MS- Motion, Memo & Appendix re Class Certification

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION IN RE: ATLAS ROOFING ) CORPORATION CHALET SHINGLE ) MDL DOCKET NO. 2495 PRODUCTS LIABILITY ) LITIGATION ) 1:13-MD-2495-TWT )

NOBLE BROOKS, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action

File No. 1:13-cv-02195

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Plaintiff Noble Brooks, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), by and through counsel, respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an Order certifying the following damages class: All those who as of the date class notice is issued: (a) own a home or other structure in the State of Mississippi on which Atlas Chalet or Stratford roofing shingles are currently installed; or (b) incurred unreimbursed costs to repair or replace Atlas Chalet or Stratford

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306 Filed 12/30/15 Page 2 of 5

roofing shingles on a home or other structure which they currently own or previously owned in the State of Mississippi. Alternatively, if the Court declines to certify a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), Plaintiffs seek certification of a liability-only class pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) with the same class definition. In addition to a damages or liability-only class, Plaintiffs request certification under Rule 23(b)(2) of the following subclass for purposes of equitable relief: All those who as of the date class notice is issued own a home or other structure in the State of Mississippi on which Atlas Chalet or Stratford roofing shingles are currently installed. Excluded from the classes are: (a) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their family; (b) Atlas and any entity in which Atlas has a controlling interest or which has a controlling interest in Atlas and its legal representatives, assigns and successors of Atlas; and (c) all persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class. The grounds for this Motion are set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law and the exhibits attached thereto, any Reply memorandum filed in further support of this Motion, the operative Complaint in this action, and oral arguments and evidence as may be presented at the hearing on the motion. Plaintiffs respectfully 2

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306 Filed 12/30/15 Page 3 of 5

request that the Court grant their motion and enter an order granting class certification, appointing the attorneys on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee as Class Counsel, and appointing the named plaintiffs as Class Representatives.

Dated:

December 30, 2015. By: /s/Daniel K. Bryson Daniel K. Bryson Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: 919-600-5000 Facsimile: 919-600-5035 Email: [email protected] Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel Christopher L. Coffin Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: 504-355-0086 Facsimile: 504-523-0699 Email: [email protected] Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel Kenneth S. Canfield GA Bar No.: 107744 Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC 1355 Peachtree Street, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: 404-881-8900 Email: [email protected] Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel

3

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306 Filed 12/30/15 Page 4 of 5

On the brief: Gary E. Mason Jason S. Rathod Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP 1625 Massachusetts Ave. NW Suite 605 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: 202. 429.2290 Facsimile: 202.429.2294 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Stan Baudin Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: 504-355-0086 Facsimile: 504-523-0699 Email: [email protected] Jim Reeves Reeves & Mestayer, PLLC P. O. Drawer 1388 Biloxi, MS 39533 160 Main Street P. O. Drawer 1388 Biloxi, MS 39533 Phone: 228-374-5151 Facsimile: 228-374-6630 Email: [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs

4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306 Filed 12/30/15 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Daniel K. Bryson, do hereby certify that the foregoing was electronically filed through the CM/ECF system for the Northern District of Georgia, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following attorneys of record: Joel G. Pieper William M. Ragland, Jr. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP 271 17th Street, N.W., Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30363-1014 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Keith A. Clinard Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP One West Fourth Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Email: [email protected]

Henry B. Smythe, Jr. James E. Weatherholtz Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP PO Box 999 Charleston, SC 29402 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

This the 30th day of December, 2015. /s/ Daniel K. Bryson Daniel K. Bryson

5

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 29

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION IN RE: ATLAS ROOFING ) CORPORATION CHALET SHINGLE ) MDL DOCKET NO. 2495 PRODUCTS LIABILITY ) LITIGATION ) 1:13-MD-2495-TWT )

NOBLE BROOKS, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action

File No. 1:13-cv-02195

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 2 of 29

INTRODUCTION From 1998 to 2010, Atlas Roofing Corporation sold millions of squares of Chalet and Stratford roofing shingles that top tens of thousands of roofs nationwide. Atlas represented the shingles to be durable products with enhanced cosmetic appeal that met industry standards and warranted them to be free from manufacturing defects. However, due to an inherent defect in Atlas’ manufacturing process, the shingles contain a manufacturing defect and do not meet industry standards. They blister, crack, suffer granular loss, become unsightly and prematurely fail. Atlas knew the shingles were defective but concealed the truth. After repeated, unsuccessful efforts to fix its manufacturing process, Atlas discontinued manufacturing the shingles in 2010. Plaintiff, Noble Brooks, Jr., is a homeowner with a roof on which the defective shingles were installed. He seeks monetary and equitable relief on a variety of legal theories on behalf of himself and a Mississippi class of those similarly situated. Plaintiff requests the Court certify a damages class – or, alternatively, a liability-only class – and a declaratory relief class. Plaintiff moves for certification of the claims, which are well-suited for class treatment, as other courts have recognized in certifying classes in cases involving defective building materials, because each Plaintiff’s claim arises out of a common manufacturing defect and involves essentially the same warranties. The prerequisites of Rule 23 are therefore easily met.

2

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 3 of 29

FACTUAL BACKGROUND Pursuant to agreement of the Parties (Dkt. 296) and the Court’s Order of December 23, 2015, Plaintiffs adopt the “FACTUAL BACKGROUND,” subsections “A” through “D”, and all exhibits referenced therein, from the Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Class Certification submitted in the Georgia litigation, captioned “Diane and Rodney Dishman, and Anthony Costanzo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Atlas Roofing Corporation”, Docket No. 1:13-CV-02195, in support of their arguments for class certification herein, and continue with subsection “E” below. E.

The Named Plaintiff, and the Mississippi Class, Have Suffered Injuries Noble Brooks, Jr. (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Brooks”) of Yazoo City, Mississippi

owns a home on which Chalet shingles were installed in 2006. (Tab 1 at pp. 24-26.). Chalet shingles were selected because Mr. Brooks requested shingles with a 30-year warranty. (Id. at pp. 30-31.). In 2013, his roof began to leak and as a result his home was damaged. (Id., at p. 44.). In November 2013, Mr. Books paid to repair the leaks. (Id. at p. 113.). The shingles have also blistered, cracked and lost a large amount of granules. (Id. at pp. 45, 57-58, 121). Mr. Brooks also made a warranty claim with Atlas, which was denied. (Id. at pp. 76-78, 137-140). To prevent further leaks, the roof needs to be replaced. Plaintiff is not alone. Atlas’ records reveal that 90 warranty

3

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 4 of 29

claims have been filed in Mississippi. (Tab 2). Those involved blistering, cracking, and granule loss. Atlas denied these claims by maintaining that they were not caused by “manufacturing defects.” (Tab 3 at 214:8-215:21). ARGUMENT Rule 23 “creates a categorical rule entitling a plaintiff whose suit meets the specified criteria to pursue his claim as a class action.” Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs.,v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393, 398 (2010). To be certified, a proposed class must satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and one or more subsections of Rule 23(b). Klay v. Humana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241, 1250 (11th Cir. 2004). While the certification analysis may entail some overlap with the merits, “Rule 23 grants courts no license to engage in free-ranging merits inquiries at the certification stage.” Amgen, Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184, 1194-95 (2013). Merits questions may be only considered if needed to determine whether the Rule 23 requirements have been met. Amgen, Inc., 133 S. Ct. at 1194-95; Vega v. T-Mobile, USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1266 (11th Cir. 2009); In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 324 (3d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted) (a court retains “considerable discretion” to ensure that class certification does not turn into “a protracted mini-trial of substantial portions of the underlying litigation.”) Plaintiff requests that the Court certify the following damages class:

4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 5 of 29

All those who as of the date class notice is issued either (a) own a residence or other structure in the State of Mississippi on which Atlas Chalet or Stratford Shingles are currently installed; or (b) incurred unreimbursed costs to repair or replace Atlas Chalet or Stratford Shingles on a home or other structure in the State of Mississippi which they currently own or previously owned. As set forth below, the proposed damages class meets all the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). Alternatively, if the Court declines to certify a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), Plaintiff seeks certification of a liability-only class pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4), which expressly authorizes certification of classes “with respect to particular issues” such as liability and only requires the proposed class to satisfy the Rule 23 requirements with respect to the particular issues for which certification is sought. See Williams v. Mohawk Indus., 568 F.3d 1350, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); Fabricant v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 202 F.R.D. 310 (S.D. Fla. 2001). In addition to a damages or liability-only class, Plaintiff requests certification under Rule 23(b)(2) of the following subclass for purposes of equitable relief : All those who as of the date class notice is issued own a home or other structure in the State of Mississippi on which Atlas Chalet or Stratford Shingles are currently installed. The proposed subclass meets all of the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23 (b) and thus, for the reasons discussed below, should also be certified.

5

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 6 of 29

I.

The Proposed Classes Satisfy the Requirements of Rule 23(a) A.

Ascertainability

For damages classes, the Eleventh Circuit has acknowledged an implicit requirement in Rule 23(a), that a class be ascertainable. See Bussey v. Macon Cty. Greyhound Park,, Inc., 562 F. App’x 782, 787-88 (11th Cir. 2014). Ascertainability is not a hurdle here. The proposed class is based on readily identifiable, objective criteria. Either a person owns or owned a home or other structure on which the shingles were installed, or they do or did not. And there are reliable records from which ownership can be determined, including markings on the shingles themselves and dozens of warranty claims that contain owners’ names and addresses. (See Tab 2); see, e.g., Terrill v. Electrolux Home Prods., 295 F.R.D. 671, 684 (S.D. Ga. 2013) (class was ascertainable because the defective products could be identified from serial numbers and build dates). B.

Numerosity

A party seeking class certification must demonstrate that “the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). The burden of establishing numerosity is not great. In the Eleventh Circuit, more than forty class members are enough. Cox v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 784 F.2d 1546, 1553 (11th Cir.1986). Further, “a plaintiff need not show the precise number of members in

6

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 7 of 29

the class.” Evans v. U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co., 696 F.2d 925, 930 (11th Cir. 1983). Reasonable inferences are sufficient. See, e.g., In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 307 F.R.D. 656, 667 (S.D. Fla. 2015); Young v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 693 F.3d 532, 541 (6th Cir. 2012). Numerosity is easily met. During the class period, Atlas sold 88,198 squares of Chalet shingles in Mississippi. (Tab 4 at Exhibit 1). Assuming reasonably that there were 30 squares used per home, there are about 2,939 homes roofed with Chalet shingles in Mississippi. There are, presumably, about the same number of distinct owners who are class members. These figures surpass the numerosity threshold of 40. C.

Commonality

Rule 23(a)(2) requires “questions of law or fact that are common to the class.” There need only be a single common question capable of being answered on a classwide basis whose resolution is central to the validity of each claim. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011); Williams., 568 F.3d at 1355. The requirement thus imposes a “low hurdle.” Williams., 568 F.3d at 1356; see also In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 307 F.R.D. at 668 (“Plaintiffs’ legal claims need not be completely identical and factual differences concerning treatment or damages will not defeat a finding of commonality.”) A standardized course of conduct affecting all class members generally meets the requirement. In re Checking Account

7

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 8 of 29

Overdraft Litig., 307 F.R.D. at 668; Morefield v. NoteWorld, LLC, Nos. 1:10–00117, 1:11–00029, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54664, at *8 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 18, 2012). The commonality requirement is readily met in cases such as this one involving a defective product. See, e.g., Thomas v. La.-Pac. Corp., 246 F.R.D. 505, 515-16 (D.S.C. 2007); Glazer v. Whirlpool Corp. (In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig.), 722 F.3d 838, 855 (7th Cir. 2013); Helmer v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Civil Action No. 12-cv-00685-RBJ-MEH, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37501, at *27 (D. Colo. Mar. 21, 2014). In such cases, the “central questions in the litigation are the same for all class members,” including whether the products “suffered from an inherent defect when they left the factory, whether and when the defendant knew about the defect, and the scope of any warranty or remediation program.” Pella Corp. v. Saltzman, 606 F.3d 391, 394 (7th Cir. 2010). As one court explained: either the [product] contained a common defect . . . or it did not. And, either the . . . defect rendered the [product] substantially certain to fail (or unfit for their ordinary purpose) or it did not. Importantly, these issues are central to the validity of each class member’s legal claims. Terrill, 295 F.R.D. at 686; see also Sanchez-Knutson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at *910. Here, commonality is met because the Plaintiff’s and class members’ claims arise from Atlas’ common course of conduct, including the sale of a defective 8

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 9 of 29

product. Plaintiff asserts that all of the shingles suffered from the same defect when they left the factory resulting from a common flaw in the manufacturing process that causes the shingles to suffer from the same problems (blistering, cracking and granule loss) and thus breached Atlas’ express warranties and implied warranty of merchantability in the same way. Plaintiff will prove these assertions by common proof that focuses on a single manufacturing process, express and implied warranties given to every class member, substantially similar representations in Atlas’ marketing materials and product packaging, and Atlas’ knowledge and intent, which almost by definition is the same for all class members. For example, Plaintiff will rely on his expert who found that each of the 351 roofs he inspected had excessive blistering, cracking, and granule loss, prompting him to conclude that all roofs with the shingles have the same condition. (Tab 5 at 84:12-85:5; 195:4-6; 210:18-211:1). Hence, commonality exists here, as courts have routinely found in other cases involving defective shingles. See, e.g., Brooks v. GAF Materials Corp., No. 8:11-00983, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at *17-20 (D.S.C. Oct. 19, 2012) clarified on denial of recon., No. 8:11-00983-JMC, 2013 WL 461468 (D.S.C. Feb. 6, 2013); In re IKO Roofing Shingle Prods. Liab. Litig., 757 F.3d 599, 603 (7th Cir. 2014) (finding it “not hard to frame liability issues suited to class-wide resolution”).

9

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 10 of 29

D.

Typicality

The typicality requirement focuses on whether the named plaintiff’s claims “have the same essential characteristics” as claims of other class members. See, e.g., Appleyard v. Wallace, 754 F.2d 955, 958 (11th Cir. 1985). The requirement is “not demanding,” In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litig., 170 F.R.D. 524, 532 (M.D. Fla. 1996), requiring only some nexus between the named plaintiffs’ claims and the common questions uniting the class. See, e.g., Wooden v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys., 247 F.3d 1262, 1287 (11th Cir. 2001); Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 741 F.2d 1332, 1337 (11th Cir. 1984). A sufficient nexus exists if the claims arise from the same pattern of conduct and there is a similarity of legal theories. See, e.g., Kornberg, 741 F.2d at 1337; Williams v. Mohawk Indus., 568 F.3d 1350, 135758 (11th Cir. 2009). The claims of all class members, including the named Plaintiff’s, involve the same shingles, which were manufactured using the same process and suffer from the same problems; arise out of the same or similar warranties; and assert the same legal theories. The typicality requirement thus is met here. See, e.g., Brooks v. GAF Materials Corp., Civil Action No.: 8:11-cv-00983-JMC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15842, at *12 (D.S.C. Feb. 6, 2013) (finding named plaintiffs claims were typical in a defective shingle case).

10

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 11 of 29

E.

Adequacy of Representation

Rule 23(a)(4) presents two questions: (1) whether any substantial conflicts of interest exist between the named plaintiffs and the class; and (2) whether the named plaintiffs will adequately prosecute the litigation. Busby v. JRHBW Realty, Inc., 513 F.3d 1314, 1323 (11th Cir. 2008). There are no conflicts between the named Plaintiff and the proposed class. The named Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to absent class members; is willing to serve as a class representative and has demonstrated his commitment by participating in discovery. (Tab 1). Finally, Plaintiff is represented by law firms with extensive experience in class actions and other complex civil litigation. (Tab 6). The adequacy test is satisfied. II.

The Requirements of Rule 23(b) Are Satisfied In addition to satisfying the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a), a class may be

certified where one of the three subdivisions of Rule 23(b) is met. Here, Plaintiff seeks certification of the damages class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), and the declaratory relief subclass pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2). If the Court does not certify a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), Plaintiff seeks, in the alternative, certification of a liability-only class pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4), which only requires the proposed class meet the Rule 23 (b) requirements with respect to liability issues.

11

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 12 of 29

A.

The Damages Class Should Be Certified Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3)

Rule 23(b)(3) authorizes certification where: (1) “questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,” and (2) “a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The damages class meets both criteria. 1. Common Issues Predominate To meet the predominance requirement, it “is not necessary that all questions of law and fact be common, but only that some questions are common and that they predominate over individual questions.” Klay, 382 F.3d at 1254. “Common questions of fact or law predominate if they have a direct impact on every class member’s effort to establish liability and on every class member’s entitlement to injunctive and monetary relief.” Williams, 568 F.3d at 1357; Klay, 382 F.3d at 1255. Predominance does not exist if, after adjudication of the class-wide issues, “plaintiffs must introduce a great deal of individualized proof or argue a number of individualized legal points to establish most or all of their individual claims” predominance does not exist. Klay, 382 F.3d at 1255. Generally the predominance requirement is satisfied when “each of the members of the class will base their liability claim on the same common nucleus of

12

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 13 of 29

operative facts.” In re Tri-State Crematory Litig., 215 F.R.D. 660, 696 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (internal citations and quotations omitted). An analysis of Plaintiff’s claims demonstrates that common issues predominate over individual issues, as many courts have found in similar product liability litigation. See, e.g., Terrill, 295 F.R.D. at 686; Glazer, 722 F.3d at 855, 858-59. (a)

Breach of Express Warranty Claim

To prevail on his breach of express warranty claim, Plaintiff must show that Atlas created an express warranty and failed to conform to it. See Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-313. “The plaintiff need only show that the product did not live up to its warranty.” Austin v. Will-Burt Co., 232 F. Supp. 2d 682, 687 (N.D. Miss. 2002). Under such circumstances, where the principal issues relate to an express warranty and the existence of an alleged product defect, the predominance requirement is easily met. See, e.g., Barden v. Hurd Millwork Co., 249 F.R.D. 316, 321 (E.D. Wis. 2008); Terrill, 295 F.R.D. at 689-90; Glazer, 722 F.3d at 855. The legal and factual questions presented by Plaintiff’s express warranty claim are common and central to the claims of all class members, determining if they will prevail. The claims of all class members arise from substantially similar express warranties, which each guarantee that the shingles are free of manufacturing defects, will not suffer granule loss after six months, and that Atlas will be liable for damages

13

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 14 of 29

caused by an inherent manufacturing defect.1 The scope and meaning of these warranties are the same for each class member. Further, whether Atlas breached the warranties as a result of a common manufacturing defect is a question that will be answered the same for each class member on the same proof. Cf. Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving, L.L.C., 792 F.3d 1331, 1339 (11th Cir. 2015). The conclusion that common issues predominate is even stronger here than in most other cases because of Atlas’ practice of handling all warranty claims in an identical manner; applying the same standard – that is whether the claim arose from a manufacturing defect – and universally denying that blistering, cracking, and/or granule loss stemmed from a manufacturing defect. Having uniformly denied all such warranty claims for the same reason, Atlas should not be heard to complain that resolution of the same warranty claims in court cannot be done collectively because those claims allegedly turn on individual issues that Atlas itself never recognized. The existence of another major common issue further demonstrates that common issues predominate. Plaintiff asserts that two warranty provisions, as construed by Atlas, are unconscionable, namely, a provision allegedly limiting the warranty to shingles that have leaked and a provision that allegedly limits the 1

Although the four warranties have slight differences in language, they are functionally equivalent, both because the differences are immaterial here and Atlas in practice did not differentiate among them in handling warranty claims.

14

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 15 of 29

available remedies.2 Under Mississippi law, contractual provisions can be invalidated as unconscionable because of unfair procedural and substantive elements. Entergy Miss., Inc. v. Burdette Gin Co., 726 So. 2d 1202, 1207 (Miss. 1998). The unconscionability analysis turns on factors that can be assessed in the same way for all class members, such as the commercial reasonableness of the contract terms; the parties’ allocation of the risks; public policy concerns; the parties’ relative bargaining power; the conspicuousness and comprehensibility of the contract language; the oppressiveness of the terms; and the presence or absence of meaningful choice. Entergy Miss., 726 So. 2d at 1207; Covenant Health & Rehab. of Picayune, LP v. Estate of Moulds ex rel. Braddock, 14 So. 3d 695, 699 (Miss. 2009). In the merits phase, Plaintiff will prove that the relevant provisions are procedurally unconscionable with regard to each class member because the warranties are uniform contracts of adhesion crafted by Atlas, which alone knew of the manufacturing defect in the shingles and concealed it from the class. Common 2

Plaintiff anticipates Atlas will argue that the most recent warranties only cover manufacturing defects that have “result[ed] in leaks” notwithstanding that other language in the warranty, and Atlas’s own practice of focusing exclusively on the “manufacturing defect” language rather than the leak language when processing warranty claims, make clear that all manufacturing defects are covered. To remove any ambiguity the phrase “result in leaks” should be stricken as unconscionable. Similarly, Plaintiff contends that language that allegedly limits the cost of replacing defective shingles and pro-rates any period of recovery is unconscionable. In essence, the warranties should provide the “premium protection” without the durational limitation of three years. 15

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 16 of 29

evidence – principally, the warranty provisions themselves – will also show that the warranty provisions are substantively unconscionable because they are patently onesided and unfair, compelling consumers to bear excessive costs for reroofing caused by a latent manufacturing defect that Atlas concealed. See Stefan Jewelers, Inc. v. Electro-Protective Corp., 161 Ga. App. 385, 387 (1982) (“An unconscionable contract is [one]… that no honest [person] would take advantage of”); Covenant Health & Rehab. of Picayune, LP, 14 So. 3d at 699. (b)

Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability Claim

In Mississippi, a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-314(1). To be merchantable, goods must "pass without objection in the trade under the contract description" and be "fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used." Id. § 75-2-314(2)(a), (c). “Privity of contract is not required.” Watson Quality Ford, Inc. v. Casanova, 999 So. 2d 830, 834 (Miss. 2008) (citing Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-20). A product that fails to conform to the quality of other similar products in the market, will normally not be merchantable. Beck Enters. v. Hester, 512 So. 2d 672, 676 (Miss. 1987). The same implied warranty of merchantability arose each time Atlas sold its shingles. The warranty extended to every member of the proposed class, and each

16

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 17 of 29

warranty was breached in the same manner because the shingles could not pass without objection in the trade. All of the shingles suffered from the same latent manufacturing defect, and the shingles did not meet the standard represented on their labels. Each class member’s claim thus turns on the identical implied warranty and common proof of the same latent defect in the manufacturing process by which each of the shingles was made. Under similar circumstances, courts hold that the predominance requirement is met in class actions asserting claims for breach of implied warranties. See, e.g., Nieberding v. Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc., 302 F.R.D. 600, 611 (D. Kan. 2014).3 (c)

Products Liability

Plaintiff seeks certification of his claims for strict liability manufacturing defect and failure to warn claims, breach of warranty, and negligence under the Mississippi Products Liability Act (“MPLA”). Both the MLPA and Mississippi UCC permit recovery for breach of express warranties. See Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-313.

In

addition, a manufacturer or seller of a product is liable if the claimant can “prove by 3

Plaintiff also notes that any attempt to disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability by Atlas fails across the class because “Mississippi does not allow the disclaimer of the implied warranties of merchantability . . . .” Mercury Marine v. Clear River Constr. Co., Inc., 839 So. 2d 508, 514 (Miss. 2003); see also Section 117-18 Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-719(4) Miss. Code Ann. provides that "[a]ny limitation of remedies which would deprive the buyer of a remedy to which he may be entitled for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability . . . shall be prohibited." 17

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 18 of 29

the preponderance of the evidence that at the time the product left the control of the manufacturer or seller” the product was defective, that the "defective condition rendered the product unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer," and the "defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the product proximately caused the damages for which recovery is sought." Id. § 11-1-63(a). Plaintiff can establish a manufacturing defect by showing the shingles deviated in a material way from Atlas’s specifications or from otherwise identical units as a result of inferior materials or malfunction. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-63(a)(i)(1); Walker v. George Koch Sons, Inc., 610 F. Supp. 2d 551, 556 (S.D. Miss. 2009); Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Tuckier, 826 So. 2d 679 (Miss. 2002). Here, Plaintiff can prove his strict liability, manufacturing defect claim with common proof regarding Atlas’ manufacturing process. As a result, predominance is easily met for the strict liability claims. Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,, 727 F.3d 796, 801 (7th Cir. 2013) (“There is a single, central, common issue of liability: whether the Sears washing machine was defective.”); Helmer, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37501, at *22-29 (D. Colo. Mar. 21, 2014) (granting class certification on strict liability claim). Plaintiff’s claim that the shingles are defective due to lack of an adequate warning requires proof that Atlas knew or should have known about the danger posed by the shingles when the products left its control and that an ordinary consumer would

18

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 19 of 29

not have realized their dangerous condition. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-63(c)(i). The adequacy of a warning involves an objective inquiry. See id. § 11-1-63(c) (“An adequate product warning or instruction is one that a reasonably prudent person in the same or similar circumstances would have provided ….”). As a result, predominance is easily met for this claim. Whether Atlas knew or should have known of the danger, whether an ordinary consumer would have realized the danger, and whether any warning was objectively adequate are all questions that by definition will be answered in the same way for each class member. Similarly, common issues predominate with regard to Plaintiff’s negligence claim. Proving a claim under the MPLA also establishes the basis for a common law negligence claim arising out of the sale of the product. See Chatman v. Pfizer, Inc., 5:11 -CV-69-DCB-JMR (S. D. Miss. March 28, 2013); Swayze v. McNeil Labs., Inc., 807 F.2d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 1987). As described above, Plaintiff’s claims under the MPLA can be proved through common evidence. Plaintiff’s negligence claim thus also can be proved in the same manner without the need for individualized evidence. (d) Fraud Under Mississippi law, a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation requires proof of the following elements:

19

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 20 of 29

(1) A representation; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) his intent that it should be acted upon by the person and in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the hearer's ignorance of its falsity; (7) his reliance on its truth; (8) his right to rely thereon; and (9) his consequent and proximate injury. Levens v. Campbell, 733 So. 2d 753, 761-62 (¶ 35) (Miss. 1999). Fraud in the inducement is established when the seller knows the product is defective while conducting a marketing campaign that touts the product’s benefits. See generally Lacy v. Morrison, 906 So. 2d 126, 130 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). Whether Atlas concealed a fact is obviously not an individual issue, but rather turns on Atlas’ common course of conduct of failing to tell customers about the defective nature of the shingles. Similarly, whether the facts Atlas concealed were material is a common issue, which will be determined by the answer to a single question: whether a person exercising reasonable care could have discovered the shingles were defective. The elements of intent can be satisfied by showing that Atlas had actual knowledge of the defect before selling the product and concealed the truth to induce the sale. Lacy, 906 So. 2d at 130; Cf. Lisk, 792 F.3d at 1339 (11th Cir. Ala. 2015) (finding that intent can be inferred when manufacturer “knew its wood was bound for end users and that they would suffer substantial harm if the wood did not conform to the warranty.”). As described above, Plaintiff has adduced proof that Atlas both knew of the defect and intentionally concealed it from its customers. See supra “Factual 20

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 21 of 29

Background,” Section C. In any event, what Atlas knew and intended in carrying out its common course of conduct is by definition the same for each class member. As for reliance, “[u]nder well-established Eleventh Circuit precedent, the simple fact that reliance is an element of a cause of action is not an absolute bar to class certification.” See Klay, 382 F.3d at1258. “[W]hile each plaintiff must prove reliance, he or she may do so through common evidence (that is, through legitimate inferences based on the nature of the alleged misrepresentations at issue.” Klay, 382 F.3d at 1259; Cf. Lisk, 792 F.3d at 1339. In this case, reliance can established through circumstantial evidence common to the entire class because of the nature of the products and the information Atlas uniformly concealed. Simply put, there is no evidence that any customer knew or could have known of the defective nature of the shingles and no reasonable customer would have knowingly paid for shingles that prematurely fail and have to be replaced within ten years. Hence, reliance can be established with common evidence and on a class-wide basis without the need for any individualized determinations. This approach has been followed by numerous other courts which have rejected arguments that the need to prove reliance defeats predominance. See, e.g., Lisk, 792 F.3d at 1339. (recognizing that a class of physicians could prove reliance through class-wide, circumstantial evidence that class members expected to be paid for

21

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 22 of 29

treating patients in accordance with industry standards); James D. Hinson Elec. Contr. Co. v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 275 F.R.D. 638, 646 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (court certified fraud claims, finding reliance could be proved through class-wide circumstantial evidence); Nieberding, 302 F.R.D. at 615. (“[S]uits alleging omission of a material fact present questions suited to class actions.”); Terrill, 295 F.R.D. at 693-94 (granting certification for fraud-based omission claims in product defect suit). (e)

Damages

“[T]he fact that damages must be calculated on an individual basis is no impediment to class certification.”4 Klay, 382 F.3d at 1260; see also Glazer, 722 F.3d at 861 (“recognition that individual damages calculations do not preclude class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is well nigh universal”). This is particularly true when damages are based on a common formula or can be calculated using other easy or essentially mechanical methods. Klay, 382 F.3d at 1259–60. Plaintiff’s proposed method for proving damages is straightforward and presents no predominance problems. According to Plaintiff’s experts, all homes with the shingles must be reroofed. Assuming the jury agrees, each class member’s 4

This principle remains true after Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013). Courts have universally rejected reading Comcast to require that plaintiffs damages be identical or that predominance is defeated if class members’ damages are not susceptible to a formula for class-wide measurement. See In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790, 815 (5th Cir. 2014).

22

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 23 of 29

damages are the expense of removing and discarding the defective shingles, including the cost of the replacement shingles plus all associated labor costs. Because these costs are known and relatively consistent, Plaintiffs propose to use a common formula that calculates replacement costs on a per square foot basis, allowing class members to recover simply by showing the size of their roof. (Tab 7 at p. 7). Alternatively, individual class members can prove their actual replacement costs in a claims process. Either approach is legally appropriate and does not create predominance problems. See, e.g., Allapattah Servs. v. Exxon Corp., 333 F.3d 1248,1256-58, 1261(11th Cir. 2003) (authorizing class members to recover individual damages through a claims process after class-wide liability was proven at trial). Indeed, courts have dealt with damages in the same manner in other certified class actions involving defective shingles and other products.5 See, e.g, In re IKO Roofing Shingle Prods. Liab. Litig., 757 F.3d at 601-03 (noting that if “commonality of damages” were also essential, ‘then class actions about consumer products are impossible.”). 2.

Class Treatment Is Superior

Rule 23(b)(3) lists the factors used in assessing whether a class action is the 5

As an alternative to Rule 23(b)(3) certification coupled with bifurcation of liability and damages, the Court could reach the same result by only certifying the liability issue under Rule 23(c)(4). See Butler, 727 F.3d at 800. However, at this time, there is no reason to proceed in that manner. The Court can always address the issue again if proving damages becomes a more burdensome task than anticipated. 23

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 24 of 29

superior method of adjudication: the interest of class members in individually controlling the litigation; the extent of any other litigation concerning the controversy; the desirability of concentrating the litigation in one forum; and the management difficulties likely to be encountered at trial. Each factor confirms that a class action here is superior to hundreds, if not thousands, of individual actions. Class members lack any significant interest in controlling this litigation. In view of the relatively modest damages in relation to the cost of litigation, pursuing a claim individually is unlikely to be economically feasible in most cases; not surprisingly, Plaintiff knows of no other similar litigation. Even if class members pursued their own claims, it would not be efficient to do so. As another court explained in finding a class action was superior to individual product liability claims: First, relitigation of the same issues and presentation of the same evidence in hundreds of individual actions or arbitration proceedings would be grossly inefficient and wasteful of judicial resources. Second, maintenance of individual actions would be prohibitively expensive. Many of the crucial issues in this case will require substantial discovery, expert testimony, and trial time, all of which would render uneconomical individual actions. See, e.g., Helmer, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37501, at *30. It thus makes sense to focus the litigation in one forum, allowing one judge and jury to decide the key issues once. Moreover, a class action would present fewer management difficulties than thousands of individual cases.

24

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 25 of 29

B.

The Declaratory Relief Subclass Should Be Certified Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2)

The proposed Declaratory Relief Class is maintainable under Rule 23(b)(2) because Atlas “has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). A consistent refusal by a company to pay claims made by its consumers pursuant to the company’s policy “constitutes the type of pattern or practice envisioned by Rule 23(b)(2).” Leszczynski v. Allianz Ins., 176 F.R.D. 659, 674 (S.D. Fla. 1997). Here, the standard is easily satisfied. The express warranty accompanying the shingles covers “manufacturing defects,” yet Atlas has consistently refused to honor warranty claims for blistering, cracking and granule loss which are caused by a manufacturing defect.

Thus, a declaratory judgment holding that the blistering,

cracking and granule loss are, in fact, manifestations of the “manufacturing defect” would provide relief in a uniform way for the entire subclass, requiring that Atlas honor future warranty claims by its members. Rule 23(b)(2) classes, seeking similar relief, have been endorsed by courts in other product defect cases. See Pella Corp., 606 F.3d at 395 (“If the district court finds in favor of the class and enters all six

25

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 26 of 29

declarations, the cumulative effect will be an entitlement to have their windows replaced, and the (b)(2) class will benefit uniformly from the declarations”); Glazer v. Whirlpool Corp., (In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig.), 678 F.3d 409, 421 (6th Cir. 2012). cert. granted, judgment vacated sub nom. Whirlpool Corp. v. Glazer, 133 S. Ct. 1722 (2013), reaffirmed Glazer, 722 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2013), cert. denied 134 S. Ct. 1277 (U.S. 2014). Accordingly, the Court should certify the declaratory relief subclass under Rule 23(b)(2). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant his Motion for Class Certification.

Dated:

December 30, 2015 . By: /s/ Daniel K. Bryson Daniel K. Bryson Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: 919-600-5000 Facsimile: 919-600-5035 Email: [email protected] Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel

26

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 27 of 29

Christopher L. Coffin Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: 504-355-0086 Facsimile: 504-523-0699 Email: [email protected] Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel Kenneth S. Canfield GA Bar No.: 107744 Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC 1355 Peachtree Street, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telelephone: 404-881-8900 Email: [email protected] Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel

On the brief: Gary E. Mason Jason S. Rathod Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP 1625 Massachusetts Ave. NW Suite 605 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: 202. 429.2290 Facsimile: 202.429.2294 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

27

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 28 of 29

Stan Baudin Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: 504-355-0086 Facsimile: 504-523-0699 Email: [email protected] Jim Reeves Reeves & Mestayer, PLLC P. O. Drawer 1388 Biloxi, MS 39533 160 Main Street P. O. Drawer 1388 Biloxi, MS 39533 Phone: 228-374-5151 Facsimile: 228-374-6630 Email: [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs

28

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 29 of 29

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Daniel K. Bryson, do hereby certify that the foregoing was electronically filed through the CM/ECF system for the Northern District of Georgia, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following attorneys of record: Joel G. Pieper William M. Ragland, Jr. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP 271 17th Street, N.W., Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30363-1014 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Keith A. Clinard Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP One West Fourth Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Email: [email protected]

Henry B. Smythe, Jr. James E. Weatherholtz Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP PO Box 999 Charleston, SC 29402 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] This the 30th day of December, 2015. /s/ Daniel K. Bryson Daniel K. Bryson

29

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-2 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION IN RE: ATLAS ROOFING ) CORPORATION CHALET SHINGLE ) MDL DOCKET NO. 2495 PRODUCTS LIABILITY ) LITIGATION ) 1:13-MD-2495-TWT )

NOBLE BROOKS, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action

File No. 1:13-cv-02195

PLAINTIFF’S APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS RELIED UPON IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW Tab: Description: 1.

Deposition of Noble Brooks, Jr. taken on February 27, 2015

2.

Mississippi Warranty Claims Spreadsheet (including supplemental production)

3.

Deposition of Glynese R. Thomas taken on September 18, 2014

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-2 Filed 12/30/15 Page 2 of 4

4.

Atlas Roofing Corporation’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Master Discovery dated May 21, 2014

5.

Deposition of Dean Rutila, Ph.D. taken on October 7, 2015

6.

Plaintiff Steering Committee Firm Resumes

7.

Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Dean A. Rutila, report dated April 22, 2015

Dated:

December 30, 2015. By: /s/Daniel K. Bryson Daniel K. Bryson Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: 919-600-5000 Facsimile: 919-600-5035 Email: [email protected] Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel Christopher L. Coffin Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: 504-355-0086 Facsimile: 504-523-0699 Email: [email protected] Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel Kenneth S. Canfield GA Bar No.: 107744 Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC 1355 Peachtree Street, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: 404-881-8900 Email: [email protected] Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-2 Filed 12/30/15 Page 3 of 4

On the brief: Gary E. Mason Jason S. Rathod Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP 1625 Massachusetts Ave. NW Suite 605 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: 202. 429.2290 Facsimile: 202.429.2294 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Stan Baudin Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: 504-355-0086 Facsimile: 504-523-0699 Email: [email protected] Jim Reeves Reeves & Mestayer, PLLC P. O. Drawer 1388 Biloxi, MS 39533 160 Main Street P. O. Drawer 1388 Biloxi, MS 39533 Phone: 228-374-5151 Facsimile: 228-374-6630 Email: [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-2 Filed 12/30/15 Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Daniel K. Bryson, do hereby certify that the foregoing was electronically filed through the CM/ECF system for the Northern District of Georgia, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following attorneys of record: Joel G. Pieper William M. Ragland, Jr. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP 271 17th Street, N.W., Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30363-1014 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Keith A. Clinard Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP One West Fourth Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Email: [email protected]

Henry B. Smythe, Jr. James E. Weatherholtz Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP PO Box 999 Charleston, SC 29402 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] This the 30th day of December, 2015. /s/ Daniel K. Bryson Daniel K. Bryson

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 38

TAB 1

Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION IN RE: ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION CHALET SHINGLE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL DOCKET NO. 2495 1:13-MD-2495-TWT ************************************************** NOBLE BROOKS, JR., ETC. PLAINTIFF VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:14-CV-00001-TWT

ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION DEFENDANT ************************************************** VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF NOBLE BROOKS, JR. ************************************************** APPEARANCES NOTED HEREIN DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2015 PLACE: WATKINS & EAGER 400 EAST CAPITOL STREET JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI TIME: 9:39 A.M.

REPORTED BY: TODD J. DAVIS CSR #1406, RPR Veritext Legal Solutions Atlanta Region 1075 Peachtree Street, Suite 3625 Atlanta GA 30309

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY 215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

TAB 1

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 2 of 38 Page 2 1 2 3 4

APPEARANCES:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

JORDAN CHAIKIN, ESQ. Parker Waichman, LLP 27300 Riverview Centre Blvd Bonita Springs, Florida 34134

5 6

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 4

WILLIAM RAGLAND, JR., ESQ. Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice 271 17th Street, NW, Ste 2400 Atlanta, Georgia 30363 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

Also Present: Erin Nabors, Videographer

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

INDEX Style and Appearances ..................... 1 Index ..................................... 3 Examination by Mr. Ragland ................. 5 Certificate of Court Reporter ............. 143 Certificate of Deponent ................... 144 EXHIBITS: Exhibit No. 1 ........................ 48 Exhibit No. 2 ........................ 49 Exhibit No. 3 ........................ 52 Exhibit No. 4 ........................ 69 Exhibit No. 5 ........................ 72 Exhibit No. 6 (Not attached).......... 86 Exhibit No. 7 ........................ 94 Exhibit No. 8 ........................ 104 Exhibit No. 9 ........................ 104 Exhibit No. 10 ....................... 110 Exhibit No. 11 ....................... 115 Exhibit No. 12 ....................... 120 Exhibit No. 13 ....................... 130 Exhibit No. 14 ....................... 133

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. We're on record. My name is Erin Nabors. I'm representing Veritext. The date today is February 27, 2015, and the time on my monitor is 9:40 a.m. This deposition is being held at Watkins Eager law firm located in Jackson, Mississippi. It's being taken by the counsel for the defendant. The caption of this case is Noble Brooks, Jr., versus Atlas Roofing Corporation. This case is being held in the United States District Court for the Georgia Atlanta Division, Case No. 1:14-CV-00001-TWT. The name of the witness is Noble Brooks, Jr. At this time, the attorneys present in the room, would they -- would they please introduce themselves. And with that, our court reporter is Todd Davis, who represents Veritext, and he will swear in the witness after you announce yourself on the audio. MR. RAGLAND: I'm William Ragland for the defendant, Atlas Roofing. MR. CHAIKIN: Jordan Chaikin from Parker Waichman for the plaintiffs.

Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

NOBLE BROOKS, JR., having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified under oath as follows: MR. RAGLAND: Good morning, Mr. Brooks. This will be the deposition of Noble Brooks taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and all stipulations of counsel applicable to the depositions in this case. EXAMINATION BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Mr. Brooks, my name is Bill Ragland, and I represent Atlas Roofing. And I will be taking your deposition today and asking you a number of questions. A few housekeeping matters to get started with in terms of how the deposition will proceed. The court reporter is taking down what you say and what I say and what Mr. Chaikin says verbatim, and it's very important that all of us give verbal responses. It's very hard for the court reporter to take down shakes of the head from side to side or up and down, or "uh-uhs" or "uh-huhs" and that kind of thing. So if you could try and I'll try and I know Mr. Chaikin will try to give verbal responses so that the court VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

2 (Pages 2 to 5)

TAB 1

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 3 of 38 Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

reporter can take those down accurately. Also, I would ask that you wait until I'm finished with my question to answer, and I will try to wait until you're finished with your answer to ask another question. It's very difficult for the court reporter to take down both of us talking at the same time. And sometimes it happens, and we'll just have to deal with that. But if we could both be conscious to wait for me to finish my question before answering, and I will try to do same with respect to your answer. The other thing is that if you, for some reason, don't understand my question, please stop me and say, "I don't understand your question. Would you put it in another way or would you rephrase it?" I'm happy to do that. If you don't do that, then we're going to assume that you understood my question. Is that all acceptable to you? A. Yes. Q. Good. If you could please state your name -- your full name and where you reside. A. My name is Noble Brooks, Jr. I reside at 737 Grand Avenue, Yazoo City, Mississippi 39194.

Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. And how long have you resided at 737 Grand Avenue? A. Approximately 20 years. Q. And have you resided at any other location or in any other city for the last 20 years? A. Yes. I was raised in Yazoo City, Mississippi at 435 West First Street, Yazoo City, Mississippi 39194. Q. You've been a resident of Yazoo City for most of your life? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And have you been a resident of Yazoo City, Mississippi, since -- at the very least since you moved into your house at 737 Grand Avenue approximately 20 years ago; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. And you're a resident of the state of Mississippi? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever been deposed before? Have you ever had a deposition like this taken? A. No. Q. Have you ever been a party to any other lawsuit besides the one that brings us here today? VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

A. The only one that I can tell you, I currently have a litigation against Midland Financing due to them having something on my credit report that is -- it's a judgment that they had -- that they have on me that is not mine. So right now, I do have that going on. Q. And where is that case pending? A. Well, they filed it with the Yazoo County Court, and I -- I do know it has since been removed from my credit report. And the only reason I have that is because my job has a five-year background investigation every five years, so I can't have anything like that, you know, or judgment or anything of that nature, you know, on me. Q. And as far as you know, is this lawsuit against Midland Financing for allegedly false reporting of a judgment still pending in Yazoo County Court? A. As far as I know, yes. Q. Was that an action that was brought by you as an individual as opposed to a class action? A. I'm not sure if it's a class action or not, but I did initiate it because I tried to get the matter resolved; and I couldn't get anything,

Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

you know, going. So, yes, I initiated it. Q. But I guess my question is, you know, in this lawsuit that brings us here together today against Atlas, you are suing Atlas as a class representative and that this is a purported class action. Are you aware of that? A. Yes. Q. All right. My -- my question is, the case in Yazoo County Court that was filed, is that a similar kind of class action where you're representing people other than yourself? A. I'm not representing anyone. I'm not sure what you're asking me on that part, but I can tell you that I did contact an attorney; and they supposed to be trying to have that removed from my credit. Q. Okay. And as far as you know, that case is not brought on behalf of other people that have had trouble with their credit reports with Midland Financing? A. I don't know. Q. All right. Any other lawsuits that you've ever been a party to? A. No. VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

3 (Pages 6 to 9)

TAB 1

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 4 of 38 Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. With respect to the judgment that you mentioned that is the subject of the Yazoo County Court proceeding, was that a judgment that, in your view, was placed there by Midland Financing falsely? A. I think it just was a mistake on their part. Q. So have you ever had a judgment entered against you? A. No. Q. So this, in your view, was a mistake where they entered it on your credit report, but it was really somebody else's judgment? A. That's correct. Q. All right. Have you ever been arrested? A. Yes. Q. Okay. What were the details of each of those arrests? A. Approximately maybe 25 or 30 years ago, when I was in college, I was arrested for littering and disrespecting a security guard at Alcorn State University. Q. And what was the outcome of those charges? A. One charge was dismissed, and the other

Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

charge, I had to pay a misdemeanor fine. I'm thinking a littering fine, whatever that might have been. Q. Any other occasions on which you have been arrested? A. Not that I can recall. Q. And so you haven't had any other convictions besides the littering offense that you just told us about? A. That's correct. Q. Could you tell me, starting with high school, a little bit about your educational background. A. I attended Yazoo City High School in Yazoo City, Mississippi. I graduated from Yazoo City High School in 1985. Q. And did you have any additional education beyond high school? A. Yes. Q. What was that? A. I attended Alcorn State University in 1985, and I finished in 1990. And I went back and received my degree in 1991. Q. While you were studying there, did you have a major or a particular focus of your VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

studies? A. Yes. My major was industrial technology with a concentration in building construction. Q. And you received a degree in industrial technology in 1991? A. Yes. I went -- actually went back and walked in 1991, but I actually finished in 1990. Probably the summer of 1990. Q. With respect to the concentration in building construction, what was the nature of those courses? A. Dealt with building homes and dealing with contracts and things of that nature. I mean, it's been so long, I don't have any actually (sic) experience. Most of my experience was pertaining to law enforcement. Q. What experience do you have with respect to the subject matter of your concentration of building construction? A. I'm not understanding what you're asking me. Q. Well, I understand you received a degree in industrial technology with a concentration in building construction. What I'm asking is, outside of

Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

those courses that you completed in 1990, what experience have you had with building construction? A. None basically. My first job -- my first long-lasting job was in law enforcement with the Yazoo City Police Department. Q. Okay. So it is correct that, although you have had courses of study completed in 1990 in building construction, you don't have any particular experience with building construction; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And with respect to building construction, do you recall having any course work in roofing or roofs? A. No. Q. So you don't have any particular professional experience with roofing or roofs? A. No. Q. When you graduated in 1990 -- well, strike that. When you completed your education, what did you do next? A. Actually, my brother, which is George Brooks, was -- he was -- had an internship out in VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

4 (Pages 10 to 13)

TAB 1

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 5 of 38 Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

South Carolina -- Augusta, Georgia area with an engineering firm. And I spoke with his supervisor, and she asked -- well, she just told me that she wasn't sure if she can brought -bring me on. But if I was to relocate out there with my brother, that as soon as the budget bill was signed, that she'll look into hiring me. And which, when the budget bill was signed, that's when the Gulf War came up, and they put another freeze on government hiring. So I moved back to Yazoo City, Mississippi, and got a job with the Yazoo City Police Department approximately in 1990. Q. So did you ever actually go to work for the engineering firm? A. No. Q. And what were your responsibilities beginning in 1990 with the Yazoo City Police Department? A. Serve and protect the citizens of Yazoo City, Mississippi. Q. And are there particular ranks at the Yazoo City Police Department? A. Yes. Q. And what was your rank?

Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. I left as a lieutenant, but I did have the rank of sergeant and later on, lieutenant. And I -- when I left, I was a lieutenant, but I did experience some -Q. I'm sorry. You did what? A. I did experience being a detective at one point in my career with the Yazoo City Police Department. Q. And you mentioned that you were a sergeant, a lieutenant, and also did some detective work. Did you have any other positions with the Yazoo City Police Department? A. No. Q. Were you -- did you start out as a regular patrol officer? A. Patrolman, correct. I started off as patrolman. I was promoted to sergeant, from sergeant to lieutenant. Then I went over to the detective division. I didn't like it, so I went back over as a lieutenant on the street again, and I left as a lieutenant. Q. And when did you leave the Yazoo City Police Department? A. 2000. VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Q. What did you do next? A. I got -- I got a job with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, FCC, in Yazoo City, Mississippi. That's Federal Correctional Complex, Yazoo City, Mississippi. Q. And was that in approximately 2000? A. Yes. Q. And what was your role when you started at the Federal Bureau of Prisons? A. My position was -- I was hired as a correctional officer. Q. And did you serve as a correctional officer? A. Yes. Q. And how long did you serve in that role? A. Until approximately 2003, in which I was promoted to my current position as a maintenance worker supervisor. Q. And what is your role as a maintenance supervisor? A. My role as a maintenance worker supervisor is, basically, I have a work detail that consists of approximately 12 to 13 inmates that goes out and do various maintenance jobs, as far as changing hinges on doors, broken windows,

Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

cutting grass, things of that nature. Q. All within the correctional facility? A. Yes. Q. And so am I correct that you've served in that role for approximately 12 years? A. Yes. Q. Has your -- have your responsibilities in that role changed since you started? A. No. Q. In your role as maintenance worker supervisor, do you get into any kind of construction projects? A. When it come down to projects of that nature, we normally get an outside contractor to come in and do works of that -- that magnitude. Q. So you don't have any supervisory experience for construction, or do you? A. I'm not sure what you're asking me. Q. In your role as supervisor of maintenance workers, do you have occasion to supervise construction projects? A. I supervise inmates to do maintenance works, as far as, you know, changing hinges on doors and broken -- you know, exchanging windows and things of that nature. VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

5 (Pages 14 to 17)

TAB 1

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 6 of 38 Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. And so if there were a construction project, that wouldn't be something that you would be directly involved with? A. No. That -- that would be an outside contractor. Q. And you wouldn't have any supervisory responsibilities over that contractor? A. No. Q. And in your role as supervisor of maintenance workers, have you ever had any occasion to do any work on roofs? A. No. Q. And the workers that you supervise haven't done any work on roofs? A. No. They're not allowed around outside contractors. Q. And so they haven't personally done any work regarding roofing? A. No, not the inmates. Q. Okay. Do you have any other training or work experience in fields that you haven't told us about already? A. Not that I'm aware of. I'm not certain -- I'm not certain what you're asking me as far as "training."

Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Well, have you had any other training that -- strike that. Have you had any training besides the work that goes with being a correction officer and a supervisor of maintenance workers? A. No. Q. You haven't taken any courses along the way in the course of your job that don't deal with those two topics? A. No. The only training that I can think of at this time is union training. Q. Tell me about that. A. We have a union AFGE, and from time to time, I'm selected to participate as a union rep; and we go to training for union purposes only. Q. And the name of the union again is what? A. AFGE. Q. What does that stand for? A. American Federal Government -- I'm not quite sure, but it's one of the largest unions in -- in -- in the United States. Q. Would it be American Federal Government Employees? A. That's correct. That sound like it. Q. All right. And what are your VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

responsibilities in serving as -- as a representative of the union? A. I'm just a union steward. When we have employees that possibly gets in trouble, I go in front of the warden and represent them. Q. And when you represent union members who are before the board, what type of responsibilities do you have in doing that? A. I just make sure that the employees are -- are not saying anything that perhaps might get them in trouble and make sure they tell them the truth and that they get the -- whatever punishment or discipline that's deemed necessary, is not beyond anything that's out of the norm, if -- if it requires discipline. Q. Are there ever occasions when the union members that you are representing are also represented by attorneys? A. There have been in times. And when they elect to have their own attorney, the union has no other dealings with -- with the employee. Q. So if you're involved, there's usually not an attorney involved. Is that what you're saying? A. That's correct.

Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. In connection with any of your schooling or your job responsibilities since leaving college, have you had any particular experience or training in insurance? A. No. Q. Are you married, Mr. Brooks? A. No. Q. Have you ever been married? A. Yes. Q. When were you married? A. Approximately nine years ago. I was married to Kelly Hagee. Q. And when did you get married to her? A. I don't know the exact date, but we were married in Jamaica. Ocho Rios, Jamaica. Q. And approximately how long were you married? A. Perhaps nine years ago. Oh, we -- we were married almost two years. That's the question you're asking me. Q. And do you have any children? A. Yes. Q. Let me start by asking, have you ever been married besides to Kelly? A. No. VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

6 (Pages 18 to 21)

TAB 1

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 7 of 38 Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. And could you tell me about your children? A. Their names? Q. Yes, please. A. I have a daughter. Her name is Drucilla Brooks. She's 19 years old. My son's name is D'Ante Brooks, and he's 13 years old -- I'm sorry -- he's 14 years old. Q. Do either one of your children live with you? A. No. Q. Okay. Have either one of your children lived with you on Grand Avenue at any time? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Tell me approximately time frame when your children lived with you at Grand Avenue. A. My daughter, Drucilla, was born in 1995 at which I purchased the house somewhere before she was born. So she would have lived in the house until the time that her mother and I separated and divorced. Q. And that separation and divorce would have happened approximately nine years ago? A. That's correct. Q. And how about your son? Has he ever

Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

lived at the Grand Avenue house? A. Yes. He was born in -- in 2000, July the 13th of 2000, and he lived with us until our separation and divorce. Q. Do you ever have occasion to have either one of your children spend the night at your house now? A. Yes. They -- almost every summer, my son and daughter both comes for the summer. Sometimes Christmas on my -- when I have the visitation rights for -- for them. But now that my daughter's in college, I don't think she'll be coming every summer, but I intend on my son to come every summer. Q. And where do each of your children live? A. My son lives in South Holland, Illinois, with his mom. My daughter is currently attending Western Illinois, which is located in Macomb, Illinois. Q. How long have you lived at the house on Grand Avenue in Yazoo City? A. Approximately 20 years -- 19 or 20 years. Q. Was this home previously owned by anyone in your family? VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

A. No. Well, I guess -- I think you're asking me when I -- my father and I originally purchased the house together. And once we purchased the house, he signed his deeds over to me, so I have full control of the home. Q. And you purchased the house with your father -- strike that. Your father didn't own the house before you did? A. No, sir. Q. Where does your father live? A. My father lives in Yazoo City, Mississippi. Q. Okay. Has he ever lived at the Grand Avenue home? A. No. Q. When you purchased the house originally, what was the condition of the roof that was on it when you purchased it? MR. CHAIKIN: Object to the form. You can answer. You can answer if you know. A. Can you repeat the question? BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Yes. My question is, there was a roof on the house when you purchased it, correct?

Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. That's correct. Q. All right. Was it in good shape? A. Yes. Q. When did you purchase the Atlas Chalet shingles for your home that brings us here together today? A. Sometime in 2006. Q. All right. Before you -- or strike that. And in 2006, did you purchase the Atlas Chalet shingles to replace another roof that had been on the house? A. Yes. Q. Was that the original roof that was on the house when you replaced it? A. As far as I know, yes. Q. In other words, when you brought it 20 years ago until the time you put on the Atlas Chalet shingles in 2006, did you replace the roof during that time period? A. No. Q. From the time you purchased your home approximately 20 years ago until installation of the Atlas Chalet roof in 2006, did you have any leaks? VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

7 (Pages 22 to 25)

TAB 1

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 8 of 38 Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Can you rephrase that question? Q. Yeah. I'm trying to get to the time period between when you bought your house and when you replaced the roof with the Atlas Chalet shingles. Did you have any problems or leaks with the roof that was on the house when you bought it? A. I'm not sure, but I must have filed a claim with Allstate. And I can't remember exactly why I filed the claim, but I -- I wanted my roof replaced. And so they eventually gave me the moneys necessary to recover -- I mean, to repair the whole roof. Q. Was that particular claim what led to replacement of your roof with the Atlas Chalet shingles? A. Yes. Q. And approximately when was that claim made? A. Somewhere in 2006. Q. All right. Before the claim you just mentioned in 2006 that you made with Allstate, did you have any other problems with the roof before then?

