I]NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF'LOUISIANA In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deopwater Horizon"

in the Gulf of Mexico,on April20,2010 This Docurnent Relates All Actions To:
MDL No, 2179 SECTION:J JUDGEBARBIER MAGISTRATE ruDGE SHUSHAN

THE BP PARTIES' ryURTII AMENDED RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' AGREED 3OftXO pEposlTroN NoTrcE WITH 3oftx5) pocuMpNT REguESTs, BP Exploration & Production Inc. ("BPXP'), BP p.l.c,, BP America Production Company(*BPAP'), and BP Products Inc. ("BPPNA") (collectively, North AmerioaProducts flre 'nBPParties")by their undersigned Counsel,and, pursuant Rules 26,30 and 34 of the to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,hereby submit the following amendedresponses and objections Plaintiffs' Rule 30OX5)-(6)requests to contained their Agreed30(bX6)Deposition in (With 30(bX5)Document Noticeof BP Defendants Requests). sPE-CrFIp RESPONSES ANp OBJECTTONS as The BP Parties respond follows to Plaintiffs' Requests, zubject andwithout waiving to each and every one of which are specificallyincorporated their generalobjections, into each I individual response below.

1.

All Cost Benefitand/orRisk Assessments regarding drilling, exploration, the completion (includingany Risk Assessments and/orproductionof the MacondoProqpect relatedto deepwaterdrilling in the Gulf of Mexico applicableto, even if not specific to, the Macondo Prospect). The term "Risk Assessment" shall be deemedto include any ("qRA'1, Major AccidentRisk ("MAR') analyses, Safety QuantifiedRisk Assessments or Risk analysis,Job Safety Analysis (JSA), HAZOP, HAZID, Faiiure Mode & Effect Analysis(FMEA), Cost Benofit Analysis,or similar report or analysis, that address the
at pages12 - 11.

' Tho BP Parties'general objections setforth are

7t q't
Exhibit No. _ Worldwide Court Inc.

potential risks or costs of rnjury or darnage human life, the enyiro:rment,or properly to associated suchdrilling opemtions. with RESPONSE: The BP Partiesdesignate Kal Jassalto testify on this topic. Mr, Jassalis not a fact witnessfor the Eventphase.

2,

Potentialincome,revenueand/orprofit anticipated expected be realizedfrom the to or (Mississippi Prospect Macondo CanyonBlock 252).

RESPONSE: The BP Partiesdesignate Xuemei Liu to testiff on this topic. Ms. Liu is not a fact wifiress the Eventphase, for

3.

Data, whetherreal time or otherwise,acoumulated collectedby BP relating to the or Deepwater Horizonand/orits appurtenances duringits time at theMacondoWell.

RESP'JSE:
TheBP Parties designate JohnSprague testify on this topic. to

4,

Potentialcosts,risks, benefitsand other analyses evaluations potentialrnethods or to of cap,conhol,contain,shut-inand/orkiil theMacondo Well afterApril 20, 2010,

RESPONSE: The BP Partiesdesignate following individuals to testiff on the indicated aspects the of this topic. RichardLynch - near-tormoontainment (".9,, cofferdam,top hats, etc.) and the cappingstack. PaulTooms- well-integrity analysis.

IGvin Kennelly - the containment and disposalproject (e.g., the freestandingriser systems). Mr, I(ennelly is not a fact wibressfor the Event phase. (e.g.,top kill and static kill) and relief Mark Mazzella- kill operations wells. Mr. Mazzellaisnot a fact witnessfor the Eventphase. -BOP intervention. HenryThierens

5.

Bvaluation,study and/oranalysisof any potentialmethodor technique cap, control, to oontain, shut-in,temporarilyabandon, kill and/or the MaoondoWell afterApril20,2010, includingthepossible risks,benefitsor otherconsequences thereof.

