OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION v. 21ST CENTURY FOX AMERICA, INC.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Civil Action No. 18-11273 (MCA)(LDW) OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, SPECIAL MASTER DECISION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING Plaintiff, IN PART SMALL PARTIES GROUP DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A v. DETERMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR 21ST CENTURY FOX AMERICA, INC., et ADMISSION AND DENYING al., PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Defendants. INTRODUCTION This matter comes by way of a Motion, filed by the Small Parties Group Defendants (“SPG Defendants”) on January 14, 2022, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(6), for a determination regarding Plaintiff, Occidental Chemical Corporation’s (“OxyChem’s”), amended answers to SPG Defendants’ Requests for Admission (the “RFAs”) (ECF No. 1945) (the “RFA Motion”). SPG Defendants contend that OxyChem’s amended responses are insufficient and, thus, seek an Order deeming the amended responses to the RFAs admitted. On February 24, 2022, OxyChem filed opposition to the RFA Motion and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and L.Civ.R. 7.1(h), a cross-motion for a protective order (ECF No. 1997) (“Cross-Motion”). OxyChem asserts that the RFAs violate the purpose of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 because the RFAs are oppressive and unduly burdensome. On March 28, 2022, SPG Defendants’ filed a reply in further support of the RFA Motion and in opposition to the Cross-Motion (ECF No. 2011) (the “Reply”). The parties have participated in several meet-and-confers to resolve the discovery dispute over the RFAs, but were unable to come to a full resolution. However, the parties have agreed that the dispute is limited to 267 RFAs identified in Exhibit A to OxyChem’s November 19, 2021, letter to SPG Defendants (ECF No. 1907) (the “Nov. 19 Letter”). The motions, therefore, are ripe for a decision by the Special Master. For the reasons set forth herein, the RFA Motion is granted in part and denied in part, and the Cross-Motion is denied. The Special Master’s Findings as to all disputed RFAs are detailed in Exhibit A to this Decision and OxyChem has 30 days to provide

amended answers as required in Exhibit A. BACKGROUND

A. SPG Defendants’ RFAs

On July 13, 2021, SPG Defendants served 449 RFAs on OxyChem (ECF No. 1504) (the “July 13 Letter”). See July 13 Letter at 1; see also Exhibit A to the RFA Motion.1 On August 13, 2021, OxyChem sent a letter to SPG Defendants to request a meet-and- confer to discuss the RFAs. See ECF No. 1945-9. On August 23, 2021, OxyChem sent a letter to SPG Defendants wherein OxyChem: (i) objected to the RFAs as unduly burdensome; (ii) proposed a meet-and-confer to discuss the RFAs; and (iii) requested that the Special Master grant leave to file a motion to quash or for protection. See July 13 Letter. On September 2, 2021, the parties held a meet-and-confer on the RFAs. See ECF No. 1997-4. On September 10, 2021, OxyChem provided its initial responses to the RFAs. See ECF No. 1945-3 at 4. On October 13, 2021, SPG Defendants sent a letter to OxyChem stating that OxyChem’s initial responses to the RFAs were improper and included inappropriate answers and/or denials.

1 SPG Defendants served the RFAs prior to the parties’ agreement that the universe of RFAs is limited to 267 RFAs. See ECF No. 1945-10 (“Oct. 13 Letter”). SPG Defendants also requested a meet-and-confer to discuss the responses. OxyChem did not respond to the Oct. 13 Letter. On October 27, 2021, SPG Defendants sent a follow up letter to OxyChem. See ECF No. 1945-11. On November 10, 2021, the parties held a second meet-and-confer to discuss OxyChem’s

initial responses to the RFAs. See ECF No. 1945-2. On November 17, 2021, the Special Master held a status conference (the “November Status Conference”). At the November Status Conference, OxyChem reported that it agreed to provide amended responses to the RFAs on or about December 8, 2021. Prior to doing so, however, OxyChem requested that SPG Defendants submit correspondence detailing which, if any, of the 449 RFAs SPG Defendants planned to withdraw. On November 19, 2021, OxyChem filed the Nov. 19 Letter wherein OxyChem requested confirmation that the discovery dispute was limited to the 267 RFAs listed in Exhibit A to the Nov. 19 Letter.

On November 30, 2021, SPG Defendants confirmed that the dispute was limited to the 267 RFAs identified in Exhibit A, and that any motion practice related to the RFAs would not include RFAs outside the 267. See ECF No. 1910. On December 8, 2021, OxyChem served amended answers and objections to the RFAs (the “Amended Responses”). See ECF No. 1945-12. On December 9, 2021, OxyChem filed a letter to the Special Master to provide an update on the dispute. See ECF No. 1922 at 1. On December 15, 2021, SPG Defendants filed a letter stating that SPG Defendants planned to file a motion to determine the sufficiency of the Amended Responses. See ECF No. 1929. B. SPG Defendants’ RFA Motion

On January 14, 2022, SPG Defendants filed the RFA Motion. SPG Defendants contend that the Amended Responses should be deemed admitted, or alternatively, OxyChem should be directed to serve additional amended responses for failing to properly admit or deny the RFAs. To that end, SPG Defendants set forth three arguments in support of the RFA Motion: (i) OxyChem relied on boilerplate objections; (ii) OxyChem provided evasive answers to straightforward requests; and (iii) OxyChem offers irrelevant, self-serving explanations. SPG Defendants also rely on unpublished cases from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for the proposition that responses, which do not go to the truth contained in the RFAs and purportedly frustrate the purpose of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, require that the responding party submit amended responses. See United States v. Lorenzo, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7362 (E.D. Pa. June 14, 1990); Penn Eng’g & Mfg. Corp. v. Peninsula Components, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64382 (E.D. Pa. April 1, 2021). C. OxyChem’s Cross-Motion for a Protective Order

On February 24, 2022, OxyChem filed the Cross-Motion. By way of support, OxyChem asserts that a protective order should be entered because: (i) the RFAs are oppressive and unduly burdensome by sheer number, form, and subject; (ii) the Amended Responses are not evasive; and (iii) OxyChem provided qualifications and explanations where necessary. In citing to a decision from the District for the District of Columbia, Harris v. Koenig, 271 F.R.D. 356, 372 (D.D.C. 2010), OxyChem asserts that the propounding parties’ disagreement with an answer is neither a proper basis for finding a response insufficient, nor grounds for deeming requests admitted. OxyChem also cites to an unpublished decision from this District for the proposition that whether OxyChem properly denied an RFA requires an analysis of the denial and qualification, if any. In re Valeant Pharms. Int’l Secs. Litig., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108161, *50 (D.N.J. April 1, 2021) (citations omitted). Finally, OxyChem asserts that should the Special Master find any of the Amended Responses insufficient, the proper relief is to order OxyChem to submit additional amended responses.

D. SPG Defendants’ Reply

On March 28, 2022, SPG Defendants filed the Reply. SPG Defendants set forth two arguments in support of granting the RFA Motion and denying the Cross-Motion. First, SPG Defendants argue that OxyChem improperly seeks to relieve itself of its obligation to further amend its Amended Responses. Second, SPG Defendants argue that OxyChem failed to show significant harm or that the RFAs are unduly burdensome and/or oppressive. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Requests for Admission Are Used to Admit the Truth of Matters Pertinent to the Case

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 governs requests for admission. Shelton v. Fast Advance Funding, LLC, 805 Fed. Appx. 156, 158 (3d Cir. 2020). The Rule provides in pertinent part: A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to: (A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of any described documents.

[FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(1)(A)-(B).]

Requests for admission “serve[] two vital purposes, both of which are designed to reduce trial time.” Notes of Advisory Committee on 1970 Amendments. First, “to facilitate proof with respect to issues that cannot be eliminated from the case,” and second, “to narrow the issues by eliminating those that can be.” Ibid. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 “give[s] an admission a conclusively binding effect, for purposes only of the pending action, unless the admission is withdrawn or amended.” Note to Subdivision (b); see also Shelton, 805 Fed. Appx. at 158-59 (“An admission is . . . an unassailable statement of fact and is binding on the non-responsive party unless withdrawn or amended.”)

(citations omitted); Langer v. Monarch Life Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 786, 803 (3d Cir. 1992) (“[A]dmissions are conclusive for purposes of the litigation and are sufficient to support summary judgment.”) (citation omitted). If a “matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it.” FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(4). When denying a request for admission, the “use of only the word denied is often sufficient under the [R]ule.” United Coal Cos. v. Powell Constr. Co., 839 F.2d 958, 967 (3d Cir. 1988) (citations and internal quotations omitted). The propounding party “may move to determine the sufficiency of an answer or objection.”

FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(6). “Unless the court finds an objection justified, it must order that an answer be served.” Id. Upon “finding that an answer does not comply with” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, the “court may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served.” Id. Accordingly, on a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(6), the court must analyze each of the requests of admission, and the response thereto, to determine if the responding party must submit amended answers and/or if any answer should be deemed admitted. B. Good Cause Must Be Demonstrated to Warrant Entry of a Protective Order

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) provides in pertinent part that: A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending . . . The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expenses, including . . . (A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery; . . . [or, inter alia, ] (D) forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters . . . .

[FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c) (1)(A)-(D).]

“If a motion for a protective order is wholly or partly denied, the court may, on just terms, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(2). A “court may issue a protective order to regulate the terms, conditions, time or place of discovery.” Adesanya v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159712, *5 (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2015) (citations omitted). Indeed, the “objective” of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 is “to guard against redundant or disproportionate discovery by giving the court authority to reduce the amount of discovery that may be directed to matters that are otherwise proper subjects of inquiry.” Notes of Advisory Committee on 1983 amendments, Note to Subdivision (b). To that end, the “grounds” for “limiting discovery reflect the existing practice of many courts in issuing protective orders under Rule 26(c).” Id. DISCUSSION A. The Motions Are Not Procedurally Defective

Several procedural arguments are raised by the parties that must be initially addressed. First, it is undeniable that the RFAs at issue here are the 267 RFAs identified by OxyChem and confirmed by SPG Defendants. Therefore, the Special Master’s Findings apply only to the 267 RFAs. This Decision has no bearing on any of the 182 other RFAs not identified in Exhibit A to the Nov. 19 Letter, and does not bar any party from serving requests for admission on any other party at a later date. Second, OxyChem was required to respond to the RFAs within thirty-days, but failed to do so. See FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(3); see also Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. Alesi, 843 F. Supp. 2d 517, 532 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 2011) (citations omitted). However, upon receipt of the

RFAs, OxyChem requested an extension of time to respond. See ECF No. 1945-8 at 6. The parties also held their first meet-and-confer prior to the due date. Finally, OxyChem submitted its initial responses to the RFAs on the requested date. As a result, neither OxyChem’s initial responses nor the Amended Responses are untimely. Third, contrary to SPG Defendants’ assertion, OxyChem’s motion for leave to file a motion to quash or protective order is of no consequence. On September 22, 2021, the Special Master held a status conference. At the September Status Conference, the Special Master stated that motion practice related to the RFAs would be decided on “the merits of the issue as opposed to any procedural wranglings[,]” and not on whether OxyChem purportedly waived its “burden

objection by answering” the RFAs. See ECF No. 1997-10, Tr. of September Status Conference at T54:25-T56:1. Therefore, the Special Master does not accept SPG Defendants’ contention that OxyChem’s motion to quash or for a protective order is moot because of OxyChem’s responses to the RFAs. Fourth, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 permits OxyChem to qualify its answer. See FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(4) (A denial “must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer to deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest.”). SPG Defendants’ arguments to the contrary do not bar OxyChem from qualifying its Amended Responses, where appropriate. The appropriateness of each of OxyChem’s qualified responses is addressed in Exhibit A. Fifth, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 provides that “a denial is a perfectly reasonable response[,]” United Coal Cos., 839 F.2d at 967. The denial, however, “must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify or an answer to deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest.

FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(4). The Special Master agrees that OxyChem does not need to “explain” the reasons for every one of its Amended Responses, see ECF No. 1504 n.1, but may need to explain certain denials, as detailed herein. Accordingly, the Special Master will not strike all RFA responses that contain a mere denial. Instead, the Rule requires an analysis of each RFA and the Amended Response thereto. Accordingly, the RFA Motion and Cross-Motion are not procedurally defective, and thus, the motions will be decided on the merits. B. Good Cause is Not Demonstrated to Trigger Entry of a Protective Order

Before the Special Master are two interrelated issues: (i) whether OxyChem carried its burden to warrant entry of a protective order; and (ii) whether the Amended Responses comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. OxyChem failed to carry its burden to trigger entry of a protective order regarding the RFAs. OxyChem is directed to comply with the Special Master’s Findings for each individual RFA and Amended Response as set forth in Exhibit A, which is annexed to this Decision. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 requires that the movant demonstrate, with specificity, the purported harm that will occur if a protective order is not entered. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1); see also Arnold v. Pennsylvania, 477 F.3d 105, 108 (3d Cir. 2007) (“Good cause” is defined as “showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.”) (quoting Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3d Cir. 1986)). Failure to meet this burden is detrimental to the protective order application. See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986) (“Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” are not enough) (citations omitted). The harm, if any, must also “be significant.” Id. (citations omitted). The “burden of persuasion is on the party

seeking the protective order.” Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986). Indeed, “[t]o overcome the presumption, the party seeking the protective order must show good cause by demonstrating a particular need for protection.” Cipollone, 785 F.2d at 1121; see also Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). “Good cause” is established based on “balancing a number of considerations.” Arnold, 477 F.3d at 108 (citations omitted); see also In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 924 F.3d 662, 671 (3d Cir. 2019) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Thus, whether a protective order is warranted turns on a finding that the moving party has established good cause based on an analysis of pertinent factors. Courts in this District have denied motions for protective

orders when movants fail to set forth the grounds “constituting good cause,” and information sought by way of requests for admission is relevant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. See Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A. v. M/V Tundra Consumer, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54188, *3-5 (D.N.J. April 19, 2005). Instead, courts have opted to make specific determinations regarding the scope of individual RFAs and the appropriateness of the responses thereto. Mickley v. Sunrise Senior Living, 2010 U.S Dist. LEXIS 152819, *5-7 (D.N.J. May 10, 2010). OxyChem has not carried its burden for entry of a protective order. OxyChem failed to demonstrate that the RFAs are oppressive and/or unduly burdened by sheer number, form, and subject. Specifically, OxyChem contends that SPG Defendants’ initial 449 RFAs are oppressive and unduly burdensome. Whether true or not is not pertinent to the Cross-Motion. It is undisputed that SPG Defendants withdrew 182 of its initial RFAs (449 RFAs to 267 RFAs). While certain of the disputed 267 RFAs are improper, they are not sufficiently oppressive or burdensome to warrant a protective order. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 is clear “that a reasonable burden may be imposed on the parties when its discharge will facilitate preparation for trial and ease the trial

process.” Note to Subdivision (a). In light of the scope of OxyChem’s claims, responding to 267 RFAs is not unduly burdensome. In fact, responses to RFAs may well ease the trial process and resolve certain facts currently in dispute.2 Instead of entering a protective order, the Special Master has undertaken a detailed review of all disputed RFAs to determine the appropriateness of the requests and OxyChem’s responses. Accordingly, OxyChem’s Cross-Motion for entry of a protective order is denied. C. Special Master Finds That Not All of The Amended Responses Comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36

As a threshold matter, the Special Master finds that OxyChem’s general objections serve no legitimate purpose. Harding v. Dana Transp., 914 F. Supp. 1084, 1102 (D.N.J. 1996). As such, they are stricken. As required by applicable law, the Special Master has made a specific finding in respect of each disputed RFA, analyzing OxyChem’s response and the specific and particularized objections to each RFA. See Exhibit A. As set forth in Exhibit A, the Special Master has made one of the following findings regarding the RFAs and the Amended Responses: (1) The Amended Response complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 and no further action is required;

2 It is noted that the Cross-Motion does not include a good cause analysis. Instead, OxyChem asserts in conclusory fashion that the RFAs are oppressive and unduly burdensome without any specific factual basis. The relevant case law is clear that this basis is insufficient. (2) The Amended Response does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 and requires an amended response;

(3) The Amended Response does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 and the request is deemed admitted; or

(4) The RFA is improper and no further action is required.

CONCLUSION

SPG Defendants’ motion for a determination of the Amended Responses is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and OxyChem’s cross-motion for a protective order is DENIED. OxyChem shall provide any required amended answers within 30 days from the date hereof.

/s/ Thomas P. Scrivo THOMAS P. SCRIVO Special Master EXHIBIT A

Special Master’s Findings Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 14 of 58 PageID: 60817 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

(15) Admit that in 1984, Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. This • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response complies DSCC signed an request seeks an admission regarding inapplicable to request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. Administrative Consent Order an administrative consent order, • “Document speaks for itself” is Occidental admits that Diamond Shamrock with NJDEP regarding which document speaks for itself. inappropriate objection. Chemicals Company (“DSCC”) signed the subject contamination at the Site. Subject to these objections, admitted • Denial does not fairly meet substance of Administrative Consent Order. This response fairly (OCC-CER000226082). in part and denied in part. OCC the request; OxyChem does not address meets the substance of the request. Moreover, admits that on March 8, 1984, whether the Administrative Consent Occidental’s objection to the term “contamination” Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Order relates to contamination of the is appropriate and contains a factual basis for the Company and Marisol, Inc. signed an Lister property objection. Administrative Consent Order with NJDEP pertaining to the property at 80 Lister Avenue; denied that this was an order pertaining to “contamination at the Site,” because the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site was not added to the National Priorities List until September 21, 1984.

(39) Admit a 2002 study by Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response does not William Hansen concluded request does not accurately recite the inapplicable to request comply with Rule 36 and orders that an amended that sediment sample referenced document. Subject to • Request does not quote document, so answer be served which addresses the basis for the immediately offshore of the these objections, denied. objection that request “does not statement that the request does not accurately recite Lister Plant contained the accurately recite the referenced the contents of the referenced document. highest concentration of document” is inapposite TCDD ever recorded in • Request accurately summarizes the ambient environment (5 ppm). referenced conclusion in the document (William J. Hansen, A • Impossible to decipher if denial is based Statistical and Spatial on substance of request or stated Analysis of Dioxin-Furan objections Contamination in the Hudson Estuary, 24 Northeastern Geology & Envtl. Sci. 159, 169 (2002)). Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 15 of 58 PageID: 60818 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

(45) Admit that in November Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response does not 2013, NJDEP Site inapplicable to request and do not comply with Rule 36 as it merely contains Remediation Program provide a basis for not responding objections with no admission, denial, or employee Anne Hayton explanation. The Special Master orders that an referred to 2,3,7,8-TCDD in amended answer be served. sediment as ‘the pervasive, continuing source of risk’ until remediated. (SPG- NJDEP-000019136). (73) Admit that PCBs were Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. Subject • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response does not generated at the Lister Plant as to and without waiving these inapplicable to request comply with Rule 36 and orders that an amended byproducts during the objections, denied. • Impossible to decipher if denial is based answer be served which addresses the basis for the manufacture of chlorinated on substance of request or stated denial. benzenes. objections (75) Admit that PCBs have Objection 1, 2, 3, and 4. The request • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that this is an attempt to been found in sediments is impermissibly vague and inapplicable to request evade the substance of the request and orders that it adjacent to the Lister Plant. unlimited as to time. It does not • Objecting to word “adjacent” to evade be admitted that PCBs have been found in sediments define what the SPG considers to be responding directly to request on the riverside boundary of the Lister Plant. “adjacent” to the Lister Plant. • Inappropriate extraneous narrative to Occidental’s objection to the term “adjacent” was Subject to these objections, admitted avoid providing clean admission appropriate, but Occidental clarified the term, as it in part and denied in part. Admitted understood it, in its response. that the riverside boundary of the Lister Plant property abuts the Lower 8.3 Miles of the Passaic River, which EPA has described as “ubiquitously” contaminated, bank to bank, with chemicals of concern including PCBs, and further admitted that properties owned by Defendant Sherwin Williams at 40, 60, and 62 Lister Avenue, which are located next door to the Lister Plant property, are contaminated with PCBs. Denied as to any implication that the Lister Plant is the source of PCBs on neighboring properties or 2 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 16 of 58 PageID: 60819 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

in the Lower Passaic River because no operational or other evidence indicates the Lister Plant used or generated PCBs in any of its manufacturing processes.

(82) Admit that PCBs were Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that Occidental’s response detected in sumps and tanks at request is compound and vague. It inapplicable to request does not comply with Rule 36 and orders that an the Lister Plant. fails to define what is meant by • Objecting to word “detected” to evade amended answer be served. The objection to the “detected” or to identify how, when, responding directly to request term “detected” is not proper and Occidental’s or where PCBs were allegedly • The request does define “where” PCBs grounds for refusing to respond is simply that “detected” in both “sumps and were detected: “in sumps and tanks at “without reasonable inquiry and without undue tanks” at some point in the decades- Lister Plant” burden,” Occidental cannot admit or deny this long operating history of the Lister • Request does not need to specify “how request. Rule 36 requires that a party must Plant or during its subsequent and “when” to be answerable. If PCBs affirmatively state that it lacks knowledge sufficient remediation. OxyChem cannot, with ever detected in sumps and tanks, to respond only after it has made reasonable inquiry. reasonable inquiry and without OxyChem need only answer yes undue burden, admit or deny this • Hyper-technical objection to request as request. compound.

(88) Admit that in or Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that this an attempt to about1984 Diamond request is compound and vague and inapplicable to request evade the substance of the request and orders that it identified PAHs in soil fails to define what is meant by • The request does define “locations” be admitted that samples from the Lister Plant site samples taken from locations “Diamond” and how, when, or at where PAHs were identified: soil identified PAHs. Occidental’s response makes this onshore at the Lister Plant. what specific “locations” PAHs onshore the Lister Plant admission, but in uncertain terms. Occidental’s were “identified.” It also fails to • Request does not need to specify “how objection to the term “onshore” is appropriate, but is define the term “onshore.” Subject and “when” to be answerable. If PAHs not sufficient to avoid responding to the request. to and without waiving these ever identified in soil samples, Occidental’s extraneous explanation regarding an objections, admitted in part and OxyChem need only answer yes “implication,” which is found in many of its denied in part. Admitted that the • Extraneous narrative to avoid providing responses is not appropriate or contemplated by the Lister Plant property, like other clean admission that “Lister Plant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. upland industrial areas throughout property. . . has background levels of the Lower Passaic watershed, has PAHs.” background levels of PAHs. Denied as to any implication that the Lister Plant is the source of those PAHs 3 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 17 of 58 PageID: 60820 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

because: a) no known manufacturing • Denial is about implication injected by or other process of the Lister Plant OxyChem and thus denial does not fairly used or generated PAHs; and b) the meet substance of request Phase I Removal Area is a known depositional area that collects sediments transported there from elsewhere by the hydrodynamics of the Lower 8.3 Miles of the Passaic River, which the EPA has described as “ubiquitously” contaminated with chemicals of concern, bank to bank, including PAHs.

(93) Admit that mercury has Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that this an attempt to been found on the Lister request is vague, compound, and inapplicable to request evade the substance of the request and orders that it Plant in soil. unlimited as to time. It fails to state • The request does define where the be admitted that mercury has been found in soil where, when, or in what samples mercury was found: in the soil at the samples collected at the Lister Plant site. “mercury has been found on the Lister Plant Occidental’s extraneous explanation regarding an Lister Plant in soil.” Subject to these • Request does not need to specify “how “implication,” which is found in many of its objections, admitted in part and and “when” to be answerable. If responses is not appropriate or contemplated by the denied in part. Admitted that trace mercury ever detected in soil samples, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. amounts of mercury have been OxyChem need only answer yes found in some soil samples collected • Extraneous narrative to avoid providing at or near the Lister Plant property clean admission that “trace amounts of but denied to the extent this request mercury have been found in some soil implies the source of this mercury samples collected at. . . the Lister Plant was the Lister Plant itself because: a) Property” no known industrial process of the • Denial is about implication injected by Lister Plant generated or used OxyChem and thus denial does not fairly mercury; b) the riverside boundary meet substance of request of the Lister Plant property abuts a portion of the Lower 8.3 Miles of the Passaic River, which EPA has described as “ubiquitously” contaminated with chemicals of concern, bank to bank, including 4 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 18 of 58 PageID: 60821 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

mercury; and, c) mercury is transported freely through ground and floodwaters, including through the hydrodynamics of the Lower Passaic River which have created a depositional area abutting the riverside boundary of the Lister Plant property that contains sediments transported there from elsewhere. (94) Admit that mercury has Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that this an attempt to been found on the Lister Plant request is vague, compound, and inapplicable to request evade the substance of the request and orders that it in groundwater. unlimited as to time. It fails to state • The request does define where the be admitted that mercury has been found in the where, when, or in what samples mercury was found: in the groundwater groundwater at the Lister Plant site. Occidental’s “mercury has been found on the at the Lister Plant extraneous explanation regarding an “implication,” Lister Plant in soil.” Subject to these • Request does not need to specify “how which is found in many of its responses is not objections, admitted in part and and “when” to be answerable. If appropriate or contemplated by the Federal Rules of denied in part. Admitted that trace mercury ever found in groundwater, Civil Procedure. amounts of mercury have been OxyChem need only answer yes found in some groundwater at or • Extraneous narrative to avoid providing near the Lister Plant property but clean admission that “trace amounts of denied to the extent this request mercury have been found in some implies the source of this mercury groundwater at. . . the Lister Plant was the Lister Plant itself because: a) Property” no known industrial process of the • Denial is about implication injected by Lister Plant generated or used OxyChem and thus denial does not fairly mercury; b) the riverside boundary meet substance of request of the Lister Plant property abuts a portion of the Lower 8.3 Miles of the Passaic River, which EPA has described as “ubiquitously” contaminated with chemicals of concern, bank to bank, including mercury; and, c) mercury is transported freely through ground and floodwaters, including through 5 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 19 of 58 PageID: 60822 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

