HTML Document View

Full title: Motionin Limine Regarding Expert Discovery. filed by Glenn C. Thompson on behalf of The Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants of Bestwall, LLC. Hearing scheduled for 8/19/2021 at 09:30 AM at 3-LTB Courtroom 2A. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Natalie Ramsey # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Exhibit B # 4 Exhibit C # 5 Proposed Order) (Thompson, Glenn) (Entered: 07/29/2021)

Document posted on Jul 28, 2021 in the bankruptcy, 15 pages and 0 tables.

Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)

Without curtailing the Debtor’s overreach now, the parties stand at the precipice of a slippery slope, allowing the Debtor to slowly broaden the parameters of the estimation hearing bit by bit as it uses discovery, fact witnesses, and expert witnesses on topics that are not relevant to an estimation of pre-1978 joint compound and/or will result in the retentions of multiple experts on issues as far ranging as memory and attorney ethics. The Debtor set forth a succinct request: “that the Court estimate current and future mesothelioma claims against the Debtor that: (a) arose, in whole or part, from alleged exposure to joint compound products that contained asbestos either as a constituent ingredient or an alleged contaminant; and (b) were manufactured and sold by the Debtor or its predecessor on or before December 31, 19773 (the “Asbestos-Containing Joint Compound Products”).”4 3. The Debtor disagreed, arguing that the Court should hear the background of medical science on asbestos and mesothelioma, and that its presentation would not unnecessarily delay the estimation proceedings.The topics range from expert opinion on the “geological conditions that led to the formation of … talc” (Topic 12), conjecture on OSHA policy about asbestos (Topic 29), “Safety, health, and other practical considerations related to residential, commercial, and industrial construction sites over time and related to asbestos-containing products used on those sites” (Topic 10); “Fraud and abuse in connection with Trusts and asbestos litigation against Old GP, Bestwall, and other defendants” (Topic 102(p)), “the therapeutic use of talc” (Topic 40), “the health consequences of smoking” (Topic 72), “trends in the total compensation received by asbestos claimants from all sources over time, and the sources of that compensation” (Topic 102(s)) and dozens of equally tangential topics.The development of the knowledge over time of the hazards, health risks, and controls associated with asbestos minerals and the use of asbestos products and with talc and the use of talc-containing products.

List of Tables

Document Contents

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION : In re: : Chapter 11 : BESTWALL LLC,1 : Case No. 17-31795 (LTB) : Debtor. : : THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF ASBESTOS CLAIMANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING EXPERT DISCOVERY The Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants (the “Committee”) of Bestwall LLC (“Bestwall” or the “Debtor”), through its undersigned counsel, hereby moves (the “Motion”) to preclude the Debtor from seeking discovery about or presenting evidence on certain expert subjects and fields of expertise listed in its preliminary disclosures in violation of the Estimation Order. See generally Ex. 1 to the Declaration of Natalie D. Ramsey, Esq. in Support of the Motion (“Ramsey Decl.”), attached hereto as Exhibit A. When the Debtor initially motioned to this Court for an estimation hearing, it limited its request to the estimation of present and future asbestos claims arising from Bestwall’s pre-1978 joint compound products. The Court granted the Estimation Motion,2 but in doing so, charged the parties with adhering to the streamlined schedule and scope proposed by the Debtor in its arguments. Later, when the Committee brought its Shaping Motions, the Debtor again assured the Court of its intentions to conduct an estimation hearing that was focused on the bounds provided 1 The last four digits of the Debtor’s taxpayer identification number are 5815. The Debtor’s address is 133 Peachtree Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. 2 Any capitalized term not yet defined shall have the meaning ascribed to it subsequently in the Motion.

