against it here, IBM will move to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims against it onforum non
`conveniens grounds.
`
`
`
`See Pls’ Mem.at 5 (“While Texas law allows for Elizabeth Johns to pursue a case against IBM,
`
`it should be apparent that doing so requires the death of her husband”).
`
`An additional obstacle, which plaintiffs largely ignore, is that such a Texas cause of
`
`action also requires proof that the employee’s death was caused by “an intentional act or
`
`omission by the employeror by the employer’s gross negligence.” Pls’ Mem.at 4 (quoting Tex.
`
`Lab. Code Ann. § 408.001(b)).
`
`Howplaintiff Elizabeth Johns intends to make such a showing, given plaintiff Conrad
`
`Johns’ deposition testimony to date, is not clear. To date, plaintiff Conrad Johns has provided
`
`the following sworn testimony regarding IBM’s conduct towards its employees:
`
`.... IBM probably had created an environment for workers that was significantly
`better than what OSHA may require. More sensitive to those issues -- OSHA
`wasn't anything new to IBM. Wewere introduced to the OSHA development, but
`there was no changesthat had to be made becauseofthat.
`
`I think what you're telling me is that even before OSHA, IBM had somesort
`Q.
`of safety stuff?
`
`A. Oh, people worked with safety, absolutely. Probably more strict than OSHA
`even required.
`
`See excerpts from Volume 2 of deposition testimony by plaintiff Conrad Johns, annexed hereto
`
`as Exhibit “A,” at pages 402:21 to 403:9.
`
`The flawsin plaintiff Elizabeth Johns’ possible future claims against IBM under Texas
`
`law do not end there. Not only is the record currently devoid of any evidence that IBM acted
`
`negligently towards plaintiff Conrad Johns(let alone that it acted with the “gross negligence”
`
`required to avoid the Workers’ Compensation exclusivity bar under Texas law), there is also —
`
`plaintiffs’ assertion to the contrary notwithstanding -- no evidencethat plaintiff Conrad Johns
`
`was even exposed to asbestos during his employment by IBM.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in objection asserts that:
`
`4
`
`
`
`Mr. Johns described in his deposition testimony how he waspotentially
`exposed to asbestos-containing dust during his employment with IBM at
`the plant in Austin, Texas, by specifically highlighting how he:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`(5)
`
`(6)
`
`built and wired the Selectric Composing Machine;
`
`built relay gates;
`
`performed final tests on the interior of MT/ST typewriters;
`
`worked with equipment powersupplies, cables, wires, electronics
`packages, and framing/housing;
`
`oversaw a team offifteen employees while they assembledrelay gates;
`and eventually
`
`oversaw a group of employees performingfinal test on the MT/ST
`typewriters.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Mem.at 5 (citing plaintiffs’ Exhibit A at pp. 311-24 and 385-99) (emphasis added).
`
`A naive reader might conclude from this assertion that Mr. Johns hadtestified that he
`
`believed he might have been exposed to “asbestos-containing dust” by virtue of his employment
`
`IBMat the plant in Austin. But that conclusion would beincorrect: plaintiff never testified that
`
`he thought he might have been exposed to asbestos by that work. Indeed, he was never even
`
`asked if he thought that work might have exposed him to asbestos. For that matter, he was
`
`never even asked if his employment by IBM atthe plant in Austin involved any “dust”either.
`
`To be sure, although the above-quoted line of questioning regarding his work for IBM in
`
`Austin, Texas did not include any questioning about exposureto asbestos, plaintiff was actually
`
`asked if he thought that if his prior work for IBM at a typewriter plant in Lexington, Kentucky,
`
`had exposed him to asbestos. But his responsesto that line of questioning also failed to support
`
`any such claim. He respondedthat he had “no idea”; no such knowledge (“Absolutely not”); and
`
`“no knowledge ofthat at all.” See Ex. A at 349; 369; 373.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs also argue that “IBM’s Motion to Strike is Improper Given the Facts of this
`
`Case.” Pls’ Mem. at 6. The exact nature of the alleged impropriety is not, at first glance,clear.
`
`Surely a motion to strike is indeed the proper vehicle for such a motion, given the abundantcase
`
`law implicitly endorsing such a motion. See, e.g., Sullivan v. Lake Compounce ThemePark,
`
`Inc., 277 Conn. 113 (2006).