the hydrodynamics of the Lower Passaic River which have created a depositional area abutting the riverside boundary of the Lister Plant property that contains sediments transported there from elsewhere. (96) Admit that mercury was Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that this an attempt to measured in sediment cores request is vague, compound, unduly inapplicable to request evade the substance of the request and orders that it collected from the Phase I burdensome, and unlimited as to • The request does define where the be admitted that mercury has been found in Removal Area. time. It fails to identify the particular mercury was collected: in the sediment sediment cores collected in the Phase I Removal sediment core samples from the cores from the Phase I Removal Area Area. Occidental’s extraneous explanation Phase I Removal Area about which • Request does not need to specify “how regarding an “implication,” which is found in many it inquires, or to state where or when and “when” to be answerable. If of its responses is not appropriate or contemplated they were collected. Subject to these mercury ever measured in sediment by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. objections, admitted in part and cores collected from the Phase I denied in part. Admitted that trace Removal Area, OxyChem need only amounts of mercury have been answer yes found in some sediment cores • Extraneous narrative to avoid providing collected in the Phase I Removal clean admission that “trace amounts of Area but denied as to any mercury have been found in some implication that the Lister Plant is sediment cores collected in the Phase I the source of this mercury because: Removal Area” a) no known industrial process of the • Denial is about implication injected by Lister Plant generated or used OxyChem and thus denial does not fairly mercury; b) the riverside boundary meet substance of request of the Lister Plant property abuts a portion of the Lower 8.3 Miles of the Passaic River, which EPA has described as “ubiquitously” contaminated with chemicals of concern, bank to bank, including mercury; and, c) mercury is transported freely through ground and floodwaters, including through the hydrodynamics of the Lower 6 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 20 of 58 PageID: 60823 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

Passaic River, which have created a depositional area abutting the riverside boundary of the Lister Plant property that contains sediments transported there from elsewhere. (100) Admit that lead has been Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that this an attempt to found on the Lister Plant in request is vague, compound, and inapplicable to request evade the substance of the request and orders that it groundwater. unlimited as to time. It fails to state • The request does define where the lead be admitted that lead has been found in groundwater where, when, or in what samples was found: in groundwater at the Lister samples collected at the Lister Plant site. “lead has been found on the Lister Plant Occidental’s extraneous explanation regarding an Plant in groundwater.” Subject to • Request does not need to specify “how “implication,” which is found in many of its these objections, admitted in part and “when” to be answerable. If lead responses is not appropriate or contemplated by the and denied in part. Admitted that ever found in groundwater at the Lister Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. trace amounts of lead have been Plant, OxyChem need only answer yes found in some groundwater samples • Extraneous narrative to avoid providing collected at or near the Lister Plant clean admission that “trace amounts of property, but denied as to the lead have been found in some embedded assumption that the traces groundwater samples collected at or near of lead in groundwater are from the the Lister Plant property” Lister Plant itself because: a) no • Denial is about implication injected by known industrial process at the OxyChem and thus denial does not fairly Lister Plant generated or used lead; meet substance of request b) the riverside boundary of the Lister Plant property abuts a portion of the Lower 8.3 Miles of the Passaic River, which EPA has described as ubiquitously contaminated with chemicals of concern, including lead, that were transported to that depositional area by the hydrodynamics of the Passaic River from other locations; and, c) the Lister Plant property is also near the New Jersey Turnpike, a heavily trafficked area that—like others in 7 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 21 of 58 PageID: 60824 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

the state—received leaded gasoline fallout that contaminated nearby soils and is a known source of contamination of groundwater. (101) Admit that lead has Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that this an attempt to been found on the Lister Plant request is vague, compound, and inapplicable to request evade the substance of the request and orders that it in soil. unlimited as to time. It fails to state • The request does define where the lead be admitted that lead has been found in soil samples where, when, or in what samples was found: in soil at the Lister Plant collected at the Lister Plant site. Occidental’s “lead has been found on the Lister • Request does not need to specify “how extraneous explanation regarding an “implication,” Plant in soil.” Subject to these and “when” to be answerable. If lead which is found in many of its responses is not objections, admitted in part and ever found in soil at the Lister Plant, appropriate or contemplated by the Federal Rules of denied in part. Admitted that trace OxyChem need only answer yes Civil Procedure. amounts of lead have been found in • Extraneous narrative to avoid providing some soil samples collected at or clean admission that “trace amounts of near the Lister Plant property, but lead have been found in some soil denied as to the embedded samples collected at or near the Lister assumption that the traces of lead in Plant property” soils are from the Lister Plant • Denial is about implication injected by because: a) no known industrial OxyChem and thus denial does not fairly process at the Lister Plant generated meet substance of request or used lead; b) the riverside boundary of the Lister Plant property abuts a portion of the Lower 8.3 Miles of the Passaic River, which the EPA has described as ubiquitously contaminated with chemicals of concern, including lead, that were transported to that depositional area by the hydrodynamics of the Passaic River from other locations; and, c) the Lister Plant property is also near the New Jersey Turnpike, a heavily trafficked area that—like others in the state—received leaded gasoline fallout that contaminated nearby soils. 8 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 22 of 58 PageID: 60825 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

(103) Admit that lead was Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that this an attempt to measured in sediment cores request is vague, compound, unduly inapplicable to request evade the substance of the request and orders that it collected from the Phase 1 burdensome, and unlimited as to • The request does define where the lead be admitted that lead has been found in sediment Removal Area. time. It fails to identify the particular was measured: in sediment cores cores collected from the Phase I Removal Area. sediment core samples from the collected from the Phase I Removal Area Occidental’s extraneous explanation regarding an Phase I Removal Area about which • Request does not need to specify “how “implication,” which is found in many of its it inquires, or to state where or when and “when” to be answerable. If lead responses is not appropriate or contemplated by the they were collected. Subject to these ever measured in sediment cores Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. objections, admitted in part and collected from the Phase I Removal denied in part. Admitted that trace Area, OxyChem need only answer yes amounts of lead have been in some • Extraneous narrative to avoid providing sediment cores collected in the clean admission that “trace amounts of Phase I Removal Area but denied as lead have been found in some sediment to any implication that the Lister cores collected in the Phase I Removal Plant is the source of this lead Area” because: a) no known industrial • Denial is about implication injected by process of the Lister Plant generated OxyChem and thus denial does not fairly or used lead; b) the riverside meet substance of request boundary of the Lister Plant property abuts a portion of the Lower 8.3 Miles of the Passaic River, which EPA has described as “ubiquitously” contaminated with chemicals of concern, bank to bank, including lead; c) lead is transported freely through ground and floodwaters, including through the hydrodynamics of the Lower Passaic River, which have created a depositional area abutting the riverside boundary of the Lister Plant property that contains sediments transported there from elsewhere; and c) the Phase I Removal Area is also near the New 9 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 23 of 58 PageID: 60826 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

Jersey Turnpike, a heavily trafficked area that—like others in the state— received leaded gasoline fallout that contaminated nearby soils, surface waters, and groundwater that flowed into the Passaic River. (106) Admit that copper has Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that this an attempt to been found on the Lister Plant request is vague, compound, and inapplicable to request evade the substance of the request and orders that it in soil. unlimited as to time. It fails to state • The request does define where the be admitted that copper has been found in soil where, when, or in what samples copper was found: in soil at the Lister samples collected at the Lister Plant site. “copper has been found on the Lister Plant Occidental’s extraneous explanation regarding an Plant in soil.” Subject to these • Request does not need to specify “how “implication,” which is found in many of its objections, admitted in part and and “when” to be answerable. If copper responses is not appropriate or contemplated by the denied in part. Admitted that trace ever found in soil at the Lister Plant, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. amounts of copper have been found OxyChem need only answer yes in some soil samples collected at or • Extraneous narrative to avoid providing near the Lister Plant property but clean admission that “trace amounts of denied as to any implication that the lead have been found in some Lister Plant was the source of any groundwater samples collected at or near copper because: a) no known the Lister Plant property” industrial process of the Lister Plant • Denial is about implication injected by used or generated copper, b) the OxyChem and thus denial does not fairly Lister Plant property is located near meet substance of request the facilities of Defendant Benjamin Moore, which used copper in its manufacturing processes and generated copper-contaminated stormwaters and compressor blowdowns that it disposed of directly in the Passaic River near the Lister Plant and is also next door to Defendant Sherwin Williams, whose facility has soil contaminated with copper, whose employees observed the dumping of process waste and other products into the Passaic 10 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 24 of 58 PageID: 60827 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

River, and that had seven outfall pipes that discharged directly into the River; c) the riverside boundary of the Lister Plant property abuts a portion of the Lower 8.3 Miles of the Passaic River, which the EPA has described as “ubiquitously” contaminated with chemicals of concern, bank to bank, including copper; and, d) copper is a substance that is transported freely through ground and floodwaters, including through the hydrodynamics of the Passaic River which have created a depositional area abutting the riverside boundary of the Lister Plant that contains sediments transported there from elsewhere. (107) Admit that copper has Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that this an attempt to been found on the Lister Plant request is vague, compound, and inapplicable to request evade the substance of the request and orders that it in groundwater. unlimited as to time. It fails to state • The request does define where the be admitted that copper has been found in where, when, or in what samples copper was found: in groundwater at the groundwater samples collected at the Lister Plant “copper has been found on the Lister Lister Plant site. Occidental’s extraneous explanation regarding Plant in groundwater.” Subject to • Request does not need to specify “how an “implication,” which is found in many of its these objections, admitted in part and “when” to be answerable. If copper responses is not appropriate or contemplated by the and denied in part. Admitted that ever found in groundwater at the Lister Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. trace amounts of copper have been Plant, OxyChem need only answer yes found in some groundwater samples • Extraneous narrative to avoid providing collected at or near the Lister Plant clean admission that “trace amounts of property but denied as to any copper have been found in some implication that the Lister Plant was groundwater samples collected at or near the source of any copper because: a) the Lister Plant property” no known industrial process of the • Denial is about implication injected by Lister Plant used or generated OxyChem and thus denial does not fairly copper, b) the Lister Plant property meet substance of request is located near the facilities of 11 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 25 of 58 PageID: 60828 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

Defendant Benjamin Moore, which used copper in its manufacturing processes and generated copper- contaminated stormwaters and compressor blowdowns that it disposed of directly in the Passaic River near the Lister Plant and is also next door to Defendant Sherwin Williams, whose facility has soil contaminated with copper, whose employees observed the dumping of process waste and other products into the Passaic River, and that had seven outfall pipes that discharged directly into the River; c) the riverside boundary of the Lister Plant property abuts a portion of the Lower 8.3 Miles of the Passaic River, which the EPA has described as “ubiquitously” contaminated with chemicals of concern, bank to bank, including copper; and, d) copper is a substance that is transported freely through ground and floodwaters, including through the hydrodynamics of the Passaic River which have created a depositional area abutting the riverside boundary of the Lister Plant that contains sediments transported there from elsewhere. (109) Admit that copper was Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that this an attempt to measured in sediment cores request is vague, compound, and inapplicable to request evade the substance of the request and orders that it collected from the Phase 1 unlimited as to time. It fails to state • The request does define where the be admitted that copper has been found in sediment Removal Area. where, when, or in what sediment copper was measured: in sediment cores cores in the Phase I Removal Area. Occidental’s cores “copper was measured” in the extraneous explanation regarding an “implication,” 12 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 26 of 58 PageID: 60829 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

Phase I Removal Area. Subject to collected from the Phase 1 Removal which is found in many of its responses is not these objections, admitted in part and Area appropriate or contemplated by the Federal Rules of denied in part. Admitted that trace • Request does not need to specify “how Civil Procedure. amounts of copper have been found in and “when” to be answerable. If copper some sediment cores in the Phase I ever detected in sediment cores at the Removal Area, but denied as to any Lister Plant, OxyChem need only answer implication that the Lister Plant was yes the source of any copper in any • Extraneous narrative to avoid providing sediment cores because: a) no known clean admission that “trace amounts of industrial process of the Lister Plant copper have been found in some used or generated copper, b) the Lister sediment cores collected at or near the Plant property is located near the Lister Plant property” facilities of Defendant Benjamin • Denial is about implication injected by Moore, which used copper in its OxyChem and thus denial does not fairly manufacturing processes and meet substance of request generated copper-contaminated stormwaters and compressor blowdowns that it disposed of directly in the Passaic River near the Lister Plant and is also next door to Defendant Sherwin Williams, whose facility has soil contaminated with copper, whose employees observed the dumping of process waste and other products into the Passaic River, and that had seven outfall pipes that discharged directly into the River; c) the Phase I Removal Area is in the Lower 8.3 Miles of the Passaic River, which EPA has described as “ubiquitously” contaminated with chemicals of concern, bank to bank, including copper; and, d) copper is a substance that is transported freely through ground and floodwaters, including through the hydrodynamics 13 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 27 of 58 PageID: 60830 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

of the Passaic River which have created a depositional area that abuts the riverside boundary of the Lister Plant property, and e) the Phase I Removal Area that abuts the riverside boundary of the Lister Plant, as noted, contains sediments transported there from elsewhere. (120) Admit that the Lister Objection 1, 2, and 3. As noted in • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response complies Plant was located adjacent to response to other requests, the SPG inapplicable to request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. LPR. fails to define what it means by the • Objects to “adjacent” to evade directly Occidental’s objection to the term “adjacent” is term “adjacent.” Subject to these responding appropriate and Occidental’s response fairly meets objections, OxyChem admits that the substance of the request. the Lower Passaic River flows along the riverside boundary of the property at 80-120 Lister Avenue where the Lister Plant is located.