1

for in the Estimation Order. A case management order (“CMO”) with respect to the estimation hearing was entered and the parties collectively forged ahead with discovery. In connection with the disclosures required under the CMO, the parties recently exchanged expert topics. The Debtor’s disclosures list 122 subjects, along with another twenty-five subparts, and fifteen (15) fields of expertise that go far beyond what was contemplated in the Court’s Estimation Order, the Debtor’s representations to this Court, and the parties’ agreement. Indeed, far from the limited medical science “background” that Debtor proposed, the Debtor wants experts to opine on everything from cigarettes (topic 72) to talc (topic 40) to geology (topic 12). It intends to provide extensive expert testimony about talc, which the Debtor has repeatedly represented it did not use in pre-1978 joint compound. These topics exceed the scope of the Estimation Order and will prolong and expand this case. They reflect the Debtor’s intention to re-litigate in this case every issue that it has sought to litigate in defending asbestos cases over its forty (40) year history in the litigation. Without curtailing the Debtor’s overreach now, the parties stand at the precipice of a slippery slope, allowing the Debtor to slowly broaden the parameters of the estimation hearing bit by bit as it uses discovery, fact witnesses, and expert witnesses on topics that are not relevant to an estimation of pre-1978 joint compound and/or will result in the retentions of multiple experts on issues as far ranging as memory and attorney ethics. Therefore, the Debtor should be prohibited from pursuing any of these topics that fall outside of the scope of the Estimation Order.

2

BACKGROUND 1. The Court is familiar with the background of these proceedings, so the Committee will highlight only the parts relevant to this motion. 2. The Debtor originally brought a motion before the Court seeking an estimation hearing in June 2019. See Motion of the Debtor for Estimation of Current and Future Mesothelioma Claims [Dkt. No. 875] (the “Estimation Motion”). The Debtor set forth a succinct request: “that the Court estimate current and future mesothelioma claims against the Debtor that: (a) arose, in whole or part, from alleged exposure to joint compound products that contained asbestos either as a constituent ingredient or an alleged contaminant; and (b) were manufactured and sold by the Debtor or its predecessor on or before December 31, 19773 (the “Asbestos-Containing Joint Compound Products”).”4 3. The Court granted the Estimation Motion [Dkt. No. 1577] (the “Estimation Order”), but warned that the proceeding needed to be done efficiently, stating: In addition, Mr. Gordon forecast that if I granted the motion the parties could be ready for an estimation hearing in December of 2021. That strikes me as ambitious and Ms. Ramsey indicated that the schedule was aggressive, but I intend to hold Mr. Gordon to that . . . . So while I think an estimation hearing is appropriate, I intend to keep it on as short a leash as possible and that’s a balance that I must strike to ensure that estimation itself does not cause undue delay.” 3 As described in the Informational Brief of Bestwall LLC [Docket No. 12] (the “Informational Brief”), the Debtor’s predecessor stopped using asbestos joint compound products in 1977. Informational Brief at p.3. 4 Additionally, when propounding its Rule 2004 discovery in the form of personal injury questionnaires to claimants, the Debtor noted that it “modified right at the top of the Instructions the obligation to answer the questionnaire and we have limited that to mesothelioma claimants who allege claims based on the pre-1978 joint compound products, which are the products that are at issue in the estimation proceeding.” Hr’g Tr. 12:21-13:1 (Mar. 18, 2021) (Mr. Worf) (emphasis added).

3

Hr’g Tr. 12:24-13:10 (Oct. 22, 2020) (emphasis added). During a status report on negotiations surrounding a case management order, the Debtor again represented to the Court that the estimation would be limited in scope to the pre-1978 joint compound products. Hr’g Tr. 13:24-14:9 (Dec. 17, 2020) (Mr. Gordon) (“And you may recall that in the estimation motion we had proposed that the estimation cover joint compound products that were manufactured and sold by Old GP prior to 1978 and I think I reported at either the last hearing or the earlier, or the hearing before that, or maybe both, that we were in discussions with the other side to see whether that scope was acceptable or whether there was a larger scope or a different scope that the claimant representatives wanted to pursue. Those discussions continued over the last month and we’ve now reached an understanding that the estimation will cover the joint compound products prior to 1978.”). 4. The parties also previously litigated about the scope of the estimation hearing. See generally Motion to Establish a Methodology for Estimating the Debtor's Joint Compound Asbestos Liabilities [Dkt. No. 1449], Motion to Fix the Scope of the Look-Back Period for Estimation of the Debtor's Asbestos Liabilities to Five Years Prior to the Petition Date [Dkt. No. 1450], Motion Requesting the Court to Grant Full Faith and Credit to the Settlement and Trial History of Georgia-Pacific LLC and Bestwall LLC and Exclude the Use of Medical Science Evidence in the Estimation Proceeding [Dkt. No. 1451] (the “Medical Science Motion”), and Motion Requesting the Court Grant Full Faith and Credit to the Settlement and Trial History of Georgia-Pacific LLC and Bestwall LLC and Exclude the Requested Discovery on Claimants Participating in Group Settlements [Dkt. No. 1452] (collectively the “Estimation Shaping Motions”) and related pleadings thereto. For example, the Medical Science Motion questioned whether evidence about medical science should not be part of the estimation proceedings,

