HTML Document View

Full title: Ex parte application 1) To File Reply and Related Documents Under Seal Pursuant to LBR 5003-2(c) and Court Manual Setion 2.8(b); and 2) For Order Authorizing Hearings on Motions to be Held in Camera with Audio Recordings/Transcripts Sealed with Proof of Service Filed by Trustee Elissa Miller (TR) (Strok, Philip) (Entered: 08/02/2021)

Document posted on Aug 1, 2021 in the bankruptcy, 49 pages and 0 tables.

Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)

The Documents contain certain confidential information about7 the financial agreements between the Debtor and its co-counsel in the NFL Concussion 8 Litigation and Mesh Litigation, along with specific confidential settlement information 9 involving the BSC Litigation.2 If the Ex Parte Motio23 24 1 As defined later, the Motions collectively refer to the Trustee's NFL Concussion 25 Litigation Motion and the Mesh Litigation Motion.The Debtor's clients in the NFL Concussion Litigation 18 and Mesh Litigation need counsel to continue to represent them, and the Transition 19 Agreements provide the clients with clarity as to who they are being represented by. 21 E. Expert Opinions on the Value of the Debtor's Interests in the NFL 22 Concussion Litigation and Mesh Litigation are Irrelevant 23Moreover, as discussed 5 earlier, the value of the Debtor's interest in the NFL Concussion Litigation and Mesh 6 Litigation is either difficult or impossible to value.

List of Tables

Document Contents

1 SMILEY WANG-EKVALL, LLP Philip E. Strok, State Bar No. 169296 2 pstrok@swelawfirm.com Kyra E. Andrassy, State Bar No. 207959 3 kandrassy@swelawfirm.com Timothy W. Evanston, State Bar No. 319342 4 tevanston@swelawfirm.com 3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 5 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: 714 445-1000 6 Facsimile: 714 445-1002 7 Attorneys for Elissa D. Miller, Chapter 7 Trustee 8 9 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – LOS ANGELES DIVISION 11 In re Case No. 2:20-bk-21022-BR 2 0 0 92626 4 445-1 1123 G IRARDI KEESE, C TRhaUpSteTrE 7E 'S EX PARTE MOTION: ornia ax 71 a, Calif00 • F 14 (D1O) CTOU MFEILNET RSE UPNLDYE ARN SDE RAELL ATED s0 15 PURSUANT TO LBR 5003-2(c) AND e1 M5- COURT MANUAL SECTION 2.8(b); AND a 4 ost4 4 16 C71 (2) FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING el 17 HEARINGS ON MOTIONS TO BE HELD T Debtor. IN CAMERA WITH AUDIO 18 RECORDINGS/TRANSCRIPTS SEALED 19 20 21 TO THE HONORABLE BARRY RUSSELL, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE: 22 Elissa D. Miller, the chapter 7 trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Girardi Keese 23 (the "Trustee"), files this Ex Parte Motion: (1) To File Reply and Related Documents 24 Under Seal Pursuant to LBR 5003-2(c) and Court Manual Section 2.8(b); and (2) For 25 Order Authorizing Hearings on Motions to be Held In Camera With Audio 26 Recordings/Transcripts Sealed ( the "Ex Parte Motion"). In support of the Ex Parte 27 Motion, the Trustee submits the following memorandum of points and authorities and the28 attached Declarations of Elissa D. Miller and Jeffrey Nadrich.

