FILED
`DALLAS COUNTY
`8/12/2019 5:40 PM
`FELICIA PITRE
`DISTRICT CLERK
`
`Debra Clark
`
`CAUSE NO. DC-18-10800
`
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
`
`DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
`
`134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`§ § § § § § § §
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§ §
`
`§
`
`COMMERCE STATLER DEVELOPMENT,
`
`LLC, 1914 COMMERCE LEASING, LLC,
`
`AND STATLER 1900 COMMERCE, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`
`FIRE & LIFE SAFETY AMERICA, INC.,
`HILL & WILKINSON CONSTRUCTION
`GROUP, LTD., HILTI, INC., MERRIMAN
`ANDERSON/ARCHITECTS, INC., SPEARS
`MANUFACTURING CO., AND TRIARC
`CONSTRUCTION, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`SPEARS MANUFACTURING, INC.’S RESPONSE TO HILTI’S MOTION TO QUASH
`SPEARS’S NOTICE OF INTENTION TO SERVE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ON
`
`NON-PARTY LUBRIZOL ADVANCED MATERIALS, INC., AND MOTION TO
`COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA
`
`
`Comes now Defendant and Cross-Plaintiff, Spears Manufacturing, Inc. (“Spears”), and
`
`files this Response to Defendant and Cross-Defendant Hilti, Inc’s (“Hilti”) Motion to Quash (the
`
`“Motion to Quash”) Spears’s Notice of Intention to Serve Subpoena Duces Tecum on Non-Party
`
`Lubrizol Advanced Materials,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“Lubrizol”), and Motion to Compel Compliance with
`
`Subpoena, and in support, states as follows:
`
`BACKGROUND AND FACTS
`
`Hilti’s Motion to Quash is grounded on inaccurate and misleading assertions. Contrary to
`
`Hilti’s assertions, the requested categories of documents that Spears seeks via subpoena from
`
`Lubrizol are highly relevant to the remaining questions in this matter. Thus, Hilti’s Motion to
`
`Quash should be denied and Lubrizol should be compelled to produce responsive documents as
`
`originally requested, by August 16, 2019.
`
`
`
`SPEARS’S RESPONSE To MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND
`MOTION To COMPEL COMPLIANCE
`
`PAGE 1
`
`

`

`Hilti accurately describes the basic background of this case: alleged defects in the
`
`construction of a fire suppression system for the renovation of the Statler Hilton Hotel located in
`
`Dallas, Texas (the “Project”). Hilti, however, flagrantly misstates the remaining issues to be
`
`decided and the facts uncovered in discovery.
`
`First, although Spears and Hilti have each settled the claims brought against them by
`
`Statler, Spears has filed a cross-claim against Hilti alleging that Hilti made misrepresentations
`
`and/or omissions to Spears regarding changes to the chemical composition of its sealant/caulking
`
`product—changes that resulted in the Hilti sealant/caulking no longer being compatible with
`
`Spears’s CPVC pipe. Hilti’s knowledge of changes to its products, including as evidenced through
`
`communications it had with other CPVC pipe manufacturers,
`
`like Lubrizol, are critical
`
`in
`
`determining whether Hilti omitted relevant, known information in its communications with Spears
`
`that could have prevented the resulting damage at the Project.
`
`Second, Hilti
`
`fundamentally misinterprets
`
`the
`
`testing done
`
`and compatibility
`
`representations made by Spears regarding Hilti’s compatibility with Spears’s CPVC products.
`
`Specifically, a review of Spears’s communications regarding compatibility with Hilti products
`
`explains that only the particular samples of Hilti’s products used in the testing passed Spears’s
`
`limited “90 day chemical compatibility testing.”1 In that same communication, Spears explicitly
`
`provided that the testing was “not an endorsement Of any product in any way” and was “not
`3”
`
`transferable to any ‘similar product
`
`that was not tested.”2 It is undisputed that Hilti’s products
`
`were chemically changed from the time of original testing with Spears’s products. And when Hilti
`
`first approached Spears in August 2012 to inquire about testing Spears’s FlameGuard CPVC with
`
`Hilti’s products, Hilti specifically compared Lubrizol to Spears to as part of its pitch, stating to
`
`1 See Ex. 1, Letter from J. Bosanek, Spears to C. Stroike, Hilti (Dec. 28, 2012).
`2 Id.
`
`SPEARs’s RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND
`MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE
`
`PAGE 2
`
`

