ASB-FBT-CV23-6120092-S
`
`
`
`
`
`CONRAD JOHNS AND
`
`
`ELIZABETH JOHNS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VS.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALFA LAVAL, INC.; ET UX. ET AL.
`
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`
` :
` :
` :
` :
` :
` :
` :
` : May 24, 2023
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD
`
`AT BRIDGEPORT
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION TO
`DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION’S
`MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`Plaintiffs Conrad Johns and his wife, Elizabeth, commenced this action through a Summons
`
`and Complaint dated December 13, 2022, with a return date of January 3, 2023. International
`
`Business Machines Corporation (“IBM” or “the Defendant”) was named as a defendant and filed an
`
`appearance in this action on December 22, 2022. The Defendant then filed a motion to strike Counts
`
`I, II, and III of Plaintiff’s complaint against IBM on March 3, 2023, and after some direction from
`
`the Court, refiled its motion to strike on May 3, 2023. The sole ground for IBM’s motion to strike is
`
`that Mr. Johns worked for IBM and the exclusivity provision of the Connecticut Workers’
`
`Compensation Act prohibits it from being pursued in litigation. Pursuant to Connecticut Practice
`
`Book § 10-40, Plaintiffs object to IBM’s Motion to Strike.
`
`To date, Mr. Johns has provided three days of deposition testimony and expects to provide
`
`additional testimony in the near future. According to his deposition testimony, Mr. Johns worked for
`
`IBM for more than 25 years and was likely exposed to asbestos during his employment at several
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 10
`
`

`

`IBM facilities including, but not limited to a plant located in Austin, TX. Despite the provisions of
`
`§ 31-284(a) of the Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Act, Plaintiffs have grounds to pursue a
`
`cause of action against IBM under the laws of the State of Texas. Specifically, Texas Workers’
`
`Compensation Act § 408.001(b) allows for a Plaintiff to name her husband’s employer when said
`
`employee passes away due to an intentional act or omission by the employer or by the employer’s
`
`gross negligence. IBM has an interest in this matter, and in the hopes of avoiding duplicative
`
`litigation and expenses, it should continue to remain as a defendant in this case. Accordingly, the
`
`Court should deny Defendant’s motion to strike.
`
`STANDARD OF LAW
`
`Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 10-8,
`
`Commencing on the return day of the writ, summons and
`complaint in civil actions, pleadings, including motions and
`requests addressed to the pleadings, shall advance within
`thirty days from the return day, and any subsequent
`pleadings, motions, and requests shall advance at least on
`step within each successive period of thirty days from the
`preceding pleading or the filing of the decision of the
`judicial authority thereon if one is required . . . .
`
`
`
`P.B. § 10-8. Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-61, “when any pleading is amended the adverse
`
`party may plead thereto within the time provided by Section 10-8 . . .”. P.B. § 10-61.
`
`A motion to strike may be used to contest the legal sufficiency of the allegations of the
`
`complaint, or the legal sufficiency of any prayer for relief in any complaint. P.B. § 10-39; Sturm v.
`
`Harb Dev., LLC, 298 Conn. 124, 130 (2010). The trial court should “construe the complaint in the
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 10
`
`

`

`manner most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency,” should take the facts to be those alleged
`
`in the complaint and should not make any factual findings. Sturm v. Harb Dev., LLC, 298 Conn.
`
`124, 130 (2010). “[I]f facts provable in the complaint would support a cause of action, the motion to
`
`strike must be denied.” Id.
`
`Further, “[w]hat is necessarily implied [in an allegation] need not be expressly alleged. . . . It
`
`is fundamental that in determining the sufficiency of a complaint challenged by a defendant's motion
`
`to strike, all well-pleaded facts and those facts necessarily implied from the allegations are taken as
`
`admitted. . . . Indeed, pleadings must be construed broadly and realistically, rather than narrowly and
`
`technically." Geysen v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., 322 Conn. 385, 398 (2016).
`
`Although “…it is well settled that the failure to include a necessary allegation in a complaint
`
`precludes a recovery by the plaintiff under that complaint . . . . if the complaint puts the defendant on
`
`notice of the relevant claims, then a plaintiff's failure specifically to allege a particular fact or issue is
`
`not fatal to his claim unless it results in prejudice to the defendant.'' Strum at 130-131.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Elizabeth Johns has a Cause of Action Against IBM under the Laws of the
`State of Texas
`
`
`
`The matter at hand is properly filed in Connecticut since the State has jurisdiction. That said,
`
`Mr. Johns was not employed by IBM in the State of Connecticut, but rather in several other states,
`
`including Texas.
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 10
`
`