1

1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 The Trustee's deadline to file her Reply to Erika's objections to the Motions1 is 3 August 3, 2021. By this Ex Parte Motion, the Trustee seeks authority to file the Reply 4 and the attached exhibit (the agreement between the Debtor and Goldberg Persky White 5 P.C.), along with the declarations of Jason Luckasevic and Jeffrey Nadrich (the 6 "Documents") under seal. The Documents contain certain confidential information about7 the financial agreements between the Debtor and its co-counsel in the NFL Concussion 8 Litigation and Mesh Litigation, along with specific confidential settlement information 9 involving the BSC Litigation.2 If revealed, this confidential information could provide the 10 defendants in the NFL Concussion Litigation and Mesh Litigation with a litigation 11 advantage that harms the clients and ultimately the Estate. As such, the Documents 2 0 0 92626 4 445-1 1123 sEhriokual dG birea rfdilei (d" Eurnikdae"r) sife tahle. DIno ccounmtreanstts, tahreer efi lewdil lu bned enro speraelj.u dTichee tTor uthsete oeb rjeemctianign sp waritllyin gornia ax 71 a, Calif00 • F 14 to enter into a non-disclosure agreement with Erika to allow her to receive the unredactes0 15 Documents. In fact, the parties have agreed to a non-disclosure agreement in principle, e1 M5- a 4 ost4 4 16 which the parties are currently documenting. A redacted version of the Documents and C1 7 el 17 proposed order are attached to this Ex Parte Motion as Exhibits "1" and "2," respectively. T 18 Through this Ex Parte Motion, the Trustee also requests that the hearings on the 19 Motions be held in camera and not be open to any party—either virtually, telephonically, 20 or in-person—who has not a signed a non-disclosure agreement and that the audio 21 recording/transcript of the hearings be sealed. The Trustee is concerned that confidenti22 information may be exposed during oral argument at the hearings. If the Ex Parte Motio23 24 1 As defined later, the Motions collectively refer to the Trustee's NFL Concussion 25 Litigation Motion and the Mesh Litigation Motion. 26 2 As noted in the Mesh Litigation Motion, the Mesh Litigation consists of two different sets of cases against two primary defendants. One case against Boston 27 Scientific Corporation (the "BSC Litigation") and another case against Johnson & 28 Johnson et al. (the "J&J Litigation").

2

1 is granted but the hearing on the Motions remains open to the public, the Trustee's goal 2 of protecting confidential information will be eviscerated. 3 For these reasons, the Court should grant the Ex Parte Motion. 4 5 II. BACKGROUND 6 A. The Trustee's Motions and Previous Ex Parte Motion 7 On June 9, 2021, the Trustee filed a Motion for Order Authorizing the Transition 8 and Assignment of the Estate's Interests in the NFL Concussion Litigation to Goldberg 9 Persky White P.C. Free and Clear of Liens, Claims and Interests Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 10 § 363 [Docket No. 389] ("the NFL Concussion Litigation Motion"). 11 On June 17, 2021, the Trustee filed an ex parte motion to file the Motion for Order2 0 0 92626 4 445-1 1123 Atou Nthaodrirzicinhg & t hCeo Threann LsiLtiPo na nadn dT Ahes sOigsnhmmeannt Fofir tmhe, LELsCta Ftere'se I natnedre Cstles ainr othf eC Mlaiemssh aLnitdig ationornia ax 71 a, Calif00 • F 14 Interests Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363 (the "Mesh Litigation Motion"). On June 22, 2021,s0 15 the Court entered an order granting the Trustee's ex parte motion to file the Mesh e1 M5- a 4 ost4 4 16 Litigation Motion under seal [Docket No. 417]. Accordingly, on June 23, 2021, the C1 7 el 17 Trustee filed the Mesh Litigation Motion [Docket No. 428] (the NFL Concussion LitigationT 18 Motion and the Mesh Litigation Motion collectively, the "Motions"). 19 On June 28, 2021, Erika Girardi ("Erika") filed an Objection of Party-In-Interest 20 Erika Girardi to Chapter 7 Trustee's Motion for Order Authorizing the Transition of the 21 Estate's Interest in the NFL Concussion Litigation to Goldberg Persky White P.C. Free 22 and Clear of Liens, Claims and Interests Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363 [Docket No. 445]. 23 On July 7, 2021, Erika filed an Objection of Party-Interest Erika Girardi to Chapter24 7 Trustee's Motion for Order Authorizing the Transition and Assignment of the Estate's 25 Interest in the Mesh Litigation to Nadrich & Cohen LLP and The Oshman Firm, LLC Free26 and Clear of Liens, Claims and Interests Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363 [Docket No. 481]. 27 28