4

reasoning that bankruptcy estimation should exclude such evidence on the basis that the estimation hearing is not supposed to be a re-litigation of the Debtor’s substantive liability. The Committee also explained that the Debtor’s decision to settle past cases already “baked in” the varying levels and potency of chrysotile exposure in Debtor’s products. They also expressed concern that including medical science would ratchet up the expense of the proceedings, draw out discovery, and needlessly lengthen the estimation trial. See Dkt. Nos. 1451 & 1505. 5. The Debtor disagreed, arguing that the Court should hear the background of medical science on asbestos and mesothelioma, and that its presentation would not unnecessarily delay the estimation proceedings. See generally Hr’g Tr. 372-96 (Jan. 22, 2021) (Mr. Gordon). Among other things, the Debtor emphasized that any concerns about “extensive discovery that’s required or other extensive burdens” were “general statements” that had no foundation. Id. at 384. 6. The Court agreed to permit discovery and evidence about medical science. See Dkt. No. 1660. It reasoned that the Debtor “confirmed that [it] will not seek to have this Court determine whether or not chrysotile-containing joint compound causes mesothelioma, but to provide the Court the necessary background on medical science issues to put context around the determination of the debtor’s estimate asbestos liability.” Hr’g Tr. 18:2-6 (Mar. 4, 2021). 7. In argument, claimants’ attorney Mr. Ruckdeschel had warned the Court that “a full science trial” would take “four or five days,” and “that there would be multipliers spent in pre-trial preparation.” Id. at 18:17-29. Thus, the Court reminded the parties that “we won’t have sufficient time in this estimation hearing for one party to spend four or five days on the medical science issue alone. So while I won’t grant the medical science motion, I would urge you to take that into

5

consideration when conduct any discovery related to the medical science issues and preparation for the estimation hearing.” Id. at 18:22-19:2.5 8. Three months later, the parties exchanged “expert subjects and fields of expertise” for the estimation case in chief. Mindful of the Court’s directives and the scope of the Estimation Order, the Committee disclosed thirteen (13) topics. See Ramsey Decl. at Ex. 2. The Future Claimants similarly disclosed twelve (12) topics. See id. at Ex. 3. 9. The Debtor, on the other hand, disclosed 122 topics with several subtopics spanning fifteen (15) areas of expertise. Id. at Ex. 1 (the “Debtor’s Expert Topics”). The topics range from expert opinion on the “geological conditions that led to the formation of … talc” (Topic 12), conjecture on OSHA policy about asbestos (Topic 29), “Safety, health, and other practical considerations related to residential, commercial, and industrial construction sites over time and related to asbestos-containing products used on those sites” (Topic 10); “Fraud and abuse in connection with Trusts and asbestos litigation against Old GP, Bestwall, and other defendants” (Topic 102(p)), “the therapeutic use of talc” (Topic 40), “the health consequences of smoking” (Topic 72), “trends in the total compensation received by asbestos claimants from all sources over time, and the sources of that compensation” (Topic 102(s)) and dozens of equally tangential topics. Id. Notably and directly contrary to representations made during argument on the Medical Science Motion, the Debtor also intends to offer expert testimony on “whether low-dose exposure to chrysotile causes mesothelioma” (Topic 62). 5 Since these hearings, the date of the estimation hearing has slipped. First, it was to a date prior to the end of the second quarter of 2022. Hr’g Tr. 34:3-9 (Mar. 24, 2021) (the Court) (“And I, I think that the date for the first quarter of 2022 was set, obviously, with that in mind. But if it’s, if it is not feasible, practically speaking, then it doesn’t make sense to continue to strive for that as our goal for an estimation hearing. But -- so I think pushing it back into the second quarter is, is the next best thing to do. So we will, we will stick with that.”). At the most recent omnibus hearing, the date looked to be pushed further out. Hr’g Tr. 158:2-21 (Jul. 22, 2021).