RESPONSE: The BP Partiesdesignate following individualsto testifu on the indicatedaspects the of this topic. o Richard Lynch - near-term (e,g., cofferdam,top hats, etc.) containment andthe cappingstack, PaulTooms- well-integrityanalysis, Kevin Kennelly - the containment and disposalproject (e.g., the freestanding riser systems).Mr, Kernnelly not a faot witnessfor the Event is phase. Mark Mazzella- kill operations (e,9., tap kill and static kill) and relief wells. Mr.Mazznlla is not a fact witress for the Eventphase, Henry Thierens- BOP intervention.

6,

With respect to the Macondo Well, communications, evaluations,testing, training, policies and/oranalyses, within BP andlor with any otherparty, relating to foam stability, cement testing,float sollar conversion, or non-use certtralaers, decisionnot to use of lhe and displaceseawater set the cementplug at approximately 3,300' below the mud line,

andor the decision to conductor prepaxe not cement bondlogs,and or not to do negative pre$sure tests,on or beforeApril 20, 2010. RESPONSE: TheBP Parties designate Cowieto testiff on this topic. Jirn

7.

preparation, The background, basis(or bases), inte,nt, drafting,submission approval and procedure or of BP's Applicationfor Permit to Modifu the temporaryabandonment on procedure the aroundApril 16,2010, includingthe deviations, any, between if that and procedure(s) described (a) the April 12, 2010 Drilling Plan, (b) the April 14, 2010 in Morel "ForwardOps" E-MaiI, or (c) theApril 20,2010"Ops Note",

RESPoN$Et The BP Partios designate DennisSustala testi$ on this topic. Mr. Sustala not a fact to is witness the Eventphase. for

8.

The estimated, budgeted, expectedandloractual time and/orcostsavings reaLized by: 1. ,,

J.

4.

6,
'f

8. 9.

Utilized NumberandNatureof Centralizers Foregoing Substantiated FoamStabilityTestResults Not RunningCementBond or OtherEvaluationLog Using Spacer Madefrom Combined Lost CirculationMaterialsto Avoid Disposal Issues DisplacingMud from Riser Before SettingSurfaceCementPlug SettingSurface Cement Plug3,000FeetBelow Mud Line in Seawater Inslalling Additional BarriersDuring TemporaryAbandonment Not ProcEdure Not Performing Further Well Integrity Diagnostics in Light of Troubling and Unexpected NegativePressure Results Test Bypassing Pits and Conducting Other Simultaneous Operations During Displacement

R-DSPONSE: TheBP Parties designate Cowietrotestifyon this topic, Jim 9, participation,supervision other involvementof officers, directorsor The presence, or otherenployeesof BP plc: in any aspectof the planning funding, drilling, completion, temporary abandonment, cappingand/orcontol of theMacondoWell.,

RESPONSE: The BP Parties designato Ellis Armstong to testi$ on this topic. Mr, Armshongis not a factwitnessfor theEventphase.

10,

N/,4

1L

Implementation the Gulf of Mexico of the safetymanagement in recommendations the of UK HSE repoft of the Grangemouth Scotland incidentsin 2000,the BakerCommission Reportof the TexasCity explosion firo in 2005,andthe BoozAllen HamiltonReport and on thEBP Alaskapipelineleakin 2005.

RESPONSE: The BP Partiesdesignate Ellis Armstrong to testiry on this topic. Mr, Armstrong is not a for factwitness the Eventphase.

12.

Your policies,practices,requirements, standards, haining, maintenance, testing and/or procedure of personnel regarding well control fiaining and training for potential catastrophic events.

RESPONSE: The BP PartiesdesignateMark Mazzella to testif on this topic. Mr. Mazzella is not a for fact witness the Eventphase.

13.

BP's efforts to ensure the suitability and proper design, manufacture,testing, operationand utilization of the BOP utilized in the drilling oporationsat the maintenance, Macondo well.

BPSPoN$Di
The BP Partiesdesignate Mike Byrd to testiff on this topic. Mr. Byrd is not a fact for witness the Bventphase.

14.