3

1 On July 20, 2021, the Trustee filed a Notice of Hearings on the Motions [Docket 2 No. 501]. A hearing is currently scheduled for August 10, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. 3 Accordingly, the Trustee's Reply to Erika's objections is due on August 3, 2021. 4 B. The Non-Disclosure Agreement with Erika 5 The Trustee is willing to enter into a non-disclosure agreement with Erika so that 6 she can view the confidential information set forth in the Documents without prejudicing 7 the Estate by revealing the information publicly. The Trustee and Erika have agreed to a8 non-disclosure agreement in principle and are currently documenting it. 9 10 III. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 11 A. Legal Standards for Filing Pleadings Under Seal 2 0 0 92626 4 445-1 1123 LBR 50(10)3 -F2il(icn)g p Uronvdideer sS:e al. Subject to 11 U.S.C. § 107, a ornia ax 71 document may not be filed under seal without a prior written a, Calif00 • F 14 oserdpearr aotfe t hmeo ctioounr tr.e qIfu ae sfitliinngg suuncdhe rr esleieafl aisn dre aq uperostpeods,e ad order s0 15 must be presented to the judge in the manner set forth in the e1 M5- Court Manual. a 4 ost4 4 16 C71 (2) Disclosure of Sealed Documents. No sealed or el 17 confidential record of the court maintained by the clerk will be T disclosed except upon written order of the court. A party 18 seeking disclosure of sealed or confidential court records must file and serve a motion pursuant to LBR 9013-1(d) or (o). 19 The motion must state with particularity the need for specific information in such records. 20 The Court Manual at section 2.8(b) provides: 21 Filing Documents Under Seal [LBR 5003-2(c)]. No 22 documents may be presented to the court for filing under seal unless and until the court has granted a motion authorizing 23 the filing of such documents under seal. All motions for authority to file documents under seal must be filed 24 electronically, if the filer is an attorney. 25 (1) The motion should include as exhibits, or in a separate appendix also filed electronically, the documents that the 26 movant seeks to file under seal with the confidential portions redacted; provided, however, that, if the documents 27 are voluminous, the motion may be accompanied by a declaration under penalty of perjury to this effect and a 28

4

1 schedule of the documents that movant seeks to file under seal. 2 (2) The motion must describe the nature of the information 3 that the party asserts is confidential (without disclosing the confidential information itself) and explain why the information 4 should not be publicly disclosed. 5 (3) If and when the court grants the motion for authority to file documents under seal, unredacted versions of the 6 documents, together with an entered copy of the order authorizing the sealed filing, should be presented for filing 7 under seal in the manner directed by the court in its order authorizing the filing under seal. Additional information 8 regarding the process of filing a document under seal is available by calling Case Initiation, as listed in Court Manual 9 Appendix A, at the division where the case is pending. [Bold emphasis in original.] 10 B. The Court Should Permit the Documents to be Filed Under Seal 11 2 The Documents should be filed under seal to the protect the Debtor's clients and 0 0 92626 4 445-1 1123 the Estate. The Documents contain information about the financial arrangements ornia ax 71 entered into between the Debtor and its co-counsel in both the NFL Concussion Litigatioa, Calif00 • F 14 and the Mesh Litigation. Moreover, the Documents contain confidential information abous0 15 e1 M5- a settlement amount that the Debtor has agreed to in the BSC Litigation. The informatioa 4 ost4 4 16 C71 concerning the financial arrangements between the parties, along with the settlement el 17 T details of the BSC Litigation is confidential. If revealed, there is the risk that this 18 confidential information could provide the defendants in both the NFL Concussion 19 Litigation and the Mesh Litigation with an advantage and opportunity to hone their 20 litigation strategy to the detriment of the clients and the Estate. 21 There will be no prejudice to Erika if this Ex Parte Motion is granted. The Trustee 22 and Erika are currently documenting a non-disclosure agreement under which Erika will 23 receive unredacted copies of the Documents. This Court previously authorized the 24 Trustee to file the Mesh Litigation Motion under seal, and similar reasons warrant that th25 Documents be filed under seal. Further, the redacted information is limited and only 26 includes the specific financial terms described in the Documents. Aside from Erika, no 27 28