6

10. The inclusion of such expert evidence will complicate not only discovery, but the estimation hearing, which is limited by the scope of the Estimation Order and the Debtor’s assurances to the Court thus far. Not only are the Debtor’s Expert Topics broad, but these topics present complicated issues, particularly for the Debtor’s expert witnesses and for the Committee’s rebuttal witnesses that will necessarily be called in response. The parties will not only have to grapple with the discovery on behalf of these experts, but also engage in the effort, time, and expense of generating a commensurate number of rebuttal experts as well, overshadowing the evidence essential to the estimation hearing and provided in compliance with the Estimation Order’s scope. The resulting evidence does little to advance the Debtor’s case given the parameters of the Estimation Order. JURISDICTION 11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). Venue is proper before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. RELIEF REQUESTED 12. The Committee requests this Court to limit the expert evidence that it will hear in connection with the estimation hearing by confining the topics of the expert subjects to what was granted in the Estimation Order and require the parties to comply with the intent of the Estimation Order. ARGUMENT 13. The Debtor’s Expert Topics violate both the letter and the spirit of the Court’s Estimation Order and its subsequent rulings on the Estimation Shaping Motions. The topics are broad and seemingly unbounded. They cover everything from talc to cigarettes and OSHA to

7

memory. As anticipated by the Committee, the Debtor also seeks to litigate its position that all plaintiffs, all plaintiff-side tort counsel, and asbestos litigation itself is a fraud and that the tort system is “broken.” GP’s/the Debtor’s objectives lie outside of estimating its pre-1978 joint compound liability; they must. And none of that will aid this Court in determining what funding might be necessary in connection with the Debtor’s desire to establish a fund that would replace its liability for pre-1978 joint compound. In light of the foregoing, the Debtor’s Expert Topics should be limited and circumscribed to the matters contemplated by the Court in its Estimation Order. 14. “The purpose of an in limine motion is to aid the trial process by enabling the Court to rule in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence, as to issues that are definitely set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial.” Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Schneider, 379 F. Supp. 2d 461, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir.1996)); In re Lyondell Chem. Co., 558 B.R. 661, 666 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016); In re Hardesty, 242 B.R. 712, 714 (D. Kan. 1999). 15. These motions can be used “[t]o help the court perform its proper ‘gatekeeping’ duty, including for proposed experts subject to attack under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence” and “[t]o help trial planning and save expense by eliminating a major issue at trial.” Mixed Chicks LLC v. Sally Beauty Supply LLC, 879 F. Supp. 2d 1093, 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2012). Courts often grant motions in limine to exclude improper expert testimony, e.g., Lyondell, 558 B.R. at 669-70, or where evidence is presented in a way that violates a case management order, In re Sohail, 438 B.R. 398, 403–04 (E.D. Va. 2010). 16. Here, as discussed above, the Court granted an estimation hearing on a limited body of liability streams and permitted the parties to submit evidence and conduct discovery on issues

8

related to that liability stream, but under time constraints. Hr’g Tr. 14:22-25 (Mar. 4, 2021) (“With respect to estimation, I remain focused on the need to avoid undue delay utilizing estimation as an opportunity to advance the resolution of this case and due process.” (the Court)). Specifically, the Estimation Order contemplated the estimation under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code of present and future claims arising from the asbestos contained within the Debtor’s joint compound products prior to December 31, 1977. 17. The Debtor’s Expert Topics, however, clearly envision an estimation hearing with a much broader scope than the Court granted. For instance, the Debtor appears to have an extensive focus on talc, despite its limited relevance to an estimation of pre-1978 joint compound. To point, the Debtor’s Expert Topics include the following: 11. Sources of asbestos and talc used in those Bestwall Joint Compound Products made with asbestos and talc as added ingredients. 12. Geologic conditions that lead to the formation of asbestiform minerals, their nonasbestiform varieties, and talc. 13. Whether and to what extent there is evidence of amphibole asbestos or other asbestiform minerals present in mines from which Old GP sourced chrysotile and talc used for the Bestwall Joint Compound Products made with chrysotile and talc as added ingredients. 14. Whether and to what extent amphibole asbestos or other asbestiform minerals can be found in other chrysotile and talc mines. 22. The development of the knowledge over time of the hazards, health risks, and controls associated with asbestos minerals and the use of asbestos products and with talc and the use of talc-containing products. 27. Government regulations and public health agency assessments and recommendations regarding asbestos, asbestiform minerals, talc, and asbestos-containing products, including the beneficial uses of asbestos products and the bans on certain asbestos-containing products,