`

`Spears that the Hilti FS—One lntumescent Firestop Sealant was “currently listed on the [Lubrizol]
`
`Blazemaster compatibility program which verifies compatibility with CPVC.”3 Furthermore, upon
`
`information and belief, Lubrizol was testing similar Hilti products and had Hilti “agree[] not to
`
`change its product formulation without rescreening and retesting” for compatibility.4 Accordingly,
`
`communications likely exist between Lubrizol and Hilti that are relevant to the testing completed
`
`by Spears on CP 506 and other similar Hilti products, Hilti’s knowledge regarding the need for
`
`retesting in light of Hilti formulation changes, and accordingly, whether Hilti omitted important
`
`information from Spears during or after the testing that Spears performed on Hilti’s products.
`
`Third, discovery has revealed that Hilti has not always provided warnings regarding the
`
`use Of its CP 506 product with CPVC piping. For example, the product information sheet and
`
`material safety data sheet included as Exhibits in the action against Hilti styled, Davis-Ulmer
`
`Sprinkler Co., Inc. v. Hilti, Sup. Ct. of NY. (Nov. 30, 2017) do not include any warnings or
`
`prohibitions on the application of Hilti’s CP 506 sealant/caulking to any CPVC products by any
`
`manufacturer. Whether Hilti provided such warnings to Lubrizol and whether such warnings
`
`resulted in Lubrizol finding Hilti’s CP 506 products incompatible with CPVC pipe is germane to
`
`the issue oinlti’s liability in this case.
`
`Fourth, despite Hilti’s pleas to limit the scope of this matter to “Spears’ CPVC pipes and
`
`[Hilti] CP 506,” Spears’s cross-claim against Hilti regarding misrepresentations and/or omissions
`
`for determinations of compatibility implicate Hilti’s knowledge regarding changes to its products.
`
`Part of this knowledge lies in Hilti’s communications with other companies, like Lubrizol, who
`
`were—like Spears—testing Hilti products for compatibility. Another part Of this knowledge lies
`
`3 See Ex. 2, Email from C. Stroike, Hilti to J. Bosanek, Spears (Aug. 10, 201).
`
`4 See Ex. 3, Lubrizolcom, System Compatible Product Finder, https://www.lubrizol.com/CPVC/FBC-System-
`
`Compatible-Program/System-Compatible-Product-Finder.
`
`
`SPEARs’s RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND
`MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE
`
`PAGE 3
`
`

`

`in other manufacturing companies’, like Lubrizol, communications with Hilti suppliers who may
`
`have knowledge of changes to Hilti products, which could (and should) have then been
`
`communicated to Spears. All told, Spears’s requests for discovery tO Lubrizol are highly relevant
`
`to the remaining issues in this matter. The Court should deny Hilti’s Motion to Quash and grant
`
`Spears’s motion to compel compliance with the subpoena to Lubrizol.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`In genera , “a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter that is not privileged and is
`
`relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. .
`
`. .” Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3.
`
`Information is
`
`relevant if it tends to make the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination Of
`
`the action more or less probable than it would be without the information. Tex. R. Evid. 401; In
`
`re Pilgrim ’5 Pride Corp, 204 S.W.3d 831, 835 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding).
`
`When a party issues a subpoena, any party whose information may be implicated by that subpoena
`
`may file a motion for protection. To prevail on such a motion, the affected party must show that
`
`the requested discovery will cause it to suffer undue burden, unnecessary expense, harassment,
`
`annoyance, is overbroad, or is an invasion of protected rights. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.6; In re
`
`Alford Chevrolet—Geo, 997 S.W.2d 173, 180—81 (Tex. 1999); Grass v. Golden, 153 S.W.3d 659,
`
`662—63 (Tex. App. 2004). A party must show “particular, specific, and demonstrable injury by
`
`facts sufficient to justify a protective order.” Masinga v. Whittington, 792 S.W.2d 940 (Tex. 1990).
`
`Hilti ’s Motion is nothing more than another attempt to suppress relevant evidence and facts
`
`that would support Spears’s allegations regarding the false claims and/0r omissions committed by
`
`Hilti regarding the change in their products’ formulas and ingredients.5 Hilti complains that Spears
`
`is conducting a “fishing expedition” by seeking communications from Lubrizol relating to the
`
`5 See generally, Spears’ Original Cross-Claim against Hilti (May 12, 2019).
`
`SPEARs’s RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND
`MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE
`
`PAGE 4
`
`

`

`marketing, compatibility testing, chemical composition, and suppliers of Hilti products.
`
`In fact,
`
`this information is central to determining Hilti’s knowledge of issues regarding compatibility with
`
`other products that could have affected Hilti product compatibility with Spears’ products. To
`
`suggest this is “fishing” is to overlook the very crux of Spears’s claims against Hilti. Accordingly,
`
`Hilti’s Motion to Quash should be denied. See In re Pilgrim ’5 Pride Corp, 204 S.W.3d at 835
`
`(finding discovery request proper where request sought information that was relevant to an issue
`
`in the lawsuit and could reasonably lead to the discovery of such information).
`
`Aside from this general objection, Hilti also objects that Spears’ requests to Lubrizol are
`
`overbroad because they are not limited in time; Spears agrees that the requests should be limited
`
`in time. To that end, Spears provides that the relevant time period for production pursuant to the
`
`requests is January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2018. This time period is justified given that Hilti was
`
`providing information on the manufacturing and compatibility of CP 506 at least as early as 2009.6
`
`Hilti also objects that Spears’ requests are overbroad because they seek documents relating
`
`to Lubrizol’s products, which were not installed at the Project. As explained above, although
`
`Lubrizol products were not “installed at the Project,” the communications between Lubrizol and
`
`Hilti relating to compatibility testing of Hilti products with CPVC pipe will indisputably indicate
`
`the extent of knowledge Hilti had regarding changes to its products and whether those changes
`
`were generally affecting the compatibility of its products with CPVC pipe products. That Lubrizol
`
`CPVC pipes were not installed at the Project will make no difference to the reasoning for obtaining
`
`this discovery: to determine Hilti is knowledge ofits products changes and compatibility with other
`
`products. Indeed, Hilti, in an installation drawing from March 2012 (a drawing that Hilti did not
`
`disclose to Spears in connection with Spears’s testing of Hilti products) warns “NOT FOR USE
`
`6 See Ex. 4, Submittal Review, at 11-14 (Aug. 27, 2012) (Material Safety Data Sheet for CP 506 from 2009 and
`accompanying letter from November 2009).
`
`SPEARs’s RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND
`MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE
`
`PAGE 5
`
`

