HTML Document View

Full title: Motion/ Debtor's Motion to Compel Compliance with Paragraph 8 of the Estimation Case Management Order. filed by Garland S. Cassada on behalf of Bestwall LLC. Hearing scheduled for 8/19/2021 at 09:30 AM at 3-LTB Courtroom 2A. (Cassada, Garland) (Entered: 08/05/2021)

Document posted on Aug 4, 2021 in the bankruptcy, 31 pages and 0 tables.

Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)

 Law; asbestos litigation; the history of asbestos litigation against Debtor and other companies; the history of asbestos chapter 11 cases; the history, development, and structure of asbestos trusts and the asbestos trust system; and the relationship between the trust system and asbestos litigation in federal and state courts.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.The history of asbestos litigation against Old GP, Bestwall, and other asbestos defendants, including: a.h. Techniques practiced by asbestos plaintiffs’ law firms for generating product identification evidence against Old GP, Bestwall, and other defendants in asbestos cases.The extent to which past asbestos plaintiffs against Old GP and Bestwall failed to disclose evidence of exposures to asbestos, and the impact of any such practice on Old GP’s and Bestwall’s resolutions of asbestos cases.

List of Tables

Document Contents

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION IN RE: Case No. 17-BK-31795 (LTB) BESTWALL LLC,1 Chapter 11 Debtor. DEBTOR’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 8 OF THE ESTIMATION CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER Bestwall LLC, the debtor and debtor in possession in the above-captioned chapter 11 case (the “Debtor” or “Bestwall”), moves for an order substantially in the form attached as Exhibit A directing the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants (the “ACC”) and the Future Claimants’ Representative (the “FCR” and, together with the ACC, the “Claimant Representatives”) to serve expert witness disclosures that comply with paragraph 8 of the Case Management Order for Estimation of the Debtor’s Liability for Mesothelioma Claims [Dkt. 1685] (the “Estimation CMO”). This provision of the Estimation CMO requires the parties to “serve preliminary disclosures of the subjects of expert testimony and fields of expertise (but not the experts’ identities) for their respective cases-in-chief on or before July 15, 2021.” Bestwall complied with the Estimation CMO by providing disclosures that fully informed the Claimant Representatives of both the fields of expertise of Bestwall’s likely experts and the various subjects of expert testimony likely to be in expert reports.2 But the disclosures the Claimant Representatives served identify only broad fields of expertise. They fail to comply with 1 The last four digits of the Debtor’s taxpayer identification number are 5815. The Debtor’s address is 133 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. 2 See Debtor’s Preliminary Disclosure of Expert Subjects and Fields of Expertise For Its Estimation Case-In-Chief, attached hereto as Exhibit B.

1

the Estimation CMO’s express requirement that parties disclose the “subjects of expert testimony.” The nearly identical expert disclosures served by the ACC and the FCR (attached hereto as Exhibits C and D, respectively) are short lists with a handful of brief entries—each containing only one word or a few words. Entries such as “Statistics,” “Medical Doctor,” “Environmental Engineer,” “Cell and Molecular Biology,” “Epidemiology and Public Health,” and “Pathology,” broadly identify expansive fields of expertise, but they reveal nothing about the subjects that the professionals in those fields will address. Meaningful disclosure is required by the Estimation CMO and Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Civil Rules”), and also is essential for Bestwall to evaluate the Claimant Representatives’ respective cases-in-chief, assess the need for expert rebuttal testimony, timely serve preliminary rebuttal expert disclosures by August 16, 2021 (Estimation CMO ¶ 8), and be prepared to produce rebuttal reports 44 days after initial expert reports are provided as required by paragraph 11 of the Estimation CMO.3 I. Meaningful Expert Subject Disclosure Is Required The Court entered the Estimation CMO establishing disclosure requirements agreed upon by the parties and suited to the needs of this case. The default under Civil Rule 26 is that both subject and opinion disclosure occurs when expert reports are produced. But recognizing the time pressures and complexity of the issues here, the parties negotiated the Estimation CMO to include a bifurcated disclosure process, requiring expert field and subject disclosure four months before reports are due. Specifically, paragraph 8 of the Estimation CMO provides: “The Parties shall serve preliminary disclosures of the subjects of expert testimony and fields of expertise 3 In an email dated August 2, 2021, the Debtor’s counsel (i) informed counsel for the Claimant Representatives that their preliminary expert disclosures failed to comply with the Estimation CMO; (ii) advised the Claimant Representatives that the Debtor would be filing this Motion and (iii) requested a meet and confer to resolve or narrow the issues. That meet and confer has been scheduled to occur on Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. ET.