`

`Texas Workers’ Compensation Act § 408.001(a) provides that, "[r]ecovery of workers'
`
`compensation benefits is the exclusive remedy of an employee ... or a legal beneficiary against the
`
`employer for the death of ... the employee." Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 408.001(a). Paragraph (b) goes
`
`on to state that "[t]his section does not prohibit the recovery of exemplary damages by the surviving
`
`spouse or heirs of the body of a deceased employee whose death was caused by an intentional act or
`
`omission of the employer or by the employer's gross negligence." Id. § 408.001(b). Section 408.002
`
`provides, "A right of action survives in a case based on a compensable injury that results in the
`
`employee's death." Id. § 408.002. While generally states prohibit an employee, or his beneficiaries,
`
`from bringing suit against the employer for actual damages, these provisions of the Texas Workers’
`
`Compensation Act actually permit the spouse of a deceased employee to bring suit for the death of
`
`the employee and to recover exemplary damages from the employer for its gross negligence. See
`
`Wright v. Gifford-Hill & Co., 725 S.W.2d 712, 714 (Tex.1987); City of Dallas v. Gatlin, 329 S.W.3d
`
`222, 226 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Rogers, 538 S.W.3d
`
`637 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2017).
`
`Texas law clearly provides a cause of action for a spouse when the death of her husband can
`
`be traced back to the actions, omissions, or gross negligence of his employer. Mr. Johns described
`
`in his deposition testimony how he was potentially exposed to asbestos-containing dust during his
`
`employment with IBM at the plant in Austin, Texas, by specifically highlighting how he:
`
`(1) built and wired the Selectric Composing Machine;
`
`(2) built relay gates;
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 10
`
`

`

`(3) performed final tests on the interior components of MT/ST typewriters;
`
`(4) worked with equipment power supplies, cables, wires, electronics packages, and
`
` framing/housing;
`
`(5) oversaw a team of fifteen employees while they assembled relay gates; and eventually
`
`(6) oversaw a group of employees performing final test on the MT/ST typewriters.
`
`See Excerpt from Volume 2 & 3 of Conrad Johns’ Deposition Testimony, dated 3/7/2023 &
`5/1/2023, attached hereto as “Exhibit A”, at Pgs. 311-324, 385-399, & 531-541.
`
`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. As of today, Conrad Johns is luckily still
`
`living; however, Mr. Johns was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma on or about October 24,
`
`2022, and he is currently 83 years old. Seeing that mesothelioma is a terminal illness without a
`
`known cure, it should go without question that Mr. Johns will likely pass away from this disease in
`
`the not-so-distant future.
`
`Assuming arguendo that this Court grants IBM’s motion to strike, doing so will have a
`
`negative impact on the legal system since repetitive litigation will likely ensue. If this Court decides
`
`to grant the motion to strike and requires this issue to eventually be filed in Texas, that subsequent
`
`case will involve (1) the same Plaintiffs, (2) the same Defendant, and (3) the same testimony that
`
`Mr. Johns has already perpetuated for three full days; three full days during which IBM counsel was
`
`in attendance and afforded the opportunity of questioning Mr. Johns about his potential asbestos
`
`exposure.
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 10
`
`

`

`Importantly, IBM has an interest in remaining in this case and perpetuating Mr. Johns’
`
`testimony. Any eventual case in Texas will be almost exclusively based on the testimony of Conrad
`
`Johns, and as a matter of logic, Mr. Johns will unfortunately be deceased at that time and unavailable
`
`to provide further testimony. Thus, IBM has a duty to remain in the case at hand and should take
`
`this opportunity to participate in furthering the testimony of Mr. Johns, since it will be the
`
`cornerstone of future litigation that could be filed against it in the State of Texas.
`
`Accordingly, the Court should deny Defendant’s Motion to Strike.
`
`IBM’s Motion to Strike is Improper Given the Facts of this Case
`
`B.
`
`The Defendant improperly requests the Court to strike all Counts of Plaintiffs’ Complaint
`
`against IBM. This request is improper because Conrad Johns has described numerous sources of
`
`potential exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing materials during his time working for IBM,
`
`and the Plaintiffs have requested documents and information from IBM to uncover the
`
`manufacturers of these products and equipment.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint states in paragraph 5 that Mr. Johns was exposed to asbestos-containing
`
`products during his employment with International Business Machines Corporation in the mid-to-
`
`late 1960s. A plain reading of this statement shows that Plaintiff is seeking recovery related to
`
`asbestos exposures that occurred during his work with IBM. This statement is not exclusive to IBM,
`
`especially since nothing in it precludes the Plaintiff from pursuing third-party manufacturers and
`
`suppliers that provided IBM with asbestos and asbestos-containing materials that were used at the
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 10
`
`

