Hon. Huch Gibson U.S. District Judge 611 Post or~ice Building Galveston, TX ??SSO

oear Judge Gibaon1 I have given much thought to the issues in dispute over

the defendants' requests tor documents as per their 19-part exhibit. My reasons tor not attempting to tully supply the documentation summoned by the defendants are as tollows1

l. I4' threatens ethically through demands that I divulge material submitted in co~idence, endangering my good name and reputation. .

2. It exposes to potential liability arising trom the release or correspondence and other materials.provided to me by others who assumed I would honor their confi-dence.

j. It jeopardises wr livelihood in that material requested reveals strategies or i:arties with whom I consult, as well as other materials ot a contidential nature.

4. It is tar beyond 'th cope ot relen.nt .. trial to my qualifications and the area of expert testimony ottered. -

5. It is unprecedented in 49 prior trials and depositions where I have testitied, in federal and state courts all over the United States, including JlllU'1Y cases in Texas. Rner betore have I. had to i:roduce such voluainous and aenaitiv aatarial in order to be permitted to testify.

6. It is ua ... ivlTand unjustifiably intruaiT into my personal and business lite.

7. I have referenced ot ot the information I have in 11q S93-pag book, Aabtos1 Medical and Legal Aspects. The great majority of the information I have on actual knowledge ot specific detendanta has come tro the defen-dants themselves.

8. All information that I have which is relevant to my testi-mony and qualifications has been the subject or numerous trials and depositions since 1979.

1722 ,,~., .... 1..1~..:. "'4.. 21217 .J. 301462Sl3S

Judge Gibson pace two

Whn I waa 1.n!or.md that you had ordered me to appear ror a deposition in your court on Friday ot this week, I contacted at-torneys with whom I had worked tor advice on how to proc~ed. One ot them is Mr. David Sheehan, Asaistant Attorney General !or the Stat or Maryland. Maryland has an asbestos property damage suit underway against 4? defendant companies, and I have been retained by the state as a consultant and expert witness. Mr. Sheehan advised me in the strongeat terma to not appear in Galveston on Kovember 8. He was quite upset that documentation or any or our discussions might be. obtained by defendants and jeopardize the development ot the state's cue. 01:her attorneys representing plainti!ts in asbestos cases agreed, warning me that I could even be cited for contempt and jailed it I came to court unprepared to completely reveal the documentation demanded by the defendants.

For some time, 1 t has been evident to others besides myself that detena lawyer were taking redundant dpoitiona, repeatedly demanding that I produce the aam material that had been provid-ed to rr.sentatives or their clients in numerous pi-evious depo-sitions e.g., copies of my publications aince 1971). In th apring ot 1984, I wa approached ~ th iroducers ot c~s program 60 llinutea and interviewed as an example of an overdeposed xi>ert.witns in asbestos litigation. Since then, I have been deposed another 11 times and left behind trial testimony records in another 10 eases. I have not had anything to add in testimony on state or the art in asbestos/insulator cases in the last two years or more -- except for corporate documentation that is well lcnown to all iarties involved.

It is my firm belief that th defendants are attemptinc to harrass and thereby discourage from testifying aa an expert witness in the cases betore you and others. Since their success in excluding my testimofl1' in the ease or Wilson et al. in your court, the defendants have used the same list ot-cluces teeum demands on me in other jurisdictions, eo tar includ!lii Austin, Philadelphia, and Wilmington (Delaware). I have a deep respect tor the judicial process and the federal courts in this country, and remain confident that justice will prevail in all or these cases.

Toward this end and as a sign or good faith, it the Court please, I will acr to have rq tax return examined by you in camera. In thi way, you can confirm that the income breakaown I hive given the defendants in the Wilson case is corroborated by my 1984 tax rorm. I would have no qualms about coming to Gal-veston to discuss any or these matters with you personally. How-ever, because or my responsibilities elsewhere, I must ask your aesurance that if I do appear before you, and we are unable to resolve the impasse, that I be allowed to withdraw froa.th present cu without aJ11' turther obligation to produce docwaentation or

-testimony about mysel~.

Judge Gibson page three

D~en attorney' treatment or in th caaea conati-tutea an abua ot th American system ot juatic and ot Mr. Ballard's clients. 'rhe State ot Texas has a distinguished history in the development ot case law on aabeatoa disease compensation. I have personally appeared in the court or Judge Parker and other Texas jurists and admired the !air and expedi ti~s administration ot justice 1n Texaa courts. It the detendants prevail here in excluding my testimony tram consideration ~Y the jury, I reel this would be a tragic blow to justice in the State ot Texas, where the rightsot the in-dividual to seek redress in the courts are considered to be ot 8upreme importance.

In conclusion, no one has ever proven or even suggested that I have testified falsely in any trial or deposition. To the contrary, everything I have aid is auppcrted by published and corporate documentation. This, I submit, ia the real iaaue before the court at this time.

Sincerely yours,

~-'~~ .. ~ Barry I. Castleman, ScD

BC/be