2

(but not the experts’ identities) for their respective cases-in-chief on or before July 15, 2021” (emphasis added). The clear language of paragraph 8 thus requires initial expert disclosures to reveal both the “fields of expertise” of likely case-in-chief expert witnesses and also the “subjects of expert testimony.” This provision of the entered order facilitates discovery and promotes efficiency. The obligation to disclose subjects, in addition to the broader fields of expertise, prevents any party from springing an opinion in an unanticipated subject area only when reports are served. Subject disclosure will allow all parties not only to assess the case-in-chief contemplated by each opposing party in time to serve appropriate rebuttal disclosures, but also to engage and prepare experts on all likely subjects of testimony. And, importantly, it is the process that was required by this Court in the Estimation CMO and with which Bestwall fully complied. The Estimation CMO next requires rebuttal disclosures of subjects of expert testimony and fields of expertise on August 16, 2021. Estimation CMO ¶ 8. Because fields of expertise can be exceptionally broad and can overlap, it is only by meaningfully identifying subjects of an opponent’s expert testimony that each party can determine whether its currently engaged experts will be qualified to cover all subjects disclosed by an opposing party. Delaying subject disclosure until expert reports are served, as the Claimant Representatives are apparently seeking to do despite the Estimation CMO requirements, could leave Bestwall with insufficient time to find and engage an expert on a potentially unanticipated subject who can prepare a rebuttal report within the limited 44-day window between the deadlines for serving expert reports and rebuttal reports. That is why the CMO requires advance disclosure of the subject matters of anticipated expert testimony.

3

II. The Claimant Representatives Failed to Disclose Subjects of Expert Testimony The ACC and the FCR each served disclosures with nearly identical lists, reproduced in the table below for ease of comparison:
Table 1 on page 4. Back to List of Tables
ACC Disclosure FCR Disclosure
1. Estimation and Forecasting of Asbestos
Liabilities
1. Estimation and Forecasting of Asbestos
Liabilities
2. Market Share --
3. Discount Rate 2. Discount Rate
4. Statistics 3. Statistics
5. Economics 4. Economics
6. Cell and Molecular Biology 5. Cell and Molecular Biology
7. Epidemiology and Public Health 6. Epidemiology and Public Health
8. Pathology 7. Pathology
9. Industrial hygiene 8. Industrial hygiene
10. Environmental Engineer 9. Environmental Engineer
11. Material science and Engineering 10. Material Science and Engineering
12. Medical Research Scientist 11. Medical Research Scientist
13. Medical Doctor(s) with experience that
includes, but is not limited to, mesothelioma or
medicine related to mesothelioma and other
asbestos-related diseases
12. Medical Doctor
These entries provide little or no information on the subjects of expert testimony. For example, “Environmental Engineer” describes an occupation—a broad field of the witness’s expertise, but not the subjects within that field upon which the expert will opine. The same is true of “Medical Research Scientist,” the FCR’s “Medical Doctor,” and the ACC’s “Medical

4

Doctor(s) with experience that includes, but is not limited to, mesothelioma or medicine related to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.” Nor are the other items listed in the Claimant Representatives’ disclosures anything but descriptions of broad fields of expertise covering innumerable potential subjects of testimony such as “Statistics,” “Economics,” “Cell and Molecular Biology,” “Epidemiology and Public Health,” “Pathology,” “Industrial hygiene,” and “Material Science and Engineering.” Listing these fields of expertise does not comply with the Estimation CMO’s subject disclosure obligation. Rather than helping reasonably identify the topics that Bestwall must be prepared to address in case-in-chief or rebuttal, such disclosure (if not appropriately supplemented as requested in this Motion) would potentially require Bestwall to be ready on all aspects of broad fields. III. The Lack of Meaningful Disclosure Is Contrary to Disclosure Requirements Preliminary subject disclosures for retained experts are not mentioned specifically in Civil Rule 26(a)(2), but the spirit of the rule (and what is proposed by the Estimation CMO) is demonstrated by cases governing disclosures for non-retained experts under Civil Rule 26(a)(2)(C). This rule requires disclosure of, among other things, “the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence […]”. The caselaw holds that subject matter disclosures cannot be “sketchy and vague information.” Tolan v. Cotton, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121717, at *6, *20, 2015 WL 5332171 (S.D. Tex. 2015) (finding it was insufficient that plaintiffs’ expert disclosure “conclusorily claimed that they ‘will offer opinions and testimony regarding Robert Tolan’s prospects as a major league baseball player before and after his injuries.’”); see also, e.g., Dallas v. Premier Vehicle Transp., Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174948, at *3-4, 2017 WL 4780624 (S.D. Miss. 2017) (“Even when she identified Dr. Davis by