`

`plants where Mr. Johns worked. As stated in Geysen, “Indeed, pleadings must be construed broadly
`
`and realistically, rather than narrowly and technically." Geysen at 398.
`
`The granting of Defendant’s Motion to Strike would improperly harm the Johns case since it
`
`would remove from the Complaint any mention of potential asbestos exposure that occurred while
`
`Mr. Johns worked at IBM’s manufacturing plants and facilities. To date, Mr. Johns has already
`
`identified numerous sources of potential asbestos exposure at the IBM plants from products and
`
`materials that were likely supplied by third parties. Granting IBM’s Motion to Strike will unfairly
`
`harm Plaintiffs’ ability to acquire relevant documents related to these potential sources of asbestos
`
`exposure. Of note, the products and equipment identified by Mr. Johns thus far as potential sources
`
`of asbestos exposure include:
`
`(1) typewriter ribbons (specifically those used in the Selectric typewriters and MT/ST
`
`typewriters);
`
`(2) phonelic plastics;
`
`(3) extruder machines;
`
`(4) ovens;
`
`(5) insulation, packing, and/or heat shielding installed within typewriters (specifically
`
`within the Selectric typewriters, MT/ST typewriters, Type Bar typewriters,
`
`Accounting/Card Ledger machines, and Selectric Composing machines);
`
`(6) relay gates and their housing;
`
`(7) insulated/fire-resistant cables and wires;
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 10
`
`

`

`(8) insulation, packing, and/or heat shielding installed within the typewriter ribbon
`
`spooling machines; and
`
`(9) plastics used to make cartridges for typewriter ribbons (specifically for the Selectric
`
`typewriters).
`
`See Exhibit A.
`
`Importantly, IBM applied for and was granted a patent involving the use of asbestos in
`
`manufacturing its typewriter ribbon. See Findlay, Hugh T., Lexington, KY, assignor to International
`
`Business Machines Corporation. Flexible Self-Supporting Cut Resistant Writing Element. United
`
`States Patent US 3,522,344, United States Patent Office. Filed May 10, 1968, Granted July 28, 1970.
`
`Attached hereto as “Exhibit B”.
`
`C.
`
`IBM is Procedurally Barred from Filing a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
`Personal Jurisdiction
`
`
`Based on the arguments made in the Motion to Strike and accompanying Memorandum of
`
`Law, it appears that IBM should have filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for lack of personal
`
`jurisdiction. Prevailing on a Motion to Dismiss would have removed IBM from the case, which
`
`appears to be IBM’s goal in this matter; however, it would not have had a profound impact on the
`
`other aspects of the case that are related to the third-party products and equipment that Mr. Johns
`
`was exposed to during his work in IBM’s plants. This is precisely why IBM’s Motion to Strike must
`
`be denied.
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 10
`
`