(121) Admit that the Lister Objection 1, 2, and 3. This request is • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response complies Plant had trenches and vague, compound, unlimited as to inapplicable to request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. The drainpipes leading directly to time, and misleads by failing to • Request need not specify time to be Request attempts to paraphrase deposition LPR. (Deposition of John acknowledge the limitations, answerable; the request is asking about testimony rather than ask Occidental to admit to the Burton at 50–54, Mar. 18, qualifications, and assumptions any time in the Lister Plant’s history authenticity of the actual deposition testimony, a 1987 (Diamond Shamrock included by the witness in the • OxyChem is distracting from the request common and fair use of a request for admission. Chems. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & referenced deposition testimony. by stating that the SPG needed to specify Occidental has appropriately set forth the basis for Sur. Co., N.J. Super. Ct. Law Subject to and without waiving these “limitations” of the witness testimony. its objection to the accuracy of the paraphrasing. Div.) (“Burton Dep. I”) objections, admitted in part and The referenced testimony is provided for denied in part. Admitted that this convenience but does not obviate request purports to paraphrase the OxyChem’s obligation to respond to the testimony of witness John Burton, factual assertion. but denied that the paraphrase is • Improper denials that do not go to accurate or that this accurately substance of request: (1) the testimony is describes the layout or disposal paraphrased accurately; (2) even if it practices of the Lister Plant at all wasn’t the question stands on its own times during its operation. As noted apart from document referenced for above, the Lister Plant was OxyChem’s convenience so OxyChem 14 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 28 of 58 PageID: 60831 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

connected to the Passaic Valley needs to address request; (3) request does Sewerage Commission sewer line in not ask OxyChem about its layout at all 1956. time during Lister Plant’s operation • Extraneous narrative (“As noted above…”) that does not answer question • Hyper-technical objection to “trenches and drainpipes” as “compound” should not eliminate obligation to respond. (123) Admit that waste Objection 1, 2, and 3. This request is • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response complies effluents discharged from the vague, compound, and unlimited as inapplicable to request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. The Lister Plant to LPR contained to time. It also fails to define the • Objecting to “waste effluents” request is marginally complex and compound and hazardous substances. terms “waste effluents,” “discharged” and “hazardous contains vague terminology that is not appropriate “discharged,” or “hazardous substances” to evade responding directly for a request for admission. Occidental’s response substances.” Subject to these to request fairly meets the substance of the request. objections, denied. As noted above, • Need not define time to be answerable; the Lister Plant was connected to the request wants to know if this is true for Passaic Valley Sewerage any point in Lister Plant’s history Commission sewer line in 1956. • Extraneous information (“As noted above…”) that does not answer question generally and specifically avoids answering question as to the period before 1956

(124) Admit that waste Objection 1, 2, and 3. This request is • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response complies effluents discharged from the vague, compound, and unlimited as inapplicable to request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. The Lister Plant to LPR contained to time. It also fails to define the • Objecting to “waste effluents” request is marginally complex and compound and contaminants. terms “waste effluents,” “discharged” and “contaminants” to contains vague terminology that is not appropriate “discharged,” or “contaminants.” evade responding directly to request for a request for admission. Occidental’s response Subject to these objections, denied. • Need not define time to be answerable; fairly meets the substance of the request. As noted above, the Lister Plant was request wants to know if this is true for connected to the Passaic Valley any point in Lister Plant’s history Sewerage Commission sewer line in • Extraneous information (“As noted 1956. above…”) that does not answer question generally and specifically avoids 15 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 29 of 58 PageID: 60832 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

answering question as to the period before 1956

(125) Admit that waste Objection 1, 2, and 3. This request is • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response complies effluents discharged from the vague, compound, and unlimited as inapplicable to request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. The Lister Plant to LPR contained to time. It also fails to define the • Objecting to “waste effluents” and request is marginally complex and compound and COCs. terms “waste effluents” and “discharged” to evade responding contains vague terminology that is not appropriate “discharged.” In addition, the request directly to request for a request for admission. Occidental’s response fails to define where, when, or how • Even if SPG did not define where, when, fairly meets the substance of the request. the undefined “waste effluents” were or how, waste effluents were discharged, allegedly discharged. Subject to these OxyChem is required to admit to what it objections, denied. As noted above, can admit the Lister Plant was connected to the • Extraneous information (“As noted Passaic Valley Sewerage above…”) that does not answer question Commission sewer line in 1956. generally and specifically avoids After reasonable inquiry, OxyChem answering question as to the period is aware of no operational or other before 1956 evidence indicating the Lister Plant is • Improper qualification; SPG did not ask the source of all COCs in the Lower for operational or other evidence that the Passaic River, but it is aware that the Lister Plant is the source of all COCs in Lower Passaic River is an area of the Lower Passaic River deposition where sediments containing COCs from other locations are transported by the River, by sheet flow, and by floodwaters from elsewhere and deposited in river sediments in the Lower Passaic River

(126) Admit that Diamond Objection 1, 2, and 3. This request is • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response complies Alkali directly discharged vague, compound, and unlimited as inapplicable to request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. The waste effluents from the Lister to time. It also fails to define the • Objecting to “waste effluents” and request is marginally complex and compound and Plant to LPR. terms “waste effluents” and “discharged” to evade responding contains vague terminology that is not appropriate “discharged.” Subject to these directly to request for a request for admission. Occidental’s response objections, denied. As noted above, fairly meets the substance of the request. 16 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 30 of 58 PageID: 60833 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

the Lister Plant was connected to the • Need not specify time period to be Passaic Valley Sewerage answerable; if true for any point for Commission sewer line in 1956. Diamond Alkali, OxyChem needs to admit • Extraneous information (“As noted above…”) that does not answer question generally and specifically avoids answering question as to the period before 1956

(128) Admit that pathways of Objection 1, 2, and 3. This request is • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response complies TCDD discharges from the vague, compound, and unlimited as inapplicable to request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. The Lister Plant to LPR included to time. It fails to define either the • Objecting to “waste effluents” and request is complex and compound and contains waste trichloroethane sludge alleged “pathways” inquired about or “discharged” to evade responding vague terminology that is not appropriate for a and unrecycled the term “discharges” as used in this directly to request request for admission. Occidental’s response fairly trichloroethane. (Diamond request. Subject to these objections, • Need not specify time period to be meets the substance of the request. Moreover, the Shamrock Chems. Co. v. denied. The language quoted in the answerable; if true for any point for Request attempts to paraphrase a document rather Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 609 request contains no reference to Diamond Alkali, OxyChem needs to than ask Occidental to admit to the authenticity of A.2d 440, 463 (N.J. Super. Ct. TCDD, trichloroethane, discharges, admit the document Occidental has appropriately set forth App. Div. 1992) (“Both the air or pathways, nor does it state that • Denial does not meet substance of the basis for its objection to the accuracy of the and ground, inside and outside “pathways of TCDD discharges from request because request does not purport paraphrasing. of the [Lister Plant], were the Lister Plant to LPR included to excerpt directly from referenced regularly subjected to dioxin waste trichloroethane sludge and document emissions through venting, unrecycled trichloroethane.” • Document is provided for convenience and contamination from spills, and the request stands independent from leaks, and ‘sloppy practice’ in document. OxyChem must answer and around the plant”)). request, not shift focus to referenced document (129) Admit that pathways of Objection 1, 2, and 3. This request is • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response does not TCDD discharges from the vague, compound, and unlimited by inapplicable to request comply with Rule 36 as Occidental has failed to Lister Plant to LPR included time. It also fails to define either the • Objecting to “pathways” and admit, deny, or provide sufficient basis to not washing of equipment utilized alleged “pathways” inquired about “discharged” to evade responding response substantively to the Request. However, no in the TCP/2,4,5-T processes. or the term “discharges” as used in directly to request further response is necessary because the request is this request. complex and compound and contains vague

17 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 31 of 58 PageID: 60834 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

• Further the request is defining a terminology that is not appropriate for a request for pathway: the washing of equipment admission. utilized in the TCP/2,4,5-T processes (130) Admit that pathways of Objection 1, 2, and 3. This request is • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response does not TCDD discharges from the vague, compound, and unlimited by inapplicable to request comply with Rule 36 as Occidental has failed to Lister Plant to LPR included time. It also fails to define either the • Objecting to “pathways” and admit, deny, or provide sufficient basis to not wastewater from the alleged “pathways” inquired about “discharged” to evade responding response substantively to the Request. However, no manufacture of TCP. or the term “discharges” as used in directly to request further response is necessary because the request is this request. • Further the request is defining a complex and compound and contains vague pathway: the wastewater from the terminology that is not appropriate for a request for manufacture of TCP admission. (131) Admit that pathways of Objection 1, 2, and 3. This request is • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response does not TCDD discharges from the vague, compound, and unlimited by inapplicable to request comply with Rule 36 as Occidental has failed to Lister Plant to LPR included time. It also fails to define either the • Objecting to “pathways” and admit, deny, or provide sufficient basis to not wastewater from the alleged “pathways” inquired about “discharged” as undefined terms to response substantively to the Request. However, no manufacture of 2,4,5-T. or the term “discharges” as used in evade responding directly to request further response is necessary because the request is this request. • Further the request is defining a complex and compound and contains vague pathway: the wastewater from the terminology that is not appropriate for a request for manufacture of 2,4,5-T admission.

(132) Admit that pathways of Objection 1, 2, and 3. This request is • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response does not TCDD discharges from the vague, compound, and unlimited by inapplicable to request comply with Rule 36 as Occidental has failed to Lister Plant to LPR included time. It also fails to define either the • Objecting to “pathways” and admit, deny, or provide sufficient basis to not autoclave blowdown sump. alleged “pathways” inquired about “discharged” to evade responding response substantively to the Request. However, no or the term “discharges” as used in directly to request further response is necessary because the request is this request. • Further the request is defining a complex and compound and contains vague pathway: the wastewater from the terminology that is not appropriate for a request for manufacture of TCP admission. • The request is defining a pathway: autoclave blowdown sump • Objecting to “discharges” to evade directly responding 18 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 32 of 58 PageID: 60835 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

(148) Admit that in Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response complies approximately 1960, a request is impermissibly vague and inapplicable to request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. The massive explosion resulted in compound because terms “massive” • Admitted there was a massive explosion request is complex and compound and contains high concentrations of COCs, and “high concentrations” are in 1960 in Response to RFA 147; must vague and inflammatory terminology that is not including TCDD, entering undefined and subject to multiple admit this request to the extent possible appropriate for a request for admission. LPR. (OCC- interpretations, and the request seeks • Referenced document irrelevant to Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of MAXUS0296071.; William J. admissions regarding multiple OxyChem’s response to request; the request. Hansen, A Statistical and unspecified COCs. In addition, this OxyChem evading response by focusing Spatial Analysis of Dioxin- request refers to OCC- on referenced document Furan Contamination in the MAXUS0296071, which has not Hudson Estuary, been produced to OxyChem, and 24 Northeastern Geology & Hansen 2002, a graduate school Envtl. Sci. 159, 169 (2002)). dissertation authored without first- hand knowledge of or citation to any source for statements regarding the subject matter of this request. Subject to these objections, denied.

(149) Admit that the 1960 Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response complies autoclave explosion disturbed Without defining the location or inapplicable to the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. The historic fill containing nature of the “historic fill,” and • OxyChem is required to admit to extent it request is complex and compound and contains the eight COCs. because the request is compound can do so vague terminology that is not appropriate for a and refers to all eight COCs, six of request for admission. Occidental’s response fairly which were not associated with meets the substance of the request. operations of the Lister Plant, OxyChem is unable to admit or deny this request.