5

name, Dallas did not provide the subject matter of his testimony and a summary of the facts and opinions to which he was expected to testify. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C).” (emphasis added)) (holding disclosure was inadequate). As Dallas v. Premier demonstrates, the “subject matter” of an expert’s testimony differs from the opinions on those subjects about which the expert may testify. The CMO in this case entitles parties to meaningful disclosure of subjects of expert testimony in advance of the expert reports. “The purpose of the rule [26(a)(2) relating to expert disclosures] is to eliminate ‘unfair surprise to the opposing party.’” Muldrow ex rel. Estate of Muldrow v. Re-Direct, Inc., 493 F.3d 160, 167, 377 U.S. App. D.C. 187 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (citing Sylla-Sawdon v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 47 F.3d 277, 284 (8th Cir. 1995)); see also Notes of Advisory Committee on 1993 Amendments to Rule 26 (Rule 26(a)(2) “imposes an additional duty to disclose information regarding expert testimony sufficiently in advance of trial that opposing parties have a reasonable opportunity to prepare for effective cross examination and perhaps arrange for expert testimony from other witnesses.”). Broad generic disclosures such as those provided by the ACC and the FCR do nothing to make meaningful disclosure and raise a real possibility of surprise. IV. The Lack of Meaningful Disclosure Prejudices Bestwall The relatively short time available to prepare rebuttal reports under the Estimation CMO—44 days—makes it imperative that all parties have meaningful disclosure of the subjects upon which those experts will be opining, as the Estimation CMO requires. Accordingly, Bestwall provided a detailed and complete list of subjects, so that there would be no surprise about what opposing parties should expect to see when expert reports are served. The Claimant Representatives failed to do so.

6

The practical impact of their failure leaves Bestwall in the dark. Bestwall must know, for example, what subjects the “Environmental Engineer” will address to determine whether it, too, should engage an “Environmental Engineer” or whether experts it has already engaged will be qualified to address subjects upon which the Environmental Engineer may address in his or her report. Likewise, knowing that a “medical doctor” will testify hardly prepares Bestwall counsel to be ready on all possible subjects a doctor may discuss. Knowing that a “medical research scientist” may present a report does not give the four-months’ notice to which the CMO entitles Bestwall; that is, notice of what subject in medical research will be contained in the report. “Statistics” is a vast field. What specific subjects within that field will the ACC and FCR’s experts address? All these are questions upon which the Claimant Representatives’ disclosures give no fair warning. Forty-four days is too brief a time to locate and engage new experts, if necessary, or to prepare a current expert to address an unanticipated subject within the broad areas the ACC’s and the FCR’s disclosures identified. Nor is it sufficient to claim that Bestwall knows what to expect because of its litigation experience. That is why the CMO provided for preliminary disclosures of not just fields of expertise, but also subjects of expert testimony. The only way to be sure the parties have provided sufficient notice of the subjects they intend their experts to cover, and that there is no surprise, is to require meaningful disclosures. V. Conclusion The Claimant Representatives have failed to provide meaningful subject matter disclosures required by paragraph 8 of the Estimation CMO. Bestwall respectfully requests that the Court order them to do so.

7

Dated: August 5, 2021 Respectfully submitted, Charlotte, North Carolina /s/ Garland S. Cassada Garland S. Cassada (NC Bar No. 12352) Richard C. Worf, Jr. (NC Bar No. 37143) Kevin R. Crandall (NC Bar No. 50643) ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900 Charlotte, North Carolina 28246 Telephone: (704) 377-2536 Facsimile: (704) 378-4000 E-mail: gcassada@robinsonbradshaw.com rworf@robinsonbradshaw.com kcrandall@robinsonbradshaw.com Gregory M. Gordon (TX Bar No. 08435300) JONES DAY 2727 North Harwood Street, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 220-3939 Facsimile: (214) 969-5100 E-mail: gmgordon@jonesday.com (Admitted pro hac vice) Jeffrey B. Ellman (GA Bar No. 141828) JONES DAY 1221 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30361 Telephone: (404) 581-3939 Facsimile: (404) 581-8330 E-mail: jbellman@jonesday.com (Admitted pro hac vice) Cary Ira Schachater (TX Bar No. ) Raymond P. Harris, Jr. (TX Bar No. Erin A. Therrian (TX Bar No. ) SCHACHTER HARRIS, LLP 909 Lake Carolyn Parkway, Suite 1775 Irving, Texas 75039 (214) 999-5700 Email: rharris@shtriallaw.com cschachter@shtriallaw.com etherrian@shtriallaw.com (Admitted pro hac vice)

8

ATTORNEYS FOR DEBTOR AND DEBTOR IN POSSESSION

9

EXHIBIT A

10

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION IN RE: Case No. 17-BK-31795 (LTB) BESTWALL LLC,1 Chapter 11 Debtor. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEBTOR’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH ESTIMATION CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER This matter came before the Court on the Debtor’s motion for an order directing the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants (the “ACC”) and the Future Claimants’ Representative (the “FCR”) to serve expert witness disclosures that comply with paragraph 8 of the Case Management Order for Estimation of the Debtor’s Liability for Mesothelioma Claims [Dkt. 1685] (the “Estimation CMO”). That provision of the Estimation CMO requires the parties to “serve preliminary disclosures of the subjects of expert testimony and fields of expertise (but not the experts’ identities) for their respective cases-in-chief on or before July 15, 2021.” 1 The last four digits of the Debtor’s taxpayer identification number are 5815. The Debtor’s address is 133 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