`

`Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 10-6, § 10-7, and § 10-32, by choosing to file a
`
`Motion to Strike, IBM has waived its right to file a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal
`
`jurisdiction and should be directed by this Court to file its Answer in a timely fashion.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Defendant’s motion to strike and request
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`for a protective order.
`
`/
`
`/
`
`/
`
`/
`
`/
`
`/
`
`/
`
`/
`
`/
`
`/
`
`/
`
`/
`
`/
`
`/
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`THE PLAINTIFFS
`
`
`
`
`
`s/438191
`By
`Kyle R. Navin
`Early, Lucarelli, Sweeney & Meisenkothen, LLC
`One Century Tower, 11th Floor
`265 Church St., PO Box 1866
`New Haven, CT 06508-1866
`203-777-7799 p
`203-785-1671 f
`Juris No. 438191
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was electronically served on May 24, 2023 to
`all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`s/48191
`
`Kyle R. Navin
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·VOLUME 2
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGES: 272-452
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·EXHIBITS: NONE
`
`· · · · · · ·STATE OF CONNECTICUT
`
`***************************
`FBT-CV23-6120092-S· · · · *
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · *· SUPERIOR COURT
`CONRAD JOHNS AND· · · · · *
`ELIZABETH JOHNS,· · · · · *· J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
`· · ·Plaintiffs,· · · · · *
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · *· AT BRIDGEPORT
`vs.· · · · · · · · · · · ·*
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · *
`ALFA LAVAL, INC., ET· · · *
`AL.,· · · · · · · · · · · *
`· · · · ·Defendants.· · · *
`***************************
`
`· · ·CONTINUED VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION
`· · · · · · · · OF CONRAD JOHNS
`· · · · · Holiday Inn Express & Suites
`· · · · · · · 1251 Hypoluxo Road
`· · · · · · · ·Lantana, Florida
`· · · · · · ·TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2023
`· · · · · · ·9:01 A.M. - 12:37 P.M.
`
`· · · · ·---- Linda Horne, CSR, RPR ----
`· · · · · · · · · · LEXITAS
`· · · · · · · · (508) 478-9795
`· · · · · · · www.LexitasLegal.com
`
`· · · · · · ·A P P E A R A N C E S:
`(Some counsel and witness appeared in person as
`noted.· All other counsel and court reporter
`appeared remotely.)
`
`Representing (In Person) the Plaintiffs:
`· · ·EARLY, LUCARELLI, SWEENEY &
`· · ·MEISENKOTHEN, LLC
`· · ·One Century Tower, 11th Floor
`· · ·265 Church Street, P.O. Box 1866
`· · ·New Haven, CT· 06508
`· · ·BY:· KYLE R. NAVIN, ESQ.
`· · ·(203) 777-7799
`· · ·knavin@elslaw.com
`
`Representing Honeywell International, Inc.:
`· · ·ADLER POLLOCK & SHEEHAN P.C.
`· · ·One Citizens Plaza
`· · · Providence, RI· 02903
`· · ·BY:· JAMES R. OSWALD, ESQ.
`· · ·(401) 274-7200
`· · ·joswald@apslaw.com
`
`Representing Eckel Industries:
`· · ·CMBG3 LAW
`· · ·265 Franklin Street, Suite 601
`· · ·Boston, MA· 02110
`· · ·BY:· MARISSA STEINER, ESQ.
`· · ·(617) 279-8200
`· · ·msteiner@cmbg3.com
`
`Representing Pneumo Abex, LLC:
`· · ·CETRULO LLP
`· · ·2 Seaport Lane, 10th Floor
`· · ·Boston, MA· 02210
`· · ·BY:· CHARLES SHEEHAN, ESQ.
`· · ·(617) 217-5500
`· · ·csheehan@cetllp.com
`
`272
`
`274
`
`Representing Cleaver-Brooks:
`· · ·CETRULO LLP
`· · ·2 Seaport Lane, 10th Floor
`· · ·Boston, MA· 02210
`· · ·BY:· ADAM C. MARTIN, ESQ.
`· · ·(617) 217-5500
`· · ·amartin@cetllp.com
`
`Representing Ward Leonard Electric Company,
`Inc.:
`· · ·CLYDE & CO US, LLP
`· · ·265 Franklin Street, 7th Floor
`· · ·Boston, MA· 02110-3113
`· · ·BY:· BRIAN GIBBONS, ESQ.
`· · ·(617) 210-7762
`· · ·brian.gibbons@clydeco.us
`
`Representing (In Person) Aurora Pump Company:
`· · ·GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
`· · ·95 Glastonbury Boulevard
`· · ·Glastonbury, CT· 06033
`· · ·BY:· GLENN B. COFFIN, JR., ESQ.
`· · ·(860) 278-7448
`· · ·gcoffin@grsm.com
`
`Representing Schneider Electric USA Inc., f/k/a
`Square D Company:
`· · ·HINCKLEY ALLEN
`· · ·100 Westminster Street
`· · ·Providence, RI· 02903-2319
`· · ·BY:· TIMOTHY M. ZABBO, ESQ.
`· · ·(401) 457-5162
`· · ·tzabbo@hinckleyallen.com
`
`Representing Honeywell International, Inc., as
`successor in interest to Allied Signal and The
`Bendix Corporation:
`· · ·HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
`· · ·One Beacon Street, Suite 1320
`· · ·Boston, MA· 02108
`· · ·BY:· DENIS F. ALIA, ESQ.
`· · ·(617) 598-6724
`· · ·denis.alia@huschblackwell.com
`
`273
`
`275
`
`Representing Alfa Laval:
`· · ·MG+M THE LAW FIRM
`· · ·One Citizens Plaza, Suite 620
`· · ·Providence, RI· 02903
`· · ·BY:· KEVIN HADFIELD, ESQ.
`· · ·(401) 443-2100
`· · ·khadfield@mgmlaw.com
`
`Representing Nokia of America Corporation,
`f/k/a Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. and Lucent
`Technologies, Inc., individually and as
`successor-in-interest to Western Electric
`Company only for the purpose of the claims
`asserted in this action, improperly named as
`Nokia of American Corporation, s/b/m to
`Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., s/b/m to Lucent
`Technologies, (sued as successor-in-interest to
`Western Electric Company):
`· · ·MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`· · ·CityPlace I
`· · ·185 Asylum Street, 36th Floor
`· · ·Hartford, CT· 06103
`· · ·BY:· CATHERINE MOHAN, ESQ.
`· · ·(860) 275-6700
`· · ·cmohan@mccarter.com
`
`Representing Eaton Corporation, as
`successor-in-interest to Cutler-Hammer, Inc.
`(Improperly named as "Eaton Corporation,
`individually and as successor to Cutler-Hammer
`and Vickers Pump"); FMC Corporation, on behalf
`of its former Turbo Pump Operation and on
`behalf of its former Northern Pump and John
`Bean businesses (improperly sued as "FMC
`Corporation, individually and as successor in
`interest to northern Pump, Coffin and John
`Bean"):
`· · ·MCELROY DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP
`· · ·Ten Post Office Square
`· · ·Boston, MA· 02109
`· · ·BY:· DAVID P. RUSSMAN, ESQ.
`· · ·(617) 748-5500
`· · ·drussman@mdmc-law.com
`
`