9

restrictions on the use and handling of asbestos-containing products, exposure limits, and labeling standards and requirements. 34. Whether Old GP’s and other asbestos-containing product manufacturers’ and distributors’ conduct, including labeling and developing substitutes, was consistent with then-current government regulations and the state of knowledge in the scientific community regarding the potential hazards of asbestos and talc. 40. The therapeutic use of talc in treating certain pleural and pulmonary conditions. 63. Whether exposure to talc causes mesothelioma. See Debtor’s Expert Topics at Ex. 1 to Ramsey Decl. These expert topics pose questions outside the bounds of this Court’s Estimation Order and the Debtor’s representations to the Court in its Estimation Motion. The Debtor’s/GP’s asbestos liability related to its talc use is not part of the Court-ordered estimation. 18. Another example of topics far greater than suggested by the Debtor in its opposition to the Estimation Shaping Motions are the expansive topics intended as part of a medical science trial, including the exact issue that the Debtor told this Court it was not asking for the Court to decide. The Court permitted medical science evidence, in part, based on Debtor’s promise that any evidence would only be “background” and would not require the Court to decide whether its joint compound caused mesothelioma. Hr’g Tr. 383:2-5 (Jan. 22, 2021) (The Court: So your assertion would be that you’re not seeking to have this Court determine whether or not chrysotile-containing joint compound causes mesothelioma, but, rather, perhaps, that it is a lower-potent form of asbestos? Mr. Gordon: Correct.); Hr’g Tr. 18:1-6 (Mar. 4, 2021) (“… and Mr. Gordon confirmed that the debtor will not seek to have this Court determine whether or not chrysotile-containing joint compound causes mesothelioma, but to provide the Court the necessary background on medical science issues to put context around the determination of the debtor’s

10

estimated asbestos liability.” (the Court)). The Court accepted these representations, but conditioned the allowance and “urge[d]” the parties to remember that discovery and the preparation of the medical evidence for the hearing should be done knowing that the hearing schedule did not permit “four or five days” of medical science evidence. Id. at 18:20-19:2 (“In response to that, I would suggest to the parties that we won’t have sufficient time in this estimation hearing for one party to spend four or five days on the medical science issue alone. So while I won’t grant the medical science motion, I would urge you to take that into consideration when conducting any discovery related to the medical science issues and preparing for the estimation hearing.” (the Court)). 19. Despite the Debtor’s assurances that it was not asking the Court to decide whether its asbestos-containing joint compound caused mesothelioma, the Debtor now says it requires expert discovery, reports, and testimony on the following medical science causation topics: 13. Whether and to what extent there is evidence of amphibole asbestos or other asbestiform minerals present in mines from which Old GP sourced chrysotile and talc used for the Bestwall Joint Compound Products made with chrysotile and talc as added ingredients. 14. Whether and to what extent amphibole asbestos or other asbestiform minerals can be found in other chrysotile and talc mines. 15. Methods of identifying asbestiform minerals and distinguishing them from their nonasbestiform varieties. 16. The nature of asbestos and asbestiform minerals, and how they compare with nonasbestiform varieties of minerals. 55. The defects in methodology, data, or reasoning of publications asserting chrysotile causation of mesothelioma. 62. Whether low-dose exposure to chrysotile causes mesothelioma. 63. Whether exposure to talc causes mesothelioma.

11

64. Whether exposure to non-asbestiform amphiboles causes mesothelioma. 65. The differences in causation of pleural mesothelioma, peritoneal mesothelioma, and mesothelioma occurring in other sites. 66. Causes of mesothelioma other than asbestos exposure. 67. The significance of commercial chrysotile end products potentially containing trace levels of amphiboles. See Debtor’s Expert Topics at Ex. A to Ramsey Decl. (emphasis added). But such a presentation of expert testimony will increase burdens to discovery, necessitate more expert witnesses, and thereby require additional reports, depositions, and testimony to be generated by those experts. As a result, this evidence should be precluded in advance of the parties expending valuable time and resources in discovery, in litigating such matters, and in unnecessary expert testimony during an estimation hearing. 20. Additionally, the Debtor seeks to use expert opinion to ask this Court to indict asbestos plaintiffs and litigation in general. For instance, in Debtor’s Expert Topic 102 surrounding “[t]he history of asbestos litigation against Old GP, Bestwall, and other asbestos defendants,” the Debtor sets forth twenty-five (25) sub categories that include items such as: c. Fraud and other misconduct in asbestos litigation. g. The generation of fraudulent asbestos claims based on unreliable and fraudulent medical and exposure evidence, and the effect on Old GP, Bestwall, and other defendants. i. The development of unreliable, misleading, and false evidence against Old GP and Bestwall, after the Bankruptcy Wave. j. Changes in testimony in Old GP and Bestwall cases after the Bankruptcy Wave, including trends in the identification of products for which bankrupts were responsible, and the practices of asbestos plaintiffs’ law firms in this regard.

