KIMBERLY COLE, Individually and as Executrix of the

WHEREAS, Defendant, W.W. Grainger, Inc. ("Grainger") has moved this Court for an Order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 520.1I and 22 NYCRR 1015.6(c) admitting pro hac vice, attomey W. Matthew Reber, Esq., of Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli Hanna & Reber, LLP, for the purposes of representing Grainger in the above-referenced action, pursuant to the Court's Notice of April 30,2020; WHEREAS, Mr. Reber is a member in good standing of the Bar of the State courts of Pennsylvania and New Jersey and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

WHEREAS, Mr. Reber is being sponsored in this matter by Lee D. Schneider, Esq., an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the State of New York; WHEREAS, upon consideration of the representations made in the email application for admission pro hac vice dated November 9,2020; WHEREAS, Mr. Reber has never been disbarred, suspended or denied admission to practice in any jurisdiction, it is hereby ORDERED that the application is GRANTED, and W. Matthew Reber, Jr, Esq. is hereby admitled pro hac vice for purposes of this action and pursuant to the Court's Notice of April 30, 2020 as counsel for Grainger in the above-captioned matter, and it is further ORDERID, pursuant to 22 NYCRR $$520.11 (e)(1) and (2), th^t as an attomey admitted pro hac vice, W. Matthew Reber, Esq. shall be familiar with and shall comply with the standards of professional conduct imposed upon members of the New York Bar, including the Rules of Court goveming the conduct of attomeys and the Rules of Professional Conduct, and shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts in this State with respect to any acts occurring during the course of the attomey's padcipation in this matter.

Dated:

MARK COLE and KIMBERLY COLE,

Defendant SUNOCO, LLC f/k/a Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), having moved for an order: (1) pursuant to 22 N.Y.C.R.R.

§ 520.11, admitting Chad D. Mountain, Esq. to practice before this Court pro hac vice on behalf of defendant SUNOCO, LLC f/k/a Sunoco, Inc. (R&M); and (2) for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper; and said motion having come to be heard on the 30th day of May, 2019, before Honorable Justice Gregory Gillbert, J.S.C.

at the Courthouse located at Onondaga County, at the courthouse located at 401 Montgomery Street, Syracuse, New York 13202.

ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is granted and that Chad D. Mountain, Esq. is admitted pro hac vice to practice before this Court on behalf of SUNOCO, LLC f/k/a Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) during the trial of the matter; and it is further ORDERED that authorization to practice before this Court is granted to Chad D. Mountain, Esq. to the date of resolution of all claims in this matter against SUNOCO, LLC f/k/a Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) or the date of entry of judgment by this Court following trial of this matter, whichever occurs first.

LOCTITE CORPORATION n/k/a Henkel Corporation, PARKER-HANNIF IN CORP. as Successor in Interest to CLARCOR, INC. d/b/a STANADYNE LLC, SHELL OIL

Defendant TECHNICAL CHEMICAL COMPANY’S motion to allow the admission, pro hac vice, of RYAN L. LEONARD, Esq.

to serve as its counsel is granted without opposition and for good cause shown.

is permitted to appear and participate in this action on behalf of TECHNICAL CHEMICAL COMPANY and it is further ORDERED that he shall at all times during this action be associated with counsel who is a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of New York and is attorney of record for the aforesaid party in question; and it is further ORDERED that pursuant to Section 520.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals and Section 1000.13 (1) of the Rules of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, the attorney hereby admitted pro hac vice shall abide by the standards of professional conduct imposed upon members of the New York State Bar, including the rules of the courts governing the conduct of attorneys and the Rules of Professional Conduct; and it is further ORDERED that he shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York with respect to any acts occurring during the course of his participation in this matter; and it is further ORDERED that said counsel shall notify the court immediately of any matter or event in this or any other jurisdiction that affects his standing as a member of the bar.

Dated: Syracuse, New York June 21 2018

Nonetheless, at the pleading stage of this action, the plaintiffs’ demand for punitive damages survives.

Nonetheless, at the pleading stage of this action, the plaintiffs’ demand for punitive damages survives.

In late May of 2017, Mr. Lotrean was diagnosed with myelodysplastic syndrome (“MDS”) and advised of his diagnosis some time thereafter.2 MDS is a lymphohematopoietic cancer of the bone marrow, which is strongly associated with chronic exposure to low levels of benzene.3 As a result of his diagnosis, Mr. Lotrean filed the above-captioned matter on May 26, 2020.4 Mr. Lotrean alleges, inter alia, that his MDS was caused by exposure to automotive paints and solvents, which were contaminated with hazardous levels of benzene.5 On July 9, 2021, this Court issued the governing Preliminary Conference Order, requiring that demands for discovery and inspection be served by September 15, 2021.6 Accordingly, Plaintiff served Defendants Safety-Kleen, PPG and Exxon with discovery requests, including a Notice to Admit.7

3 See e.g. A. Robert Schnatter, Myelodysplastic Syndrom and Benzene Exposure Among Petroleum Workers: An International Pooled Analysis, 104(22) J Natl Cancer Inst.

Plaintiffs have served only three requests for admission on Safety-Kleen, which ask, in sum, that Defendant admit that it sold a parts washer to Mr. Lotrean’s employer, Camera Autobody, during the time frame he worked at this location18 and that Defendant supplied Camera Autobody with hydrocarbon-based solvents for the parts washer.19 Each of these inquiries should be easily ascertainable from Safety-Kleen’s service records upon a reasonable inquiry by Safety-Kleen – namely, simply reviewing its service records.

18 For the Court’s frame of reference, and as Plaintiff has stated in his discovery responses to Safety-Kleen, Mr. Lotrean only worked at Camera Autobody, located New York County at the intersection between Metropolitan Avenue and Woodhaven Boulevard.