(152) Admit that the Lister Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response does not Plant discharged all its Subject to these objections, denied inapplicable to the requests comply with Rule 36 and a further response is untreated plant effluents into that the request accurately recites the • Denial does not fairly meet substance of needed. The Request may not accurately quote the LPR until about 1956. (Burton referenced testimony of Mr. Burton. request; OxyChem is denying question cited testimony, but the Request, standing alone, is Dep I. at 156-58). of its own making, not the question asked plain enough to be answered directly. 19 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 33 of 58 PageID: 60836 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

• Impossible to decipher if denial is based on substance of request or stated objections (153) Admit that in or about Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response complies 1956, PVSC officially Subject to these objections, denied inapplicable to the requests with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. objected to Diamond Alkali’s because the referenced document • Basis of denial is unclear. If OxyChem Occidental states that after reasonably inquiry it illegal discharges and does not say this and, after denying based on the “PVSC building,” cannot locate a document that responds to the instructed Diamond Alkali to reasonable inquiry, OxyChem is that is impermissible parsing Request. The term “PVSC building” was used in the connect the entire plant to the unable to identify any document Request and Occidental is not required to imply PVSC building. containing an instruction to connect definitions that do not exist. Occidental’s response (MAXUS3791783). the Lister Plant to “the PVSC fairly meets the substance of the request. building.” (155) Admit that Diamond Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response complies Alkali decided to connect the request does not accurately recite the inapplicable to the requests with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. Main Building to the sewer to referenced deposition testimony. • Request does not quote referenced Occidental states that after reasonably inquiry it save money. (Burton Dep. I at Subject to these objections, after testimony cannot locate a document that confirms Diamond 158-64). reasonably inquiry, OxyChem is • Referenced testimony supports request Alkali decided to connect the Main Building to the unable to otherwise admit or deny • OxyChem must detail reasonable inquiry sewer to save money. the reason or reasons Diamond Alkali connected the Main Building to the PVSC system.

(156) Admit that from in or Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response complies about 1956 until operations request is unlimited as to time, does inapplicable to the requests with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. were ceased in or around not define what is meant by • Objecting to “untreated industrial waste” Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of 1969, Diamond Alkali “untreated industrial waste,’ nor and “discharged” to evade responding the request. discharged untreated does it define the terms directly to request industrial waste into LPR. “discharged,” which could include • OxyChem uses “discharge” without (MAXUS0046461). transportation by sheet flow, definition in its response stormwater flow, and/or • Need not specify time period to be floodwaters. Subject to and without answerable; if true for any point for waiving these objections, this Diamond Alkali, OxyChem needs to request is denied. The Lister Plant admit was connected to the sewer line of 20 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 34 of 58 PageID: 60837 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

the Passaic Valley Sewerage • Is OxyChem admitting that it discharged Commission in 1956, at which point after the sewer line was hooked up in plant process wastes were 1956? If so, it needs to say that. discharged through the PVSC Otherwise this is an extraneous treatment line. qualification.

(159) Admit that John Burton, Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the Request is the Lister Plant Manager, request is vague and unlimited as to inapplicable to the requests objectionable as presented and the term “harmful” is acknowledged that effluents time. The request fails to define • Objecting to “effluents” and “harmful” vague. However, Occidental is required to were harmful to LPR. either what is encompassed in the to evade responding directly to request undertake a reasonable inquiry to determine if such term “effluents” or what is meant by • Need not specify time period to be an admission did occur using that specific term. “harmful.” Subject to and without answerable; if true for any point, Therefore, a further response is required from waiving these objections, OxyChem OxyChem needs to admit Occidental. cannot neither admit nor deny this • OxyChem needs to specify reasonable request. inquiry it took

(160) Admit that John Burton, Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the Request is the Lister Plant Manager, request is compound, vague, and inapplicable to the requests objectionable as presented and the term “harmful” is recommended avoiding unlimited as to time. The request • Objecting to “effluents” and “harmful” vague. However, Occidental is required to spending money to construct a also fails to define either what is to evade responding directly to request undertake a reasonable inquiry to determine if such larger sanitary sewer to encompassed in the term “effluents” • Need not specify time period to be an admission did occur using that specific term. neutralize the effluent through or what is meant by “harmful.” answerable; if true for any point, Therefore, a further response is required from pretreatment, despite his Subject to and without waiving these OxyChem needs to admit Occidental. acknowledgment that objections, OxyChem can neither • OxyChem needs to specify reasonable effluents were harmful to admit nor deny this request. inquiry it took LPR. (166) Admit that employees at Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. This • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response complies the Lister Plant began request does not identify which inapplicable to the requests with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. experiencing chloracne “employees” it refers to, nor does it • Objecting to “employees” and “shortly Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of shortly after TCP production define what it means by “shortly defined” to evade responding directly to the request. began in 1949. after.” Subject to and without request waiving these objections, denied. • OxyChem can answer to the extent that it knows 21 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 35 of 58 PageID: 60838 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

• Impossible to decipher if denial is based on substance of request or stated objections

(169) Admit that, as early as Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. The • Boilerplate objections that are The Special Master finds that the response complies 1956, Diamond Alkali knew request is compound, does not inapplicable to the requests with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. its TCP process was the source identify which “employees” are • Objecting to “employees” and “Diamond Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of of employees’ chloracne. referenced, and fails to define the Alkali knew” to evade responding the request. (Burton Dep. II at 265–67; nature of what “Diamond Alkali directly to request Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 609 knew” and the basis of that • Does not have to define the basis of A.2d at 447 (“[A]t a relatively purported knowledge. The request knowledge; OxyChem can answer early date, Diamond became also fails to accurately recite the request regardless aware of the dangerous referenced deposition testimony. • The request does not recite the referenced propensities of dioxins and Subject to and without waiving these document and the referenced document chose to disregard methods objections, this request is denied. supports the request designed to diminish their • Impossible to decipher if denial is based production.”)). on substance of request or stated objections (178) Admit that Oxy- Objection. The request includes two • Objecting to “Oxy-Diamond Alkali” and The Special Master finds that the response complies Diamond Alkali was aware of vague and undefined terms—"Oxy- “the 1986 Merger” to evade responding with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. Administrative Order No. EO Diamond Alkali” and “the 1986 directly to request Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of 40-6 at the time it entered into Merger.” The Requests for • Further “the 1986 Merger” is first term the request. the 1986 Merger. Admission do not define either term, defined in RFAs but there was no 1986 Merger of • OxyChem is required to detail inquiry if which OxyChem is aware. In it neither admits nor denies a request addition, if the term “Oxy-Diamond • Oxy-Diamond Alkali Corporation is a Alkali” is intended to refer to Oxy- predecessor of OxyChem (it acquired Diamond Alkali Corporation, Diamond Shamrock Chemicals OxyChem is after reasonable inquiry Company from Diamond Shamrock unable to admit or deny whether Corporation, then the name was changed Oxy-Diamond Alkali Corporation to Occidental Electro Chemical could have accessed Administrative Corporation, then name changed to Order No. EO-40-6 in September of Occidental Chemical Corporation), so a 1986 when it acquired the stock of 22 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 36 of 58 PageID: 60839 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

Diamond Shamrock Chemicals reasonable inquiry by OxyChem Company via a Stock Purchase includes Oxy-Diamond Alkali Agreement with Diamond Shamrock Corporation’s knowledge Corporation. • Answering question of its own making— whether Oxy-Diamond Alkali “could have accessed” the Order, instead of the question asked—whether OxyChem was aware of the Order (183) Admit that Oxy- Objection 1, 2, and 3. The request • Objecting to “Oxy-Diamond Alkali” and The Special Master finds that the response complies Diamond Alkali knew about includes two vague and undefined “the 1986 Merger” to evade responding with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. Administrative Order No. EO- terms—“Oxy-Diamond Alkali” and directly to request Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of 40-1 at the time of the 1986 “the 1986 Merger.” The Requests • “The 1986 Merger” is first term defined the request. Merger. for Admission do not define either in RFAs term, but there was no 1986 Merger • OxyChem is required to detail inquiry if of which OxyChem is aware. In it neither admits nor denies a request addition, if the term “Oxy-Diamond • Oxy-Diamond Alkali Corporation is a Alkali” is intended to refer to Oxy- predecessor of OxyChem (it acquired Diamond Alkali Corporation, Diamond Shamrock Chemicals OxyChem is after reasonable inquiry Company from Diamond Shamrock unable to admit or deny whether Corporation, then the name was changed Oxy-Diamond Alkali Corporation to Occidental Electro Chemical could have accessed Administrative Corporation, then name changed to Order No. EO-40-1 in September of Occidental Chemical Corporation), so a 1986 when it acquired the stock of reasonable inquiry by OxyChem Diamond Shamrock Chemicals includes Oxy-Diamond Alkali Company via a Stock Purchase Corporation’s knowledge Agreement with Diamond Shamrock • Answering question of its own making— Corporation. whether Oxy-Diamond Alkali “could have accessed” the Order, instead of the question asked—whether OxyChem knew about the Order (188) Admit that Oxy- Objection 1, 2, and 3. The request • Boilerplate objections The Special Master finds that the response complies Diamond Alkali was aware of includes two vague and undefined • “The 1986 Merger” is first term defined with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. Administrative Order No. EO- terms—“Oxy-Diamond Alkali” and in RFAs 23 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 37 of 58 PageID: 60840 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

40-19 at the time of the 1986 “the 1986 Merger.” The Requests • Oxy-Diamond Alkali Corporation is a Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of Merger. for Admission do not define either predecessor of OxyChem (it acquired the request. term, but there was no 1986 Merger Diamond Shamrock Chemicals of which OxyChem is aware. If the Company from Diamond Shamrock term “Oxy-Diamond Alkali” is Corporation, then the name was changed intended to refer to Oxy-Diamond to Occidental Electro Chemical Alkali Corporation, OxyChem is Corporation, then name changed to after reasonable inquiry unable to Occidental Chemical Corporation), so a admit or deny whether Oxy- reasonable inquiry by OxyChem Diamond Alkali Corporation could includes Oxy-Diamond Alkali have accessed Administrative Order Corporation’s knowledge No. EO-40-19 in September of 1986 • Answering question of its own making— when it acquired the stock of whether Oxy-Diamond Alkali “could Diamond Shamrock Chemicals have accessed” the Order, instead of the Company via a Stock Purchase question asked—whether OxyChem was Agreement with Diamond Shamrock aware of the Order Corporation.

(193) Admit that Oxy- Objection 1, 2, and 3. The request • Objecting to “Oxy-Diamond Alkali” and The Special Master finds that the response complies Diamond Alkali was aware of includes two vague and undefined “the 1986 Merger” to evade responding with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. Administrative Order No. EO- terms—“Oxy-Diamond Alkali” and directly to request Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of 40-17 at the time of the 1986 “the 1986 Merger.” The Requests • “The 1986 Merger” is first term defined the request. Merger. for Admission do not define either in RFAs term, but there was no 1986 Merger • OxyChem is required to detail inquiry if of which OxyChem is aware. In it neither admits nor denies a request addition, if the term “Oxy-Diamond • Oxy-Diamond Alkali Corporation is a Alkali” is intended to refer to Oxy- predecessor of OxyChem (it acquired Diamond Alkali Corporation, Diamond Shamrock Chemicals OxyChem is after reasonable inquiry Company from Diamond Shamrock unable to admit or deny whether Corporation, then the name was changed Oxy-Diamond Alkali Corporation to Occidental Electro Chemical could have accessed Administrative Corporation, then name changed to Order No. EO-40-17 in September Occidental Chemical Corporation), so a of 1986 when it acquired the stock of reasonable inquiry by OxyChem Diamond Shamrock Chemicals includes Oxy-Diamond Alkali Company via a Stock Purchase Corporation’s knowledge 24 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 38 of 58 PageID: 60841 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

Agreement with Diamond Shamrock • Answering question of its own making— Corporation. whether Oxy-Diamond Alkali “could have accessed” the Order, instead of the question asked—whether OxyChem was aware of the Order (195) Admit that OxyChem Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections that do not apply to The Special Master finds that the response does not was legally obligated to This request is vague, compound, the request comply with Rule 36 and orders that an amended comply with the 1984 undefined by time, and calls for a • The Third Circuit permits RFAs asking answer be served which clearly addresses whether Administrative Consent Order legal conclusion. The 1984 about legal obligations; this is not an Occidental was legally obligated to comply with the as DSCC’s successor. Administrative Consent Order was impermissible legal conclusion. 1984 Administrative Consent Order as DSCC’s signed by DSCC before the 1986 • OxyChem is being evasive by answering successor after the 1986 Stock Purchase Agreement Stock Purchase Agreement. During its own question about whether Maxus was executed. Good faith qualifications to such a that period, OxyChem had no was a successor to DSCC. response are clearly permitted, but an objection that obligations at all under the 1984 • OxyChem does not answer the question. the request calls for a legal conclusion is not Consent Order. Subject to these It admits only that it is a legal successor appropriate because this request is not objectionable objections, OxyChem admits it is a to DSCC (already established and not in even if it requires opinions or conclusions of law successor to DSCC after April of question here) and does not admit because the legal conclusions relate to the facts of the 1987, but denies that it was the sole whether it was legally complied to case. successor to DSCC because Maxus comply with the Order after 1987 was also a successor to DSCC. The • OxyChem inserts extraneous narrative to request otherwise calls for a legal relitigate established facts conclusion and requires no response.