Page 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Not that I can recall. Q. Did you have any problems with the roof that was originally on your house when you bought it -- as a result of Hurricane Katrina? A. I'm not sure what you're asking me. Was anything wrong with the roof after Hurricane Katrina? Q. Yes, sir. A. Perhaps there might have been a -- the reason that -- it could have been the reason why the roof itself might have started looking damaged or whatever, and that might have been the basis why I wanted -- why I filed the claim in 2006. Q. Do you know approximately when in 2006 you would have had the Atlas Chalet roof installed? A. I want to say approximately November of 2006. I'm not sure. Q. And why do you say that it would have been in November? Is there something that -A. I can vaguely recall the contractor saying that he was -- he was glad that it wasn't the summer and that it was cold at the time. And, normally, you know, when it's hot, they have a -you know, a harder time, I guess, placing the VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

shingles on a roof during the summer months. Q. But it also could have been September or October when it was cold, as well? A. Perhaps. I'm not sure. Q. So you're not really sure when during 2006 the roof was installed? A. No. Q. But it's possible, as far as you know, it could have been before November? A. Possibly. Q. Who was the roofing contractor that you used to purchase and install the Atlas Chalet shingles on your home? A. I can't recall his name, but I can tell you this: It was someone out of Jackson -- here in Jackson, Mississippi. Q. Do you have any documentation or paperwork connected to the purchase and installation of the Atlas Chalet roof you contend is on your home? A. No. Other than what the insurance -and they provided a check. And I -- I don't know the exact dollar amount, but I can recall using whatever they sent me to repair the roof and pay the contractor with it for his removal of the

Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

shingles and putting on the new Atlas shingles. Q. The insurance check that you received was provided directly to you. You cashed it, and then from those proceeds, you paid the contractor that put on the Atlas roof? A. I think that's how it went. I'm not for sure, but they did send me a check. Q. So the check from the insurance company went to you. It didn't go directly to the roofing company. A. No. Q. Let me try that again. Is it correct that the check went directly to you and not to the roofing company that installed the Atlas Chalet shingles? A. That's correct. Q. Is there anything that you can think of that might help us to determine who the contractor was that you used and when the roof was installed? A. No. I -- I don't think it is. Q. Okay. How do you know that the shingles that were installed on your roof in 2006 were Atlas Chalet shingles? A. When Allstate sent their roofing expert out, he advised me that the shingles itself was a VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

8 (Pages 26 to 29)

TAB 1

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 9 of 38 Page 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Chalet shingle made by Atlas and that they weren't going to cover the damages of the roof because it was a defective shingle; and that he advised me at the time that I might need to contact Atlas regarding the shingles. Q. Okay. This was in 2013? A. Correct. Q. This wasn't back in 2006 when you replaced the roof; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. So am I -- strike that. So am I correct that when the roof was installed -- strike that. Am I correct that in 2006, when the Atlas Chalet shingles were installed on your house, you didn't know what brand they were; is that right? A. I knew that it was a nice looking shingle with a 30-year warranty because I had -- I distinctly remember telling the contractor that I want a long-lasting shingle, approximately 30-year shingle. And he went out and got the shingle and showed -- showed it to me. He didn't give me any -- no -nothing written saying that it was -- I saw it on

Page 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the cover itself, said 30-year. And then he removed the shingle from the package and -- so I could look at it, and I told him I liked the way it looked. Q. Did the contractor offer you any additional choices to choose from besides the one that you ultimately selected? A. No. Q. And in terms of why you selected that particular shingle, you did so because you liked the way it looked, and there was a 30-year warranty; is that right? MR. CHAIKIN: Objection. Object to the form. You can answer. A. Yes. BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Well, let me ask you this: What were the reasons that you selected the shingle that ultimately was installed on your house in 2006? A. Because I wanted a long, reliable lasting shingle, and I distinctly told the contractor that I'd like to have something like a 30-year warranty shingle that looked good. Q. Any other -- any other reasons besides the shingles looking good and a 30-year warranty VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

that influenced your decision to buy that particular shingle? A. No. Q. At the time you selected the roof that was installed on your house in 2006, did you know what the brand was? A. No. Q. What involvement did you have in selecting the type of roofing shingle that you used to replace the original roof? A. No involvement. Just the contractor -I told him what I was looking for. I wanted a long-lasting shingle, approximately 30-year warranty, and something that looked nice, and that's what he got me. Q. Had you ever heard of Atlas Roofing shingles before the Allstate representative mentioned them to you in 2013? A. No. Q. Did you review any written materials regarding Atlas Chalet shingles before you purchased them? A. No. Q. What exactly did the roofing contractor that you purchased the Atlas Chalet shingles from

Page 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

say to you about the shingles that you ultimately purchased? A. He just made sure that he showed me on the cover that it was a 30-year warranty shingle. And when he removed the shingle, he asked me did I like how it looked, and I told him yeah. And that was basically it. Q. You mentioned that there was some sort of a cover on the shingle. Could you tell me more about that? A. Are you asking me the color of the cover or -- I'm not sure what you're asking me. Q. Well, was it just -- when you say "a cover," do you mean it was the -- some shingles were wrapped in some sort of packaging? A. I guess it was like plastic. I'm not sure, you know. I -- I do recall seeing 30-year warranty on it. And once I saw that and he showed me the shingle, I was satisfied with what I -what he was purchasing for me. Q. Okay. Other than the words "30-year warranty," what else did you see on the cover or otherwise about the warranty? A. I don't recall. Q. Did you look at the actual written VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

9 (Pages 30 to 33)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 10 of 38 Page 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

warranty that was applicable to the shingles? A. No. Only thing I saw was something on the outside of the packaging of the shingles itself that said 30-year warranty. Q. What you saw wasn't the actual written warranty. It was just the statement "30-year warranty"? A. Yes. Q. And by "30-year warranty," what did you interpret that to mean at the time you were purchasing the shingles? A. I guess I expected it to be a long-lasting shingle, approximately 30 years. Q. Did you see anything that actually said that the shingles would last for 30 years? A. No. I just saw 30-year warranty. Q. Okay. And am I correct that you did not know at the time you purchased the shingles exactly what that warranty said? A. Yes. Q. I'm correct about that? A. Yes. Q. And am I correct that the roofing contractor did not go into any details about what the warranty on the Atlas Chalet shingles covered;

Page 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 35 is that right? A. Yes. Q. The only thing you knew at the time you purchased the Atlas Chalet shingles was that it had a "30-year warranty;" is that correct? MR. CHAIKIN: Object to the form. You can answer. A. Yes. BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. And when I just asked you that question, I was referring to what you might have known about the warranty. Did you understand it that way? A. I'm not sure what you're asking now. MR. RAGLAND: Could you read back the second -- the last question? (Question was read back.) BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Let me ask another question, Mr. Brooks. Is it correct that the only thing you knew about the warranty at the time you purchased the Atlas Chalet shingles for your home was that it had a "30-year warranty;" is that right? A. That's correct. VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Q. Since the time you purchased the Atlas Chalet shingles for your home, have you ever seen the actual written warranty applicable to your Atlas Chalet shingles? A. Can you rephrase the question? Q. Since the time you purchased the Atlas Chalet shingles, have you seen the actual written warranty applicable to the shingles? A. No. Q. You don't know what it says? A. No. Q. Since the time you purchased the Atlas Chalet shingles in 2006, did you ever have occasion to look up Atlas or Chalet shingles on the Internet? A. Before or after or -- I don't know what you're asking me. Q. Well, the question was, since the time you purchased the Atlas Chalet shingles in 2006, have you ever looked up Atlas or Chalet on the Internet? A. No. Q. And you didn't look up Atlas or Chalet shingles on the Internet before you purchased the shingles, right? VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. No. Q. Is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Did you ever ask the roofer for a copy of any warranty applicable to the Atlas Chalet shingle? A. No. Q. Did you ever register your warranty with Atlas? A. No. Q. Did you ever contact Atlas in any way about Atlas Chalet shingles prior to the time that you made a warranty claim in 2013? A. No. Q. Since the time you had the Atlas Chalet shingles installed on your house in 2006, have you spoken to the roofer that you purchased the shingles from and who installed the shingles? A. No. I don't know where he's at, where he can be found or anything. Q. After the Chalet shingles were installed on your house in 2006, did you inspect the roof to make sure the work was satisfactory? MR. CHAIKIN: Object to the form. You can answer. VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

10 (Pages 34 to 37)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 11 of 38 Page 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Can you repeat the question again? BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. After you had the roof installed in 2006 with the Chalet shingles, did you inspect the work of the roofer? A. I think I went up there once he completed the job just to look, see how it would look, you know. And it was satisfying to, you know, what I thought was good work. Q. Okay. You were satisfied with the roofer's installation work of the Atlas Chalet shingles; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And at that time, did the roof look good to you? A. Yes. Q. Did you have any complaints about the way the shingles looked at that time? A. No. Q. Did you notice any problem with the roof or the way it looked at the time it was installed? A. No. Q. Since the time you got up on the roof to check out the installation work in 2006, have you had occasion to go back up on the roof?

Page 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 39

A. I haven't actually been on top of the roof, but I have cleaned my gutters from time to time and -- you know, that consist of leaves and some grains, like which at the time, I -- I didn't know what was causing any of that. Q. Okay. So how often do you clean your gutters? A. Maybe once a year. But I use a ladder, you know, just to prop it up against the gutters and clean them out. Q. And when was the first time you think you -- strike that. You said that when you clean your gutters, you clean leaves out of them, and I think you said something else. What -- what is it that -- in addition to the leaves that you clean out of the gutters? A. It appeared to be like a grain-like substance. I -- I'm not sure. Q. Are you referring to granules from the roofing shingles? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And when was the first time that you cleaned any of the granules from roofing shingles out of your gutters? And by point of VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

reference, your roof would have been installed in 2006. A. Like I say, I -- I clean them once a year, you know. I'm almost sure I clean them once a year, so I -- I don't know exactly what you're asking me. Q. Well, what I'm asking is, when's the first time you would have cleaned them after the shingles were installed in 2006 where you noticed that there were granules deposited in the gutters? A. Like I say, I -- every year I clean them and I kind of try to wait until all the leaves has fallen so I won't have to do it again. So I can't give you an exact month or date that I would have noticed when -- when the grains started appearing in the gutters. Q. Well, do you think it would have been within the first year after you had the shingles installed, or would it have been sometime after that? A. It would have been sometime after 2006. I'm not sure. I don't want to give you a date. And I -- and I don't know exactly when, but I mean, I -- I have noticed it; but I didn't know why. VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. But I guess what I'm trying to get a feel for is when you clean your gutters every year, since you had the roof installed in 2006, is it fair to say that every time you would have seen shingle granules in the gutter? A. I guess you can say that, you know. I probably would have thought that maybe some wind or something might have blown the stuff in -- in the gutters. I don't know. Q. Uh-huh (affirmative response). But you think that maybe as early as 2008 you would have seen these granules in the gutter and cleaned them out? A. I don't -- I don't know exactly. Q. When is the earliest that you think you would have noticed that? A. I'll say at least 2012. Q. Actually, let me rephrase the question. When is the -- sort of the latest that you think you would have seen it in cleaning the gutters? A. I really didn't take to notice after the contractor for Allstate came out and -- and pointed out the defects in the -- in the shingle itself. And that's when I kind of said to myself, VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

11 (Pages 38 to 41)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 12 of 38 Page 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

oh, this probably what caused the grains to be in the gutter. Q. Right. But you had seen it before then, right? A. Yes. Q. And so had you seen it every year when you cleaned the gutters before then going back to 2006? A. I -- I can't recall. I know I've seen it when I cleaned out the gutters from time to time. Q. Okay. And that would have been before in 2013, for example? A. Yes. Q. Prior to the time you made the claim in 2013 with Allstate, had you noticed any other problems with the roof? A. No. Q. And I'm talking about since the time you had it installed in 2006. A. No. Q. You hadn't had any leaks in your house that you attributed to problems with the roof prior to the time you made that claim in 2013? A. That's correct.

Page 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 43 Q. All right. Prior to when you made the claim with Allstate in 2013 regarding your roof and the leaks that were involved in that loss and other than the granule loss that you just testified about prior to 2013, did you have any other complaints about your shingles or your roof? A. No. MR. CHAIKIN: Objection to form. BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. I'll rephrase. From the time you had the roof installed in 2006 with the Chalet shingles up until the time you had the event that inspired you to file the Allstate claim in 2013, did you have any other complaints about the Chalet shingles or your roof? A. No. Q. Up until 2013 -- strike that. From the time you had the roof installed in 2006 up until the time you had the leak that you filed a claim against with Allstate in 2013, did you have any complaints about the appearance of your roof? A. No. Q. And I'm talking about the cosmetic VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

appearance. A. No. Q. So up until the time of the event that caused you to file the Allstate claim in 2013, the Atlas Chalet shingles' appearance was acceptable to you? A. Yes. Q. Since 2006 when you installed the Atlas Chalet shingles on your roof, when is the first time you experienced problems with your roof? A. 2013. Q. And when was that? A. I guess around March of 2013. Q. And what happened in March of 2013 that caused you to believe there were problems with your Atlas Chalet shingles? A. I was sitting in my chair in the TV room when I felt water dripping on my head. So I looked up, and I saw that the ceiling was leaking. So I immediately called Allstate, and they advised me to get a contractor out and give them a written estimate. And which I did. I think I called Smith & Smith Roofing, and he came out and gave me a written estimate. I'm not sure if I called it or faxed it VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

in to Allstate, at which that time, they didn't think that the roof -- the whole roof needed to be replaced. So I argued with them and -Q. When you say "them," are you talking about -A. Allstate. Q. -- Allstate? A. Yes. Q. The insurance company? A. Yes. Q. They thought it -- the roof could be repaired instead of completely replaced to solve the problem? A. I guess they wanted to pay for a partial roof, and I told them that I wanted a full roof. And so we argued back and forth, so they ended up sending their contractor out. And that's when I was made aware that it was a defective shingle. And he pointed out the cracking and the blistering, and he said, "That's probably why you got the grain loss in your gutters," and that they weren't going to pay for it. And he advised me to contact Atlas. Q. And when approximately was that? A. That was about in March of 2013. I VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

12 (Pages 42 to 45)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 13 of 38 Page 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

contacted Atlas the very next day after he told me that. Q. Okay. When -- you said March of 2013 was when you had the leak in your TV room; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Did it take some time thereafter for Allstate to send out a contractor? A. I contacted them the very next day, and they told me to get a written estimate, which I called Smith & Smith Roofing. I don't know exactly what date they came out, but it was sometime in March. He gave me a written estimate, which I forwarded to Allstate. And after I forwarded it, they advised me that they didn't think that I needed a roof -- a whole roof to be repaired, and so we got to arguing over that. And that's when they sent their expert out, I guess you would say their roofer, Allstate did. That's when he advised me -- I don't know the time frame, but I would say it would have been in March sometime of 2013. Q. At the time that Allstate advised you that there might be problems with the Atlas Chalet

Page 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 47 shingles that they weren't going to cover, had you already had Smith & Smith look at your roof? A. No. It was -- I had -- they -- when I contacted them about -- about the leak, they advised me to get a roofing contractor or whoever I wanted to repair the roof to give them a written estimate, which I did. I contacted Smith & Smith. And once he gave me the written estimate, I forwarded it to Allstate. And that's when they told me that they weren't going to cover whatever he had written up and -Q. That's -- that's when Allstate told you that they weren't going to provide an entire new roof. They just wanted to repair a part of it; is that right? A. Right. MR. CHAIKIN: Object to the form. BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Did I summarize that correctly? A. Yes. Q. So my question to you, if we were trying to do a timeline here, is at what point in the process did Smith & Smith give you the estimate to replace the whole roof? VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

A. Sometime in March of 2013. I don't know the exact date. Q. Was -- and it was before, in any event, the Allstate representative inspected your roof and claimed that Atlas Chalet shingles were defective; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. (Exhibit No. 1 marked for identification.) BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Mr. Brooks, let me show you what's been marked as Exhibit 1 to your deposition and ask if you recognize that as a two-page document that reflects an evaluation by Smith & Smith Roofing with respect to your roof. Do you recognize this document? A. Yes. Yes. Q. Okay. What is this document? A. Appears to be a written estimate by Smith & Smith Roofing for the repair of my roof in the amount of $9,240. Q. All right. And let me draw your attention to the date of this particular document. On the first page of the document, which is VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

labeled Brooks 000015, it has down at the bottom the date of June 2013. Do you see where it says that? A. Yes. Q. And it appears to be 1 June, 2013; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And then on the second page, which is labeled as Brooks 000016, it likewise has the date of 1 June, 2013. Do you see where it says that? A. Yes. Q. Does that refresh your recollection of approximately when you had the roofing contractor evaluate your roof and give you the estimate for its replacement? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So it would appear that that was not in March when the leak happened but, rather, sometime thereafter in June; is that right? A. That's correct. (Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.) BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Mr. Brooks, let me show you what's been VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

13 (Pages 46 to 49)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 14 of 38 Page 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

marked as Exhibit 2 to your deposition and ask if you recognize that as correspondence from Allstate Insurance addressed to you dated April 11, 2014; is that correct? A. Where's the dates? Q. The date on the first page -A. Oh, yes. Q. -- is April 11th, 2014; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And do you recognize this as correspondence that you received from Allstate, at least the first page, around April 11th of 2014? A. Yes. Q. And then there are other documents that have additional dates that are attached as this exhibit; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. On the first page of Exhibit 2 under the heading "Claim history" is a reference to a claim date of March 18, 2013. Do you see where it says that? A. Yes. Q. And there was also a reference to an amount paid in connection with that claim date of $1,256; is that correct?

Page 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 51

A. Yes. Q. Is $1,256 the amount that you received as a result of your claim filed with Allstate dated 3/18/13? A. I don't know if this was in regards to the leakage on my roof. Because I had some claims -- I don't know exactly when -- filed for the burglary of my home twice. So I don't -- I'm not sure exactly which claim that they might have paid me for me the ceiling or for the burglary of my home. I -- I'm not sure what the claims are. Q. All right. When did the burglary of your home happen? A. I don't know. I don't know the exact dates. Q. Was it in June of 2013? Is that the other claim referenced on the first page of this exhibit under the heading "Coverage dwelling protection and unscheduled personal property"? A. Yeah. I see that, but I -- I don't -- I can't determine if that was the -- the burglary or the damage from the leakage of the roof. Q. Uh-huh (affirmative response). But in any event, you did receive insurance proceeds as a result of the leak that happened on March 18th, VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

2013? A. For the ceiling, yes. Q. Yes. MR. RAGLAND: Now would be a good time to take a short break. VIDEOGRAPHER: We're off record. The time is 10:57. (A short recess was taken.) (Exhibit No. 3 marked for identification.) VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on record. The time is 11:19. BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. I'm showing you what's been marked as Exhibit 3 to your deposition and ask if you recognize this as your answers to defendant's first set of interrogatories. A. Yes. Q. And I believe on the last page of that exhibit, there is a verification form signed and notarized by you. Is it correct that the answers that you gave in this document are true and correct? A. To the best of my knowledge, yes. Q. Did you assist your attorneys in VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

preparing the answers to these? A. Can you rephrase the question? Q. Yes. Did you assist your attorneys in providing the information which is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge that's contained in these documents? A. Did I go over it with them? Q. Yes. A. That's what you're -- yes. Q. And you supplied the information with respect to the facts surrounding your particular circumstances? A. Yes. Q. Let me ask you to look at Page 5 -strike that. Let me ask you to look at Page 4 and the interrogatory No. 7 where it says, "Please set forth an itemized statement of any and all damage to your home allegedly caused by a defect in the Chalet shingles on your home, including but not limited to any damage to the portions of your home other than the shingles themselves." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And then in the answer that actually VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

14 (Pages 50 to 53)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 15 of 38 Page 54

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

starts on Page 4 and continues over to Page 5, it says, "Plaintiff further states that on or about March 18th, 2013, there was a leak in his roof." Do you see where it says that? A. Yes. Q. My question to you is, does that refresh your recollection at all in terms of when the incident in March of 2013 that resulted in the leak in your roof occurred? MR. CHAIKIN: Object to the form. You can answer if you understand the question. A. Yes. BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Okay. Am I correct that the leak in your roof that caused you to file a claim with Allstate occurred on March 18th, 2013? A. About March 18th. I'm not sure the exact date, but I did notify Allstate right away once the water starting leaking from the ceiling, yes. Q. Do you have any reason to believe that March 18th, 2013, is not the correct date as stated here for when the leak occurred? A. I'm not sure of the exact date, but approximately March 18th is what I'll say.

Page 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 55

Q. Do you have any reason to believe that the statement contained in Exhibit 3, your interrogatory responses, that the leak occurred on March 18th, is incorrect? A. Could have been. I'm not sure of the exact date, but it -- but it was somewhere in March. I remember that. Q. Well, why do you think you would have included March 18, 2013, if it were some other date that the leak occurred? A. I'm not sure. Q. Do you recall supplying the date of March 18th, 2013, to your attorneys in connection with preparing these interrogatory responses? A. I guess it's on the paper, yeah. I will say yes. Q. And at the time, you verified these as true and correct to the best of your knowledge, correct? A. Yes. Q. So would it be fair to say that March 18th, 2013, to the best of your knowledge, was the day that the leak in your roof that then inspired you to make a -A. Yes. VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Q. -- make a claim with Allstate; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Yes? A. Yes. Q. Let me ask you to look back at Brooks Exhibit 2, the first page of which is a claim history. Do you have that in front of you? A. Yes. Q. And under claim history heading, it has two claims, one with a claim date of June 6th, 2013, and the other with a claim date of March 18th, 2013. Do you see where it says that? A. Yes. Q. And under the March 18, 2013 claim date heading, it states that, in connection with that claim date, the amount paid by Allstate in connection with that claim date was $1,256. Do you see where it says that? A. Yes. Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to which one of these claim payments related to the leak? VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. I assume it to be true, and that's what they got on the paper, yes. Q. The $1,256; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now, I believe you previously testified in connection with Exhibit No. 1, which is the paperwork from Smith & Smith Roofing, that the Allstate representative mentioned to you that he thought a defect was involved with Atlas Chalet shingles -- strike that. I believe you previously testified that the Allstate representative told you that they weren't going to cover the shingles on your roof because they believe there might be a defect in the shingles after Smith & Smith generated this estimate contained in Exhibit 1; is that correct? A. Yes. But his wording was that they weren't -- Allstate wasn't going to cover the damages due to the product being a detective shingle. That's what he told me. He didn't make the statement he believed. He said that the shingle itself was a defective product, and he pointed out that -showed me where cracks and what appeared to be VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

15 (Pages 54 to 57)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 16 of 38 Page 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

blistering on the shingle itself. And he also said that's probably the reason why I had the grain loss in my gutters. Q. In terms of trying to establish the timeline about what happened first and second and third and trying to establish a chronology, that's what I'm trying to do right now. So my question to you is, did the Allstate representative, in denying the claim for roofing shingles and telling you that there was a defect in the Atlas roof shingles, happen after the Smith & Smith Roofing estimate was generated? MR. CHAIKIN: Object to the form. A. Yes. MR. RAGLAND: What's the nature of the objection? MR. CHAIKIN: It was a confusing question. It was compounded with respect to things that an Allstate representative had said and so on and so forth. If he wants to read it back, he's welcome to, but I think -MR. RAGLAND: Okay. MR. CHAIKIN: -- it'd be compounded and -MR. RAGLAND: Would you mind reading it

Page 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 59 back? MR. CHAIKIN: -- a confusing question. MR. RAGLAND: Thank you. (Question was read back.) BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Okay. Let me rephrase the question. Referring to Exhibit 1, which is the Smith & Smith Roofing paperwork, my question to you is, was this document generated before or after the Allstate representative suggested you make a claim with Atlas? A. The Smith & Smith came before. Q. And I believe we previously established that the Smith & Smith document was dated 1st of June, 2013; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Approximately when did the Allstate representative deny your claim for the shingles and suggest you contact Atlas? A. It was a short time the day after, after I -- the Allstate expert contractor -- roofing contractor came out and told me that. So I -- I contacted Atlas right after that. Soon as -- soon as the contractor for Allstate told me that it was a defective product and they weren't going to VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

cover it, I went to work the next day, got on the computer at work and located a number to contact Atlas. And that's when I made them aware of it. Q. But in terms of the amount of time that went by between the Smith & Smith estimate on the 1st of June and the time the Allstate representative denied your claim and told you to contact Atlas, about how long a time period was that? A. I'm not sure if it was a couple of days or a couple of weeks. I'm not sure. Q. Okay. You think it might have been more than a couple of weeks? A. I -- I'm not sure. Q. So tell me about when you made the claim to Atlas. A. Can you rephrase the question? Q. When did you make your warranty claim with Atlas? A. As soon as the Allstate contractor, roofing contractor, told me that they weren't going to cover the damages of the roof because it was a defective shingle. The very next day, I went to work and located a number for Atlas, and I contacted them and made them aware that I -- I had VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the problems with the shingle. And I -- and I guess they either forwarded me a claim form or something of that nature. I don't know. I believe it may have been. I'm not sure, but that's -- I notified them the next day. Q. All right. And when you were on the phone for the first time with Atlas, what did you tell them? A. I told them that I had a leak in my -in my ceiling and that the Allstate -- my insurance, Allstate, had sent the contractor out -- roofing contractor, and they told me that -- that the product was a defective made by Atlas. And he told me the name -- the exact name of the shingle, Chalet shingle, and that I felt that they needed to come out or compensate me for the damages, you know, to my -- my roof. Q. When you say compensate you for the damages to your roof, you mean replace the shingles? A. Replace and dispose of the shingles and just -- you know, my whole roof because I'm not -there might be other areas that I'm unaware of that might -- you know, that might be having leaks VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

16 (Pages 58 to 61)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 17 of 38 Page 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

as of now. Q. And in terms of the leak that happened back in March of 2013 that inspired you to make the claim with Allstate, you were compensated by Allstate for that particular leak, correct? MR. CHAIKIN: Object to the form. THE WITNESS: Is it okay for me to answer the question? MR. CHAIKIN: Yeah. Please answer the question if you know. A. Okay. What they told me is that they wasn't going to pay me for the shingles because it was a defective product, but they would cover me for the ceiling itself. BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. And did they -- strike that. And they paid you the $1,256 approximately to fix the problems that resulted from the leak, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And that would have been repairing the ceiling; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Were there any other damages as a result of the leak besides the ceiling?

Page 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 63

A. I mean, if you asking -- those the only damages at the time that I could see, but there could possibly be other leaks that haven't occurred because simple fact that the water has yet to, you know, sink into the ceilings yet. I mean, that's -- at that time, those were the only leaks that I could -- the one that I videotaped and showed you today were the one that the -actually Allstate covered me on. Q. Okay. My question to you is, besides the damages to your ceiling that Allstate paid you for, was there any other damage as a result of the leak from March 18th, 2013? A. There could possibly be other leaks, like I said, because I just -- I mean, it takes time for water to seep through cracks and things. So, I mean, as far as I know, the whole house might be damaged, you know. Q. But sitting here today, you're not aware of any leaks resulting from the March 18th -strike that. Sitting here today, you're not aware of any other damage or leaks that resulted from the March 18th, 2013 event? A. Not at this time, but like I said, I VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

wouldn't know that unless we can remove all the shingles from the roof and see what's underneath the roof to determine even so, you know, if there is -- you know, it just take water time to concentrate and soak into things for me to determine that. There might be damages in the wall. I'm not sure. Q. But sitting here today, you're not aware of any other damage resulting from that particular event? A. Not -MR. CHAIKIN: Objection. Asked and answered. You can answer it, but he's already answered. A. Not at this time. BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. And have you had any other leaks besides the leak that Allstate paid you for? A. Yes. Q. Okay. I want to talk about those in more detail in just a moment, but just generally speaking, where -- where did that or those occur? A. It's in the same room, but in a different area. Q. And did you say this was your TV room? VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 65

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Yes. Q. And what part of the house is that in? A. It's located on the north side near Eighth Street. Q. In terms of not having ever been to your home before, could you tell me whether that's in sort of the front part of your house, the back part of your house, which side? A. Front side. Q. On the front side of the house, is it -if you're looking at your house from the front door, would it be on the left side or the right side of the house? A. Right side. Q. And when did the additional leak that you just referred to occur? A. A couple of weeks ago, it had rained, and I look up; and I noticed that it appeared to be like a brown spot near the door that we come through to that room, to the -- from the outside of the house on the side porch. And so I got up, and I felt it; and it was wet. It hadn't started leaking, but it was -- it was wet. It was a couple of weeks ago. Q. Is this wet spot in a place that had VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

17 (Pages 62 to 65)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 18 of 38 Page 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

been previously repaired? A. Yes. Q. And this wet spot -- strike that. What previous repairs are you referring to? A. The ceiling itself in that particular room. Q. Is it in the exact same spot that was repaired as a result of the State Farm claim? A. No. Q. Where is it in relation to the ceiling damage that State Farm paid for? A. I'm not sure what you're asking me. You talking about the -- two weeks ago, what I -- what I found to appear to be another leak? Q. Yes. A. As soon as you come in from my side porch, it's -- it's a main door there. It's as soon as you come through the door to the right-hand side if you're face -- facing the outside door. Q. This is the same room where the previous leak that State Farm paid for occurred; is that right? A. That's correct.

Page 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 67 Q. And where in relation to the ceiling damage from the State Farm claim is the new wetness? A. It's a couple of feets (sic) over from the original leak that -- that I -- the video that I provided. Q. And over the place that you recently discovered was wet, have any repairs been made to the roof in that area? A. No. Q. Were any repairs made to the roof over the area that resulted in the ceiling damage that State Farm paid for? A. All I can tell you is I received a letter from Allstate stating that I had some blue tarps on top of the roof and that if I -- I had a certain time to remove them tarps or else they was going to terminate my insurance. Which at that time, I called a friend of mine that -- in the roofing business, Sethimas Parker. He lives in Memphis, Cordova, Tennessee. I'll say Memphis and Cordova, same thing. But he came down, and I told him where I thought that the leak might be occurring. And he asked me why did I say that, because it -VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

when I moved the tarp from place to place, I found that when it rained, that, you know, the leaks wouldn't -- wouldn't actually come when I moved the tarp in a certain area. So once I told him that, he said, well, only thing he can do is try to help me out as far as we go and buy three or four bundles of shingles, and we'll try to replace some of the shingles on the roof that you think -- that you're covering with the tarp. Q. And did you replace shingles with the three or four bundles of shingles you just mentioned? A. I -- I assisted him by handing him the shingles, yes. Q. So you replaced the Atlas Chalet shingles with some other type of shingles? A. Some of them. Q. Okay. And this -- the place where it's wet now, is that below the place where you replaced the shingles -- you and Mr. Parker replaced the shingles? A. No. It's away from it. Q. How far away from it? A. I'll say 20 feet. VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. So when you and Mr. Parker replaced the Chalet shingles with the three or four bundles of shingles you mentioned, was that intended to repair the place on the roof that related to the ceiling damage you had in the TV room that Allstate repaired? A. That was pertaining to me to keep from me losing my insurance and attempting to do something to stop the leak. Secondly, you know, so I -- you know, I won't have no problems inside my ceiling, you know, and which it did actually stop for a while. But like I said, it just -- a couple of weeks ago it leaked in another place. Q. I guess what I'm trying to get at is, when you made the repairs with Mr. Parker, were you attempting to fix what you thought might be the cause of the ceiling leak that State Farm paid for? A. Yes. (Exhibit No. 4 marked for identification.) BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Let me show you what's been marked as Exhibit 4 to your deposition and ask if you recognize this as a claim form that you sent to VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

18 (Pages 66 to 69)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 19 of 38 Page 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Atlas in connection with your Atlas Chalet roof. A. Yes. Q. On the second page of the exhibit, which is labeled as Brooks 00011, there is a spot for a signature and date. Do you see where it says that? A. Yes. Q. Is that your signature, and did you date that as June 20th, 2013? A. Yes. Q. So -- strike that. Did you send this to Atlas by fax on the 20th of June, 2013? A. I believe it was by fax. Q. Let's look on the first page of Exhibit 4, and it states "Date roof applied." And it has typed into the form "Approximately 11/17/06." Do you see where it says that? A. Yes. Q. Did you fill this out? A. Yes. Q. Does that refresh your recollection of approximately when the Atlas Chalet shingles were installed on your roof in 2006?

Page 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 71 A. Yes. Q. So it was November 17th, 2006, that the Chalet shingles were applied to your roof? A. I just put approximately because I wasn't sure. Q. Is it your best -- strike that. Is it your best estimate that the date the roof was applied was the 17th of November, 2006? A. Yes. Q. Are you -- strike that. Does that refresh your -- strike that. Does this refresh your recollection that it was, indeed, in November of 2006 when the roof was installed as you originally testified? A. I'm not sure. That's why I used the word "approximately." I'm not sure. Q. In any event, you told Atlas in June of 2013 that the date the Atlas shingles were applied was approximately November 17th, 2006; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Prior to the time that you sent this form to Atlas, had you been in contact with Atlas VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

by telephone? A. Can you rephrase the question? I'm not sure what you're asking me. Q. Did you call Atlas regarding your claim before you sent in this form? A. I called -- yeah. I called Atlas the day after the Allstate roofing contractor told me that they weren't going to pay me for my roof. Q. And approximately when did you make that call? A. The day after that the -- the insurance contractor from Allstate told me that I -- my -you know, they weren't going to pay for the roof. I don't know the exact date, if that's what you're asking me. Q. Do you remember how long before you sent in this form that's Exhibit 4 that you made that call? A. No. (Exhibit No. 5 marked for identification.) BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Let me show you what's been marked as Exhibit 5 to your deposition and ask if you recognize this as documents produced by Atlas in VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 73

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

this case representing the claim file of Atlas in connection with your claim. MR. CHAIKIN: Is there a question? MR. RAGLAND: I believe there was. A. Oh, okay. I'm waiting on you. I'm sorry. What was the question? BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Do you recognize this as the claim file of Atlas in connection with your claim that was produced in this litigation to the plaintiff? A. Yeah. I -- I recognize some of it, but some of it I've never seen before. Q. Well, I'll represent to you that this was produced to the plaintiff and your attorneys in connection with this lawsuit, and it appears to have at least some of the documents that were in Exhibit 4. That is your -- your claim file or your claim form, rather; is that right? A. Yes. Q. All right. Let me ask you to turn to the last page of Exhibit 5, which is labeled ATLS-00092574. And do you have that page of the exhibit in front of you? VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

19 (Pages 70 to 73)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 20 of 38 Page 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Yes. Q. This is the claim report generated by Atlas in connection with your claim, and I'll ask you to look at the bottom of the page beside the heading "Status." Do you see where it says that? A. Yes. Q. "6/14/13, received call from homeowner" -- abbreviation HO -- is stated there. Do you see where it says that? A. Yes. Q. Does this refresh your recollection of when you made the call to Atlas to make your claim? A. I mean, it doesn't mean that that's the date I called. It's just the date that they wrote down there. I don't know who wrote that. That's not my writing. Q. Do you have any reason to believe that you made the telephone call initially to file your claim to Atlas on some other day? A. No. I -- I don't know exactly what day I called. All I can tell you is that when the insurance adjustor -- the -- the expert roofer from Allstate told me that they wasn't going to

Page 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 75

pay for the roof, the next day -- the very next day, whatever that day was, that's when I initially called Atlas. I don't know -- recall exactly what date that was. Q. Do you have any reason to believe that June 14th, 2013, was not the date that you made your initial call to make a claim with Atlas? MR. CHAIKIN: Objection. Asked and answered. Answer again if you'd like. A. Could have been. I -- I don't know. I mean, I'm not saying it's not. BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. You don't know of the date that Allstate suggested you call Atlas? A. No. Q. When you made your initial call to Atlas to make the claim, what did you tell them was wrong with the shingle? A. To the best of my knowledge, I believe I told them that there was a leak in my ceiling and that I had called Allstate, and Allstate sent their expertise roofer out. And he made me aware that the shingle itself was a Chalet shingle made by Atlas; and that it was a defective shingle; and that they weren't going to pay for the -- the VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

repairs. Q. Other than saying that Allstate had said the shingle was defective, did you tell the claim representative with Atlas what you thought was wrong with the shingle? A. No. I asked them were they going to cover the damages of the shingles, and she told me that I would have to submit a claim form, if I can recall, to the best of my knowledge. And I think she either faxed that or mailed them to me. I don't know which one. I believe they were mailed. And once I received them, it asked me to do certain things in a timely manner, which at the time, I tried, but it also had something on there about removing some shingles from the home, at which I called -- I might have called and told her I wasn't comfortable with removing shingles from the home because that -- you-all could possibly say that was the cause of the leakage. And I wasn't comfortable -- comfortable with removing any shingles from the home. Q. Were you requested by an Atlas representative to send in samples of shingles from your home? A. Yes. That was a part of the claim, if VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

I'm not mistaken. And I told them over the phone that they can send someone out, and they can remove them. I just didn't feel like I had to do all of that. So at that time, you know, I just felt like they was giving me the run-around, so I -- I contacted my attorney that is representing me here today. Q. So am I correct that you never did comply with the request of Atlas to send in samples of your roof; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. Did the Atlas representative ask you to do anything else besides send in samples? A. She told me I needed to fill out the claim form in order for it to be a legit claim and that a failure to do so, I wouldn't have a claim. Q. And did she tell you to complete the claim form in its entirety? A. She asked me to or else, you know, I wouldn't have a claim. Q. Okay. And did you fill out the claim form in its entirety? A. No. Q. Why not? A. Because I didn't want to remove the VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

20 (Pages 74 to 77)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 21 of 38 Page 78

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

shingles from the home. Q. Well, if you'll look at Exhibit 4, which is the claim form that you've produced in this litigation and sent to Atlas, it appears that a lot of the information that's been requested on the form has been left blank; is that correct? MR. CHAIKIN: Object to the form. You can answer if you know. A. I don't understand your question. You're asking me did I fill this Page 4 out? BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. My question is with respect to Exhibit 4, which is the claim form you sent in. A. Oh, Exhibit 4. Q. Do you have that in front of you now? A. Exhibit 4, Page 4? Q. No. Just Exhibit 4 in its entirety, but with respect to the first two pages which are labeled 10 and 11 at the bottom. A. Yes. Q. Am I correct that there is information that was requested in the form that has been left blank by you; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And why did you not complete the -- the

Page 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 79

form and supply the information requested? A. Probably because I didn't understand it and didn't know. And like I said once before, I mean, I didn't feel like I had to go through all of those necessary steps. I asked them they can send someone out and take a look at it. If it wasn't their product, I would have been through with it. But, you know, I just didn't want to go through all of that, so -- and I didn't feel I had to go through all of that. So I contacted the attorney that is representing me here today. Q. Okay. In connection with your warranty claim, you didn't feel like you had to go through all the steps that you were being requested to complete; is that right? A. I never -MR. CHAIKIN: Object to the form. A. I didn't want to go through all of that. BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. And you didn't go through all of it? A. No. Q. You mentioned that you told the claims representative that you felt the -- strike that. You previously testified that you VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

told the claim representative for Atlas that Allstate had told you the shingles were defective; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Did you tell the claims representative either on the phone or in your paperwork the specific problem that you were having with the shingle? A. I'm not sure. Q. Did you mention whether or not you thought there was cracking? A. I could possibly have said that. I'm not sure. Q. Did you mention that you thought there was blistering? A. I might have said that. I'm not sure. Q. Did you mention that you thought there was granule loss? A. I might have said that, also. I'm not sure. Q. If you'll look at Exhibit 5 again. A. Uh-huh (affirmative response). Q. And let me know when you have that in front of you. A. Uh-huh (affirmative response). VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Do you have that in front of you now? A. Yes, sir. Q. Please look at the very last page, which is labeled as 92574. About three-quarters down the page next to the heading "Problem reported," it states "Cracking." Do you see where it says that? A. Yes. Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to the specific problems you may have identified to the claims representative when you made the call? A. No, it doesn't. It just said that this is what she put down, is cracking. Q. But you still to this day don't remember what you told her was the specific defect? A. No. Q. Let me ask you to look at Exhibit 1 again, which is the Smith & Smith Roofing paperwork. Do you have that in front of you now? A. Yes. Q. Under "Explanation of findings," it states, "After inspecting roof at the above VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

21 (Pages 78 to 81)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 22 of 38 Page 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

address, I found the roof to have received extensive hail and wind damage resulting from a storm on March 18th, 2013, in the metro Jackson and surrounding areas of Yazoo." Do you see where it says that? A. No. But I can recall reading that somewhere once upon a time. Oh, yes, sir. I see it now. Q. You see what I just read to you -A. Yes, sir. Q. -- on Exhibit 1? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you recall Smith & Smith Roofing telling you that your roof had received extensive hail and wind damage as a result of the March 18th storm? A. I -MR. CHAIKIN: Object to the form. Go ahead. A. I remember reading that, but I can't tell him what to put down on -- on this piece of paper. I mean, I just -- what he gave me is what I submitted. BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. And you submitted this to Allstate --

Page 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 83

A. Allstate. Q. -- in connection with your insurance claim resulting from the leak and storm on March 18th, 2013? A. That's correct. Q. And am I correct that Smith & Smith Roofing concluded, after having inspected your roof, that there was extensive hail and wind damage to your roof as a result of that storm; is that right? MR. CHAIKIN: Object to the form. Go ahead. A. That's what he, indeed, in fact, wrote on the piece of paper, yes. BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. And you recall him telling you that? A. I recall reading that. I don't know if he exactly told me that, but I know that's -that's what he put on the paper; and that's what I forwarded to Allstate. Q. Okay. Other than what the Allstate representative said to you, do you have any reason to believe that Smith & Smith Roofing, and in particular William P. Smith, was incorrect in their conclusion that there was extensive hail and VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

wind damage resulting from the storm on March 18th, 2013? A. I -- I don't know. All I know is he -I looked in the phone book and found a roofing contractor, and I was relying on his expertise to give me a written estimate for the damages to my roof. And -- and what he gave me is what I submitted to Allstate. Q. Which is Exhibit 1? A. Yes. Q. And his conclusion was that your roof had received extensive hail and wind damage resulting from a storm on March 18th, 2013; is that right? A. Yes. According to what he wrote on Exhibit 1, yes. Q. And it was his recommendation that as a result of that hail and wind damage, your entire roof needed to be replaced; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Did you end up using Smith & Smith Roofing in connection with any repairs that you made to your roof? A. No. Q. Were the only repairs that you made to VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

your roof after March 18th, 2013, the repairs that you and Mr. Parker made together? A. That's correct. To the -- to the roof itself, not to the ceiling. Q. Okay. Could you explain what you mean by that, "to the roof itself"? A. As far as the shingles, the removing of the shingles, Mr. Sethimas Parker helped me or I helped him repair or replace some shingles made by Atlas on top of the roof. Nothing dealing with the ceiling that was leaking itself. Mr. Parker didn't help in that. Q. Okay. Since March 18th, 2013, have you had any repairs to the roof or the shingles on the roof other than the work that you and Mr. Parker did? A. No. MR. RAGLAND: It looks like our lunch is here. Do you want to break for lunch now or -MR. CHAIKIN: Sure. MR. RAGLAND: -- do you want to keep going for a little while or -MR. CHAIKIN: Well, why don't we go off the record and -- and then we can discuss, VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

22 (Pages 82 to 85)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 23 of 38 Page 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

you know, lunch plans and where we are and all that. MR. RAGLAND: Good. MR. CHAIKIN: That sounds reasonable. VIDEOGRAPHER: Off record. 12:10. (A lunch recess was taken.) VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on record. The time is 12:56 p.m. BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Mr. Brooks, you just showed me a video that is on your cell phone and which you're going to supply copies of to Atlas. Is that a video that you personally made on April 11th, 2013? A. Yes. Q. And the video copy that will be supplied to Atlas will be labeled Exhibit 6 to your deposition. Is that acceptable? A. Yes. (Exhibit No. 6 to be marked and attached to the deposition at a later time.) BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. With respect to the video that you took, what portion of the house does that depict?

Page 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 87

A. That room exactly is on the north side near what Eighth -- what we call -- I live on the corner of Eighth and Grand, so it would be next to the Eighth Street side north and -- but it's near the front of the home. If you are facing the house, it'll be on your right-hand side. Q. And what do you refer to that room as? A. TV room. Q. In the video, there was water dripping from a doorjamb. Do you recall that portion of the video? A. Yes. Q. And underneath it, it had buckets; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. That doorjamb leads away from the TV room into the dining room; is that correct? A. Yes. Towards the kitchen. That's correct. Q. Into the dining room? A. Yes. Q. And there was also a depiction in the video of some stains on the ceiling that were in sort of a stripe across the ceiling. VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Do you recall that? A. Yes. Q. When did those stains appear? A. I'll say probably a little bit before the actual date of that actual video footage. You know, it -- it takes times for the water to absorb. And I guess you can say that once it absorbs in it and it becomes a stain after a while, and it just hadn't rained enough so it can completely come through. Q. So with respect to the stains we just referred to in the video, in your view, were those a result of the March 18th storm that resulted in your claim to Allstate? A. I guess, yes. I don't know. I mean, they could have been coming all along, but that's when I started noticing them. Q. With respect to all of the leaking and damages to the interior of your home that are depicted in the video, which is Exhibit 6, am I correct that all of that was repaired by Allstate in the proceeds from Allstate? A. Yes. And it is recently since -- like I said, another area in that same particular room has -- showing sign of leakage again. VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. With respect to the leaking and the staining of the ceiling and all of the damages that were repaired in connection with the Allstate claim, was any repair of the roof done in connection with the Allstate claim? A. No. Q. Okay. Was any part of the payment that you received from Allstate for repair of any part of the roof? A. From my knowledge, I think they was paying me for the -- paying me for the ceiling part, the inside of -- the interior of the -- that particular room. They wasn't paying me for the roof. Q. I believe you testified earlier that, originally, Allstate felt like they should just repair a part of the roof rather than replace the entire roof. Do you recall that testimony? A. Yes. Q. Did Allstate offer to repair a particular part of the roof that they thought was the cause of the leaking? A. I don't know why would they tell me that they would pay me for a partial roof when you VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

23 (Pages 86 to 89)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 24 of 38 Page 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

can't tell me exactly where the leakage is coming from. So I wasn't in agreement with that because I feel like you should replace the whole roof, and then you can -- by removing all shingles, you can determine if there is other leaks, you know, that hadn't yet shown in the property. Q. But am I correct that Allstate had proposed to you to repair only a portion of the roof that they felt was responsible for the leak; is that right? A. I guess you can assume that they -- they told me they'll give me a partial roof replacement, yes. Q. So they did tell you that they would give you a partial roof repair of the portion of the roof they felt was responsible for the leak, correct? A. Right. And then I -- like I said, after I argued with them, they told me to get -- get my own roofing contractor to come out and get -- give them a written estimate, okay, which we did. That was Smith & Smith Roofing. And upon them receiving that -- and we argued again, so that's when they decided to send their roofing expert out, and he made me aware that the shingle itself

Page 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 91 was a defective product made by Atlas. Q. So my question to you is, in connection with the payment that you received from Allstate in connection with the March 18th, 2013 claim, was any portion of that for that partial repair of the roof that Allstate had proposed that you rejected? A. To my knowledge, that was for the damage that -- where you saw the video for that particular room. They was paying -- paying me for the -- to repair the ceiling in that particular room. Q. All right. With respect to the leak that you said was occurring in the last couple of weeks, am I correct that that is also in what you refer to as the TV room? A. Yes. Q. And where is the leak -- strike that. Where is the leak that is most recent in that room? A. It's -- it's not actually a leak. It's a stain that has began to show up again. It's where you come in from my side porch off the Eighth Street side, as soon as you come into that -- through that main door, the exterior door leading into the inside of the -- that particular VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

TV room. It's to your right. If you was facing the outside door, it'll be to your right as soon as you come in -- in that door. Q. Is it actually in the doorjamb itself? A. No. Q. Is it to the right of the doorjamb if you were facing the door from the outside? A. It's to the right, yeah. Q. Is it on a ceiling or a wall? A. Ceiling. Q. And what type of roof sits above the spot that you're referring to? A. I'm not understanding your question. Q. Is there a roof that covers that portion of ceiling that has most recently developed a leak you just described? A. Yes. Yes. Q. Okay. A. Are you asking me do shingles cover that particular part of the roof? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. All right. Could you describe what kind of roof does cover that particular -- strike that. Could you describe what type of VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

roof covers the portion of the ceiling where there's this recent leak? A. It appears to be some type of roll or asphalt. I don't know how to put that, but it's not shingles. Q. So am I correct that the portion of the roof above the ceiling that is stained that you've described as a recent leak does not contain Atlas Chalet shingles? A. No. Q. It's not correct or it doesn't -A. It doesn't contain Atlas shingles. Q. When was this rolled asphalt portion of the roof installed? A. I don't recall. I mean, it was there when I first moved into the house, I believe. I don't recall that being replaced. Q. And it has never had Atlas Chalet shingles applied to that portion of the roof, correct? A. No. Q. No, it has not had Atlas shingles applied to that portion of the roof? A. No. It hasn't had Atlas shingles applied to that portion of the roof. VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

24 (Pages 90 to 93)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 25 of 38 Page 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. At any time? A. At any time. (An off-the-record discussion was held.) (Exhibit No. 7 marked for identification.) BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Mr. Brooks, let me show you what's been marked as Exhibit 7 to your deposition, and ask if you recognize this as a photograph of the portion of the roof of your house. A. Yes. Q. Okay. I'll represent to you that this was taken in July of 2014 by experts for Atlas when they inspected your house. But do you remember when that inspection occurred? A. Yes. But I don't know -- I don't know the exact date. I just take it on your word that that's when it was. Q. My question to you, is this a fair and accurate representation of your roof in July of 2014? A. Yes. If that's when you-all took the pictures. I'm not sure. Well, at that -- but that -- this is my home, if that's what you're

Page 96

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 95

asking. Q. Yeah. I'm asking if this particular photograph is -- is a fair and accurate representation of your home at this time. A. Yes. Q. And in July of 2014, would it have also looked the same way, more or less? A. Yes. Q. So is it a fair and accurate representation of the portion of the roof of your home in July of 2014? A. Yes. Q. Is this the section of the roof that has rolled asphalt on it that you were just testifying about? A. Yes. Q. Where is the side door that you were referring to by which there was an interior ceiling leak? A. I'll have to point it out to you. If you come in right here, there's a screen door right here. And once you enter the screen door, if you turn to your right -- as soon as you turn to your right, there's a -- a door that -exterior door that -- that goes in right there to VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

that portion of the home (indicating). Q. So we can't see the exterior door from this particular angle? A. No. Q. With respect to where the leak is that you mentioned as occurring recently, that is, within the last couple of weeks, approximately where on the rolled asphalt portion of the roof would that leak be? A. It would be somewhere in this area right here that I'm pointing to (indicating). (An off-the-record discussion was held.) BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Does this rolled asphalt portion of the roof cover pretty much most of the TV room? A. I would say yes. Q. Could you also point for the videographer to where on the photograph the leaking in the doorjamb depicted on the video would be directly under. A. It'd probably be somewhere in this area right here (indicating). Q. But underneath the rolled asphalt portion of the roof? A. That's correct. That's correct, because VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

that's the TV room area. Q. Does the TV room area that has sustained the various leaks you described -- strike that. Is the TV room that has sustained the leaks that you've described covered by any shingles? A. No. Well, based on this picture right here, it is because this kind of overlaps the flat portion of the -- the room. Q. You're saying where is the overlap? A. Right here (indicating). Q. At the gable that comes down; is that -A. Yes. Q. So that -- so those shingles might overhang a portion of the asphalt rolled roof? A. Yes. Q. Where would the doorjamb be that was sustaining the leaks shown in the video? Could you show the videographer where that would be? A. Approximately in this area would be where the video footage of the -- the leakage from the video was coming from this area right here (indicating). Q. And that would be the portion that is covered by the rolled asphalt portion of the roof? VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

25 (Pages 94 to 97)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 26 of 38 Page 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Some of it, yes. Q. The portion of the roof that you say overhangs the rolled asphalt portion of the roof, is the rolled asphalt portion of the roof -- does it extend all the way underneath the part that's hanging over it that has shingles on it? A. To my knowledge, right here -- the rolled asphalt right here, the edge of this is this bordering on the outside of the roof here. It -- it goes on to that side, but to my knowledge, I don't know how far it goes up under this actual part right here (indicating). Q. Besides the leaks that -- strike that. Could you show me where on the asphalt rolled portion of the roof depicted in Exhibit 7 the ceiling stains that are depicted in the video were located? A. I'm going to guess to the best of my knowledge where they might be depicted. Right now currently, I have a stain in this area right here. There used to be a stain coming from the -- the doorjamb over here that you mentioned earlier, but it's not there anymore. And I had one, also a stain, approximately in this area where the French doors leads into -- towards the computer room.

Page 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 99

But now if you come in the house and look carefully along here, you can see where there appears to be water damage if you -- you have to look extremely hard for it. Q. Was this part of what was attempted to be repaired by the -- by the Allstate payment? A. The ceiling and this part of the room, yes. Q. Okay. And it appeared to -- in the video, it appeared to run as sort of a stripe down the middle of the ceiling. Do you recall where -A. It's not in the middle of the ceiling, but it's closer to the -- the doorway that you mentioned earlier. Q. Okay. And so, again, could you show us where that -- those stains on the ceiling that have subsequently been repaired with the Allstate proceeds are located on the asphalt rolled portion of the roof? A. As of today? I'm sorry. Q. Yes. I know that they've been repaired, but where were they before they were repaired? A. Before they were repaired, I had some stains in this area -- in this area where the VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

double French doors are, and right where it's showing again now. Q. Right. A. Yeah. Q. And I'm -- am I correct that those -strike that. Am I correct that the rolled asphalt portion of the roof is above where those stains were? A. Yes. Q. Are there any other leaks that you are claiming compensation for in this lawsuit in your house that you haven't told us about already? A. I mean, I -- I can't tell you where other leaks might possibly be unless we remove all the shingles from the home and take a look at the actual boarding underneath the -- the shingles itself. I mean, there could possibly be other leaks that just haven't occurred yet. Q. You've not undertaken yourself to do that investigation, correct? A. No. Q. Okay. Are you, sitting here today, aware of any leaks for which you're claiming compensation in this lawsuit besides the ones you VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

described in the TV room? MR. CHAIKIN: Objection. Asked and answered. You can answer it. A. Could you rephrase the question, please, where I understand what you're saying? MR. RAGLAND: Could you read it back? (Question was read back.) A. I'm -- I'm claiming compensation -compensation for where there might be any possible leaks in the home, not just that particular room. BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. My question is, sitting here today, are you aware of any leaks that have occurred for which you're seeking compensation that you're aware of today? A. As of today, I haven't -- haven't encountered any leaks that I'm aware of. Q. Besides the one -A. Besides the one that I've already made you aware of. Q. Today during -A. Today. Q. -- this deposition? A. Yes. Q. Are you aware of any leaks that have VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

26 (Pages 98 to 101)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 27 of 38 Page 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

occurred anywhere under your roof that were caused by a heating and air-conditioning -- air handling system? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Can you tell me about that and where on the house that might have occurred? A. I think when -- when you-all people came out to inspect my home, they asked me were there any other leaks that I've seen inside the home. And I told them that there was a leak in the dining room area and that I had an HVAC guy to come out, and he said it was a drainage problem from the air-conditioning unit, which it was stopped up. And once he unstopped it, then I hadn't seen the leak anymore in that particular room. Q. And that leak occurred in the dining room? A. Yes. Q. And was that on the ceiling or on the walls? A. The ceilings and walls. Q. And am I correct that you are not claiming compensation with respect to that leak in this lawsuit?