BP's evaluations and/orreservoirassessment, plan, operations plan, and or well of, drill or reservoir engineering and/or temporary abandonmentplan (and all changes or

amendments thereto)for theMacondoWell in rosponse well control events(including to, but not limited to the March 8 "kick") between February 2010andApril 20,2010; l, RESPONSE: The BP Parties designate Cowieto testiff on this topic, Jim

15.

Communications betweenBP employeeson the rig and any BP personnelon ttre (or mainland UnitedKingdom)on April 20 nd21;

RESPONSE: TheBP Parties designate Cowieto testifyon this topic, Jira BP plans for using the Deepwater Horizon at and timing of kansit to, the Nile and/or Kaskida sitesaftorApril 19,2010;

16.

RESPONSE: TheBP Parties designate Cowieto testiff on this topic. Jim

17.

Thedetermination the well designfor theMacondo of Well;

RESPONSE: The BP Partiesdesignate following individuatsto testi$ron the indioatedaspects the of this topic: JohnSprague CasingDesign. Ian Little - Centralizers,CementDesign and Evaluation, Temporary Abandonment Procedure, FloatCollar. and 18. Analysisor evaluation risks assopiated designandoperational of with decisions madeby BP personnel concerning operations activitiesperfomred theMacondowell during and at lhe period from February t through April 20, 2010, inoluding but not limited to the creatiorl entry of data into and completionof a "risk register"or risk assessment tool C'RAT').

RESFONSE: TheBP Parties designate Cowieto testiff on this topic. Jim

19.

Any financialincentivesfor BP personnel working on the Deepwater Horizon &/or the Macondo Well.

RESPONSET The BP Parties designate Little for this topic. Ian

2A.

BP's adherenoe or departure to from Investigation GroupdefinedPractice4.4 regarding the incident,

RESPONSE: The BP Parties designate JohnBaxterto testi$ron this topic, predictions, pressures both staticpressure Any estimates, andloranalyses anticipated of and/or dynamic pressure- within the fonnations of the Masondo Prospectand/or the MacondoWell, inoluding,but not limited tonthe informationprovidedto Transooean and the mannerin which suchinformation wasutilized in selectionof or approvalof the BOP assembly usedby the Deepwater Horizonfor the Macondo Well.

21.

RESPONSE: The BP Parties designate Vinsonto testi$ on this topic. Graham

22.

Nature,type, model, adequacy of to and/oroonfiguration the BOP assembly be utilized for the drilling of the MacondoWell by the Deepwater Horizon.

RESI9N$Ei
The BP Partiesdesignate Mike Byrd to testi$ on this topic. Mr. Byrd is not a fact witnessfor the Eventphase.

23.

going into any decision to utilize (or allow the utilization of) the Considerations particular BOP stack desigr/configuration and equipment utilized during the drilling and/ortemporaryabandonrnent the MacondoWell, of

RES.{9-NS.Ei The BP Partiesdesignate Mike Byrd to testi$ on this topic. Mr. Byrd is not a fact for witness the Eventohase.

24.

Any knowledge of the Pressue Rating for each componentof the Macondo BOP assembly, manufacfured, as and/orassuchexisted April 20,2010. on

RESP9NSEJ The BP Partiesdesignate Mike Byrd to testiff on this topic. Mr. Byrd is not a fact witnessfor theEventphase.

25.

Any knowledge anytestingor otheranalysis evaluation went into detennination of or that as to the pressurerating or capacityrating for each BOP componenton the Macondo well, andwhat eachsuchpressure ratingmeant,

RESPONSE: The BP Partiesdesignate Mike Byrd to testifu on this topio, Mr. Byrd is not a fact witness the Eventphase. for

26.

prior to April 20,2070,of the potentialfor difficultieswith the BOP or BP's knowledge, performing as designed its key ssmponents with dynamic flow pre$sures than, equal less to, or higher than, the rated pressureof the BOP or its key components and any knowledgeof any otherdevice,equipment, designthat may haveavoidedany of said or potentialdifficulties.

RESIONSE:
The BP PartiesdosignateMike Byrd to testiff on this topic. Mr. Byrd is not a fact witnessfor the Eventphase.