(196) Admit that OxyChem, Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections that to not apply to The Special Master finds that the response does not as successor to DSCC, was This request is compound, undefined the request comply with Rule 36 and orders that an amended legally required to perform all by time, and calls for a legal • The Third Circuit permits RFAs asking answer be served which clearly addresses whether of DSCC’s obligations to conclusion. The 1984 Administrative about legal obligations; this is not an Occidental, as a successor to DSCC, was legally regulatory authorities Consent Order was signed by DSCC impermissible legal conclusion required to perform all of DSCC’s obligations to regarding environmental before the 1986 Stock Purchase • OxyChem is being evasive by answering regulatory authorities regarding environmental contamination. Agreement. During that period, its own question about whether Maxus contamination. Appropriate qualifications, made in OxyChem had no obligations at all was a successor to DSCC. Regardless, good faith, including those related to the terms under the 1984 Consent Order. OxyChem is legally DSCC’s successor. “regulatory authorities” and “environmental Subject to these objections, • OxyChem does not answer the question. contamination” are permitted, but an objection that OxyChem admits it is a successor to It admits only that it is a legal successor the request calls for a legal conclusion is not 25 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 39 of 58 PageID: 60842 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

DSCC after April of 1987, but denies to DSCC (already established and not in appropriate because this request is not objectionable that it was the sole successor to question here) and does not admit even if it requires opinions or conclusions of law DSCC because Maxus was also a whether it was legally complied to because the legal conclusions relate to the facts of the successor to DSCC. The request comply with the Order after 1987 case. otherwise calls for a legal conclusion • OxyChem inserts extraneous narrative to and requires no response. relitigate established facts

(197) Admit that Maxus Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that do not apply to The Special Master finds that the response complies performed OxyChem’s request is compound, undefined by the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. The obligations on OxyChem’s time, and calls for a legal conclusion. • The Third Circuit permits RFAs asking request is complex and compound and contains behalf under the 1984 The 1984 Administrative Consent about legal obligations; this is not an vague terminology that is not appropriate for a Administrative Consent Order was signed by DSCC before impermissible legal conclusion request for admission. Occidental’s response fairly Order. the 1986 Stock Purchase Agreement. • OxyChem is being evasive by answering meets the substance of the request as Occidental, in During that period, OxyChem had no its own question about whether Maxus good faith, parsed the request based on specific obligations at all under the 1984 was a successor to DSCC. Regardless, timeframes. Consent Order. Subject to these OxyChem is legally DSCC’s successor. objections, OxyChem admits Maxus • OxyChem inserts extraneous narrative to was obligated to and did perform relitigate established facts obligations under the 1984 Administrative Consent Order because it was a successor to Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company when the Order was entered and was obligated, as DSCC’s successor, to perform it. After the 1986 Stock Purchase Agreement, OxyChem admits Maxus continued to perform the 1984 Administrative Consent Order pursuant to its contractual obligation to indemnify and hold harmless OxyChem against any environmental liabilities arising from the Lister Plant.

26 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 40 of 58 PageID: 60843 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

(210) Admit that at the time of Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. The • Boilerplate objections that to not apply to The Special Master finds that the response complies the 1986 Merger, Oxy- request includes four vague and the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. Diamond Alkali knew that undefined terms: “Oxy-Diamond • “The 1986 Merger” is the first term Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of DSCC had discharged Alkali,” “the 1986 Merger,” defined in the RFAs the request as Occidental admits Oxy-Diamond hazardous substances into “discharged,” and “hazardous • Objecting to “discharged” and Alkali knew of environmental contamination at the LPR. substances.” The Requests for “hazardous substances” to evading time of the 1986 Stock Purchase Agreement and the Admission do not define any of these directly responding qualification of the denial was made in good faith terms, but there was no 1986 Merger • The admission does not actually answer and is appropriate based on the use of vague terms in of which OxyChem is aware. The the RFA; OxyChem’s “admission” about the Request. request also fails to identify when any whether Oxy-Diamond Alkali knew that of the undefined “hazardous the Lister Plant was included in the substances” were “discharged” into Diamond Alkali Superfund Site is the Lower Passaic River. Subject to evasive these objections, admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that Oxy- Diamond Alkali knew as of the 1986 Stock Purchase Agreement that the Lister Plant was included within the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, because Oxy-Diamond Alkali is indemnified against all environmental liabilities associated with that Superfund Site in the agreement. OxyChem is otherwise unable to respond to this request because it does not define the information that is sought in simple facts that can be, as the Third Circuit requires, admitted or denied without explanation.

(211) Admit that at the time of Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. The • Boilerplate objections that do not apply The Special Master finds that the response complies the 1986 Merger, Oxy- request includes four vague and to the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. Diamond Alkali knew that undefined terms: “Oxy-Diamond Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of 27 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 41 of 58 PageID: 60844 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

DSCC had discharged Alkali,” “the 1986 Merger,” • “The 1986 Merger” is the first term the request as Occidental admits Oxy-Diamond contaminants into LPR. “discharged,” and “contaminants.” defined in RFAs Alkali knew of environmental contamination at the The Requests for Admission do not • Objecting to “discharged” and time of the 1986 Stock Purchase Agreement and the define any of these terms, but there “hazardous substances” to evade qualification of the denial was made in good faith was no 1986 Merger of which directly responding to the request and is appropriate based on the use of vague terms OxyChem is aware. It also fails to • The admission does not actually answer in the Request. identify when any of the undefined the request; OxyChem’s “admission” “contaminants” were “discharged” about whether Oxy-Diamond Alkali into the Lower Passaic River. knew that the Lister Plant was included Subject to these objections, admitted in the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site is in part and denied in part. Admitted evasive that Oxy-Diamond Alkali knew as of the 1986 Stock Purchase Agreement that the Lister Plant was included within the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, because Oxy- Diamond Alkali is indemnified against all environmental liabilities associated with that Superfund Site in the agreement. OxyChem is otherwise unable to respond to this request because it does not define the information that is sought in simple facts that can be, as the Third Circuit requires, admitted or denied without explanation.

(212) Admit that at the time of Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. The • Boilerplate objections that do not apply The Special Master finds that the response complies the 1986 Merger, Oxy- request includes four vague and to the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. Diamond Alkali knew that undefined terms: “Oxy-Diamond • The RFAs define “the 1986 Merger”; it Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of DSCC had discharged waste Alkali,” “the 1986 Merger,” is the first definition on page 2. the request as Occidental admits Oxy-Diamond into LPR. “discharged,” and “waste.” The • Objecting to “discharged” and Alkali knew of environmental contamination at the Requests for Admission do not define “hazardous substances” to evade directly time of the 1986 Stock Purchase Agreement and the any of these terms, but there was no responding qualification of the denial was made in good faith 1986 Merger of which OxyChem is • The admission does not actually answer and is appropriate based on the use of vague terms aware. It also fails to identify when the RFA; OxyChem’s “admission” about in the Request. 28 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 42 of 58 PageID: 60845 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

any of the undefined “waste” was whether Oxy-Diamond Alkali knew that “discharged” into the Lower Passaic the Lister Plant was included in the River. Subject to these objections, Diamond Alkali Superfund Site is admitted in part and denied in part. evasive Admitted that Oxy-Diamond Alkali knew as of the 1986 Stock Purchase Agreement that the Lister Plant was included within the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, because Oxy- Diamond Alkali is indemnified against all environmental liabilities associated with that Superfund Site in the agreement. OxyChem is otherwise unable to respond to this request because it does not define the information that is sought in simple facts that can be, as the Third Circuit requires, admitted or denied without explanation.

(213) Admit that at the time of Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. The • Boilerplate objections that do not apply The Special Master finds that the response complies the 1986 Merger, Oxy- request includes three vague and to the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. Diamond Alkali knew that the undefined terms: “Oxy-Diamond • The RFAs define “the 1986 Merger”; it Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of Lister Plant was contaminated Alkali,” “the 1986 Merger,” and is the first definition on page 2 the request as Occidental admits Oxy-Diamond with dioxin. “contaminated.” The Requests for • Objecting to “contaminated” to evade Alkali knew of environmental contamination at the Admission do not define any of these directly responding to request; time of the 1986 Stock Purchase Agreement and the terms, but there was no 1986 Merger OxyChem does not object to qualification of the denial was made in good faith of which OxyChem is aware. Subject “contaminated” in very next RFA (214) and is appropriate based on the use of vague terms to these objections, admitted in part • The request is a simple fact, not complex in the Request. and denied in part. Admitted that or compound. OxyChem is being evasive Oxy-Diamond Alkali knew as of the by citing a requirement for the 1986 Stock Purchase Agreement that information being sought to be a simple the Lister Plant was included within fact the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, • OxyChem is being evasive by admitting because Oxy-Diamond Alkali is something that the RFA does not ask indemnified against all 29 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 43 of 58 PageID: 60846 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

environmental liabilities associated • OxyChem says it is denying the request with that Superfund Site in the in part, but does not specifically deny agreement. OxyChem is otherwise anything. Denial does not fairly meet unable to respond to this request substance of request because it does not define the information that is sought in simple facts that can be, as the Third Circuit requires, admitted or denied without explanation.

(214) Admit that at the time of Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. The • Boilerplate objections that do not apply The Special Master finds that the response complies the 1986 Merger, Oxy- request includes three vague and to the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. Diamond Alkali knew that the undefined terms: “Oxy-Diamond • The RFAs do define “the 1986 Merger”; Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of Lister Plant was contaminated Alkali,” “the 1986 Merger,” and, it is the first definition on page 2 the request as Occidental admits Oxy-Diamond with hazardous substances. “hazardous substances.” The • Objecting to “hazardous substances” to Alkali knew of environmental contamination at the Requests for Admission do not define evade responding directly to request time of the 1986 Stock Purchase Agreement and the any of these terms, but there was no • The request is a simple fact, not complex qualification of the denial was made in good faith 1986 Merger of which OxyChem is or compound. OxyChem is being evasive and is appropriate based on the use of vague terms aware. Subject to these objections, by citing a requirement for the in the Request. admitted in part and denied in part. information being sought to be a simple Admitted that Oxy-Diamond Alkali fact knew as of the 1986 Stock Purchase • OxyChem is being evasive by admitting Agreement that the Lister Plant was something that the RFA does not ask included within the Diamond Alkali • OxyChem says it is denying the request Superfund Site, because Oxy- in part, but does not specifically deny Diamond Alkali is indemnified anything. Denial does not fairly meet against all environmental liabilities substance of request associated with that Superfund Site in the agreement. OxyChem is otherwise unable to respond to this request because it does not define the information that is sought in simple facts that can be, as the Third Circuit requires, admitted or denied without explanation.

30 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 44 of 58 PageID: 60847 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

(218) Admit that, in the course Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections that do not apply to The Special Master finds that the response complies of her representation of This request seeks an admission the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. OxyChem, Ms. Dinkins wrote regarding a letter, which document • “Document speaks for itself” is improper Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of a letter to EPA regarding the speaks for itself. It is also vague, objection the request as the qualification of the denial was 1984 Administrative Consent ambiguous, and compound as it • Extraneous information (“Maxus is made in good faith and is appropriate. Order in which she told EPA falsely characterizes the referenced also…”) that does not answer question that OxyChem was the document as asserting that OxyChem • Denies an implication it injected itself “successor to Diamond is the only successor to DSCC and is Shamrock Chemicals therefore misleading, misrepresents Company”. the referenced document, and (NJDEP00175450). improperly asserts a legal conclusion. Subject to and without waiving these objections, admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that the referenced document contains the quoted language, but denied as to any implication (not stated in the document) that OxyChem is the sole successor to DSCC because it is not: Maxus is also a successor to DSCC.

(221) Admit that on or about Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections that do not apply to The Special Master finds that the response does not July 26, 1989, Michael J. This request seeks an admission the request comply with Rule 36 and orders that an amended Rudick, Vice President and regarding a letter, which document • Extraneous information (“Maxus is answer be served which addresses whether the General Counsel for speaks for itself. It is also vague, also…”) that does not answer question document contains a statement that Occidental is a OxyChem, wrote a letter to ambiguous, and compound as it • Denies an implication it injected itself successor to DSCC, subject to any qualification that Paul W. Herring, Associate falsely characterizes the referenced • There is not an improper legal conclusion there may be other successors to DCSS not Counsel for Maxus, in which document as asserting that OxyChem here—Judge Arleo has already referenced. he noted that OxyChem was is the only successor to DSCC and is concluded that OxyChem is successor to the successor to DSCC. (OCC- therefore misleading, misrepresents DSCC CER-SA00025699). the referenced document, and improperly asserts a legal conclusion. Subject to and without waiving these objections, denied as to any implication (not stated in the document) that OxyChem is the sole 31 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 45 of 58 PageID: 60848 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

successor to DSCC because it is not: Maxus is also a successor to DSCC. If any further response is required, the document speaks for itself.