Page 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 103 A. I'm -- I'm claiming compensation for any and all leaks that the Atlas shingles might have caused that I haven't -- might not be aware of at this time. Q. My question to you is regarding the leaks in the dining room that you said were caused by the drainage problem with the heating and air-conditioning unit. Are you claiming that that resulted from something wrong with the Atlas shingles? A. No. Q. So you're not claiming compensation for those leaks or any shingles associated with the roof over those leaks in this lawsuit? A. Not that particular room because I'm assuming that that was caused due to the drainage of the air-conditioning unit. Q. And you were told by a heating and air-conditioning expert that that was, in fact, what caused those leaks in the dining room? A. To his knowledge, yes. Once he went up there and unstopped the drainage, yes. I haven't had that to occur again. Q. So that leak and that damage is not part of this lawsuit? VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

A. No. Q. Are there any other leaks that you've had in your house that we haven't talked about? A. Not that I'm aware of at this time. Q. Let me show you what's been marked as Exhibit 8 to your deposition, and ask if you recognize that as a true and accurate representation of your roof. (Exhibit No. 8 marked for identification.) A. Yes. BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Let me show you what's been marked as Exhibit 9 to your deposition and, likewise, ask you if you recognize this as a photograph that is a true and accurate representation of your roof. (Exhibit No. 9 marked for identification.) A. Yes. BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. There appears to be in these photographs some waves or buckling that gives the sort of appearance of sags in the roof. Do you agree with that? MR. CHAIKIN: Objection to form. You VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

can answer. A. Yes. BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Okay. Do you know what the -- those buckles or sags in your roof result from? A. No. Q. Do you know whether or not there are any structural problems with your roof itself that might cause this to happen over time? A. No. I mean, it could possibly be due to the moisture that is underneath the shingles itself due to the crackling of -- of the shingles. I mean, I don't know what caused them. I'm not a roofing expert. Q. Is it possible, to your knowledge, that this buckling and sagging depicted in Exhibits 8 and 9 were caused by problems with the base of the roof itself? A. I don't know. Q. How long has your roof looked this particular way? A. I don't know. Q. At the time you had the Chalet shingles installed in 2006, were these buckles and sags present at that time? VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

27 (Pages 102 to 105)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 28 of 38 Page 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. I wouldn't think they were, but would have been because, you know, after the contractor finished the -- completing the roof itself, I went up there and everything looked nice and neat. Q. But can you say for sure that these sags and buckles did not appear in 2006? A. I can say for sure because it was -everything seemed flat and smooth. Q. So you believe that these buckles and sags occurred at some point since the installation of the roof you currently have on the house? A. That's correct. Q. But you don't know what the cause is for sure? A. No. Q. Referring back to Exhibit 7 -A. Uh-huh (affirmative response). Q. -- is there any other portion of your house that has a similar rolled asphalt flat portion? A. Yes. Q. And where is that in relation to what's depicted on Exhibit 7? A. You can't see it from none of these pictures that you've given me, but it would be on

Page 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 107

the -Q. Could turn -- turn around so the videographer could see? A. It would be somewhere near this area over this portion of the roof right here. It'd be going back toward the backyard (indicating). Q. And what room or rooms are directly underneath that second rolled asphalt portion of your roof? A. Washer and dryer. Q. Have you experienced any leaks with respect to that rolled asphalt portion of your roof? A. No. But there were some missing tiles due to, you know, years that, you know, I've been living in the home. And that has since been replaced by new Sheetrock. Q. Okay. So -- I'm sorry. Are you saying there have been leaks since you've been living in the home in the portion of your house that's covered by the second rolled asphalt portion or not? A. No. There -- there hasn't been any leaks. What I'm saying is, there was old tile from the original -- when I originally purchased VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

the house. And over a period of time, they'd just gotten old and fallen out. Not due to any moisture because there had never been no leakage in that room. And I've since Sheetrocked that -that same room that you're speaking of now, and I haven't had any problems with leakage so far. Q. Let me ask you to turn back to Exhibit 4, which is your Atlas warranty claim. A. Uh-huh (affirmative response). Q. On the first page of that claim form, it says, "Total square footage of structure under roof." Do you see where it says that about halfway down the page? A. Yes. Yes. Q. And did you fill in the response of, "approximately 1,772"? A. Yes. Q. And it says underneath that, "Total square feet of problem area/areas." And, again, you filled in "approximately 1,772 square feet;" is that right? A. Yes. Q. With respect to the two areas of your house that have the rolled asphalt flat structure VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

to it such as depicted in Exhibit 7, my question to you is, is the square footage for those portions included in the 1,772 figure that's included on your claim form? A. I'm not sure. Q. How did you come up with the 1,772 number? A. I either got that by the actual -- from the Yazoo County courthouse. I'm not sure if I got it from them or by what -- when Smith & Smith came out and he might have said something to that -- I'm not sure if he wrote it down anywhere, but it was one of the two. Q. Did Smith & Smith propose to put shingles on that rolled asphalt portion of your roof when they proposed to replace your entire roof? A. Not that I can recall, no. Q. You also have a garage which is a portion of your property; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Am I correct that that garage does not have Atlas Chalet shingles on it? A. That's correct. Q. Am I correct that the roof on the garage VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

28 (Pages 106 to 109)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 29 of 38 Page 110

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

portion of your property is not part of the lawsuit that you're claiming -A. That's correct. Q. -- today? A. That's correct. Q. And to your knowledge, the garage has never had Atlas Chalet shingles applied to it? A. To my knowledge, no, because those are the actual shingles that was on -- on the -- on the garage when I first initially paid for the home. So they've been there ever since. Q. They've been there at least 20 years? A. Yes. Q. And you've never replaced them? A. No. Q. And they're not Atlas Chalet shingles? A. No. (Exhibit No. 10 marked for identification.) BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Let me show you what's been marked as Exhibit 10 to your deposition, and ask if you recognize that as a photograph of your house, which is a fair and accurate depiction of your home?

Page 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 111

A. Yes. Q. Can you point out to the videographer where some of the other areas that we've been discussing of your home are in relation to this particular view of your home? A. Can you be more specific what you're asking for? Q. Well, for instance, could you point where on the property the two rolled asphalt portions of your roof would be located? A. You can't see it from this -- this particular picture, but I can give you approximately where they are. If you go right across from here, the flat part is on the other side of this portion of the roof. And right to the right of this, I guess you would call this an eave. If you -- to the right side of this eave, if you kept headed west going back towards my backyard, the other flat part of -- portion of the home would be that -- in that area. Q. When you and Mr. Parker made the repair to -- strike that. When you and Mr. Parker made the repairs that you testified to earlier, is there VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

any one of the pictures that you've identified there today that shows the portion that you may have done the repairs to? A. Yes. Q. Which one is that? A. The -- the portion of the roof that I helped Mr. Sethimas Parker with is right here. It shows right here (indicating). Q. And this is where you had replaced the Chalet shingles, and I think you said four or five bundles of them? A. Yes. Q. And did you also replace any flashing in that particular area? A. Yes. I guess when you say "flashing," you mean this -- the metal part right here, I'm assuming? Q. Could you hold that down a little bit? There, yes. A. That's what you calling -Q. Yes. A. Yes. I recall him putting some flashing down. Q. Do you know why he did that? A. No. I guess to keep the water from VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

leaking if it ever occurred. Q. And approximately when was that repair made? A. I -- I believe November the -- November 2013. I'm not sure. Q. And I believe you said you made that repair in response to a letter from Allstate that didn't like the tarp that you had over that portion of the roof; is that right? A. Yes. I had -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. I was moving the tarp throughout when it would rain to try to narrow it down. I initially had the tarp over the -- this portion of the roof and it kind of overlapped on the other side. And I noticed whenever I put it in this area, I wouldn't see the leakage. So I just made a guesstimate, you can say, of what we was going to try to repair. And the only reason I -- I was just taking a wild swing at it because I didn't want my insurance to be terminated, and I had to do something to show them that I was making an attempt to -- you know, to comply with what they wanted me to do. Q. And after you made the repairs in that portion of the roof by adding new shingles and new VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

29 (Pages 110 to 113)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 30 of 38 Page 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

flashing, did the leak stop? A. Temporarily, it did. But as I said before, it -- I'm showing water leaking in this area now, not in this area. And if you will look -- you'll have to look hard -- I'm sorry. You'll have to look very hard over here in this area because I have some shelves in -- in that portion of the room. You have to look over them shelves, and you can see what appears to be water damage. Q. And is that a portion of the roof that you've attempted to fix? A. The roof or the ceiling? Q. Well, let's start with the ceiling. A. The only thing I replaced was this part of the ceiling on the flat part here, and that's the money that Allstate gave me to repair that part. Q. Yes. A. And I only did that after Sethimas Parker and myself attempted to repair this portion of the roof. Q. The part of the roof that you repaired with Mr. Parker -- I believe you said that was selected without really knowing where the leak was

Page 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 115

originating; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. To this day, do you know where the leak is originating? A. No. Q. Or the leak was originating? A. No. Q. Is it correct that the repair that you and Mr. Parker made was primarily done to reinstate your insurance? A. I wouldn't say necessarily reinstate because it never was terminated. It was partially to keep my insurance -- homeowner insurance. Because they told me if I didn't remove the tarp within a certain time frame, that my -- my insurance would be terminated. Q. Let me show you what's been marked as Exhibit 11 to your deposition, and ask if you recognize that as a copy of a letter from Allstate threatening to cancel your insurance. (Exhibit No. 11 marked for identification.) MR. CHAIKIN: This is No. 11? (Off-record comment.) A. Yes. VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Is this the communications from Allstate that you were referring to that motivated you to make the repairs with Mr. Parker? A. When you use the term "motivated," I don't know exactly what you mean to motivate. But I didn't want to lose my homeowner's insurance due to the fact that I had the tarp over the roof, so I attempted to do something and use my -- the little resources that I had to -- you know, to -to keep this from happening. Q. This being what Allstate is threatening to do in Exhibit 11? A. Yes. Q. Which is terminate your insurance? A. Yes. Q. And the letter there says, "The roof of your dwelling is damaged, is covered with tarp." You see where it says that? A. Yes. Q. You interpreted what Allstate was asking to be that you get rid of the tarp and make repairs to the roof; is that right? A. I interpreted that they wanted me to get rid of the tarp, and if I get rid of the tarp and VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

don't do anything about trying to repair what may be where the leakage is from, I -- you know, I mean, my house be a total disaster. I mean, I don't want to -- you know, any other damage to occur in no rooms. So I had attempted and -- and tried to do what I could do with the resources that -that I had at the time. And so like I said, it seemed to have worked for a little while, but like I said, I'm -- I'm having leakage in that same room -Q. Uh-huh (affirmative response). A. -- in a different spot now. Q. If the leaks were in the TV room that you originally experienced back in 2013, why did you make the repairs with Mr. Parker to a different part of the roof? A. I'm not understanding your question. Q. Well, my -- my question is, why did you make a repair with Mr. Parker to a portion of the roof that wasn't over the TV room? A. Because like I said before, when I moved the tarp from one area to another area, I noticed that in one particular area, it wouldn't leak as opposed to when I had the tarp in another area. VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

30 (Pages 114 to 117)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 31 of 38 Page 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

So I just made a guesstimate in attempting to do something to save my home and -- from being further damaged. And that's -- that's the only reason I -- we didn't know if it was going to work or not. Q. So to this day, do you know whether or not the portion of the roof that caused the leaks in the TV room are the portion that you attempted to repair? A. I'm not -- I'm not sure what you're asking me. MR. CHAIKIN: Let him I guess -- I was going to say let him finish the question. I don't know if he was finished with it. BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. My question to you is, do you know where on your roof is responsible for the leaks that have occurred in your TV room? A. No. Q. Do you know whether or not the leaks that have occurred in your TV room are caused by the rolled asphalt portion of your roof that covers the TV room? A. No. Q. With respect to the repairs that you and

Page 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 119 Mr. Parker made, do you know whether or not he or you patched any portion of the roof with caulking? A. Not that I'm aware of. Q. When Allstate came out to inspect your roof, did they take samples with them? A. No. Q. Are you certain of that? A. Not that I'm aware of. Q. In other words, you're not aware of them taking any samples when they inspected your house? And I'm referring to Allstate. A. I didn't see them take any, no. Q. Okay. Regarding the Allstate claim initiated on March 18th, 2013, did Allstate determine that the water damage to your ceiling was covered? A. The roofer -- the roofing expert representing Allstate told me that it was a defective shingle made by Atlas called Chalet shingle, and that I need to contact Atlas because they weren't going to be responsible for the repairs of the actual roof. Q. Okay. My question is, did Allstate determine that the water damage to your ceiling was covered? VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

A. I assume they did because they paid me for it. Q. Did they determine that the water damage to your ceiling was caused by the hail and wind storm in March of 2013? A. I don't know. (Exhibit No. 12 marked for identification.) BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Let me show you what's been marked as Exhibit 12 to your deposition and ask if that's a fair and accurate representation of the roof of your home. A. Yes. Q. It appears that there are different color shingles in the middle of the photograph of the roof. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Do you know why those are different colors? A. No. I assume that's something that -that you-all did -- your side of the people did when they removed the shingles from my home. I mean, if not, I don't know where they come from, VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

if that's what you're asking me. Q. In this lawsuit, are you complaining about the cosmetic appearance of the Atlas Chalet shingles? MR. CHAIKIN: Objection to form. You may answer. A. I'm complaining that it was a defective product that was supposed to have been a 30-year -- had a 30-year warranty, and I expected it, you know, to perform to that expectation; and -- and it hasn't. I mean, due to the cracking and the blistering of the shingle itself and all the grain loss, I mean, I -- I just -- I just -- I don't know what you asked me other than that. BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Well, my question is, besides the performance of the shingle, are you also complaining that the shingles have a poor appearance? A. Yes. Q. Okay. What about the shingles look bad to you? A. I mean, you -- you really can tell there's a color disfiguration, you know, if you stand off further from -- like from the distance VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

31 (Pages 118 to 121)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 32 of 38 Page 122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

from the road. But if you get on the roof itself, you -- you really can tell, and then you can see the cracking and some of the blistering. And I know you can see the grains if you go up there and look in the gutters, you know. It ain't -- it ain't -- it ain't what I want. Q. Do you have to actually be up on the roof to see the cracking, the blistering and the granule loss? A. Yes. Q. On a scale of one to ten, with the best in terms of appearance being a one and a ten being the worst in terms of appearance, how bad do your Atlas Chalet shingles look? A. I'd say about an eight. Q. Okay. Compared to other roofs in your neighborhood, how does your roof look? A. I mean, it doesn't look good. It doesn't look like when I originally purchased the shingles. Q. But if -- if you were comparing it to houses in your neighborhood, does it look worse, about the same -A. I can't speak to -Q. -- better?

Page 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 123 A. I -- I'm sorry. I can't speak for other homes. I can only speak for my home, what I -what I see every day. I mean, it doesn't look good to me. Q. And you don't notice how your roof looked in comparison to some of your neighbors' roofs? A. No. I don't -- I'm not concerned with theirs. Q. Are you aware of whether there are other homes in your neighborhood that have Atlas Chalet shingles? A. No. Q. You don't know one way or another? A. No. Q. Are you aware of anyplace on your roof where water has gotten underneath the shingles or the materials beneath the shingles? A. No. I wouldn't -- I wouldn't know that unless we remove all the shingles from the home. Q. And you haven't done that? A. No. Q. You don't know one way or another -A. No. Q. -- whether or not that's occurred? VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

A. Not at this time. Q. Have your Chalet shingles caused any damage to the property that you own other than the shingles themselves? A. Can you rephrase the question? Q. Yes. Have the Atlas Chalet shingles on your roof caused any damage to other property that you own besides the shingles? A. In the home itself? Is that what you're asking? Q. Yes. A. Not that I can -- I mean, there could possibly be other damages that haven't yet occurred, but the only ones that I can see at this time I made you aware of in -- in my TV room. I'm not saying there's no other damages because I wouldn't know that unless we remove all the shingles from the home. I mean, there could be damages in the wall or anything. I -- I don't know. Q. But you have told us about all the damages that you are, sitting here today, aware of, correct? A. Yes. Q. And those have been, at least as far as VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

you know, confined to the TV room; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Has your roof been inspected by any experts besides the Smith roofing company and the experts hired by Atlas? A. Not that I'm aware of. Q. Has your home been inspected by any experts hired on your behalf by your attorneys? A. No. Q. Do you know whether or not any of the leaks that you've -- strike that. Do you know whether or not any of the damages that you've described to us today are related to improper installation of the roofing shingles or other parts of the roof? A. Are you asking me if the shingles were installed the correct way by the contractor? Q. I'm in -- yes. A. I assume that he installed them, I mean, the correct way because, I mean, he's -- he's a professional contractor, and they appeared to be -- you know, to conform. I mean, they looked nice when he finished the job. Q. Uh-huh (affirmative response). But do you know for sure one way or another whether or VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

32 (Pages 122 to 125)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 33 of 38 Page 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

not any of the leaks and damages that you've described in your home related to the Chalet shingles -- strike that. Do you know for certain whether or not the leaks you've described today allegedly related to the Chalet shingles are, in fact, due to improper installation? MR. CHAIKIN: Object to the form. You may answer if you understand the question. A. Can you rephrase the question again? BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Certainly. Do you know for certain one way or another whether the leaks and damages you've described today are related to improper installation? A. No. Q. Does your attic have ventilation in it? A. When you speak of ventilation, can you -- can you define that for me? Q. I'm not sure I can define ventilation for you, but my question to you would be -- strike that. Do you know if your attic has any parts of it that promote ventilation? A. I'm assuming you're speaking of the part

Page 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 127 in case there's a fire and the firefighters have to come in. And I've seen them on TV knock a hole out where the little square parts of your attic or -- or the ceiling. Is that what you're speaking of? I don't know what you're asking me. MR. CHAIKIN: Yeah. I don't know -BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. I'm -- I'm talking about anything in your attic that is designed to remove hot air from the attic and exhaust it out to the outside. A. I don't know what you're speaking of. Q. Do you know whether or not your attic has any vents that help the hot air get out of the attic? A. I'm not sure what you're speaking of because there's -- there are pipes on the -- on the ceiling, and there's things that I was describing that the firefighters knock out. I -I don't know what you're saying. I don't know what you're speaking of. Q. Do you know what a vent is, like a -A. Yeah. Like an air vent -Q. Yes. A. -- in the ceiling for the air to come VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

out of? Q. Well, in the attic. Are you aware of whether or not there are any vents in the attic to the outside designed to take the hot air from the attic out to the -- into the open space outside? MR. CHAIKIN: I think he's testified he doesn't know whether or not there are vents, so I don't know if there's anything further to ask him with respect to that other than you've asked whether or not he knows if there's any ventilation or vents, and he doesn't know the answer one way or the other. BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Do you know whether or not there's any attic fan designed to take the hot air out of your attic? A. What I can tell you about an attic fan, I am familiar with an attic fan. When I moved in the home, there appears to be an attic fan in the home. But whether or not that attic fan is up there, I never -- I never been up there to see if an attic fan is up there. I can tell that it has a portion of the home that's cut out in the ceiling, what appears to be where an attic fan -- but I've never VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

used an attic fan. From day one I moved in the house, my -- my house has always been air conditioned cooled and heated cooled (sic), so I have no purpose of using an attic fan. Q. And you've never turned the attic fan on? A. Never. Q. And you've never checked to see if the attic fan works? A. Never. Q. And you don't know the last time that it did work, correct? A. Uh-uh (negative response). That's correct. Q. Are you aware that along the ridge line of your roof, there are several places where there are different colored shingles? A. No, I'm not. Only time I've become aware of it is -- is the picture you just recently presented to me, and I just assumed those was the shingles that you guys that came and inspected the portion of the home had taken up and then put back down. Q. And I'm actually talking about the -the very apex of the roof where the roof -- the VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

33 (Pages 126 to 129)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 34 of 38 Page 130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

ridge line runs. And I -- that's the portion of the roof I'm referring to. A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Okay. But you're not aware of any green-colored shingles that are different from the rest of the roof shingles that have been used to create the ridge cap? A. No. MR. RAGLAND: Can we go off the record? VIDEOGRAPHER: Off record. The time is 2:03 p.m. (A short recess was taken.) VIDEOGRAPHER: We're on record and the time is 2:13. (Exhibit No. 13 marked for identification.) BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Mr. Brooks, let me show you what's been marked as Exhibit 13 to your deposition, and ask if you recognize that as a diagram that you wrote on in April 10 of 2014. Does that look correct? A. Yes. Q. Is this a diagram of your home? A. Yes. Appears to be.

Page 132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 131

Q. With respect to what you've written at the top of the diagram, it says, "Section of home that was damaged due to water leakage." Do you see where it says that? A. Yes. Q. In connection with the video, Exhibit 6, that you testified to about today, where are the places that you've drawn arrows to? A. Those are basically the same places that I identified earlier with the exception there -Q. Could you hold that up a little better for the videographer? A. (Witness complies.) Q. Thank you. A. With the exception that somewhere along in this area, there appears to be, you know, a one-time water damage (indicating). Q. The water stain? A. Yeah, the stain. And then like I said, if you look very close somewhere along in this area -- I have shelves in that room. You have to look over the shelves, and it seem to be what appears to be water in that area. Q. And that has not been repaired today? A. No. VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Q. And could you tell us where the longest arrow there points to? Is that the -- the doorjamb? A. No. The longest area is -- I guess you would say that's a valet right there. It's where I assisted my friend, Sethimas Parker, to replace the shingles that we removed. Q. Yes. And I'm sorry. The longest arrow at the top of the page, where does that point to? A. Oh, that would be the area close to the -- to the doorway he was speaking of that leads to the -- the dining room area. Q. So is that where the water was leaking in the video? A. Yes. Q. All right. And the shorter of the two arrows at the top of the diagram, what does that point to? A. That's -- that's the point -- part where you had the yellow streak, you know. And -- and I might have wrote the word "water leakage," but actually, it was the stain, you know. It was a big, yellow stain right there (indicating). Q. And that has been repaired at the expense of Allstate, correct? VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Yes. But it has since reoccurred. Q. Okay. Where has it reoccurred? A. Right in that area where it says -- the shortest area -- arrow line is pointing down right there (indicating). Q. Where would the outside door be on that diagram? A. I'm not sure if that's 19 right there. Like I said, as soon as you come in that door to your right, if you look up at the ceiling, you can tell it has begun, you know, to start forming the little yellow line again. Q. And those arrows that you have on the top of portion of the diagram, am I correct that both of those areas are covered by the rolled asphalt flat portion of your roof, correct? A. That's correct. (Exhibit No. 14 marked for identification.) BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. Let me show you what's been marked as Exhibit 14 to your deposition, and ask if you recognize those as your supplemental answers to defendant's first set of interrogatories; is that correct? VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

34 (Pages 130 to 133)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 35 of 38 Page 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Yes. Q. And you have verified those as true and correct on the last page; is that right? A. Yes. Q. To the best of your knowledge, all the answers you've given here in these supplemental answers to your -- to our interrogatories are true and correct? A. To the best of my knowledge, yes. Q. All right. With respect to supplemental response to interrogatory No. 7, on Page 2, it states, "We believe that plaintiff's response is adequate. In addition, a faulty shingle led to a leak in Mr. Brooks' informal living room near the front of the home. Plaintiff has made a video of the damage and provided the amount of repairs required to replace the faulty shingle." Do you see where it says that? A. Yes. Q. When you talk about the informal living room, does that mean the same thing as the TV room as you've testified -A. Yes. Q. -- today? A. Yes.

Page 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 135

Q. Informal living room is the TV room? A. Yes. Q. In your lawsuit complaint, you have alleged against Atlas a claim for fraud; is that correct? A. Yes. Do you -- I mean, what are you asking me? Q. I'm asking if you have alleged a claim for fraud against Atlas. A. I'm claiming that they -- they sold a defective product, which is called Chalet shingle. And it had a 30-year warranty on it, and it's not living up to expectations because of the cracking, the blistering, and the grains that are coming from the shingle itself. Q. Are you also aware that you have claimed that Atlas committed fraud? A. I would think that's fraud if -- if -you know, if they're advertising it to be such a product and it's not. Q. What, if anything, has Atlas said or done that misled you? A. They -- they put out a shingle that's supposed to have been a 30-year shingle, and it's not performing to what they said it should be. VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Q. Okay. You said they put out a 30-year shingle, and it hasn't been performing -A. Well, it has written on the cover 30-year warranty. And like I said, when I first hired the contractor, I wanted a long-lasting shingle that looks good. And to me, I mean, that hasn't met my expectations. Q. Other than that there was a "30-year warranty," did Atlas make any representations to you before you bought the shingles? A. Not that I'm aware of, no. Q. Do you have any evidence that, at the time you bought the shingles, Atlas intended to conceal anything from you? A. No. Q. If a blister or cracking develops on an asphalt roofing shingle, is it always the result of a defect in the shingle? A. I don't know. Q. In this lawsuit, are you claiming any -strike that. Are you seeking any compensation in this lawsuit due to mental anguish or emotional distress because of any acts or omissions of Atlas? VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Can you rephrase that question? Q. In this lawsuit, are you seeking any compensation due to mental anguish or emotional distress? A. I'm seeking compensation for the damages that occurred and that may reoccur over a long period of time, and I'm asking for the compensation for the removal and disposal of the roof that is -- the shingles that are on there at this time. And I'm seeking compensation for them to -- to cover the whole roof, a new roof, with a -- you know, with at least a 30-year warranty. And, I mean, I understand that not only that -- am I representing myself, I'm representing other members in this class action lawsuit here in Mississippi. Q. Other than what you've just described, are you seeking any other damages in this lawsuit? A. I just want to be compensated and made -- and whole for what Atlas, you know, is -for their defective product. Q. Other than what you've described as what you're seeking compensation for, are there any other damages that you're seeking in the lawsuit? VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

35 (Pages 134 to 137)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 36 of 38 Page 138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Like I said, I wouldn't be able to determine any other damages unless we remove all the shingles from the home itself. Then we might can determine, you know, where other damages may exist. Q. And you're referring to damage that might have been caused to the property? A. Yes. Q. You're not seeking in this lawsuit any compensation due to emotional distress or mental anguish; is that right? A. No. I mean, but -MR. CHAIKIN: That's fine. A. I -- I understand. I mean, I just want to make -- you know, I want Atlas to cover what I said about the removing -- disposal of the shingles, make me whole -- a new roof, and, I mean, just for the property damage itself that might be in other areas. That's what I'm asking. BY MR. RAGLAND: Q. You haven't sustained any physical personal injuries as a result of anything Atlas has done, correct? A. No. Q. You mentioned earlier that -- strike

Page 140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 139 that. Did you -- strike that. Were you ever requested by Atlas to -- strike that. When you were making your warranty claim with Atlas, did the claims representative ask you to send in photographs of your roof or the damage from the leaks? A. I believe she did. Q. Did you ever do that? A. Not that I'm aware of, no. Q. I believe you said that you contacted your attorney that's representing you here today or their law firm; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Approximately when was that? A. I -- I can't recall. I know it was sometime after I talked with Atlas and they wanted me to remove the shingles -- the three shingles, I believe it was. And I told them I'm uncomfortable with doing that and if they could just send someone out to inspect the home. And she made me aware that, you know, the only way I can have a complete claim is that I fill the information out and do it in a VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

timely manner. And after that, I -- you know, I was fed up with it, so I looked at -- to seek representation. Q. All right. A. I can't define a certain date and time that I did that, but it was during that time when I spoke with Atlas. Q. How did you find the particular attorneys that you ended up hiring? A. On the computer at work. Q. How did you go about looking for them? A. When I put in Atlas and got the number and -- I think I must have seen something that says something about a civil suit. And -- and I just saw a number where it say contact an attorney. Q. Have you been promised anything for serving as a named plaintiff or a punitive class representative in this lawsuit beyond what other claimants might receive? A. No. Q. Do you know anyone else who is a claimant or a punitive claimant in this lawsuit? A. No. Q. Do you know any of the other named VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Page 141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

plaintiffs or punitive class representatives in any of the other lawsuits brought against Atlas that have been consolidated for pretrial matters in Atlanta? A. No. Q. Do you know of any homeowners who are not residents of Mississippi that own homes in Mississippi that have Atlas Chalet shingles? A. No. Q. Have you personally observed the cracking and blistering on the Atlas Chalet shingles on your roof? A. Yes. The day of when the Allstate expert roofer came out, he pointed them out to me and made me aware of them, yes. Q. Is it correct that the blistering and cracking of the shingles on your roof are on the overlay portion of the shingle as opposed to the base shingle? A. I'm not understanding your question. Q. Are you aware that Atlas Chalet shingle is composed of a base shingle and then an overlay portion of it which is raised up off of the base shingle? A. No. VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

36 (Pages 138 to 141)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 37 of 38

TAB 1

Page 142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. You don't know that? A. No. Q. And you don't know one way or another whether I'm correct that the blistering and cracking on your shingles is only on the overlay portion? A. No. MR. RAGLAND: Mr. Brooks, we reserve the right to continue your deposition if the facts warrant. I don't have any more questions for you at this time. Thank you very much for your testimony today. THE WITNESS: Thank you. MR. CHAIKIN: I have no questions. We will read. Thank you very much. VIDEOGRAPHER: Off record. The time is 2:30 p.m. (Ended at 2:30 p.m.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

Noble Brooks, Jr., v. Atlas Roofing Corp. Noble Brooks, Jr. INSTRUCTIONS TO THE WITNESS Please read your deposition over carefully and make any necessary corrections. You should state the reason in the appropriate space on the errata sheet for any corrections that are made. After doing so, please sign the errata sheet and date it. You are signing same subject to the changes you have noted on the errata sheet, which will be attached to your deposition. It is imperative that you return the original errata sheet to the deposing attorney within thirty (30) days of receipt of the deposition transcript by you. If you fail to do so, the deposition transcript may be deemed to be accurate and may be used in court.

1990795 VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

Page 143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER I, Todd J. Davis, Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the County of Madison, State of Mississippi, hereby certify that the foregoing pages contain a true and correct transcript of the testimony of NOBLE BROOKS, JR., as taken by me in the aforementioned matter at the time and place heretofore stated, as taken by stenotype and later reduced to typewritten form under my supervision to the best of my skill and ability by means of computer-aided transcription. I further certify that under the authority vested in me by the State of Mississippi that the witness was placed under oath by me to truthfully answer all questions in this matter. I further certify that I am not in the employ of or related to any counsel or party in this matter and have no interest, monetary or otherwise, in the final outcome of this matter. Witness my signature and seal this the 5TH day of MARCH, 2015. ________________________ TODD J. DAVIS, CSR #1406 My Commission Expires: March 27, 2017 VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Noble Brooks, Jr., v. Atlas Roofing Corp. Noble Brooks, Jr. ERRATA ----PAGE LINE CHANGE ___ ___ ________________ Reason:_______________________________________ ___ ___ ________________ Reason:_______________________________________ ___ ___ ________________ Reason:_______________________________________ ___ ___ ________________ Reason:_______________________________________ ___ ___ ________________ Reason:_______________________________________ ___ ___ ________________ Reason:_______________________________________ ___ ___ ________________ Reason:_______________________________________ ___ ___ ________________ Reason:_______________________________________ ___ ___ ________________ Reason:_______________________________________ ___ ___ ________________ 1990795 VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

37 (Pages 142 to 145)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-3 Filed 12/30/15 Page 38 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TAB 1

Noble Brooks, Jr., v. Atlas Roofing Corp. Noble Brooks, Jr. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEPONENT I, ______________________, do hereby certify that I have read the foregoing pages and that the same is a correct transcription of the answers given by me to the questions therein propounded, except for the corrections or changes in form or substance, if any, noted in the attached Errata Sheet. __________ DATE

________________________ SIGNATURE

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____________ day of ______________, 20__. My commission expires: _________________ ____________________________ Notary Public

1990795 VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

38 (Page 146)

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-4 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 5 MS WARRANTY CLAIMS Date Claim Filed

Bates # ATLS00007242

2006

19

Claim #

ATLS00012597 ATLS00014925 ATLS00019399 ATLS00021243 ATLS00023876 ATLS00029543 ATLS00013776

2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007

79 105 154 170 202 268 93

ATLS00015019 ATLS00013078 NF ATLS0000982 ATLS0000950 ATLS0000932

2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009

110 85 133 253 376 428

ATLS00038548 ATLS00039028 ATLS00040229 ATLS00040426 ATLS00000136 ATLS00000132 ATLS00000131 ATLS00000123 ATLS00043518 ATLS00000109 ATLS00045024 ATLS00045276 ATLS00000101 ATLS00000096 ATLS00000094 ATLS00000091 ATLS00000084 ATLS00000061

2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

402 412 433 434 458 464 467 492 510 524 540 542 548 557 560 569 589 627

ATLS00057422 ATLS00000027 ATLS00058922

2010 2010 2010

750 768 778

Homeowner FERGUSON, ALVIN JACOBS, WILLIAM KERSEY, MARC CUMMINS KRISTY WELLS, JOHN NEWSON, BILL T. ISBELL, DAVID MONTEITH STURGIS O'KEEFE MICHAEL AND TINA MCKINNEY, ELLIOTT FOSTER HUGH BULLARD, RICKY COKE, HARRY PLEASANTS, GLENN RUSSELL, GLYNN & MARY ANN BONDS, RALPH REESOR, RON REESOR, RON PEMBROKE, TEN VAN REDEN, BRIAN CUNNINGHAM, RITA DUNN, JONATHAN BURSI, CHRIS DAVIS, PATRICIA WORTHY, FREDERICK ROGERS, KIESHA GULLETT, DANA MEINE, KERRI LANE, SANDY SHULL, TOMMY BELEW, LISA HAND, MIKE GOOS SHAWN & RICHARDS COLETTE WARD, MARK HALE, MICHAEL

Address 2084 LEGEND DRIVE 10095 CYPRESS PLANTATION DRIVE S 212 PALMER COVE 6181 ASBURY PLACE 4172 REBEKAH 6167 ASBURY PLACE 8814 OAK GROVE BLVD 8284 STAR LANDING

City

State MS

QC Code Brand 16 CHALET Weathered Wood

OLIVE BRANCH HERNANDO OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH LAKE CORMORANT

MS MS

16 16, 18 16 16 16 16 16

CHALET CHALET Weatherd Shake CHALET Weathered Shake CHALET CHALET Weatherd Shake CHALET CHALET Weathered Shake

208 ELKWOOD LANE 4841 WEDGWOOD DRIVE 3630 TANNA COVE 181 LODI ROAD 2430 THOUSAND OAKS DRIVE 10466 SANFORD DRIVE

HERNANDO OLIVE BRANCH HERNANDO WINONA HERNANDO OLIVE BRANCH

MS MS

16 21 18 21 16, 20 16

CHALET Colonial Black CHALET Weatherd Shake CHALET Weathered Wood CHALET Colonial Black CHALET Graystone CHALET Weathered Shake

6046 ASBURY DRIVE 4011 DAVIS ROAD 40 FORKED CREEK PKWY 216 FAWN NORTH 4282 GENEVIEVE DRIVE 2504 STONE BROOK DRIVE 4453 GRAHAM LAKE 6328 IVY TRAILS DRIVE 4660 DIXIE LYNN 2895 LIVERPOOL LANE 6270 SADDLETRAIL 6282 SADDLETRAIL DRIVE 10194 LAZY CREEK DR 4682 NANCE PLACE 7360 GRANDIFLORA DRIVE 3118 MARCIA LOUISE DR 7135 W. NAIL ROAD 2449 LEGENDS DRIVE N.

OLIVE BRANCH SOUTHAVEN HERNANDO HERNANDO SOUTH HAVEN NESBIT OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH SOUTHAVEN SOUTH HAVEN OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH SOUTH HAVEN WALLS NESLIT

MS MS MS MS

16 16 16

MS MS MS MS MS

MS MS MS MS MS MS

16 16 16 16 16, 21 16, 20 16, 18, 21 16, 20, 21 16 18 16, 21 16 16 16, 21

CHALET Weathered Shake CHALET Graystone CHALET Graystone CHALET Weathered Shake CHALET Graystone CHALET Graystone CHALET Graystone CHALET Weathered Wood CHALET Weathered Shake CHALET Weathered Shake CHALET CHALET CHALET Graystone CHALET Colonial Black CHALET Graystone CHALET Ars Heather Blend CHALET Colonial Black CHALET Graystone

4495 CHALICE DRIVE 1657 HEADIN LANE 6867 TERRY CHASE DRIVE

SOUTHAVEN SOUTH HAVEN OLIVE BRANCH

MS MS MS

18 16, 18 16, 21

CHALET Weathered Shake CHALET Weathered Wood CHALET Weathered Wood

NESBIT

MS MS MS MS MS

MS MS MS MS

MS MS MS

TAB 2

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-4 Filed 12/30/15 Page 2 of 5 MS WARRANTY CLAIMS ATLS00000020 ATLS00000001 ATLS00007940 ATLS00009489 ATLS0000816 ATLS00018317

2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011

790 856 26 31 56 144

SMITH, MARK POTEMPA, PATRICK FOOTE, ROBERT MCCOY, DONALD ROUNDTREE, ANTONIO COBB, CHARLES

6782 JESSIE HOYT 4117 DESTIN DRIVE 6853 TERRY CHASE DRIVE 4330 GENEVIEVE DRIVE 8968 OAKGROVE BLVD 4894 ISABEL DRIVE

OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH SOUTHAVEN OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH

MS MS MS MS MS MS

18 16 18 16, 18, 20 18 16

CHALET CHALET Weathered Wood CHALET Weathered Wood CHALET CHALET CHALET Graystone

ATLS00035820 ATLS00088735 NF

2011 2011 2011

362 422 422

5295 ROLLING PINE CIRCLE 6313 COLEMAN ROAD 6313 COLEMAN RD

ATLS00041600 ATLS00138186 ATLS00049384 ATLS000056167

2011 2011 2011 2011

465 554 613 729

ATLS00058187

2011

767

BRANDON BILL ( GARAGE) RUTLEDGE, NORMA RUTLEDGE NORMA COLLIER, WILLIAM & DONNA MCCLURE, LINDA CLARK, SHERITA VAN ATTA, FRANCES SHIRLEY DALE AND JANIECE ATWOOD

OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH

MS MS

16, 18 16, 21

MS

16

CHALET Ars Graystone CHALET CHALET Weathered Wood

7825 BETHEL ROAD 4470 CENTERHILL ROAD 9210 GEE GEE DRIVE 12850 PINE NEEDLE COVE

OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH

MS

16 16, 21 16 16, 18

CHALET Weathered Wood STRATFORD CHALET CHALET

4984 WEDGEWOOD DR

OLIVE BRANCH

MS

CHALET Weathered Shake

MCCARVER, RICKY ARGUIN, HENRY CANTRELL, LUKE HODGE, KENNETH NIX, RENATA THORNTON, DANA

2902 DAWKINS DRIVE 2647 EVANS WAY 119 DUDLEY PLACE 4933 FOGG ROAD S 4138 DOCKERY DRIVE 6212BERKSHIRE CIRCLE

SOUTHAVEN OLIVE BRANCH BYHALIA HERNANDO OLIVE BRANCH SOUTHAVEN

MS MS MS

MS

21 16, 18, 20, 21 16, 20, 21 16 21 16, 20 18, 20

ATLS00058316 ATLS00061168 ATLS00012309 ATLS00001678 ATLS00016070 ATLS00001501

2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012

768 910 75 87 119 498

ATLS00001439

2012

647

13598 WHIOSPERING PINE DRIVE OLIVE BRANCH

MS

16

CHALET Graystone

725 762 922 26 57 101

PEGRAM, ROBERT EDWARDS, GEORGE & SHIRLEY AGUARDO, MARK GRISFUS, MIKE KING, GARY & ELIZABETH BROWN, ROBERT DANIEL, JEFFREY & TINA

ATLS00055620 ATLS00001371 ATLS00001343 ATLS00007912 ATLS00002342 ATLS00084465 ATLS00002321 7 ATLS00198964 ATLS00136742 ATLS00092712 ATLS00002049 ATLS00002033

2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013

6230 COLEMAN ROAD 4584 CENTER HILL ROAD 12556 RIVER BEND DRIVE 120 FAWN DRIVE NORTH 4056 AMHERST DRIVE 1901 JONES AVENUE

OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH HERNANDO OLIVE BRANCH GULFPORT

MS

18, 20 21 16 16, 18, 21 16 21

CHALET Graystone CHALET CHALET Graystone CHALET Graystone CHALET CHALET

2013 2013 2013 2013 2013

126 340 377 515 551

PEACOCK, LANCE LEWIS, KEVIN MEACHUM, CHARLES BUTLER, LARRY CRIMMINS, BRENDA

6621 MEADOWBROOK PLACE 260 WILDWOOD TRAIL 9963 DOROTHY DRIVE 190 NORTH STAR DRIVE 6245 ASBURY PLACE

OLIVE BRANCH PETAL OLIVE BRANCH HERNANDO OLIVE BRANCH

MS

16, 18 18 18 16

CHALET Graystone CHALET CHALET CHALET CHALET Graystone

ATLS00046568 ATLS00001983 ATLS00001980

2013 2013 2013

570 638 642

KUNKEL CAROLYN MATTHEWS, BILL GATLIN, JOEY

8269 PLANTATION POINT COVE 4089 DESTIN DRIVE 10165 CYPRESS KNEE

OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH

MS MS MS

16,18,21 18 18

CHALET Weathered Shake CHALET Graystone CHALET Graystone

MS MS MS

MS MS

MS MS MS MS MS

MS MS MS MS

CHALET Weathered Wood CHALET Heather Blend CHALET Graystone CHALET CHALET CHALET Colonial Black

TAB 2

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-4 Filed 12/30/15 Page 3 of 5 MS WARRANTY CLAIMS ATLS00001957 ATLS00001835 ATLS00001828 ATLS00001711 ATLS00002472 ATLS00061993

2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014

698 875 884 966 4 100 428

BAUMAN, DIANA GARRIS, JOHN MAYES, BEN DENLEY, PAUL HARTNETT, TODD CURRY, DONALD KENDRICK, JANET

ATLS00158352 ATLS00147637

2014 2014 2014

505 880 1024

ATLS00181099 ATLS00158266

2014 2014

1154 1161

ATLS00190129

2015

194

ATLS00190165

2015

195

ATLS00173877 ATLS00174026 ATLS00187464 ATLS00174315 ATLS00172781 ATLS00173028 & ATLS00173033 ATLS00173182

2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015

ATLS00158216 ATLS00144117

Total Claims: 90

9077 RUE ORLEANS LANE 2450 APPLETON DRIVE 5802 MARLIN PLACE 10273 COLLEGE ROAD 9806 LESLIE LANE 4888 GRAZELAND COVE 2013 PLUMAS DRIVE

OLIVE BRANCH SOUTHAVEN OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH NESBIT

MS MS MS MS MS MS

18, 21 18 16, 18 18, 21 18 16, 21

CHALET Heatherstone Gray CHALET Graystone CHALET Graystone CHALET Heather Blend CHALET Weathered Wood CHALET Weathered Wood CHALET

MS

18

VINTAGE HOMES (MODEL) 6012 VERA LANE WEBB STEVEN 9628 AUSTIN DRIVE POLLARD, MARSHALL 6341 SADDLE TRAIL DRIVE

OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH

MS MS MS

18 21 18, 20, 21

CHALET CHALET Ars Weathered Wood CHALET

7300 THOMAS DRIVE 5540 CORY COVE

OLIVE BRANCH HORN LAKE

MS MS

16, 18, 21 16, 18

CHALET CHALET

13947 RIVER GROVE LANE

OLIVE BRANCH

MS

18, 21

CHALET

13921 RIVER GROVE LANE

OLIVE BRANCH

MS

18, 21

CHALET

507 601 750 768 830

MARTIN, CORRY & MAMIE DAVIS, VANESSA KOSTKA INVESTMENT COMPANY KOSTKA INVESTMENT COMPANY ESTATE OF MARSHALL REED EDWARDS, CLIFTON DANLEY, JOHN SPANN, BOAZ PRUITT, TIM (SHOP)

502 N. THUNDERBIRD DRIVE 418 TWISTED OAK COVE 6029 COLEMAN ROAD 4240 DOCKERY DRIVE 8820 TURKEY CREEK DRIVE

HERNANDO RICHLAND OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH

MS MS MS MS MS

18 16 16, 21 18 16

CHALET CHALET CHALET CHALET CHALET

904 940

MEABON, GARLAND BRIGGS, MARVIN

7299 GRANDIFLORA DRIVE 4320 SHARON DRIVE

OLIVE BRANCH HORN LAKE

MS MS

16, 21 18, 20

CHALET CHALET

TAB 2

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-4 Filed 12/30/15 Page 4 of 5

TAB 2

NATIONAL WARRANTY CLAIMS

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Claims 1 5 24 57 40 96 165 271 498 525 310 548 744 663 713

# of Claims 800 700 600 500 400

# of Claims

300 200 100 0 2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-4 Filed 12/30/15 Page 5 of 5

NATIONAL WARRANTY CLAIMS

Blistering Granule Loss Leaking Cracking

3307 1386 504 1573

BY QC CODE Blistering

Granule Loss

Leaking

23%

49% 7%

21%

Cracking

TAB 2

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas

TAB 3

Page 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

CASE NO.:

1:13-md-02495-TWT

-----------------------------------------------X IN RE:

ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION CHALET SHINGLE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to All Actions -----------------------------------------------X

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF GLYNESE R. THOMAS Atlanta, Georgia September 18, 2014

Reported by: JoRita B. Meyer, RPR, RMR, CRR, CCR

Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 2 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 2 1 2 3

September 18, 2014 9:58 a.m.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Videotaped Deposition of GLYNESE R. THOMAS, held at the offices of Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, 271 17th Street N.W., Atlanta, Georgia, pursuant to Notice, before JoRita B. Meyer, a Registered Professional Reporter, Registered Merit Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, and Certified Court Reporter for the State of Georgia.

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont'd.) PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.P. Attorneys for MDL Plaintiffs 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112 504.355.0086 BY: CHRISTOPHER L. COFFIN, ESQ. [email protected]

WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP Attorneys for MDL Plaintiffs 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 BY: DANIEL K. BRYSON, ESQ. [email protected] (Departed at 3:46 p.m.)

ALSO PRESENT: Bobby Riddle, Videographer

Page 3 1

A P P E A R A N C E S:

2

WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP Attorneys for MDL Defendant Atlas Roofing Corporation 271 17th Street, N.W. Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30363-1017 404.888.7435 BY: JOEL G. PIEPER, ESQ. [email protected] BY: JENNIFER S. COLLINS, ESQ. [email protected] BY: WILLIAM M. RAGLAND, JR., ESQ. [email protected] (Departed at 11:15 a.m.) BY: HENRY BUIST SMYTHE, JR., ESQ. P O Box 999 Charleston, SC 29492 [email protected] (Departed at 12:23 p.m.)

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

///

TAB 3

Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

(September 18, 2014, 9:58 a.m.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the record. My name is Bobby Riddle. I'm a videographer for Golkow Technologies. Today's date is September 18, 2014, and the time is 9:58 a.m. This deposition is being held in Atlanta, Georgia, in the matter of Atlas Roofing Corporation Chalet Shingle Products Liability Litigation, for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The deponent is Glynese Thomas Ward. Counsel, please identify yourselves. (Whereupon, appearances were entered on the video record) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The court reporter is JoRita Meyer and will now swear in the witness. GLYNESE R. THOMAS, called as a

2 (Pages 2 to 5) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 3 of 81

TAB 3

Glynese R. Thomas Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

witness, having been duly sworn by a Certified Court Reporter, was examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Good morning, ma'am. A. Good morning. Q. My name is Chris Coffin. We met before the deposition. Actually, we met years ago. A. Yes. MR. COFFIN: Before we start your deposition, initially off the record, I talked with Mr. Pieper about the ground rules that we'll have for objections in this deposition and depositions in the MDL going forward. And we've agreed that counsel will make objections only to the form of the question and will reserve their right for further objections at an appropriate time with the court, but that if opposing counsel, who has not made the objection, would like an explanation of the objection,

Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. And it's been Glynese Thomas, correct? A. Correct. Q. Today you go by Glynese Thomas? A. That's correct. Q. And you understand we're here for your deposition today in a case that has been brought by multiple plaintiffs against Atlas Roofing Corporation? A. Yes, I understand that. MR. COFFIN: Okay. Let me mark what will be Exhibit 1. (Exhibit marked: 1) BY MR. COFFIN: Q. And if you can just identify what's been marked as Exhibit 1. MR. PIEPER: Thank you. MR. COFFIN: For most of these, Joel, I have a copy. There are a couple, unfortunately, that I do not have three copies of, but most of them I'll have something for you as well. MR. PIEPER: Okay. BY MR. COFFIN:

Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

that that's appropriate. Is that correct, Mr. Pieper? MR. PIEPER: That's correct. And the only exception would be if there was an instruction not to answer due to a privilege issue. That would be a different objection than merely form. But otherwise, I think that makes sense, Chris. MR. COFFIN: Okay. I agree. Thank you. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Can you please state your full name for the record? A. It's Glynese R. Thomas. Q. And, Ms. Thomas, was your previous name Glynese Ward? A. It was, yes. Q. And when did you change your name? A. In September 2007. Q. Okay. And so since the time you've worked at Atlas Roofing Corporation, your name has been Glynese Ward, correct? A. That's correct.

Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Ms. Thomas, have you seen this document before? A. I may have briefly seen it. Q. Okay. This is the notice of your deposition and it's also a request to produce particular documents. If you turn to the second page, there are document requests on there. Can you just look through those? A. Uh-huh. Q. Okay? A. Okay. Q. Have you obtained any of these documents and brought them with you to your deposition today? A. I have not. Q. Okay. Your counsel has provided me with some documents that appear to be from your employment file. Have you looked at these documents at all? A. Yes, I have reviewed them. MR. COFFIN: Okay. So, Mr. Pieper, I understand that you've provided some of the documents that were requested. Are there any documents you did not

3 (Pages 6 to 9) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 4 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

produce? MR. PIEPER: There -- the documents that were not produced would be documents that had been previously requested and would be described on our privilege log. There were, as I recall, some documents in the employment file that were not produced and that we will also describe in the privilege log. They are unrelated to anything in the case. Financial forms, tax withholding, things like that. But anything that could have any relevance to this case -MR. COFFIN: Okay. MR. PIEPER: -- we've gone ahead and produced. MR. COFFIN: Okay. Well, let's mark as Exhibit 2 the document that your counsel provided and has represented that is responsive to those requests. (Exhibit marked: 2) MR. PIEPER: Chris, I think that the -- the documents, other than the personnel file, would only be one

Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

documents in here that I reviewed and just the -- just some documents that our attorney had for -- I don't even remember which it was. Q. Okay. MR. PIEPER: I can -- I can tell you that she hasn't reviewed anything that hasn't been produced in the case. THE WITNESS: Yeah. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Well, that's okay. My question is: What did you review to prepare for your deposition? A. I did look over the plaintiff files. Q. Okay. When you say "the plaintiff files," you mean the plaintiffs who had filed suit? A. The named -- yes. Q. I'm sorry. Go ahead and finish. A. The named plaintiffs. I believe there were probably six or seven files that I just briefly looked over. Q. Okay. And they were the claim files for the particular plaintiffs that you're aware have filed suit, correct?

Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

organizational chart. The other documents responsive to the other requests would have either been held back as privileged or produced already, but they were already requested or they overlapped with requests that were previously made. MR. COFFIN: Understood. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Ms. Thomas, just to speed this process up, your counsel has made some representations about what's been produced. Why don't we do it this way: If you'll look back at Exhibit 1 -A. Okay. Q. -- in the document requests, the second page, the first one is, "All documents reviewed by deponent in preparing for the deposition." Did you review any documents to prepare for today's deposition? A. Yeah, I did review some. Q. Okay. What did you review? A. There may have been some of these

TAB 3

Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. That's correct, yes. Q. Other than the claim files for the class representatives that you know have filed suit, were there other documents that you have reviewed in preparation for today? A. I looked over some of these documents. Q. Okay. And those appear to be from your personnel file, correct? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. Okay. What documents that you recall from your personnel file did you review for today? A. Some of the reviews, personnel reviews. Q. And when you say "personnel reviews," you mean personnel reviews for you? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. All right. Anything else you reviewed? A. Just basically those documents and looked through some of the plaintiffs that have filed their claims. Q. Okay. What were you looking for in

4 (Pages 10 to 13) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 5 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

the claim files that you reviewed? MR. PIEPER: Let me object. This will get into attorney-client privilege, because we're getting into why she would be looking at a document, and she can't answer this question without getting into attorney-client privileged communications. MR. COFFIN: Okay. MR. PIEPER: The why question is the problem on what you were looking for. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. I appreciate the objection. The question was: Why were you -- well, I believe the question was -- let me rephrase it, see if this makes a difference. What were you looking for in the claims files that you reviewed? MR. PIEPER: I just renew the objection, because to answer, she would have to get into attorney-client privileged communications. MR. COFFIN: Well, I didn't ask her

Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

MR. PIEPER: Okay. MR. COFFIN: -- because at this point, we're now getting into talking a little bit more than I think the court would like us to. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Ms. Thomas, other than the files that you reviewed, the claim files, and your personnel file documents, are there any other documents that you reviewed? A. Not that I can recall. Q. Okay. Did you review any policies or procedures? A. No, I did not. Q. Okay. A. I did not. Q. I'm sorry? A. I did not. Q. Did you bring a copy of your current CV? A. I'm sorry. What is that? Q. Your current résumé? A. I don't have a current résumé, sir. Q. Okay. No problem.

Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

any communications between you or any of her lawyers and her. So I don't think there's any privilege. But I respect that, if that's the objection you want to make. But I'm not asking for communications with you. Do you understand? MR. PIEPER: Yeah, she didn't -- I don't think she is testifying that she did some sort of independent looking through the documents. THE WITNESS: No. MR. COFFIN: Well, we'll reserve our right to come back and ask her that question again if the court determines that it's not clearly attorney-client privileged. How about that? MR. PIEPER: Sure. And just for the record, I don't think she was looking for anything, you know. So to tell you that, she would have to ask me, I think. MR. COFFIN: All right. Let's leave it at that --

TAB 3

Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

You did bring a copy of your personnel file. Did you bring any copies of policies or procedures governing the warranty or claims process at Atlas? A. No, I did not. Q. Such documents do exist, though, correct? A. Could you explain what it is you're asking? What procedures? Q. The warranty claims processing procedures that you use at Atlas. A. I didn't bring any documentation that -- counsel had all of the documents that were produced. MR. COFFIN: Okay. Joel, let's just speed this up. All that's been produced is the information from the employment file, correct? MR. PIEPER: No, we've produced thousands of documents that could be responsive. MR. COFFIN: I mean here. MR. PIEPER: Okay. Yeah, here today, the only thing additional is the

5 (Pages 14 to 17) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 6 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

documents from the personnel file and the org chart. MR. COFFIN: Okay. So there's an organizational chart contained in that? MR. PIEPER: Yeah. I think it's the last, the last document. MR. COFFIN: Okay. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Ms. Thomas, when was the last time you gave a deposition? A. Ten years ago. Q. Did I take your deposition then? A. I believe you may have been. Q. Yes. Wasn't quite ten years ago. A. Well -Q. Approximately? A. (Indicating in the affirmative). Q. Okay. So you haven't taken any depositions since the time I took your deposition, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And that was the one I took in New Orleans, correct? A. To the best of my knowledge, I have

Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

question pending. Does that make sense? A. Yes, it does. Q. I'll ask you to finish the answer and then you can take a break. Okay? A. All right. Q. Okay. Can you briefly describe your employment history with Atlas? A. I began work with Atlas in September of 1992. Q. Okay. A. Consumer service assistant. And in June of 1996, I became the consumer services manager, to present. Q. You have been the consumer -- is it consumer services manager? A. That's correct, yes. Q. Since 1990 -- June of 1996? A. That's correct, yes. Q. And you're currently the consumer services manager today, correct? A. Yes. Q. And what is your role as the consumer

Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

not. Q. Okay. Well, let me refresh you on some of the rules of depositions. Obviously, I'm going to ask you a series of questions. There may be times which your counsel objects, and obviously that's acceptable. But unless your counsel asks you not to answer the question, you should answer the question. A. Okay. Q. Do you understand? A. I do. Q. And I'm entitled to your best answer today. A. Okay. Q. And so if there's any reason that you cannot provide your best answer today, then I need to know that now. Any reason? A. Not that I'm aware of. Q. Okay. I'm happy to give you breaks. If you want to take a restroom break, not a problem. If you want to get up and stretch your legs, not a problem. However, please don't ask to take a break when there's a

TAB 3

Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

services manager? A. I oversee the gathering of claim information and claim processing. Q. And does that include processing of warranty claims? A. Yes, it would include that. Q. Okay. Any other type of claims other than warranty claims that you process within your department? A. Define what you mean by "other claims other than warranty." Q. Well, you process warranty claims, correct? A. Yes, that's -- some. That's part of it, yes. Q. Okay. What's the other part? A. There could be claims that are not under warranty. Q. Okay. How do you define those? A. Claims that do not fit the criteria of the warranty. Q. Is there a certain title that you use within your department to define those claims that do not fit under warranty?