`

`WITH CPVC PIPING”.7 Hilti makes no differentiation in this warning between the manufacturers
`
`of CPVC piping. For these reasons, Hilti’s objection must be overruled. See In re National Lloyds
`
`449 S.W.3d at 488 (holding that a discovery request is properly tailored when the request calls for
`
`documents related to the litigated dispute).
`
`Finally, Hilti’s objection regarding Spears’ requests for information related to Hilti
`
`products other than that installed at the Project should be overruled because, again, Hilti’s
`
`knowledge ofproduct changes is the critical component of the requested discovery. Hilti was
`
`marketing and seeking compatibility approval of several of its products simultaneously with
`
`several piper manufacturers, like Lubrizol and Spears. Because those products were often part of
`
`the same discussion, there were undoubtedly communications regarding the many changes to each
`
`product that will tend to show Hilti’s knowledge of changes and misrepresentations and/or
`
`omissions of such changes.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Spears’
`
`subpoena to Lubrizol
`
`requests highly relevant
`
`information for
`
`the final
`
`determination Of Spears’ cross-claims against Hilti. Specifically, the requested information will
`
`reveal the extent Of Hilti’s knowledge of changes to its products and if it was communicating those
`
`changes to other pipe manufacturers, but not Spears. Although Hilti may object to this discovery
`
`because it will reveal unhelpful information for its case, that is no valid reason to deny Spears its
`
`right to such discovery. Hilti’s Motion to Quash must, therefore, fail. And Lubrizol should be
`
`compelled to fully comply with subpoena by August 16, 2019.
`
`7 See id., Submittal Review, at 6, 17 (Aug. 27, 2012) (Joint System Detail for Non Fire-Rated Smoke Partitions
`(Examples), noting “limitation” that it is “NOT FOR USE WITH CPVC PIPING”).
`
`SPEARs’s RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND
`MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE
`
`PAGE 6
`
`

`

`Dated: August 12, 2019
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Alan Dabdoub
`
`John T. Cox 111
`
`Texas State Bar NO. 24003722
`
`tcox@lmnllp.com
`Michael K. Hurst
`
`Texas State Bar NO. 10316310
`
`mhurst
`
`l
`
`1111
`
`.com
`
`Alan Dabdoub
`
`Texas Bar No. 24056836
`
`adabdounglflnllpcom
`Ruben A. Garcia
`
`Texas State Bar NO. 24101787
`
`rgarcia@lygnllp.com
`LYNN PINKER Cox & HURST, LLP
`
`2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700
`
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`(214) 981—3 800 — Telephone
`(214) 98 1 -3 839 — Facsimile
`
`A TTORNE YS FOR DEFENDANT
`
`SPEARS MANUFACTURING CO.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document has been served on all
`counsel of record Via e-filing, on August 12, 2019.
`
`/s/ Alan Dabdoub
`
`Alan Dabdoub
`
`
`
`SPEARs’s RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND
`MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE
`
`PAGE 7
`
`

`

`Q
`
`SPEARS
`
`SPEARS® MANUFACTURING COMPANY
`CORPORATE OFFICE
`15853 OLDEN STREET o SYLMAR, CALIFORNIA 91342
`MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 9203 o SYLMAR, CALIFORNIA 91392
`Telephone (818) 364-1611 o Fax (818) 364-6945
`www.sgearsmfg.com
`
`December 28, 2012
`
`Mr. Chad D. Stroike, CFPS
`Hilti North America
`5400 S 122nd E. Ave.
`Tulsa, OK 74146
`
`RE: Chemical Compatibility of Spears® FlameGuard® CPVC Fire Sprinkler Piping Products Hilti
`Products
`
`Dear Mr. Stroike:
`As requestedo, 90 day chemical compatibility testing has been conducted with Spearso
`FlameGuard CPVC fire sprinkler piping products:
`Hilti FS-One High Performance Intumescent Firestop Sealant
`Hilti CP 606 Flexible Firestop Sealant
`Hilti CP 6018 Elastomeric Firestop Sealant
`Hilti CP 604 Self—Leveling Firestop Sealant
`Hilti CP 506 Smoke and Acoustic Sealant
`During the course of this testing, using methods proprietary to SpearsoManufacturing Company,
`no Environmental Stress Cracking (ESC) or adverse effects were noted.
`It should be stated that this testing is not an endorsement of any product in any way, and is only
`applicable to the actual product tested, and is not transferrable to any “similar product" that was
`not tested.
`
`Please call this office with any questions.
`Thank you,
`/.
`'-""’é‘lfiilaé
`John Bosanek
`Manager, Technical Services
`cc: Alan Lunt — Spears® Manufacturing Company
`
`