(224) Admit that OxyChem Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections that do not apply to The Special Master finds that the response complies signed the 1990 AOC as This request is vague, ambiguous, the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. successor to DSCC. and compound as it falsely • Extraneous information (“Maxus is Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of characterizes the referenced also…”) that does not answer question the request as the qualification of the denial was document as asserting that OxyChem • Denies an implication it injected itself made in good faith and is appropriate. is the only successor to DSCC and is • There is not an improper legal conclusion therefore misleading, misrepresents here—Judge Arleo has already the referenced document, and concluded that OxyChem is successor to improperly asserts a legal DSCC conclusion. Subject to and without waiving these objections, admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that OxyChem signed the 1990 Administrative Order on Consent as a successor to DSCC, but denied as to any implication (not stated in the document) that OxyChem is the sole successor to DSCC because it is not: Maxus is also a successor to DSCC. (231) Admit that OxyChem Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections that do not apply to The Special Master finds that this is an attempt to executed the 1994 AOC Subject to these objections, admitted the request evade the substance of the request and orders that it knowing that it would be in part and denied in part. OxyChem • Extraneous information (“Maxus is be admitted that Occidental was aware when it legally responsible for admits it was aware that—by signing also…”) that does not answer question signed the 1994 Administrative Order on Consent performing the obligations the 1994 Administrative Order on • Denies an implication it injected itself that it was obligating itself to perform the obligations under the 1994 AOC. Consent— it was obligating itself to contained therein. perform the obligations contained in the Order; denied, however, to the extent the request implies that OxyChem alone was obligated to perform those obligations because Maxus, as a successor to DSCC and 32 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 46 of 58 PageID: 60849 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

as OxyChem’s indemnitor, was also obligated to perform them.

(235) Admit that in its Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. This • Boilerplate objections that do not apply to The Special Master finds that this is an attempt to Environmental Management request seeks an admission the request evade the substance of the request and orders that it Services Agreement with regarding an agreement, which • “Document speaks for itself” is improper be admitted that Occidental is a legal successor to Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc., document speaks for itself. It is also objection Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company with OxyChem agreed that it is vague, ambiguous, and compound as • Extraneous information (“Maxus is respect to the “Newark Plant Site.” legal successor to Diamond it falsely characterizes the also…”) that does not answer question Shamrock Chemicals referenced document as asserting • Denies an implication it injected itself Company with respect to the that OxyChem is the only successor • There is not an improper legal conclusion “Newark Plant Site.” to DSCC and is therefore here—Judge Arleo has already misleading, misrepresents the concluded that OxyChem is successor to referenced document, and DSCC improperly asserts a legal conclusion. Subject to and without waiving these objections, denied as to any implication (not stated in the document) that OxyChem is the sole successor to DSCC because it is not: Maxus is also a successor to DSCC. To the extent that any additional response is required, the agreement speaks for itself.

33 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 47 of 58 PageID: 60850 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

(238) Admit that on or about Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections that do not apply to The Special Master finds that the response complies November 16, 2003 The request seeks an admission the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. Occidental Chemical regarding an affidavit, which • “Document speaks for itself” is improper Though Occidental did assert that the agreement Corporation Associate document speaks for itself. It is also objection “speaks for itself,” which is an improper objection, General Counsel and vague, ambiguous, and compound as • Extraneous information (“Maxus is Occidental also denied the request, and the denial Assistant Secretary, Robert D. it falsely characterizes the referenced also…”) that does not answer question was sufficient as this request seeks an admission that Luss, made a sworn affidavit document as asserting that OxyChem • Denies an implication it injected itself Occidental is the sole successor. admitting that Occidental is the only successor to DSCC and is • There is not an improper legal conclusion Chemical Corporation is the therefore misleading, misrepresents here—Judge Arleo has already successor by merger to the referenced document, and concluded that OxyChem is successor to Diamond Alkali, which was improperly asserts a legal DSCC later known as DSCC and conclusion. Subject to these Occidental Electrochemicals objections, and to the fact that the Corporation. request paraphrases and does not quote the affidavit in question, denied. The Affidavit of Mr. Luss speaks for itself, is not quoted accurately and nowhere states, as the request implies, that OxyChem is the sole successor to Diamond Alkali because it is not: Maxus is also a successor to DSCC.

(244) Admit that on or about Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections that do not apply to The Special Master finds that the response complies November 2, 2004, Michael The request seeks an admission the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. M. Gordon, as counsel for regarding an affidavit, which • “Document speaks for itself” is improper Though Occidental did assert that the agreement OxyChem, made a sworn document speaks for itself. The objection “speaks for itself,” which is an improper objection, affidavit admitting that request is also vague, ambiguous, • Extraneous information (“Maxus is Occidental also denied the request, and the denial OxyChem is the successor by and compound in that it paraphrases also…”) that does not answer question was sufficient as this request seeks an admission that merger to the manufacturer of the affidavit in a misleading manner • Denies an implication it injected itself Occidental is the sole successor. Agent Orange at 80 Lister to suggest that OxyChem is the only Avenue in Newark, New successor to DSCC (if that is what is Jersey. meant by the term “manufacturer of Agent Orange”), because OxyChem 34 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 48 of 58 PageID: 60851 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

is not the sole successor to DSCC: Maxus is also a successor to DSCC. If a further response is required, the document speaks for itself. (245) Admit that on or about Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. The • Boilerplate objections that do not apply to The Special Master finds that the response complies November 2, 2004, Michael request seeks an admission the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. M. Gordon, as counsel for regarding an affidavit, which • “Document speaks for itself” is improper Though Occidental did assert that the agreement OxyChem made a sworn document speaks for itself. Subject objection “speaks for itself,” which is an improper objection, affidavit admitting that neither to these objections, denied. • Extraneous information (“Maxus is Occidental also denied the request, and this denial Maxus nor Tierra were proper also…”) that does not answer question was sufficient. parties to a lawsuit concerning • Impossible to decipher if denial is based Agent Orange manufactured on substance of request or stated at 80 Lister Avenue. objections

(252) Admit that on or about Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that do not apply to The Special Master finds that the response complies July 25, 1973, Diamond request seeks an admission the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. Shamrock Corporation and regarding an agreement, which • “Document speaks for itself” is improper Though Occidental did assert that the agreement Chemicaland Corporation document speaks for itself. Subject objection “speaks for itself,” which is an improper objection, entered into a Processing to and without waiving these • OxyChem is not responding fairly to Occidental also denied the request, and this denial Agreement for Chemicaland objections, admitted there was an substance of request; admitting only that was sufficient. Corporation to produce 2,4-D agreement bearing that date between there was an agreement but not admitting exclusively for Diamond Diamond Shamrock Corporation that the agreement was a processing Shamrock Corporation. and Chemicaland; denied that this agreement (MAXUS0479199). request accurately summarizes its • Impossible to decipher if denial is based terms. on substance of request or stated objections

(253) Admit that Occidental Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that do not apply to The Special Master finds that the response complies Chemical Company entered request seeks an admission the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. into a tolling agreement with regarding an agreement, which • “Document speaks for itself” is improper Though Occidental did assert that the agreement Chemicaland Corporation for document speaks for itself. Subject objection “speaks for itself,” which is an improper objection, the production and/or supply to and without waiving these • OxyChem needs to detail the reasonable Occidental also denied the request, and this denial of 2,4-D. objections, and to the failure of this inquiry it undertook was sufficient. request to specify any particular date • OxyChem is evading answer by not at issue, admitted there was an actually answering the question asked; agreement between Occidental admitting only to “an agreement” 35 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 49 of 58 PageID: 60852 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

Chemical Company and • Impossible to decipher if denial is based Chemicaland; denied that this on substance of request or stated request accurately summarizes its objections terms because, after reasonable inquiry, OxyChem has not located a copy of this document.

(254) Admit that Occidental Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that do not apply The Special Master finds that the response complies Chemical Company entered request seeks an admission to the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. into a Tolling Agreement regarding an agreement, which • “Document speaks for itself” is improper Though Occidental did assert that the agreement with Chemicaland document speaks for itself. Subject objection “speaks for itself,” which is an improper objection, Corporation on August 20, to and without waiving these • OxyChem needs to detail the reasonable Occidental also denied the request, and this denial 1975 for the production of objections, admitted there was an inquiry it undertook was sufficient. 2,4-D. agreement between Occidental • OxyChem is evading answer by not Chemical Company and actually answering the question asked; Chemicaland; denied that this admitting only to “an agreement” request accurately summarizes its • Impossible to decipher if denial is based terms because, after reasonable on substance of request or stated inquiry, OxyChem has not located a objections copy of this document.

(255) Admit that Occidental Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that do not apply The Special Master finds that the response complies Chemical Company entered request seeks an admission to the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. into a Tolling Agreement with regarding an agreement, which • “Document speaks for itself” is improper Though Occidental did assert that the agreement Chemicaland Corporation on document speaks for itself. Subject objection “speaks for itself,” which is an improper objection, September 11, 1975 for the to and without waiving these • OxyChem needs to detail the reasonable Occidental also denied the request, and this denial production of 2,4-D. objections, admitted there was an inquiry it undertook was sufficient. agreement between Occidental • OxyChem is evading answer by not Chemical Company and actually answering the question asked; Chemicaland; denied that this admitting only to “an agreement” request accurately summarizes its • Impossible to decipher if denial is based terms because, after reasonable on substance of request or stated inquiry, OxyChem has not located a objections copy of this document. (256) Admit that Occidental Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that do not apply The Special Master finds that the response complies Chemical Company entered request seeks an admission to the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. 36 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 50 of 58 PageID: 60853 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

into an operation and regarding an agreement, which • “Document speaks for itself” is improper Though Occidental did assert that the agreement management agreement with document speaks for itself. Subject objection “speaks for itself,” which is an improper objection, Chemicaland Corporation in to and without waiving these • OxyChem needs to detail the reasonable Occidental also denied the request, and this denial or around 1976. objections, admitted in part and inquiry it undertook was sufficient. denied in part. Admitted there was • OxyChem is evading answer by not an agreement in or about 1976 actually answering the question asked; between Occidental Chemical admitting only to “an agreement” Company and Chemical and • Impossible to decipher if denial is based Corporation; otherwise, denied that on substance of request or stated this request summarizes accurately objections the terms of that agreement.

(257) Admit that in or around Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that do not apply The Special Master finds that the response complies 1976, Occidental Chemical request seeks an admission to the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. Company operated at the regarding an agreement, which • “Document speaks for itself” is improper Though Occidental did assert that the agreement Lister Plant pursuant to the document speaks for itself. The objection “speaks for itself,” which is an improper objection, operation and management request is also vague and ambiguous • Objecting to “operated” to evade Occidental also denied the request, and this denial agreement with Chemicaland because it fails to define what is responding directly to request was sufficient.. Corporation. (OCC-CER- meant by the term “operated at.” • OxyChem is evading answer by not SA00028830). Subject to and without waiving those actually answering the question asked; objections, admitted there was an admitting only to “an agreement” agreement in or about 1976 between • Impossible to decipher if denial is based Occidental Chemical Company and on substance of request or stated Chemicaland Corporation; objections otherwise, denied. (261) Admit that Occidental Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that do not apply The Special Master finds that the response complies Chemical Company entered request seeks an admission to the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. into an agreement with regarding an agreement, which • “Document speaks for itself” is improper Though Occidental did assert that the agreement Chemicaland Corporation on document speaks for itself. The objection “speaks for itself,” which is an improper objection, or about December 10, 1975 request is also vague and ambiguous • Objecting to “provide funds to operate” Occidental also denied the request, and this denial to provide Chemicaland because it fails to define what is to evade responding directly to request was sufficient. Corporation with funds to meant by the term “provide . . . funds • OxyChem is evading answer by not operate the Lister Plant. to operate.” Subject to and without actually answering the question asked; waiving these objections, admitted admitting only to “an agreement” there was an agreement in or about • OxyChem needs to detail the reasonable 1976 between Occidental Chemical inquiry it undertook 37 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 51 of 58 PageID: 60854 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

Company and Chemicaland • Impossible to decipher if denial is based Corporation; otherwise, denied. on substance of request or stated objections