6 (Pages 18 to 21) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 7 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. It's on an individual basis. It has to be investigated to see if it does or does not fall within the warranty terms. Q. Okay. Okay. How many employees are in your department? A. I have four consumer assistants and one lady who works strictly with warranty registration. Q. Okay. Who is the woman who works just with warranty registration? A. Tina Sanders. Q. Okay. And how long has Tina been in your department? A. I believe two years. Q. Okay. Did somebody occupy the position that Tina has prior to her employment with Atlas? A. No, they did not. Q. So that was a new position? A. Yes, it was. Q. Okay. Who are the four consumer associates? A. Gayle Gullette, Lajuana Gray, Kim von Oepen, and Wendy Powell.

Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. When -- they explain -- take telephone calls, various calls with consumers checking status of their claim and asking about the warranty. And they also receive information in from the various plants and put them together for my review. Q. Okay. What type of information do they receive from the plants? A. Whatever the consumer has sent in to the different quality controls, whether it's pertinent information that was requested, in order to investigate a claim. Q. Okay. We'll go into that process a little bit more in depth later -A. Okay. Q. -- but I think I understand their role. Are there any other staff members in your department other than the five people that you've mentioned? A. No, there are not. Q. Okay. And you are the supervisor over the consumer services department, correct? A. That's correct, yes.

Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. And start with Gayle. How long has Gayle been a consumer associate of yours? A. To the best of my knowledge, approximately 15 years. Q. Okay. And I think Lajuana was next? A. Yes. I believe 12 years, close to 12. Q. Okay. And Kim? A. I believe she's been there close to six years. Q. Okay. And Wendy? A. Probably two and a half years. Q. Okay. And what is the role of the consumer associates in your department? A. They take the initial telephone call from a consumer when they call in and gather the needed information to be able to file the claim for investigation with Atlas. Q. So -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. A. That's one of the functions that they have. Q. Okay. What else do they do after they obtain that information?

TAB 3

Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. And as the supervisor, are you responsible for the quality of work that occurs with your staff? A. I'm responsible for overseeing their work, yes. Q. Okay. Fair enough. Who is your supervisor? A. Jeff Fricks. Q. Jeff? A. Uh-huh, Fricks, F-R-I-C-K-S. Q. Okay. And what's Jeff's title? A. He's vice president of finance. Q. Okay. And how long has Jeff been with Atlas? A. Approximately six years, to the best of my recall. Q. And has he been your supervisor that entire six years? A. Yes, he has. Q. Okay. And who was your supervisor prior to Jeff Fricks? A. John Johnson. Q. Okay. And was John's title also VP of finance?

7 (Pages 22 to 25) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 8 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. I believe it was. Q. Okay. And how long was John your supervisor? A. Approximately five years. Q. Okay. And who was before John Johnson? A. Roger Reeves. Q. I recognize that name. And how long and how long was Mr. Reeves your supervisor? A. From 1996 until Mr. John Johnson. I'm not exactly sure on the exact date. Q. Well, give me an approximate year. A. Ten years, maybe. Q. Okay. A. Actually, probably closer to eight years. Q. Chalet Shingles are one of the brands that Atlas has manufactured, correct? A. Yes, it is. Q. And you have received claims regarding Chalet shingles within your department, correct? A. We've received consumer calls regarding reporting a claim.

Page 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

not made until you've obtained all the information and done some investigation into the claim? A. That's correct, yes. Q. Okay. If you do not determine that the claim is a warranty claim, what is the claim called? A. It is a consumer complaint. Q. Okay. Okay. So at some point in the process, the claim either becomes a warranty claim or a consumer complaint? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Are there any other classifications that your department uses for claims that come in other than a warranty claim and a customer complaint? A. No. Q. Okay. So we're clear, when a claim comes in, it eventually at some point is either classified as a warranty claim or a customer complaint, correct? A. There could be instances where it's neither. Q. Okay. Explain what kind of instances

Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. And you've received warranty claims in your department related to the Chalet shingle, correct? A. I couldn't say that they were warranty claims, but we have received complaints or call-ins from consumer reporting. Q. Okay. I think I see the -- I want to get the terminology straight. A. Okay. Q. Because we have all day together -A. Okay. Q. -- and I want to make sure we're communicating properly. When a claim comes in to Atlas, your department and Atlas consider that just a claim, correct? A. At that point, yes. Q. Okay. And then you make a determination as to whether or not that claim is actually a warranty claim, correct? A. Yes, after review of the information. Q. And that -- okay. And the determination as to whether or not that -ultimately, that claim is a warranty claim is

TAB 3

Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

those would be. A. It could be a non-warranted product or, you know, a product that there's no representation to a warranty. Q. Would that be, for example, a product that is not an Atlas product? A. It could be, yes. That's one. Q. Okay. Well, give me another example. A. It could be a downgraded product or a sold as seconds that there's no warranty. Q. So it could be a product that Atlas manufactured but did not have a warranty that accompanied the product? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. So there are potentially three categories that a claim could fall into, either a warranty claim, a customer complaint, or a non-warrantied product? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. Okay. Are there any other categories that a claim could end up in after you've done your investigation? A. No, not that I can think of. Q. Okay. And Chalet is one of the

8 (Pages 26 to 29) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 9 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

products that you've received claims for in your department, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. What type of shingle is a Chalet shingle? A. A Chalet is a three-tab. Q. Are all Chalets three-tab shingles? A. Yes, they are. Q. Has there ever been any other, I guess, design to the shingle other than the three-tab design? A. It's three-tab with an overlay. Q. Okay. I guess what I'm getting at is, has the Chalet shingle in its lifetime being manufactured with Atlas always been a three-tab shingle with an overlay? A. Yes, Chalet has been that. Q. So no other type of Chalet shingle exists other than the three-tab with an overlay? A. No other type of Chalet. Q. No other type of Chalet, correct? A. Uh-huh. Q. That's correct?

Page 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. It has dimension, with the overlay. Q. Right. And -A. It's a three-tab, one-component shingle with an overlay. Q. Okay. So the Chalet shingle is a three-tab dimensional shingle, correct? A. Yes. Q. And the dimension is created by the overlay, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. How many years did Atlas sell the Chalet shingle? A. I believe the Chalet was sold from 1990 -Q. Let me help you. A. '95 or '98. Q. Does it sound correct that Atlas began selling the Chalet shingle in 1998? A. That sounds correct, yes. Q. Okay. And the manufacture of the Chalet shingle by Atlas was discontinued in 2010, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Now, Atlas does manufacture

Page 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. That is correct. Q. Okay. And is it considered an architectural shingle? A. It's a dimensional shingle. Q. Okay. A. And it has a dimensional look. Q. Okay. How does that differ from an architectural shingle? A. Architectural is a term that some roofers apply to a design on a shingle that would give the appearance of dimension. It does not have to be an overlay, though, to be -- to have dimension. There are other types of shingles that, depending on the verbiage of the roofer or the -- the dealers, could be considered architectural. Q. Okay. A. There is no -- to my understanding, there is no something that says this architectural shingle does this, you know, or looks like this. It is usually referred to with any shingle with dimension. Q. Okay. So the Chalet shingle is a dimensional shingle, correct?

TAB 3

Page 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

other dimensional shingles, correct? A. Yes. Two-component shingles, yes. Q. What do you mean by "two-component"? A. They have two parts. Rather than be a three-tab shingle, they have two components that are laminated together to give the dimension. Q. Okay. Has Atlas ever manufactured any other three-tab overlay shingle other than the Chalet? A. The Chalet and -- I'm trying to think. Stratford is another brand name for the Chalet. Q. Okay. What do you mean by that when you say "Stratford is another brand for the Chalet"? A. It was a private label name. Q. Okay. What's a private label name? A. You have a private label that's sold through a specific distributor. Q. And so the Stratford Chalet shingle is a three-tab dimensional shingle, correct? A. Yes. Q. Did I say Stratford Chalet? I meant

9 (Pages 30 to 33) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 10 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

the Stratford shingle. Let me start that over. I'm sorry. Bad question. MR. PIEPER: I think she might be confusing one product name for another. THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. COFFIN: Go ahead. If you want to clear it up, that's fair. MR. PIEPER: I think you were referring to Savannah when you're talking about a private label product. THE WITNESS: Oh, yeah. Okay. MR. PIEPER: Stratford is not the private label product. THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you. MR. COFFIN: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you, Joel. That's fine. MR. PIEPER: Sure. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. When you were referring to the Stratford being a private label product, you misspoke, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. So there is a product called the Savannah shingle that is a private label

Page 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

manufactures or manufactured other than the Chalet and the Stratford? A. No, there is not. Q. Okay. How about the Savannah shingle? That's not a three-tab overlay shingle? A. I don't believe it is. I'm not that familiar with it. Q. Okay. How -- when you receive a claim into your department, how can you differentiate between the Chalet three-tab overlay shingle and the Stratford three-tab overlay shingle? A. There could be a proof of purchase stating that it is a Stratford. Q. Okay. If a three-tab overlay shingle claim is submitted to your department, is it accurate that you know that that claim will either be a Chalet or a Stratford claim? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. Okay. And let's just talk about Chalet for a second. When a Chalet shingle is presented to your department, can you identify that shingle just by looking at it?

Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

product, correct? A. It was, yes. Q. It was. Thank you. Okay. So let me go back. Is it correct that the Stratford shingle is also a three-tab overlay shingle? A. The Stratford shingle, yes. Q. Okay. So it's the same type of shingle as the Chalet shingle, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. What differences are there, if any, between the Chalet shingle and the Stratford shingle? A. There may be some color differences. Q. Okay. Other than color differences, the Stratford shingle and the Chalet shingle are the same shingle? A. As far as I know. Q. Okay. Have you received claims in your department involving the Stratford shingle? A. We may have received a claim. Q. Okay. Are there any other three-tab dimensional overlay shingles that Atlas

TAB 3

Page 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. It doesn't come directly in to our department, but quality control can identify it. Q. Okay. Have you ever seen a Chalet shingle? A. Yes, certainly. Q. Okay. Can you identify it just by looking at it? A. I can identify that it is a Chalet. Q. Okay. And you can because it's a three-tab shingle, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And it has the overlay, correct? A. With the overlay, yes. Q. Okay. And the same question for the Stratford shingle. Could you identify that a shingle is a Stratford shingle if it was presented to you just by viewing it? A. No. Q. Okay. Why is that? A. It could be -- to me, it could be a Chalet. It would need to go to quality control for identification. Q. Okay. Do you have any knowledge as

10 (Pages 34 to 37) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 11 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

to the difference in the make-up of the Chalet versus the Stratford shingle? A. I don't know of any difference. Q. Okay. Is there any difference? A. To the best of my knowledge, no. MR. PIEPER: Object to form. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Okay. Okay. Q. The Savannah shingle does have an overlay, correct? A. Yes. Q. But it's not a three-tab shingle, correct? A. I don't believe it is. Q. The mosaic shingle, it has an overlay, correct? A. I'm not sure. Q. Okay. That's okay. If you don't know, that's fine. Okay. Are there any other three-tab overlay shingles that Atlas has manufactured other than Chalet and Stratford? A. No, there is not. Q. Okay. Your department makes an

Page 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Yes, that's correct. Q. And from the quality control department, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Is there any other source that you use to determine whether a claim is covered under the warranty, other than the consumer and quality control? A. No, just the information that comes in. Q. Okay. Now, how did you become educated about the parameters of what claims would be considered covered under the warranty? A. Just in working in the department as consumer service assistant and training through my consumer services previous manager. Q. Okay. A. And knowledge of the warranty. Q. You've read every one of the warranties that Atlas has produced? A. That's correct, I have. Q. Okay. And do you have a file where you keep those particular warranties? A. I have a copy of the warranties, yes.

Page 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

assessment of each claim that comes in independently, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And for each claim, your department makes the determination as to whether that claim is covered under the warranty, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. In the end, yes. Q. But you obtain information from quality control in order -A. That's correct. All the information gathered would tell us that, yes. Q. Okay. Let me finish my question. A. Sorry. Q. Only because it's going to be a little confusing. So my question is: Your department makes the determination as to whether or not a claim is covered under the warranty, correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And that determination is made after you've gathered information from the consumer, correct?

TAB 3

Page 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. And do you educate your customer service associates on the language in the warranties? A. They are -- they have knowledge of the warranties. Q. Okay. And how do you determine what is or is not covered -- let's just talk about Chalet -- for the Chalet product? A. By the information the consumer gives us -Q. Okay. A. -- initially. And, of course, if we received a product and it was found to be seconds, it would have no warranty. And that would come from quality control identifying that. Q. You said if it was found to be? A. Seconds, material downgraded, material with no warranty. Q. Okay. I don't understand what that means. Can you explain that? A. It could be material or shingles that were downgraded for any number of reasons, but were sold as downgraded material with a clear

11 (Pages 38 to 41) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 12 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

knowledge that there was no warranty. Q. I understand. That's the third category that we discussed earlier? A. Right. That's correct. Q. Okay. To your knowledge, have the warranties that exist for the Chalet shingle changed since the Chalet shingle began being sold by Atlas? A. There has been some warranty terms changed. Q. Okay. Do you know what those are? A. The time frame that Atlas had agreed for the remedy of a problem with the Chalet, the warranty term time frame, was 25 years in the beginning. And it changed to Atlas' agreement to cover a remedy for 30 years at a certain point. Q. Okay. So the -- the warranty that accompanied the Chalet shingle when it was first manufactured was a 25-year warranty, correct? A. The warranty was a period of 25 years, correct. Q. Okay. And Atlas changed that to a

Page 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

warranty, has blistering ever been covered under any of the warranties that existed? A. It would depend on the investigation, what it found. Q. Okay. When you process a claim in your department for any shingle, is the claims procedure for processing that particular claim the same? A. Explain "processing." Q. Well, we talked about that you gather information from the consumer and quality control, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Do you do anything different from claim to claim with regard to how that process works? A. The actual gathering of the information in order to make the determination is the same. Q. Okay. So I'm calling that the process. Okay? A. Uh-huh. Q. What would you call it? A. Just gathering the information to

Page 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

30-year warranty at some point? A. Uh-huh. Q. Do you know when that was? A. I'm not sure exactly the date. I would have to look at the warranty. Q. Okay. Do you know of any other changes to the warranty for the Chalet shingle that have occurred in its lifetime? A. Transferability. Q. Okay. And what changed there? A. There were some changes to the transferability terms to the time frame for a second owner. Q. Okay. A. And that the warranty would only -could only be transferred one time and it had some limitations. Q. Okay. Do you know when that change occurred with the warranty language? A. I'm not exactly sure which warranty it changed. I would have to see the warranty. Q. Okay. And I'll show those to you. A. Uh-huh. Q. In the lifetime of the Chalet

TAB 3

Page 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

qualify the claim as -- to be filed. Q. Okay. So in qualifying a claim that's been filed, do you use the same process within your department regardless of what type of shingle it is? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. Okay. And regardless of where the consumer is from, you use the same process for processing the claim? A. That's correct, for gathering the information, yes. Q. Okay. Does the process change for determining if the claim falls under the warranty or not from shingle to shingle, brand to brand? A. It would not. Q. Okay. So within the Chalet shingle universe, you use the same process to process a claim that comes in to your department, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And from shingle to shingle within the Atlas family of shingles, you use the same process to process claims that come to your

12 (Pages 42 to 45) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 13 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

department, correct? A. That's correct. Q. That's what I was getting at. Were you involved in any of the discussions to change the warranty terms? A. I was -- I read the warranty documents and changes for spelling, verbiage. Q. So you helped with editing of the document? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Did you have any input into how the warranty language should be changed? A. I may have some. Q. Okay. A. Whether it's a suggestion or -Q. Okay. Do you recall any suggestions that you've made to other Atlas employees with regard to the warranty as applicable to the Chalet shingle? A. I don't recall any specifics. Q. Okay. Who creates the language in the warranties for the Chalet shingle? A. Marketing and sales. Q. Okay. And who within marketing and

Page 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. It's available from the distributor at the time of sale. Q. A warranty is available for every Chalet shingle that has been sold by Atlas, correct? A. Yes, until it is proven that it is not a warranted product, either a second or not qualifying, unqualified homeowner. Q. Okay. When the product leaves the manufacturing plant and is distributed, it contains a warranty that is available for the consumer, correct? A. If it is not a second product. Q. Okay. So if it's not a second product, every Chalet shingle was sold with a warranty available, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. When does the warranty become effective for the consumer? A. At the installation of the product. Q. Okay. And is that true with all Chalet shingles, if they are not a second shingle? A. Each Chalet shingle that was

Page 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

sales would have been responsible for the initial drafts of the Chalet warranty? A. I'm trying to remember back. It would have been the marketing director. Q. Okay. The marketing director would have been responsible for drafting the initial warranty language for the Chalet shingle? A. Yes, I believe so. Q. Okay. And who was that in 1998? A. Rick Gelatka. Q. How do you spell Rick's last name? A. G-E-L-A-T-K-A. Q. Is he still with the company? A. He is. Q. Okay. What's he do now? A. I believe he's -- I don't know. I do not know what his title is at this point. Q. Okay. A warranty is provided or has been provided with every Chalet shingle that's been sold by Atlas, correct? A. A warranty is available for every Chalet shingle that is sold. It doesn't come in the packaging with the product. Q. Okay.

TAB 3

Page 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

installed would carry the warranty from the date that it was installed -Q. Okay. A. -- if it was not a second. Q. Okay. And is that true with all shingles that Chalet sells -- excuse me, that Atlas sells? A. That's correct, yes. Q. Okay. So every shingle that Atlas has manufactured and sold has a warranty that is effective upon installation? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And the Chalet shingle is not an exception, correct? A. It is not an exception. MR. COFFIN: Okay. Let's mark what will be Exhibit 3. (Exhibit marked: 3) MR. COFFIN: And, Joel, these are copies of the warranties. Unfortunately, I only have one extra. I apologize. MR. PIEPER: I could probably find a more legible copy if it's difficult to

13 (Pages 46 to 49) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 14 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

read. MR. COFFIN: Well, let's -- let's try to walk through this because, as we've just heard, there are some differences in the warranties from time period to time period. So let's try this first -MR. PIEPER: Okay. MR. COFFIN: -- and then see how it goes. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Ms. Thomas, can you identify what's been marked as Exhibit 3? A. I can. Q. What is it? A. It is a limited shingle warranty. Q. For what products? A. Pinnacle, Chalet, Stratford, StormMaster, Alpine, and GlassMaster. Q. Okay. So this particular warranty covered multiple Atlas products, correct? A. Yes, it did. Q. Including Chalet? A. Yes.

Page 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Where are you looking? I'm sorry. Within the warranty language itself? A. Yes, this doesn't -- okay. MR. PIEPER: If you can't see it, let's get -- let's get a copy that you can read. THE WITNESS: I'm not sure that this is the cover for this warranty. MR. COFFIN: I have another one. MR. PIEPER: Yeah, that's just poor quality or at least not -- it's just so small, I don't think she can see it. MR. COFFIN: Okay. I have another one, but if you wanted to blow that up, that would be okay. How about this? Let me just ask my questions, and then if she needs to refer it and can't read it, we'll blow it up at a break, which will be in just a few minutes. MR. PIEPER: Yeah. That's where I thought we were right now. She's trying to show you the portion that says when it's effective and she can't find it

Page 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. And if you look at the bottom under the Atlas logo to the left, there's a copyright there. Can you see that that says "2006"? A. It's -- I can barely see it, but I believe it's 2006. Q. Okay. And then at the very end of that line, it says "REV705"? A. Revised 7 of '05. Q. Is that what that means? A. Yes, it is. Q. Okay. And every time that the warranty was revised, did Atlas indicate so on that particular warranty? A. Yes, they would have. Q. Okay. So it appears that this warranty was revised in July of '05 and would have gone into effect at that time. Is that correct? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. Okay. A. You need to see what it stated in the warranty, when it becomes effective. It's kind of small, so --

TAB 3

Page 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

because she can't read it. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Okay. So let me ask this: There is a -- there's language in each warranty that indicates when it's effective, correct? A. Yes, it does. Q. Okay. And you've indicated that that is upon installation, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. That's fair enough. Okay. MR. COFFIN: Let me mark Exhibit 4. This might make it a little easier for you to read. This is a larger-print version of it. (Exhibit marked: 4) MR. PIEPER: May I see that, please? MR. COFFIN: Certainly. THE WITNESS: May I see the date? MR. PIEPER: Sure. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Can you identify what's been marked as Exhibit 4?

14 (Pages 50 to 53) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 15 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. I can. Q. Okay. Now, do you see a -- is there a date that you see on there? A. I do. Q. Okay. What is the date? A. January 1, 2002. Q. And where do you see that? A. I see it in the third column. Q. I see it. It says, "This warranty is effective on all product types stated herein and sold in the 1-1-2002?" A. That's correct. Q. So this particular warranty marked as Exhibit 4 would have been in effect in 2002, as of January 1st, 2002, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And the one marked as Exhibit 3 was in effect as of July 2005, correct? A. This is a -- this is a warranty document. This is a cover, and it states 2005. MR. PIEPER: For the record, when she says "this," she's referring to the first page of what was marked as Exhibit

Page 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. And all of the Atlas shingle warranties are limited shingle warranties, correct? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. And what does that mean? A. There are some limitations to the duration and the terms of the warranty. Q. Okay. And there are actually listed limitations of coverage in the warranty itself, correct? A. Yes. That could be part of it, yes. Q. Okay. And where do you see those limitations in coverage in Exhibit 4? A. Beginning at the bottom of the first column would be the named -- some named limitations. Q. Okay. And are those limitations present in every limited shingle warranty that Atlas manufactured? A. I would have to look at them and compare them to see if it was -- each limitation is listed or if it has changed. Q. Okay. So you know that there have been some limitations that have changed?

Page 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

3. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Right. A. So the cover to this warranty may not go with this document. Q. No, I understand that. A. Okay. I wanted to clarify that. Q. I understand. I didn't mean to confuse you. A. Okay. Q. Let's just work with Exhibit 4. A. Okay. Because it is the warranty document. Q. Okay. And the second page of Exhibit 3 is a warranty document, correct? A. That's correct, yes. Q. Okay. So the second page of Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 are both warranty documents, correct? A. That's correct. Q. All right. Let's look at Exhibit 4. And this is a limited shingle warranty, correct? A. Yes, that's correct.

TAB 3

Page 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. There could possibly have been some. Q. You don't know one way or the other? A. No, I do not. Q. Okay. If you look at the second column, which is under the heading "Limitations of Coverage" on Exhibit 4, and you see where the language starts, "The conditions listed in Section C are normal and should be eliminated by natural weathering conditions over a six-month period after application." Do you see that? A. I do. Q. Okay. Now below there, there are listed D, E, F, G and H. Do you see those? A. I do. Q. Okay. And can you read what is listed as limitation E? A. "Damage from any cause other than inherent manufactured defect." Q. Okay. Is it correct that every Atlas warranty pertaining to the Chalet shingle contains a limitation of coverage such as the one that you just stated in E?

15 (Pages 54 to 57) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 16 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

MR. PIEPER: Object to form. THE WITNESS: I would need to see the actual warranty to see if it was contained in it. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Okay. What is your understanding of an inherent manufacturing defect? A. A manufacturing defect is a manufacturing variance that would result in leaks. Q. What is a manufacturing variance? A. A manufacturing, as it's stated here, defect, it is a manufacturing variance that would result in leaks. That's what it would be. Q. Where do you see that language? A. I don't see that language, no. I'm sorry. I thought you asked me what it was. Q. I did. But you said that's as it's stated here. And that's why I asked you where you saw that language. You don't see that particular language, correct? A. Not in E, no, I do not.

Page 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

evaluating a claim, the primary consideration that you and your department have is whether or not there is a manufacturing defect in the shingles that you are analyzing, correct? A. That would be correct. Q. Okay. And that's correct for all Chalet shingles that you analyze, correct? A. Yes, that would be correct. Q. And it's actually correct for all shingles that Atlas manufactures that you analyze in your department? A. That would be correct, yes. Q. Okay. The primary concern is whether or not there's a manufacturing defect, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And if you determine that a claim submitted for a Chalet shingle is not a manufacturing defect, then it is not considered a warranty claim, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And that's true for all the claims that you analyze, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. So there have been changes in

Page 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. Well, is it accurate that Atlas has always warranted the Chalet shingle against manufacturing defects? A. Against manufacturing variances that would cause leaks, yeah. Q. Okay. And if a claim is submitted in which your department determines that the alleged defect is not a manufacturing defect, then it is not considered a warranty claim, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And that's true for every Chalet claim that you evaluate, correct? A. I wouldn't say that. Q. No, you misunderstand my question. The -A. Repeat it, please. Q. I will. The analysis as to whether or not the Chalet shingle claim is a warranty claim always involves determination as to whether there is a manufacturing defect or not? A. Yes, as far as the -- yes. Evaluation, yes. Q. Right. In other words, when you are

TAB 3

Page 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

the warranties for Chalet over time, correct? A. That's correct, yes. Q. But regardless of which warranty was in effect, you are always making a determination as to whether or not the Chalet shingle claim submitted constitutes a manufacturing defect or not? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. That hasn't changed since the Chalet shingle was manufactured, correct? A. It has not changed. Q. Okay. There are some other variances in the -- I should say there are some other changes in the warranty, but the determination as to whether or not there's a manufacturing defect in the product has not changed, correct? A. That's correct. MR. COFFIN: Okay. Let me just, for completeness' sake, go ahead and mark Exhibit 5. (Exhibit marked: 5) MR. PIEPER: I'm not able to read that. Can you read that?

16 (Pages 58 to 61) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 17 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

MR. COFFIN: We'll blow them up. MR. PIEPER: Yeah, it's really unfair to ask her questions if she can't read it, Chris. MR. COFFIN: I understand. THE WITNESS: I have another pair of readers I might try and see. MR. PIEPER: Well, if he has another copy, we can do that; or I can find a copy of it that would be legible. MR. COFFIN: Let me just have her identify this and then I won't ask other questions about it right now. MR. PIEPER: Okay. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Can you identify what's been marked as Exhibit 5? A. Yes, I can. Q. Okay. Can you tell at the bottom when this particular warranty that's the second page came into effect? Oh, you know what -A. Yes, I can. Q. Okay. When did it come into effect? A. If I'm not misreading this, it was

Page 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

the cover page of the actual warranty, correct? A. No, it would be for the warranty. That's why -THE WITNESS: I was questioning on this one the cover page as being the correct -BY MR. COFFIN: Q. That's what I'm trying to figure out. Let's go to Exhibit 5 -A. Okay. Q. -- and see if we can clear this up. On Exhibit 5, it has the date of 5-06. Okay? That's the revision date, correct? A. Yes. Q. But then if you look at the language attached, which you just or I just read, it indicates June 1st, 2006, correct? A. It does. Q. Okay. But in any event, the actual second page of Exhibit 5 is the warranty language that your department uses in determining when a particular warranty is in effect, correct? A. That's correct.

Page 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

June 1, 2006. Q. Right. A. Okay. Q. And I just learned something. In the actual warranty document itself, there is language that indicates the warranty is effective on all product types stated herein and sold in the United States after 6-1-2004. Correct? A. That's correct. Q. Is that stated in every Atlas warranty? A. Something to that effect. Q. Right. And I appreciate the clarification. A. Uh-huh. Q. In every Atlas warranty, there is an indication as to when that particular warranty is in effect? A. Correct. Q. Fair enough. Thank you very much. And the cover page that you pointed out, for example, on Exhibit 5, the revision that's indicated there is only a revision for

TAB 3

Page 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. That clears it up. Thank you. MR. PIEPER: Chris, you were reading Exhibit 5 and you said 2004. I think you read -MR. COFFIN: Incorrectly? MR. PIEPER: It may be that it's difficult to see on the copy you're looking at. MR. COFFIN: Okay. Can I see your Exhibit 5, please, just so we can be clear? Okay. Let's just clear that up. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. On Exhibit 5, the second page, the second page is the actual warranty language, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And there's an indication in the third column towards the bottom that I read earlier. And tell me if I read this correctly. It says, "This warranty is effective on all product types stated herein and sold in the United States after 6-1-2006." A. That's correct.

17 (Pages 62 to 65) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 18 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. So if I misstated that earlier, I apologize, but I think that clears it up. MR. COFFIN: Right, Joel? MR. PIEPER: Thanks. MR. COFFIN: Okay. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Okay. In your department, do you have any documents to help your staff determine whether or not a claim is a warranty claim or not? A. When the claim comes back in from quality control, there would -- if there is an indication that there was a manufacturing variance that resulted in a leak, it would be a warranted claim. Q. My question is: Is there a document that your staff or you use to guide you through the process? A. They have a copy of the warranty. Q. Okay. So there's no step-by-step process as to how to evaluate a claim that comes in to your department? A. They just take the information that

Page 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

person verbally on how to evaluate a claim that comes in? A. One of my staff would. Q. Okay. All right. And in the lifetime of the Chalet shingle, has that education process for new employees in your department always been the same? A. Yes, it has. MR. COFFIN: Okay. Let me mark as Exhibit 6 this document. (Exhibit marked: 6) BY MR. COFFIN: Q. And, Ms. Thomas, can you identify what's been marked as Exhibit 6? A. Atlas Roofing -MR. PIEPER: Take your time and look at the document, please. THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Do you recognize the document? A. I do. Q. Did you prepare the document? A. I did. Q. Okay. And you prepared it in June of

Page 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

comes in from quality control. Q. Right. Is there a document that explains how to go about doing that? A. No, there's not. Q. Okay. There is no procedure manual that describes how to go through the claim process in your department, correct? A. The gathering of the information, yes. But the -- what you're speaking of, no. Q. Okay. Let's talk about the gathering of the information, then. A. Uh-huh. Q. What document exists that describes how to go about the process of gathering the information? A. It would just be, you know, a training page that shows when you get the call-in sheet, the information -- a call-in sheet is the information that we gather the information, you know, the information we need. And they go by that. They're trained verbally to get that information. Q. Okay. So if a new employee starts in your department, you personally train that

TAB 3

Page 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

2014? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And what is this document? A. It is a document that is provided to new quality control and new salespeople to show them what consumer services does and how -- and how to gather information for processing a claim. Q. Okay. And this says, "Atlas Roofing Corporation Residential Claim Procedures and Process Training," correct? A. Yes, it does. Q. Okay. And you've had an opportunity to read through it, correct? A. I have looked through it, yes. Q. Okay. Is the information in here correct with regard to the procedures and processes you use within your department to process a claim? A. Yes, to gather information to process. Yes. Q. Okay. And this is the process that you indicated earlier you verbally teach -A. Yes.

18 (Pages 66 to 69) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 19 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. -- you verbally teach your staff, correct? MR. PIEPER: I'm sorry. Let him finish his question so we're not talking on top of each other. THE WITNESS: Okay. I'm sorry. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Just to be clear, the process and procedures contained in Exhibit 6 are the process and procedures that you verbally provide to your staff and your department to process claims, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And this is the process that you've used since you've been the manager of the consumer services department? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And this says it's for residential claims, correct? A. Yes. Q. Is the same process used for commercial claims? A. Commercial is something that we don't oversee. That -- not roofing. Well, it could

Page 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. And have you actually provided a training using this document? A. Yes, I have. Q. Okay. And did you ever record that, that presentation? A. No, I did not. Q. Okay. Do you know if anyone has? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. How often are the people within your department who are handling claims processing trained? A. When they initially come on board and are employed. Q. And then do you do any periodic training through the time of their employment? A. If there were to be a change. But there hasn't been a change. Q. Okay. So if there was a change in the processing of claims in your department, you would then verbally instruct your staff as to that change? A. Yes, I would. Q. But that hasn't happened since you've been a manager, correct?

Page 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

be polyiso roofing. It is not a shingle product. Q. Okay. Just so we're clear, do you -do you consider residential apartment complexes? A. Yes. Q. And you also consider condominium complexes residential? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So the procedures that your department uses and that are contained in Exhibit 6 are the same for any residential structure? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And these procedures and processes are the same across the Atlas shingle brands, correct? A. The shingle products, yes. Q. Including Chalet, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Why did you prepare this particular document? A. To review with incoming new sales personnel.

TAB 3

Page 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. No. That's correct. Q. Okay. Are there any -- well, there are no earlier versions of these processes and procedures, correct? A. This may have been a revision of what's always been, as far as training the sales personnel and everything. It may have been a reprint, but that's all. When I go on to my computer to print it out, it changes the date. Q. I understand. A. You know, the computer changes it for some reason. I don't know why. Q. I understand. Okay. And let me go back off of this document for just one question. That is, do you know whether Atlas has ever consulted anyone outside the company regarding the language contained in the shingle warranties? A. Not to my knowledge. MR. COFFIN: Okay. Well, we're about to run out of our tape, so we're going to go off the record and take a break.

19 (Pages 70 to 73) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 20 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

THE WITNESS: Okay. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now going off the video record. The time is 11:15 a.m. (Recess) (Mr. Ragland not present pursuant to recess) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now back on the video record with Tape Number 2. The time is 11:29 a.m. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Ms. Thomas, it's accurate that Atlas has received warranty claims related to Chalet shingles, correct? A. Yes. They have received individual claims, yes. Q. Okay. Let me state that a little differently, because I think I understand your hesitation. Atlas has received claims related to the Chalet shingle, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And some of those claims have been related to blistering on the Chalet

Page 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. What is your understanding of cracking associated with a shingle? A. It would depend. Q. Okay. With regard to the Chalet shingle, give me an example of claims you've received related to cracking of the shingle. A. I can recall a claim that was received for surface cracking on the overlay pad. Q. Okay. What is that? A. It is just a surface crack on the pad that does not go through the base shingle underneath. Q. Okay. And when you say "the overlay pad," you're just talking about the overlay portion of the Chalet shingle? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Have you received any claims for cracking in the Chalet shingle that occurred outside of the overlay pad? A. I don't offhand recall any. There possibly could have been a claim. Q. Okay. So a large majority of cracking claims that you've received related to

Page 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

shingle, correct? A. Yes, some. Q. And some have been related to cracking in the Chalet shingle, correct? A. Yes. Q. And some have been related to granule loss in the Chalet shingle, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. What is your understanding of what blistering, related to a shingle, means? A. It is simply a condition on, in the Chalet, the overlay portion of the shingle. Q. Okay. What type of condition? A. It is just a blister, rash-type blistering. It's a nonperformance. The pad is there for dimension. Q. What do you mean by "the pad is there for dimension"? A. It's not a structural part of the shingle that would affect performance. Q. You're speaking of the overlay portion when you say "the pad"? A. Yes, the overlay. Built-up overlay, yes.

TAB 3

Page 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

the Chalet shingle are on the overlay pad, correct? A. The cracking claims that I have seen or a claim that has come in for the Chalet has had surface cracking on the overlay. Q. Okay. And of all of the cracking claims that you've received for Chalet, do you recall any that were not on the overlay pad? A. I would have to go back and look at, you know, the individual files, but -Q. Well, I'm asking if you recall any. A. I don't recall any that had -- were any that were on the base. Q. Okay. Do you recall any Chalet shingle claims related to blistering that were not on the overlay pad? A. There could have been some. Q. Do you recall any? A. Specifically, no. I would have to look at the claim file. Q. Okay. Approximately how many claims do you think your department has received in the lifetime of the Chalet shingle for blistering of the shingle?

20 (Pages 74 to 77) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 21 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. I'm trying to remember. We may have -- it would be hard to say without looking at the files. I'm trying to think. I'm trying to just -- to see the blistering. There have been probably -- I wouldn't want to make that determination without seeing, you know, the numbers. Q. All right. Is it accurate that there have been thousands of claims submitted for the Chalet shingle related to blistering? A. There have been -- may have been over a thousand. I'm not sure. Q. You're not sure if there's more? A. For blistering, there could possibly have been. Q. I'm asking you for an approximation. Do you believe that there have been approximately thousands of Chalet shingle claims submitted related to blistering? A. There may have been consumer call-ins, maybe 2,000. Q. That's your best estimate? A. That's my best estimate without looking.

Page 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. I don't recall if it was specific to either. You're talking about the call-in, when the consumer calls in? Q. Well, when a consumer calls in, that's considered a claim, correct? A. It's their terminology, you know. Q. I'm sorry? A. When a consumer calls in and says they have granule loss, at that time I don't determine -- we don't know exactly what they're talking about until the information is gathered. Q. I understand. So you don't categorize a call-in as a claim until you actually receive information from the consumer in a written form; is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. So if -A. It is a complaint, yes. But whether it -- yeah. I'm sorry. Yes, it is. Q. Okay. Well, that's okay. We need to clear this up -A. Yeah, thank you. Q. -- because I want to make sure I

Page 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. Related to blistering, correct? A. Related to blistering on the overlay. Q. Of the Chalet shingle, correct? A. Yes, on the Chalet. Q. Just so we're clear, your best recollection right now is that there may have been about 2,000 claims submitted to Atlas related to blistering of the Chalet shingle, correct? A. There may have been, yes. Q. Okay. What is your understanding of what granule loss is? A. Granule loss is when granules come off of the shingle. Q. And have you had claims submitted in your department for granule loss associated with the Chalet shingle? A. We have had a consumer call in to report a granule loss on the Chalet, yes. Q. Okay. And do you recall whether or not the claims that you're remembering were related to granule loss on the overlay pad or the base of the shingle?

TAB 3

Page 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

understand. When a consumer calls in to Atlas and provides information to you for the first time about a complaint they're having with their Chalet shingle, is that considered a claim? A. Yes, it's a claim that we -- yes. Q. Okay. So there's not a specific categorization of call-in, correct? A. Correct. Q. It's a claim? A. It's a claim. Q. Okay. Now we're on the same page. All right. Have you -- do you recall claims related to granule loss on the overlay pad of the Chalet shingle? A. Yes, there may have been a claim called in for that. Q. Okay. In fact, there have been, haven't there? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And there have been claims made for blistering in the Chalet shingle, correct?

21 (Pages 78 to 81) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 22 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Yes. Q. And there have been claims made for cracking in the Chalet shingle? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Has Atlas ever determined that a claim for blistering on the overlay pad of the Chalet shingle is a warranty claim? A. I would have to look at the individual claim. Q. I'm asking you -- let me ask it differently. A. Okay. Q. Do you recall any situation in which Atlas has determined that a blistering claim on the overlay pad of the Chalet shingle is, in fact, a warranty claim? A. No, I don't recall any. Q. Okay. Do you recall any instance in which Atlas has determined that a cracking claim associated with the overlay pad of the Chalet shingle is a warranty claim? A. No, I don't recall any. Q. Okay. Do you recall any instance in which Atlas has determined that granule loss on

Page 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. That's correct. Q. That you created, correct? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. If you'll turn to page 2 and read the title. A. "In-Progress and Warranty Claims." Q. What is an in-progress claim? A. An in-progress claim is a claim that's in the process of being installed on a roof or either has been just installed and the -- possibly the roofer hasn't been paid or the distributor hasn't been paid. And in this sense, when it says warranty claim, that is terminology for other claims -Q. I understand. A. -- before they are evaluated. Q. I understand. Just so we're clear on the record, an in-progress claim would be a claim in which the shingles were not -- the installation of the shingles were not completed on a roof, correct? A. That is one case, yes. Q. Okay. And in this context, related to this document, the way that you're using

Page 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

the overlay pad of a Chalet shingle is a warranty claim? A. We review them individually. I don't recall. Q. That's what I'm asking you. Do you recall? A. No, I don't recall. Q. Okay. Isn't it accurate that Atlas has never classified a claim for blistering on the overlay pad of the Chalet shingle as a warranty claim? A. I couldn't one hundred percent say never. Q. You just don't remember any? A. I don't remember. Q. Okay. Are you the person who makes the final determination as to whether or not a claim is covered under the warranty? A. Yes, I'm the final review. Q. Okay. All right. Let's turn back to Exhibit 6. And again, this is the Atlas Roofing Corporation Residential Claim Procedures and Process Training document, correct?

TAB 3

Page 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

"warranty claim" is to indicate the time period for a claim after installation has been completed -A. Has been installed. Q. -- correct? A. Correct. Q. I understand. Not to be confused with what we discussed earlier, which is the difference between a warranty claim and a customer complaint? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And not to be confused with the difference between a warranty claim and a claim, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Because a warranty claim, in your company, is a claim that is actually covered under the language of the warranty, correct? A. It's a -- if it has a variance that resulted in leaks, it would be a warranty claim. Q. Right. I understand. A. Uh-huh. Q. Okay. Let's turn to the next page.

22 (Pages 82 to 85) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 23 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

And what's the title of this? A. "What is the claim process for?" Q. Okay. And can you please read the first paragraph there. A. "With multiple plant locations, the number of claims, and the people involved in claims, it's essential to have an effective and consistent claim process. The process has a check and balance built in as we deal with millions of dollars in potential liabilities and it involves" -Q. And then you list multiple bullet points, correct? A. Uh-huh, yes. Q. All right. Well, let's stop there. You state that it is essential to have an effective and consistent claim process, correct? A. That's correct. Q. What do you mean by "an effective claim process"? A. Well, to be consistent and gather the needed information in order to be able to evaluate the claim.

Page 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. It could mean many things. It could mean your reputation, liability out in the field. It can mean cost. It could mean, you know, various things. Q. Obviously, you want the claims process to move along smoothly, because you're concerned about the reputation of the company, correct? A. That's one thing, yes. Q. And you're concerned about the -- the dollars that the company is spending on claims, correct? A. "Concerned" is not a word I would use. But we want to recognize the dollars and claim costs, you know, that there is some -can be some associated, whether it's good will or whether it's some other instance. There -it varies. Q. In the second bullet point, you list liability recognition, management and responsibility, monitoring reporting, and claim cost accruals, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And what do you mean by

Page 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. And what do you mean when you say a "consistent claim process"? A. The information that is needed in order to file the claim, to get the information from the consumer, to have enough information to actually be able to file the claim. If we didn't have -- we have the call-in sheet and that's what we request. That enables us to get information, consistent information, from the consumer. Q. When you say "consistent," you mean the same type of information across each claim, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And do you use the same forms to gather the information in the claims process regardless of the type of shingle? A. Yes, we do. Q. Okay. The next sentence says, "The process has a check and balance built in as we deal with millions of dollars and potential liabilities." What do you mean by "potential liabilities"?

TAB 3

Page 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

"liability recognition"? A. Any -- you know, what -- anything to do with the involvement or cost involvement or reputation involvement with claims. Q. And you want -A. Or a claim. Q. And you want to limit that potential liability, correct? A. As far as being able to correctly make a warranty claim settlement, yes, you want to be able to do it correctly and you want to do it fairly. And you also want to recognize that there is the, you know, possibility when you do business that this, you know, can occur. Q. What do you mean by "monitoring reporting?" What do those two terms mean? A. Monitoring to see -- to be able to provide information on a type of claim and the claim cost. Q. And what does "claim cost accruals" mean? A. I'm not in finance, but -Q. Well, I'm just asking you what you meant, not --

23 (Pages 86 to 89) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 24 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Okay. Q. Not the financial term, but what are you trying to convey here? A. We want to be able to convey the possible cost needed for claims. Q. Right. And you have to be aware that claims can cost the company money? A. Yes. Q. And you wanted to convey that, in the claims process, you need to be aware of how much it's going to cost, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. The next one says, "Legal implications and precedents." And it says, "Improperly handled claims complicate legal claims and can set a negative legal precedence." What did you mean by that language? A. That in the process of gathering information, the information may have gotten to quality control and, for some reason, they didn't proceed with the testing in a timely manner. They may, you know, bottleneck in that area for some reason and it causes a lengthy

Page 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

you're giving this presentation? A. It could be used in the presentation, yes. Q. Okay. It says, "Auditing: The auditors randomly choose claims for CS to pull for their review and audit." Do you see that? A. I do. Q. What does CS mean? A. Consumer services. Q. That's your department, correct? A. Yes. Q. Who are the auditors? A. They're external audit. Q. Okay. And who does your external audits at Atlas? A. KPMG, I believe or -- I think that's the name. Q. KPMG? A. Yes. Q. Where are the consultants from that come from KPMG? A. I'm not sure. Q. And has KPMG always been your

Page 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

investigation period. And this can look negative. Q. And you are -A. That's one example, yes. Q. You're trying to convey that it's important to have an efficient process so that the claims don't lead to legal action, correct? A. To have an effective and consistent claim process, so there are unnecessary time limits that are out there; that the claim gets determined, whatever the determination is, in a timely manner. And -- I'm not real sure about the -- let me look at this again. And if there was, you know, any error, you know, on the gathering of the information and processing it, it could complicate the claim and it could cause the consumer to, you know, get legal counsel. Q. And you obviously want to avoid that, correct? A. Well, certainly you would, yes. Q. At the bottom, there's a couple paragraphs that discuss auditing. Is this language for you to use when

TAB 3

Page 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

auditing consulting firm? A. To the best of my knowledge, it has. Q. Okay. And how often does KPMG run auditing reports of your claims process? MR. PIEPER: Object to form. MR. COFFIN: Yeah, it's a good objection. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. KPMG conducts audits of your claims processing, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. How often do those audits occur? A. Maybe twice a year. Q. And what do those audits entail? A. They ask for certain claims to be pulled and they review them to see that the money -- if there has been claim payments, that it was handled correctly, the -- the claim payments, and that there's no opportunity for internal fraud. Q. Okay. Is the primary focus determining whether or not the claims have been paid accurately, as far as dollars?

24 (Pages 90 to 93) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 25 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. And to whom they have been, you know, paid to make sure that the consumer is -- you know, that one of the staff is not fabricating a claim or -Q. I see. So is it accurate that the primary reason for the KPMG audits is to ensure that fraud is not occurring in the claims process? MR. PIEPER: Object to form. THE WITNESS: That is -- that is one purpose, I'm sure. That is the purpose that I'm most familiar with. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Okay. Let me ask it this way. A. Okay. Q. You know, is it your understanding that the primary purpose of the KPMG audits is to determine whether there's any fraud in the Atlas claims process? A. That can mean different things. And that there is -- that the claims have been paid and there has not been any internal misuse of the funds. Q. Okay. Thank you.

Page 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

gathering information and processing the claim. Q. I see. So you're not referring to a separate document that -A. No, no. Q. Let me just finish my question. A. I'm sorry. Q. That's okay. You're not referring to a separate document that's actually a claims procedure that's laid out? A. That's correct. Q. I understand. Do you keep records of every audit? A. I do not. Q. Okay. Does anyone at Atlas, to your knowledge? A. I do not know. Q. Okay. Down a few lines, it says, "In addition to giving a statement to the auditors, I also have to give various signed affidavits as to what the claim procedures are." What do you mean when you say "signed affidavits as to what the claims procedures are"? A. I have had to give an affidavit

Page 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

You indicate in the second line, "I have to give the auditors a signed claims procedures." A. Uh-huh. Q. What do you mean by "signed claims procedures"? A. As to how we gather the information and how the information is used. Q. So you actually provide consultants with a written procedure on how the information is gathered in your department? A. Like the call in-sheet and the information and where the claim goes from when the consumer sends the information in. Q. Okay. So is there a packet of documents that you give the auditors to show them how the claim is processed? A. They actually take the claim, a claim, and look at the claim, and gather their information from that. Q. When you say "signed claims procedures," what do you mean by that? A. They'll ask me is this claim representative of Atlas' claims process for

TAB 3

Page 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

statement in a specific legal proceeding that that was the process that is used. Q. What was that proceeding? A. I don't remember. Q. Okay. And is that what you're also referring to in the next line when you say, "I also have to swear under oath what Atlas' claim procedures are"? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And you've done that in a case, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Do you have a copy of that signed affidavit? A. I don't know that I do. Q. Okay. I'll ask you to look in your files and, if you have that, to produce it to your counsel, and he can determine whether he gives it to me. A. Okay. Q. Thank you. Let's look at the next page. And this is just describing the difference between -- excuse me, it's just describing what

25 (Pages 94 to 97) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 26 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

an in-progress claim is, correct? A. That's correct, yes. Q. Okay. And the next page, again, this is all dealing with in-progress claims, correct? A. Just a moment. Let me read the document. Q. Sure. A. Yes, that's correct. Q. And there are circumstances with regard to an in-progress claim where there might need to be an inspection performed, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And the next page starts to discuss warranty claims, correct? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. Can you read what that slide says? A. "Warranty claims are claims that do not fit the criteria for an in-progress claim. These are the majority of claims processed and they are handled by consumer services sending the claim package to the consumer, roofer, requesting necessary claim information,

Page 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

rep may call in the claim rather than a consumer or a roofer. And if they go out and inspect, they have these things. They have the product form. They have the needed information to mail the samples back in to the plant. So there's no need to send that to the consumer. Q. Okay. In every consumer claim that arrives in your department, do you send this packet? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So let's go -- skip the next page. And the next page -- just to be clear, you're describing in these pages how a sales representative should go about reporting a claim, correct? A. That's correct. Q. On the second page there, which is -at the top, it says "Reporting a claim, continued"? A. Okay. Q. And there's some writing -- excuse me, some type at the bottom that says, "Show example of the claim kit, mailing labels,

Page 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

pictures, and two shingle samples" -- "sample shingles." Q. And so this is describing the process for a claim, correct? A. Uh-huh. Q. Yes? A. Yes. Q. When processing a claim, the consumer services department sends a claim package to the consumer, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. What's contained in the claim package? A. A product information form, mailing labels for the samples, return mailing address label, a cover sheet explaining what is needed. Q. Anything else? A. The request for samples and a diagram showing the roofer how to take the samples. Q. And is this packet sent out in every claim situation? A. It is sent out on the majority of claim situations. With an in-progress claim, a sales

TAB 3

Page 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

et cetera." Do you see that? A. I do. Q. And when you say "claim kit," are you referring to the packet we just discussed? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And if you'll turn a few more pages, there's a slide entitled "Inspections." It's Number 10. And in this slide, you're stressing the importance of conducting an inspection of the roof, correct? A. Yes, I believe so. Q. Okay. And under the first bullet point, there's -- there are two dashes. One is "inspecting the rooftop when possible," correct? A. Correct. Q. And the second dash is "adequately completing the inspection/lab report," correct? A. That's correct. Q. A lab report is what's generated by quality control, correct? A. The lab report is -- yes, it is one of the -- the forms.

26 (Pages 98 to 101) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 27 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. And does a person in your department complete a lab report prior to the shingle being sent to quality control? A. No, they do not. Q. Okay. So the lab report is initiated by quality control? A. In the case of inspection by a rep, it's an inspection/lab report. If sales goes out, they may list what their observation is, what the consumer's complaint is, and send that information with the samples and the ventilation -- they'll get ventilation information and structural information, like what type roof it is, as would the consumer do with the product information form, and they send that to the lab with the samples. And then the laboratory would complete testing. Q. I understand. A. Or evaluation, however. Q. Okay. The first bullet point under "adequately completing the inspection/lab report" is, can you read that please? A. "Giving your observation of the

Page 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Why it important to gather ventilation information on a home? A. Ventilation is crucial to the performance of shingle products. Q. What's the next bullet point? A. "Obtaining the number" -- or excuse me, "obtaining run numbers, if known or available on-site." Q. What is a run number? A. It's a manufacturing date. Q. The date that the shingle was manufactured? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Why is that important? A. It would be -- that's what quality control asks if it's possible to get. I would assume that they're looking to see, you know, when the product was manufactured. Q. Do you know how to determine what the run number is by looking at a particular shingle? A. Now we do. Older shingles did not have a stamp on them, but the newer shingles do have run times on them.

Page 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

problem, the number of squares on the roof, and the number affected." Q. Okay. And so you're just conveying that it's important that they accurately observe the problem, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And the next bullet point? A. "Make note of any comments by the homeowner, roofer, or independent inspector present at the inspection, if any." Q. Okay. Why is that important? A. The consumer may give them their concerns. Q. And you want to know what their concerns are? A. I'd like them to adequately convey what the consumer's concerns are stated. Q. And what's the next bullet point? A. "Giving the ventilation present in the home, type and number of each type of linear foot, et cetera. Take pictures of the ventilation type so that we can accurately calculate the ventilation. Discoloration claims are the exception.

TAB 3

Page 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. When did Atlas start stamping run numbers on shingles? A. I'm not sure. Q. Was it before the year 2000? A. I'm not sure. Q. Was it -- do you know if it was in the last five years? A. It's possible that it was the last five to six years. Q. Okay. Certainly within the last ten years? A. I think that would be fair to say, yes. Q. Okay. The next slide is titled "Percentage of in-progress claims versus warranty claims inspected." Can you read that first bullet point? A. Yes, I can. "A survey was made using a sampling of various sales territory representatives to see what percent of claims inspected were actually in progress." Q. Okay. And what were the results of the survey? A. That the percentage of the

27 (Pages 102 to 105) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 28 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

in-progress claims inspected by the representatives were more than as if they went on a non in-progress claim. Does that make sense? Q. No. Can you explain that? A. Okay. Sales are not required to inspect any claim except in-progress. Often, they will go to make a sales call and they may get a request to go look at a claim that's been on ten years, as an example. And oftentimes, the salespeople will complain that they don't like to make inspections, rather be selling. And this was to show them that they are not inordinately burdened by inspections of these claims. Q. What percentage of claims inspected were found to actually be in-progress claims? A. I would have to look at that information. Q. It was a low percentage? A. A very low percent. Q. You were trying to convey that they really don't have to do as many inspections as they think?

Page 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Can you read the first bullet point, please? A. "Quality control has responsibility to produce a quality product within the Atlas manufacturing and UL specifications." Q. What does UL stand for? A. Underwriter Laboratories. Q. Okay. And who is that? A. It's Underwriter Laboratories. It's just a -Q. What kind of entity is Underwriter Laboratories? A. I'm not sure. Q. Okay. What does Atlas use Underwriter Laboratories for? MR. PIEPER: Object to form. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Do you know what Atlas uses Underwriter Laboratories for? A. They have some specifications related to shingles. And it would be related to that, but I'm not sure. Q. Have you ever communicated with anybody from Underwriter Laboratories?

Page 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. That's correct. Q. I understand. Why was that important for you to convey to the salespeople? A. The vice president of sales, they had complained to him that they had to go inspect. Q. I understand. And the next slide is titled, "Why do they inspect?" Are you referring to sales representatives when you say "they"? A. Yes, I am. Q. And these are the reasons that you wanted to convey to the sales reps why it's important that they actually do inspections? A. This is the reasons that they inspect things that they really are not required to, just making a point that this is what you're doing. Q. I understand. Okay. And you can skip the next one. And you can skip the next one. And go to the one that's Number 15, and it's titled, "Quality Control's Role in Claims." A. Uh-huh.