27.

N/A

28.

The fundingandstaffingof Emergency Response Division ftom 2000to the present.

RESPoNEEI The BP Partiesdesignate DennisJohnson testiff on this topic. Mr, Johnson not a to is fact witnessfor theEventphase.

29.

N/A

30.

All discussions during MacondoleasEhold negotiations betweenBP and Anadarkoor MOEX ooncerning natureand scopeof informationto be madeavailableby or to be the provided by BP to Anadarko or MOEX regarding the design of and operationsat the Macondo'Well,and BP's understanding its obligationsandAnadarko'sand MOEX's of rights under the OperatingAgreements with regard to the parties' ability to receive and respond to information received about planning with respectto and operationsat the Macondo Well.

RESPONSE: The BP Partiesdesignatelfirk Wardlaw to testiff on this topic. Mr. Wardlaw is not a fact witnessfor theEventphase.

3l.

in The chainof conrmand connection with theMacondoWell, includingdecision making qystems authority,aswell as thereorganiz,atton BP personnel the MacondoWell and of at in earlyApril2010,

RESPONSE: TheBP Parties DaveRich to testifuon this topic. designate 32, BP risk management, mitigation,safety,and catastrophe risk response well control and plans,policies,requirements, rules,regulations, standards trainingapplicable and directly or indirectlyto theMacondoWell.

BE$t9NS_E;
The BP PartiesdesignateMark Mazzella to testiff on this topic. Mr. MazzeLla not a is for fact witness theEventphase.

33.

The 2009 DWH rig audiUinspection BP, includingthe contents the written reports by of and any follow-up efforts relating to the audits/inspections.

RESPONSE: TheBP Parties designate NormanWongto tesdryon this topic.

34,

The existence, nature,scopeand contents any BP guidelinesor policies relating to of ggingactivities. mudlo

RESPONSB: TheBP Parties designate Jonathan Bellow to testi$ on this topio. 35. The existence, nafure,scopeand contentsof any BP guidelines,polioies or practices relatingto locatinganddetennining zonesor poteniialpay zotres a well. pay in

RESPONSE: The BP Parties designate Graharn Vinsonto testiff on this topic.

RESPONSES pOj:UMENT REOUESTS TO The BP Defendants firther requested" accordance Rule 30(bX5)of the Federal are in with Rulesof Civil Procedure, well as Rule 26, Rule 34, andPRE-TRIAL ORDERSNOS. 16, 17 as or and27, to produce, identify by specificBatesNumbe(s) (if already produced), following the documents, leastten(10) daysprior to thetime of the relevant at designee's deposition:

FIBSISET $EouEsrsr 9F
produceall documents For eachArea of Inquiry identifiedabove,please providedto, reviewed with, utilized by, and/or relied upon by the deponentto preparefor his or her deposition testimony. RESTOIJSETO F'rRST. SIL()F REOUESTS: Subjectto their generaland specificobjections, BP Partieswill make a good faith the effort fo produceany documents ideutified as relevantto the topic at iszueand reviewedby the in designees advance their testimony havenot previously of that in beenproduced this litigation. The BP Partiesobject to this requestas unrcasonable, duplicative,cumulative,unduly burdensome outsidethe contemplated and scopeof the 30GX6) depositionprocess. The BP Partiesfurther statethat: Each of the topiosidentified aboveis the subjectof prior discovery tequests,and, by its very nature,the 30(b)(6) processolten requiresthat designees review documents relatingto the topicsat issuethat would not be shownto the designee he or she if l0

were testifying in his or her capacity as an individual, Productionof these materialsis partioulady unreasonable insofar as documentshave been requestedl0 days prior to the depositions. Theprotocolforproductionof doouments advance individualdepositions in of does not apply to corporatedesignees. Identidicationand production of these documentsalso improperly seeksthe disclosureof attorneyworlc product in that it would reveal the preparing attorneys'assessment potentiallyrelevantdocuments of regardless whethersuch documents of arerelevantor otherwiseappropriate production. for

