My response would be "it is already donated, talk to the rich university who has it."

My position is fishing expeditions don't warrant any response. If the shyster actually has some valid claim, he has to show more to get my attention.

I too am not a lawyer… But…

Copyrights would have nothing to do with this, unless the individual or widow were republishing items.

Lawyers can be bullies… The depend upon fear of the cost of litigation to make people do what they want (when they have no “case”)… Corporate lawyers can be bullies without specific direction from their employers, or can be bullies on behalf of their employers.
As someone who collects railroad supplier’s information, including catalogs and maintenance information, I would be unwilling to cooperate if a company asked for their distributed promotional material back.

A great example of corporate lawyer overreach is the Union Pacific attempt to control and license (for a significant fee) the use of “Union Pacific” (and other acquired railroad’s) lettering and logos on models…

The "significant fee" was later, in the wake of adverse publicity for the move, dramatically reduced to what amounted to a "filing charge."

Sandy's right. The lettering and logos are licensed and used with permission.

Decades ago an individual tried to copyright Penn Central's name and logos, as well as their predecessors' only for some sleuths to learn the PC coropration had sold only its RR assets to CR and the corporation with its nonrail assets was still in business and still owned the rights to the old logos. The exception was the plain red keystone. That belongs to the 28th Infantry Division, US Army (PA Army National Guard).

Phil Mulligan

This isn't a copyright problem, it's an ownership problem. The lawyer is claiming ownership of papers that may have been freely given away. They weren't lobby cards with a printed notice "Property of Famous Studios, to be returned at the end of the showing of this production".
The lawyer didn't write "Collect and send us all the copies that you made."

“one day the phone at the deceased employees house rings and this is a call for his widow from a high-powered lawyer at the giant corporation.”

The first indication that this is a bluff.

If the “high-powered” lawyer was operating on solid legal ground he would have sent a registered letter.

My response would be something along the lines of, “I will not dignify that request with a response”.

William Hazlett Upson, formerly of Holt Caterpillar Company's service department, is the one who should complain about misuse of Earthworm Tractor, since he often wrote about it and its salesman, Alexander Botts, in the Saturday Evening Post. Caterpillar supplied tractors for the movie version, and the movie's copyright wasn't renewed.

The widow could also give the standard reply to the lawyer:

"And my dad is going to beat up your dad"