TAB 3

Page 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. I have not. Q. Do you know whether Atlas uses specifications provided by Underwriter Laboratories in manufacturing the Chalet shingle? A. There are some. Q. There are some what? A. Specifications. Q. There are some specifications from Underwriter Laboratories that Atlas has used in manufacturing the Chalet shingle? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And what specifications would those be? A. They're listed on the bundle. It's related to fire and wind, I believe. Q. Do you know what type of organization Underwriter Laboratories is? A. I do not. I assume it's a testing facility. Q. Okay. Can you read the second bullet point, please? A. "QC is required to report any changes to the product design or specifications to

28 (Pages 106 to 109) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 29 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

consumer services." Q. Why is this a requirement? A. So that we can have those for review of the individual claims. Q. And is there a particular form that QC is required to use to report any changes to the product design or specifications to your department? A. No. Q. How is that information communicated? A. It's either verbally or they may just send them just a quick note that we changed whatever the relevant change would be. Q. And how do you convey that information to your employees within your department? A. They just -- you know, we have whatever it is that they send us. If they send us a little memo saying, hey, we changed the color blend on this product on whatever date, the ladies may make a note of it in a notebook, in their notebook. Q. Okay. Does each of your associates maintain a notebook with specific notes related

Page 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. Do you keep a notebook related to your job responsibilities at Atlas? A. No. I use the warranty document and I do make changes as far as just jot it down on a -- maybe a handwritten piece of paper -Q. Okay. A. -- and keep it with the warranty. Q. So how do you as the supervisor of the customer services department maintain changes that are provided to you from quality control? A. Well, I just -- I guess I jot them down on my -- on a page with the warranties, yeah. Q. Okay. And do you keep those notes in a particular file? A. No, there's not that many of them. I can't recall the last time that there was a change. Q. Do you recall whether you ever received any product design or specification changes related to the Chalet shingle? A. No. Q. You did not, or you don't recall?

Page 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

to changes in the product design or specifications? A. I don't think that they all do, no. Q. Okay. Do you provide them with a notebook for them to use as part of their employment with Atlas? A. No. They're available in supplies. But no, not per se, no. Q. Okay. Well, you just referred to the fact that they may include a note in their notebook. What were you referring to? A. If they had to have -- if they choose to keep a notebook to put notes in, various notes, that might help them to remember something. Q. Okay. And do you know whether any of your consumer associates have a notebook where they keep notes related to their job? A. Yes. Lajuana may. Q. Okay. Any others? A. I don't know that there are. Q. You just don't recall? A. I don't recall -- I don't know for a fact that they do have it.

TAB 3

Page 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. I do not -- did not, that I recall. Q. Okay. To your knowledge, you never received any reports from quality control regarding changes to the product design or specifications related to the Chalet shingle? A. There may have been one in -- there may have been one. Q. Okay. When would that have been, approximately? A. You would need to check with quality control. I don't remember. Q. Okay. Approximately how many years ago? MR. PIEPER: Object to form. THE WITNESS: Possibly -- I don't remember. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Okay. Well, you know it wasn't last year, correct? A. No, it was -- no. MR. PIEPER: Object to form. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Well, let's -- let's walk down the road, then.

29 (Pages 110 to 113) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 30 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

So you recall that there was a change to the product design or specifications that you received from quality control regarding Chalet shingles, correct? A. I don't know if it was a formal change. It may have been -- I'm trying to think. It may have been in 2007. I'm just guessing here. Q. That's fine. I'm just asking for an approximation. A. That would be my approximate. Q. 2007 is your approximate date, correct? A. That would be, yes. Q. Okay. What was the substance of the design or specification change to the Chalet product that you recall? A. I do not remember. Q. Do you have any recollection at all what it had to do with? A. I don't. MR. SMYTHE: Can we take a break? Because I'm going to leave and maybe I can chat with you guys for a minute?

Page 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. No, not that I recall. Q. Okay. Why is it important for quality control to report any known issues or problems as soon as they become aware of them? A. So that there can be a correction. Q. Well, I mean, with regard to your department, why is it important for you to know of any issues or problems with a product as soon as quality control becomes aware of them? A. So that we can be aware of it. Q. Is that just so that you can recognize -A. Yeah. Q. I'm sorry. MR. PIEPER: Wait for it. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Is it just so that you can recognize the trend in the claims that are coming in? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So, for example, with the Chalet shingle specifically, it's important for your department to know if there are any known issues or problems with the shingle so that you can recognize when claims come in that these

Page 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

MR. COFFIN: Yeah, let me just finish this particular -MR. SMYTHE: Okay. That's fine. MR. COFFIN: -- exhibit or page. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Can you please read the next bullet point? A. "QC is required to report any known issue or problem with the production of the products or raw materials to consumer services as soon as they become aware of it." Q. Okay. Why is that important? A. So that we can watch for, you know, any type of trend related to that. Q. Any kind of what? A. A trend or claim coming in regarding that. Q. I understand. You keep track of trends related to claims in your department? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Have there been any reports from quality control of issues or problems with the production of Chalet shingles or the raw materials for Chalet shingles that you recall?

TAB 3

Page 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

are the type of claims that quality control is already aware of? A. If -MR. PIEPER: Can you repeat that question? I'm sorry. THE WITNESS: Yeah, that's a long one. Very long. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. With the Chalet shingles specifically, it's important for your department to know if there are any known issues or problems with the shingle so that you can recognize when the claims come in that they're the type of claims that quality control already knows about? A. If there were any manufacturing deviance that was known. Q. I see. So you're concerned with issues or problems that quality control recognizes as manufacturing defects, correct? A. If they recognize any. Q. Okay. It's important for your department to know as soon as quality control determines that a manufacturing defect exists

30 (Pages 114 to 117) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 31 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

with any of the Atlas products; is that correct? A. An issue does not mean a defect per se. Q. Okay. A. Okay? Q. That's fine. A. But it is -Q. Well, let me just ask you -- don't worry about the document. A. Ask it again. Q. Let me just ask you: It's important for you and your department to know if quality control has determined that a particular product has a manufacturing defect, correct? A. Yes, it would be. Q. And it's also important for you to know if quality control determines that there's any issue or problem with an Atlas product, whether it's a defect or not? A. You're using a broad term, "product." It may not be a whole product. It may be just a -- a short period or it may -Q. But either way -- let's take the

Page 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

slide? A. "QC continued. Whether claim information is received in QC from the territory sales rep or the consumer, the quality control manager or QC technician must test the product and evaluate the results versus the manufacturing specifications at the time the product was manufactured. A complete evaluation should be made and, based on the testing, a determination of valid or not valid is made." Q. Okay. And is this true for all of the Atlas shingle products? A. Yes, it would be. Q. Okay. Including the Chalet, correct? A. Yes, it would be. Q. Who has been the quality control manager who is responsible for evaluating Chalet shingles? A. Meldrin Collins was the quality control manager for many years. Q. And where is Meldrin now? A. At Hampton, Georgia. Q. He lives in Hampton?

Page 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Chalet shingle, for example. It's important for your department to know if there are -- if quality control has determined that there are any manufacturing defects in the Chalet product, correct? A. It would be. MR. COFFIN: Okay. Let's go off the record. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now going off the video record. The time is 12:23 p.m. (Recess) (Mr. Smythe not present pursuant to recess) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now back on the video record. The time is 12:35 p.m. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Ms. Thomas, we were going through Exhibit 6 when we went off the record and we were under slide number 15, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Let's turn to slide 16. And can you please read what's contained on that

TAB 3

Page 121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. The Hampton, Georgia plant, yes. And he lives -- I don't know where he lives, but -Q. I'm sorry. Is he still with Atlas? A. Yes, he is. Q. Oh, okay. Is he still responsible for quality control with regard to the Chalet shingle? A. He is -- has been promoted. There is a new quality control manager for the last probably five years. Q. Okay. Who is that? A. Sonya Taylor. Q. And is there a quality control technician who has been responsible for the Chalet shingles? A. It's not responsible for Chalet. They evaluate all products that the plant, you know, would get a consumer complaint on. Q. Okay. So the quality control manager who evaluates a consumer complaint is determined based on the plant where that product was manufactured? A. Yes. Q. And in the case of Chalet, all Chalet

31 (Pages 118 to 121) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 32 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

shingles were manufactured in the Hampton, Georgia plant, correct? A. Yes. Q. Correct? A. Correct. Q. So for the entire life of the Chalet shingle, the quality control manager in the Hampton, Georgia plant would be responsible for evaluating claims related to the Chalet shingle? A. Could you repeat that, please? I'm sorry. Q. That's okay. For the entire life of the Chalet shingle, the quality control manager in the Hampton, Georgia, plant would be responsible for evaluating claims related to the Chalet shingle? A. Yes. Q. Okay. What is the definition of a "valid claim"? A. A valid claim would be -- they would look at a certain -- there are a lot of aspects, but they could look at certain specifications and review the test results.

Page 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. One that on the specifications that they are comparing to, that it would be out of specification, not -- I'm sorry, not valid? Could you repeat that? Q. Yeah. What is the definition of "not valid," as you've used it here? A. Okay. That it met specifications. Q. And, in other words, you mean that there was no manufacturing defect in the shingle? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. So quality control is really looking at whether or not they believe there is a manufacturing defect in the shingle that is at issue, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And if quality control believes that there's a manufacturing defect, then it's called a valid claim, correct? A. They would mark it as that, yes. Q. And if they determined that the shingle does not have a manufacturing defect, it would be a not valid claim? A. Yes.

Page 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. And how do they determine whether or not a claim is valid or not? A. That's their terminology, actually. But it is -- they would look to see if the material met the specifications for the product. Q. Do you know of any instance in which the quality control manager in the Hampton plant determined that a claim regarding blistering on a Chalet shingle was valid? A. I don't recall. I'd have to -- do you have a specific claim or anything I could look at? Q. No, I don't, not right now. I'm just asking if you recall of any situation -A. I don't recall, no. Q. Okay. So the entire time that you worked in the consumer services department, you can't recall a single situation where a quality control manager determined that blistering on a Chalet shingle was a valid claim, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. What is the definition of a claim that is not valid?

TAB 3

Page 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. What's the definition of a manufacturing defect, as you understand it? A. A variance in the manufacture of the shingle that results in leaks. Q. So Atlas' definition of a manufacturing defect includes a requirement that the problem with the shingle causes a leak in the roof; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. So if a shingle is cracked, but the homeowner has not recognized any leaks, then there is no manufacturing defect by the definition Atlas uses, correct? A. If the shingle is cracked and there's no result of a leak, it is not a manufacturing defect. Q. Okay. And if the shingle has blistering, but the consumer has not recognized a leak, then under Atlas' definition of a manufacturing defect, there is no manufacturing defect in the shingle, correct? MR. PIEPER: Object to form. THE WITNESS: If the shingle -BY MR. COFFIN:

32 (Pages 122 to 125) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 33 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Go ahead. A. If the shingle has blistering on the overlay and it has not at that time resulted in a leak, it is not a manufacturing defect. Q. If the blistering results in a leak, does Atlas consider that to be a manufacturing defect? A. It depends on if there is a variance in the manufacturing process that caused that to occur. Q. What's your definition of a variance? A. Anything in the manufacturing process that occurred with this particular Chalet shingle that did not occur with other Chalet shingles under similar conditions. Q. Is it correct that it is Atlas' position that blistering on a shingle alone is not a defect? A. That's correct. Q. And is it Atlas' position that cracking in a shingle alone is not a defect? A. That's correct. Q. And is it Atlas' position that granule loss on a shingle alone is not a

Page 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

blisters, no. Q. All right. In fact, you want to avoid blisters on your shingles? A. Blistering is not a performance issue. Q. Well, you want to avoid blisters on the shingles is the question. Right? A. We're concerned with the performance of the shingle as far as the warranty coverage, which would mean that it did not result in a leak. Q. Okay. Is Atlas concerned with how a shingle looks on a consumer's home? A. I can't speak for Atlas. I would -what Atlas is concerned with is that our product perform to keep water out, to keep leaks out. Q. Well, wouldn't you agree that a reason that a consumer uses a particular shingle is often because of the look of the shingle? A. I wouldn't agree to that. Q. No? Okay. What kind of shingles do you have on

Page 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

defect? A. That's correct. Q. However, if any of those three defects result in leaking -- excuse me. Let me say it this way: If cracking results in leaking, then Atlas considers that to be a defect, correct? A. If it's related to the manufacture and the variance in manufacturing. Q. Okay. And the same is true for blistering, correct? A. Yes. Q. And the same is true for granule loss? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. When Atlas manufactured the Chalet shingles, was it the company's intent that the shingles would blister? A. No, it would not be. I don't -- I don't understand your question. Q. Well, certainly Atlas didn't intend that the Chalet shingles that it manufactured would develop blistering, correct? A. We didn't set out to develop

TAB 3

Page 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

your home? A. I have black three-tab GlassMaster. Q. Have you ever had Chalet shingles on your home? A. No, I have not. Q. Why not? A. We bought the house with the shingles that are in place. Q. Can you recall any claim that a consumer has made related to a Chalet shingle in which the consumer complained about the look of the shingle as opposed to the performance of the shingle? A. Initially? Q. Yes. A. Initially, no, I can't recall that. Q. You have had claims submitted to your department in which consumers of Chalet shingles have been concerned about how their shingles look, correct? A. There have been. Q. Okay. A. I don't remember all the, you know, particulars, but yes.

33 (Pages 126 to 129) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 34 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Well, you've had a significant number of claims related to the Chalet shingle, correct? A. We have had claims related to Chalet. Q. Is there any shingle within the whole product line of Atlas that has had more claims come to your department than the Chalet shingle? A. No, not that I recall. Q. Okay. The Chalet shingle, of all the shingles that Atlas has manufactured, has the highest number of claims that have come in to your department, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And of those claims for Chalet shingles, the highest number of claims have been for blistering, correct? A. I would say yes. Q. Okay. The second highest number of claims within the Chalet shingle claims themselves has been for cracking, correct? A. I would have to evaluate that, look at that. Q. Okay. Do you know what the second

Page 132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. So you factor in what quality control says? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And the next bullet point, can you read that, please? A. "After the sample testing and determination has been documented on the lab report, QC then sends the claim to the plant manager for review and sign off. This is a part of check and balance and acknowledgment of responsibility." Q. So the plant manager signs off on your final decision on the claim? A. No. He's signing off that he has looked -- is aware that a claim has been filed. Q. Okay. But after you're completed with the process, you then provide it to the plant manager so that he's aware of it, correct? A. No, I do not. Q. Well, what do you mean by -- oh, I'm sorry. Strike that. The quality control person sends a report to the plant manager, correct?

Page 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

most prevalent type of claim to come in for Chalet shingles is after blistering? A. I don't know whether it -- what it would be. I would have to look. Q. Okay. I'm just asking if you know. A. Right. That's -- yeah. Q. And today, in 2014, Atlas is still receiving claims related to blistering on the Chalet Shingle, correct? A. We get consumer complaints, yes. Q. Okay. Turn to the next page, slide 17. And can you read the first bullet, please? A. 17, "QC should list the testing results and make any recommendations relevant to the claim (hand seal, settle per warranty, deny, request wind speeds, check, et cetera) on the inspection/lab report." Q. So quality control will provide your department with their recommendation regarding whether or not to accept or deny the claim? A. Yes. Q. Okay. But you, in your department, you have the final say, correct? A. Yes.

TAB 3

Page 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. He sends the claim. Q. The claim to the plant manager? A. Uh-huh. Q. Because you want the plant managers to be aware of what claims are coming in? A. Yes, what -- yes. Q. I understand. And with regard to Chalet, those reports would have been sent to the plant manager in Hampton, correct? A. The claims would have been. Q. The claims. That's correct? A. Uh-huh. Q. Okay. And can you turn to 19. And 19 is the fire truck. A. Uh-huh. Q. Can you read what that slide says? A. Let's see. "The Fire Truck. A very simple analogy related to processing claims accurately and in a timely manner, is what is called a fire truck. The longer it takes the fire truck to get to the fire, the hotter it gets, the bigger it gets, and the more damage it does." Q. Okay. What are you trying to convey

34 (Pages 130 to 133) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 35 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

in this slide? A. Oftentimes, when sales would go out and look at a claim, they might put the samples and information in their trunk and ride around for a week or two. And in this interim, you have a homeowner that's upset, you've got a distributor that wants to know what happened, why you didn't process the claim in a timely manner. Q. And the longer it takes to address the consumer claim, the hotter they get? A. The more volatile it is. MR. PIEPER: Wait until he finishes his question. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. The longer it takes to address a consumer claim, the hotter the consumer gets, correct? A. The whole environment of the claim, yes. Q. Right. That's what you're trying to convey? A. Yes.

Page 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

distributor calls us, and it is a reputation issue. Q. There's an indication here that there is a claim system that you use. Is there a computer program that y'all use at Atlas for entering claims? A. Yes, there is. Q. Okay. We'll talk about that a little bit later. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now going off the video record. The time is 12:56 p.m. (Lunch recess) ///

Page 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. And there's potential for more damage the longer you wait to satisfy a consumer claim, correct? A. That was not the meaning in this particular instance. Q. Well, you indicate the more damage it does. What do you mean by that? A. Reputation-wise. Q. There's more damage to your reputation? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And then on the next slide, Slide 20, can you read what is said at the top? A. "The same is true with a claim. The longer that a claim sits out there without a determination, whether the determination is a settlement or a denial, the bigger it gets, the hotter it gets, and the more damage it will cause." Q. Okay. And what did you mean by that? A. The same thing. That you sit there and you don't get the claim evaluated in a timely manner, the homeowner then calls the roofer, the roofer calls the distributor, the

TAB 3

Page 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

AFTERNOON SESSION THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now back on the video record with Tape Number 3. The time is 1:53 p.m. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Ms. Thomas, what is the computer program that Atlas uses for entering claims? A. PeopleSoft. Q. And how long have you used PeopleSoft? A. Probably around ten years. Q. Okay. What did you use -- what did Atlas use prior to PeopleSoft? A. AS400. Q. And what is -- who makes AS400? A. I'm not sure. Q. Okay. And both of those programs are used for your department to enter claims information? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Does the quality control department use that program as well? A. Yes, they do. Q. So a claim comes in and you open a

35 (Pages 134 to 137) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 36 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

file on the program? A. Yes. Q. And it can be accessed by your staff, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And it can be accessed by the quality control people, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And all the information related to a claim is uploaded into the program? A. I wouldn't say all of it. There may be a -- the consumer may send in a letter or a proof of purchase and it's just noted that we received it but it's not actually on that program. Q. Okay. So there's a paper file that corresponds to the information you put in the program? A. Yes. Q. I see. And is that how it's always been done with the AS400 and the PeopleSoft program? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Do you in Atlas run internal

Page 140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

claims or are they general claims? A. They could be either. Q. Okay. So you keep track of every claim that comes in, whether it is determined to be a warranty claim or not, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And you generate reports every month for that? A. That's correct. Q. And you generate those reports for Chalet shingles too, correct? A. That would be included. Q. Okay. How long have you been using this process to generate reports? A. As long as the PeopleSoft has been available. Q. Did you also run reports with similar information with the AS400? A. Yes, I believe we did, similar. Q. Okay. What type of data is contained in the reports that you run? A. What product -- what plant it is, what product. Q. Okay. What else?

Page 139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

reports to track the number of warranty claims that are processed? A. Yes. Q. And do you run reports that generate the total number of claims that you've received on products? A. I can, yes. Q. You can? A. (Indicating in the affirmative). Q. Yeah. Okay. Do you do that regularly? A. Yes. Q. Okay. How often? A. Once a month. Q. Okay. So every month, you print a report that indicates the number of claims for each product that Atlas has sold? A. That Atlas -- could you repeat that? Q. In each month, you generate a report that displays the number of claims for each product that Atlas has sold? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And the claims that are on that particular report, are they warranty

TAB 3

Page 141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Amount that would be paid per product. Q. Amount paid per product? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And are these -- do these reports break down what the claim was made for? A. Yes, what the determination was. Q. Okay. Are they broken down into categories of the alleged problem with the product? A. They may or may not. MR. COFFIN: Okay. Let me mark this exhibit. This may help you. We'll mark as Exhibit 7 this document. (Exhibit marked: 7) BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Can you identify what's been marked as Exhibit 7? A. I can. Q. Okay. What is this? A. This is a report that has been pulled from PeopleSoft. Q. Okay. And what is it displaying? A. It's displaying Hampton trends for

36 (Pages 138 to 141) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 37 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

claims filed. Q. And so there are various issues listed next to the graph. Do you see where I'm talking about? A. Yes. Q. Blistering, cracking, granule loss, sling/adhesive, sticking, and discoloration. Do you see that? A. Yes, I do. Q. Are these particular issues that your department keeps track of related to each shingle? A. Clarify your question for me, please. Q. Why are these particular categories listed here? A. This is the category I chose by the criteria that I wanted to show. Q. And who determined which categories that you would display? A. I did. Q. You did? A. I did. Q. Okay. Why did you choose blistering? A. I was looking to see, for the years

Page 144 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. "Overlay," the word "overlay." Q. And how does that indicate to you that it's the Chalet shingle? A. I don't know at this point. That's -- this report is what, 2005? Q. Okay. It could be for the Stratford shingle, couldn't it? A. It's possible. Q. But you know from your knowledge and the numbers that it's for the Chalet shingle, correct? A. I'm not sure. Q. Okay. Well, do you know what the numbers next to the years are for? Do you think it -- let me ask you this way: Do you think that this is indicating the number of shingles that were manufactured by Atlas that have an overlay on them in these years? A. I don't believe that that's the case. Q. Is that because the numbers are too small? A. No, I don't know what that means. I would have -- I don't know what that means. Q. Okay. Well, at any rate, the report

Page 143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

2001, '2, '3, '4, and '5 what the -- had been paid for blistering or cracking or granule loss, sling/adhesive, sticking, and discoloration. Q. Okay. And for what purpose did you do that? A. When was this report done? It's been a long time, I'm sure. I'm not -- I don't remember the circumstances for which I called for that specific criteria. Q. Okay. Well, can you explain what the category at the top right means? It says "production of overlay." What is that? A. The year the shingle was manufactured. Q. And what's the number next to the year? A. I don't know. Q. Okay. Do you have any idea what shingle you were analyzing with this report? A. "Production of overlay," the Chalet overlay. The pad, the Chalet shingle. Q. Okay. How do you know it's the Chalet shingle?

TAB 3

Page 145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

was run by you, correct? A. That's correct, uh-huh. Q. And it was for the Chalet shingle, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Turn to page 2 of this report. Can you tell me what the columns at the top are indicating? A. You have -- the first column is the year 2001, 2002, '3, '4, and '5. And then you have a column for blistering, a column for cracking, granule loss, sling/adhesive, sticking, discoloration, press, and misblend. Q. Okay. A. And underneath that, you have the dollar amounts. Q. Okay. What are the dollar amounts indicating? A. The dollar amounts paid per the criteria during that specific year of the row it's in. Q. What criteria? A. Blistering, cracking, granule loss, sling/adhesive, sticking, discoloration, press,

37 (Pages 142 to 145) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 38 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 146 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

misblend. Underneath is the dollar amount -Q. I see that. A. -- per year. Q. All right. And on which claims was Atlas paying for blistering in 2001 that equated to $18,389.71? A. Which claim? Q. Right. A. I don't remember. 2001? Q. What's the dollar number represent? A. Oh, it's $18,389.71. Q. Right. Paid for what? A. Blistering. Q. Blistering claims? A. Blistering complaints. Q. Okay. Blistering complaints? A. Uh-huh. Q. Were any of those payments made for blistering complaints paid because Atlas found that the blistering was a warranty-covered defect? A. No, not to my knowledge. Q. Okay. With any of these dollar categories under blistering, were any of these

Page 148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

claims? A. We would have to look at each individual claim here to see why. There are different factors in that file that would have contributed to that, and I can't tell you looking at this what those factors were. Q. Okay. Well, you just gave me one example. Can you give me a second example where you know that you have in the past paid for blistering claims? A. But not per se these? Q. Not necessarily, no. A. The consumer, just as a consumer -there are times when in reviewing an individual claim, there is a threat of a legal action. And it makes more sense to have good will toward the consumer and pay the consumer rather than pay the attorney. There may not be that much difference in what the cost factor would be, so we would rather pay the consumer and have good will toward that. Q. And how do you determine which consumers you would pay for a blistering claim? A. Again, I would have to see the file

Page 147 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

monies paid because Atlas determined that the blistering defect was a warranty claim? A. No. Q. Okay. Then why was money paid on these claims? A. It depends. Q. Okay. Give me two examples. A. It could have been due to a sales accommodation, customer accommodation. Q. What does that mean? A. It means we have a dealer that had knowledge of a claim, that maybe the consumer complained to them or the roofer did and they contacted Atlas. And to preserve our relationship with that dealer, we may have paid a settlement on it. Q. So you may have paid money because you wanted to preserve the relationship with the dealer, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Or the customer, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. What's another example of why you would have paid money for blistering

TAB 3

Page 149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

that was paid to see what the contributing factors were. Q. Is there any formula that you use? A. No, not necessarily, but there would -- could be factors in that particular file that were considered to pay the claim. MR. COFFIN: Do we need to go off the record? MS. COLLINS: Yes. MR. COFFIN: Sure. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now going off the video record. The time is 2:07 p.m. (Recess) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now back on the video record. The time is 2:16 p.m. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Ms. Thomas, I had asked you how you determined which consumers you would pay for a blistering claim and you, I believe, were responding to that question. Can you answer that? A. I believe the last thing that I

38 (Pages 146 to 149) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 39 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

responded was you had asked for an example of a reason, and I was explaining to you that I would have to see the claim file that was paid so I would know what the factors were that contributed to that decision to pay. Q. Okay. What factors would cause you to pay a claim based on blistering? A. It depends. It could vary. Q. Any factors that you know off the top of your head would result in payment for a blistering claim? A. I would need to see the file to see what was in the files. Q. Okay. So you don't know any off the top of your head? A. No. Q. Do you have any formula that you use for determining which claims you'll pay -A. No. Q. -- related to blistering? A. No, I do not. Q. Who receives the reports that you generate each month related to the claims? A. John Birnham.

Page 152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. And that report is distributed to Atlas' counsel, correct? A. Yes. Q. And to Mr. Fricks? A. Yes. Q. And to each of the plant managers? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Do you have regular meetings with anyone in Atlas to discuss the claims reports that you generate? A. No, I do not. Q. Have you had any meetings with anyone in Atlas to discuss claims reports you've generated? A. There could have been, yes. Q. Okay. Do you recall any related to the Chalet shingle? A. Not offhand, I do not. Q. Do you know one way or another whether you've ever had any meetings with anyone in Atlas to discuss claims related to the Chalet shingle? A. Yes. I don't remember when. Q. Okay. And what were the substance of

Page 151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Sorry? A. John Birnham. Q. Who is John Birnham? A. Our corporate counsel. Q. Oh, your lawyer? A. Yes, he is. Q. Anybody else? A. Mr. Jeff Fricks. Q. Okay. And he's your supervisor, correct? A. Yes, uh-huh. Q. Why do you provide them to Mr. Fricks? A. Because he is my supervisor. Q. And he asks you to? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Do you -A. Plant managers. Q. And the plant managers? A. (Indicating in the affirmative). Q. Okay. So every month, you generate a report related to the number of claims that you've received in your department, correct? A. Claims received, yes.

TAB 3

Page 153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

those meetings? MR. PIEPER: Let me just make sure the witness knows not to reveal attorney-client privileged communications. Meetings other than that would do that, of course, are not subject to that. MR. COFFIN: Right. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Let me ask the question again. Other than meetings that you would have had with your counsel, do you recall any meetings that you've had with people in Atlas about Chalet shingles? A. No. Q. Okay. So the meetings that you recall included your counsel, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. What's the purpose of generating the claims reports that you generate? A. Just as a -- monitoring the claims. Q. And what have you learned from the data you've generated related to the Chalet shingle?

39 (Pages 150 to 153) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 40 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Can you be specific, please? Q. What have you learned about the claims that have been submitted related to Chalet shingles from the reports you've generated? A. Various things. Q. Okay. Such as? A. Such as that some of the product is not ours, Atlas'. It could be just various things. I would have to look at the reports to see what those were. Q. Okay. Well, on Exhibit 7, from the reports you've learned that there are claims of blistering related to the Chalet shingle, right? A. Yes. Q. And you've learned that there are claims of cracking, correct? A. Yes. Q. And granule loss, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you've learned the numbers related to those specific claims, correct? A. Yes, from this report. Yes.

Page 156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

the Chalet claims in 2007? A. That there was an increase in the consumer call-ins for the Chalet shingle. Q. And were a majority of those related to blistering? A. I believe so, yes. Q. And what did you do when you noticed the increased number of claims related to the Chalet shingle? A. We investigated the claims when the consumer sent the information in. Q. Okay. Did you report to anyone within the company that you had noticed an increase in the number of blistering claims for Chalet shingles? A. Atlas counsel would have been included in that. Q. Okay. Did you report to anyone other than Atlas' counsel? A. Yes. It would have been -- I'm trying to think who it would have been. I don't remember. Q. How about Mr. Fricks? Was he there then?

Page 155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Well, and you've learned that from month to month as you generate reports, right? A. Yes. Q. Each month, you can see the number of claims that have been submitted for the Chalet shingle under each of those three categories, right? A. Yes. Q. And you've learned trends, I assume; is that correct? A. Yes, based on that. Yes. Q. Okay. And so what trend have you noticed in the lifetime of the Chalet shingle which related to blistering claims? A. That we have had an increase in the consumers calling in a complaint on the Chalet shingle. Q. For blistering claims? A. That -- yes. Q. Okay. When did you first notice an increase in blistering claims related to the Chalet shingle? A. 2007. Q. Okay. And what did you notice about

TAB 3

Page 157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. I'm not sure Mr. Fricks was there at that time. Q. How about -- go ahead. A. Mr. Johnson. Q. Mr. Johnson? A. Uh-huh. Q. Do you remember reporting to Mr. Johnson that you were noticing an increase in the number of Chalet blistering claims? A. I don't remember per se that that was -- that I would have signaled that out to him. Q. Okay. Do you remember talking with Mel Collins about the increased number of blistering claims? A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. And when did you do that? A. I'm not sure. Q. Okay. What was the substance of the conversations that you had with Mel Collins regarding the increased number of blistering claims? A. Just basically that there had been an increase in consumer call-in.

40 (Pages 154 to 157) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 41 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. What action did Atlas take when you gained that knowledge? A. We did our normal claims gathering of information. If a consumer called in a claim and gave us information, we investigated the claim, as we do any claim. Q. Well, there were employees in the company at the time who discussed the cause of the blistering problem, correct? A. No. Q. No? Okay. When was the first time you became aware that anyone within Atlas was discussing the cause of the blistering problem with the Chalet shingle? A. I don't -- there -- at this time, there was no discussion as to the cause. There were circumstances when the consumer called in that they said that someone else, a third party, had told them that they needed to call Atlas, which did not constitute a manufacturing defect, but we investigated -- the consumer called in and we investigated their claim. Q. And who was the third party? A. Insurance adjusters and roofers.

Page 160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

me, sir. Q. Is there any committee that Atlas formed to discuss the warranty claims or any claims associated with the Chalet shingle? A. I don't remember any committee. Q. Okay. Was there any group of people that regularly met to discuss the trends in the Atlas Chalet blistering claims? A. No, none. There was none. Q. Did you have any regular meetings with anyone to discuss the increased number of claims related to Chalet? A. No, I did not. Q. Okay. Do you know how much money Atlas has paid out for blistering claims related to the Chalet shingle? A. I don't know right at this time. I don't remember what the actual dollar figure is. Q. Okay. What's your best estimate of that number? A. I would be guessing. Q. I'd like you to estimate. MR. PIEPER: Well, I mean, I don't

Page 159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. So you had reports coming from consumers that their insurance adjuster had told them that they had a defective Chalet shingle? A. Yes. MR. PIEPER: Just want to note for the record, she said insurance adjusts and roofers, but you started your question, and so it didn't quite make it into the transcript. MR. COFFIN: She'll fix it. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. When was the first time you recall any employee of Atlas discussing with you the cause of the blistering problem with the Chalet shingle? A. I don't recall being -- having that discussed with me. Q. Okay. Ever? Ever, you mean? A. To the best of my knowledge. Q. Okay. Is there any committee that Atlas had to review the warranty claims related to the Chalet shingle? A. And again, repeat your question for

TAB 3

Page 161

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

want you to. MR. COFFIN: You can object to the form if you like, but I don't want a talking objection, please. MR. PIEPER: All right. MR. COFFIN: I'll reformulate my question. If you want to object, that's fine. MR. PIEPER: I don't want you to insist on her to speculate. But -MR. COFFIN: Well -MR. PIEPER: -- I -MR. COFFIN: Excuse me, Joel. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Ms. Thomas -A. Yes? Q. -- can you give an estimate of the amount of money that Atlas has paid on blistering claims for the Chalet shingle to date? A. To date? Q. Yes, ma'am. A. Just as a guess, possibly 900,000. Q. And what is that guess based on?

41 (Pages 158 to 161) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 42 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Based on what information? A. Just based on a monthly report, an aggregate, you know, it's not -- it's a guess. Q. If you wanted to know an exact number of how much money Atlas has paid related to Chalet blistering claims, how would you go about finding that? A. I would pull a report. Q. What report? A. On PeopleSoft. Q. You'd run a report that would indicate the exact amount of money that Atlas has paid for blistering claims related to Chalet? A. That's correct. Q. And can you do that by sitting at your computer and typing in information that would generate the report? A. I can. Q. Okay. And can you do that with regard to any claim for the Chalet shingle? A. I can. Q. Okay. Do you know which state has the largest number of claims -- let me say that

Page 164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

that, they would have to take the three-tab overlay line out. Q. Do you know whether the decision to stop manufacturing the Chalet shingle had anything to do with the large number of claims that had come into your department related to the Chalet shingle? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Do you know what a Chalet shingle is made of? A. Basically, yes. Q. Okay. What? A. A glass mat three-tab shingle with granules and modified pad added with granules. Q. The modified pad you're referring to being the overlay? A. Yes. Q. And that's been consistent throughout the life of the Chalet shingle, correct? A. To the best of my knowledge. Q. Okay. And the Stratford shingle contains the same materials, correct? A. To the best of my knowledge. Q. And it's the same design, correct?

Page 163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

differently. Do you know which state the largest number of claims has come from related to Chalet shingles? A. Georgia. Q. Okay. And do you know the second largest? A. I don't. Q. Has anyone at Atlas ever concluded that the Chalet shingle has a defect? A. No, not to my knowledge. Q. Your department has never come to that conclusion, correct? A. That's correct, we have not. Q. Atlas stopped manufacturing the Chalet shingle in 2010, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Why did Atlas stop manufacturing the shingle? A. Atlas had a process of improving the various plants and adding new equipment, and at that time, it was scheduled for the Hampton plant to get an inline laminator, which would be a laminated shingle. And to accommodate

TAB 3

Page 165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. To the best of my knowledge, it is. Q. Do you know whether Atlas ever attempted to determine the cause of the blistering problems with the Chalet shingle? A. I wouldn't be able to answer that. Q. Do you know whether or not anyone in the company tried to determine a cause? A. Meldrin may have. Quality control may have. Q. May have or did? A. I'm not sure. I don't know. Q. Okay. Let me ask you -A. Uh-huh. Q. -- you are the supervisor of the customer service department, right? A. Claims processing, yes. Q. And in 2007, you started noticing a large number of Chalet shingle claims for blistering, correct? A. I noticed an increase in the number. Q. Okay. And did that number continue to increase in 2008? A. I believe it did. Q. And it continued to increase into

42 (Pages 162 to 165) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 43 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

2009, didn't it? A. Yes, I believe it did. Q. Okay. How about 2010, was that an increase as well? A. Yes. Q. How about 2011, was that an increase? A. Yes. Q. How about 2012, was that an increase? A. Yes. Q. How about 2013, was that an increase? A. Yes. Q. How about 2014, have you so far seen an increase in the number of Chalet shingle complaints related to blistering? A. Yes. Q. So since 2007, you have seen a consistent increase in the claims for blistering related to Chalet shingles? A. We've seen an increase in the call-ins from consumers, yes. Q. Those are claims, correct? A. Yes. Q. So since 2007, you've seen an increasing number of claims for Chalet shingles

Page 168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

made a determination without any testing, visual, that there was a defect in the product to report it to Atlas. Q. You don't believe that blistering is a normal outcome -- let me strike that. You don't believe that blistering is an expected outcome for the Chalet shingle, do you? A. Expected by whom? Q. Well, do you expect that the Chalet shingle should have blistering? A. The only expectation I have about the Chalet is that it does not allow leaks. Q. So regardless of how the shingle looks, you, as the customer service manager for Atlas, are not concerned one bit as long as that shingle doesn't leak? A. I'm concerned about whether or not it is a warranty variance, a warranty claim, that would result in leaks. Q. Have you ever discussed with your sales department whether they use the attractiveness of the Chalet shingle as a sales tactic when they sell the Chalet shingle?

Page 167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

related to blistering, correct? A. Yes. Q. That's a concern for you, is it not? A. The -- it is a concern to Atlas as it has a stigma -- stigmatization on our product. Q. Well, it's a concern to you as the -A. That there are consumer -- it is a concern to us that there are consumer complaints increasing with the Chalet shingle. Q. As the customer services manager, you're concerned about that because you want customers to be satisfied with the Atlas product, right? A. I am concerned that there has been inadequate -- incorrect information that has resulted in this increase in the call-in of complaints for the Chalet shingle. Q. What incorrect information do you believe has resulted in the increased number of claims? A. They're varying. One would be insurance adjusters who are -- were inspecting for a catastrophic hail event in that area, in the Georgia area, that referred the consumer

TAB 3

Page 169 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Repeat your question. I'm sorry. Q. Are you aware that your sales department at Atlas used the attractiveness of the shingle as a sales tactic to sell the shingle to consumers? A. They may have used verbiage regarding the shingle. I would have to see the information. Q. Have you ever seen any brochures for the Chalet shingle? A. I have in the past, yes. Not recently, but I have in the past. Q. Right. And didn't Atlas tout how good the shingle looks on your roof because of the three-dimensional look? A. There was verbiage to appearance, yes. Q. Right. And Atlas actually sold shingles using the representation that the appearance of the shingle is a nice appearance, correct? A. I don't know if that was the intent. I would have to read the brochure again. It states on there that they have a warranty also.

43 (Pages 166 to 169) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 44 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 170 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. In your 20-plus years of experience as a person working in the shingle industry, do you believe that it's normal for a shingle to contain blistering? A. What's normal? MR. PIEPER: Are you withdrawing the question? I think she wants a clarification to answer your question. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Oh, you'd like me to define. Okay. I can do that. What's your definition of normal? A. My definition of normal for the Chalet shingle? Q. Yes. A. Is that it performs on the roof to keep the roof water-tight and does not allow leaks. Q. Okay. Regardless of how that shingle looks, it's normal, in your opinion, if the shingle doesn't allow leaks? A. That's correct. Q. And that's Atlas' position, correct? A. That's correct.

Page 172 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Sometimes there is a bonus, yes. Q. What are your bonuses based on? A. My bonus is based off all the corporation, different -- I don't know all the variables. Q. Is one of the variables the amount of profit that the company makes? A. It could be a variable. Q. It could be or it is? A. It could be a variable. Q. Do you know whether or not the profit of the company helps to determine whether or not you receive a bonus? A. I believe so. Q. Okay. Is your bonus related to the number of -- let me strike that. Is the amount of your bonus related to the amount paid out in settlement claims in any way? A. Not in any way. Q. Okay. Have you received a bonus every year that you've worked as a claims manager? A. Not every year.

Page 171 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Why do you believe that Atlas has had such a large number of Chalet claims? A. The increase in claims coincides with the catastrophic hail event where there were adjusters and roofers out on roofs and roofers -- it was also, I would say, a downside to the economy at that time. And when you have a situation with hail or wind events, and roofers come in from different places, sometimes there are roofers from the area, but sometimes they're roofers coming in soliciting work. And as they go through the neighborhoods, they -- canvassing, they will go and sometimes they'll send flyers out and sometimes they will knock on doors. And they are soliciting shingle replacements. Q. And it's your opinion that that's the reason for an increased number of Chalet shingle claims related to blistering? A. It is. Q. How are you compensated for your work at Atlas? A. I'm a salaried employee. Q. Okay. Do you receive any bonuses?

TAB 3

Page 173 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. How are your employees in your department paid? A. They're salaried also. Q. They're all salaried? A. Uh-huh, yes. Q. Do they receive bonuses? A. Yes. Q. What do you base their bonuses on? A. It's corporate-wide. I don't know what that criteria is. Q. Okay. Have you ever had any of your employees in the customer service department complain to you about the number of Chalet claims that are coming in to the department? A. I have not had any complain about it. Q. Okay. What have they said about it? A. They don't make any -- any comments about it other than that we have X number of Chalet claims reported this week. Q. Have you ever had any discussions with your staff in your department about the Chalet blistering claims that are coming in? A. Yes, we have. Q. Okay. And what was the substance of

44 (Pages 170 to 173) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 45 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 174 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

those conversations? A. Just to -- that -- just like any other claim, just make sure you get the appropriate information to file the claim. Q. Has anyone ever said to you that they believe that it's unfair the way that Atlas is denying blistering claims because the blistering does not or may not cause leaks in a particular house? A. No. Q. Have you ever discussed that with anybody in your department? A. No. Q. Have you ever fired any employees in your department? A. No. Q. Have any of the claims associates left your department since you've been the manager? A. Yes, I had one. Q. Okay. Who left? A. Lou Cobler. Q. Lou? A. Lou, L-O-U.

Page 176 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

And because Gayle was there during the entire lifetime that Atlas was manufacturing the Chalet shingle, she processed claims related to the Chalet shingle, correct? A. Yes. Q. Do you know whether Lou processed any claims related to the Chalet shingle? A. I don't recall whether she did or not. Q. Okay. If you determine that a claim is covered under the warranty, how is that claim then paid? A. It's paid based on the terms stated in the warranty. Q. Okay. And what are those terms? A. They vary, depending on the time that the claim was filed. Q. Okay. So a warranty claim is adjusted based on the time that the claim was filed, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. What other factors do you base the payment of a warranty claim on? A. The date it was filed to the date it

Page 175 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. How do you spell his last name? A. Her name. Cobler, C-O-B-L-E-R. Q. And? A. And Gayle Davis. Q. Gayle Davis? A. Uh-huh. Q. Okay. When did Lou leave? A. I'm not sure the exact year. Q. Okay. Approximately how many years ago? A. 15. Q. And how about Gayle, when did she leave? A. In 2013. Q. How long was Gayle there? A. 21 years. Q. Did Gayle retire? A. She did. Q. Good for Gayle. Where is Gayle now? A. She's in Mexico Beach. Q. She's in Mexico? A. Beach, Florida. Q. Oh, Mexico Beach, Florida. I've never heard of it. Okay.

TAB 3

Page 177 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

was installed. Q. Okay. A. That's the number of months that were in use on the roof. Q. Okay. A. And that would be minus the warranty period, months in the warranty period. Q. Okay. A. To get the percentage of the proration, if it was after the three-year premium protection period. Q. Okay. A. If it was prior to the premium protection period, there was no proration. Q. Okay. And then what do you do with the proration percentage? A. You take the current cost of a comparable replacement shingle and you prorate it and then you pay based on the number of squares of shingles on the roof. Q. Okay. So the factors that you're using to determine the amount you'll pay a warranty claim include the date when the claim was filed?

45 (Pages 174 to 177) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 46 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 178 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Correct. Q. Includes the date that the shingle was installed? A. Correct. Q. That way, you can calculate the number of months that the shingle was in use? A. Correct. Q. And from that you determine the percentage of proration? A. Yes. Q. And then you use a comparable shingle replacement cost? A. Current replacement cost. Q. Current replacement cost? A. Uh-huh. Q. Yes, to determine the amount that you will pay on the warranty claim? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. The exception to that is if the shingle is within the premium protection period? A. That's correct. Q. How long was the premium protection period on the Chalet shingle?

Page 180 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. A material and labor replacement cost. Q. And does material include component parts or just the shingles? A. Shingles and felt, hip and ridge, and starter. No flashing or metal work. Q. During the premium protection period, is a consumer eligible to have their entire roof replaced or just the portion that Atlas determines has a manufacturing defect? A. It depends. Q. On what? A. It would depend on if it was one or two shingles or if it was one side of -- a portion of a roof only, or if it was the entire roof. Q. Okay. Let's take a couple of examples. A. Uh-huh. Q. If a consumer submitted a Chalet claim during the premium protection period and the claim was for one quarter of the shingles on the roof, how would Atlas pay that warranty claim?

Page 179 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Three years from the date of installation. Q. And so the premium protection portion of the warranty provided that if a manufacturing defect existed within three years from the date of installation, the replacement costs for the shingles would not be prorated? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. The amount that Atlas pays on a warranty claim only includes materials, correct? A. After the premium protection. Q. Okay. After the premium protection period, the amount that Atlas pays for a warranty claim only includes materials? A. Only includes shingle cost. Q. Only includes shingle cost, correct? A. That's right. Q. That means that it doesn't include any of the components that are needed to install the shingle, correct? A. That's correct. Q. But during the premium protection period, Atlas pays what for a warranty claim?

TAB 3

Page 181 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Would that one quarter of shingles on the roof be in an isolated area or would it be dispersed throughout the roof on one side or would it be dispersed throughout the roof, the entire roof? Q. Let's assume it was in a secluded area. A. If it was in an isolated area, not necessarily a secluded but an isolated area, that area would be replaced. Q. And if the shingles were dispersed throughout the roof? A. The entire roof would be replaced. Q. Is there a written procedure on how Atlas handles warranty claims during the premium protection period? A. It's stated in the product warranty. Q. But you don't have any procedure that you use within your department -A. No. Q. -- to determine that? A. No. Q. Okay. Do you have a document that outlines the formula that you just described

46 (Pages 178 to 181) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 47 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 182 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

regarding how to calculate the amount of payment on a warranty claim? A. I've never had a document. I was just trained to do that. Q. And who trained you to do that? A. Marie Johnson. Q. And then you trained your staff on how to do it? A. Correct. Q. And that same process for paying warranty claims has been in existence since you've been the manager of the department? A. That's correct. Q. So the same process for adjusting warranty claims related to the Chalet shingle has existed for the entire life of the Chalet shingle? A. Could you repeat your question again, please? Q. The process for adjusting a claim related to a Chalet shingle that falls under the warranty has always been the same? A. Correct. MR. COFFIN: Okay. Okay. Let's

Page 184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

ATLS00020970, and the ending Bates number is 20984. MS. COLLINS: Thank you. MR. COFFIN: And these are double-sided copies so that we would be somewhat environmentally conscious. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Can you identify what that document is? A. It is a claim file for Daniel Walcot and Cheryl Walcot. Q. And it's dated December 7, 2006, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Do you see the reference number there? A. I do. Q. What is the reference number used for? A. To track the claim throughout the evaluation process. Q. And every claim that comes in to Atlas receives a reference number, correct?

Page 183 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

change gears just a little bit and look at Exhibit Number 8. (Exhibit marked: 8) MR. COFFIN: Joel, just for your information, the next few documents I'm going to go through are claims files. I did not make a third copy, only because some of them are pretty large. But obviously you have these; you produced them to me. I just don't have another copy. I apologize. MR. PIEPER: Let me just take a look at it. THE WITNESS: Uh-huh, certainly. MR. PIEPER: Thanks. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Okay. Ms. Thomas, can you identify what's been marked as Exhibit Number 8? A. May I have time to look through it, please? Q. Sure. MS. COLLINS: Do you mind reading the Bates number real quick? MR. COFFIN: No problem. It's

TAB 3

Page 185 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Is that different from a claim number? A. It's the same. Q. Okay. And this claim file, this letter, is really the last document in the claim file, correct? A. This letter? Q. Yes. In other words, it's the last action you took? A. Yes. Yes. Q. Yes. Okay. So if you go all the way to the last document, which is Bates number 20984, that document is titled, "Claim Report," correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And can you describe what the claim report is? A. This is the initial information as it was called in by the consumer. Q. So a member of your staff would have fielded this particular call from Cheryl Walcot, correct? A. That's correct.

47 (Pages 182 to 185) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 48 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. And would have asked specific information in order to fill out this claim report? A. Yes. Q. And at that time, the reference number would have been provided? A. That's correct. Q. This particular claim report is for Chalet, correct? A. Yes. Q. And Ms. Cheryl Walcot is in Canton, Georgia, correct? A. Yes. Q. This is in the BridgeMill subdivision? A. Yes. Q. Do you have any recollection of blistering problems being reported by residents of the BridgeMill subdivision? A. Yes. Q. And what do you recall? A. This is one of the subdivisions that had the hail activity and which we received calls.

Page 188 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

control mailing labels. Q. Okay. What's HGA stand for? A. To the Hampton, Georgia plant. Q. Okay. Do you know who completed this claim report? A. I don't. Q. You don't recognize the handwriting? A. I don't. Q. Okay. And then the previous document, going this way -A. Okay. Q. -- is 20982 and 20983. And these are photographs, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And do you know whether these are photographs from the consumer or not? They appear to be. A. It appears that it is. Q. Yes. Okay. And you require the consumer to submit photographs, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you require the consumer to submit an estimate, correct? A. Yes.

Page 187 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. And what's the problem that was reported? A. She stated blisters. Q. Okay. And under "status," can you read what that is, that says? A. Yes. "6-29-06, received" -- it's an abbreviation for call from homeowner, "sent homeowner PIF/CL3/QC-HGA." Q. Okay. So let's break that down. REC means received, correct? A. Uh-huh, yes. Q. CL means call? A. Yes. Q. HO means homeowner? A. Yes. Q. SNT means sent? A. That's correct. Q. HO means homeowner? A. Yes. Q. What does PIF mean? A. That's the claim kit. It is the product information form -Q. Okay. A. -- cover sheet, and the quality

TAB 3

Page 189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Estimate for replacement? A. Yes. Q. And that appears to be what's in 20981, right? A. I'm looking at it, yes. Q. Okay. A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And do you require two estimates? A. We usually require two estimates. Q. Okay. And so 20979 is likely a second estimate, correct? A. That would be the proof of purchase. Q. Okay. Explain that to me, please. A. It appears that on 6-1-2003, the consumer or roofer bought shingles, Chalet shingles, from Hope Lumber and Supply Company. Q. Oh, so this is the proof of purchase? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And does your department require a proof of purchase when a claim packet is submitted? A. Yes, we do. Q. Okay. All right. And then if you'll

48 (Pages 186 to 189) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 49 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 190 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

turn to the document titled "Product Information Form," that is Bates number 20977 -A. Okay. Q. -- and you see that up at the top where it says "Atlas Roofing Corporation"? A. Yes. Q. And it says "Product Information Form," correct? A. That's correct. Q. That's the PIF that was referred to? A. That's correct. Q. And every consumer who submits a claim is required to submit this product information form? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And turn to the next page. Can you explain what is in document Bates number 20976? A. Yes. That's a printout from the PeopleSoft. Q. Okay. And the title is "Atlas Roofing Corporation, Homeowner Claim Comments," correct?

Page 192 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

plant, holding for sample file. Q. Okay. A. Meaning that the consumer has had a claim package sent to them, and we're holding it pending until we receive information on the claim. Q. Okay. And it was keyed in by that particular person, right? A. Correct. Q. And who is LCG? A. Lajuana Gray. Q. Okay. And the third comment says what? A. "10/4/06, received CL. Keyed, WA." Q. Okay. And who's WA? A. I believe that's Walad. Q. And Walad is in the consumer control division? Quality? A. Quality control, yes, correct. Q. Okay. And so this is indicating that Walad in the quality control division received the shingle samples, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And what's 4 state?

Page 191 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. That's correct. Q. And this is a printout from PeopleSoft of all of the activity that was entered in the system related to this claim? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And the first comment is what? A. "6-29-06, received call from homeowner, sent homeowner PIF/CL3/QC-HGA CSD info 13, holding for sample file" -Q. Okay. I'm sorry. A. -- LOG." Q. Okay. Actually the first comment says "blisters" at the top, right? A. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Q. Okay. And then you just read the second comment. Can you tell me, CSD, does that mean customer service department? A. Consumer services department. Q. Excuse me, consumer services department. What is info? Is that information? A. Yes. Q. And what does 13-HFSF mean? A. 13 is the designation for Hampton

TAB 3

Page 193 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. "10-9 of '06. Samples and pictures show rash blistering on the overlay pad. Shingles out of premium protection. Keyed, JCP." Q. Okay. And that note is indicating that the samples that were received by Atlas showed rash blistering on the overlay pad, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And the pictures showed rash blistering on the overlay pad? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. And that these particular shingles were out of the premium protection three-year period? A. That's what that states, yes. Q. Okay. And who is JCP? A. I don't know who JCP is. Q. Okay. Number 6 comment. A. "10-6-06, sent to PM." That's plant manager. "Keyed, JCP." Q. Okay. What would have been sent to the plant manager? A. The claim file.

49 (Pages 190 to 193) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 50 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 194 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. A. Q. A. Q. A.

The claim file. Okay. And number 7? "10-23-06, sent to CSD. Keyed, JCP." And who is CSD? That's consumer services department. Okay. And then I still don't know who GACP

is. Q. Okay. That's okay. So what would have been sent to the consumer services department? A. The claim file. Q. So first it went to the plant manager and then to the consumer services department? A. It would have gone to the plant manager and he would have given it back to quality control, and they would have sent it to us. Q. Okay. Why did that occur? A. Why did what occur? Q. Is that how it always happens? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. Okay. Q. So there's nothing out of the

Page 196 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Do you remember when she left? A. I don't remember when she moved, no. Q. Do you know why she left? A. She changed locations. Q. Okay. A. States. Q. Okay. And what's the next document, 20975? A. It is the lab inspection report. Q. And is a inspection/lab report completed for every claim received by Atlas? A. It is. Q. And who completes the inspection/lab report? A. If it has not had a sales inspection, it would be -- and coming in from the consumer, it would be quality control. Q. Okay. So any claim that comes in from a consumer, the lab report, inspection/lab report, goes to quality control? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And this particular report was completed by Mr. Meldrin Collins, correct? A. Yes.

Page 195 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

ordinary about how this was handled? A. No. Q. Okay. And what's comment number 8? A. "10-25-06, received claim," or CLM, "from QC, info to Terry. Keyed, LCG." Q. Okay. And who is Terry? A. I forgot about Terry. She was a coordinator at one time. Q. What's a coordinator? A. Well, an assistant, claims assistant. Q. A claims assistant. Okay. And what's Terry's full name? A. Terry Steinki. Q. Do you have any idea how to spell that? A. S- -- it's been a long time. S-T-E-I-N-K-I. Q. Okay. And when was Terry working in your department? A. Well, obviously by this date, she was still employed with Atlas. Q. So in 2006, she was employed with Atlas? A. Yes.

TAB 3

Page 197 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. On October 9, '06? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And can you read the comments that are above Mr. Collins' signature? A. "Samples and pictures show rash blistering on overlay pad. Shingles delivered in June '03. Technically, shingles are out of premium protection." Q. And he has checked that the complaint is not valid, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And for each claim that is received by Atlas, does the quality control department make a determination as to whether that complaint is valid or not? A. Yes, they do. Q. Okay. And whose signature is to the right of Mr. Collins'? A. The plant manager's signature. I can't read his. Q. Okay. That's okay. Okay. And also on that -- I'm sorry, on that same page, if you look at the type of product claimed defect, it's a Chalet shingle, correct?