SECONp SET OF REOUE_$I$; For eachArea of Inquiry identified above,pleaseproduceall documents which relate,pertain, and/orreflectthe issues, topicsand/orevents evidence described tbereinor associated therewith, RESPONSE TO SECONDSET OF REOTIESTS: In additionto their genemlobjections, BP Parties objectto this request the grounds on the stated above response plaintiffs' First Setof Requests, in to

THIRD SET OF REOUESTS: For eachcorporate a designee, copy of his or her currentrsume CV, as well as a copy of any or capacity,including and all prior testimony,whetherprovided in an individual or representative any and all depositiontesfimony,trial testimony,swom statements, affidavits, declarations, expertreports,and/ortestimonybefore a legislative,regulatoryor investigativebody or agency. RESPPNSE_.TQ TEIRD SET.OF REOUESTSi In additionto their general objections, BP Parties the objectto this request the grounds on The BP Parties abovein response plaintiffs' First Setof Requests. to furtherstatethat this stated requestis unreasonable inappropriateon fhe groundsthat the designees not testifting in and are their capacity as individuals, and thus their prior testimony and related materials are not relevantto their testimony,particularlygiven that all prior testimonyrelatedto this necessarily oase beonmadeavailable plaintiffs. has to

t1

GEN4JRALOBJECTTONS The BP Partiesassertthe following objectionsto eash and every one of plaintiffs' requests, inoludingany definitionsor instructions associated therewith(collectively,'?laintiffs' DiscoveryRequests").Thesegeneral objections incorporatedby are reference eachspecific into set response forth by theBP Parties areneitherwaivednor limitedby any specilicresponses. and 1. The BP Parties expresslyrservethe right to substituteor supplementthe

designations forth abovefor any reason,including, but not limited to, disputesasto the scope set questionsof the designees, a designees potential inability to of the topics, unanticipated or provide acrurateinformation as to any aspecttlte relevant corporateentity's knowledgeof the topio, The BP Parties any will work with plaintiffs to address practicalconcerns may arise that from any such changes,and they fully anticipatethat plaintiffs will do so as well given the breadthand complexityof the issueson which the BP Partieshave been askedto designate corporate representative witnesses. 2. BP p.l.c. and BPPNA object to all of Plaintiffs Discovery Requests. These

entities have relatively little knowledge with regard to the topics set forth above that is not providedin the dorivativeof the knowledge BPXP and BPAP; therefore, of exoeptas expressly contextof corporater,presentative testimony on any suchareas,the designations testimouy and of the foregoingindividualsis on behalf of BP p.l.c. and BPPNA only to the extent these corporate entitiesmay be deemed haveknowledge factsknown to BPXP and BPPNA. As to of the BP partieshave repeatedly statedn p.l,c. is a corporation BP organizedunder the laws of and England Wales,which is publicly tradedwith its headquartors London,England.BP p.l.c. in did not own the MC 252leasehold, no employees theDeepwater had on Horizon, andwas not a partyto thedrilling rig contractwith Transocean. p,l.c. doesnot directlyconductexploration BP and procluctionactivities and was not directly involved in tho events involving tho Macondo

12

Well or the incident, BPPNA is an entity primarily involvodin downstream operations suchas crude oil refineries, and tranqportation and marketing of refined products such as gasoline,and had no employeeson the DeepwaterHorizon, wa$ not a party to the drilling rig conhact with Transocean, had nothing to do with exploration udn-ty involving the MacondoWell or the and April 20, 2010 incidentor resultingoil spill. Accordingly,to the best of their knowledge, with regardto almostall of Plaintiffs DiscoveryRequesb,BP p.l.c, and BPPNA do not have any rneaningfirlset of information or documents responsive Plaintiff s requests derivative and to not of duplicative that of BPAP and/orBPXP,thersfore p.l.c. andBPPNA directPlaintiffsto the BP providedby thosedefendants responses in exceptas expressly statedotherwise the course ofthe testimonyof the corporate representatives designated aborre. 3, The BP Partiesobjeotto Plaintiffs' DiscoveryRequests the extentthey seek to