5

1 other parties have opposed the Motions. As such, the prejudice to the clients and the 2 Estate far outweighs any prejudice to Erika or other parties. 3 This Ex Parte Motion complies with LBR 5003-2(c)(1) and Section 2.8 of the Cour 4 Manual. A redacted version of the Documents and a proposed order are attached as 5 Exhibits "1" and "2," respectively. As discussed above, the Ex Parte Motion sets forth th6 nature of the information that the Trustee asserts is confidential and explains why the 7 information should not be publicly disclosed. Accordingly, the Ex Parte Motion should be8 granted. 9 C. Request that the Hearings on the Motions Be Held In Camera and the 10 Audio Recording/Transcripts of the Hearings Be Sealed 11 The Motions involve confidential information that could harm the Estate and the 2 0 0 92626 4 445-1 1123 Dbee betxopr'oss celdie dnutsr iinf ge xopraols aerdg.u mTheen tT arut sthteee h iesa croinngcse.r nIfe tdh eth Eatx c Poanrftidee Mntoiatilo inn fiosr gmraatniotend m bauyt ornia ax 71 a, Calif00 • F 14 the hearing on the Motions remains open to the public, the Trustee's goal of protecting s0 15 confidential information will be effectively undercut. Given the publicity surrounding the e1 M5- a 4 ost4 4 16 Debtor's case, the request for the hearings on the Motions to be held in camera and the C1 7 el 17 audio recording/transcript of the hearings sealed is necessary to protect the Estate and T 18 the Debtor's clients. The parties should be free to argue the merits of the Motions withou19 risk of prejudicing the Estate and the Debtor's clients. Accordingly, the Trustee requests20 that the hearings on the Motions be held in camera and not open to any party—either 21 virtually, telephonically, or in-person—who has not a signed a non-disclosure agreement22 and that the audio recording/transcript of the hearings be sealed until further order of this23 Court. 24 25 26 27 3 The declarants Jason Luckasevic, Jeffrey Nadrich, and their offices and counsel, 28 are not subject to this requirement.

6

1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court enter an order3 providing for the following relief: 4 1. Granting this Ex Parte Motion; 5 2. Authorizing the Trustee to file the Reply, Exhibit, Declaration of Jeffrey 6 Nadrich and Declaration of Jason Luckasevic under seal, with the Documents filed in 7 redacted form on ECF in the form attached as Exhibit "1"; 8 3. Authorizing the hearings on the Motions to be held in camera and not open9 to any person or party either virtually, telephonically, or in-person, that has not signed a 10 non-disclosure agreement concerning the Motions beforehand and that the audio 11 recording/transcript of the hearings be sealed and remain under seal until further order o2 0 0 92626 4 445-1 1123 this Co4u.rt; andF or such other relief as the Court may deem just and necessary. ornia ax 71 a, Calif00 • F 14 s0 15 DATED: August 2, 2021 Respectfully submitted, e1 M5- a 4 ost4 4 16 SMILEY WANG-EKVALL, LLP C1 7 el 17 T 18 By: 19 PHILIP E. STROK Attorneys for Elissa D. Miller, Chapter 7 20 Trustee 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

7

1 DECLARATION OF ELISSA D. MILLER 2 I, Elissa D. Miller, declare as follows: 3 1. I am the duly appointed Chapter 7 Trustee in the bankruptcy case of Girard 4 Keese. I am also a partner at the law firm SulmeyerKupetz, a Professional Corporation. 5 I know each of the following facts to be true of my own personal knowledge, except as 6 otherwise stated and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify with 7 respect thereto. I make this declaration in support of the Trustee's Ex Parte Motion: (1) 8 To File Reply and Related Documents Under Seal Pursuant to LBR 5003-2(c) and Court 9 Manual Section 2.8(b); and (2) For Order Authorizing Hearings on Motions to Be Held in 10 Camera With Audio Recordings/Transcripts Sealed (the "Ex Parte Motion"). Unless 11 otherwise defined in this declaration, all terms defined in the Ex Parte Motion are 2 0 0 92626 4 445-1 1123 incorpo2r.a ted hTehree iDn ebbyt othr iws aresf ecroeunncsee.l of record for approximately 100 plaintiffs in the ornia ax 71 a, Calif00 • F 14 NFL Concussion Litigation. I recently entered into a transition agreement on behalf of ths0 15 Estate whereby I agreed to transfer the Estate's interest in the NFL Concussion Litigatioe1 M5- a 4 ost4 4 16 to Goldberg Persky White P.C. C1 7 el 17 3. I am informed that it is in the best interest of the Estate to file the T 18 Documents under seal to protect certain information regarding the fee arrangement 19 between the parties, as the disclosure could weaken and provide the defendants in the 20 NFL Concussion Litigation with a litigation advantage and strategy to challenge the 21 plaintiffs' claims to the detriment of the Estate and the clients. A redacted version of the 22 Documents along with a proposed order are attached to this Ex Parte Motion as Exhibits23 "1" and "2," respectively. 24 4. The Motions involve confidential information that could harm the Estate an25 the Debtor's clients if exposed. I am concerned that confidential information may be 26 exposed during oral argument at the hearings. If the Ex Parte Motion is granted but the 27 hearing on the Motions remains open to the public, my goal of protecting confidential 28 information will be eviscerated. Given the publicity surrounding the Debtor's case, the