11

Based upon a review of the Motion, any objections filed, and after considering the arguments of counsel at the hearing before the Court on August 19, 2021, the Court hereby FINDS, ORDERS, ADJUDGES, AND DECREES that: 1. The Motion is GRANTED. 2. The Court finds the disclosures served by the ACC and FCR on July 15, 2021 did not comply with paragraph 8 of the Estimation CMO because they failed to identify the subjects of expert testimony. 3. The Court hereby orders the ACC and FCR to serve on the estimation parties the subjects of expert testimony as well as fields of expertise for their respective cases-in-chief on or before the tenth (10th) day following entry of this Order. 3 The deadline for the Debtor and Georgia Pacific LLC to serve preliminary disclosures of the subjects of expert testimony and fields of expertise for their respective rebuttal cases is extended to the twenty fifth (25th) day following entry of this Order. This Order has been signed electronically. United States Bankruptcy Court The judge’s signature and court’s seal appear at the top of the Order

12

EXHIBIT B

13

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION IN RE: Case No. 17-BK-31795 (LTB) BESTWALL LLC,1 Chapter 11 Debtor. DEBTOR’S PRELIMINARY DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT SUBJECTS AND FIELDS OF EXPERTISE FOR ITS ESTIMATION CASE-IN-CHIEF Pursuant to the Order Authorizing Estimation of Current and Future Mesothelioma Claims (Dkt. 1577) (the “Estimation Order”) and the Case Management Order for Estimation of the Debtor’s Liability for Mesothelioma Claims (Dkt. 1685) (the “Case Management Order”), Bestwall LLC (“Bestwall” or the “Debtor”) hereby serves this preliminary disclosure of the subjects of expert testimony and fields of expertise for its case-in-chief. This disclosure is preliminary and, because both fact and expert discovery are ongoing, may be supplemented in the future. Particular expert witnesses may be called to testify on multiple subjects within their fields of expertise. Specific references to expert witness subjects are not intended to narrow references to more general subjects, which should be given their broadest possible interpretation. No subject disclosed herein is intended to alter the scope of the Estimation Proceeding authorized by this Court in the Estimation Order or the Case Management Order. Materials upon which experts will rely are not listed comprehensively below, and the Debtor reserves the right for its experts to rely on any material. Subjects listed below may be duplicative of subjects the Debtor offers in rebuttal of the cases presented by the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants 1The last four digits of the Debtor’s taxpayer identification number are 5815. The Debtor’s address is 133 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

14

(“Committee”) and the Future Claimants’ Representative (the “FCR”). The Debtor reserves all rights to designate areas of rebuttal testimony in response to expert subjects designated by the Committee and the FCR, and to supplement this disclosure with additional expert testimony related to or in response to expert disclosures or reports offered by any other party. A. Fields of Expertise  Industrial hygiene  Pulmonology  Internal medicine  Epidemiology  Toxicology  Pathology  Genetics  Geology/petrology/mineralogy  Construction practices/engineering  Public health  Physics/optics  Psychology and neuroscience  The manufacture, marketing, and historical use of Bestwall Joint Compound Products and of asbestos-containing products made or sold by other manufacturers and distributors.  Asbestos claims analysis, forecasting, and estimation, including economics, econometrics, data science, statistics, and finance.  Law; asbestos litigation; the history of asbestos litigation against Debtor and other companies; the history of asbestos chapter 11 cases; the history, development, and structure of asbestos trusts and the asbestos trust system; and the relationship between the trust system and asbestos litigation in federal and state courts. B. Expert Witness Subjects 1. The joint compound products the former Georgia-Pacific LLC (“Old GP”) manufactured and sold before 1978, identified on pages 5-6 of the Estimation Order and in paragraph 3(d) of the Case Management Order (collectively, the “Bestwall Joint Compound Products”). 2. The formulas of and the process involved in the manufacture of the Bestwall Joint Compound Products, including the fiber type and content of the Bestwall Joint Compound Products made with asbestos as an added ingredient. 3. Old GP’s efforts to develop asbestos-free substitutes for the Bestwall Joint Compound Products made with asbestos as an added ingredient, and its efforts to market those products. 4. Old GP’s efforts to communicate information about asbestos to the users of its products, including through labeling. 5. Old GP’s sales and distribution networks for Bestwall Joint Compound Products.

15

6. Sales of the Bestwall Joint Compound Products, and sales of joint compounds by others in the United States. 7. Historical uses of Bestwall Joint Compound Products and of other manufacturers’ and distributors’ asbestos-containing products, including the methods and tools employed during typical use of those products, and the occupations that typically used those products. 8. Methods of construction sequencing and scheduling, including why construction projects are sequenced and scheduled the way they are. 9. Whether other trades would work in the same spaces as those installing and finishing drywall with joint compound, including the Bestwall Joint Compound Products. 10. 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. 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 non-asbestiform 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. 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. 17. Differences between asbestos fiber types, including how they differ in size, chemical composition, structure, surface chemistry, morphology, biopersistence, resistance to body defenses and other various media, surface charge, and functionality. 18. The role of industrial hygiene in protecting the health and safety of workers in the workplace, and the interaction of industrial hygiene and the use of asbestos and asbestos-containing products in the United States. 19. The various types of historical and currently manufactured asbestos-containing products and other uses of asbestos minerals, including their respective asbestos fiber type, content, and foreseeable use. 20. For the asbestos sources with which typical Bestwall claimants would come in contact, the asbestos content, fiber type, and potential airborne asbestos exposure associated with those sources. 21. Whether there is any reliable evidence that Bestwall Joint Compound Products contained asbestiform amphiboles. 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.