50 (Pages 194 to 197) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 51 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 198 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Yes. Q. Okay. And if you go to 20973, that document is titled "Claim Recommendation Form," correct? A. Yes. Q. What is a claim recommendation form? A. It's just a form where when we receive it from quality control, we enter notations. And if there is a settlement, we enter the settlement on that page. Q. Okay. And you enter the claim settlement and notes under that section towards the bottom; is that right? A. I did not. Q. No, but that's -A. Oh, yes. Q. Your department does that? A. Yes, they do. Q. Okay. What does "applied" mean? A. Date the shingles were installed. Q. Okay. And "filed"? A. The date the claim was filed. Q. And "used"? A. That would be the number of months

Page 200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

number for the code for blistering. Q. Okay. And is it the number for blistering regardless of the brand name of the shingle? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. So you use code 16 with Chalet and other brand name shingles? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. What does "warranty" mean? A. Which warranty the installation fell within. Q. Okay. A. The warranty has the date, and we go by the installation date. Q. I see. And what does "charged to" mean? A. That's just an accounting code. Q. Okay. What does 415111-13 mean? A. That is charging to the Hampton manufacturing plant. Q. So when you charge claims that are paid, they're charged to a specific plant? A. The plant of manufacture, yes. Q. Okay. So for Chalet shingles, any

Page 199 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

used on the roof. Q. And "remain"? A. The number of months remaining in the warranty period. Q. Okay. And those are the factors that we discussed earlier that go into the formula for determining how much to pay on a warranty claim, correct? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. Do you use that same formula for a non-warranty claim that Atlas decides to pay? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So regardless of whether the company is paying a warranty claim or a non-warranty claim, the same formula for determining how much is paid is used with these factors? A. Yes. Q. Okay. What does "code" mean? A. Quality code. Q. What does that mean? A. The complaint was submitted for blistering. A quality code for recording this is 16. Blistering is 16. That's just the

TAB 3

Page 201 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

claim that's paid would be charged to the account for the Hampton, Georgia plant? A. That's correct. Q. And that's been true for the life of the Chalet shingle? A. That's correct. Q. Why is that? A. That's the plant of manufacture. Q. And that's just a way that Atlas keeps track of its financial accounting; is that -A. I'm assuming so. Q. Okay. With regard to codes, what other codes exist that you use within your department? A. There are several codes. Q. Are they all numbers that are related to a specific defect? A. They're all numbers that are related to a specific reported problem, whether it's found to be within specifications, a defect, or not. If it's paid for whatever reason, that would be the code used. THE REPORTER: 25 seconds.

51 (Pages 198 to 201) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 52 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 202 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

MR. COFFIN: Okay. Let's go off the record. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now going off the video record. The time is 3:19 p.m. (Recess) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now back on the video record with Tape Number 4. The time is 3:24 p.m. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Ms. Thomas, we were talking about the codes that are listed at the bottom of that page. And on this particular document, 16 code is written, correct? A. That's correct. Q. What -- there are a number of other codes that your department uses for classifying claims, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Can you give me a couple of examples other than code 16 that's used for blistering? A. Yes, code 02 would be non-sealed. Q. Okay.

Page 204 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. When we're requesting a check for a settlement. Q. Okay. And that could be a claim settlement or a warranty claim settlement? A. It could be either, yes. Q. Okay. And in this particular case, it's a claim settlement, correct? A. Yes. Q. And by "claim settlement," you mean that this claim, in Atlas' view, did not follow -- did not fall under the warranty? A. That's correct. Q. If you look to the left, on page 20971, that is a check, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And it appears to be a description of what the check was for at the top; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And do you see the word "claim settlement" at the top left? A. Yes. Q. That indicates that this check was issued to settle a claim that Atlas determined

Page 203 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Code 21, blistering -- I'm sorry. Code 21 is cracking. Q. Okay. How about granule loss? A. 18. Q. Any others that you recall? A. There are many. Q. Okay. Let me just ask this: All of these number codes that you've just mentioned correspond to some problem that's been claimed with the shingle, correct? A. Reported and claimed, yes. Q. Okay. And do you only use these codes when a claim is paid? A. No. Q. Okay. They're used to identify the problem regardless of whether or not Atlas pays the claim or not? A. The problem reported, yes. Q. Okay. Okay. And if you turn the page to 20972, can you explain what that document is? A. That is a check request. Q. Okay. And when do you use that document?

TAB 3

Page 205 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

was not covered by the warranty? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And this check was to Daniel Walcot and Cheryl Walcot for $13,104.30, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And that was to settle their claim related to blistering on their Chalet shingles? A. That's correct. Q. And on the front page, which is 20970, this is the cover letter that you signed and included with their check? A. That's correct. Q. In the letter, you indicate that the $13,104.30 is for the full material and labor settlement of the above-referenced claim; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell why Atlas paid the full material and labor on this Chalet blistering claim? A. The application was at a later date than the proof of purchase. The proof of purchase would have been just outside of the

52 (Pages 202 to 205) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 53 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 206 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

premium protection, but as a leniency toward the consumer, we honored the installation date that the roofing company gave us. Q. So, in other words, Atlas believed that technically this claim was outside the premium protection period, but you honored the claim anyway? A. The proof of purchase dated the purchase, but we go by the installation. And it appears that the consumer states that they purchased the house new in 2005. And to be lenient to the consumer, we allowed it to go into the premium protection rather than prorate it. Q. Okay. So you were lenient on the time period in which the consumer premium protection warranty applied? A. Yes. Q. Okay. This was a claim submitted by the Walcots because there was blistering on their Chalet shingle, correct? A. That's what they reported, yes. Q. Okay. But you paid the claim regardless of the fact that the problem was one

Page 208 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Yes? Q. -- let me ask you a question about these claim files in general. You've worked with these same documents for almost 20 years, correct, or over 20 years? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So you're very familiar with the documents in these claims files, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. I would ask that you take a look at it, because I don't want to deprive you of looking at it, but you don't need to read every word, because as you've testified, you're very familiar with these documents. A. Okay. MR. PIEPER: I would just qualify that. To the extent you need to read something to answer his question, you're free to do that. MR. COFFIN: Absolutely. I have no problem with that. I just don't want us to be here longer than we have to when we have a witness that has dealt with these for 20 years.

Page 207 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

which Atlas believes is not a defect in the shingle? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Why? A. The roofing contractor -- I don't see any notes to this. At this particular time, this roofing contractor was a large roofing contractor for Atlas, and it would have been, it appears, that it was paid out of concession and gratitude to their business. Q. So you were treating the consumer favorably because you wanted to maintain the relationship with the contractor? A. That's correct. MR. COFFIN: Okay. All right. Let me mark what we will -- what will be Exhibit 9. (Exhibit marked: 9) MR. COFFIN: And for the record, this document begins Bates number ATLS00048564 and goes through Bates number 48689. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Ms. Thomas --

TAB 3

Page 209 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

MR. PIEPER: I understand. But she's dealt with the forms, not the completed information, so... BY MR. COFFIN: Q. What I can do, Ms. Thomas, is refer to the specific document and let you read based on the question. That way you don't have to read the entire packet. Okay. So how about this? Does the document that we've marked as Exhibit 9 appear to be a claim file from Atlas? A. Yes, it does. Q. Okay. And who is the claimant in the claim file? A. Sheila Martin. Q. Okay. And the top letter is dated February 24, 2010, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And it's from you? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. So the first page in this file is actually the claim report, which is on the very back page? A. Yes. Q. And it is number 48689. And that's a

53 (Pages 206 to 209) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 54 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 210 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

claim report, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And as you just discussed, that's the initial form that your department completes for a claim? A. That's correct. Q. And the product indicated is Chalet, correct? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. And can you just read the status at the bottom? A. "11-9-09, received call from homeowner. Homeowner said shingles look bad and are coming apart. Roof is leaking all over. Sent homeowner PIF/CL3/QC-HGA, 11-9 of '09." Q. Okay. And all that information that was sent is the same information that we discussed with the previous file? A. That's correct. Q. And the next sets of documents, for probably about ten or so pages, are pictures, correct? A. Yes, it appears to be.

Page 212 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. A. Okay. Q. And there was an inspection on this roof because the customer requested it, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And initially what happened was your department evaluated the claim and determined that the claim was valid for something called a splice, correct? A. That's correct. Q. What is a splice? A. A splice is during the manufacturing process, the two big rolls of fiberglass that are used to make a shingle are spliced together. And it goes through the process and they're covered with asphalt and granules. And there is an indicator on the line that alerts you to a splice coming through. The splices are pulled. And obviously there were splices that got through to the packaging and made it to the roof. Q. Okay. So if you turn back to the initial claim report, which is 48689, the

Page 211 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Actually, more than ten documents. I apologize. (Mr. Bryson departed) BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Now, would it be consistent with Atlas' policy that there would be pictures taken by the consumer that are in the file and pictures taken at an inspection that are in the file? A. Can I take a minute to look at this, because I -Q. Sure. A. Yes, it appears that they're pictures from an inspection and also from a consumer. Q. And the -A. Is what it appears. Q. The pictures from the consumer are part of the information that you require a consumer to submit, correct? A. Yes. Q. And why would there be pictures from an inspection included in this file? A. I need to look at this to see why there was an inspection.

TAB 3

Page 213 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

problem reported was granule loss/leaking, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And so your department would have evaluated this claim for granule loss and leaking, correct? A. We would have evaluated the claim for any issue. Q. Okay. And your determination -- if you turn to 48596. 48596. A. Okay. MR. PIEPER: Do you see where those Bates numbers are? THE WITNESS: Yeah, I see them. MR. PIEPER: Okay. THE WITNESS: I'm looking. 596 -I'm sorry. I had my hand on it. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Okay. And 48596 is a letter from you, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And it's dated January 6, 2010? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And this letter to the

54 (Pages 210 to 213) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 55 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 214 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

consumer is indicating that shingles were found to contain a splice, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you had enclosed a check in the amount of a hundred dollars for the correction of the spliced shingle; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Now you go on. In the third paragraph, you discuss blistering. And can you read that third paragraph? A. "Additionally, in response to your concerns regarding rash blistering and surface cracking on the overlay pad of the Chalet shingles present on the roof, upon examination of the samples, rash blistering and surface cracking on the overlay pad were found. However, these conditions on the overlay pad are not classified as a manufacturing defect." Q. Okay. Now that information in that paragraph is standard information that you provide to a consumer who makes a claim for blistering of a Chalet shingle, correct? A. I wouldn't say it's standard. Q. Well, is that information you provide

Page 216 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

base layer identical to a standard three-tab shingle, and an overlay section of asphalt and granules are added." Q. That's a true statement, correct? A. That is true. Q. Okay. Go ahead. A. "The overlay's only function is to create the look of dimension and depth. In some cases, rash-type blistering and surface cracking can develop on the overlay portion of the shingle. Neither the rash blistering nor cracking will cause premature failure of the shingle. The base layer of the shingle is uncompromised and will continue to provide watertight protection and the shingle will perform as intended." Q. Okay. So let's talk about that paragraph. When you say the overlay's only function is to create the look of dimension and depth, that is the function of the overlay, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And you state that in some cases, rash-type blisters and surface cracking

Page 215 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

to every consumer who submits a claim for blistering on a Chalet shingle? A. It is information that we submit to consumers. I would have to see each situation to know if it was this verbiage. Q. Okay. Do you know any -- can you recall any situation in which you have not provided this information regarding Atlas' stance on blistering to a consumer who has made a claim for blistering on a Chalet shingle? A. There may have been. Q. Can you recall any? A. I don't recall any. Q. Okay. But this has always been Atlas' position with regard to whether or not blistering is a manufacturing defect? A. Atlas' position is that it is not a manufacturing defect. Q. Right. And what you've stated in this paragraph has always been Atlas' position? A. Correct. Q. Okay. The next paragraph, can you read that? A. "The Chalet shingle is made with a

TAB 3

Page 217 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

can develop on the overlay portion of the shingle. That's true, isn't it? A. That's correct. Q. And the last two sentences are Atlas' position with regard to rash blistering and cracking related to compromise of the shingle? A. That's correct. Q. And that's been Atlas' position for the entire life of the Chalet shingle, correct? A. That's correct. Q. If you turn the page, read the next paragraph. A. "However, be assured that the product warranty for manufacturing defects which would reduce the useable life of the product remains valid. If you have further concerns regarding rash blisters or cracking, we recommend that you monitor the roof. And in the unlikely event that a premature failure affecting the water/weather protection should occur, Atlas will further evaluate the roof. If the weathering performance have been affected at that time, we will use the original file date of the claim as the date of notification, with

55 (Pages 214 to 217) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 56 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 218 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

no additional time accrued against the warranty. The warranty settlement would be -would not be prorated further than based on initial call-in month and year of November 2009. Also, be assured the warranty and this agreement will transfer to a subsequent owner. See warranty for terms and limitations regarding transferability." Q. Okay. Why do you recommend for the customer to monitor the roof? A. I'm just simply alleviating a customer's concern and it shows that we feel strongly that unlikely -- it's very unlikely that this would ever cause an issue that affects the watertight protection of the roof. Q. And Atlas believes that it's unlikely that premature failure can result from blistering, correct? A. Yes. What is premature failure? Q. Well, you used the term premature failure. You say "in the unlikely event that a premature failure affecting the water/weather protection should occur." What do you mean by "premature

Page 220 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Not in the warranty terms of the -of causing a leak. And that is what failure is. Q. Well, this says it's unlikely. It's not impossible, is it? Is that your position? A. I've never seen it to do so. Q. You've never seen blistering or cracking on the overlay pad cause premature failure? A. Not to the best of my knowledge. Q. Okay. And you signed this letter, correct? A. I did. Q. Okay. So this is the letter that you sent to the Martins to compensate them for the splice settlement, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you provided an explanation as to why you were not compensating them for the blistering or cracking? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And the Martins, after they received this letter, requested inspection, correct?

Page 219 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

failure"? A. At the point at which the roof leaks. Q. Right. What do you mean by "premature failure"? A. That the roof would begin to leak. Q. Okay. Premature failure means that the roof would begin to leak prior to a time when you would reasonably expect it to. Is that what you're saying? A. I don't know what's reasonable to expect. What it means is at the point at which the roof began to leak, that would be considered -- if it was due to a manufacturing variance that caused the leak, that would be a failure at that time. Q. And Atlas believes that it's unlikely that a premature failure could result from blistering or cracking; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. It is possible that premature failure could result from blistering or cracking, isn't it? A. No. Q. It's not possible?

TAB 3

Page 221

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. That's correct. Q. And that's why Mr. Meldrin Collins became involved? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Okay. If you'll turn to the pictures, ATLS00048608. 48608. A. I am obviously lousy at finding these. Q. I've had a lot of practice, so don't worry. 48608. A. Okay. You're looking at them. Q. 48608. MR. PIEPER: Let me see if I can find it for you. THE WITNESS: Yeah, because I'm fumbling around here. MR. PIEPER: No problem. THE WITNESS: I've tried both pair of glasses today and neither of them work. MR. COFFIN: Yeah, go that way, Joel. MR. PIEPER: Yeah, that's the trick on this one.

56 (Pages 218 to 221) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 57 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 222 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

THE WITNESS: You're making me feel better. MR. PIEPER: Yeah. Here you go. It's a double-sided. That's tricky on that. MR. COFFIN: Yeah. MR. PIEPER: Okay. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Okay. So you're looking at picture 48608? A. Yes. Q. Does that picture depict blistering on the Chalet shingle? A. Yes, it shows blistering on the Chalet shingle. Q. Okay. And turn three pages over, to 48612. A. Okay. Q. And does that picture also depict blistering on the Chalet shingle? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And turn to 48628. A. Okay.

Page 224 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. He was the plant manager. Q. At Hampton? A. Yes. Q. And Mr. Meldrin says, "On Tuesday, January 19th, I inspected the home of Larry Martin. Mr. Martin submitted a claim for blistering, cracking, and curling. He was sent a denial/monitoring letter." What is a denial/monitoring letter? A. It is a letter stating that at this time we are denying the claim. And as a further concession to the consumer agreeing that if they monitor the roof and at a later time -- unlikely, but, you know, to alleviate their concern, that if at a later time the roof should have a failure resulting in leaks, we would not prorate any further than the original call-in date. Q. Okay. Mr. Collins goes on to state that "At the inspection, I met with Mr. Martin and Jason Dolan with Crist Roofing and Construction." Do you see that? A. Yes, I do.

Page 223 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. And does that picture illustrate blistering on the Chalet shingle? A. Yes, it does. Q. Okay. Turn to the next page with the picture, 48630. A. Okay. Q. What is that picture indicating? A. Surface cracking on the overlay. Q. Okay. That's surface cracking on the overlay of the Chalet shingle? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Now, there's a letter at 48665 that was written by Meldrin Collins on February 1, 2010. A. Inspection findings, yes. Q. And at the top it says "Martin Inspection." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Okay. This appears to be an e-mail that was sent to you and to someone named Dustin; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Who is Dustin?

TAB 3

Page 225 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Do you know Jason Dolan? A. I don't know them personally. Q. Okay. Does that name ring a bell? A. Crist Roofing does. Q. Okay. Why? A. It would be one of the -- a roofer in the area that was pretty prominently known. Q. Okay. The next sentence says, "Mr. Martin explained how he has seen deterioration of the shingles from the cracking and blistering and now it is to the point that he has several leaks." Is it your understanding that Mr. Martin was claiming that cracking and blistering on the Chalet shingle had led to leaks in his roof? A. It's my understanding that that's what he is claiming or alleging, yes. Q. Okay. If you look at the first sentence of that third paragraph that starts, "An inspection." "An inspection of the roof found blistering and surface cracking on the overlay pad."

57 (Pages 222 to 225) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 58 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 226 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

That's Mr. Meldrin's inspection, correct? A. Yes. Q. And the pictures we just looked at confirm what Mr. Meldrin is saying here, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. He says, "Also, there were several exposed nails. I explained to Mr. Martin and Jason how the shingle was constructed and that we have not seen any failures due to the overlay issues." Now, this was February 1st of 2010. Was it accurate that Atlas had not seen any failures in the Chalet Shingle due to overlay issues as of February 1, 2010? A. That's correct. Q. You had had complaints of failures in the Chalet shingle related to the overlay issues by February 1st, 2010, correct? A. We had had complaints of blistering and possibly surface cracking. Q. But none that were complaints of the shingle failing because of the blistering or

Page 228 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

he has been on several Chalet roofs made prior to 2005 that have leaks." And Jason is the roofing contractor, correct? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. And this letter from Mr. Meldrin Collins is indicating that the roofing contractor has been on several roofs with Chalet shingles that have leaks, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Were you aware of reports of roofs with Chalet shingles that had leaks as a result of the shingles failing? A. There could have been reports of leaking, but not as a result of the shingle failure. Q. But you were aware of the reports that people were making claiming that the leaks were a result of the Chalet shingle failure? A. There could have been some that I -I don't recall specifically, but there could have been some. Q. Well, you're quite certain that prior to 2010, you had complaints of consumers

Page 227 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

surface cracking? A. The consumer may have stated that. Q. Right. That's what I mean. A. Okay. Q. You had claims that had been submitted to Atlas prior to February 1st of 2010 in which the consumer claimed that the blistering and surface cracking on the Chalet shingle was leading to failure? A. Correct, yes. Q. But Atlas had not determined that the blistering or cracking had led to failure? A. That's correct. MR. PIEPER: I'm going to object to the form. You said leading and led. MR. COFFIN: Okay. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. As of today, September 18th of 2014, has Atlas seen failures due to the overlay issues in the Chalet shingle? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. If you go to the bottom of that paragraph, the very last two words start a sentence that says, "Jason also mentioned that

TAB 3

Page 229 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

stating that their leaks were results of the Chalet shingle failing, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And Jason asked, "Did we make changes in 2005?" Did Atlas make any changes, to your knowledge, to the Chalet shingle in 2005? A. I'm not in quality control, and I can't answer that. Q. Well, I'm asking if you know. A. I don't know for sure, you know, one way or the other. Q. Okay. Do you know one way or the other whether there have been any changes made in the way the Chalet shingle is manufactured since its inception? A. There may have been. Q. Okay. Are you aware that there were some changes in the way that the shingle was manufactured, the Chalet shingle was manufactured, during the life of the shingle? A. I wouldn't know what changes were made. Q. Okay. But you're aware that there

58 (Pages 226 to 229) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 59 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 230 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

were changes made, aren't you? I'm asking you. A. Yes. Q. I'm asking you, because I think you know that there were some changes made. A. Yes. Q. Okay. Do you have any knowledge as to what those changes were? A. No, I don't. Q. Fair enough. Why would Mr. Meldrin Collins have sent this report to you and to Dustin? A. That once he made an inspection report, he would send it to me to look at to further evaluate the claim -Q. Okay. A. -- as -Q. Go ahead. I'm sorry. A. No, that's fine. Q. And at this point in the process, what type of evaluation would you be doing based on what Mr. Meldrin had sent you? A. To see if there was anything different that he noted during the inspection than what was already on file.

Page 232 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

you, Atlas, could pay -A. Yes. Q. -- for resolution of the claim? A. It appears. Q. Okay. Turn the page over one, to 48577. A. Okay. Q. Okay. This document is titled "Factors Affecting Attic Ventilation." Do you know why this document is in the claim file? A. Yes. Q. Why? A. Because if you use more than one type of exhaust ventilation on a roof, it can allow leaking or water infiltration. Q. The ventilation system itself can cause the water penetration? Is that what you're saying? A. It can cause water intrusion into the attic space. Q. Okay. And so why would you have this document indicating that in a claim file? A. Bear with me just a minute. Let me

Page 231 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. If you look at 48576, it looks like this. A. Going this way. Okay. Q. 48576, just a couple pages away. A. Just a couple of pages away from this? I must be going the wrong way. Q. I'll find it for you. It will make it easier. I see what I did. I used a different one. There are actually two copies of that report. Sorry about that. That's my fault. Okay. So do you see the document 48576? A. Yes, I do. Q. Okay. Do you know whose handwriting that is? A. It appears to be mine. Q. Okay. And what does that say? A. I don't know what the first says. I know it's "Martin, offer of 83.3 percent replacement, $10,800." And then it gives an amount, 8,996.40. Q. Okay. And that appears to be a calculation that you made to determine how much

TAB 3

Page 233 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

look at the original letter. I'm not sure why it's in here. Q. Okay. Have you seen this document before? A. Certainly, yes. Q. Okay. Who is Lomanco, L-O-M-A-N-C-O? A. They're a leading ventilation manufacturer. Q. Okay. And does Atlas rely on Lomanco for guidance regarding ventilation? A. They're one source. Q. Okay. Okay. If you turn to 48573, it's a letter from you. A. It's the other way. Oh, I didn't see that one. MR. PIEPER: Here you go. THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay. I have it. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. That's a letter from you to Larry Martin and Sheila Martin dated February 15, 2010, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And this letter indicates that

59 (Pages 230 to 233) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 60 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 234 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

you are providing them with a customer accommodation warranty settlement in the amount of $8,996.40, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And you also included with the letter a general release and confidentiality agreement, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Does Atlas always require a general release and confidentiality agreement to be signed by a consumer who's receiving a claim settlement? A. Not always. Q. Okay. In what situation do you not require a release and confidentiality agreement? A. If it's a partial settlement. If it is a settlement under the Atlas warranty. Q. Okay. Do you ever have partial settlements that are not covered under the warranty in which you do not require the consumer to sign a general release and confidentiality agreement? A. And I'm sorry, I'm getting tired.

Page 236 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

the Martins, you require the general release and confidentiality agreement to be signed by them and returned to you before you send the settlement check? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. So with this letter, you would have been sending the general release, and that general release is included on 48574 and 48575, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Let's look at that general release. When you send a general release to a customer that you're settling a claim for, do you always send this release contained here? A. Not always. Q. Okay. What other release do you use? A. There may be some slight change in verbiage. Q. Okay. Do you know any time since 1998 that you've changed the verbiage in the general release? A. There have been some. Q. Okay. Do you know what the changes were?

Page 235 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Could you repeat it again? Q. Is there ever a situation in which you provide the consumer with a partial settlement that is not covered under the warranty where you do not require them to sign a release and confidentiality agreement? A. I don't remember or recall any. Q. Okay. So in most every case, if not all, you require a general release and confidentiality agreement if the settlement is outside of the warranty? A. Yes. Q. Okay. But if it's considered a warranty claim covered by the warranty, you do not require a general release and confidentiality agreement? A. It would depend. Q. Okay. What's it depend on? A. If there was some circumstance in the file where we felt that the consumer might not be honest maybe would be one factor. Q. Okay. All right. A. Okay. Q. And as you state in this letter to

TAB 3

Page 237 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Not at this time. Q. Do you know when they were? A. No, not at this time. Q. Okay. If you look at the last paragraph of the first page of the general release, can you read that? A. I can. "It is expressly understood, promised, agreed, and coveted by the undersigned that the payment aforesaid is not intended to be and should not be construed as an admission of any liability for the matter claimed, but that said payment is made by the way of a compromise and settlement only of certain mentioned claims for which liability is expressly denied by the parties released herein." Q. Okay. And is it your understanding that what Atlas is conveying is that the company is not admitting liability related to the particular claim, correct? A. That's correct. Q. But they are providing payment to the customer as a compromise and settlement, correct?

60 (Pages 234 to 237) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 61 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 238 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Why is Atlas doing that in a situation in which the company believes that the blistering and cracking on this shingle did not cause the leaks? A. In the notes, it says Mr. Martin -- I believe he was going to -- he was making a lot of threats. One was to go to, I believe, a TV station. The other, he got Crist Roofing involved and the dealer involved and had stated his attorney was involved. Q. Okay. And so you made the decision that, because of the threats that the Martins had made, it was in Atlas' best interest to settle the claim? A. Yes, for our dealer and for Atlas. Q. Okay. Can you look at the next page of the release, which is 48570. A. Uh-huh. Q. And this is a page on which the consumer is required to sign, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Can you read the last paragraph, which starts "The undersigned agree"?

Page 240 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

hounded them. I threatened an attorney. This is how you do it. You go tell them you're going to get an attorney, you go to their dealer and put some pressure on their dealer, and they're going to give you $8,000. Well, there may or may not ever be this situation, but should he have a neighbor that has a roof that's half the size of his roof and they -- you know, for some reason, they filed a claim and it got to a point of negotiation, oftentimes a consumer doesn't understand that a negotiated settlement is related -- you know, would be related to the number of squares, et cetera. That's, you know, one of the reasons. Q. Does Atlas require confidentiality in any of the claim settlements that it makes? A. In any of the claim settlements? Q. In all of the claim settlements it makes? A. Not all of the claim settlements. Q. Let me ask you this: Does Atlas require confidentiality in all non-warranty claim settlements that it makes?

Page 239 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. "The undersigned agree to keep the terms and confidentiality of this agreement completely and further agree that any violation of the confidentiality requirement contained in this provision shall entitle Atlas Roofing Corporation to rescind this agreement and recover all sums paid under this agreement." Q. Why does Atlas require confidentiality when they settle a claim? A. The confidentiality is actually related to the amount paid. We are negotiating -- had negotiated a claim that was not a warranty claim, due to extenuating circumstances, and we would prefer that the consumer not divulge the amount. Q. Why? A. There is something that we refer to as kind of the wildfire syndrome. Q. Wildfire? A. Yeah. That's just my terminology. Q. Okay. A. That consumers don't always, you know, keep things confidential. They might say, Guess what? We just hounded Atlas and we

TAB 3

Page 241 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Yes, I believe so. Q. Okay. Okay. And if you turn to the claim recommendation form, which is 48567, let's look at the bottom section, claim settlement additional notes. A. Okay. Q. See where it says, "Code 16"? A. That's correct. Q. And N is circled for no, correct? A. That's correct. Q. What does that mean? A. That we did not pay this claim for blistering. Q. What was the claim paid for? A. It was -- this was the initial monitoring/denial thing. Q. I see. A. And when it came back, we paid, I believe, a splice, under a splice code. Q. Okay. Has it ever been Atlas' position to send a monitoring/denial letter with every Chalet blistering claim that comes in? A. No, not with every Chalet blistering

61 (Pages 238 to 241) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 62 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 242 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

claim. Q. Okay. Has it ever been Atlas' policy to send a monitoring/denial letter with any type of claim that comes in? A. They could be sent with some. Q. Okay. Like what? A. Various. Depends on the circumstances of the individual file. Q. I'm sorry. We're miscommunicating. What I was asking is: Is there a policy to send that particular monitoring/denial letter with any and all of a particular problem reported on a specific shingle? A. A monitoring/denial letter could be sent on any denial if it was applicable. Q. Okay. A. By the terms -- by the circumstances in the claim. Q. Okay. You actually helped create the monitoring and denial letter that you used for blistering on Chalet shingles, correct? A. I did. Q. And you created that because you recognized that there were an increased number

Page 244 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

enclosing a check to the Martins, to Mrs. Martin, in the amount of $8,896.40? A. That's correct. Q. And you signed this, correct? A. I believe Gayle Davis possibly signed that one. Q. For you? A. On my behalf, my direction. Q. Okay. And if you turn the page over, that's the actual check and the stub for the check, right? A. That's correct. Q. And this indicates that it is a claim settlement, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And that indicates, as we've discussed, that Atlas determined that this claim was not covered under the warranty? A. That's correct. MR. COFFIN: Okay. All right. Let's mark number 10. (Exhibit marked: 10) THE WITNESS: Joel. MR. PIEPER: Thank you.

Page 243 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

of claims, correct? A. That might have been one consideration. Q. Okay. And another consideration was that you wanted a letter that you could use over and over to send out when these blistering claims continued to come in, correct? A. Not only blistering claims. It's used for other things also. Q. You created it as a result of the high number of blistering claims, correct? A. That would be correct. Q. Okay. All right. Let's look at 48565. This is the check. And this check was actually attached to 48564, which is the very first page in this file, and that would be your letter of February 24, 2010. So if you look at that letter first, just so we're referencing them in order -- turn the page over. A. Oh. Q. Okay. So 48564 is your letter of February 24, 2010, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And this letter indicates that you're

TAB 3

Page 245 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

BY MR. COFFIN: Q. And so the record is clear, this is a claim file for Ernest Lyons and Mary Lyons, Bates numbers 43574 through 43648. A. 43646. Okay. No? Q. That last page should be 43648. A. 43646? Q. The back page will be 7. MR. PIEPER: Is it copied on the back there? Yeah, so this is 7, I guess. MR. COFFIN: And here's 8. It's attached. THE WITNESS: Oh, I got confused. There's nothing on it. Okay. MR. PIEPER: There's nothing on the back, but there's a Bates. MR. COFFIN: Yeah, it's Bates numbered. MR. PIEPER: So should we -- we'll attach it? MR. COFFIN: Just attach it. I'm sorry. It just fell off. BY MR. COFFIN:

62 (Pages 242 to 245) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 63 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 246 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. So we're looking at ATLS00043574 through 43648, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And this is the claim file for Ernest Lyons and Mary Lyons, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And let's look at the original claim report. And this is a claim for the Chalet 30-year shingle product, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And the date filed was -A. Well, wait. The Chalet with a 30-year warranty. Q. Right. A. Yeah, okay. Q. Chalet made -- Chalet comes with either a 25- or a 30-year. A. Yeah. Q. And this is a 30-year product? A. Yeah, 30-year warranty. Q. Okay. You've made a point to make a distinction there which intrigues me. You're indicating that this is a 30-year warranty shingle, correct?

Page 248 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. Why was the decision made to increase the Chalet warranty from 25 to 30 years? A. That would have been a marketing decision. Q. Okay. There was no change in the structure of the shingle at the time that the change was made from a 25- to a 30-year warranty shingle, correct? A. I'm not aware of any. Q. Okay. I'm sorry. Let's go back to this claim report -A. Okay. Q. -- filed on October 6 of 2009. Correct? A. That's correct. Q. And this is from Tucker, Georgia, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And if you look, flip one page back, you'll see 43646. It's a picture. A. Uh-huh. Q. And that picture appears to be from USAA, correct?

Page 247 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. The shingle has a 30-year warranty. Q. The shingle has a 30-year warranty, not to be confused with this is a 30-year shingle, which would indicate that it's supposed to last 30 years? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. I'm interested in that, because you don't want to confuse the two descriptions, correct? A. That's correct. Q. I understand. The date this was filed was October 6 of 2009. A. That's correct. Q. Let me ask you about the issue of a 30-year shingle versus a 30-year warranted shingle. Have you experienced confusion with consumers about that terminology? A. No. I just wanted to be clear, Atlas doesn't make any representation to the years on the shingle. It makes representation to how long we agree to pay the -- a remedy if there is a valid claim or that falls within the warranty period.

TAB 3

Page 249 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Yes. Q. And that picture shows blistering on the Chalet shingle, correct? A. Yes, it does. Q. Okay. And if you turn to 43634 -A. 43634? Q. Yes, ma'am. A. Okay. Q. That picture also shows blistering on the Chalet shingle? A. It shows blistering on the overlay, yes. Q. Okay. And 43624. That is a picture showing blistering on the overlay of the Chalet shingle? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. If you turn to 43594, 43594, it's the homeowner claim comments from PeopleSoft. A. Okay. Q. And this is for -- this is for the Lyons' claim, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And the first comment is blistering,

63 (Pages 246 to 249) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 64 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 250 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

correct? A. That's correct. Q. Can you read the second? A. "10-06-09, received call from homeowner, sent homeowner PIF/CL3/QC-HGA. Keyed, TJA. Homeowner called on the 5th. We had to leave message. CSD held, holding for sample file, HGA." Q. Okay. And who is TJA? A. I don't know who TJA is. Q. Okay. And all that terminology is terminology you've defined before, correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, if you go to the sixth line, comment 6, can you read that, please? A. "12-16-09, sent CL 2 p.m. CL not valid. Samples and pictures show rash blistering -- " Q. Keep going. A. -- "on overlay pad. Insurance company indicates that no hail damage was seen on shingle, but not -- shingle, but not blistering; recommends sending homeowner a letter explaining blistering condition will not

Page 252 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. I note he signs it here on the bottom, so yes. Q. Okay. And he's indicating that the insurance company found no hail damage on the shingles, but did see blistering, correct? A. He's repeating what they stated they found, yes. Q. Right. And we actually just looked at pictures in this file from USAA that you said showed blistering, right? A. Yes, we did see some. Q. Okay. And he recommends sending the homeowner the letter explaining blistering, and that's similar to the letter we went over earlier in the deposition, correct? A. A letter explaining blistering, yes. Q. Okay. And that the condition will not cause premature failure, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And if you turn to 43592, which is that letter, this is a letter from you to the Lyons on January 15, 2010. And that is what you called the monitoring/denial letter, correct?

Page 251 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

cause premature failure. Keyed, MS." Q. Okay. So in this particular claim, the insurance company representative indicated that there was no hail damage seen on the shingle, correct? A. That was their indication. Q. Okay. And if you turn to the next page, it's actually on the back of what you were just reading, 43595, that's an inspection/lab report, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And at the bottom left is the comments for the inspection that Atlas did in the quality control department, right? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And what does the comment say? A. "Samples and pictures show rash blistering on overlay pad. Insurance company indicates that no hail damage was seen on shingles, but noted blistering. Recommend sending homeowner a letter explaining blistering condition will not cause premature failure. MC." Q. And MC is Meldrin Collins, correct?

TAB 3

Page 253 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. It does have that element in it, yes. Q. And you said that to the Lyons denying their claim, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. If you turn to 43590, this is -- I'm sorry. 43590, excuse me. 43590. A. 43590? Q. Yes. A. Okay. Q. This document is called an "Inspection Request." And it appears to be in e-mail form, right? A. Yes. Q. And we've seen this document before. Is an inspection request something that is a particular document used within Atlas? A. No, it's just a way to communicate to Meldrin just to let him know via e-mail that we're requesting him to go inspect for whatever reason. Q. Okay. And so can you read the e-mail, please? A. Gayle Davis to Meldrin, or to M. Collins. "Hi, Meldrin. CSD received a phone

64 (Pages 250 to 253) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 65 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 254 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

call from Ms. Lyons today. She is upset over the letter she received and said the roof looks bad and Atlas can say all day long that looks don't matter, but they do to her. She has had leaks. I explained that the leaking is not caused by the shingles; water is getting around the shingles. Ms. Lyons wanted someone to look at the roof and tell her that it does not look bad and will not fail. Please contact her to set up an inspection. Info as follows: Ernest and Mary Lyons," gives the address. Q. Okay. And so Ms. Lyons had called and indicated that she is not pleased with how her shingles look, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And this isn't the first time that you and your department have received a claim from a Chalet owner complaining about the look of the shingle, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And her claim is that the shingle looks bad because of the blistering as indicated in the pictures we just looked at, right?

Page 256 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

to Ernest Lyons and Mary Lyons, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And this letter indicates that you had reconsidered the denial of their claim and had decided to provide the Lyons with a customer accommodation settlement in the amount of $5,000, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you included the general release that we have discussed previously, correct? It's on the back page. A. Okay. Yes, similar. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, it appears on this letter that the husband called back and indicated that he was not pleased and wanted more money for the settlement, correct? A. Let's see the date. Q. It's March 19th. This letter was on the 16th. A. Yes. Q. Okay. And so it appears that the $5,000 offered was not accepted by the Lyons, correct? A. That's correct.

Page 255 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. That's obviously what she stated here. Q. Okay. And as a result of this call, your department determined that an inspection needed to occur? A. Yes. As a courtesy to her, yes. Q. Okay. And Mr. Meldrin went and inspected the roof, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. Wait a minute. I'm looking for his inspection. Just a moment. I may have spoken prematurely. Q. Well, if he did go for an inspection, we don't see it in here. A. No, I don't see an inspection in here. Q. So it's not clear whether he actually went, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. But if you turn to 43586, it's a letter from you. Do you see that letter? A. I do, uh-huh. Q. It's dated March 16, 2010, and it's

TAB 3

Page 257 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. And, in fact, if you turn to 43583, you'll see another letter from you, dated March 19th, 2010. A. I've got that, yes. Q. And that indicates that you had again reconsidered the amount that you would pay Mr. and Mrs. Lyons and, as a customer accommodation settlement, you agreed to pay them $8,000, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And again, with that letter, you provided the general release? A. That's correct. A general release, yes. Q. A general release, correct. Now, if you turn to the very first page in this file, which is 43574, this is the cover letter of March 25, 2010, in which you indicate that you're enclosing a check for $8,000? A. That's correct. Q. And on the back of that is a copy of the check and the stub that you sent to the Lyons, correct?

65 (Pages 254 to 257) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 66 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 258 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. That's correct. Q. Now, this is determined to be a claim settlement for $8,000, right? A. That's correct. Q. That means that Atlas determined that this claim did not fall under the terms of the warranty, but that the company would pay the claim regardless, correct? A. That's correct, as a customer accommodation. Q. Okay. A. It appears -Q. Go ahead. A. -- that the homeowner had threatened legal activity. Q. That's what I was going to ask you, is: Can you tell why you made the determination to move up from $5,000 -actually move from zero to 5,000 and 5,000 to 8,000? A. Well, to move from 5,000 to 8,000, the difference between that could easily be eaten up with legal fees and expenses. And that for the sum of $8,000 -- that is the sum

Page 260 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

increased the amount of their claim from 5,000 to $8,000? A. That's correct. MR. COFFIN: Okay. We need to change the tape. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now going off the video record. The time is 4:51 p.m. (Recess) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now back on the video record with Tape Number 5. The time is 5:03 p.m. (Exhibit marked: 11) BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Ms. Thomas, can you identify Exhibit 11. I'll represent to you that this is another claim file. A. It is a claim file. Q. And it's for Freida Lee, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And it begins with ATLS00056375 and the last page on the back, if you turn it all the way over, is 56442, correct? A. That's correct.

Page 259 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

that the homeowner had -- was insisting upon in order not to file a lawsuit, an individual lawsuit. And it could cost more than that to go through with a lawsuit. Q. Is it your policy within your department to increase the amount of a settlement claim if the customer threatens legal action? A. No, it is not a policy. Q. Okay. Is it your general practice to increase the amount of a claim settlement if the customer threatens legal action? A. It's not a policy. It is a consideration. Q. Okay. Is it a consideration for you to determine whether you'll increase the amount of a settlement claim if a customer threatens legal action? A. It's one consideration but not always a consideration. Q. I understand. It was certainly a consideration in the case with the Lyons, yes? A. With the Lyons, yes. Q. And that consideration actually

TAB 3

Page 261 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. I have a few specific questions with this particular file. First of all, let's look at the claim report, which is on -- three pages from the back. Do you see it? A. I do. Q. It's 56438. This is a claim report for a Chalet shingle, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And it was filed on December 31st of '09? A. Yes. Q. And the claimant is Freida Lee? A. That's correct. Q. The problem reported is blistering and cracking, brittle; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. THE WITNESS: Do you want to see it? MR. PIEPER: Yes, thanks. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Okay. And let's go to the inspection/lab report, which is 56422. 56422.

66 (Pages 258 to 261) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 67 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 262 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Okay. Okay. And this inspection/lab report indicates that the customer's claim was blistering/cracking, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And it's an Atlas Chalet shingle? A. Yes. Q. And the comments at the bottom are by Mr. Meldrin Collins, correct? A. Yes. Q. And what do the comments say? A. "Samples and pictures show blistering and surface cracking on overlay shingle. Recommend informing homeowner that blistering and cracking on overlay will not cause premature failure." Q. And with regard to whether the complaint is valid, it indicates no, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And who's the signature of the quality control person there? A. Ginger Granger. Q. And who is that? A. She is a lab tech. Q. Okay. And is she still with Atlas?

Page 264 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Do you see the letter -- 56440 -from Ms. Freida Lee, who's the customer -A. That's correct. Q. -- to you, and that's dated February 15, 2010, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And Ms. Lee states, "In response to the letter from Atlas dated February 10, 2010, my roof is leaking. The leaking has caused staining on my ceiling. This was the problem that prompted the inspection of the roof and the discovery of the cracking, blistering, and brittleness of the shingles which covers my entire four-year-old roof." Ms. Lee is indicating that she's experiencing leaking caused by cracking and blistering on her Chalet shingle, correct? A. That's what she's alleging, yes. Q. And this is a four-year-old roof, correct? A. That's what she stated. I would have to see the proof of purchase to verify it. Q. Okay. Well, let's look at the proof

Page 263

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. I'm not sure. Q. Okay. And who is the signature to the right? A. Dustin Davidson. Q. Okay. And who is he? A. That's the plant manager. Q. And where? A. At Hampton plant. Q. Okay. So with regard to this claim, if you look at 56441, which is the very last page of the file, this is a letter from you dated February 10, 2010, correct? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. And this is the monitoring/denial letter that you sent to Ms. Lee, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And it has the language that we've discussed about the Chalet shingle's overlay blistering issue, correct? A. It does. Q. Okay. And if you look at the letter on 56440, which is -- just flip that over. A. The other way? Q. The whole packet.

TAB 3

Page 265 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

of purchase. Do you see it? A. No, not yet. Yes, I do. Q. Okay. And when was the purchase? A. 11-4 of 2005. Q. Okay. And the date filed was 2009, as stated in the claim form, right? A. I believe so. Let me look. Yes, 12-31 of '9. Q. So this is a four-year-old roof, correct? A. That's correct. Q. In your experience in the shingles industry for over 20 years, would you expect that a four-year-old shingle would experience blistering and cracking? A. I don't have any expectations about blistering and cracking. Q. Would you expect that blistering and cracking should occur on a roof shingle in a time period of four years? MR. PIEPER: Object to form. THE WITNESS: I would not make any assumption as to whether it did or did

67 (Pages 262 to 265) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 68 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 266 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

not. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Okay. And ultimately you concluded that Ms. Lee's claim was not a claim that fell under the terms of the Chalet warranty, correct? A. Let me find that, sir. That's correct. Q. Now, this claim indicates that the Chalet shingle had blistering and cracking that was causing leaks in Ms. Lee's roof, correct? A. That was Ms. Lee's allegation. Q. Okay. And what did Atlas find was the cause of the leaks in Ms. Lee's roof? A. I'm going to look through the file, take a moment to look through the file. Q. I can help you out. If you look at 56403 -A. Okay. Q. -- you'll find Mr. Meldrin Collins' letter to you and to Dustin? A. Okay. Q. And you see that that's dated March 11, 2010?

Page 268 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. And insurance adjusters have conveyed to you that they believe that the Chalet Shingles are defective, correct? A. In their opinion. Q. They have conveyed that, right? A. Yes, they have. Q. Mr. Collins states, "My inspection showed rash blistering throughout the roof, all sides. There was also a tarp on the front left section of the roof. Ms. Lee reported that she had experienced a leak in her bedroom; therefore, she placed a tarp in the area to prevent further leaking." This is consistent with Ms. Lee indicating that she had leaks in her roof, correct? A. That's correct. Q. In the second-to-last paragraph, it states, "Ms. Lee expressed that she is very unhappy with the condition of the roof and it looks much older than a four-year-old roof. She did pick the Chalet shingle because of the look and she likes the look but not the blisters."

Page 267 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. That's correct. Q. And he inspected the roof, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And Ms. Lee requested the inspection after being sent a denial/monitoring letter correct? A. That's correct. Q. That's the letter that we just referred to? A. Yes. Q. And Ms. Lee has had her roofer come out and inspect the roof, and he regarded it as blistered and defective, correct? A. That was what was stated, yes. Q. Okay. That's what the roofer believed -A. That's correct. Q. -- according to -- according to Mr. Meldrin, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And other roofers have conveyed to you that they believe that the Chalet shingles are defective, correct? A. Yes.

TAB 3

Page 269 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Is it your experience that many consumers who purchased the Chalet shingle did so because of the look? A. I wouldn't say many. I don't know that to be true. Q. You know that some consumers certainly chose the Chalet shingle because of the look? MR. PIEPER: Object to form. THE WITNESS: Some consumers may have. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Well, you know that Ms. Lee certainly chose the shingle because of the look? A. That's what she has stated. Q. Okay. If you turn almost all the way to the front, five pages in is 56383. This is a check to Ms. Freida Lee, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Now, the stub indicates this is a material claim settlement. Can you explain what that means? A. We provided the material, the cost for material.

68 (Pages 266 to 269) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 69 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 270 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. And is this a warranty settlement, or is this a non-warranty settlement? A. It is a non-warranty settlement. Q. Okay. And how do you know that? A. Because the claim was deemed not valid. Q. Okay. If you turn to the very front page, it's a cover letter from you on April 8, 2010, to Ms. Lee, correct? A. Yes. Q. And that indicates that you have enclosed a check for $4,646.40 for the labor settlement of the above-referenced claim, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And if you turn the page, you see a copy of the check and the check stub indicating "labor claim settlement," correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. What is a labor claim settlement? A. If we pay a replacement, sometimes we will pay the material cost first, and then when

Page 272 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

situation? A. There's different situations and different factors in the -Q. But there has -A. -- in the claim file. Q. There's no reasoning other than it's a different file? MR. PIEPER: Object to form. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Is there any other reasoning other than it's just a different file? MR. PIEPER: Object to form. THE WITNESS: You're asking -- can I repeat what I -- or can he repeat again to me? Clarify. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Sure. All I would like to know from you is: Why in Ms. Lee's case would you not have just sent a lump sum check? A. I'm looking through here to see if there is anything that -To ensure that the roof was replaced. Q. Why don't you do that in every situation of a settlement claim?

Page 271 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

the roof is completed, we will pay the labor portion of the roof. Q. How do you determine whether or not you're going to pay a settlement for materials and labor versus just a cash settlement on any claim? A. It would depend on the specific file and the factors in the file. Q. You, as the service manager, try to encourage settlements that are for materials and labor, correct? A. Repeat your question, please. Q. Do you try to encourage settlements that are based on materials and labor rather than a lump sum check to the client? A. No, that's not necessarily true. Q. Okay. Why -- all I'm trying to understand is: Why would you send two separate checks in a claim versus just sending a lump sum, like we've seen in the previous file? A. Because obviously this was a customer accommodation and we wanted to have them to actually replace the roof. Q. Why don't you do that in every

TAB 3

Page 273 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. It would depend on the situation in each claim. I would have to see why it wasn't done, based on the facts in the file. Q. I'm asking you in a general context, why do you not pay a separate check for materials and labor in every settlement claim? A. And I can't answer in a general context. MR. PIEPER: Objection. Excuse me. This is getting a little bit gratuitous now. I've given you four or five chances to ask the same question. She's answering your question. MR. COFFIN: Let's go to the next document, please. (Exhibit marked: 12) BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Can you identify what's been marked as Exhibit 12. A. It is -- it seems to be an e-mail. Q. Okay. And -THE WITNESS: Have you got it? BY MR. COFFIN: Q. -- if you'll turn to the last page,

69 (Pages 270 to 273) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 70 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 274 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

you'll see the beginning of this e-mail chain, correct? A. Yes. I don't have a date on it, but I'm -Q. It's February 25th, 2009, from Brad Partin. A. Okay. I do see it. Yes, I do see it now. Q. Okay. Who is Brad Partin? A. He is the -- at that time, the quality manager in the Meridian plant. Q. Okay. And who is Jimmy Ray? A. He is -- was a sales representative for Atlas who has passed. Q. Okay. Is Brad still with Atlas? A. He is. Q. Okay. What's he do now? A. He's a plant manager for the Meridian plant. Q. Okay. So this e-mail from Jimmy Ray to Brad says, "Please review the attached. After you have signed the cover, you can either fax it back to" -- phone number -- "or scan it and e-mail it back to my attention. If you

Page 276 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. And [email protected] was your previous e-mail address? A. That's correct. Q. And this e-mail that Jimmy's writing is about a complaint received by a homeowner who is also a builder in middle Georgia, right? A. That's what it states. Q. Okay. And one of the claims -- or the claims are granule loss, bare spots, and what may be blisters, correct? A. Just a moment. I don't know what the complaint was from the consumer. I know what Mr. Ray is stating here, what he seemed to find in the pictures. Q. Okay. A. And that would be correct as to what he said he saw. Q. Okay. And then if you turn the next page, which is 124248, and that's your response to this e-mail. It's dated March 2nd, 2009. Do you see that? A. I do. Q. And you wrote it back to Jimmy, and

Page 275 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

have any problems opening the attached, let me know." Now, Jimmy then responds. If you turn the page, February 28, 2009, it appears that Jimmy's e-mail address is [email protected]; is that correct? A. Obviously from this document, it is. Q. Okay. Well, I've seen his e-mail, that e-mail address, a number of times. A. Okay. Q. Do you know why Jimmy Ray didn't have an Atlas chalet -- I mean, excuse me, an Atlas Roofing e-mail address? A. I don't. Q. Okay. And you can read to yourself what Jimmy says. A. You're speaking of the e-mail dated 2-28-09? Q. Yes, ma'am. A. Okay. Q. So this particular e-mail that Jimmy wrote was actually addressed to two individuals. One of them was you, correct? A. That's correct.

TAB 3

Page 277 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

it appears that you copied K. Villar. Do you know who that is? A. Kirk Villar. Q. Who is that? A. The vice president of sales. Q. Okay. And can you read what you wrote in this first paragraph? A. "In regard to the claim Brad sent to you, Jimmy, you should be getting all the denials for review for your option to either sign off or -- on the denial or offer a sales policy if you feel needed. This is usual and normal process for all regions and is something I will cover with you and your sales personnel in the claims procedure meeting March 16. The exception will be blistering on the overlay products. You should not be actively involved in these as they have a special circumstance claims procedure, just as your sales reps will not be involved in these." Q. That's all. That's the end of that paragraph. So you indicate that you're going to cover a specific policy with the sales

70 (Pages 274 to 277) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 71 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 278 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

personnel regarding claims procedures in a meeting on March 16th, correct? A. That's what it says, yes. Q. Now, the information that you provide to them in that meeting, is that similar to the information we covered earlier today? A. That is, yes. Q. Okay. And next you say the exception will be the blistering on overlay products. Do you see that? A. I do. Q. Okay. So you had an exception to the claims procedure in 2009 with regard to the overlay products, correct? A. It was a difference. It's whether the -- the sales reps did not go and inspect those. They're older claims. They come -that was the only difference. Q. Okay. Why didn't the sales reps inspect the overlay products that had blistering in 2009? A. The only claims that they're required and need to inspect are the in-progress claims. This is salespeople.

Page 280 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

me, a nice way of asking him not to get involved in claims that were not in progress for him. Q. Okay. You go on in this e-mail to explain the process for inspecting roofs and claims, correct? A. Let me go there. Q. Okay. I'm not going to ask you any specific questions. I'm just asking you about the general tone of the letter. A. Okay. Q. All right. So you're -- you're just covering what the process should be for Jimmy? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. A. In a nice way. Q. I understand. And you wanted to convey to Jimmy that this is the process we use -A. Yes. Q. -- and that he needs to be familiar with it; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. I understand.

Page 279 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Okay. And then you say, "You will not be actively involved in these, as they have a special circumstance claims procedure." Did all overlay products at that time have a special circumstance claims procedure? A. I'm not sure what I was referring to here other than that sales does not inspect these claims, you know, that they are sent claim kits, just like any other claim is sent and come in through the quality control. Q. Has there ever been any situation in which a blistering claim for a Chalet shingle has been received as an in-progress claim? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Okay. And is that why you're making this distinction here to the salespeople? A. Yeah, I'm -- Jimmy Ray was a unique person. He was very customer-oriented and he would inspect a six-month-old roof or he would inspect a 20-year-old roof. It didn't -- and he -- as you see, he didn't just confine his concerns. He was kind of going to different subjects in his e-mail. He had some issues. And that was, to

TAB 3

Page 281 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

And if you look at the first page, there's another e-mail that you sent to Jimmy, a short paragraph at the top of the page, which indicates that you were a bit bothered by the fact that Jimmy included someone at Warner Robins Supply on the e-mail chain that was only intended for internal use, correct? A. Yes. Q. I understand. Okay. And that's because what you were conveying to Jimmy was an internal procedure only for Atlas to know about? A. Probably internal information. I don't know if it was a procedure per se. Q. Okay. That's fair. Okay. Let's mark Exhibit Number -- what was the last one I gave you? 12? A. Yes, 12. MR. COFFIN: 13. (Exhibit marked: 13) BY MR. COFFIN: Q. So this is another e-mail chain and you are at the top of this. You actually received this e-mail and the whole chain on

71 (Pages 278 to 281) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 72 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 282 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

April 4th, 2008. Do you see that? Or it was sent then, I should say. A. I do. Q. And do you see [email protected]? A. I do. Q. So let's go to the original e-mail, which is from Paul Smith, at the bottom of this document. Who is Paul Smith? A. I don't know who Paul Smith is. Q. Okay. And he writes, "We are already starting to have roofing contractors ask us about Atlas Chalet and blistering. Apparently, insurance adjusters want to not talk about hail damage when they see the blistering." Do you recall Atlas having to address this issue with insurance adjusters? A. Yes. Q. And what do you recall? A. Well, I remember that it was a situation and an issue. And at one point we may have contacted or someone with Atlas may have contacted John Birnham, probably insurance

Page 284 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

with, "RIS should stay out of discussions about the Chalet blistering issues." Who is RIS? A. That is one of our big distributors. Roofing Insulation Supply Company. Q. Okay. And if you look at the bottom, you see Paul D. Smith was the regional vice president of that company, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. "As soon as this comes up in discussion, we should give them the number to Atlas' consumer services department. None of us are quality control experts and we should not speculate or discuss quality issues." Is that the message that Atlas was conveying to its supply companies? A. I don't know that it was. I don't think so. I think this is something that Mr. Smith may be conveying to his people because he doesn't want them to get involved into making claim determinations when they have no qualifications or full information. I think he's reacting to what he stated at first, that there were apparently insurance adjusters who

Page 283 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

adjusters, to ask them to not make these type of incorrect comments. And it wasn't just that -- they were never saying that we had a class action suit in progress at that time and we had recalls. It was just a whole barrage of incorrect information. Q. Okay. Atlas has never issued a recall for the Chalet shingle, correct? A. No, we have not. Q. Has Atlas ever issued a recall for any shingle? Do you know? A. I don't know. Q. The next sentence says, "Atlas does have Chalet shingles on roofs that are blistering." That was a correct statement as of April 2008, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And Atlas' stance is it is only a blemish and does not affect the performance of the shingle. And that was a true statement as of April 2008, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. The next paragraph starts

TAB 3

Page 285 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

were, I would say, vilifying the product or stigmatizing our product. Q. All right. A. And he sells the product. Q. Well, let's look at the e-mail that begins this. A. Okay. Q. It says, "See e-mails below. How do we address the insurance company's stance on this?" That was actually sent to you, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And do you remember how -A. Because I was in the chain of people. Q. Right. You were one of the people it was addressed to? A. That's correct, yes. Q. And do you remember how you as a group addressed this issue? A. I can think of one instance where they -- Mr. Villar may have spoken with an adjuster in the field and tried to explain that, you know, that this doesn't constitute a

72 (Pages 282 to 285) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 73 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 286 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

manufacturing defect; they're making incorrect statements about recalls and class actions. And I'm not a hundred percent sure, but that is something that I recall. I'm not sure if it's this instance and, you know, what adjuster it is. Q. Okay. Okay. A. Because there were many. Q. Okay. When you say many -A. Adjusters. There was a CAT team that went into this area, catastrophic insurance team. And they have various companies and various insurance adjusters. MR. COFFIN: Okay. I'll mark Exhibit 14. (Exhibit marked: 14) BY MR. COFFIN: Q. And this is another e-mail. It's actually an e-mail chain as well. And this is a little backwards from what we've seen before. I'm not sure why. But it appears that the original e-mail, which is dated June 13th, 2010, is in the middle. And it's from Roy to you.