`

`From: Stroike, Chad [mailto:Chad.Stroike@hilti.com1
`Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 11:15 AM
`To: John Bosanek @CA
`Subject: RE: Compatability w/ Hrestop
`Thanks John, The product is UL listed.
`It is also currently on the Blazemaster compatibility program which verifies
`compatibility with CPVC‘ I assume we would see similar results with your material as well. We have been asked a few
`time over the past year to verify compatibi|ity with your pipe and didn’t know if this was something that your company ever
`provided or tested for, Could a statement be provided? Would sending you product information or product help?
`httozflwww‘lubrizo!.comICPVCIResourcesvastem-Com patible»Proqram.htm1
`Thank you,
`Chad D. Stroike, CFPS
`Technical Services I Fire Protection Approvals Manager
`
`Hilti North America
`
`5400 S 122nd E Ave | Tulsa, OK 74146
`P 918-872—3864 | F 918-2544 679
`E chad.strg’kg@hilti.com
`www.us.hi|ti.comlfirestgp
`
`

`

`
`
`Home (/en)
`
`> CPVC (/en/CPVC)
`
`> FBC System Compatible Program (/en/CPVC/FBC System Compatible Program)
`
`> System Compatible Product Finder
`
`System Compatible Product Finder
`
`The FBCTM System Compatible Program was launched in 2002 in order to provide building contractors
`
`with a reliable selection of ancillary products confirmed to be compatible with FlowGuard ®’
`
`BlazeMaster®, Corzan® , and products made with TempRite® Technology. Products listed here have
`
`undergone formulation screening and rigorous physical testing in contact with CPVC material samples
`
`at a third party laboratory. Their manufacturers have furthermore agreed not to change the product
`
`formulation without rescreening and retesting, and to undergo annual retesting and audits of their
`
`manufacturing facilities. Look for the FBC logo when selecting ancillary products for installation in
`
`contact with FlowGuard , BlazeMaster, Corzan, and products made with TempRite Technology.
`
`Last Updated: April 10, 2019
`
`Supersedes: March 08, 2019
`
`To find the products that are chemically compatible with FlowGuard, BlazeMaster, Corzan, and
`
`products made with TempRite Technology, select either:
`
`Category: to view products by product type (i.e., caulks, sealants, wraps). Once you select a category,
`
`you will be prompted for your geographic region. Not all products are available in all regions.
`
`-OR-
`
`Manufacturer: to view product manufacturers in the FBC System Compatible Program.
`
`Category
`
`Select
`
`Manufacturer
`
`Select
`
`v
`
`v
`
`The FBCTM System Compatible Program is a resource made available to manufacturers of ancillary
`
`products intended to be used with CPVC to help determine whether a product is chemically
`
`compatible with Lubrizol’s FlowGuard® pipe and fittings, BlazeMaster® fire protection
`
`systems, Corzan® industrial piping, and products made with TempRite® Technology. Other
`
`

`

`manufacturers and/or brands of CPVC piping have not been tested as part of the FBC System
`
`Compatible Program. The FBC System Compatible program is, therefore, only applicable to the
`
`chemical compatibility of ancillary products with the Lu brizol brands of FlowGuard,
`
`BlazeMaster, Corzan, and products made with TempRite Technology. This distinction is made because
`
`every brand of CPVC piping is made with unique compounds, some of which may contain resins with
`
`different molecular weights and varying chlorine content. These characteristics directly impact the
`
`performance of the resulting product. Similarly, various CPVC products contain different performance
`
`additives. This too affects the performance characteristics of the ancillary product. For these reasons,
`
`Lu brizol has no responsibility for any failures occurring as a result of using products in the FBC System
`
`Compatible Program with CPVC products other than FlowGuard, BlazeMaster, Corzan, and
`
`products made with TempRite Technology.
`
`Next Step
`
`Incompatible Products (/CPVC/FBC—System-Compatible-Program/|ncompatible-Products)
`
`

`

`SUBM1TAL REVIEW
`
`W: |\b. 051.00
`
`SpecSeclion: 0751135JdrItSeders-Aousficd Sealant
`
`ReviaNedBy: LaJraLa1don,Cbrrrra-QArd1'tedue
`Date: Aungt27, 2012
`iject: BPS—BelgadeElerTertaySdDd
`Lomlion: Belgade,MT
`Joanber. 11-03
`
`Copyto: FIIe,O/\mr
`
`‘v‘
`
`
`
`Comma-Q
`Archflectura Inc.
`1% N Rouse: Amen ue‘ Nu 1
`Buzeman. MT
`T15-
`
`WsredaNismyforgererdmmmwmmdfiemwafimwmmfleiMmgvminfie
`leIadDoonerts. 0076011denademfleahfifidsdflrgflisredmdorurdiaememmfimmmiam
`wmthereqjmdfl'eplasa'dspedfimfior‘s. Mofifimdeqjvdermofaspedficitemsl'filrubeimerpetedasawopirimd
`eqjvdelmcxfawessentiydwrimtfeitemisam. madmmmmmmnadewwnfisfamadrflmflxe
`mudmeetsamdngbthefdmling:
`
`PEN NoEmem'onsNded
`
`GCAN GenerdlyCorfanBasNoted
`
`RAN RejededforPeasonasMed
`
`IAS Inou‘rpleteasSLbrritted
`
`1. Slbrfittd51ID-O7QXJSJOintSederS-PoasticaISedant
`
`DetaSheets
`
`[‘34
`
`1.
`
`None
`
`ENDGREVIEW
`
`

