HTML Document View

Full title: Ex Parte Motion to Shorten Notice (RE: related document(s)1960 Motion (Other) filed by Debtor Bestwall LLC) filed by Garland S. Cassada on behalf of Bestwall LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Cassada, Garland) (Entered: 08/05/2021)

Document posted on Aug 4, 2021 in the bankruptcy, 5 pages and 0 tables.

Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)

On February 23, 2018, the Court entered an order [Dkt. 278] appointing Sander L. Esserman as the legal representative for future asbestos claimants (the “Future Claimants’ Representative” and together with the Asbestos Committee, the “Claimant Representatives”).The disclosures the Claimant Representatives served identify only broad fields of expertise but fail to comply with the Estimation CMO’s express requirement that parties also disclose the “subjects of expert testimony.”Meaningful disclosure of subjects of expert testimony is necessary 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.The failure to date by the Claimant Representatives to disclose subjects of expert testimony already undercuts the Debtor’s ability to timely serve preliminary rebuttal expert disclosures by August 16, 2021 as required under the Estimation CMO.In addition, the Motion asks the Court to interpret the requirements of paragraph 8 of the CMO, which is also an issue raised by the Asbestos Committee’s Motion In Limine Regarding Expert Discovery (Dkt. 1926) being heard on August 19.

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. EX PARTE MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING NOTICE Bestwall LLC (“Bestwall” or the “Debtor”), the debtor and debtor in possession in the above-captioned chapter 11 case, by this Motion hereby moves the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006 and Local Bankruptcy Rule 9006-1 for an order shortening the notice on Debtor’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Paragraph 8 of the Estimation Case Management Order (Dkt. 1960) (the “Motion”) and in support thereof respectfully represents as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this motion 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. 2. The statutory bases for the relief requested herein are Rule 9006(c) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) and Rules 9006-1 and 9013-1(f)(1) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina (the “Local Rules”). 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.

1

BACKGROUND 3. On November 2, 2017 (the “Petition Date”), the Debtor commenced this case (the “Chapter 11 Case”) by filing a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code. 4. On November 16, 2017, the Court entered an order [Dkt. 97] appointing an official committee of asbestos personal injury claimants (the “Asbestos Committee”) in the Chapter 11 Case. On February 23, 2018, the Court entered an order [Dkt. 278] appointing Sander L. Esserman as the legal representative for future asbestos claimants (the “Future Claimants’ Representative” and together with the Asbestos Committee, the “Claimant Representatives”). 5. Paragraph 8 of the Case Management Order for Estimation of the Debtor’s Liability for Mesothelioma Claims [Dkt. 1685] (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.” 6. The disclosures the Claimant Representatives served identify only broad fields of expertise but fail to comply with the Estimation CMO’s express requirement that parties also disclose the “subjects of expert testimony.” Meaningful disclosure of subjects of expert testimony is necessary 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. RELIEF REQUESTED 8 The Debtor respectfully requests that the Court enter an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, shortening the notice period and scheduling a hearing on the Debtor’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Paragraph 8 of the Estimation Case Management

2

Order for August 19, 2021 at 9:30 am or as soon thereafter as the Court is able to hear the matter and requiring any objections to be filed no later than August 16, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. ET, and any reply briefs to be filed no later than August 18, 2021 at 12:00 p.m. ET. BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED 9. Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9006(c)(1), “when an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court, the court for cause shown may in its discretion with or without motion or notice order the period reduced.” Under Local Rule 9013-1(f)(1), motions that may be considered on an ex parte basis under the Bankruptcy Rules may be heard on an ex parte basis. Bankruptcy Rule 9006(c)(1) permits motions to reduce time to be heard “with or without motion or notice,” and accordingly, this Motion may be heard on an ex parte basis under Local Rule 9013-1(f)(1). 10. Pursuant to Local Rule 9006-1, a request to shorten notice must, among other things, “stat[e] the reasons why shortened notice is necessary [and] identify[] the parties affected by the request.” 11. The parties affected by the Debtor’s request are the Asbestos Committee and Future Claimants’ Representative. The failure to date by the Claimant Representatives to disclose subjects of expert testimony already undercuts the Debtor’s ability to timely serve preliminary rebuttal expert disclosures by August 16, 2021 as required under the Estimation CMO. Shortened notice is necessary because, without a prompt resolution of the Motion, continued delay will impair the Debtor from preparing its rebuttal case and materially delay progress under the Estimation CMO. In addition, the Motion asks the Court to interpret the requirements of paragraph 8 of the CMO, which is also an issue raised by the Asbestos Committee’s Motion In Limine Regarding Expert Discovery (Dkt. 1926) being heard on August 19. Given the overlapping subject matter, both motions should be considered in tandem.

3

12. 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 at 6:00 p.m. ET. In the meantime, both Claimant Representatives have advised the Debtor that they do not read the Estimation CMO as requiring the detailed list of topics that the Debtor provided in its expert disclosures but they are willing to discuss the adequacy of their disclosures with the Debtor. 13. No prior request for the relief sought herein has been made to this Court or any other court. WHEREFORE, the Debtor respectfully requests that the Court enter an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, (a) granting the relief requested herein; and (b) granting such other and further relief to the Debtor as may be just and appropriate.. 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

4

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) ATTORNEYS FOR DEBTOR AND DEBTOR IN POSSESSION

5