documents infonnationnot relatedto the issues be fiied in the proceeding to commence or to set in February2012 prior to tlre substantial completionof'BP's efforts to identify and produce documents response otherrequests Plaintiffs and othorpartiesto the litigation. in to of 4. The BP Partiesobjectto Plaintiffs' DiscoveryRequests the extentthey call for to

information,seekdiscovery,or attemptto imposeany obligationsbeyond that permittedor authorized theFederal by Rulesof Civil Procedure theR.ules Ordersof this Court. or and 5. The BP Partiesobjectto Plaintiffs' DiscoveryRequests the extentthey call for to

the production of oleotronically stored information in any manner other than required under Federal 34, Rule of Civil Procedure the RulesandOrdersollthe Court,andongoingnegotiations anddiscussions amongcounsel. 6. The BP Partiesobject to Plaintiffs' DiscoveryRequests the extentthey seek to

protectedby the attorney-clientprivilege, the work-product doctrine, information or documents

L3

thejoint defense coilmloninterestprivilege,or any other applicable or privilego,exomption,or immunity. The BP Partieswilt identify qpeciflrc documents withheld on these groundsin accordance with the scheduleset forth in, and provide the information requiredby, the Court's Pretrial Order #14, and such firther Orders of the Court and ongoing negotiationsand discussions amongcounsel. The BP Parties privilege logs and all incorporate their forthcoming related information into this general objection to the extent neoessary preserveagainst any to waiverof any applicableprivilege irnmunityfrom discovery. or 7, The BP Partiesobject to Plaintiffs' DiscoveryRequests the extentthey seek to

information or documentsrelating to the settlemeirtor potential settlementof disputeson the grounds to that suchinfonnationis not relevant anyparty's claim or defense, not admissible is at hial andnot roasonably calurlatedto leadto the discoveryof admissible evidence, protected is from disclosure and dissemination under FederalRule of Evidence408, and that discoveryof suchinformationwould be prejudicialto the effortsof the BP Parties any opposing partiesto and resolvetheir disputesin a fair and effioient mannel 8, The BP Partiesobjectto Plaintiffs' DiscoveryRequests the extentthey call for to

information or documents not within the BP Parties' possession, custody,or control, All responses made on behalf of the BP Partiesonly, are limited to information and doouments are within the BP Parties'possessioil, custody, control. or 9. The BP Partiesobject to Plaintiffs' DiscoveryRequests the extent they are to

unduly burdensome, duplicative, preurature,oppressive,and/or overbroad,inoluding, without limitation,as to subjectmatterand/ortime period,and wherecompliance with specificrequests diffi.cultaswell asprohibitivelyoxpensive time-consumiug, would be unreasonably or

14

I I

10,

The BP Partiesobjectto Plaintiffs' DiscoveryRequests the extentthey arenot to

limited to information or docurnents relevantto any party's claim or defense,or to the extent they seek discoveryof information or documents admissibleat trial and not reasonably not calculated leadto the discoveryof admissible to evidence, including,but not limited to, requests seekinginformationor documents concerning otherincidents,accidents, other eventsat BP or faciiities or locations other than the Macondo Well or that are otherwise unrelated to the Deepwater Horizon, 11. The BP Partiesobject to Plaintiffs'Discovery Requests the extentthat they to

seek information regarding expert(s) retained by the BP Parties in connection with pending litigation..The BP Parties will disclose experts accordanoe the schedule its in established with by the court and in the mannerproscribedby the FederalRulesof Civil Prooedure. 12. The BP Parties objeotto Plaintiffs' DiscoveryRequests the extentthey seekthe to

disclosure of infornnation or documentsthat contain or constitute trade secrets,proprietary informatior5 or other confidential business information without appropdate restrictions on and that areembodiedin a protectiveorder entered the Court. disclosure dissemination by 13. The BP Parties objectto Plaintiffs' Disoovery Requests the extentthey seekthe to

disolosure informationor doouments would violate the rights of privaoy of third parties, of that or any similar judicially recognizedprotection or privilege, including, but not limited to, imposedin connection restrictions with proceedings beforethe MBI, and the proteotions the of Health Insurance Porhability and Accountability Aot ('HIPAA'1, or that would result in disclosure of any confidential information or conduct without appropriate reshictions on and that are embodiedin a protectiveorder enteredby the Court, disolosure dissemination

15

14.