Exxon, as this Court and the world is well aware, is at the forefront of hydrocarbon (i.e. oil and gas) exploration, refinement, production and sale.

Melissa L. Stewart, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, hereby affirms the truth of the following under penalties of perjury:

This Affirmation is filed by plaintiff in support of an Order to Show Cause to admit Susannah B. Chester-Schindler, Esq. pro hac vice and is based upon the Affidavit of Susannah B. Chester-Schindler, Esq., which is filed simultaneously herewith and attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Susannah B. Chester-Schindler, Esq. is a member of the firm of Waters & Kraus, LLP, whose principal offices are located at 3141 Hood Street, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75219.

During the entire pendency of this action Phillips & Paolicelli, LLP will remain attorneys of record and local counsel.

She is familiar with the Local Rules of Court, the standards of professional conduct imposed upon members of the New York bar and the disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility and has agreed to comply with them fully in the above-captioned case as co-counsel on behalf of plaintiffs.

AND NOW, this ______ day of _______________, 2022, upon consideration of Defendant

Exxon Mobil Corporation’s Motion for Protective Order, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs Marinel and Marie Lotrean’s September 6, 2022 Notice of Deposition directed to Defendant Exxon Mobil Corporation is hereby STRICKEN.

Plaintiffs Marinel and Marie Lotrean are hereby PRECLUDED from deposing Defendant Exxon Mobil Corporation.

Marinel and Marie Lotrean, Plaintiffs, were deposed on March 31 and April 1, 2022, respectively.

Plaintiff Marinel Lotrean provided additional packaging and use details re: Rustoleum in his deposition.

Absent good cause shown, any discovery issues not raised herein will be deemed waived.

Failure to comply with these directives may result in the imposition of costs or sanctions including dismissal or default judgment.

Dates set forth may not be extended or adjourned except with advance approval of the Court.

COME NOW Plaintiffs Marinel Lotrean (“Mr.

Lotrean”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and file this Joint Response to Defendant Shell USA Inc.’s (f/k/a Shell Oil Company, hereinafter “Shell”) Motion for Protective Order and Notice of Cross Motion to Compel Substantive Discovery Responses.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the annexed affirmation of Susannah B. Chester- Schindler, Esq., dated December 21, 2022, together with the exhibits attached thereto, the accompanying memorandum of law and all other pleadings and proceedings in the case, Plaintiffs will move this Court located at 60 Centre Street, Rom 130, New York, New York 10007, on January 4, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as Counsel can be heard, for an Order pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel Shell to produce substantive discovery responses and for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to CPLR 2214(b) answering and reply papers, if any, shall be served not later than two (2) days before the return date of this joint Response and Motion.

To: All Counsel of Record (Via NYSCEF)

UPON READING AND FILING of the within Order to Show Cause, the annexed

accompany Memorandum of Law, and upon all the papers and prior proceedings herein, LET the any party or his attorney appear and show caused before the Hon.

an Order granting defendant leave to renew and reargue the Court’s Decision and Order dated January 18, 2019, which was entered in the clerk’s office ofthis Court on January 22, 2019;

an Order granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

M Weep/2’0““ W accompanying papers byA electronic filing via NYSCEF on or before the H it day of «93 .

the Sixth dismissing Premises Warranty, Contractors for Liability and Conspiracy for Breach actions Code Violations, Mask Defendants, Civil a reading the of oing Company's olgate") Plaintiffs' Amended Sixth Amended Complaint's Law and Labor Liability, and Subcontractors, Fraud is granted , Premises ontractors Conspiracy fore (" cited Defendant §3211(a)(5) of that is Ordered it papers, to CPLR pursuant motion Complaint alternatively, and, for Breach action of causes Code NYS Industrial Violations, Mask for Dust Defendants, Liability Plaintiffs' causes extent that the to

an Docket and third Thereafter, Plaintiff's s then 554) with diagnosed Black, Mary 2017 on action this 12, January Papers (Opposition exposure amended complaint, adding 5).

"[w]here §3016(b) upon misrepresentation, mistake, the circumstances influence, constituting make a cause of action fraud, material fact, existing falsity, scienter, Gimbel A.D.2d Bros., 209, v. Bull,

be supported allegations a cause requires, shall constituting language, misrepresentation justifiable scienter, insufficient to state Cardinal Abstract

the Premises for Contractors Civil Conspiracy Breach for Code Violations, Mask Dust Defendants, it further, to dismiss Sixth of is and

10/26/2018 of the the Supreme At Part 13 of Court of New York, State in and held for the County of New York, the at Courthouse located at Thomas New York, on thq2(e. of Street, 2018 October,

Upon the annexed Affirmation of Thomas Comerford, dated October 26, 2018, pursuant to and upon the pleadings and proceedings and herein,

or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, why an Order should not be issued this Court by granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a Joint Trial of the actions comprising the Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., October 2017 In Extremis groups as set forth in the accompanying affirmation and below: .

that service of a copy of this Order and the papers upon which it is based be made on the representative counsel for the defendants on or before Octoberd, 2018, via e-filing such service shall be deemed good and sufficient notice of this and it is and e-mail and urther application,

that courtesy copies of any opposition ind reply papers, to the extent required, are to be personally served on the Clerk of the Part.

WHEREFORE, Defendant JENKINS BROS., (hereinafter "Jenkins") hereby requests Summary Judgment in the above-entitled case, pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 3212, dismissing plaintiffs' complaint against Defendant Jenkins with prejudice, and there being no opposition thereto, ORDERED, that upon notice to all co-defendants, all claims and cross claims against Defendant Jenkins be and the same are hereby dismissed with prejudice and without costs to either party.

Dated: New York, New York April _ _ , 2017