`

`TRANSM'ITAL
`
`m2 2012
`_
`4
`_
`To: Blg SkyRDUStICS, LLC
`Atmtion: Sean Oormlly, PE
`
`From: LaJaLa'dm
`
`Project: BPS—BelgadeElemarlaySdnol
`Lowlim: Bmemm, MT
`JdJMl’rbelt11-03
`
`Copyto: FIle
`
`wearesencingyou:
`
`thafollowing:
`
`Attachelel
`Uflawpaateoo/erfl
`
`El
`SDPd'aMnQSi
`Oopyofletbr. D
`Spedficafim:
`I:I
`Pn'rts;
`El
`Samples: D
`DEMngSi
`El
`Gher. X
`
`‘V
`
`Comma-Q
`Architecture. Inc.
`109 N Rouse Avenue, r41
`Bozeman, MT 59715
`405.535.1112
`
`.
`unsea'euasmttedasdnckedbelou:
`Anna/ed: D
`Wasmeded:
`|:I
`Wseandmhrrit:
`I:I
`Raeded: D
`Foryursug‘elue:
`|:|
`Forrenm:
`|:|
`Fareview&oomm:
`IE
`
`
`
`dydate dominion
`
`
`
`8/21/2012
`
`1 (else)
`
`SLbrTittd 5111307 9135Jdrt SederS-Pocwlicd Sedent
`
`
`
`m:
`
`Sean, pleaseredaNtheettadBdahrfittd, deaseretunmeledruicversimtowdfioevfimyuroorrrrems.
`
`Tnarks
`
`

`

`MARTEL CONSTRUCTION, INC.
`1203 South Church Avenue
`Bozeman, MT 59715-5801
`
`LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
`
`Telephone: (406) 586-8585 Facsimile: (406) 586-8646
`
`08/20/12 JOB No.
`DATE
`TRANSMITTAL/SUBMITTAL NO.
`
`12-001
`51.00
`
`Bozeman, MT 59715 ATTENTION:
`
`TO:
`
`Comma Q Architects
`
`RE:
`
`05 4000 Joint Sealants - Acoustical Sealant
`
`109 North Rouse Ave #1
`
`Laura Landon
`
`We are hand delivering
`
`We are sending via
`
`Email
`
`|:|
`
`I]
`
`El
`
`ATTACHED
`
`|:| UNDER SEPARATE COVER
`
`Tht The following items:
`
`Shop drawings
`
`|:|
`
`Prints
`
`|:|
`
`Plans
`
`|:|
`
`Samples
`
`|:|
`
`Specifications
`
`Copyofletter
`
`|:|
`
`Change order
`
`Product Data
`
`
`
`THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
`
`For approval
`For your use
`As requested
`For review and comment
`
`El
`I]
`El
`
`EIApproved as Submitted
`I:|Approved as Noted
`|:|Returned for Corrections
`I
`I
`
`|:|
`|:|
`|:|
`
`Resubmit
`Submit
`Return
`
`EICopies for Approval
`I:|C0pies for Distribution
`|:|Corrected Prints
`
`D FOR BIDS DUE
`REMARKS:
`
`|:|
`
`PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN To us
`
`COPY To File
`
`SIGNED: Mike Wilkinson — Project Engineer
`
`If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.
`
`