`

`Representing Valves and Controls US, Inc.,
`f/k/a Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc., f/k/a
`Atwood & Morrill Co., Inc.:
`· · ·MCGIVNEY KLUGER & COOK, P.C.
`· · ·20 Church Street, Suite 780
`· · ·Hartford, CT· 06103
`· · ·BY:· BRUCE RAYMOND, ESQ.
`· · ·(860) 404-3000
`· · ·braymond@mkclaw.us.com
`
`Representing Carrier; ITT; Johnson Controls;
`York International:
`· · ·MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`· · ·One Federal Street
`· · ·Boston, MA· 02110-1726
`· · ·BY:· WAYNE E. GEORGE, ESQ.
`· · ·(617) 341-7596
`· · ·wayne.george@morganlewis.com
`
`Representing Viking Pump, Inc.; Warren Pumps,
`LLC; New England Insulation Company;
`International Business Machines Corporation;
`Spirax Sarco, Inc.:
`· · ·PIERCE, DAVIS & PERRITANO, LLP
`· · ·10 Post Office Square, Suite 1100N
`· · ·Boston, MA· 02109
`· · ·BY:· MARK HOOVER, ESQ.
`· · ·(617) 350-0950
`· · ·mhoover@piercedavis.com
`
`Representing Genuine Parts Company:
`· · ·POND NORTH LLP
`· · ·99 Derby Street, Suite 201
`· · ·Hingham, MA· 02043
`· · ·BY:· MARGRETA VELLUCCI, ESQ.
`· · ·(781) 556-0600
`· · ·mvellucci@pondnorth.com
`
`Representing Morse Tec LLC, f/k/a Borgwarner
`Morse Tec, LLC, and Successor-By-Merger to
`Borg-Warner Corporation; Imo Industries, Inc.;
`Wm. Powell Company:
`· · ·UPDIKE, KELLY & SPELLACY, P.C.
`· · ·100 Pearl Street
`· · ·P.O. Box 231277
`· · ·Hartford, CT· 06103-1277
`· · ·BY:· RICHARD DIGHELLO, ESQ.
`· · ·(860) 548-2600
`· · ·rdighello@uks.com
`
`Representing Emerson Electric Co., individually
`and incorrectly sued as successor-in-interest
`to E.L. Weigand Company, Alco Valve, and Asco
`Valve:
`· · ·VON BRIESEN & ROPER, S.C.
`· · ·411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1000
`· · ·Milwaukee, WI· 53202
`· · ·BY:· MELANIE L. PERSICH, ESQ.
`· · ·(414) 287-1374
`· · ·mpersich@vonbriesen.com
`
`Representing Ford Motor Company:
`· · ·WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
`· · ·Courthouse Square
`· · ·600 North King Street
`· · ·Wilmington, DE· 19801
`· · ·BY:· CHRISTIAN J. SINGEWALD, ESQ.
`· · ·(302) 467-4510
`· · ·singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com
`Also present:
`·Christopher Gendron, Videographer
`·Jenny Chilek, Lexitas Video Monitor
`·Elizabeth Johns
`
`276
`
`· · · · · · · · · ·I N D E X
`
`278
`
`WITNESS· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`CONRAD JOHNS
`
`·Examination by Mr. Coffin· · · · · · 279
`
`·Examination by Mr. Navin· · · · · · ·432
`
`· · · · · · · · E X H I B I T S
`
`NO.· · · DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`
`· · · · · · · · ·N O N E
`
`277
`
`279
`
`· · · · ·P R O C E E D I N G S
`· · · · · · · ·* * * * *
`· · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We're on the
`record.· My name is Chris Gendron.· I'm a
`videographer retained by Lexitas.· Today is
`March 7, 2023.· The video time is 9:01 a.m.
`· · · · ·This deposition is being held at the
`Holiday Inn Express & Suites, 1251 Hypoluxo
`Road, Lantana, Florida 33462, in the matter of
`Conrad Johns and Elizabeth Johns versus Alfa
`Laval, et al.· The deponent is John Conrad --
`is Conrad Johns.· All counsel will be noted on
`the stenographic record.· The court reporter is
`Linda Horne and will now swear in the witness.
`· · · · · · · · ·* * * * *
`· · · · · · ·EXAMINATION CONDUCTED
`BY MR. COFFIN:
`· · Q.· ·Good morning, sir.
`· · A.· ·Good morning.
`· · Q.· ·Just a reminder from yesterday, you're
`still under oath.· Okay?
`· · A.· ·Yes, sir.
`· · · · ·MR. COFFIN:· There's a couple of
`housekeeping items.· I neglected yesterday to
`
`

`

`300
`· · Q.· ·Anybody working on any exposed piping
`or ceilings or walls?
`· · A.· ·No, sir.
`· · Q.· ·Did you ever have occasion to go into
`the boiler room or machinery room in that