The BP Parties objectto the requests the extentthey seekdocuments to in already

the possession plaintiffs or equally availableto plaintiffs fron sourcesother than the BP of includingpublicly availablesourcs. Parties, 15. Theseresponses madewithout waiving, in any manner,the BP Parties'right are

to object to the use of any infornration or documents provided in responseto theserequestsat any trial or evidentiaryhearing on groundsof privilege, felevance, materiality, authenticity, hearsay, any other groundperncitted any applicablelaw or rule. or by 16. To the extentthe BP Parties statethey will producedocuments response the in to

the requests, BP Partieswill producesuch documents a rolling basiswith suchreasonable on them,without saorifioinga meaningfulreview for speedas the BP Partiesoan locateand process privilege,and confidentiality, this is the only feasibleandphysicallypossible responsiveness, as giventhe soope breadth therequesh, method and of 17, To the extentthat the BP Partiesrespond that they will searchfor and produce

responsive doouments, BP Parties only undertaking makea goodfaith effort to conduct the are to a reasonable searohof non-privileged documents the files and recordsof thoseindividuals of likely to have meaningful information responsiveto a requestsas rnaintainedin the ordinary course of business,and/ot to apply a reasonable of searchterms to similar available set collectionsof electronicallystoredinformation as maintainedin the ordinary courseof business reasonably likely to yield a meaningfulamountof informationresponsive a request. to The BP Parties are not offering or promising to searohfor and produce every documentor piece of information that may existin the possession, or oustody, conhol of any of BP's tensof thousands of employeos agentswhere any suchitems arenot includedwithin the resultsof a reasonabte and search described as above.

t6

18.

The BP Parties' decision, now or in the future, to provide information or

documentsshould not be consttred as: (a) a stipulation that the material is relevant or (b) admissible, a waiver of the BP Parties' generalobjectionsor the objectionsasserted in reqponse specificrequests, (c) an agreement requests sirnilar informationwill be to or that for heatedin a similar manner. 19. The BP Partiesreservethe right to modiS, amend,or supplement responsesn its

which are madebasedon the ourrentstatusof its knowledge,understanding, belief, and searches for documents. The investigationof facts and information relating to these requestsis continuing,and, thereforeo theseresponses not intendedas an admissionor a representation are that additionalinformation or documents not exist. do

Dated:May 1l,20lI

Respeotfullysubmitted, By; /# J. An,dlewLa.Ugqn P,Q. RichardC. Godfrey,P.C. J, AndrewLangan,P,C. TimothyA. Duffy, P.C. Kirkland & Ellis LLP 300North Lasalle Street Chicago, 60654 IL (3 Telephone: 12) 862-2000 Fassimile:(3 12) 862-2200 and (Bar#14361) Don K. Flaycraft R, Keith Jarrett(Bar #16984) LISKOW & LEWIS 701 Poydras Sheet,Suite5000 New Orleans, Louisiana70139-5099 (504) 581-7979 Telephone: (504)5564108 Facsirnile: and

17

RobertC. 'Mike" Brock Covington& Burling LLP l20l Pennsylvania Avenue,NW Washington, C 20004-240 1 D (202) 662-5985 Telephone: Attomeysfor theBP Parties

18

CERTIFICATE OF' SERVICE I herebycertify that the aboveandforegoing response beenserved All Counsel has on by electronically uploading same Lexis NexisFile & Servein accordanoe hetrial Order the to witl No, 12,which will senda noticein accordanoe theprocedures with established MDL 2179,on in thisI lth dayof May,2011. isl J, AndrewLansan.P.C.

l9