`

`I-III—‘l'l
`Product Information
`
`CP 506
`Smoke and Acoustic Sealant
`
`Applications
`I Sealing construction joints and through-penetration openings in
`non fire-rated acoustical assemblies and smoke partitions
`(Not for use in fire-rated applications)
`
`Advantages
`I Easy to dispense, apply and tool
`I Excellent airborne sound insulation properties
`I Low shrinkage after curing
`
`I Easy cleaning with water
`
`I Paintable
`
`Tested/evaluated in accordance with:
`I ASTM E 90
`I ASTM C 834
`I ASTM E 84
`I ASTM C 919
`
`.
`.
`.
`Restricts smoke migration
`
`Technical Data
`CP 506
`
`Color
`white
`
`Chemical basis
`acrylic
`
`Storage and transport temperature
`range
`
`40°F to 77°F
`(5°C to 25°C)
`
`Curing time
`approx- 3 mm / 3 days
`
`(73°F / 50% relative humidity)
`
`Skin-forming time
`(73°F/ 50% relative humidity)
`
`approx. 15 min
`
`Excellent sound insulation characteristics with
`application based testing in accordance with
`AS
`9%
`Fabrication / installation may be
`m 0 EXCEPTS NOTED
`undertaken. Approval does not
`authorize changes in the Contract
`Sum or Contract Time unless
`|:| GENERALLY CONFORMS staied by Change Order of Com Application temperature range 40°F to 104°F
`
`(5°C to 40°C)
`AS NOTED
`struction Change Directive.
`
`-
`-
`-
`-
`Shelf life
`24 months
`Etab€°i$$2§dflfliii23linii‘21..
`rections to the items marked.
`
`I:I REVISE AND RESUBMIT
`
`STC 63
`Sound transmission classification
`
`AS NOTED
`(ASTM E90)
`El REJECTED FOR REASON
`(per tested construction type)
`
` ovement capability (ISO 11600)
`approx. 12.5%
`Review and approval are only for conformance with the information given and the
`mold resistant
`design concept of the Project as expressed in the Contract Documents. Review Mold and mildew (ASTM 621)
`and approval of the submittals are not conducted for the purpose of determining
`the accuracy and completeness of other details such as dimensions and quantities
`.
`.
`.
`or for substantiating instructions for the installation or performace of equipment or Surface burning CharaCterISt'cs
`systems all of whitch remain the responsibility of the Contractor as required by the (ASTM E 84-08)
`Contract Documents. The Architect’s review and approval of the Contractor’s sub
`mittal shall not relieve the contractor from any obligation containted in the Contract Air leakage
`_
`Documents. The architects review and approval shall not constitute approval of
`_
`_
`any construction means. methods, techniques, sequences or any safety precau-
`(MOdlfled UL 2079 L-Ratlng)
`tions or procedures. The architects approval of a specific item shall not indicate
`approval of an assembly of which the item is a component.
`
`Flame spread: 10
`Smoke development: 10
`
`L-Ftating at Ambient =
`Less than 1 CFM / Lin Ft.
`L-Rating at 4009F =
`Less than 1 CFM / Lin Ft.
`
`
`
`product label for safe usage and health information.
`Instructions below are general guidelines — always
`
`-
`
`refer to the product. label, applicable product test
`reports and/or architect requwements
`Opening
`1. Clean the opening. Surfaces to which CP 506 will be
`applied should be cleaned of loose debris, dirt, oil,
`wax, grease, and other contaminants. The surface
`
`should be moisture and frost free.
`
`Laura Landon 8/27/2012
`‘V
`Installation in
`r CP 506
`Date
`
`Application of sealant
`Notice
`Not for use
`- Before handling, read Material Safety Data Sheet and
`2. Apply sealant in opening at required depth
`-
`In areas immersed in water
`
`3_ Smooth sealant with a trowel before the skin
`forms. Once cured, CP 506 can only be removed
`
`mechanically
`
`Storage
`' Store only in the original packaging in a location
`protected from moisture at a temperature of 40°F to
`77°F (5°C to 25°C)
`- Observe expiration date on package
`
`
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hilti Firestop
`Saving lives
`I through innovation
`and education
`
`1. Clean opening
`
`2. Apply CP 506
`
`3. Tool CP 506
`
`
`Hilti. Outperform. Outlast.
`Hilti, Inc. (U.S.) 1-800-879-8000 - www.us.hilti.com - en espafiol 1-800-879-5000 - Hilti Firestop Systems Guide
`
`L
`
`4°
`
`

`

`JOINT SYSTEM DETAIL FOR NON FIRE-RATED SMOKE PARTITIONS (EXAMPLES)
`TWO-SIDED APPLICATIONS
`ONE-SIDED APPLICATIONS
`
`MINERAL WOOL
`OR GLASS-FIBER
`INSULATION
`
`MINERAL WOOL
`OR GLASS-FIBER
`INSULATION
`
`FLOOR OR ROOF
`OVER METAL DECK
`
`MIN. 1I4" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH BOTH
`SIDES OF WALL
`
`NON-RATED
`GYPSUM WALL
`PERPENDICULAR
`TO FLUTES
`
`FLOOR OR ROOF
`OVER METAL DECK
`
`MIN. 1I2" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH BOTH
`SIDES OF WALL
`
`NON-RATED
`GYPSUM WALL
`PARALLEL TO
`FLUTES
`
`FLOOR OR ROOF
`OVER METAL DECK
`
`MIN. 1I2" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH BOTH
`SIDES OF WALL
`
`NON-RATED
`GYPSUM WALL
`PERPENDICULAR
`TO FLUTES
`
`
`
`LIMITATIONS :
`o HILTI CP 506 SMOKE AND ACOUSTIC SEALANT MAY BE INSTALLED WHERE IT IS NECESSARY TO RESTRICT SMOKE MIGRATION THROUGH NON FIRE-RATED ASSEMBLIES.
`- NOT FOR FIRE-RATED ASSEMBLIES.
`- NOT FOR USE WITH CPVC PIPING.
`o REFER TO PRODUCT LITERATURE FOR COMPLETE DETAILS ON INSTALLATIONI SUITABLE APPLICATIONSI AND LIMITATIONS.
`0 FOR APPLICATIONS THAT DO NOT MEET THE CONDITIONS ABOVE, CONTACT HILTI TECHNICAL SUPPORT.
`I THESE DETAILS REPRESENT GENERAL INSTALLATION GUIDELINES T0 SATISFY SMOKE PARTITION SEALING REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE
`(2003, 2006, OR 2009). OBTAIN AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION APPROVAL PRIOR To INSTALLATION.
`
`FLOOR OR ROOF
`
`OVER METAL DECK J-506-1C.031912
`
`MIN. 1I4" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH ONE
`SIDE OF WALL
`
`NON-RATED
`GYPSUM WALL
`PERPENDICULAR
`TO FLUTES
`
`FLOOR OR ROOF
`OVER METAL DECK
`
`MIN. 1/ " CP 506
`FLUSH WITH ONE
`SIDE OF WALL
`
`NON-RATED
`GYPSUM WALL
`PARALLEL TO
`FLUTES
`
`FLOOR OR ROOF
`OVER METAL DECK
`
`MIN. 1I2" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH ONE
`SIDE OF WALL
`
`NON-RATED
`GYPSUM WALL
`PERPENDICULAR
`TO FLUTES
`
`HILTI, Inc.
`Tulsa, Oklahoma USA (800) 879-8000
`
`Sheet
`
`Scale
`
`1 of 1
`
`Drawing No.
`
`7/64" = 1..
`
`J-soe-I c
`
`Saving Lives through Innovation and Education
`
`