(262) Admit that Occidental Objections 1, 2, and 3. The request is • Boilerplate objections that do not apply The Special Master finds that the response does not Chemical Company operated vague and ambiguous because it to the request comply with Rule 36 and orders that an amended the Lister Plant between in or fails to define what is meant by the • Objecting to “operated” to evade answer be served which addresses the basis for the around November 1976 and in term “operated.” Subject to and responding directly to request denial as good faith requires the denial be qualified. or around February 1977. without waiving these objections, • Notably does not question “in or around” denied. here as it did previously • Impossible to decipher if denial is based on substance of request or stated objections (263) Admit that Occidental Objection 1, 2, and 3. The request is • Boilerplate objections that do not apply The Special Master finds that the response does not Chemical Company managed vague and ambiguous because it to the request comply with Rule 36 and orders that an amended the Lister Plant between in or fails to define what is meant by the • Objecting to “managed” to evade answer be served which addresses the basis for the around November 1976 and in term “managed.” Subject to and responding directly to request denial as good faith requires the denial be qualified. or around February 1977. without waiving these objections, • Notably does not question “in or around” denied. here like it did above • Impossible to decipher if denial is based on substance of request or stated objections (264) Admit that Occidental Objection 1, 2, and 3. The request is • Boilerplate objections that do not apply The Special Master finds that the response does not Chemical Company was vague and ambiguous because it to the request comply with Rule 36 and orders that an amended responsible for the operation fails to define what is meant by the • Objecting to “responsible for” to evade answer be served which addresses the basis for the of the Lister Plant between in term “responsible for.” To the extent responding directly to request denial as good faith requires the denial be qualified. or around November 1976 and this implies “liability for,” it also • The Third Circuit permits requests about in or around February 1977. calls for a legal conclusion. Subject legal obligations to and without waiving these • Impossible to decipher if denial is based objections, denied. on substance of request or stated objections 38 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 52 of 58 PageID: 60855 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

(267) Admit that soil at the Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8. This • Boilerplate objections that do not apply The Special Master finds that the response does not Lister Plant was contaminated request fails to define the terms to the request comply with Rule 36 and orders that an amended with dioxin during the time “contaminated” and “operated.” • Objecting to “contaminated” and answer be served which addresses the basis for the period Occidental Chemical Subject to and without waiving these “operated” to evade responding directly denial as good faith requires the denial be qualified. Company operated the Lister objections, denied. to request Plant between in or around • OxyChem does not take issue with “in or November 1976 and in or around” here as it does in other RFAs around February 1977. • Impossible to decipher if denial is based on substance of request or stated objections (279) Admit that Occidental Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections The Special Master finds that the response complies Chemical Company shut Subject to and without waiving these • Impossible to decipher if denial is based with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. down operations at the Lister objections, denied. on substance of request or stated Plant on or about February 24, objections 1977. (OCC_MAXUS0053854; OCC-CER-SA00008677; OCC-CER-SA00018574).

(280) Admit that Occidental Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections The Special Master finds that the response complies Chemical Company was the Subject to and without waiving these • Impossible to decipher if denial is based with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. last company to operate the objections, denied. on substance of request or stated Lister Plant before it ceased objections operations on or about February 24, 1977. (281) Admit that Occidental Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections The Special Master finds that the response complies Chemical Company was the Subject to and without waiving these • Impossible to decipher if denial is based with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. last company to engage in objections, denied. on substance of request or stated commercial operations at the objections Lister Plant before it ceased operations on or about February 24, 1977. (282) Admit that when the Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. The • Boilerplate objections that do not apply The Special Master finds that the response complies Lister Plant was shut down on phrase “clean up” is vague and to the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. The or about February 24, 1977, undefined, and mischaracterizes the request contains vague terms like “clean up” and 39 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 53 of 58 PageID: 60856 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

Occidental Chemical did not record by suggesting that • Objecting to “clean up” to evade Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of clean up the plant. “Occidental Chemical” shut down responding directly to request the request. (OCC_MAXUS0381768). the Lister Plant or was able or • Impossible to decipher if denial is based responsible to “clean up the plant.” on substance of request or stated Subject to and without waiving these objections objections, denied.

(289) Admit that when the Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections The Special Master finds that the response complies Lister Plant was shut down on Subject to and without waiving these • Impossible to decipher if denial is based with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. or about February 24, 1977, objections, denied. Occidental on substance of request or stated Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of Occidental Chemical Chemical Company did not own or objections the request and denies that Occidental emptied the Company did not empty any operate the Lister Plant at the time process lines at the Lister Plant because it did not of the process lines at the Chemicaland ceased operations. operate the Lister Plant at the applicable time. Lister Plant. (292) Admit that leaving Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections that do not apply The Special Master finds that the Request is chemical waste and/or process Subject to and without waiving these to the request compound, contains numerous vague terms and is material in drums at the Lister objections, and subject to the further • Objecting to “chemical waste” and ambiguous. No further response is required. Plant posed a threat to the objection that this request is “process material” to evade responding environment. compound and fails to define the directly to request; OxyChem uses terms “chemical waste” and “process material” itself in the second to “process material,” when any such last sentence waste was placed in drums at the • Extraneous information (“Process Lister Plant, or the circumstances in materials…”) that does not answer which waste was “left” in drums at question asked the Lister Plant. Process material is often placed in drums temporarily before the drums are transported elsewhere for further processing. Given the compound nature of the request, its vagueness, and the fact that it is not specific as to the time or circumstances in which process materials or wastes were placed in drums, OxyChem is unable after 40 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 54 of 58 PageID: 60857 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

reasonable inquiry to admit or deny this request.

(332) Admit that OxyChem Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. The • Boilerplate objections that do not apply The Special Master finds that the response does not ceased participating in the term “ceased participating” is vague to the request comply with Rule 36 and orders that an amended CPG in 2012. and does not accurately describe the • Objecting to “ceased participating” to answer be served which either admits or denies that record, which shows that members of evade responding directly to request Occidental ceased participating in the CPG in 2012 the Cooperating Parties Group (who • Extraneous information (“which shows without extraneous objections and narratives. The are now Defendants in this action): that…”) that does not respond to request current response does not clearly explain the basis colluded to avoid paying their share • Impossible to decipher if denial is based for the denial. of the costs to fund the River Mile on substance of request or stated 10.9 removal; breached the terms of objections the CPG’s 2007 Amended and Restated Organization Agreement by holding on short notice a predetermined “vote” to force on OxyChem and its indemnitors Maxus and Tierra a disproportionate share of the costs to fund the River Mile 10.9 removal based on an unfair and unscientific allocation on threat of expulsion from the CPG; then, after executing that scheme, entering into their own ASAOC; all of which left OxyChem to resolve the matter separately and voluntarily with EPA, which it did by accepting the RM 10.9 UAO. Subject to and without waiving those objections, denied.

(333) Admit that since Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections that do not apply The Special Master finds that the response complies OxyChem ceased Subject to and without waiving these to the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. participating in the CPG in objections, OxyChem responds as • Extraneous information (“the CPG Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of 2012, it has refused to pay follows: the CPG breached the breached…”) that does not answer the request as the term “refused” is argumentative interim allocation payments. Cooperating Parties Group request and Occidental has set forth the basis for its Agreement and wrongly expelled response. 41 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 55 of 58 PageID: 60858 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

OxyChem, Maxus, and Tierra from the Group. As a result of the CPG’s prior material breach of the agreement, OxyChem is under no further obligation to pay any amounts to the CPG and has not “refused” to pay anything because it does not owe anything; to the contrary, prior to the CPG’s 2012 breach, OxyChem’s indemnitors submitted on its behalf interim allocation payments that far exceeded OxyChem’s fair and equitable share of responsibility. (337) Admit that OxyChem Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections The Special Master finds that the response complies has received invoices from the Subject to and without waiver of • Extraneous information (“whether the with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. CPG for work performed these objections, admitted in part work in question…”) that does not Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of under the 2007 ASAOC. and denied in part. Admitted that the answer request the request because the Request relies on an CPG has purported to issue invoices • Additionally, OxyChem is not actually underlying fact that the invoices are for work to OxyChem but, denied that any admitting the response: it admits that the performed under the 2007 ASAOC, for which such invoices are owed. In addition, CPG has purported to issue invoices, and Occidental states it cannot admit or deny, even after after reasonable inquiry, OxyChem not that the CPG has issued invoices reasonably inquiry and has explained the basis for is unable to state whether the work that statement. in question was necessary to the performance of obligations under the 2007 ASAOC because the SPG defendants have improperly shielded the details and reasons for such work through an improper invocation of the joint interest privilege.

(338) Admit that the invoices Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections that do not apply to The Special Master finds that this an attempt to that OxyChem has received Subject to and without waiver of the request evade the substance of the request and orders that it from the CPG for work these objections, admitted in part and • OxyChem admits to a question not be admitted that Occidental has received invoices performed under the 2007 denied in part. Admitted that the asked—whether the CPG “purported” to from the CPG for work performed under the 2007 ASAOC total $16,550,976.09. CPG has purported to issue invoices issue invoices instead of the question ASAOC that total $16,550,976.09. Occidental’s 42 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 56 of 58 PageID: 60859 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

in this amount to OxyChem but, asked—whether the CPG has issued extraneous explanation regarding an “implication,” denied that any such invoices are these invoices which is found in many of its responses is not owed. In addition, after reasonable appropriate or contemplated by the Federal Rules of inquiry, OxyChem is unable to state Civil Procedure. whether the work in question was necessary to the performance of obligations under the 2007 ASAOC because the SPG defendants have improperly shielded the details and reasons for such work through an improper invocation of the joint interest privilege. (340) Admit that OxyChem Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections that do not apply to The Special Master finds that the response complies has not paid the invoices Subject to and without waiver of the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. OxyChem has received from these objections, OxyChem admits it • OxyChem admits to a question not Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of the CPG for work performed has not paid the invoices submitted asked—whether the CPG “purported” to the request. under the 2007 ASAOC to it by the CPG for work purportedly issue invoices instead of the question performed under the 2007 ASAOC, asked—whether the CPG has issued but denied that any such invoices are these invoices owed because, as stated in response • OxyChem evades direct response by to Request 333, the CPG breached answering questions of its own making the Cooperating Parties Group instead of question asked Agreement and wrongly expelled OxyChem, Maxus, and Tierra from the Group. As a result of the CPG’s prior material breach of the agreement, OxyChem is under no further obligation to pay any amounts to the CPG and has not “refused” to pay anything because it does not owe anything. (341, 343, 345, 347, 349, 351, Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections The Special Master finds that this an attempt to 353, 355, 357, 359, 361, 363, Subject to and without waiver of • OxyChem admits to a question not evade the substance of the request and orders that it 365) these objections, admitted in part and asked—whether the CPG “purported” to be admitted that Occidental received the subject Admit that OxyChem has denied in part. Admitted that the issue invoices instead the question invoices from the CPG. Occidental’s extraneous received invoice number CPG has purported to issue invoice explanation regarding an “implication,” which is 43 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 57 of 58 PageID: 60860 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

[XYZ] from the CPG in the number XYZ to OxyChem in the asked—whether OxyChem has received found in many of its responses is not appropriate or amount of $[ABC] amount of $ABC, but denied that any these invoices contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil such invoices are owed due to the • It then denies something it was not asked Procedure. prior material breach of the CPG. (whether it owed money) • It then says that it cannot answer a question that was not asked after an unspecified reasonable inquiry (375) Admit that OxyChem Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. • Boilerplate objections The Special Master finds that this an attempt to did not participate in the Subject to and without waiver of • OxyChem admits matter but then evade the substance of the request and orders that it Batson allocation. these objections, admitted in part and obfuscates its admission with denial of be admitted that Occidental did not participate in the denied in part. Admitted that question not asked Batson allocation. Occidental’s extraneous OxyChem ultimately declined to • Extraneous narrative to further its own explanation regarding an “implication,” which is participate in the Batson allocation argument found in many of its responses is not appropriate or but denied as to any implication that contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil OxyChem refused or was unwilling Procedure. to participate; to the contrary, OxyChem corresponded repeatedly with EPA to express its concerns about the truncated, unfair, and unscientific process contemplated by Mr. Batson, urging EPA to allow the parties adequate time to gather and submit evidence relevant to a fair and equitable allocation and to afford Mr. Batson sufficient time and resources to consider that evidence, but EPA refused. It limited Mr. Batson to considering no more than 150,000 pages of documents and 10 pages from each party. As is evident from the 100 pages of OxyChem’s complaint and the 150+ pages of just these responses to requests for admission, no part of the Batson process was designed to arrive at a 44 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision Case 2:18-cv-11273-MCA-LDW Document 2083 Filed 06/13/22 Page 58 of 58 PageID: 60861 Request Occidental Response SPG Response Special Master Findings

fair and equitable allocation based on the limited, blinkered record EPA permitted Mr. Batson to consider.

(419) Admit that OxyChem is Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. This • Boilerplate objections that do not apply The Special Master finds that the response complies not subject to any obligation request fails to define “any to the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. requiring OxyChem to incur obligation requiring OxyChem to • Objecting to purported lack of definition Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of response costs associated with incur response costs associated with of a phrase that requires no definition the request. OU3. OU3.” Subject to these objections, • Impossible to decipher if denial is based denied. on substance of request or stated objections (423) Admit that OxyChem is Objection 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. This • Boilerplate objections that do not apply The Special Master finds that the response complies not subject to any obligation request fails to define “any to the request with Rule 36 and no further response is needed. requiring OxyChem to incur obligation requiring OxyChem to • Objecting to a purported lack of Occidental’s response fairly meets the substance of response costs associated with incur response costs associated with definition of a phrase that requires no the request. OU4. OU4.” Subject to these objections, definition denied. • Impossible to decipher if denial is based on substance of request or stated objections

45 Exhibit A to June 13, 2022 Special Master Decision