HTML Document View

Full title: Notice of Objection to Order Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004 Directing Submission of Personal Injury Questionnaires by Pending Mesothelioma Claimants and Governing the Confidentiality of Responses for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction filed by Jennifer B. Lyday on behalf of Rogers, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC. (Lyday, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/29/2021)

Document posted on Jul 28, 2021 in the bankruptcy, 3 pages and 0 tables.

Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)

GOVERNING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF RESPONSES NOW COME Weldon L. Knox (Estate), Thomas R. Lasher (Estate), Clifford W. Millburn (Estate), Charles L. Perkins (Estate), Paul E. Piche (Estate), Wendell Purvis, Everette B. Smith (Estate), (collectively, the “Respondents”), by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby submit this notice of objection (the “Objection”) to the Order Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004 Directing Submission of Personal Injury Questionnaires by Pending Mesothelioma Claimants and Governing the Confidentiality of Responses (the “PIQ Order”)N.D. Tex. 2018) (a subpoena served under Rule 45 is required for nonparty in discovery proceedings under Bankruptcy Rule 2004);A “nonparty” includes persons other than the debtor, a creditor that has filed a proof of claim, or a person that has received proper service in a contested matter or an adversary proceeding, that may have information that relate to a debtor’s assets or liabilities.Because the Respondents are aware of the PIQ Order, the Respondents make this limited appearance to object to the PIQ Order on the basis that the Respondents have not received any subpoena, either personally or via counsel, have not waived the need for a subpoena, and have not otherwise submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court. The Respondents do not intend for this Objection, or any subsequent appearance, pleading, claim or suit, to waive, and expressly reserve, the Respondents’ (i) right to have final orders in noncore matters entered only after de novo review or trial by a District Court, (ii) right to trial by jury in any proceeding or trial so triable herein or in any case, controversy, or proceeding relating hereto, (iii) right to have the reference withdrawn by the District Court in any matter subject to mandatory or discretionary withdrawal, or (iv) rights, claims, actions, defenses, setoffs, or recoupments to which the Respondents are or may be entitled to under agreements, in law, in equity, or otherwise.

List of Tables

Document Contents

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION In re: Chapter 11 BESTWALL LLC, Case No. 17-31795 (LTB) Debtor. ___________________________________ NOTICE OF OBJECTION OF RESPONDENTS TO ORDER PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY RULE 2004 DIRECTING SUBMISSION OF PERSONAL INJURY QUESTIONNAIRES BY PENDING MESOTHELIOMA CLAIMANTS AND GOVERNING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF RESPONSES NOW COME Weldon L. Knox (Estate), Thomas R. Lasher (Estate), Clifford W. Millburn (Estate), Charles L. Perkins (Estate), Paul E. Piche (Estate), Wendell Purvis, Everette B. Smith (Estate), (collectively, the “Respondents”), by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby submit this notice of objection (the “Objection”) to the Order Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004 Directing Submission of Personal Injury Questionnaires by Pending Mesothelioma Claimants and Governing the Confidentiality of Responses (the “PIQ Order”) [ECF No. 1670]. In support of this Objection, the Respondents state as follows: 1. The PIQ Order was issued pursuant Rule 2004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Personal jurisdiction over a nonparty in Rule 2004 discovery proceedings is properly established by serving a subpoena pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., In re Correra, 589 B.R. 76, 109 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2018) (a subpoena served under Rule 45 is required for nonparty in discovery proceedings under Bankruptcy Rule 2004); In re Marathe, 459 B.R. 850, 859–60 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2011) (a subpoena is required under Rule 45 to obtain personal jurisdiction over a nonparty for the production of documents); In re Jee, 104 B.R. 289, 293 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1989) (“Personal jurisdiction over a non-party served with a subpoena duces

1

tecum is obtained by a court pursuant to Rule 45(c)[.]”). 2. A “nonparty” includes persons other than the debtor, a creditor that has filed a proof of claim, or a person that has received proper service in a contested matter or an adversary proceeding, that may have information that relate to a debtor’s assets or liabilities. See, e.g., In re Teknek, 512 F.3d 342, 344-46 (7th Cir. 2007); In re Correra, 589 B.R. 76, 110-11 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2018); In re Marathe, 459 B.R. 850, 859-60 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2011). 3. The Respondents have not filed a proof of claim and have not otherwise received proper service in a contested matter or an adversary proceeding connected to or arising out of the above-captioned matter. The Respondents are, therefore, not parties to this matter. 4. Because the Respondents are aware of the PIQ Order, the Respondents make this limited appearance to object to the PIQ Order on the basis that the Respondents have not received any subpoena, either personally or via counsel, have not waived the need for a subpoena, and have not otherwise submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdictional authority over the Respondents. 5. This Objection is not, and shall not be construed to be, a consent by the Respondents to the jurisdiction of this Court.1 1 This Objection is not, and shall not be construed to be, a waiver of any other bases not stated herein for asserting that the Respondents have not submitted to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. The Respondents do not intend for this Objection, or any subsequent appearance, pleading, claim or suit, to waive, and expressly reserve, the Respondents’ (i) right to have final orders in noncore matters entered only after de novo review or trial by a District Court, (ii) right to trial by jury in any proceeding or trial so triable herein or in any case, controversy, or proceeding relating hereto, (iii) right to have the reference withdrawn by the District Court in any matter subject to mandatory or discretionary withdrawal, or (iv) rights, claims, actions, defenses, setoffs, or recoupments to which the Respondents are or may be entitled to under agreements, in law, in equity, or otherwise. Further, this Objection is not to be construed as the Respondents’ consent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

2

Respectfully submitted, this the 29th day of July 2021. ROGERS, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC /s/ J. David Butler J. David Butler, Esq. Rogers, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC 623 Richland Avenue West Post Office Box 3088 Aiken, SC 29802 803.541.7865 - direct 803.259.4403 - fax dbutler@rpwb.com Counsel for Respondents

3