`building?
`· · A.· ·No, sir, not that I recall.
`· · Q.· ·So that brings us to approximately
`1964 when your brother introduced you to IBM?
`· · A.· ·We're in close to June of '64.
`· · Q.· ·What was your brother's role at IBM?
`· · A.· ·He was a typewriter aligner.· He
`aligned type bar typewriters.
`· · Q.· ·He aligned what?· I'm sorry?
`· · A.· ·It's part of an assembly process of a
`type bar typewriter.· It's an electric
`typewriter.· It has a motor in it.· But as they
`come through there, all the type bars are set.
`Then they go -- the liner goes through and
`types a series of predetermined digits.
`· · · · ·And they look for the ones that are up
`or down so they have pliers that they actually
`go in and bend or modify the type bars
`themselves so they are all lined up perfect.
`
`302
`
`· · A.· ·On the north -- on what they called
`the bypass on the north.· I don't remember
`exactly what corner, but it's on the bypass on
`the north part of Lexington.
`· · Q.· ·And that building itself, was that --
`that building was the chemical products
`building, or was it something else and the
`chemical products was a part of it?
`· · A.· ·It was a chemical products building,
`but it was attached to the manufacturing
`facility, was attached to the machine floor,
`plating, and other assembly products.· It was
`attached.· It was a huge place.
`· · Q.· ·Was it one big building that had all
`those things that you just listed in it, or
`were there separate buildings on campus?
`· · A.· ·As I recall, you could go from one
`building to the next.· You probably went
`through some kind of fire door, like they
`normally have, which is a big sliding door that
`might be 20 feet wide and 15 or 20 feet tall.
`You'd go from one building to the next.· You
`didn't have to go outside to go to the
`cafeteria, for instance, which was way up near
`
`301
`
`303
`
`So he was a type bar aligner.
`· · Q.· ·When he suggested to you to, Hey, come
`work for IBM, did you fill out an application?
`Do you go down and talk to somebody?
`· · A.· ·I filled out an application.· I went
`down and interviewed and made it clear that I
`was interested in an electronics job.· That was
`my background.
`· · · · ·But the only electronics in a
`typewriter is a motor.· There wasn't any
`electronic products there at the time.· I was
`offered a job working in chemical products.
`· · Q.· ·Now, you were living in Lexington at
`the time, right?
`· · A.· ·Correct.
`· · Q.· ·And the IBM location was in Lexington
`as well?
`· · A.· ·Correct.
`· · Q.· ·What kind of building was that?
`· · A.· ·The IBM location?
`· · Q.· ·Yes.· When you started, when you went
`to go to work at the chemical processing, where
`was -- let me do it this way.
`· · · · ·Where was the building located?
`
`the front of the building.
`· · · · ·So, yes, it was separate in the fact
`that it was in a contained space isolated by
`the fire doors, but it was attached to the rest
`of the manufacturing facility.
`· · Q.· ·Okay.· So you started -- you go to the
`interview.· You got this job.· You started.
`Did you have to go through any kind of a
`training period?
`· · A.· ·Not really.· I sat down on a spooling
`machine and started.· It took a while for where
`you could get efficient enough to where you
`could be productive on it.
`· · Q.· ·Sure.
`· · A.· ·It was self-trained.
`· · Q.· ·What was your title when you started,
`your job title, if you even had one?
`· · A.· ·I don't know that I had one.· I'm sure
`I did.· They have -- I know they have -- we all
`have levels like 14, 15, 16 level or they have
`assembly-level jobs.· And you get 17, 18, 19,
`and technical stuff.· It got up to where you
`got to the example of E level 1, E level 2.
`· · Q.· ·And in the chemical products
`
`