16

23. Historical and current information regarding bulk, air, and dust sampling and analytical methods for assessing the presence and airborne concentration of asbestos, including the proper use, application, and limitations of those methods. 24. Current and historical literature describing exposures from asbestos and asbestos-containing products. 25. How cumulative airborne exposure is produced by various exposures accumulating over time, and how it is measured in fiber/cc-years. 26. Airborne exposure assessments of individuals (including workers, bystanders, do-it-yourselfers, and household contacts) exposed to asbestos during the mining and milling of asbestos, from the manufacturing of asbestos products and materials, and from the foreseeable use of asbestos-containing products, and how the results of those airborne assessments compare to current and historical occupational exposure limits and recommendations. 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. 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. 29. Why the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and other regulatory or public health agencies do not regulate or recommend different exposure limits based on fiber type. 30. How a job exposure matrix can be constructed and used to assess the airborne asbestos exposures over time of various occupations. 31. How information from responses to the Personal Injury Questionnaire (“PIQ”) may be used to divide occupations into groups with similar work practices associated with intensity, frequency, proximity, and duration of contact with and foreseeable use of joint compound products, including Bestwall Joint Compound Products, and other asbestos exposure sources. 32. The estimated range of the cumulative airborne asbestos exposure from work with or around asbestos-containing products for typical individuals in the similar exposure groups. 33. The measured environmental asbestos levels, and sources of asbestos in the environment generally (i.e., ambient air), in the workplace environment, and in drinking water. 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. 35. Whether the use of settled dust methods or Tyndall or high intensity light methods provide a proper scientific basis for assessing exposure from work with asbestos and asbestos-containing products. 36. Whether respirable asbestos fibers can be identified while viewing videos of work activities recorded in natural light or during the use of so-called Tyndall lighting.

17

37. General medicine issues relevant to asbestos-related diseases, including lung, airway, and pleural anatomy, physiology, function, and other defense mechanisms, and the mechanisms by which asbestos fibers do or do not cause a particular disease. 38. How mesothelioma and the other asbestos-related diseases or conditions are diagnosed and treated. 39. The role of immunohistochemical and special staining in making the diagnosis and predicting prognosis of mesothelioma, and the role of molecular genetic analysis in identification of genetic abnormalities of mesothelioma. 40. The therapeutic use of talc in treating certain pleural and pulmonary conditions. 41. The differences between diffuse malignant mesothelioma and conditions for which the nomenclature may include “mesothelioma.” 42. The dose-response relationship for development of asbestos-related diseases, including mesothelioma, and the significance of dose in causation of an asbestos-related disease. 43. The latency period (time between first exposure to asbestos and onset of asbestos-related disease) associated with each type of asbestos-related disease, including mesothelioma. 44. The methods for determining causality of mesothelioma and other diseases, including determining whether and the extent to which an exposure to a substance caused or substantially contributed to causing an individual’s disease. 45. Whether the foreseeable handling, installation, removal, or contact, if any, with Bestwall Joint Compound Products by typical claimants or by workers in the occupations in each similar exposure group would be a substantial factor or producing cause of the mesothelioma of typical claimants in that group. 46. For the occupations and industries of typical current and future claimants, the cause of the mesothelioma of typical claimants, the correlation between the cumulative lifetime asbestos exposure from Bestwall Joint Compound Products to the levels associated with disease, and the relative contribution to total asbestos exposure by Bestwall Joint Compound Products. 47. Whether foreseeable work with and around Bestwall Joint Compound Products increased a worker’s real (as opposed to hypothetical) risk of asbestos-related disease. 48. Whether asbestos exposure from Bestwall Joint Compound Products was a substantial cause of, or a substantial contributing factor in causing, claimants’ mesothelioma. 49. The various kinds of evidence upon which medical, biological, and epidemiological science make causal determinations, and the proper role of each. 50. Concepts in epidemiologic studies, including confounding, statistical significance, relative risk and other risk ratios, p-values, confidence levels, and confidence intervals. 51. The epidemiology of mesothelioma, including the relative potency, if any, of the different fiber types to cause the disease, the cumulative exposure of asbestos by fiber type associated with disease, and the incidence of mesothelioma related to and not related to asbestos exposure. 52. Animal experiments and in vitro experiments as they relate to mesothelioma. 53. The methodology for evaluating the quality of scientific research, and the application of the methodology to the research relied upon by the experts in this case. 54. The significance, or lack thereof, of secondary medical and scientific publications such as reviews, commentary, and advocacy in assessing claims of causation.