Page 288 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

It appears to me from the substance of this that rather than saying Pinnacle HP in the middle, he means Chalet. Do you have any recollection of this? A. No, I don't. Q. Okay. Well, then let me ask you this. You write back to him at the bottom on June 29, 2010. Okay? And I think what you're replying to is the e-mail at the very top, which says, "Is this something we could sales policy?" Do you see that? A. Yeah, I'm looking here. Just a moment. If you'd please bear with me. Q. Yeah. A. He was Jimmy Ray's best friend -Q. Okay. A. -- and had similar traits as far as -Q. Okay. Well, my question is: He asks, Roy asks, "Is this something that we could sales policy? And if so, how much could the amount be?" Do you see that at very top?

Page 287 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Okay. Q. Do you see that? A. I do. Q. Who is Roy? A. Roy Williams was a sales representative with Atlas. Q. Okay. Is he still with Atlas? A. No, he is not. Q. Okay. Do you know where he is? A. He's ill. He has severe Parkinson's. Q. I'm sorry to hear that. A. He's on disability. Q. And Roy writes, "This roof was turned down recently. This house is heavily blistered, losing granules, with bare spots, as the photos show. This house is Pinnacle HP, but he has told A&W Roofing that if Atlas will not honor the warranty on his mother's house, then he will no longer use Atlas" -I think that's Atlas. I see it's cut off, at least on my copy. -- "here as we need to convert Cagel and A&W to Pinnacle HP. Can we take a look at this"?

TAB 3

Page 289 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. (Indicating in the affirmative). Q. And your response is, "No, not by a sales policy. And consider this e-mail confidential." My first question is: What do you mean by "sales policy"? A. He's just wanting to get sales to approve the claim. Obviously, this is a dealer's -- a roofer's roof or mother's personal house. Q. Right. A. And he's wanting sales, you know, to agree or to have either he or I ask sales to pay for this roof. Q. Okay. He needs you -- he needs your approval for that? A. He does not need my approval for that. He would need Mr. Villar's approval for that. So I have no idea why he's just -- you know, I'm trying to read the rest of it so I'll know where -Q. Okay. Go ahead. It's only a couple sentences. A. And he was, as Jimmy Ray, bad about

73 (Pages 286 to 289) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 74 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 290 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

forwarding on memos that might have internal information to customers. Q. I understand. MR. PIEPER: Have you finished reading that? THE WITNESS: I'm getting there. MR. PIEPER: Please read it. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Okay. And so my question is: What is meant by, "No, not by sales policy"? A. At this time, no, that -- I don't know why, because it's his option to do so if he wants to. But -Q. Well, you're indicating that you don't believe that this roof could be covered by the sales department; is that right? A. That may not be my indication. It may be that possibly -- I believe it's going to be inspected by Meldrin. Let Meldrin look at the roof to see what the facts of the claim are. Don't just, you know, before it's inspected -Q. Okay.

Page 292 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

claims"? A. That this roofing contractor might be under the wrong assumption that he could just call Roy and two days later, whatever -- I'm just using that as an example -- that a claim would be paid without investigating it. Q. And you wanted to be careful that roofers didn't believe that they could just call someone in the company -A. Circumvent, you know, the -Q. Let me finish. A. Oh. Q. You wanted to make sure that roofers didn't believe that they could call somebody in Atlas and just get a roof replaced without going through your department? A. That's correct. Q. All right. Because that could lead to multiple replacements without you having seen the claim, correct? A. It could lead to replacing shingles that are not ours. MR. COFFIN: Okay. Okay. (Exhibit marked: 15)

Page 291 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. -- without all your information, go and make a concession of something just as it is a roofing contractor's relative. That would be my implication on it. Q. Okay. And it looks as though you explained to him that Meldrin had already been asked to inspect the roof, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And you asked him not to go any further, because your department was handling it based on the guidelines in place for the claims, correct? A. Right. Q. So it appears that you wanted to go through the claims process that you use in your department? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And you say, "It is especially important as you are interceding for a builder with likely more roofs with Chalet and could set a negative precedence regarding the handling of these claims." What do you mean by "set a negative precedence regarding the handling of these

TAB 3

Page 293 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Exhibit 15. This is an e-mail dated December 21st, 2005, correct? A. Yes, it is. MR. PIEPER: Give her just a second to look it over, Chris. THE WITNESS: Yes. Okay. BY MR. COFFIN: Q. This is dated December 21st, 2005, correct? A. Yes, it is. Q. And who is it from? A. It's from Roy Williams. Q. And it's to who? A. Russ Burnette. Q. Okay. Who's Russ Burnette? A. He was Mr. Williams' regional manager at that time. Q. Okay. Where's Russ now? A. Retired. Q. Okay. Do you know where he is? A. I don't. Q. Okay. And you were copied on this, correct?

74 (Pages 290 to 293) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 75 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 294 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Yes, I was. Q. Okay. And this subject is "Chalet complaints in BridgeMill," which is a subdivision in Georgia that we discussed earlier, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And the second bullet indicates, "Both intend to bring up blistering Chalet at the homeowners association meeting." Do you see that? A. I do. Q. Do you recall the concern about the BridgeMill Homeowners Association bringing the Chalet blistering problem to Atlas? A. I do. Q. Okay. What do you recall about it? A. This was one of the areas that was heavily hit by hail. And as a result of the insurance inspections, I believe Mr. Smith and Mr. Westfall had been incorrectly informed that Atlas was having a recall and a class action and various things. And as you can see from this, one of these consumers is prone to be litigious. And, you know, he's also suing his

Page 296 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Okay. Q. Do you recall this letter? A. I do not. Q. Okay. And it appears it's from a consumer named Andrew Demaria? A. Yes. Q. Do you see that? A. (Indicating in the affirmative). Q. It was sent on March 13, 2013, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And it was sent to you, correct? A. Yes. Q. And it indicates that a woman who reports to you told Mr. Andrew that there was "no pending class action lawsuit and that you would not consider my claim, though she did suggest that I could send you photos of the issues I am beginning to experience." Do you see that? A. I do. Q. Okay. Who is the woman who reports to you that Andrew is referring to? A. I wouldn't have any way of knowing

Page 295 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

builder and he -- they are threatening, making threats to go to a homeowners association meeting. And I have no idea, you know, what information that they would be basing their comments on or what they would be saying to the homeowner association, but obviously it was of some concern to Mr. Williams that this erroneous information or negative information would be, you know, a stigma to our product and our company. Q. Do you recall what Atlas did to remedy the situation at BridgeMill? A. I recall that eventually Mr. Westfall had a claim payment or a settlement. Q. Do you think it's accurate that there are between 500 and 1,000 Chalet houses in BridgeMill? A. I couldn't say. I've never been in BridgeMill. MR. COFFIN: Okay. Okay. (Exhibit marked: 16) BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Exhibit Number 16. And go ahead and read this. It's actually addressed to you.

TAB 3

Page 297 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

this without seeing this full claim. Q. Okay. A. I do remember the name, though I do not remember this document. This is not the way one of my coordinators or assistants would respond to a consumer. He has summarized it in his own words that are not entirely correct. Q. Okay. Have you ever told any Chalet claimant that class action suits do not exist regarding the Chalet shingle? A. Before the filing of this suit, yes. Q. Okay. Since the filing of the first suit in this litigation, do you know whether any of your staff has indicated to a Chalet consumer that class actions regarding the shingle do not exist? A. No, they would have told them that there has been a class action filed, although it has not been certified, and there is no recall. Because usually they say both. Q. When a claim comes in today regarding blistering on a Chalet shingle, do your staff inform the complainant that there are existing

75 (Pages 294 to 297) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 76 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 298 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

class action suits against Atlas involving the blistering on the shingle? A. If the consumer mentions it or asks us about it, certainly we tell them that there has been a class action filed, but to the best of our knowledge, there's been no certification. Q. All right. And if the consumer does not ask about it, then your staff does not proactively inform the customer that these suits exist, correct? A. No. They just take the claim information so that we can evaluate the claim. Q. Have you ever been told by anyone other than your lawyer not to inform customers about the class action lawsuits unless they ask? A. No. MR. COFFIN: Okay. And this will be 17. (Exhibit marked: 17) BY MR. COFFIN: Q. Go ahead and read over this. Okay? Have you read it?

Page 300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. Did Atlas ever distribute the Chalet shingle in Canada? A. No, we did not. Q. Did Atlas ever distribute any other overlay shingle in Canada other than the Mosaic? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Okay. And you've read this, so you see that the original e-mail on October 24, 2006, was from someone named Jim Beach. Do you know who Jim is? A. I don't. Q. Okay. And Jim is indicating that in a display, he found severe blistering on the surface of a Mosaic shingle that was in -apparently in a store; is that right? A. A display. I don't know where it was located. Q. Do you recall this at all? A. No, I do not. Q. Okay. And then Sylvain writes to you on October 25th, 2006, and says, "I thought I should share this information with you regarding Mosaic shingles showing blistering

Page 299 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. I have. Q. Okay. And this is an e-mail in which you're included, primarily between you and someone named Sylvain Briére? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Who is Sylvain Briére? A. It's Briére, I think it is. He is the director of quality for -- let's see. Is it EMCO? Yes, EMCO BP shingle products. Q. Okay. A. It's a distributor. Q. A distributor? A. Uh-huh, private. Q. And where is he located? A. Canada. Q. Okay. So does Atlas distribute the Chalet shingle in Canada? A. No, we do not. Q. Does Atlas distribute the Mosaic shingle in Canada? A. Not at this time. Q. Did Atlas ever distribute the Mosaic shingle in Canada? A. Yes, we did.

TAB 3

Page 301 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

problems. Something has to be wrong with these shingles when they show so much surface blistering on an exterior display board. As you know, you have some outstanding blistering complaints that need to be reviewed, and I would also like you to be aware that we have registered more blistering complaints on Mosaic shingles since, also. We trust this information will assist you in your complaint reviews to resolve these issues, which are a growing concern for our customers." Do you ever recall discussing with Sylvain blistering problems on the Mosaic overlay shingle? A. There may have been discussion. Q. Do you remember discussing it with him? A. I don't remember per se, but he alludes to the fact that there is. Q. You believe you probably had a discussion with him? A. Yes. Yes. Q. Okay. And then you responded. Can you read your response?

76 (Pages 298 to 301) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 77 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 302 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Let's see. Q. Look likes you're sending this. I apologize. A. Yes. Q. You're sending this to some people -A. Yes. Q. -- on October 26, right? A. Correct. Q. Who are you sending it to? A. I'm sending it to Andy McLaughlin, who was -- I'm not sure if he was the vice president of manufacturing at that time or just the liaison with EMCO at that time. Q. What's EMCO? A. EMCO is a -- a distributor, a shingle distributor. Q. In Canada? A. Yes, in Canada. Q. Okay. And who is John Johnson? A. He was my boss at the time. Q. Okay. And K. Farrish? A. Ken Farrish is the president of Atlas. Q. And what was his position at that

Page 304 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

wrote to those individuals in the "To" line? A. Okay. Q. Out loud, please. A. Oh, I'm sorry. "Please see the e-mail below from Sylvain regarding the Mosaic overlay shingles. We have eight blistering claims pending and five claims had been denied or we requested that they monitor the blistering. We have paid three this year. As indicated by Sylvain, this is a growing issue with EMCO, as it is with the Chalet." Q. Okay. When you say "this is a growing issue with EMCO," you're referring to the blistering problem on the Mosaic shingle? A. Yes, I believe so. Q. Okay. And you say, it is -- "as it is with Chalet," meaning the blistering problems with Chalet is a problem too? A. It is in the sense of reputation and possible loss of business, yes. Q. Okay. You were concerned about the Mosaic shingle's association with blistering because of your reputation with EMCO, correct? A. Just a moment.

Page 303 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

time? A. Ken's? Q. At the time in 2006? A. President of Atlas. And Mr. Villar, of course, is the vice president of sales. Q. And -A. And Hazem Shanab. Q. Okay. A. And all of these people listed are instrumental in dealing with EMCO in general, is the reason they would have all been copied. Q. EMCO is a large client of Atlas? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And you were concerned about this issue enough that you sent this e-mail to the president of Atlas, correct? A. Well, I was passing it along because of Sylvain's comments. I wanted to send it to the appropriate people. Q. Okay. Do you agree with Sylvain's description that something has to be wrong with the Mosaic shingles? A. No, I do not. Q. Okay. Why don't you read what you

TAB 3

Page 305 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Yes. Q. Okay. And you were concerned about the blistering issue with Chalet shingles because of your reputation in the United States, correct? A. Yes. Q. Because EMCO doesn't distribute the Chalet shingles? A. No, they do not. Q. Okay. Your department did recognize that there was a similar problem with the Mosaic shingle blistering as you were seeing with the Chalet shingle blistering, correct? A. Can you repeat that? I'm so tired. Q. That's okay. Your department did recognize that there was a similar problem with the Mosaic shingle blistering as there was with the Chalet shingle blistering, correct? A. I don't know if it was -- that we recognized that there was a similar issue. We did recognize by what Sylvain had stated in the samples that he sent in that there was some rash blistering. Q. That was the same problem that you

77 (Pages 302 to 305) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 78 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 306 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

had been seeing on the Chalet shingles, correct? A. Yes, it was. Q. And those are both overlay shingles, correct? A. I believe Mosaic is. And I don't want to sound dumb, but I have not really seen a Mosaic shingle in like many, many years. Q. I understand. You indicate here that the Mosaic is an overlay shingle, correct? A. Okay. Q. Is that right? A. Where? Let's see. Q. First sentence. A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. So you recognized that the blistering problem with the Mosaic overlay shingle was a growing issue as it was and is with the Chalet shingle, correct? A. That's what I stated, yes. MR. COFFIN: Okay. All right. This is 18. (Exhibit marked: 18) BY MR. COFFIN:

Page 308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

action. However, there will be some that will require more detailed explanation, so we should have a technical explanation, similar to CertainTeed, ready in the event that the first letter is not enough." Q. Okay. And the subject line was regarding blistering denial letter revised, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. A. That's what it says. Q. And we talked about this earlier. You were involved with the drafting of the blistering denial/monitoring letter? A. Yes. Q. Is that what this is? A. That is. Q. Okay. And this was drafted in 2007 by a group of individuals in Atlas, correct? A. I don't remember it being a group of individuals. Q. Okay. Did you and -- did you draft it yourself? A. Yes, I believe I did.

Page 307 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. And it's another e-mail. It starts on the second page, the string does, with an e-mail from Meldrin Collins to you and John Johnson. A. Okay. Q. And the initial e-mail was sent on March 16, 2007, by Meldrin Collins to you and to John Johnson, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And there were copies to multiple people within Atlas, correct? A. Yes. Q. Who is Dale Rushing? A. He was either the plant manager at the Hampton plant or vice president of manufacturing. I'm not sure what his title was at that time. Q. Do you know where he is now? A. He's vice president of manufacturing. Q. Okay. And can you read the letter that was to you? A. Yes. "Neese and John, the letter looks good. I think that 75 percent of the people will accept it and not pursue further

TAB 3

Page 309 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. I'm sorry. Okay. And then you sent it to others for review? A. Yes. Q. Okay. As you stated, this says, "I think 75 percent of the people will accept it and not pursue further action." That was one of the goals of creating this letter, correct? A. One of the goals of creating the letter was to assure the consumer that what -if they were experiencing any rash blistering or surface cracking, that it's not a performance issue that would result in leaking, and an explanation of that. And also the agreement, that Atlas felt so strongly, that they're agreeing not to accrue time against your warranty in the unlikely event that in the future something should occur. Q. Right. And you wanted to provide that explanation in a letter so that you could encourage people not to pursue further action, correct? A. That's Meldrin's words.

78 (Pages 306 to 309) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 79 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 310 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. I'm asking you. You drafted the letter. A. Okay. The letter intent was to try to help the consumer, as I just told you, with all of the incorrect information and the -having the consumer, you know, file their claims with Atlas Roofing Corporation for blistering and -- and the incorrect information they were given. This is a result to help, in my view, to alleviate their concerns. Q. Okay. Was one of the goals of this letter to encourage people to not pursue further action? A. To give the roof -- the opportunity to show that it is not a -- a leaking issue. Q. Okay. Was one of the goals of this letter to encourage people to not pursue further action? A. That's what Meldrin states. That was not my intent. Q. Okay. So it was not one of your goals in drafting this blistering denial letter to encourage consumers not to pursue further action; is that correct?

Page 312 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

pursue further action? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And that was obviously one of Meldrin's goals, correct? A. I can't speak for Meldrin except for what he has in here. Q. Okay. Well, based on what he's written here, do you believe that it was one of his goals with this letter to encourage people not to pursue further action? A. That's what he states. Q. Okay. And you determined -- well, let me ask you this way: Did you determine that a technical analysis needed to be written along with the explanations that were already in the letter? A. I did not. Q. Were those ever drafted? Do you know? A. I don't know if they were drafted or not. I have never used one or seen one. Q. You've never seen a technical explanation. A. Not -- I've seen CertainTeed's, of

Page 311 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. I -- I assume so. Q. Well, you drafted the letter. I'm not trying to be difficult. I just want to know whether it was one of your goals as the drafter of the letter to encourage people to not pursue further action. A. The intent of this letter was to help the consumer understand that the blistering on their roof was not a defect, that it was not going to cause leaking, and to give them some explanation, correct explanation, as to what the shingle was and to offer them the option that if they felt at a later time that they did have a problem with leaking that they felt was as a result, we will investigate it and not accrue any time. We were trying to show confidence in the product here, was the intent. Q. Yeah, I understand that. And I appreciate your answer. A. Okay. Q. But I'm asking a question that you're not answering, which is: Was one of your goals as the drafter to encourage consumers not to

TAB 3

Page 313 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

course, because it's here. But I have not seen -- I have not had one sent to me to be circulated with -- for the consumers with overlay shingles, Chalet overlay. Q. Okay. After you drafted the initial draft of this blistering denial letter, do you recall any edits that were made to it by anybody in Atlas? A. I don't recall any. Q. Do you believe that there were any? A. I'm not seeing this full letter here. I'm just looking at -- I would need to see what the letter was, this specific letter here. Q. Okay. But you don't recall any edits to it? A. No. Q. Okay. All right. I don't have any further questions -- oh, I do have one question I've been meaning to ask. There is an acronym POP, P-O-P, that I've seen in a number of claim files. What does that mean? A. Proof of purchase. MR. COFFIN: I should have been

79 (Pages 310 to 313) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 80 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 314 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

able to figure that one out. Thank you for your help. I don't have anything else. MR. PIEPER: One follow-up. EXAMINATION BY MR. PIEPER: Q. In the instances where your department has paid to settle claims that are not covered under the warranty, do you sometimes require or ask the claimant to sign a confidentiality and release? A. Yes. Q. In what percentage of those claims that are not covered by the warranty would you make that request? A. I don't know a percentage right off. Q. Do you have any idea of the number of instances when you do that? A. I don't know the number. Q. Is that something you would just have to look at the files to determine? A. Yes, I'd have to look at each file. Q. Okay. Is there -- is there any policy that pertains to whether or not you get

Page 316 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

C E R T IFIC AT E STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF HALL I, JoRITA B. MEYER, a Certified Court Reporter within and for the state of Georgia, do hereby certify: That GLYNESE THOMAS, the witness whose deposition is hereinbefore set forth, was duly sworn by me and that such deposition is a true record of the testimony given by such witness. I further certify that I am not related to any of the parties to this action by blood or marriage; and that I am in no way interested in the outcome of this matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1ST day of OCTOBER 2014.

___________________________________ JoRITA B. MEYER, RPR, RMR, CRR, CCR

Page 315 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

a confidentiality and release under circumstances where you're paying a claim that's not covered under the warranty? A. No, there's not. MR. PIEPER: That's it. MR. COFFIN: Okay. Thank you very much. THE WITNESS: You're welcome. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This ends the deposition. The time is 6:12 p.m. (Time noted: 6:12 p.m.) (Signature reserved)

_________________________ GLYNESE R. THOMAS Subscribed and sworn to before me this__________day of_____________2014. ______________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC

TAB 3

Page 317

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

----------------I N D E X---------------EXAMINATION WITNESS PAGE GLYNESE R. THOMAS By Mr. Coffin.......................6 By Mr. Pieper.......................314 EXHIBITS DEPOSITION PAGE Exhibit Number 1.........................8 Notice of Deposition Exhibit Number 2.........................10 Atlas Responses/Objections Exhibit Number 3.........................49 Limited Shingle Warranty material Exhibit Number 4.........................53 Limited Shingle Warranty material Exhibit Number 5.........................61 Limited Shingle Warranty material Exhibit Number 6.........................68 Residential Claim Procedures and Process Training Exhibit Number 7.........................141

80 (Pages 314 to 317) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-5 Filed 12/30/15 Page 81 of 81

Glynese R. Thomas Page 318

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hampton Trends for Claims Filed, 2001-2005 Exhibit Number 8.........................183 ATLS00020970-00020984 Exhibit Number 9.........................207 ATLS00048564-48689 Exhibit Number 10........................244 ATLS00043574-00043648 Exhibit Number 11........................260 ATLS00056375-000056442 Exhibit Number 12........................273 ATLS00124247-00124250 Exhibit Number 13........................281 email string dtd 4/4/08 re Atlas shingle complaints Exhibit Number 14........................286 email string dtd 6/3/10 and 6/15/10 between Glynese Thomas and Roy Williams Exhibit Number 15........................292 ATLS00102564 Exhibit Number 16........................295 ATLS00072004

Page 320 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

ERRATA SHEET FOR THE TRANSCRIPT OF: Case Name: IN RE: ATLAS ROOFING Dep. Date: SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 Deponent: GLYNESE R. THOMAS Reason codes: 1. To clarify the record. 2. To conform to the facts. 3. To correct transcription errors. CORRECTIONS: Pg. Ln. Now Reads Should Read Reason ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

_________________________ Signature of Deponent SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS____DAY OF____________, 2014. ________________________________ (Notary Public) MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:___________

Page 319

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Exhibit Number 17........................298 ATLS0082660-0082661 Exhibit Number 18........................306 ATLS00082671-00082672 ///

TAB 3

Page 321 1 2 3 4 5 6

DISCLOSURE STATE OF GEORGIA: COUNTY OF HALL: Deposition of GLYNESE THOMAS. Pursuant to Article 8.B of the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Court Reporting of the Judicial Council of Georgia, I make the following disclosure:

7 8

I am a Georgia Certified Court Reporter. I am here as a representative of GOLKOW TECHNOLOGIES.

9 10 11

I was contacted by GOLKOW TECHNOLOGIES to provide court reporting services for this Deposition. I will not be taking this Deposition under any contract that is prohibited by O.C.G.A. 15-14-37 (a) and (b).

12 13 14 15 16

I have no contract/agreement to provide reporting services with any party to the case, any counsel in the case or any reporter or reporting agency from whom a referral might have been made to cover this Deposition. I will charge my usual and customary rates to all parties in the case and a financial discount will not be given to any party to this litigation.

17

This, the 1st day of OCTOBER 2014. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

REPORTER: JoRita B. Meyer, RMR, CRR, CCR #2718 Certified Court Reporter

81 (Pages 318 to 321) Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 84

TAB 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION IN RE: ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION CHALET SHINGLE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

) ) )

___________________________ )

1:13-MD-2495-TWT This Document Relates to All Actions

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF MASTER DISCOVERY TO DEFENDANT ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION Defendant Atlas Roofing Corporation ("Atlas"), by and through its counsel of record, hereby responds to the First Set of Master Discovery propounded on Atlas by Plaintiffs.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1.

Atlas expressly reserves its right to assert any attmney-client

privilege, or protection for

attom~y

work-product or materials prepared in

anticipation of litigation, the privilege_for proprietary business inforrn,ation, .and all .

~

•

"

I·

•··

•

other applicable doctrines, rights and privileges. Atlas does not waive any such doctrine, right or privilege by its responses herein and such responses shall not be construed in any way to waive any such doctrine, right or privilege. Atlas states that all information and documents concerning its analysis and evaluation of this case and related matters involving its legal counsel are subject to such doctrines, rights and privileges, which are hereby asserted. Unless otherwise indicated in its

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 2 of 84

TAB 4

response, Atlas does not interpret Plaintiffs' requests as calling for the identification or production of documents protected by any such privilege or doctrine. To the extent that any requests may later be construed as calling for the identification or production of documents protected by any such privilege or doctrine, a continuing objection to each such request is hereby interposed. 2.

Atlas objects to each Interrogatory and Request for Production to the

extent it seeks or is intended to elicit information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3.

Atlas objects to each Interrogatory and Request for Production to the

extent it is vague, ambiguous, or overly broad. 4.

Atlas objects to each Interrogatory and Request for Production to the

extent it purports to impose any obligation or burden not otherwise required or allowed under the Federal_Rules of Civil Procedure. 5.

These responses are made withopt waiver of and with preservation of: (a)

all questions as to competency, relevancy, materiality, privilege and admissibility of documents as evidence for any purpose and in any further proceeding in this action and in any other action;

(b)

the right to object to the use of any documents in any further proceeding in this action and any other action;

2

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 3 of 84

(c)

TAB 4

the right to object on any ground at any time to a demand or request for further response to these or any other discovery involving or related to the subject mater of the discovery to which these responses are provided; and

(d)

the right at any time to review, correct, add to, supplement or clarifY any of the responses contained herein.

6.

Atlas objects to each and every Interrogatory and Request for

Production to the extent it seeks to elicit information of no substantial impmiance to the matters at issue in this proceeding. 7.

Atlas objects to each and every Interrogatory and Request for

Production to the extent it seeks to elicit confidential, proprietary, or private ·information. Atlas avails itself of all rights under the law and Case Management Orders No. 2 through 8.

5~.

The following responses are based upon information and documents

presently available to and located by Atlas and its counsel. Discovery is just beginning and Atlas has not completed its investigation of all facts relating to this case, or its preparations for trial. 9.

These general objections apply to all of Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and

Requests for Production.

3

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 4 of 84

TAB 4

ATLAS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES Interrogatory No.1: Identify each person, whether employee, agent, or other representative of Atlas Roofing or any third party, who has knowledge or information regarding the allegations set forth in the Complaints in Each Jurisdiction, and for each person listed, provide their title, dates of employment, and a brief stateme.nt as to the substance of such knowledge or information.

Response to No. 1: The builders, roofers and other contractors that. participated in the design or construction of the structures at issue, or purchased and/or installed the Shingles on those structures, would potentially have knowledge related to purchase and installation dates, construction methods employed, the cause of the conditions complained of, and communications with current or prior owners regarding the roofs and/or Shingles. The current and prior owners of the structures at issue would have knowledge of purchase transactions, alleged leaks, causation issues, maintenance of the structures, communications regarding Shingles, warranty claims, alleged problems observeq on roofs, roof inspeCtions, and roof repairs. Persons involved in inspections of the roof and other portions the structures at issue would have knowledge of alleged problems on roofs, causation issues, the timing and content of communications with owners. The building supply dealers from which Shingles were purchased for the structures at issue would have knowledge of purchase transactions. The homeowners associations or condominium associations with which current or prior owners are or were

4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 5 of 84

TAB 4

associated, as well as the representatives of the property management companies retained by such associations would have knowledge of alleged leaks, causation issues, maintenance of the structures, communications with owners regarding Shingles, warranty claims, alleged problems observed on roofs, roof inspections, and repairs. The following personnel at Atlas would also have potentially relevant knowledge or information: Last Name

First Name Title

Amad

Walid ("Wally")

Sr. Corp Research Lab Tech

Chalet quality control and testing for code compliance

Butkus

Bob

General Manager

Manufacturing

Collins

Meldrin

Manager, Technical Services & Product development, quality Division Quality control, warranty inspections

Davidson

Dustin·

Manufacturing Leader

Manufacturing

Farrish

Kenneth

President

Company management

Fricks

Jeff

VP Finance

Chalet sales

Gelatka

·Rick

Glowka

Eric

Knowledge Area

Director Marketing Services

·Marketing

Plant Manager

Manufacturing

McLaughlin Andy

Vice President

Manufacturing

Reeves

Roger

VPI Chief Procurement Officer

Materials

Rushing

Dale

VP Manufacturing

Manufacturing

Shanab

Hazem

Research & Development Manager

Product development

Smith

Jerome

EPR Director of Supply Change

Manufacturing

Taylor

Sonya

QAManager4

Manufacturing and quality control.

5

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 6 of 84

Last Name

First Name Title

Knowledge Area

Thomas/ Ward

Glynese

Consumer Services Manager

Warranty claims

Todd

William Edward

Director Product Management

Marketing and sales

Villar

Kirk

VP Sales

Marketing and sales

Blanpied

Bob

Research Director

Product development

Berube

Roger

Plant Manager

Manufacturing

Hayden

Brian

Director, Residential Roofing

Manufacturing

Kupczyk

Steve

Plant Manager/Plant Engineer

Manufacturing

Cusick

Joe

Production Superintendent

Manufacturing

Park

Bernie

Plant Manager

Manufacturing

TAB 4

Interrogatory No.2: Set forth a list of photographs, plats, sketches, or other documents in your possession that relate to the claims or defenses in the case. Include in your list all records and other materials associated with the design (including re-design) manufacture, design/manufacturing deviation, engineering, testing, marketing, warranting, distribution, and sale of the Shingles during the Class Period. For each such document identified, please specify the identity of the person who made the document and each person who presently has custo'd-y of the document. -

Response to No.2: In addition to the documents requested by Atlas in its discovery requests to Plaintiffs, many of the documents to be produced by Atlas could relate to the claims or defenses. Since attempting to list all such documents would be unduly burdensome, documents relating to the design, development, manufacture, engineering, testing, marketing, wananties, and Chalet related sales

6

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 7 of 84

TAB 4

during the referenced time will be produced in an electronic fonnat as provided in CMONo.4. Interrogatory No.3: Identify all witnesses whom you will or may call as an expert witness to give opinion testimony in the trial of this matter and state the name of the expert's employer or the organization with which he is associated in any professional capacity, the field in which he is to be offered as an expert, a summary of his qualifications within the field in which he is expected to testify, the substance of the facts to which he is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion, and the dates of all reports, rendered by such experts and a summary of the information, of any and all types, used and/or relied upon by such expert in formulating his opinions. Response to No.3: Atlas shall make its expert disclosures in accordance with the applicable case management and scheduling orders in these consolidated MDL proceedings. Interrogatory No.4: Provide the following manufacturing and quality and control information regarding the Shingles: General response: Cetiain subparagraphs of Interrogatory 4 require such a broad scope of information and level of detail that it would be unduly burdensome and unrealistic to expect Atlas to include all infoirnation that may be responsive to this interrogatory. Therefore, in addition to these responses, Atlas incorporates the documents that have been and will be produced in response to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production.

7

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 8 of 84

a)

TAB 4

IdentifY the plant names and addresses where Atlas manufactured Chalet shingles for each year.

Response: Chalet shingles were manufactured at the Hampton, Georgia

plant, located at 100 Pine View Drive, Hampton, Georgia 30228. b)

Provide the number of Chalet shingles produced for each year and each plant where Atlas manufactured Chalet shingles.

Response: Atlas shows the following: Year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

c)

Number Produced (SQS) 104,894.33 125,582.87 390,195.00 406,300.67 481,909.67 619,901.00 765,208.00 850,868.33 .729,804.00 575,460 271,992 204,345 28,908

Provide the number of shingle roofing manufacturing machines (SRMM) that were used (refer to Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association Asphalt Roofing Residential Manual published 2006, Figure 2-1 illustrating a shingle roofing manufacturing machine schematic, copy attached) for each year and each plant where Atlas manufactured Chalet shingles. 8

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 9 of 84

TAB 4

Response: The Hampton, Georgia plant utilized one manufacturing line of

equipment (similar to what Plaintiffs refer to as a SRlvfM:) to manufacture Chalet shingles (referred to as "Line 1") between 1998 and 2010. d)

For each year and each plant where Atlas manufactured Chalet shingles, and each SRMM, describe the sequence of applying asphaltic mixture to fiberglass felts/mats (hereinafter ''felts''), and top surfacing, and applying extra asphaltic mixture and extra top surfacing in shingle areas with extra surfacing (e.g. method of application, order of application, time between each application of materials, quantity of materials applied, etc.).

Response: Atlas shows the following as of the end of each year: Year

Sequence

1998

Glass, Top-Filled Coating, Granules, Back- Filled Coating, Dusting & Release Tape, Re-application Top- Modified Coating, Filled Coating, Granules (Overlay)Application between time is a function of line speed.

1999

Glass, Top-Filled Coating, Granules, Back- Filled Coating, Dusting & Release Tape, Re-application Top - Modified Coating, Filled Coating, Granules (Overlay) Application between time is a function of line speed.

2000

Glass, Top-Filled Coating, Granules, Back- Filled Coating, Dusting & Release Tape, Re-application Top- Modified Coating, Filled Coating, Granules (Overlay)Application between time is a function of line speed.

2001

Glass, Top-Filled Coating, Granules, Back- Filled Coating, Dusting & Release Tape, Re-application Top- Modified Coating, Filled Coating, Granules (Overlay)Application between time is a function of line speed.

2002

Glass, Top-Filled Coating, Granules, Back- Filled Coating, Dusting & Release Tape, Re-application Top- Modified Coating, Filled Coating, Granules (Overlay)Application between time is a function of line speed.

2003

Glass, Top-Filled Coating, Granules, Back- Filled Coating, Dusting & Release Tape, Re-application Top- Modified Coating, Filled Coating, Granules (Overlay)Application between time is a function of line speed.

9

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 10 of 84

Year

Sequence

2004

Glass, Top-Filled Coating, Granules, Back- Filled Coating, Dusting & Release Tape, Re-application Top- Modified Coating, Filled Coating, Granules (Overlay)Application between time is a function of line speed.

2005

Glass, Top-Filled Coating, Granules, Back- Filled Coating, Dusting & Release Tape, Re-application Top- Modified Coating, Filled Coating, Granules (Overlay)Application between time is a function of line speed.

2006

Glass, Top-Filled Coating, Granules, Back- Filled Coating, Dusting & Release Tape, Re-application Top- Modified Coating, Filled Coating, Granules (Overlay)Application between time is a function of line speed.

2007

Glass, Top-Filled Coating, Granules, Back- Filled Coating, Dusting & Release Tape, Re-application Top- Modified Coating, Filled Coating, Granules (Overlay)Application between time is a function of line speed.

2008

Glass, Top-Filled Coating, Granules, Back- Filled Coating, Dusting & Release Tape, Re-application Top- Modified Coating, Filled Coating, Granules (Overlay)Application between time is a function of line speed.

2009

Glass, Top-Filled Coating, Granules, Back- Filled Coating, Dusting & Release Tape, Re-application Top- Modified Coating, Filled Coating, Granules (Overlay)Application between time is a function of line speed.

2010

Glass, Top-Filled Coating, Granules, Back- Filled Coating, Dusting & Release Tape, Re-application Top- Modified Coating, Filled Coating, Granules (Overlay)Application between time is a function of line speed.

e)

TAB 4

For each year and each plant where Atlas manufactured Chalet shingles, and each SRMM, describe the process of spreading asphaltic mixture in each application (i.e. to felt and to the top surfacing in areas of extra surfacing).

Response: Atlas shows the following for the period 1998-2010: Spreading Process

Coating of the fiberglass mat begins at the coater with filled coating applied and metered through two coating rolls and a back-coating roll applies coating to the underneath section of the fiberglass mat. The overlay compound/mixture is applied using a large "inking" roll that

10

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 11 of 84

TAB 4

is partially submerged in the compound and rotates to apply the compound to the sheet.

f)

For each year and each plant where Atlas manufactured Chalet shingles, and each SRMM, describe the process of rolling, or otherwise embedding, swfacing and extra surfacing in each application (i.e. to asphaltic mixture and to extra asphaltic mixture).

Response: Atlas shows the following for the period 1998 - 2010: Surfacing Process

The first application of granules is applied from a blender box through metered· rolls. This covers the entire base section (top) of the sheet (exposed area and headlap ). The granules are then pressed into the sheet by a press roll. Then immediately after the overlay compound is applied, the overlay granules are applied via a metering roll.

g)

For each year and each plant where Atlas manufactured Chalet shingles, and each SRMM, describe specific elements or parts of the SRMM that are heated and the specific elements or parts of the SRMM that are cooled, and describe the method of heating or cooling (e.g. electric resistance heater, hot air heater, water spray cooling, contained water cooling, etc.).

Respons_e: Atlas shows the following as of the end of each year: Year

1998

Heated Elements and Method

Coater - Hot Oil

Cooled Elements and Method

Slate Drum/Process Rolls - Water cooled internally

Modified Melt Tank- Hot Oil Sheet- Atomized water sprays. Compound Tank- Electric Looper - ambient air Applicator- Hot Oil 1999

Same as 1998

Same as 1998

2000

Same as 1998

Same as 1998

2001

Same as 1998

Same as 1998

11

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 12 of 84

Cooled Elements and Method

Heated Elements and Method

Year

TAB 4

2002

Same as 1998

Same as 1998

2003

Same as 1998

Same as 1998

2004

Same as 1998

Same as 1998

2005

Same as 1998

Sameas 1998

2006

Coater - Hot Oil Modified Melt Tank- Hot Oil

Slate Drum/Process Rolls - Water cooled internally Sheet- Atomized water sprays.

Compound Tank- Hot Oil Looper - ambient air Applicator - Hot Oil 2007

Same as 2006

Same as 2006

2008

Same as 2006

Same as 2006

2009

Same as 2006

Same as 2006

2010

Same as 2006

Same as 2006

h)

For each year and each plant where Atlas manufactured Chalet shingles, and each SRMM, provide the temperature of each material used in the Chalet Shingle product (asphalt mixture, felt, surfacing granules) at each point of application into/onto the SRMM (and include the temperature of the component onto which the material is being applied).

Respons.e: Atlas shows the follqwing ,for the period 1998 - .4010: .., . . .···

.

Felt

Asphalt

Coating Limestone Filler Modifier Modified Coating Sealant Filled Coating

500°- 550°F 200°- 300°F 300°- 350°F 375"- 425°F 250°-300°F 375"- 425°F

Fiberglass mat

12

Surfacing

ambient

Granules Backsurfacing

ambient ambient

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 13 of 84

i)

TAB 4

For each year and each plant where Atlas manufactured Chalet shingles, and each SRMM, describe each temperature sensor and sensor location on, in, and at the SRMM

Response: Atlas shows the following for the period 1998- 2010: Location of Sensor

Sensor

j)

Thermocouple Digital

In Coating Loop/Asphalt

Thennocouple Digital

Filler Heater

Thermocouple Digital

Mixing Tanks (Asphalt, Modified).

Thermocouple Digital

Coater

Thermometer Analog

Overlay Applicator Tank

Thermocouple Digital

Sealant Tank

Thermocouple Digital

Sheet Temp in Looper before cutter

For each year and each plant where Atlas manufactured Chalet shingles, describe each material used in the Chalet Shingle product, the source of these materials, the specifications for the materials.

Response: Atlas shows the following: Hampton, GA Chalet Production

Raw Material Used

Purchase Acceptance Standard or Speck

Supplier Name

Date Issued or Modified

Production Year 2010 Glass Mat

AR-SP-06-5

Johns Manville

13

12/15/2010

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 14 of 84

Glass Mat

Saint-Gobain Vetrotex

AR-SP-24-2

10/28/2010

Filler 65/200

Franklin Industrial Minerals

AR-SP-29-0

5/5/2005

Asphalt Flux Mil 00

Moose Jaw Refinery

AR-SP-84-0

12113/2008

Granules

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-01-2

3/10/2004

Copper Granules

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-30-0

9/30/1998

Back Surfacing

U.S. Silica, Inc.

AR-401-1

10/7/2005

Headlap

ISP Minerals Inc.

AR-SP-80-0

8/13/2007

Headlap

Franklin Industrial Minerals

AR-SP-26-0

5112/2006

Polymer Mod Asphalt

U.S. Polyco Inc.

AR-SP-18-0

10/16/2000

LT 215 Lam/Tab Adhesive

U.S. Polyco Inc.

AR-SP-64-0

9/3/2010

USPTALam Adhesive

U.S. Polyco Inc. AR-SP-78-0

1/4/2011

Treated Release Tape· Polyplex America Inc.

Production Year 2009 Glass Mat

Johns Manville

AR-SP-06-5

12115/2010

Glass Mat

Saint-Gobain Vetrotex

AR-SP-24-2

10/28/2010

14

TAB 4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 15 of 84

Filler 65/200

Franklin Industrial Minerals

AR-SP-29-0

5/5/2005

AC 5 Flux

Material Solution Group

AR-SP-83-0

5/22/2008

CMFlux

U.S. Polyco Inc.

AR-SP-87-0

11/13/2008

Asphalt Flux MJl 00

Moose Jaw Refinery

AR-SP-84-0

12113/2008

Granules

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-01-2

3/10/2004

Copper Granules

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-30-0

9/30/1998

Back Surfacing

U.S. Silica, Inc.

AR-401-1

10/7/2005

Headlap

ISP Minerals Inc.

AR-SP-80-0

8/13/2007

Headlap

Franklin industrial Minerals

AR-SP-26-0

5/12/2006

Headlap

3-M Corporation

AR-414-0

Tab Adhesive

Owens Coming, Inc.

AR-407-0

8/9/2007

Polymer Mod Asphalt

U.S. Polyco Inc.

AR-SP-18-0

10116/2000

LT 215 Lam/Tab Adhesive

U.S. Polyco Inc.

AR-SP-64-0

9/3/2010

Treated Release Tape

Polyplex America Inc.

AR-SP-78-0

1/4/2011

Treated Release Tape

R J Products Inc.

AR-SP-44-1

10/25/2010

Chalet ARS Poly

Hood Packaging Corporation

AR-460-2

9/14/2009

15

TAB 4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 16 of 84

Production Year 2008 Glass Mat

Johns Manville

AR-5P-06-5

12/15/2010

Glass Mat

Saint-Go bain Vetrotex

AR-5P-24-2

10/28/2010

Filler 65/200

Franklin Industrial Minerals

AR-SP-29-0

5/5/2005

Coating

Trumbull Asphalt

AR-402-2

4/17/2008

Coating

Southland Oil Inc.

AR-502-4

8/2/2007

Asphalt Flux

Moose Jaw Refinery

AR-SP-84-0

12113/2008

619 Ven Flux

Citgo Asphalt Refining Co.

AR-405-1

6/1/1998

Flux

Hunt Oil Inc.

AR-SP-64-0

4/15/2008

Denver Flux

Ponderosa Asphalt Corp.

AR-SP-36-0

12118/2008

Flux

Cross Oil Refinery

AR-SP-63-0

4115/2008

Flux 310 Resin

Total Refinery

AR-SP-86-0

12/19/2008

AC-3 Flux

Southland Oil Inc.

AR-502-4

8/2/2007

Canton Flux

Marathion Oil Company

Granules

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-01-2

3/10/2004

16

TAB 4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 17 of 84

Copper Granules

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-30-0

9/30/1998

Back Surfacing

U.S. Silica, Inc.

AR-401-1

10/7/2005

Headlap

ISP Minerals Inc.

AR-SP-80-0

8/13/2007

Headlap

Franklin Industrial Minerals

AR-SP-26-0

5/12/2006

Headlap

3-M Corporation

AR-414-0

Headlap LR-0 116

3-M Corporation

AR SP-62-0

Head lap

Certainteed Corporation Roofing

AR-SP-35-0

8/3/2007

Headlap

U.S. Minerals, Inc.

AR-SP-43-0

10/5/2005

Tab Adhesive

Owens Coming, Inc.

AR-407-0

8/9/2007

Polymer Mod Asphalt

U.S. Polyco Inc.

AR-SP-18-0

10116/2000

Treated Release Tape

Polyplex America Inc.

AR-SP-78-0

1/4/2011

Treated Release Tape

R J Products Inc.

AR-SP-44-1

10/25/2010

Chalet ARS Poly

Hood Packaging Corporation

AR-460-2

9114/2009

Production Year 2007 Glass Mat

Johns Manville

AR-SP-06-5

17

12/15/2010

TAB 4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 18 of 84

Glass Mat

Saint-Gobain Vetrotex

AR-SP-24-2

10/28/2010

Filler 65/200

Franklin Industrial Minerals

AR-SP-29-0

5/5/2005

619 Ven Flux

Citgo Asphalt Refining Co.

AR-405-1

611/1998

Flux

Cross Oil Refinery

AR-SP-63-0

4/15/2008

Granules

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-01-2

3/10/2004

Copper Granules

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-30-0

9/30/1998

Back Surfacing

U.S. Silica, Inc.

AR-401-1

10/7/2005

Headlap

ISP Minerals Inc.

AR-SP-80-0

8/13/2007

Headlap

Certainteed Corporation Roofing

AR-SP-35-0

8/3/2007

Headlap

Franklin Industrial Minerals

AR-SP-26-0

5/12/2006

Tab Adhesive

Owens Coming, Inc.

AR-407-0

8/9/2007

Polymer Mod Asphalt

U.S. Polyco Inc.

AR-SP-18-0

10116/2000

TAB 4

--

Treated Release Tape

Polyplex America Inc.

AR-SP-78-0

1/4/2011

Treated Release Tape

R J Products Inc.

AR-SP-44-1

10/25/2010

Chalet ARS Poly

Hood Packaging Corporation

AR-460-2

9114/2009

Chalet 30 ARS Kraft

Edward Sider and Company

AR-450-3

10/10/2002

18

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 19 of 84

Production Year 2006 Glass Mat

Johns Manville

AR-SP-06-5

12/15/2010

Glass Mat

Saint-Gobain Vetrotex

AR-SP-24-2

10/28/2010

Filler 65/200

Franklin industrial Minerals

AR-SP-29-0

5/5/2005

619 Ven Flux

Citgo Asphalt Refining Co.

AR-405-1

6/1/1998

Flux

Cross Oil Refinery

AR-SP-63-0

4/15/2008

Coating

Trumbull Asphalt Company

AR-402-2

4/17/2008

Granules

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-01-2

3/10/2004

Copper Granules

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-30-0

9/30/1998

Back Surfacing

U.S. Silica, Inc.

AR-401-1

10/7/2005

Headlap

Certainteed Corporation Roofing

AR-SP-35-0

8/3/2007

Headlap

Franklin Industrial Minerals

AR-SP-26-0

5/12/2006

Tab Adhesive

Owens Coming, Inc.

AR-407-0

8/9/2007

Polymer Mod Asphalt

U.S. Polyco Inc.

AR-SP-18-0

10/16/2000

Treated Release Tape

R J Products Inc.

AR-SP-44-1

10/25/2010

19

TAB 4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 20 of 84

Chalet 30 ARS Kraft

Edward Sider and Company

AR-450-3

10110/2002

Production Year 2005 Glass Mat

Johns Manville

AR-SP-06-5

12115/2010

Glass Mat

Saint-Gobain Velrotex

AR-SP-24-2

10/28/2010

Filler 65/200

Franklin Industrial Minerals

AR-SP-29-0

5/5/2005

619 yen Flux

Citgo Asphalt Refining Co.

AR-405-1

6/1/1998

AC-3 Flux

Southland Oil Inc

AR-502-4

8/2/2007

Flux

Hunt Oil Inc.

AR-SP-64-0

4/15/2008

Flux

Cross Oil Refinery

AR-SP-63-0

4/15/2008

Coating

Trumbull Asphalt Company

AR-402-2

4/17/2008

Granules

3-M Coq)oration ·

AR-SP-01-2

3/10/2004

Copper Granules

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-30-0

9/30/1998

Back Surfacing

U.S. Silica, Inc.

AR-401~1

10/7/2005

Headlap

Certainteed Corporation Roofing

AR-SP-35-0

8/3/2007

Headlap

Franklin Industrial Minerals

AR-SP-26-0

5112/2006

20

TAB 4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 21 of 84

Headlap

U.S. Minerals, Inc.

AR-SP-43-0

Headlap LP -0 116

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-62-0

Headlap

3-M Corporation

AR-414-0

Propane Extrated Sealant

Owens Coming, Inc.

AR-SP-11-0

2/21/1997

Polymer Mod Asphalt

U.S. Polyco Inc.

AR-SP-18-0

10/16/2000

Treated Release Tape

Edward Sider and Company

AR-SP-44-1

10/25/2010

Chalet 30 ARS Kraft

Edward Sider and Company

AR-450-3

10/10/2002

10/5/2005

Production Year 2004 Glass Mat

Johns Manville

AR-SP-06-5

12/15/2010

Glass Mat

Saint-Gobain Vetrotex

AR-SP-24-2

10/28/2010

Filler 65/200

Franklin Industrial Minerals

AR-SP-29-0

5/5/2005

619 Ven Flux

Citgo Asphalt Refining Co.

AR-405-1

611/1998

AC-3 Flux

Southland Oil Inc.

AR-502-4

8/2/2007

Flux

Hunt Oil Inc.

AR-SP-64-0

4/15/2008

Flux

Cross Oil Refinery

AR-SP-63-0

4115/2008

21

TAB 4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 22 of 84

Coating

Trumbull Asphalt Company

AR-402-2

4/17/2008

Granules

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-01-2

3/10/2004

Copper Granules

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-30-0

9/30/1998

Back Surfacing

U.S. Silica, Inc.

AR-401-1

10/7/2005

Headlap

Certainteed Corporation Roofing

AR-SP-35-0

8/3/2007

Headlap

Franklin Industrial Minerals

AR-SP-26-0

5/12/2006

Headlap

U.S. Minerals, Inc.

AR-SP-43-0

10/5/2005

Headlap LR-0 116

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-62-0

Headlap

3-M Corporation

AR-414-0

Propane Extrated Sealant

Owens Corning, Inc.

AR-SP-11-0

2/21/1997

Polymer Mod Asphalt

U.S. Polyco Inc.

AR-SP-18-0

10/16/2000

Treated Release Tape

Edward Sider and Company

AR-SP-44-1

10/25/2010

Chalet 30 ARS Kraft

Edward Sider and Company

AR-450-3

10/10/2002

Production Year 2003 Glass Mat

Johns Manville

AR-SP-06-5

22

12/15/2010

TAB 4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 23 of 84

Glass Mat

Saint-Gobain Vetrotex

AR-SP-24-2

10/28/2010

Filler 65/200

Franklin Industrial Minerals

AR-SP-29-0

5/5/2005

619 Ven Flux

Citgo Asphalt Refining Co.

AR-405-1

6/1/1998

AC-3 Flux

Southland Oil Inc.

AR-502-4

8/2/2007

Flux

Hunt Oil Inc.

AR-SP-64-0

4/15/2008

Flux

Cross Oil Refinery

AR-SP-63-0

4/15/2008

AR-402-2

4/17/2008

Coating

Trumbull Asphalt ·Company

Granules

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-01-2

3/10/2004

Copper Granules

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-30-0

9/3011998

Back Surfacing

U.S. Silica, Inc.

AR-401-1

10/7/2005

Headlap

Certainteed Corporation Roofing

AR-SP-35-0

8/3/2007

Headlap

Franklin Industrial Minerals

AR-SP-26-0

5/12/2006

Headlap

U.S. Minerals, Inc.

AR-SP-43-0

10/5/2005

Headlap LR-0116

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-62-0

Headlap

3-M Corporation

AR-414-0

Copper Slag Headlap

U.S. Minerals, Inc.

23

TAB 4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 24 of 84

Propane Extrated Sealant

Owens Coming, Inc.

AR-SP-11-0

2/21/1997

Polymer Mod Asphalt

U.S. Polyco Inc.

AR-SP-18-0

10116/2000

Treated Release Tape

Edward Sider and Company

AR-SP-44-1

10/25/2010

Chalet 30 Kraft

Edward Sider and Company

Chalet 30 ARS Kraft

Edward Sider and Company

AR-450-3

10110/2002

Production Year 2002 Glass Mat

Johns Manville

AR-SP-06-5

12115/2010

Glass Mat

Saint-Go bain Vetrotex

AR-SP-24-2

10/28/2010

Filler 85/200

Franklin Industrial Minerals

AR-SP-29-0

5/5/2005

619 Ven Flux

Citgo Asphalt Refining Co.

AR-405-1

6/111998

Logovari Flux

Koch Materials

AR-405-1

611/1998

Slinclare Flux

Royal Trading Inc.

Blended Flux Y &M

Trumbull Asphalt Company

Coating

Trumbull Asphalt Company

AR-402-2

4/17/2008

Granules

3-M Corporation W & LR

AR-SP-01-2

3/10/2004

24

TAB 4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 25 of 84

Copper Granules

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-30-0

9/30/1998

Back Surfacing

US. Silica, Inc.

AR-401-1

10/7/2005

Headlap

Certainteed Corporation Roofing

AR-SP-35-0

8/31/2007

Headlap

Gibbco Company

Headlap

US. Minerals, Inc.

AR-SP-43-0

10/5/2005

Headlap LR-0116

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-62-0

Headlap

Stan Blast

AR-SP-13-0

3/18/1998

Seal Down

Koch Materials

Propane Extrated Sealant

Owens Coming, Inc.

AR-SP-11-0

2/21/1997

Polymer Mod Asphalt

U.S. Polyco Inc.

AR-SP-18-0

10/16/2000

MSA Mod Sealdown

TTRD Inc.

AR-SP-17-1

7/14/2003

Treated Release Tape

Edward Sider and Company

AR-SP-44-1

10/25/2010

Chalet 30 Kraft

Edward Sider and Company

AR-455-4

11/15/2002

Chalet 30 ARS Kraft

Edward Sider and Company

AR-450-3

Production Year 2001

25

TAB 4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 26 of 84

Glass Mat

Johns Manville

AR-SP-06-5

12/15/2010

Filler 85/200

Franklin Industrial Minerals

AR-SP-29-0

5/5/2005

619 Ven Flux

Citgo Asphalt Refining Co.

AR-405-1

61111998

Logovan Flux

Koch Materials

AR-405-1

61111998

Slinclare Flux

Royal Trading Inc.

Blended Flux Y&M

Trumbull Asphalt Company

Coating

Trumbull Asphalt Company

AR-402-2

4117/2008

Granules

3-M Corporation W & AR-SP-01-2 LR

3110/2004

Copper Granules

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-30-0

9/3011998

Back Surfacing

U.S. Silica, Inc.

AR-401-1

10/7/2005

Headlap

Certainteed Corporation Roofmg

AR-SP-35-0

8/3/2007

Headlap ·

Gibbco Company

Headlap LR-0116

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-62-0

Headlap

Stan Blast

AR-SP-13-0

3/18/1998

Seal Down

Koch Materials

Propane Extrated Sealant

Owens Coming, Inc.

AR-SP-11-0

2/21/1997

26

TAB 4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 27 of 84

Polymer Mod Asphalt

U.S. Polyco Inc.

AR-SP-18-0

10116/2000

MSA Mod Sealdown

TTRD Inc.

AR-SP-17-1

7114/2003

Treated Release Tape

Edward Sider and Company

AR-SP-44-1

10/25/2010

Chalet Kraft

Edward Sider and Company

AR-450-3

10/10/2002

Chalet 30 Kraft

Edward Sider and Company

AR-455-4

11115/2002

Chalet 30 ARS Kraft

Edward Sider and Company

AR-450-3

10/10/2002

Production Year 2000 Glass Mat

Johns Manville

AR-SP-06-5

12115/2010

Filler 85/200

Franklin Industrial Minerals

AR-SP-29-0

5/5/2005

Logovan Flux

Koch Materials

AR-405-1

6/1/1998

Slinclare Flux

Royal Trading Inc.