`

`JOINT SYSTEM DETAIL FOR NON FIRE-RATED SMOKE PARTITIONS (EXAMPLES)
`
`TWO-SIDED APPLICATIONS
`
`ONE-SIDED APPLICATIONS
`
`FLOOR OR ROOF
`OVER METAL DECK
`
`MIN. 1/4" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH BOTH
`SIDES OF WALL
`
`NON-RATED
`BLOCK WALL
`PERPENDICULAR
`TO FLUTES
`
`FLOOR OR ROOF
`OVER METAL DECK
`
`MINERAL WOOL
`OR GLASS-FIBER
`INSULATION
`
`MINERAL WOOL
`OR GLASS-FIBER
`INSULATION
`
`MIN. 1/4" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH BOTH
`SIDES OF WALL
`
`NON-RATED
`BLOCK WALL
`PARALLEL TO
`FLUTES
`
`FLOOR OR ROOF
`
`OVER METAL DECK J-506-2C.031912
`
`MIN. 1/4" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH ONE
`SIDE OF WALL
`
`NON-RATED
`BLOCK WALL
`PERPENDICULAR
`TO FLUTES
`
`FLOOR OR ROOF
`OVER METAL DECK
`
`MIN. 1/4" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH ONE
`SIDE OF WALL
`
`NON-RATED
`BLOCK WALL
`PARALLEL TO
`FLUTES
`
`MINERAL WOOL
`OR GLASS-FIBER
`INSULATION
`
`MINERAL WOOL
`OR GLASS-FIBER
`INSULATION
`
`
`
`LIMITATIONS :
`o HILTI CP 506 SMOKE AND ACOUSTIC SEALANT MAY BE INSTALLED WHERE IT IS NECESSARY TO RESTRICT SMOKE MIGRATION THROUGH NON FIRE-RATED ASSEMBLIES.
`- NOT FOR FIRE-RATED ASSEMBLIES.
`- NOT FOR USE WITH CPVC PIPING.
`o REFER TO PRODUCT LITERATURE FOR COMPLETE DETAILS ON INSTALLATIONI SUITABLE APPLICATIONSI AND LIMITATIONS.
`0 FOR APPLICATIONS THAT DO NOT MEET THE CONDITIONS ABOVE, CONTACT HILTI TECHNICAL SUPPORT.
`I THESE DETAILS REPRESENT GENERAL INSTALLATION GUIDELINES T0 SATISFY SMOKE PARTITION SEALING REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE
`(2003, 2006, OR 2009). OBTAIN AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION APPROVAL PRIOR To INSTALLATION.
`
`HILTI, Inc.
`Tulsa, Oklahoma USA (800) 879-8000
`
`Sheet
`
`Scale
`
`1 of 1
`
`Drawing No.
`
`7/64" = 1..
`
`J-soe-zc
`
`Saving Lives through Innovation and Education
`
`

`

`JOINT SYSTEM DETAIL FOR NON FIRE-RATED SMOKE PARTITIONS (EXAMPLES)
`
`TWO-SIDED APPLICATIONS*—
`CONCRETE FLOOR
`
`ONE-SIDED APPLICATIONS
`CONCRETE FLOOR
`
`J-506-3b.120911
`
`MIN. 1I2" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH BOTH
`SIDES OF WALL
`
`NON-RATED
`GYPSUM WALL
`
`NON-RATED
`GYPSUM WALL
`
`CONCRETE
`FLOOR
`
`MIN. 1I2" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH BOTH
`SIDES OF WALL
`
`CONCRETE
`FLOOR
`
`MIN. 1I2" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH ONE
`SIDE OF WALL
`
`NON-RATED
`GYPSUM WALL
`
`NON-RATED
`GYPSUM WALL
`
`MIN. 1I2" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH ONE
`SIDE OF WALL
`
`
`
`CONCRETE FLOOR
`
`CONCRETE FLOOR
`
`MINERAL WOOL
`OR GLASS-FIBER
`INSULATION
`
`MIN. 1I4" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH BOTH
`SIDES OF WALL
`
`NON-RATED
`BLOCK WALL
`
`MINERAL WOOL
`OR GLASS-FIBER
`INSULATION
`
`MIN. 1l4" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH ONE
`SIDE OF WALL
`
`NON-RATED
`BLOCK WALL
`
`LIMITATIONS :
`o HILTI CP 506 SMOKE AND ACOUSTIC SEALANT MAY BE INSTALLED WHERE IT IS NECESSARY TO RESTRICT SMOKE MIGRATION THROUGH NON FIRE-RATED ASSEMBLIES.
`- NOT FOR FIRE-RATED ASSEMBLIES.
`- NOT FOR USE WITH CPVC PIPING.
`o REFER TO PRODUCT LITERATURE FOR COMPLETE DETAILS ON INSTALLATIONI SUITABLE APPLICATIONSI AND LIMITATIONS.
`0 FOR APPLICATIONS THAT DO NOT MEET THE CONDITIONS ABOVE, CONTACT HILTI TECHNICAL SUPPORT.
`I THESE DETAILS REPRESENT GENERAL INSTALLATION GUIDELINES T0 SATISFY SMOKE PARTITION SEALING REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE
`(2003, 2006, OR 2009). OBTAIN AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION APPROVAL PRIOR To INSTALLATION.
`
`HILTI, Inc.
`Tulsa, Oklahoma USA (800) 879-8000
`
`Sheet
`
`Scale
`
`1 of 1
`
`Drawing No.
`
`7/64" = 1..
`
`—~I-506-3b
`Saving Lives through Innovation and Education
`
`