18

55. The defects in methodology, data, or reasoning of publications asserting chrysotile causation of mesothelioma. 56. Methods for estimating future incidence of mesothelioma related to and not related to asbestos exposure. 57. The historical incidence and projected current and future incidence of mesothelioma related to and not related to asbestos exposure. 58. Whether and the extent to which joint compounds containing asbestos contributed to or will contribute to causing mesothelioma. 59. The relative risks of mesothelioma that may be asbestos related in various occupations and industries. 60. Whether every exposure to asbestos or every exposure above background exposure increases one’s risk of developing asbestos-related disease. 61. The cumulative exposure at which the various asbestos minerals have been shown to have a statistically significant increased risk associated with mesothelioma. 62. Whether low-dose exposure to chrysotile causes mesothelioma. 63. Whether exposure to talc causes mesothelioma. 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. 68. The effect of asbestos fiber length on toxicity. 69. Human and laboratory research studies, including cellular and molecular genetic studies on the causation of mesothelioma and the role of random errors in cell replication and germline mutations in causing mesothelioma. 70. Whether and the extent to which genetic mutations interact with environmental exposure to cause mesothelioma, and the methods for making those determinations. 71. Whether ambient or background exposure and background levels of asbestos fibers in human tissue present a risk of disease. 72. The health consequences of smoking, and the relationship between smoking and asbestos-related diseases. 73. How tissue fiber burden analysis is conducted, its significance, and the lung and other tissue burdens associated with various occupations and industries. 74. The mandates, missions, and goals of regulatory and public health agencies and organizations regarding the public’s health and the context of their statements regarding asbestos. 75. The methods for risk assessment and how risk assessment as used by regulatory and public health agencies and organizations differs from the methods for determining causation of disease. 76. The proper use of extrapolation and the linear no-threshold dose-response model in public health. 77. The processes by which people create, preserve, retrieve, and alter memories, and how various factors interact with and affect the reliability of those processes.

19

78. Whether methods used by plaintiff law firms to develop product identification testimony employ any of the safeguards memory science has developed to guard against false identification. 79. Whether methods used by plaintiff law firms to develop product identification testimony are likely to result in false identification, even without intentional dishonesty by lawyers or clients. 80. Applicable law and procedure concerning causation and other scientific topics in mesothelioma claims against Bestwall. 81. The number of current mesothelioma claims against the Debtor. 82. The projected number of future mesothelioma claims against the Debtor. 83. The demographic, occupational, and other relevant characteristics of persons who have been or will be diagnosed with mesothelioma and have asserted or will assert claims against the Debtor. 84. The number of projected mesothelioma claims against the Debtor by exposure groups, including the number of estimated current and future claimants in each exposure group. 85. Likelihood of recovery for claimants, if any, whose claims reach trial and the factors which impact the likelihood. 86. The number of claimants who are able, and will be able in the future, to identify contact with Bestwall Joint Compound Products, and the nature of such contact. 87. Methods by which products to which claimants were exposed or with which they came into contact are identified by claimants and defendants. 88. Significance of Old GP’s past trial verdicts for estimating likelihood of recovery. 89. Impact on the likelihood of recovery of differences between state procedure and the procedures under which asbestos claims would be litigated under Debtor’s plan of reorganization. 90. The aggregate total damages expected to be awarded to holders of mesothelioma claims who are able to obtain a judgment, from all potential defendants without taking into account set-off, credit, and apportionment. 91. The aggregate total damages expected to be awarded to claimants typical to the exposure groups who are able to obtain a judgment, from all potential defendants without taking into account set-off, credit, and apportionment. 92. Economic damages of holders of current and future mesothelioma claims against Bestwall. 93. Applicable law concerning the recovery a claimant may collect from a particular defendant, including Debtor. 94. The projected aggregate amounts that holders of mesothelioma claims will recover from sources other than Bestwall, including bankruptcy trusts and other defendants that are not in bankruptcy. 95. The projected aggregate value of Debtor’s set-off and contribution rights under applicable law. 96. The effect of Debtor’s apportionment rights, in states following some version of several liability, on the amount of judgments claimants could obtain against Debtor. 97. Trends and developments in the law concerning allocation of damages to particular defendants, as well as contribution, set-off, apportionment, and similar topics. 98. Trends and developments in the law governing liability in asbestos cases, including the law of causation.

20

99. Estimated predicted share of liability attributable to Bestwall for current and future mesothelioma claims. 100. Claimants’ responses to the PIQ and any additional discovery, and conclusions to be drawn therefrom in all relevant subject matter areas listed herein. 101. Materials from bankruptcy cases, including ballots and Bankruptcy Rule 2019 statements, and conclusions to be drawn therefrom in all relevant subject matter areas listed herein. 102. The history of asbestos litigation against Old GP, Bestwall, and other asbestos defendants, including: a. The nature of asbestos litigation since the 1970s. b. The organization and history of the asbestos plaintiffs’ bar. c. Fraud and other misconduct in asbestos litigation. d. How Old GP’s and Bestwall’s position in asbestos litigation has changed over time. e. Old GP’s and Bestwall’s historical costs for resolving and litigating asbestos claims. f. The history of non-malignant claiming. 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. h. Techniques practiced by asbestos plaintiffs’ law firms for generating product identification evidence against Old GP, Bestwall, and other defendants in asbestos cases. 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. 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. m. What economic modelling and analysis indicates regarding the impact of omission and concealment of exposure evidence on Old GP’s and Bestwall’s settlements after the Bankruptcy Wave. n. The history of asbestos bankruptcies, including the impact of the bankruptcies on tort litigation and the establishment, funding, and operation of Trusts and the evolution of trust distribution procedures. o. The nature of Trusts, including their procedures and payments. p. Fraud and abuse in connection with Trusts and asbestos litigation against Old GP, Bestwall, and other defendants. q. Legislative developments concerning Trusts in the United States Congress and state legislatures. r. Procedures for administering asbestos cases, and changes in such procedures, including procedures relating to Trusts. s. Trends in the total compensation received by asbestos claimants from all sources over time, and the sources of that compensation.