`
`Asthe opinion by the Connecticut Supreme Court in Sullivan makesclear, the proper
`
`vehicle for challenging the sufficiency of a complaint that is potentially subject to the Workers’
`
`Compensation exclusivity bar is indeed a motionto strike. And if the complaintat issue contains
`
`no allegations that the employer/defendant's conduct was motivated by an intention to cause the
`
`plaintiff/employee harm or knowledge that such harm would result, then the motion tostrike
`
`should be granted:
`
`Accordingly, because the plaintiff's complaint contained no allegations that the
`defendants’ conduct was motivated by their intention to cause the decedent harm
`or knowledge that such harm would result, we concludethatit did not satisfy the
`substantial certainty standard as set forth in Suarez J and Suarez II. Thetrial
`court, therefore, properly granted the defendants' motionto strike the complaint.
`
`Sullivan v. Lake Compounce Theme Park, Inc., 277 Conn. 113, 118-20 (2006); see also, e.g.,
`
`Quimby v. Kimberly Clark Corporation, 28 Conn. App. 660, 665 (1994) (concludingthat the
`
`trial court properly granted the motionto strike counts one, two,three, five and six of the motion
`
`to strike on the groundsthat “the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts [in] support of her claim
`
`that the defendant’s conductrose to a level of intentional misconduct”). Of course, it should not
`
`escape this Court’s notice that plaintiffs here did not even include any conclusory allegations that
`
`IBM’s conduct“rose to a level of intentional misconduct,” let alone allege any facts in support of
`
`such an allegation.
`
`
`
`But a close reading ofplaintiffs’ memorandum reveals the true nature of the
`
`“impropriety”: if IBM is dismissed from this action pursuant to its motion tostrike (as it should
`
`be), plaintiffs will be handicapped in pursuing discovery from IBM that mightlead to other, as
`
`yet unknown,potential defendants. See Pls.” Mem. at 7 IBM’s motionto strike is improper
`
`“because Conrad Johns has described numerous sourcesof potential exposure to asbestos and
`
`asbestos-containing materials during his time working for IBM,andtheplaintiffs have requested
`
`documents and information from IBM to uncover the manufacturers ofthese products and
`
`equipment’) (emphasis added). No case law is provided in support of this remarkable
`
`proposition that a plaintiff may sue a defendant that is otherwise immunefrom suit against it
`
`purely as a meansof subjecting that defendant to extensive and entirely speculative discovery in
`
`the hopesof identifying some other, as-yet unknown defendants, against whichthe plaintiff
`
`might turn out to have a viable cause ofaction.”
`
`No such case law is cited because a substantial body of case law is squarely againstit.
`
`On the contrary, it is well-settled that a viable cause ofaction is a prerequisite for discovery.
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (“Rule 8 does not unlock the doors of discovery
`
`for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions”); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
`
`U.S. 544, 564 n.8 (2007) (referring to an "understanding that, before proceeding to discovery, a
`
`complaint must allege facts suggestive of illegal conduct").
`
`A plaintiff who does not have a viable cause of action is not allowed to subject a
`
`defendant to discovery in the hopes of possibly stumbling across one. Artuso v. Vertex
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 637 F. 3d 1, 8 (st Circuit 2011) (“a plaintiff whose complaint does not
`
`To be sure, IBM doesnot “have an interest in remaining in this case and perpetuating Mr.
`Johns’ testimony.” Plaintiff's Mem. at 6. Nor does it have a “duty” to do so. Jd.
`
`7
`
`
`
`state an actionable claim has no license to embark ona fishing expedition in an effort to discover
`
`a cause of action”); McCloskey v. Mueller, 446 F.3d 262, 271 (1Cir. 2006) (“The purpose of
`
`pretrial discovery is notto allow a plaintiff to rummage aboutin search of a hitherto unexplicated
`
`cause of action”); DM Research Inc. v. College ofAmerican Pathologists, 170 F.3d 53, 55 (1*
`
`Cir. 1999) (“the factual allegations must be specific enoughto justify dragging a defendantpast
`
`the pleading threshold”; “the price of entry, even for discovery, is for the plaintiff to allege a
`
`factual predicate concrete enough to warrant further discovery, which may be costly and
`
`burdensome’’) (quotations and citations omitted; emphasisin original).