8

1 request for the hearing on the Motions to be held in camera and that the audio 2 recording/transcript of the hearings be sealed is necessary to protect the Estate and the 3 Debtor's clients. 4 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America 5 that the foregoing is true and correct. 6 Executed on this __30___ day of July, 2021, at Los Angeles, California. 7 8 ELISSA D. MILLER 9 10 11 2 0 0 92626 4 445-1 1123 ornia ax 71 a, Calif00 • F 14 s0 15 e1 M5- a 4 ost4 4 16 C1 7 el 17 T 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

9

1 DECLARATION OF JEFFREY NADRICH 2 I, Jeffrey Nadrich, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts in the 4 State of California and the United States District Court. I am a partner at the law firm of 5 Nadrich & Cohen, LLP. I know each of the following facts to be true of my own personal 6 knowledge, except as otherwise stated and, if called as a witness, I could and would 7 competently testify with respect thereto. I make this declaration in support of the 8 Trustee's Ex Parte Motion: (1) To File Reply and Related Documents Under Seal 9 Pursuant to LBR 5003-2(c) and Court Manual Section 2.8(b); and (2) For Order 10 Authorizing Hearings on Motions to Be Held in Camera With Audio 11 Recordings/Transcripts Sealed (the "Ex Parte Motion"). Unless otherwise defined in thi2 0 0 92626 4 445-1 1123 dreefcelraernactieo.n , all terms defined in the Ex Parte Motion are incorporated herein by this ornia ax 71 a, Calif00 • F 14 2. Our law firm and The Oshman Firm will move ahead with the litigation s0 15 process against Ethicon, a division of Johnson & Johnson (hereinafter "Ethicon") and e1 M5- a 4 ost4 4 16 Boston Scientific pursuant to the court's order approving the Mesh Litigation Motion. C1 7 el 17 While the cases in the BSC Litigation are in settlement mode, those involving Ethicon T 18 continue to be actively litigated with hundreds of other cases before the Superior Court, 19 State of New Jersey. Ethicon is a sophisticated party to litigate against. From the 20 experience of Nadrich & Cohen, LLP and The Oshman Firm, LLC litigating against them 21 for over 10 years, we have clearly observed the many factors they consider in how they 22 litigate and against whom they focus their emphasis. 23 3. It is my utmost concern that if Ethicon obtains any information regarding th24 financial arrangements between the Debtor and N&O, Ethicon will be motivated to focus 25 on the cases the Trustee seeks to transition to the detriment of the injured plaintiffs and 26 the Estate. The reason for this is the rationale employed by many Defendants in litigatio27 of this type that financial factors motivate how attorneys handle cases. Ethicon can 28 implement a strategy of either seeking more of the Debtor's cases set for bellwether trial,

10

1 implement as trategy of either seeking moroef th e Debtor's cases set for bellwether tri2 or, if and when settldeismcuessniotns occur, make reduocffeersd o n the Debtor's ca3 based upon their perception that the litigating attorneys have ar educed financial intere4 Asa r esuilittsm , y b eleift htahteC outrs houlpdl aucndee sre atelh 4. 5 Documecnotnst atihnceio nngf idiennftoiramrlae tgiaortndh iMene gs Lhi tigaanttd6 finaanrcriaanlg ebmeetnwtetseh pnea rties. Id ecluanrdee r poefpn earljutunyrd yte hrle a wosft hUen itSetda toefAs m er7 8 9 10 N 11 � :i;� ; 12 ;t Ill .m ,-.. i 1�3 i; C- • .1o 4 I � :Eiu', i15 8:!: ,-.. 16 � 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