`

`304
`
`306
`
`section -- if we call it that, is that okay?
`· · A.· ·That's exactly what it was.
`· · Q.· ·Your role was assembly; is that right?
`· · A.· ·Right.· Assembling.· It was assembly,
`yeah, of typewriter ribbons for the Selectric
`typewriter, which was new.· It was a new
`product that was being introduced.· The
`Selectric was pretty new in 1964.
`· · · · ·And this was -- it had its own type
`cartridge for ribbons that would -- it was
`designed around that, and we were manufacturing
`those.
`· · Q.· ·Let me just get a little bit more
`information about the building and the other
`departments first, and then we'll dive in a
`little bit more to what you were doing.· Okay?
`· · A.· ·Okay.
`· · Q.· ·So as I'm picturing this, and you can
`correct me if I'm wrong, this is a big building
`that has sections; does that sound about right?
`· · A.· ·Probably 100,000 square foot, maybe
`bigger.· 30-foot ceilings in it, and it has
`various things going on.
`· · Q.· ·And those things that are going on
`
`through the rest of that building.· There
`weren't any -- I didn't recall that there were
`any restricted areas.· Most of those other
`areas were interesting, the plating area, the
`machine shop with all these stampings going on,
`the rest of the factory where they were
`building and assembling.· You'd walk through
`those areas to get to the -- I always thought
`the chemical products building was in the back
`of the building.· And then, therefore, the
`assembly areas were all -- you walked through
`them to get to the cafeteria, personnel.· The
`administrative areas were in the front, so you
`had to walk through that stuff to get there.
`· · Q.· ·The cafeteria is where you would have
`your lunch?
`· · A.· ·Correct.
`· · Q.· ·When you were -- how long were you an
`assembly person working on those typewriter
`ribbons in the chemical products?
`· · A.· ·About nine months.
`· · Q.· ·And after those first nine months --
`and I'm going to ask you some more questions.
`Don't worry.· I'm not leaving that.· I'm just
`
`305
`
`307
`
`were separated by fire doors?
`· · A.· ·No.· No.· Inside the building, they
`were just separated by aisles, maybe some half
`walls or something separating one thing or
`another.· No, it was all open.
`· · · · ·MR. NAVIN:· Are you talking about the
`chemical products?
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· The chemical products
`building.· Right.
`· · Q.· ·You said there were some other things
`that were going on other than chemical
`products.· You said there was a plating room.
`You said there was a machine room?
`· · A.· ·Correct.· That was in another
`building.
`· · Q.· ·When you would go to your chemical
`products area where you were working, would you
`have to go through any of the other buildings
`or areas just to get to your job station?
`· · A.· ·Well, not normally.· We reported to
`work -- there was a parking lot on the side of
`chemical products.· That's where we went in and
`went out.
`· · · · ·But if we went to lunch, you had to go
`
`trying to get a roadmap.
`· · A.· ·Got it.
`· · Q.· ·After those nine months in assembly,
`what did you transition to?
`· · A.· ·A product called a ledger -- ledger --
`card ledger machine.· It was a device that
`printed ledger kind of things.· It had a
`magnetic strip on it so it could read and print
`ledger cards.· I don't know.· Probably
`something for an accounting business.· That's
`my best recollection.
`· · Q.· ·This was still in the chemical
`products, or was this different?
`· · A.· ·No, this was in another building.
`· · Q.· ·How long did you work on the card
`ledger machines?
`· · A.· ·I started covering.· That was the
`first thing I did.· And then I worked my way up
`the line doing various assemblies, assembling
`the mechanism that handled it.
`· · · · ·I'm not totally sure -- maybe this
`would help.· When I went to IBM and I took this
`job in chemical products on second shift, I
`said, I'll give it a year.· I said, I'm not
`
`