21

t. Trends in filings of asbestos claims against Old GP, Bestwall, and other defendants. u. Trends in Trust claiming practices of asbestos claimants, including the timing of Trust claims. v. Verdicts for and against Old GP in asbestos cases. w. Ethical rules for attorneys and their application in asbestos litigation. x. Trends in the total compensation received by lawyers representing asbestos claimants over time, and the sources of that compensation. y. Trends in the cost to Old GP and Bestwall of litigating mesothelioma claims. 103. General economic models of litigation, including models of incentives to litigate or settle cases, and conclusions to be drawn from historical verdicts in asbestos cases. The application of such models to Old GP’s and Bestwall’s history of asbestos litigation. 104. The economic impact of litigation costs on asbestos litigation against Old GP, Bestwall, and other defendants. 105. Economic models of the relationship among settlements, liability, and the costs of litigation. 106. The relationship between Old GP’s and Bestwall’s historical settlements in asbestos cases and Old GP’s and Bestwall’s liability under law. 107. The reasonable and necessary costs to Old GP and Bestwall of litigating mesothelioma claims to final judgment in state courts. 108. Differences between state procedure and the procedures under which asbestos claims would be litigated under Debtor’s plan of reorganization, and the impact on resolution costs and litigation costs. 109. Whether a mesothelioma plaintiff’s failure to disclose evidence of exposures from other asbestos-containing products affects a defendant’s costs to defend a case. 110. Whether a mesothelioma plaintiff’s failure to disclose evidence of exposures from other asbestos-containing products can materially affect a defendant’s substantial rights, including the defendant’s ability to fully and fairly present its defense. 111. Whether the number of asbestos-containing products to which a mesothelioma plaintiff was exposed and/or amount of such exposures affects a plaintiff’s likelihood of success against a single defendant. 112. Whether the number of asbestos-containing products to which a mesothelioma plaintiff was exposed and/or amount of such exposures affects the verdict amount against a defendant. 113. The extent to which past asbestos plaintiffs against Old GP and Bestwall failed to disclose evidence of exposures to asbestos, and the impact of any such practice on Old GP’s and Bestwall’s resolutions of asbestos cases. 114. Differences between financial reporting of expected expenditures and liability under law. 115. Amounts of Trust funding sufficient to pay current and future asbestos claimants against Bestwall in full and induce them to settle with the Trust. 116. Expenditures that would be required to satisfy asbestos claims under differing information regimes and cost structures. 117. The value of current and future mesothelioma claims against Bestwall based on alleged exposure to asbestos from Bestwall Joint Compound Products.

22

118. Appropriate discount and inflation rates for estimating the present value of current and future mesothelioma claims against Bestwall based on alleged exposure to asbestos from Bestwall Joint Compound Products. 119. Methods applicable to the construction of databases concerning asbestos claims and asbestos claimants. 120. Construction of the database relied upon to estimate Bestwall’s liability for current and future mesothelioma claims based on Bestwall Joint Compound Products. 121. The methodology and evidence for making the determinations about the subjects identified herein. 122. The education, training, experience, and qualifications necessary to become an expert in each area of testimony and the accepted methodology used in each area.

23

Dated: July 15, 2021 Respectfully submitted, Charlotte, North Carolina /s/ Garland S. Cassada Garland S. Cassada (NC Bar No. 12352) Richard C. Worf, Jr. (NC Bar No. 37143) ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900 Charlotte, North Carolina 28246 Telephone: (704) 377-2536 Facsimile: (704) 378-4000 E-mail: gcassada@robinsonbradshaw.com rworf@robinsonbradshaw.com Gregory M. Gordon (TX Bar No. 08435300) JONES DAY 2727 North Harwood Street, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 220-3939 Facsimile: (214) 969-5100 E-mail: gmgordon@jonesday.com (Admitted pro hac vice) Jeffrey B. Ellman (GA Bar No. 141828) JONES DAY 1221 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30361 Telephone: (404) 581-3939 Facsimile: (404) 581-8330 E-mail: jbellman@jonesday.com (Admitted pro hac vice) Cary Ira Schachter (TX 17719900) Raymond P. Harris, Jr. (TX 09088050) Erin A. Therrian (TX 24072524) SCHACHTER HARRIS, LLP 909 Lake Carolyn Parkway, Suite 1775 Irving, Texas 75039 Telephone: (214) 999-5700 E-mail: cschachter@shtriallaw.com rharris@shtriallaw.com etherrian@shtriallaw.com (Admitted pro hac vice) ATTORNEYS FOR DEBTOR AND DEBTOR IN POSSESSION