`
`Onefinal point bears noting. IBM was deprived of the opportunity to move to dismiss
`
`plaintiffs’ claims against it on the groundsthat this Court had no personaljurisdiction over it by
`
`plaintiffs’ blatant failure to properly plead the pertinent facts allegedly supportingplaintiffs’
`
`claims. Indeed, there was nothingin plaintiffs’ complaint to alert IBM to the fact that those
`
`claims have no connection to the State of Connecticut at all. Had IBM knownthatplaintiffs’
`
`claims againstit arose from plaintiff Conrad Johns’ employment by IBM in Texas, Kentucky,
`
`and New Jersey, it could have, and would have, moved to dismiss those claims on the grounds
`
`that a Connecticut court does not have jurisdiction over IBM, a New York corporation, for
`
`claimsthat do not arise out of IBM’s contacts with Connecticut. See, e.g., Adams v. Aircraft
`
`Spruce & Specialty Co., SC 20505 (Nov. 22, 2022).
`
`If this case continues, in one form or another, IBM therefore requests leave to move to
`
`dismiss plaintiffs’ claims against it, Practice Book § 10-30 notwithstanding, on the grounds that
`
`plaintiffs’ failure to properly plead the facts of their claims against IBM has unfairly surprised
`
`and prejudiced IBM. Cf Pitchell v. Hartford, 247 Conn. 422 (1999) (holding that there was no
`
`
`
`basis for departing from a strict construction of Practice Book § 10-32 [then § 144] because there
`
`was no showingof surprise or prejudice sufficient to invoke Practice Book § 1-8).
`
`Here, however,plaintiffs’ omission has plainly prejudiced and surprised IBM,since the
`
`fact that plaintiffs’ claims against IBM had no connection to Connecticut did not surface until
`
`plaintiff's deposition in March, long past the time allowed by Practice Book § 10-30.
`
`Practice Book § 1-8 should therefore be applied. That section provides that:
`
`The design of these rules being to facilitate business and advancejustice, they will
`be interpreted liberally in any case whereit shall be manifest that a strict
`adherence to them will work surprise or injustice.
`
`Therefore,if this motion is not granted, orif plaintiffs replead, IBM respectfully requests
`
`leave to move to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction overit.
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`WHEREFORE,for the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully submitted that IBM is
`
`entitled to: a) an order staying discovery pending the determination ofthis motion; and b) dismissal
`
`of all claims against IBM because they are barred by the Connecticut Workers’ Compensation
`
`exclusivity bar.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`The Defendant,
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
`CORPORATION,
`Byits attorneys,
`
`/s/ Mark. J. Hoover
`
`Judith A. Perritano
`
`Mark J. Hoover
`
`Pierce Davis & Perritano LLP
`10 Post Office Square, Suite 1100N
`Boston, MA 02109
`(617) 350-0950
`Juris No.: 440466
`
`Juris No.: 410899
`
`Dated: April 12, 2023
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`I, Mark J. Hoover, hereby certify that a true copy of the above document was served
`electronically via e-mail to all parties of record.
`
`/s/ Mark J. Hoover
`
`
`Mark J. Hoover
`
`10
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`In the Matter Of:
`
`Alfa Laval, Inc., et al.
`
`Conrad Johns and Elizabeth Johns vs
`
`
`
`CONRAD JOHNS
`
`March 07, 2023
`
`
`
`Conrad Johns - March 07, 2023
`
`
`Conrad Johns - March 07, 2023
`sat here knowing the machine had a rhythm that
`
`349
`
`you learned.
`
`The guy sitting behind me had a
`
`rhythm.
`
`I tried like hell to beat him every
`
`time.
`
`I knew when he was making one.
`
`I knew
`
`I -- I tried to make sure I made one faster
`
`than he did.
`
`It took a long time for me to get
`
`to that rhythm, but I got it there because I
`
`had to be top producer to get the hell out of
`
`there.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Q.
`
`I understand.
`
`Now, you also mentioned
`
`a cloth material that was associated with this?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Correct.
`
`You don't have any knowledge of who
`
`manufactured that cloth material?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No,
`
`I don't.
`
`And do you have any knowledge that
`
`cloth material contained asbestos?
`
`A.
`
`I have no idea.
`
`They were ink coated
`
`in that mechanical products area by the same
`
`people that were coating all that other stuff.
`
`Q.
`
`In your area where you were doing the
`
`spooling machine work, was there any other
`
`equipment or machinery that was being used?
`
`www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier —_Lexitas
`
`www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
`
`—Lexitas
`
`888-267-1200
`
`
`
`Conrad Johns - March 07, 2023
`
`
`Conrad Johns - March 07, 2023
`the cloth material,
`the pellets that
`
`paper,
`
`369
`
`we've been talking about associated with the
`
`extruder, any of that stuff, any knowledge
`
`whatsoever, as you sit here today,
`
`that any of
`
`that contained asbestos?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Absolutely not.