`

`308
`
`310
`
`doing this if -- I want to get into an
`electronics job someplace or I'm not staying
`here.· Nine months and -- maybe this will help
`the story.· My manager in chemical products
`knew that as well.· I made it very clear to
`him.· What do you do to get out of here?· How
`can I get into the lab, working in that kind of
`capacity?· He said, Well, you have to become a
`top producer.· Okay.· What does that mean?· You
`have to be identified as a person productively
`producing more than anybody else in certain
`areas.· And that would have been associated
`with his department, which he probably had 15
`or 20 people doing stuff.
`· · · · ·So I said fine.· I became a top
`producer.· And so at some point in time,
`probably three or four months into the job, I
`came to him and said, You told me if I got to
`be a top producer, I was going to be selected
`maybe for something better in the electronics
`area, and nobody has contacted me and I'm on
`the top producers list.
`· · · · ·So he was discouraged about doing
`anything about it.· Mr. Johns, he said, You
`
`hour to $1.35 or something.· I don't know what
`it was.
`· · Q.· ·Okay.· So card ledger machines, you
`were putting the covers on them?
`· · A.· ·Correct.
`· · Q.· ·And I'm going to ask you more
`questions about all of this.· Don't worry.
`· · A.· ·That's fine.
`· · Q.· ·I've got lots to talk about.· How long
`were you putting the covers on the card ledger
`machines?
`· · A.· ·Probably a couple of months.
`· · Q.· ·And then after that, where did you go
`to?
`· · A.· ·Moved up the line and I started
`assembling the mechanism that handled the
`ledger.· You end up with some kind of casting,
`and you put shafts and card handling devices.
`You assemble all the parts.· There were -- in
`that operation, there were probably four
`benches, and you would do the first part of the
`assembly where you started in the second bench.
`You would do the next level.· In order to do
`the next level, you had to know the first
`
`309
`
`311
`
`just have to wait and eventually -- you're well
`known for what you're doing, and you are the
`best producer in my department, and it will
`eventually happen.
`· · · · ·Well, it got to be nine months and I
`hadn't heard anything from anybody.· I walked
`in one day and said, I want to go to personnel.
`And that was not -- once I became a manager, I
`knew that wasn't a proper thing, to have one of
`your employees walking off.· You were expected
`to manage your employees.
`· · · · ·He said, Fine.· He called.· I went to
`personnel.· I went through this story that I
`just went over with you with them, saying I was
`a top producer, I did that, I was told -- I had
`an electronics background.· And so the next day
`I was moved.
`· · · · ·I moved out of chemical products onto
`this ledger machine, which is more of an
`electronic product.· It had a small electric
`package in it.· And I was putting covers on.
`But that's okay.· I'm fine.· I'm -- I got
`promoted.· It was a higher level.· I made more
`money.· I went from a dollar and a quarter an
`
`level.· So you started the first level and you
`end up going all the way through.· And then it
`came back to covers when it got finished.
`· · Q.· ·Let me just try and get -- I'm trying
`to get a timeline.· I'm going to a