12

k. Inaccurate and misleading testimony given by expert witnesses testifying for plaintiffs in prior asbestos personal injury cases. l. The corruption of the scientific literature by plaintiffs’ lawyers and their affiliates. p. Fraud and abuse in connection with Trusts and asbestos litigation against Old GP, Bestwall, and other defendants. See Debtor’s Expert Topics at Ex. A to Ramsey Decl. These topics have no place on a list of proposed expert testimony in connection with the instant hearing. 21. Other topics appear ill-designed and superfluous in garnering the development of testimony related to the estimation proceeding ordered by the Court. For instance, the following expert subjects appear to go beyond the ordered estimation: 8. Methods of construction sequencing and scheduling, including why construction projects are sequenced and scheduled the way they are. 72. The health consequences of smoking, and the relationship between smoking and asbestos-related diseases. 28. The risk assessments or other analysis or information upon which the government regulations and public health agency recommendations regarding asbestos minerals and asbestos- containing products were based. 102(f) The history of non-malignant claiming. Id. These topics have no relevance to mesothelioma claims. 22. Finally, many of these topics sound in fact, and are inappropriate for the use of expert testimony on the topic, such as: 6. Sales of the Bestwall Joint Compound Products, and sales of joint compounds by others in the United States. 11. Sources of asbestos and talc used in those Bestwall Joint Compound Products made with asbestos and talc as added ingredients.

13

27. Government regulations and public health agency assessments and recommendations regarding asbestos, asbestiform minerals, talc, and asbestos-containing products, including the beneficial uses of asbestos products and the bans on certain asbestos-containing products, restrictions on the use and handling of asbestos-containing products, exposure limits, and labeling standards and requirements. 81. The number of current mesothelioma claims against the Debtor. 102(e). Old GP’s and Bestwall’s historical costs for resolving and litigating asbestos claims. 102(v). Verdicts for and against Old GP in asbestos cases. Id. 23. Putting aside the irrelevance of the topics, the topics’ breadth will make it impossible hold an estimation trial in the allotted time or even by the close of 2022. Many topics will ultimately require more discovery which the Debtor has, so far, been unable, unwilling, or slow to provide. The Debtor’s disclosures will cause a multiplication of these proceedings at the expense of the bankruptcy estate, which in turn is at the expense of those who suffered this excruciating disease. 24. The Court should prohibit the Debtor from presenting evidence on any of the 122 topics that fall outside the scope of its Estimation Order. CONCLUSION For all these reasons, the Committee asks this Court to limit the expert evidence that it will hear in connection with the estimation hearing by confining the topics of the expert subjects to what was granted in the Estimation Order, including (i) specifically limiting the Debtor from seeking discovery on or presenting evidence about the subjects and fields of expertise identified in Debtor’s Preliminary Disclosure of Expert Subjects and Fields of Expertise for Its Estimation

14

Case-in-Chief and (ii) requiring it to comply with the intent of the Estimation Order. The Committee also asks for any other relief that the Court finds just and equitable. Dated: July 29, 2021 Charlotte, North Carolina HAMILTON STEPHENS STEELE + MARTIN, PLLC /s/ Glenn C. Thompson Glenn C. Thompson (Bar No. 37221) 525 North Tryon Street, Suite 1400 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Telephone: (704) 344-1117 Facsimile: (704) 344-1483 gthompson@lawhssm.com Linda W. Simpson (Bar No. 12596) JD THOMPSON LAW Post Office Box 33127 Charlotte, North Carolina 28233 Telephone: (828) 489-6578 lws@jdthompsonlaw.com Natalie D. Ramsey (DE Bar No. 5378) Davis Lee Wright (DE Bar No. 4324) ROBINSON & COLE LLP 1201 North Market Street, Suite 1406 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302) 516-1700 nramsey@rc.com dwright@rc.com Counsel to the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants

15