`
`All right.
`
`So the next thing I have
`
`here is that you were working with the card
`
`ledger machine?
`
`
`
`—_Lexitas
`
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Correct.
`
`And that was different than what you
`
`were doing before, right?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Right.
`
`Because you -- so you were no longer
`
`in the chemical products building?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Absolutely.
`
`That was when you had -- you were a
`
`top producer so they moved you up a little bit?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Correct.
`
`Describe your work for me with the
`
`card ledger machine.
`
`A.
`
`Card ledger machine, as I recall, was
`
`a tubular frame.
`
`The tubes were probably an
`
`inch by an inch, square steel. Had four legs.
`www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
`
`www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
`
`—_Lexitas
`
`888-267-1200
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`Conrad Johns - March 07, 2023
`
`Conrad Johns - March 07, 2023
`to be adjusted to the right thickness, if you
`
`373
`
`will.
`
`So you'd do that, and you'd adjust these
`
`rollers to where they were the right way.
`
`Q.
`
`The rollers,
`
`I'm picturing like a
`
`rubber roller?
`
`A.
`
`Yeah, or you know, a bar with these
`
`rollers on it. Roll the card, yeah.
`
`Q.
`
`Any knowledge that any part of that
`
`machine contained asbestos?
`
`A.
`
`QO.
`
`No knowledge of that at all.
`
`When you were doing the card ledger
`
`machine and the assembly part with the card
`
`ledger machine, you said you left the chemical
`
`products division altogether. Where were you
`
`doing this work?
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`name?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`In another building.
`
`A whole other building?
`
`A whole other building, right.
`
`Did that particular building have a
`
`Not that I recall.
`
`Were there any other pieces of
`
`equipment or machinery that were being operated
`
`in that whole other building?
`
`www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier —Lexitas
`
`www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
`
`—Lexitas
`
`888-267-1200
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No.
`
`Let me just explain what I'm getting
`
`at.
`
`I'm not just talking about asbestos.
`
`I'm
`
`talking about hazardous materials in general,
`
`potential exposures to anything that might be
`
`used either on the manufacturing or assembly
`
`floor that could hurt somebody.
`
`A.
`
`I don't recall that being part of the
`
`training process.
`
`Q.
`
`How about training about hard hats and
`
`gloves and eyewear and things of that nature?
`
`A.
`
`I don't remember that being part of
`
`the process.
`
`It was more administrative
`
`training, as I recall.
`
`Q.
`
`Administrative in terms of filling out
`
`reports?
`
`A. Well,
`
`some of the things that you're
`
`talking about already existed.
`
`I mean, if you
`
`worked in the warehouse, you had to wear
`
`steel-toed shoes.
`
`IBM probably had created an
`
`environment for workers that was significantly
`
`better than what OSHA may require. More
`
`sensitive to those issues -—- OSHA wasn't
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Conrad Johns - March 07, 2023
`
`—_ Conradtehas—Mareh07 2023
`
`402
`
`
`
`
`—www.lexitasLegal.com/Premier—Lexitas
`
`www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier—Lexitas 888-267-1200
`
`
`
`Conrad Johns - March 07, 2023
`
`_——————______-Gonrad_tehns—MVareh-97 2023
`
`403
`
`anything new to IBM. We were introduced to the
`
`OSHA development, but there was no changes that
`
`had to be made because of that.
`
`Q.
`
`I think what you're telling me is that
`
`even before OSHA,
`
`IBM had some sort of safety
`
`stuff?
`
`A.
`
`Oh, people worked with safety,
`
`absolutely.
`
`Probably more strict than OSHA
`
`even required.
`
`Q.
`
`And when you were in the chemical
`
`products division,
`
`things like steel-toed
`
`boots, gloves, stuff like that, was that the
`
`kind of things that they would require you to
`
`wear?
`
`A.
`
`No,
`
`I don't remember wearing any
`
`gloves or any steel-toed shoes. Steel toed
`
`shoes came as part of my distribution warehouse
`
`activity. No,
`
`I don't know of any -- I don't
`
`know of any safety things that were required
`
`for my chemical products work.
`
`I wore what
`
`clothes I walked in there with, and I didn't --
`
`I don't -- there wasn't even an apron or
`
`anything.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`www.LexitasLegal-com/Premier—Cexitas
`www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
`—_Lexitas
`888-267-1200
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