Coating

Trumbull Asphalt Company

AR-402-2

4/17/2008

Granules

3-M Corporation LR

AR-SP-01-2

3/10/2004

Copper Granules

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-30-0

9/3011998

Back Surfacing

U.S. Silica, Inc.

AR-401-1

10/7/2005

27

TAB 4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 28 of 84

Headlap

Certainteed Corporation Roofing

AR-SP-35-0

Headlap LR-0 116

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-62-0

Headlap

Stan Blast

AR-SP-13-0

3/18/1998

Seal Down

Koch Materials

Propane Extrated Sealant

Owens Coming, Inc.

AR-SP-11-0

2/21/1997

Polymer Mod Asphalt

U.S. Polyco Inc.

AR-SP-1

10/16/2000

MSA Mod Sealdown

TTRD Inc.

AR-SP-17-1

7/14/2003

Treated Release Tape

Edward Sider and Company

AR-SP-44-1

10/25/2010

Chalet Kraft

Edward Sider and Company

AR-450-3

10110/2002

Chalet 3 0 Kraft

Edward Sider and Company

AR-455-4

11115/2002

Chalet 3 0 ARS Kraft

Edward Sider and Company

AR-450-3

10/10/2002

0

8/3/2007

Production Year 1999 Glass Mat

Johns Manville

AR-SP-06-5

12/15/2010

Filler 85/200

Franklin Industrial Minerals

AR-SP-29-0

5/5/2005

Logovan Flux

Koch Materials

AR-405-1

6/1/1998

28

TAB 4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 29 of 84

Coating

Trumbull Asphalt Company

AR-402-2

4117/2008

Granules

3-M Corporation LR

AR-SP-01-2

3/10/2004

Copper Granules

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-30-0

9/30/1998

Granules

ISP Minerals

AR-SP-02-0

1/2/1997

Back Surfacing

U.S. Silica, Inc.

AR-401-1

10/7/2005

Headlap

M B Industries

Headlap

GS Roofing

AR-SP-35-0

8/3/2007

Headlap

Stan Blast

AR-SP-13-0

3/18/1998

Seal Down

Koch Materials

Propane Extrated Sealant

Owens Coming, Inc.

AR-SP-11-0

2/2111997

MSA Mod Sealdown

TTRD Inc.

AR-SP-17-1

7/14/2003

Treated Release Tape

Edward Sider and Company

AR-

10/25/2010

Plain Release Tape

RJ Products

AR-SP-44-0

7/20/2007

Chalet Kraft

Edward Sider and Company

AR-450-3

10/10/2002

Chalet 30 ARS Kraft

Edward Sider and Company

AR-450-3

10/10/2002

29

1

TAB 4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 30 of 84

Production Year 1998 Glass Mat

Johns Manville

AR-SP-06-5

12/15/2010

Filler 85/200

Franklin Industrial Minerals

AR-SP-29-0

5/5/2005

Logovan Flux

Koch Materials

AR-405-1

6/111998

Coating

Trumbull Asphalt Company

AR-402-2

4117/2008

Granules

3-M Corporation LR

AR-SP-01-2

3/10/2004

Copper Granules

3-M Corporation

AR-SP-30-0

9/30/1998

Granules

ISP Minerals

AR-SP-02-0

112/1997

Back Surfacing

U.S. Silica, Inc.

AR-401-1

10/7/2005

Headlap

M B Industries

Headlap

GS Roofing

AR-SP-35-0

8/3/2007

Headlap

Stan Blast

AR-SP-l3-0

3/1811998

Seal Down

Koch Materials

Propane Extrated Sealant

Owens Coming, Inc.

AR-SP-11-0

2/21/1997

MSA Mod Sealdown

TTRD Inc.

AR-SP-17-1

7114/2003

Treated Release Tape

Edward Sider and Company

AR-SP-44-1

10/25/2010

30

TAB 4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 31 of 84

Plain Release Tape

RJ Products

AR-SP-44-0

7/20/2007

Chalet Kraft

Edward Sider and Company

AR-450-3

10/10/2002

Chalet 30 ARS Kraft

Edward Sider and Company

AR-450-3

10/10/2002

k)

TAB 4

For each year and each plant where Atlas manufactured Chalet shingles, describe the loading dock, warehouse or other plant intake procedures for the materials used in the Chalet shingle product.

Response: Atlas shows the following for the period 1998-2010: Intake Process

Raw Flux: Raw flux (asphalt) is received hot (melted) by tanker truck and railcar and pumped into the outside heated asphalt storage tank. Filler: Filler is received by railcar and pneumatic truck and blown into the outside filler storage silo. Glass Mat: Received by van, unloaded by forklift and stored in the warehouse. Backsurfacing (sand): Sand is received by pneumatic truck and blown into the outside backsurfacing silo; Granules (ARS, colored, headlap): Received by railcar and bottom-drop truck, and gravity fed onto an elevator which transports them into concrete silos. Release tape: Received by van, unloaded by forklift and stored in the warehouse. Sealant: Received hot (melted) by tanker truck and pumped into the outside heated sealant tank.

31

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 32 of 84

TAB 4

Modified Asphalt: Received by van or flat bed truck in 65 lb. solid kegs. Kegs are unloaded by forklift and stored in the warehouse.

I)

For each year and each plant where Atlas manufactured Chalet shingles, describe the testing or checking performed during the intake of the Chalet shingle materials to compare the materials used in the Chalet shingle product with the material specifications.

Response: Atlas shows the following for the period 1998-2010: Materials

m)

Tests Performed

1. asphalt

1. viscosity

2. asphalt

2. softening point

3. asphalt

3. penetration point

4. asphalt

4. contact compatibility

5. asphalt

5. loss on heating

6. fiberglass mat

6. tensile strength

7. fiberglass mat

7. mil thickness I individual square foot weight

For each year and each plant where Atlas manufactured Chalet shingles describe any mixing, fabricating, processing, or preparation of the materials used in the Chalet shingle product performed at the plant (e.g. sieve minerals, grinding, mixing, blending, etc.)

Response: Atlas shows the following for the period 1998 - 2010:

32

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 33 of 84

Material

Preparation Performed

1. Coating and Limestone

1. Raw coating is mixed with limestone filler.

2. Modified Compound 3. Granules 4. Asphalt Flux to Coating Process

n)

TAB 4

2. Mix: Raw Coating + Filled Coating + Modified Asphalt 3. Mix- Desired color of granules at prescribed amounts for color formula.

..

4. Oxidation of flux to desired Softening Point

For each year and each plant where Atlas manufactured Chalet shingles describe any blending of asphalt used in the Chalet shingle product and specifically identifY any additives blended in to the asphalt.

Response: Atlas shows the following as of the end of each year: Year

Blending

Additives

1998

Modified Coating Mix (Overlay)

Raw Coating, Filled Modified Compound

1999

Same as 1998

Same as 1998

2000

Same as 1998

Same as 1998

2001

Sameas 1998

Same as 1998

2002

Same as 1998

Same as 1998

2003

Same as 1998

Same as 1998

2004

Same as 1998

Same as 1998

2005

Same as 1998

Same as 1998

2006

Coating

Various Fluxes

Modified Coating Mix (Overlay)

Raw Coating, Filled Modified Compound

33

Coating,

and

Coating,

and

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 34 of 84

Year

Blending

Additives

2007

Same as 2006

Same as 2006

2008

Same as 2006

Same as 2006

2009

Same as 2006

Same as 2006

2010

Same as 2006

Same as 2006

o)

TAB 4

For each year and each plant where Atlas manufactured Chalet shingles describe the storage of the materials used in the Chalet shingle product before being used in the SRMM (storage location, storage duration, environmental conditions at storage location, etc.).

Response: Atlas shows the following for the period 1998-2010: Location outside asphalt tank in

Duration Turnover rate approximately 2 to 10 days

Conditions Tank kept at 375° F

Filler- stored outside in filler silo

Turnover rate approximately 1 -2 days

Ambient

Glass Mat - stored inside warehouse

One to 6 weeks typical

Ambient

Backsurfacing (sand)- stored in silo outside in stillyard

Turnover rate approximately 48 hours.

Ambient

Granules storage silos

Turnover rate 1 to 21 days

Ambient

Release tape - inside warehouse

Turnover rate 6 - 9 months

Ambient

Sealant - Outside storage tank in stillyard

Turnover rate approximately 3 days

Heated at 325° F

Modified Asphalt - inside warehouse

1 to 9 months

Ambient

Flux stillyard

p)

For each year and each plant where Atlas manufactured Chalet shingles describe any conditioning of the materials used in the Chalet shingle product after being received by Atlas and before being used in

34

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 35 of 84

TAB 4

the SRMM (e.g bring to room temperature, dry the material, wet the material, etc.). Response: Atlas shows the following for the period 1998- 2010: Conditioning

Material ~awFlux

Converted to coating by oxidation in the blowstill, then stored as fcoating at 450° F. Mixedwith filler and heated to 510° F- 525° Fat coater

filler

tReated to 200° F - 250° F p~ior to mixing with coating

Modified Asphalt

~egs melted at 400 F and maintained at 375° F prior to application to

Chalet shingle

q)

For each year and each plant where Chalet shingles were manufactured, and each SRMM, describe the Chalet product and materials used in the Chalet shingle product design specifications (e.g weight of materials, weight of product, viscosity of asphalt, asphalt softening point, etc.).

Response: Atlas shows the following for the period 1998 - 2010: Specifications

Material

Product Weight

235 lbs/sq +/- 5 lbs.

Asphalt Viscosity

300 cps+/- 100 cps

Asphalt Soft Point

210F+/-20F

Weight of Materials

See specifications

r)

For each year and each plant where Chalet shingles were manufactured, and each SRMM, describe the quality. control procedures (sampling and testing) implemented to compare the Chalet product and materials used in the Chalet shingle product at the SRMM with the Chalet product and materials used in the Chalet 35

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 36 of 84

TAB 4

shingle product design specifications (e.g. products or materials tested on the SRMM, products or materials sampled at the SRMM for testing in a laboratory, etc.), including a description of specific tests performed, the results of testing, the testing schedule, and the sampling methodology. Response: Atlas shows the following for the period 1998 - 2010: Product/Material

Sampling/Testing

Schedule

Shingle

Weight

Hourly Minimum

Shingle

Backcoating

Hourly Minimum

Shingle

Granule Adhesion

Start-up and speed/process changes

Shingle

Dimensions - Length, Width, Exposure

Hourly Minimum

Shingle

Sealant- Location, Caliper, Pattern

Hourly Minimum

Shingle

Pad Alignment and Shadowline, Release Tape

Hourly Minimum

Coating

Filler Percent

Hourly Minimum

s)

For each year and eqch plant. where Chalet shingles. :were manufactured, and each SRMM, describe the quality control procedures (sampling and testing) implemented to compare the. Chalet product after packaging to the product design specifications (e.g. warehouse sampling and laboratory testing), including a description of sampling procedures, specific tests performed, testing schedule, and the results of testing.

Response: Atlas shows the following for the period 1998- 2010: Sampling/Testing Warehouse appearance

36

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 37 of 84

TAB 4

. Color code legibility Package appearance Bundle weight Machine rub Back coating Sealant caliper Sealant tape alignment Packaged wet Dimensions Cut appearance

t)

For each year and each plant where Chalet shingles were manufactured, and each SRMM, describe any testing involving heating a manufactured shingle.

Response: Atlas shows the following as of the end of each year: Year

Testing Involving Heating Manufactured Shingle

1998

Backcoating Test

1999

Backcoating Test

2000

Backcoating Test

2001

Backcoating Test

2002

Backcoating Test

2003

Backcoating Test

2004

Backcoating Test and Vacuum Oven

2005

Backcoating Test and Vacuum Oven

2006

Backcoating Test and Vacuum Oven

2007

Backcoating Test and Vacuum Oven

..

37

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 38 of 84

Year

u)

TAB 4

Testing Involving Heating Manufactured Shingle

2008

Backcoating Test and Vacuum Oven

2009

Backcoating Test and Vacuum Oven

2010

Backcoating Test and Vacuum Oven

For each year and each plant where Chalet shingles were manufactured, and each SRMM, describe testing demonstrating conformance to ASTM D3462.

Response: Atlas shows the following for the period 1998- 2010: Description of ASTM D3462 Testing

Atlas utilized 3rd Party Labs such as UL and FM for D3462 Conformance

v)

For each year and each plant where Chalet shingles were manufactured, and each SRMM, describe any changes made to the Chalet shingle manufacturing process (e.g. SRMM, material intake procedures, material storage, etc.), Chalet shingle product design specifications, or Chalet shingle material specifications.

Response: objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that is overly . . Atlas . .

broad and unduly burdensome to list every change in the process, equipment, material intake procedures, material storage, etc., product design specifications, and material specifications. Without waiving its objections, Atlas incorporates its responses to Interrogatory 4 (a) - (u) and the documents that Atlas has produced and will produce in response to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production, and Atlas reserves the right to supplement this response as discovery proceeds.

38

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 39 of 84

TAB 4

Interrogatory No.5: Describe your investigation of complaints and warranty claims for Chalet shingles with the following symptoms or manifestations: a.

loss of or alleged loss of surfacing;

b.

blistering or alleged blistering and/or cratering or alleged catering (depressions) resulting from popped or deflated blisters;

c.

cracking or alleged cracking;

d.

broken tabs, broken shingles, or alleged broken tabs or broken shingles.

e.

Set forth the results of your investigations, including the results of laboratory analysis, evaluation, observation and testing relating to the Alleged Deficiencies.

Response: This information would be most reasonably ascertained from the

warranty claims files that Atlas is producing as part of its response to Plaintiffs' document requests.

Atlas directs Plaintiffs to such warranty claims files

accordingly. Interrogatory No.6: With respect to the shingles, provide the following: a.

Identify each individual responsible for the design, engineering, manufacturing, testing, warranting, distribution, promotion and sale of the shingles from inception through today, including all individuals who have or had supervisory, management and/or administrative responsibility (include a description of their title and general job responsibilities with regard to the shingles and dates of employment with Atlas);

Response: See Atlas' response to Interrogatory No. 1. b.

Separately state, in dollar amounts, the total amount of the Shingles sold by you during each year of the Class Period; the approximate 39

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 40 of 84

TAB 4

price point or price range of the Shingles,· the target gross profit margin for the Shingles; and the actual or historical gross profit margin earned on the Shingles,· Response: Atlas's sales data between 1999 and 2010 is summarized below.

Atlas objects to providing an "approximate price point or price range" on the grounds that such information is speculative. Atlas refers Plaintiffs to the available sales documentation for actual data. Atlas objects to providing target gross profit margins or historical gross profit margins on the grounds that such information is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this litigation.

c.

1999

$ 9,288,994.74

2000

$ 10,097,390.16

2001

$ 11,157,428.00

2002

$ 12,620,762.29

2003

$ 17,856,261.60

2004

$21,954,160.67

2005

$ 27,054,982.23

2006

$ 26,389,225.00

2007

$ 20,625,401.21

2008

$ 12,981,792.50

2009

$ 13,038,219.62

2010

$ 3,134,859.11

Provide, in dollar amounts, the approximate annual sales revenue for the Shingles shipped and/or distributed to each jurisdiction during each year of the Class Period; and

40

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 41 of 84

TAB 4

Response: Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a chart of annual sales for Chalet

shingles by state from 1998-'-- 2010. Atlas has compiled this information using the information available at this time. In February 2014, certain sales data from the PeopleSoft System was inadvertently deleted as part of scheduled maintenance. Atlas is in the process of trying to recover that data and will supplement this response as appropriate. d.

Identify and provide contact information for every one of the customers/distributors that sell or supply the Shingles in Each Jurisdiction.

Response: Responsive information is set forth in the chart attached hereto

as Exhibit 2 listing Chalet purchasers in each jurisdiction as well as in the other responsive documents produced in response to Plaintiffs' Master Discovery. Interrogatory No.7: Please identify and describe each of the warranties that accompanied the sale of the Shingles. Response: Atlas objects on the grounds that it is unclear what is. intended by .

··.

•.

the term "accompanied the sale" since, in .this context, this plu:ase is ambiguous. Atlas does not typically sell shingles directly to the owners of structures on which they are installed by third-party roofing contractors.

Such roofing contractors

typically purchase shingles from third-party building supply dealers. Atlas issues a written limited warranty that is extended to the original owner.

The limited

warranty was revised from time to time over the years. Atlas directs Plaintiffs to

41

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 42 of 84

TAB 4

the copies of the various iterations of its limited warranty that Atlas shall produce as part of its response to Plaintiffs' document requests. Interrogatory No.8: With regard to each warranty claim that has been submitted relating to the Shingles, please identify the person who submitted the claim, describe the alleged problem that triggered the claim, describe what action was taken by Atlas in response to the claim (including whether any replacements or repairs were made), and state whether the claim has been finally resolved. Response: This information would be ·most reasonably ascertained from the

warranty claims files that Atlas is producing as part of its response to Plaintiffs' document requests.

Atlas directs Plaintiffs to such warranty claims files

accordingly. Interrogatory No.9: With respect to any complaints about or allegations of problems with the Shingles made to Atlas by its customers (which includes all Class Members) or other third parties or by any of Atlas' employees, agents, or representatives, provide the following: a.

Identify and describe the person(s) employed by Atlas who are mpst knowledgeable about the complaints and allegedproblems,· ·

Response: This information would be most reasonably ascertained from the

warranty claims files that Atlas is producing as part of its response to Plaintiffs' document requests. accordingly.

Atlas directs Plaintiffs to such warranty claims files

By way of further response, see Atlas' response to Interrogatory

No.1. b.

Describe the nature of the complaints and alleged problems;

42

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 43 of 84

TAB 4

Response: This information would be most reasonably ascertained from the

warranty claims files that Atlas is producing as part of its response to Plaintiffs' document requests.

Atlas directs Plaintiffs to such warranty claims files

accordingly. c.

Describe all efforts to investigate or analyze the complaints and alleged problems, including in your answer the identity of the people who were involved in the investigation or analysis and a description of all hypotheses, conclusions, or recommendations resulting from any investigation or analysis;

Response: This information would be most reasonably ascertained from

the warranty claims files that Atlas is producing as part of its response to Plaintiffs' document requests.

Atlas directs Plaintiffs to such warranty claims files

accordingly. d.

Identify and describe any and all modifications, improvements, and/or fixes to address any complaints or alleged problems that were considered by Atlas, specifying .the financial costs involved-for each and stating whether .any of the modifications, improvements, or fixes · were implemented;

Response: In response to this intenogatory, Atlas incorporates by

reference its response to Intenogatory No. 4 above. By way of further response, Atlas refers to documents within its production relating to continuous process improvements. e.

Identify and describe any and all financial costs associated with said fix, improvement or modification; (b) whether said fix, improvement

43

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 44 of 84

TAB 4

or modification was implemented; (c) if implemented, the date such fix, improvement or modification was made; (d) if implemented, the reason for which the fix, improvement or modification was made; (e) if not implemented, the reason for which the fix, improvement or modification was not made; and (f) if implemented, describe how the fix, improvement or modification affected the performance of Atlas Chalet Shingles; Response: Atlas incorporates its response to Interrogatory 9( d).

f

Identify and describe any and all product recalls or customer advisories relating to the Shingles;

Response: Atlas made no recalls or advisories as Atlas understands these tenns. Identify and describe in detail any and all systems, databases, procedures, processes and methods that have been or are being used by you to record, store, retrieve, retain or keep track of information relating to failure of, replacement of, and/or repair of the Shingles; and the content (each type of data) maintained on each incident.

g.

Response: This information would be most reasonably ascertained from the warranty claims files that Atlas is producing as part of i~s response to Plaintiffs' -· . .. document requests.

Atlas directs Plaintiffs to such warranty claims files

accordingly. Interrogatory No. 10: With respect to research, development, design, redesign, design or manufacturing deviations, testing and/or investigating of the Shingles, provide the following: a)

Identify and describe all research, development, testing or analysis of the configuration for the design of the Shingles, including all subsequent modifications and testing thereof;

44

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 45 of 84

TAB 4

Response: Atlas objects on the grounds that, in the context of this

Interrogatory, the term "configuration" is ambiguous. Without waiving its objections, Atlas states that initial research and development of Chalet shingles was performed largely by Bob Blanpied, who passed away in 2014. Atlas will produce documents relating to the design of the Shingles, modifications to the design, and testing, which documents contain information responsive to this interrogatory. Atlas further incorporates its response to Interrogatory No.4 above. b)

Identify and describe all testing, investigations or any other measures performed by Atlas to determine the anticipated long-term performance of the Shingles and their ·components and/or the durability of the Shingles and their components, including accelerated weathering testing;

Response: Atlas objects on the grounds that, in the context of this

Interrogatory, the terms "durability" and "accelerated weathering" are ambiguous. Without waiving its objections, Atlas states that initial development and testing of Chalet shingles was performed largely by Bob Blanpied, who passed away in 2014. Atlas will produce documents relating to development and testing of the Shingles, which documents may contain information responsive to this interrogatory. Atlas further incorporates its response to Interrogatory No. 4 above, which includes detailed descriptions of the components, blending procedures, specifications, and testing performed on the asphalt used to manufacture the Shingles. 45

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 46 of 84

c)

TAB 4

Identify and describe all testing, investigations or any other measures performed by Atlas to determine whether accelerated failure of the Shingles was occurring; and,

Response: Atlas objects on the grounds that, in the context of this

Interrogatory, the terms "accelerated" and "failure" are ambiguous.

Without

waiving its objections, Atlas states that, with respect to investigations related to evaluation of Shingles on particular roofs, responsive information would be most reasonably ascertained from the warranty claims files that Atlas is producing as part of its response to Plaintiffs' document requests. Atlas directs Plaintiffs to such warranty claims files accordingly. By way of further response, Atlas incorporates its response to Interrogatory 1O(b ). d)

Identify and describe all testing, investigations or any other measures performed by Atlas to determine the anticipated effect on the Shingles as a result of exposure to foot traffic, inadequate ventilation, solar effects, reflective heat and/or thermal expansion and contraction during the anticipated life of the Shingles.

Response: Atlas incorporates its response to Interrogatory No. 4 above,

which, along with Atlas' documents, includes detailed descriptions of all testing and investigations performed by Atlas relating to the Shingles. Atlas will produce documents relating to testing of the Shingles themselves and the materials used to manufacture them, which documents contain the information requested in this interrogatory.

46

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 47 of 84

TAB 4

Interrogatory No. 11: Please list the caption, case number, and court of any lawsuit in which Atlas or a company Atlas owns was a party in which there were claims relating in any way to the Chalet Shingles. Response: In response to this Interrogatory, Atlas identifies the following

cases relating to Chalet Shingles: the cases consolidated into this MDL. Interrogatory No. 12: Identify and describe in detail any and all content of labels affixed to or which accompanied Atlas Chalet Shingles, including labels or descriptive information contained on packaging/shipping materials, for the Atlas Chalet Shingles manufactured by you and/or sold by you at any point. If this information has changed during the class period, specify which information accompanied the product during which time periods. Response: This information is most reasonably obtained from the packaging

materials for Chalet Shingles which shall be produced for Plaintiffs' review and inspection. Interrogatory No. 13: Have you ever investigated the below Alleged Deficiencies? If so, set forth when and why you investigated one or more of the Alleged Deficiencies; and what you determined to be the cause of the Alleged Deficiencies; what evidence supported your determination of the cause; what you did as a result of your determination; and any changes you implemented in your design, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, or shipping processes as a result of your determination.

Alleged Deficiencies: Chalet shingles with the following symptoms or manifestations: a.

loss of, or alleged loss of surfacing;

b.

blistering or alleged blistering and/or cratering or alleged catering (depressions) resulting from popped or deflated blisters;

c.

cracking or alleged cracking;

47

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 48 of 84

d.

TAB 4

broken tabs, broken shingles, or alleged broken tabs or broken shingles.

Response: This information would be most reasonably ascertained from the

warranty claims files that Atlas is producing as part of its response to Plaintiffs' document requests.

Atlas directs Plaintiffs to such waiTanty claims files

accordingly. Regarding changes in design, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, or shipping, Atlas refers Plaintiffs' to its responses to preceding inteiTogatories, including InteiTogatory No. 4. Interrogatory No. 14: Do you contend it would be unreasonable for a person who owns a structure on which the Shingles were installed to remove and replace all of the Shingles, either because the Shingles already have blistered and cracked or because of concern about the future problems may occur? If so, please explain why and identify in detail all remedial actions that you contend should be taken to address existing or future problems with the Shingles. Response: Atlas' recommendation concemmg a particular roof would

depend on facts

n~t

provided in this hypothetical. Atlas is not in a position to

make contentions about what is reasonable without more information. Interrogatory No. 15: Do you contend that any other person or entity is responsible for the Alleged Deficiencies experienced by the Named Plaintiffs and other class members? If so, please identity the person or entity and explain the factual basis upon which their responsibility is based. Response: Atlas objects to the term "deficiencies" as argumentative. Atlas

further objects to this inteiTogatory to the extent it refers to absent class members

48

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 49 of 84

TAB 4

whose houses Atlas has not had the opportunity to inspect. In responding to this Interrogatory, Atlas makes no representation as to whether any particular condition on any particular roof constitutes a deficiency. While a leak or blistering can result from the acts or omissions of persons involved in the design, construction or maintenance of particular structures, discovery has just begun and the information presently available to Atlas does not enable it to identify any particular persons involved in such design, construction or maintenance. Interrogatory No. 16: If you believe that installation error is the cause of one or more Alleged Deficiencies, set forth specifically what installation error causes which deficiency, and the basis of your belief as to causation. Response: Atlas objects to the term "deficiencies" as argumentative. Atlas

further objects to ·this interrogatory to the extent it refers to absent class members whose houses Atlas has not had the opportunity to inspect. In responding to this Interrogatory, Atlas makes no representation as to whether any particular condition on any particular roof constitutes

adeficiency.

While a leak or blistering or other

condition on particular structures can result from the acts or omissions of persons involved in the installation of various building components, such as flashing, decking, and shingles, discovery has just begun and the warranty claims files Atlas will produce would contain the responsive information presently available to Atlas concerning any particular roof.

49

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 50 of 84

TAB 4

Interrogatory No. 17: Identify when, if ever, Atlas warned or otherwise told any person, including without limitation customers and installers, that if the Shingles were not installed strictly in accordance with your instructions damage in the form of one or more of the Alleged Deficiencies would result. Response: Atlas objects to the term "deficiencies" as argumentative. Since

the term "damage" is not defined in this interrogatory, Atlas is unable to determine what particular communications, if any, would be responsive to this Interrogatory. Atlas further objects that no particular customer or installer is identified. Without waiving any objection, Atlas will produce copies of documents it made available to the learned intermediaries involved in the installation of shingles relating to installation, packaging, and warranties. Interrogatory No. 18: Do you deny that Atlas stopped manufacturing the Shingles due to the Alleged Deficiencies? If so, set forth in detail why Atlas stopped manufacturing the Shingles. Response: Atlas denies that it stopped manufacturing the Shingles due to an

alleged deficiency in the product. Atlas stopped manufacturing the Shingles due to a combination of factors, including: a severe drop in new home construction, a decreasing market demand for overlay products, an increasing market demand for laminated shingles, and efficiencies in the process for manufacturing laminates. Interrogatory No. 19: Have you ever rebranded the Chalet Shingles or sold the same or similar shingle under a different name? If so, set forth the other names, the period of sales, and whether the Shingles were manufactured on the same SRMMs or different ones; and the nature of the differences, if any, in the manufacturing of the renamed Shingles from that of the Chalet.

50

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 51 of 84

TAB 4

Response: Atlas objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it is overly

broad and unduly burdensome, vague, and ambiguous.

Without waiving any

objection, Atlas states that it never rebranded Chalet Shingles as it understands that term. Atlas did manufacture a similar shingle under the brand names Savannah, Stratford, and Mosaic. Savannah and Stratford shingles were manufactured on the same manufacturing line (Line 1) as Chalet in the Hampton, Georgia plant (Savannah from 1999 - 2004 and Stratford from 2000 - 201 0). Savannah and Stratford shingles were also manufactured for a period of time on a single manufacturing line (also line 1) at a plant in Quakertown, Pennsylvania (Savannah from 1999 - 2004 and Stratford from 1999 - 2004).

Mosaic shingles were

manufactured on the same line (line 1) in Quakertown, Pennsylvania from 2001 2004.

Atlas manufactured a generic overlay shingle on line 1 in Quakertown,

Pennsylvania in 2003. Interrogatory No. 20: Have you ever manufactured any other type, model, or brand of shingle with a partial or complete extra layer of surfacing similar to that used on the Chalet? If so, set forth the names of such shingles, the period of manufacture, the location of manufacture, the identity of SRMMs the shingles were produced on, and any differences in the application of the extra layer of surfacing as between the Chalet Shingles and the other shingles. Response: Atlas objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it is vague

and ambiguous as to the meaning of the phrase "complete extra layer of surfacing."

51

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 52 of 84

TAB 4

Without waiving any objections, Atlas incorporates its response to Interrogatory No.l9.

Interrogatory No. 21: Was the design and/or manufacturing process of the Chalet Shingle based upon, in whole or in part, on any earlier version of shingle? If so, identify the earlier version of shingle and describe any modifications made to the design or manufacturing process as between the earlier version and the Chalet Shingle. Response: Atlas objects to this interrogatory on the ground that,- in the context of this Interrogatory, the term "version" is ambiguous and Atlas is uncertain as to what is intended. Asphalt roofing shingles are a building product that have been in use for more than a century, and the design and production of any new product is based in whole or in part on what has been historically developed in the industry.

Interrogatory No. 22: With regard to each instance in which a representative of Atlas visited any Named Plaintiff or inspected a structure owned by any Namecl Plaintiff or other class member, please identify (by name and position) the representative, state the date and length of the visit; ~et forth the representative's observations, findings, opinions, and conclusions, and identify (by author, date, and intended recipient) any reports, letters, or memoranda relating to the visit. · Response: Atlas objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product doctrine, or materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. Without waiving any objections, Atlas states that Meldrin Collins inspected stluctures in connection with

52

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 53 of 84

TAB 4

warranty claims from certain named Plaintiffs, which information is contained in those warranty claim files. Responsive information for all named Plaintiffs and other structures would be most reasonably ascertained from the_ warranty claims files that Atlas is producing as part of its response to Plaintiffs' document requests. Atlas directs Plaintiffs to such warranty claims files accordingly. Interrogatory No. 23: Set forth the names and address of all insurance companies which have liability insurance coverage which may relate to the claims and set forth the number(s) of the policies involved and the amount(s) of liability coverage, including aggregate and per occurrence coverage, provided in each policy. Response: Atlas shows the following: Address

Insurer

Policy Numbers- Liability Limits

Policy Period

The Home Indemnity Company

Manchester, New Hampshire

GLR-C100723 $2,000,000/1,000,000

01/01195- 01101/96

The Home Insurance Company

Manchester, New Hampshire

HUL 1719484 $40,000,00Q/40,000,000

01/01/95- 01/01/96

CPO 8482689-00 $2,000,000/1,000,000 CPO 8482689-01 $2,000' 000/1 '000, 000 CPO 8482689-02 $2,000' 000/1 '000 '000 AEC 6541407 00 $25 '000' 000/25 '000' 000 AEC 6541407 01 $25,000,000/25,000,000 -

01/01/96- 01101/97

_,

Zurich American 1400 American Lane Insurance Schaumburg, IL 60196-1056

53

01101/97-01101/98 01101198-01/01/99 06/30/09-06/30/10 06/30/10-06/30/11

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 54 of 84

Insurer

Address

Chartis Specialty 175 Water Street New York, NY Insurance 10038 Company Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance

2501 N. Military Trail Boca Raton, FL 33431-6398

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company

Westport Insurance Corp. (Swiss Re)

Great American Insurance

Overland Park, Kansas

580 Walnut St. Cincinnati, OH 45202

Policy Numbers- Liability Limits

Policy Period

EG 6171749 $2,000,000/1,000,000

06/30/10-06/30/11

UMB 3212510 $50,000,000/$50,000,000 053394 $2,000,000/$1,000,000

04/01/00-06/01/01 04/01/00-06/01101

CK 00214613 $1 '7 50,000/$750,000

6/30/02-6/30/03

CK 00214613 $1,750,000/$750,000

6/30/03 - 6/30/04

PRB020028 $25,000,000/25,000,000 PRB020028-0 1 $25 '000 '000/25 '000' 000 PRB020128 $25,000,000/25,000,000

01/01/97-01101198

EXX 9-03-50-36-00 $25,000,000/25,000,000 EXX 9-03-50-36-01 $25,000,000/25,000,000 UMB 3212510$50,000,000/50,000,000 EXC 5749180 $20,000,000/20,000,000 EXC 5654538 $20,000,000/20,000,000 EXC 5654538-01 $20,000,000/20,000,000 EXC 4718581 $25,000,000/25,000,000 EXC 4718581-01 $25,000,000/25,000,000 EXC 3108385 $25,000,000/25,000,000

09/01/97-01/01/98

54

OliO 1/98-01101199 06/01/01-06/3 0/02

01/01198-01101/99 04/01/00-06/01101 9119/02 -:-06/3D/03 06/30/03-06/30/04 06/3 0/04-06/3 010 5 06/3 0/05-06/3 0/06 06/30/06-06/30/07 06/3 0/07-06/3 0/08

TAB 4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 55 of 84

Insurer

Address

American Empire Insurance

Cincinnati, OH

American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company

1400 American Lane Schaumburg, IL 60196-1056

Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc.

55 Water Street 18th Floor New York, NY 10041

Policy Numbers- Liability Limits

Policy Period

2 cu 117 06 $5,000,000/5,000,000

06/30/02-06/30/03

AU08517936 -02 $50,000,000/40,000,000 AU08517936 -01 $50,000,000/50,000,000 AU08517936 $40,000,000/40,000,000

OliO 1/98-01/01/99

LQ1-B71-198-012-012$25,000,000/25,000,000 LQ1-B71-198-012-022 $25,000,000/25,000,000 EBl-691-434658-034 $10,000,000/$2,000,000 LQ1-B71-198-012-032$25,000,000/$25,000,000 EBl-691-434658-035 $10,000,000/$2,000,000 LQ1-B71-198-012-042$25,000,000/25,000,000 EBl-691-434658-036 $10,000,000/$750,000 LQ1-B71-198-012-052$25,000,000/25,000,000 EBl-691-434658-03 7 $10,000,000/$750,000 LQ1-B71-198-012-062- . $25,000,000/25,000,000

10/3ll02-06/30/03

55

OliO 1/97-0ll01/98

01/01/96-01/01/97

06/30/03-06/30/04 06/30/04- 06/30/05 06/30/04-06/30/05 06/30/05-06/30/06 06/3 0/05-06/3 0/06 06/3 0/06-06/3 0/07 06/3 0/06-06/3 0/07 ..

•

06/3 0/07-06/3 0/08 06/30/07-06/30/08

TAB 4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 56 of 84

Insurer National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, Pa.

Address 70 Pine Street New York, NY 10270

Policy Numbers- Liability Limits

Policy Period

BE2860264 $5,000,000/$5,000,000

06/30/03- 06/30/04

BE 2978150 $5,000,000/$5,000,000

06/30/04-06/30/05

4484801 $25 '000 '000/25 '000' 000 4485492 $25 '000' 000/25 '000 '000 6081761 $50,000,000/50,000,000 27471304 $25,000,000/25,000,000 15972387 $25,000,000/25,000,000

06/30/05-06/30-06

EG 6171749 $2,000' 000/$1 '000' 000 EG 6171749 $2,000' 000/$1 '000 '000 EG 6171749 $2,000,000/$1,000,000

06/3 0/08-06/3 0/09

XOO G23874076 $25 '000, 000/$25 '000' 000 XCP G24648898 $25 '000 '000/25 '000' 000 XCP G24900289 $25,000,000/25,000,000 XCP G24910271$25,000,000/25,000,000

6/3 0/07-6/30/08

-

American Intemational Specialty Lines Insurance Company

70 Pine Street New York, NY 10270

ACE American Insurance Company

140 Broadway, 40th Floor New York, NY 10005

Royal Insurance 9300 Arrowpoint Blvd. Company of Charlotte, NC America 28273-8135

PTS-459348 0000 $2,000,000/1,000,000

56

06/3 0/06-06/3 0/07 06/30/08-06/30/09 06/30/09-06/30/10 06/30/10-06/30/11

06/3 0/09-06/3 0110 06/30/10-06/30/11

06/30/08-06/30/09 --

06/30/09-06/30/10 06/3 0/10-06/3 0/11

01/01/99-01/01/00

TAB 4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 57 of 84

TAB 4

ATLAS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Request 1: Copies of any and all statements given by witnesses to the matters complained of by any party herein which are in the possession, custody or control of Atlas or counsel, whether written or recorded or on a tape recorder or otherwise. Response: Atlas incorporates the general objections set forth above. Atlas IS

still in the process of gathering and reviewing documents for production in

accordance with CMO Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5. Consistent with those CMOs, Atlas will produce at the appropriate time all non-privileged and discoverable documents responsive to these requests.

This response does not mean that responsive

documents do exist, only that Atlas will work to produce responsive documents, to the extent they exist, subject to its general and specific objections and within the confines of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the CMOs agreed to among the parties. Request 2: All product registration spreadsheets and databases relating to the Shingles; if these do not exist, all product registration documents, product warranty cards, internet registration orders, and the like. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas'

response to Request No. 1. Request 3: All product literature, marketing materials, advertising materials, technical literature, packaging literature, and installation instructions relating to the Shingles.

57

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 58 of 84

TAB 4

Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 4: All documents constituting or reflecting communications between the Named Plaintiffs and/or Atlas. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 5: All documents constituting or reflecting any communications between Atlas and any other person or entity regarding the Alleged Deficiency with the Shingles. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 6: Documents showing Atlas' organizational and corporate structure during the Class Period. This request includes, but is not limited to, documents sufficient to identify all corporate officers, division managers, and those acting in a lead or supervisory capacity relating to the design, manufacturing, shipping, marketing, sales, and customer service relating to the Shingles. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 7: All warranty requests, complaints, comments or inquiries you have received with regard to the Alleged Deficiencies with the Shingles, and all documents you have that track oral inquiries relating to the Shingles; and all documents relating to the tracking, investigating, and resolving of the same and the spreadsheets and databases that track the same. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. 58

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 59 of 84

TAB 4

Request 8: All Documents relating to when and why you investigated one or. more of the below Alleged Deficiencies; what you determined to be the cause of the Alleged Deficiency; what evidence supported your determination of the cause; what you did as a result of your determination; and any changes you implemented in your design, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, or shipping processes as a result of your determination. Alleged Deficiencies: Chalet shingles with the following symptoms or manifestations: a)

loss of or alleged loss of surfacing;

b)

blistering or alleged blistering and/or cratering or alleged catering (depressions) resulting from popped or deflated blisters;

c)

cracking or alleged cracking;

d)

broken tabs, broken shingles, or alleged broken tabs or broken shingles.

Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 9: All documents relating to complaints, comments, and inquiries about the Alleged Deficiencies with the Shingles, including without limitation all documents generated by Atlas in response to any complaints, comments and inquiries. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 10: All documents generated by Atlas or by third person on Atlas' behalf relating to the Alleged Deficiencies with the Shingles, including but not limited to internal memoranda, emails, facsimiles, board meeting minutes, customer service reports, and quality control reports.

59

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 60 of 84

TAB 4

Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas'

response to Request No. 1. Request 11: Documents sufficient to identify all purchasers of the Shingles, including, but not limited to, retailers, distributors, wholesalers, and consumers. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas'

response to Request No. 1. Request 12: One exemplar copy of each document sent by you to wholesalers, retailers, distributors, service centers, or consumers regarding any actual or potential problems with the Shingles. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas'

response to Request No. 1. Request 13: Documents sufficient to identify all corporations, entities, affiliates or partners taking part in the design, manufacture, marketing, advertisement, assembly, testing and/or sale of the Shingles. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas'

response to Request No. 1. Request 14: All pleadings, depositions, responses to interrogatories and document requests, reports, and documents produced in discovery in connection with any lawsuits (whether in state or federal court) and arbitrations involving the Alleged Deficiencies with the Shingles. Response: Atlas objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks

documents outside those contemplated by, or otherwise protected under, Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Without waiving any objections, Atlas states

60

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 61 of 84

TAB 4

there are no lawsuits or arbitrations other than the lawsuits consolidated into this

MDL. Request 15: All documents containing and/or relating to communications between you and any third party regarding any problems with the Shingles. This request includes, but is not limited to, all documents generated by any manufacturer of component parts .of the Shingles relating to any Shingle problems; and., all documents containing and/or relating to communications between you and any third party regarding any and all actual or potential Shingle problems. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 16: All documents you sent to or received from any third party regarding the Alleged Deficiencies. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 17: One copy of each insurance policy that provides, or may provide, coverage for any cause of action set forth in the Complaint. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 18: All documents referring or relating to the manner in which Atlas representatives are or were to respond to customer complaints or inquiries about the Alleged Deficiencies, including without limitation scripts for use by customer service representatives. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1.

61

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 62 of 84

TAB 4

Request 19: All documents constituting, explaining, and/or relating to your refund, repair or replacement policies applicable to the Shingles. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 20: Documents sufficient to show your annual gross revenue and net profits from sales of the Shingles. Response: Atlas objects to producing net profits from the sales of the Shingles on the grounds that such information is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this litigation. Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 21: Documents sufficient to show the amount of Shingles that have been manufactured and/or sold by you, whether sold directly or indirectly or through your retailers, distributors, partners, and/or your affiliates. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response

t~

Request No. 1.

Request 22: All documents relating to refunds, repair reimbursements, replacements, and purchase rebates relating to alleged problems with the Shingles. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 23: All documents relating to testing or quality control of the Shingles, both before and after the product was first introduced to the marketplace.

62

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 63 of 84

TAB 4

Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 24: All documents relating to the development and/or design specifications of the Shingles.

research,

design,

Response: Subject to the general object!ons set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 25: All documents relating to any consideration by Atlas of the design, redesign, improvement or modification of the Shingles or the process by which they were or are manufactured, including all designs, design modifications, engineering change orders (or the like), proposed engineering change orders and comments thereon, your log or listing of engineering change orders, manufacturing deviation proposals and approvals, and your log of manufacturing deviations. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 26: All documents generated by any manufacturer of component parts relating to any alleged defects or problems with the Shingles. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above and Atlas' objection to producing documents in the possession of third parties, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 27: Documents sufficient to show your document retention policies during the Class Period. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1.

63

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 64 of 84

TAB 4

Request 28: All documents relating to the manufacture of the Shingles, including the. work station instructions (or like documents) that specify the exact activities to be performed at each stage of the manufacturing line and at each location at the SRMM. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas'

response to Request No. 1. Request 29:

All documents relating to any testing of the Shingles.

Response: Subject to the. general objections set forth above, see Atlas'

response to Request No. 1. Request 30: All documents reviewed or referenced in preparing and/or listed in your responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. Response: See Atlas' responses to these intenogatories and requests for

production. Request 31: All communications relating to the Shingles between you and any person or entity involved in the design, manufacture, marketing, advertisement, assembly, testing and/or sale of the Shingles. Response: Subject to the general objections set fmih above, see Atlas'

response to Request No. 1. Request 32:

All expert reports related to the Shingles.

Response: Atlas objects to this intenogatory to the extent it seeks

documents outside those contemplated by, or otherwise protected under, Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Atlas will make its expert disclosures in

64

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 65 of 84

TAB 4

accordance with the applicable case management and scheduling orders in these consolidated MDL proceedings. Request 33: All documents relating to the warranties and/or extended warranties of the Shingles. Response: SubjeCt to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas'

response to Request No. 1. Request 34: All specifications for the Shingles applied to the Named Plaintiffs' structures. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas'

response to Request No. 1. Request 35: All documents referring or relating to the Named Plaintiffs or their structures, including without limitation all internal memoranda, telephone call records, diaries, reports, files photographs, movies, videotapes, and all reports, memoranda, and other documents concerning visits or inspections of the Named Plaintiffs' structures by Atlas or any architect, engineer or other representatives. Response: Subject- to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas'

response to Request No. 1. Request 36: All reports relating to the Shingles installed on the Named Plaintiffs' structures, including without limitation laboratory and testing reports on material and work associated with the Class Representatives. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas'

response to Request No. 1.

65

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 66 of 84

TAB 4

Request 37: All statements by and reports of interviews with persons associated with design or construction of the Named Plaintiffs' structures or the installation of the Shingles on the structures. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas'

response to Request No. 1. Request 38: All documents specifying the manner in which the Shingles can be identified after installation, including but not limited to documents showing any seals, stamps, or other writing or graphic affixed to any component of the Shingles or the packaging in which the Shingles are or were sold. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas'

response to Request No. 1. Request 39: All documents relating to any allegations of moisture damage at any structure on which the Shingles have been installed, including without limitation documents pertaining to inspections or investigations of such damage. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas'

response to. Request No. 1. Request 40: All depositions or affidavits given in any jurisdiction by any Atlas officer, employee, expert or agent in any matter related to the Shingles. Response: Atlas objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks

documents outside those contemplated by, or otherwise protected under, Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Without waiving any objections, Atlas states

66

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 67 of 84

TAB 4

there are no lawsuits or arbitrations other than the lawsuits consolidated into this MDL. Request 41: All affidavits, reports, or depositions of any expert witness retained by you relating to the Shingles. Response: Atlas objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks

documents outside those contemplated by, or otherwise protected under, Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Atlas will make its expert disclosures in accordance with the applicable case management and scheduling orders in these consolidated MDL proceedings. Request 42: All internal correspondence, memoranda, and other documents between and/or among Atlas' officers, employees and agents related in any manner to damage to any structure clad with the Shingles, including without limitation water penetration; any propensity of the Shingles to blister and crack or prematurely suffer from granular loss; or any propensity of the Shingles to entrap liquid or moisture. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas'

response to Request No. 1. Request 43: All data bases, compilations, and/or reports prepared by you, or obtained by you, which document any complaints made to you regarding structures clad with the Shingles. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas'

response to Request No. 1.

67

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 68 of 84

TAB 4

Request 44: All data bases, compilations, and/or reports prepared by you, or obtained by you, which relate in any manner to your response to any complaint regarding structures clad with Atlas Chalet Shingles. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 45: All correspondence, memoranda, and other documents evidencing any bending tests, including but not limited to any tests performed according to ASTM and/or ANSI standards, performed on the Shingles. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 46: All documents prepared, reviewed, or approved by the National Evaluation Service, Inc., (including its members, committees, or subcommittees); ICC Evaluation Service, Inc. (including its members, committees, or subcommittees); and/or the International Code Council (including its members, committees, or subcommittees) relating to the Shingles, including, but not limited to, guidelines, reports, results, analyses, designs, and specifications. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above and Atlas' objection to producing documents in the possession of third parties, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 47: All International Residential Code (IRC) and International Building Code (IBC) compliance reports and supporting documents for every year in which the Shingles were manufactured. Response: Subject to the general objections set fmih above and Atlas' objection to producing documents in the possession of third parties, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. 68

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 69 of 84

TAB 4

Request 48: All documents prepared, reviewed, or approved by the ICC Evaluation Service, Inc., its members, committees, or subcommittees relating to the Shingles, including, but not limited to, guidelines, reports, results, analyses, designs, and specifications. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above and Atlas' objection to producing documents in the possession of third parties, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 49: All Standard Building Code and BOCA compliance reports and supporting documents for every year in which the Shingles were manufactured. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above and Atlas' objection to producing documents in the possession of third parties, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 50: All Uniform Building Code compliance reports and supporting documents for every year Atlas Chalet Shingles were manufactured. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above and .Atlas' objection to producing documents in the possession of third parties, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 51: All documents prepared, reviewed, or approved by the International Code Council, its members, committees, or subcommittees relating to the Shingles, including, but not limited to, guidelines, reports, results, analyses, designs, and specifications.

69

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 70 of 84

TAB 4

Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above and Atlas' objection to producing documents in the possession of third parties, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 52: All documents referring or relating to whether the Shingles complied with any building code or industry standard. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above and Atlas' objection to producing documents in the possession of third parties, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 53: All documents prepared or generated in any manner by your internal quality assurance lab, or similar department, or any technical managers, concerning or relating to the Shingles. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 54: All of Atlas' policies and procedures governing its warranty and claims programs, including without limitation manuals and other instructions given to those involved. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1. Request 55: Any and all documents, records, photographs, objects or other materials of any nature whatsoever received or requested by Atlas or its counsel either by subpoena duces tecum, FOIA Request or any other form of request, whether formal or informal relating directly or indirectly to the subject matter of this litigation, including any documents in your possession relating to any Named Plaintiffs of Each Jurisdiction.

70

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 71 of 84

TAB 4

Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above and Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, see Atlas' response to Request No. 1 Request 56: All documents referring or relating to any decision to recall or stop manufacturing the Shingles. Response: Subject to the general objections set forth above, see Atlas'

response to Request No. 1.

(Signature Pages Follow)

71

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 72 of 84

TAB 4

Respectfully submitted, this 21 51 day ofMay, 2014. WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE,

By: 271 17th Street, N.W. Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30363-1017 ( 404) 888-7435 direct phone (404) 870-4831 direct fax [email protected] [email protected]

/s/ Joel G. Pieper Joel G. Pieper Georgia Bar No. 578385 Jennifer S. Collins Georgia Bar No. 436806

WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RicE,

5 Exchange Street Charleston, SC 29401 843-722-3400 phone 843-723-7398 fax

LLP

LLP

Henry B. Smythe (Admitted Pro Hac) James E. Weatherholtz (Admitted Pro Hac)

hsmythe~wcsr.com

[email protected]

Attorneys for Atlas Roofing Corporation

72

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 73 of 84

TAB 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION IN RE: ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION CHALET SHINGLE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

) ) )

_____________________________ )

1: 13-MD-2495-TWT This Document Relates to All Actions

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the within and foregoing RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST

SET OF MASTER DISCOVERY TO DEFENDANT ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION has been served upon counsel of record by placing same in the United States postal service with proper postage affixed thereto and addressed to the following: Kenneth S. Canfield, Esq. Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel DOFFERMYRE SHIELDS CANFIELD KNOWLES & DEVINE, LLC 1355 Peachtree Street, Suite 1600 Atlanta GA 30309 Christopher L. Coffin, Esq. Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112

Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh NC 27603

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 74 of 84

This 21st day of May, 2014.

Is/ Joel G. Pieper Joel G. Pieper State Bar No. 578385 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE,

LLP

271 17th Street, N.W. Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30363-1017 (404) 888-7435 direct phone (404) 870-4831 direct fax [email protected]

2

TAB 4

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 75 of 84

1999

AL GA

MO MS NC OH

sc TN

VA

28,672 171,116 8 7,567 50,496 13,150 1,454 64,800 2,844

2000. ·. 2001! 13,449 215,349

11,350 252,774

5,574 56,341 10,376 946 58,959 1,336

9,980 42,143 9,794 239 66,278 3,680

2002 .· 17,659 272,449 1 8,919 34,019 10,948 48 90,333 4,842

2003

2004

17,185 382,506

25,649 510,888

7,917 42,166 13,829 4,456 136,830 7,455

9,478 48,388 13,053 6,533 124,794 3,218

2005 . 12,773 586,913 12 6,484 55,544 14,547 3,337 115,254 804

EXHIBIT 1

2008 ... 2009.

TAB 4

2006

2007

9,276 548,731

9,898 418,572

13,200 212,141

6,957 159,828

3,079 30,795

5,072 39,759 6,093 1,555 91,248 12

11,800 26,138 2,232 2,759 78,653 24

5,344 13,559 1,537 2,559 40,686 0

8,527 12,443 602 5,358 18,816

1,536 7,480

2010

744 5,707

Case 1:13-md-02495-TWT Document 306-6 Filed 12/30/15 Page 76 of 84

TAB 4

Chalet Sales by State by Customer~ 4f20f2007 to 12(31/2012 Sh-ii:i-To

Sb\e

AL

I Bill To Address

!Bill To Name

101SAVIATION PKWY. STF. ·100

NASH\11LLE

27560

NASHVILLE

37229-2-lOO

A!;C SUPPLY CO .. INC.

Total

·"

BAILEY LUMBER & SliPPLY CO

P

0. DRAWER 6039

Ship To Address

Ship To City

Ship To Zip I

A!3C SUPPLYi61HMitJGHAM

200 28TH STREET NOfHH

81HMINGHAM

35203

A6C SUPPLY!HUNTSVIlLf.

917 MERIDIAN STREET

HUNTSVILLE

35801

520 AIRBASE BOULEVARD

MCNTGCr-!.ERY

3f.108

I A.SC SUPP\.. Y:MONTGOMERY I HOMEWOOD SUITE

121 RIVER CHASE PARKWAY C.AST

3~124

8UILOII~G ~.,ATER!ALS WHOL$1\LE:

'"

81RMINGI·IAM

35208

PEl.HAM

AL

351::!4

JI3ST CREEK COVE APTS

MONTEVALLO

3f111S

12.0

PELHAM

AL

35124

JBST•COBBLESTONE APARTMENTS

MONTEVALLO

35115

912

BUILOII.JG MATERIALS WHOU;:SA

P.0.60X1269

JGSTICOMFO!H SUITE

P.O.BOX12139

#115THSTRCE.'rWE5'r

r~ELHAM

AL

35\24

PELHAM

AL

3512.4

JSST{CP.EEK COVE APT$

MONTEVALLO

35115

PELHAM

AL

3512~

JBST•LAKESIOE APARTMENTS

HAMILTON

.35570

JGSTiV-I.AEMPLOYEE SALES

POBOX403977

ATl.ANTII

G'

'LOCATIO!~

SALE

OONOTMAIL

DONOTM,iiL

G'

'LOCATtml SALE

DO NOTMP.IL

DO ~lOT M~>.IL.

I MS

'LOCATION. SALE

OONOT MAIL

DO NOT MAiL

I MS

'LOCATION SALE

Total

30384-3977

I EMPLOYEE SN.ES:H

I DO PINEVIEW DRIVE

HAMPTON

TAB 4

307.7.8

'!'A:.. EMPLOYEE SALES

(;/~

84l.UMBER COMPANY

NPDF.PT.BLDG.#;;

G'

8~ LUMSER COMPANY

A!POEPT. BLDG. i!3

EIGHTY FOUR

G'

8~

NP Ol!PT. BLDG 113

C:IGHTY

GA

LUMGEH COMPANY

F..IGHl'( FotJR

IMS

J PA

FOUR ) PA

84 LUMBER COMPANY

A:P DEPT. Bl.OG. #3

E!GHTYI=OUR

64 LUMBER COMPANY

NP DEPT. SLOG fl.3

EIGHTY FOUR

84 LUMSER COMPANY

A/PDEPT.llLOG.Il'3

EIGHrYFOUR

G'

84 U.JMBER COMPANY

A.'P DEPT. Bt.DG. #3

EIGHTY FOUR

fill LUMBER COMPANY

A'P DEPT. BLDG. #3

EIGHTY FOUR

GA

64 LUMBER COMPANY

I"JP DEPT. 8LOG.II"J

r=rGHTY f"OUR

M LUMBER COMPANY

A:P PEPT BLDG.

II'!-

E'.IGHTY !=OUR

84 LUMBER COMPANY

NP DEPT. BLDG i;

JBST: RELIABLE RFG

BRASSFIELD PARK Af>TS

GRF..F.NSBORO

GREENVILLE

2:;1602

THE BUILDING CENTER

102011NDUSTRIAL DRIVE:

PIN[::V1LLE

240

'"

'" "'

2,112

768

1,344

CRS,INC

156

2,112

GUARDIAN BliiLDlNG PRODUCTS DIST.Itl P.O. SOX S28

21.1134

1,344

GlJA~OINJ BUILDING PRODUCTS OIST Ill Total

NC

GUYC.L~E#15

P.O.BOX2613

NC

GUY C. L~~ ~15

Total

NC

INOEPENOEI~'T BUILDERS SUPPLY ASSOi P 0 SOX 2310

27502

GUY C LEE BUILDit