`

`THROUGH PENETRATION DETAIL FOR NON FIRE-RATED SMOKE PARTITIONS (EXAMPLES)
`
`TWO-SIDED APPLICATIONS
`
`ONE-SIDED APPLICATIONS
`
`NON-RATED
`GYPSUM WALL
`
`NON-RATED
`GYPSUM WALL
`
`THROUGH
`PENETRATION
`
`TP-506-1b.120911
`
`THROUGH
`PENETRATION
`
`
`
`MINERAL WOOL
`OR GLASS-FIBER
`INSULATION
`
`NON-RATED
`BLOCK WALL
`
`MIN. 1/4" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH
`BOTH SIDES OF
`WALL
`
`MINERAL WOOL
`OR GLASS-FIBER
`INSULATION
`
`MIN. 1/4" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH
`ONE SIDE OF
`WALL
`
`NON-RATED
`BLOCK WALL
`
`THROUGH
`PENETRATION
`
`THROUGH
`PENETRATION
`
`MINERAL WOOL
`OR GLASS-FIBER
`INSULATION
`
`MIN. 1/4" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH
`BOTH SIDES OF
`WALL
`
`MINERAL WOOL
`OR GLASS-FIBER
`INSULATION
`
`MIN. 1/4" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH
`ONE SIDE OF
`WALL
`
`LIMITATIONS :
`o HILTI CP 506 SMOKE AND ACOUSTIC SEALANT MAY BE INSTALLED WHERE IT IS NECESSARY TO RESTRICT SMOKE MIGRATION THROUGH NON FIRE-RATED ASSEMBLIES.
`- NOT FOR FIRE-RATED ASSEMBLIES.
`- NOT FOR USE WITH CPVC PIPING.
`o REFER TO PRODUCT LITERATURE FOR COMPLETE DETAILS ON INSTALLATIONI SUITABLE APPLICATIONSI AND LIMITATIONS.
`0 FOR APPLICATIONS THAT DO NOT MEET THE CONDITIONS ABOVE, CONTACT HILTI TECHNICAL SUPPORT.
`I THESE DETAILS REPRESENT GENERAL INSTALLATION GUIDELINES T0 SATISFY SMOKE PARTITION SEALING REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE
`(2003, 2006, OR 2009). OBTAIN AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION APPROVAL PRIOR To INSTALLATION.
`
`HILTI, Inc.
`Tulsa, Oklahoma USA (800) 879-8000
`
`Sheet
`
`Scale
`
`1 of 1
`
`1/8" = 1..
`
`Drawing No.
`
`TP-soe-Ib
`
`Saving Lives through Innovation and Education
`
`

`

`THROUGH PENETRATION DETAIL FOR NON FIRE-RATED SMOKE PARTITIONS (EXAMPLES)
`
`TWO-SIDED APPLICATIONS
`
`ONE-SIDED APPLICATIONS
`
`NON-RATED
`GYPSUM WALL
`
`THROUGH
`PENETRATION
`
`NON-RATED
`
`GYPSUM WALL
`
`THROUGH
`PENETRATION
`
`OPTIONAL
`SLEEVE
`
`MIN. 1I2" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH
`BOTH SIDES OF
`WALL
`
`TP-506-2b.120911
`
`OPTIONAL
`SLEEVE
`
`MIN. 1I2" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH ONE
`SIDE OF WALL
`
`MIN. 1I2" CP 506
`AT POINT OF
`CONTACT
`
`MIN. 1I2" CP 506
`AT POINT OF
`CONTACT
`
`
`
`NON-RATED
`BLOCK WALL
`
`THROUGH
`PENETRATION
`
`OPTIONAL
`SLEEVE
`
`NON-RATED
`
`BLOCK WALL
`
`MIN. 1I2" CP 506
`THROUGH
`FLUSH WITH
`BOTH SIDES OF PENETRATION
`WALL
`
`MIN. 1I2" CP 506
`AT POINT OF
`CONTACT
`
`OPTIONAL
`SLEEVE
`
`MIN. 1I2" CP 506
`FLUSH WITH ONE
`SIDE OF WALL
`
`MIN. 1I2" CP 506
`AT POINT OF
`CONTACT
`
`LIMITATIONS :
`o HILTI CP 506 SMOKE AND ACOUSTIC SEALANT MAY BE INSTALLED WHERE IT IS NECESSARY TO RESTRICT SMOKE MIGRATION THROUGH NON FIRE-RATED ASSEMBLIES.
`- NOT FOR FIRE-RATED ASSEMBLIES.
`- NOT FOR USE WITH CPVC PIPING.
`o REFER TO PRODUCT LITERATURE FOR COMPLETE DETAILS ON