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 confidence.

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 defendants themselves.

8.

All information that I have which is relevant to my testimony 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 attorneys 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 provided to rr.sentatives or their clients in numerous pi-evious depositions e.g., copies of my publications aince 1971). In th
apring ot 1984, I
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.

wa

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
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 Galveston to discuss any or these matters with you personally. However, 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~.

acr

Judge Gibson
page three
D~en attorney' treatment or in th caaea conatitutea 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 individual 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