24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing was served via electronic mail to the following: Mark P. Goodman, Esq. (mpgoodman@debevoise.com) and M. Natasha Labovitz, Esq. (nlabovitz@debevoise.com) Debevoise & Plimpton LLC 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Counsel for Georgia Pacific LLC Natalie Ramsey, Esq. (nramsey@rc.com) Davis Wright, Esq. (dwright@rc.com) Robinson & Cole LLP 1201 North Market Street, Suite 1406 Wilmington, DE 19801 Glenn Thompson, Esq. (gthompson@lawhssm.com) Hamilton Stephens Steele + Martin, PLLC 525 North Tryon Street, Suite 1400 Charlotte, NC 28202 Counsel for Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants Edwin J. Harron (eharron@ycst.com); Sharon M. Zieg (szieg@ycst.com) Rodney Square Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP 1000 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Felton E. Parrish (felton.parrish@alexanderricks.com) Alexander Ricks PLLC 1420 E. 7th Street, Suite 100 Charlotte, NC 28204 Counsel for Future Claimants’ Representative This 15th day of July, 2021. /s/ Garland S. Cassada Garland S. Cassada

25

EXHIBIT C

26

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE 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’ PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUBJECTS OF EXPERT TESTIMONY AS REQUIRED BY THE ESTIMATION CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER As provided by Paragraph 8 of the Case Management Order for Estimation of the Debtor’s Liability for Mesothelioma Claims [Dkt. No. 1685] (the “CMO”), the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants (the “Committee”) makes this preliminary identification of the potential subjects of expert testimony in its estimation case-in-chief. 1. Estimation and Forecasting of Asbestos Liabilities 2. Market Share 3. Discount Rate 4. Statistics 5. Economics 6. Cell and Molecular Biology 7. Epidemiology and Public Health 8. Pathology 9. Industrial hygiene 10. Environmental Engineer 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.

27

11. Material science and Engineering 12. Medical Research Scientist 13. Medical Doctor(s) with experience that includes, but is not limited to, mesothelioma or medicine related to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases As provided by the CMO, the Committee will timely supplement this disclosure on a rolling basis if and when additional potential subjects of expert testimony are identified by the Committee. Dated: July 15, 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 Email: gthompson@lawhssm.com ROBINSON & COLE LLP Natalie D. Ramsey (admitted pro hac vice) Davis Lee Wright (admitted pro hac vice) 1201 North Market Street, Suite 1406 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302) 516-1700 Facsimile: (302) 516-1699 Email: nramsey@rc.com dwright@rc.com Counsel to the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants

28

EXHIBIT D

29

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION __________________________________________ : In re : Chapter 11 : BESTWALL LLC,1 : Case No. 17-31795 (LTB) : Debtor. : _________________________________________ : THE FUTURE CLAIMANTS’ REPRESENTATIVE’S PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUBJECTS OF EXPERT TESTIMONY AS REQUIRED BY THE ESTIMATION CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER As provided by Paragraph 8 of the Case Management Order for Estimation of the Debtor’s Liability for Mesothelioma Claims [Dkt. No. 1685] (the “CMO”), the Future Claimants’ Representative (the “FCR”) makes this preliminary identification of the potential subjects of expert testimony in its estimation case-in-chief and reserves all rights to amend or supplement this Disclosure. 1. Estimation and Forecasting of Asbestos Liabilities 2. Discount Rate 3. Economics 4. Statistics 5. Cell and Molecular Biology 6. Epidemiology and Public Health 7. Pathology 8. Industrial hygiene 9. Environmental Engineer   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.

30

10. Material Science and Engineering 11. Medical Research Scientist 12. Medical Doctor As provided by the CMO, the FCR will timely supplement this disclosure on a rolling basis if and when additional potential subjects of expert testimony are identified by the FCR. Dated: July 15, 2021 Charlotte, North Carolina ALEXANDER RICKS PLLC      /s/ Felton E. Parrish Felton E. Parrish (NC Bar No. 25448)  1420 E. 7th Street, Suite 100  Charlotte, NC 28204  Telephone: 704‐365‐3656  Facsimile: 704‐365‐3676  Email: felton.parrish@alexanderricks.com    ‐and‐    James L. Patton, Jr. (DE Bar No. 2202)  Edwin J. Harron (DE Bar No. 3396)  Sharon M. Zieg (NC Bar No. 29536)  Travis G. Buchanan (Delaware Bar No. 5595)  YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, L Rodney Square  1000 North King Street  Wilmington, Delaware 19801  Telephone: (302) 571‐6600  Facsimile: (302) 571‐1253  Email: jpatton@ycst.com    eharron@ycst.com    szieg@ycst.com    tbuchanan@ycst.com    Counsel to the Future Claimants’ Representative 

31