11

EXHIBIT " " 1

12

1 SMILEY WANG-EKVALL, LLP Philip E. Strok, State Bar No. 169296 2 pstrok@swelawfirm.com Kyra E. Andrassy, State Bar No. 207959 3 kandrassy@swelawfirm.com Timothy W. Evanston, State Bar No. 319342 4 tevanston@swelawfirm.com 3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 5 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: 714 445-1000 6 Facsimile: 714 445-1002 7 Attorneys for Elissa D. Miller, Chapter 7 Trustee 8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — LOS ANGELES DIVISION 10 In re Case No. 2:20-bk-21022-BR 11 MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002  1111123456 G IRARDI KEESE, Debtor. C OT (AAILWNAIRShUMTHT)aU STINE IGpTMIHSRGItAEBeTOOENr TUEPT RSM7IESOI.IT OCZE' SNSRI.NN N: EFI TTGNFRPO O O ELTT RGYFEHH OEEOTIANL H RNNT DSEDDRFBU LE AECEP RSNCLRP TSOEGOAIANT RTPIRCOTEE U 'ONROSS FS FAS K NIOYDN S T 17 LIENS, CLAIMS AND INTERESTS PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 363; AND 18 (B) MOTION FOR ORDER 19 AUTHORIZING THE TRANSITION AND ASSIGNMENT OF THE ESTATE'S 20 INTERESTS IN THE MESH LITIGATION TO NADRICH & COHEN LLP AND THE 21 OSHMAN FIRM, LLC, FREE AND CLEAR OF LIENS, CLAIMS AND 22 INTERESTS PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 363 23 [Declarations of Jason Luckasevic and 24 Jeffrey Nadrich filed concurrently] 25 Date: August 10, 2021 Time: 2:00 p.m. 26 Ctrm.: 1668 255 E. Temple Street 27 Los Angeles, California 90012 28 2877601.4 REPLY

13

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 3 I.  INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 3  4 II.  SUPPLEMENTAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 4  5 A.  The NFL Concussion Litigation .................................................................... 4  6 B.  Settlement of the NFL Concussion Litigation ............................................... 5  7 C.  The Mesh Litigation ...................................................................................... 6  8 D.  Current Status of the Mesh Litigation ........................................................... 7  9 E.  Recent Proceedings in the Debtor's Bankruptcy Case ................................. 8 10 III.  LEGAL ARGUMENT ............................................................................................... 8 11 A.  Erika Has No Standing ................................................................................. 8 MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002  1111123456 BCDE....     TETtTJEhuhhhxseseeept atD eiTTTtfreiectrrr aaab.aO.nnnt.to.ipsss.or.iiii.n'nttts.iii. oooi .oBC.nnn.ne.l i.sAAAce. .agggno..urrrtn.seee.s . eeete..h..mmm ..eT....eee ..hV..nnn..e..attt..ysss..l u.. A..PAAe....rrrr ..eo..oee.. f.v .R .SI.it.n.dh.e.u. .eeat..ph.. s..paDe..o..on ..enB..r ..btOa..ee..tb..posd..l..ttr e.. ib'..mIs ...ny ...I...at n...ea..l. t...r Oe...Ve...r...sua...e..t.tl. ..sic.o..dt...osf... ...Bm t...ih...nu...ee... s... t ...fihE...no...e...ers... ...stNt...ahs...F...te ...e...L ... ...a ......n....d...... .................... 111403   S T 17 Concussion Litigation and Mesh Litigation are Irrelevant ........................... 14 18 IV.  CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 15  19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2877601.4 REPLY

14

1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page 3 CASES  4 Abbott v. Daff (In re Abbott), 5 183 B.R. 198 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995) ........................................................................ 9 6 Fondiller v. Robertson (In re Fondiller), 707 F.2d 441 (9th Cir. 1983) ............................................................................. 9, 10 7 In re Autosport Int'l, Inc., 8 2013 WL 3199826 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. June 24, 2013) .............................................. 8 9 Sheen v. Diamond (In re Am. Comput. & Dig. Components, Inc.), 2005 WL 6960172 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. May 12, 2005) .................................................. 8 10 Wigley v. Wigley (In re Wigley), 11 886 F.3d 681 (8th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................... 9 MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002  1111123456 S11T AUT.SU.TCE. S§  363 ................................................................................................................. 2 S T 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2877601.4 REPLY

15

1 TO THE HONORABLE BARRY RUSSELL, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE: 2 Elissa D. Miller, the chapter 7 trustee (the "Trustee") for the bankruptcy estate (the 3 "Estate") of Girardi Keese (the "Debtor"), submits this omnibus reply ("Reply") in support 4 of the Trustee's (A) Motion for Order Authorizing the Transition and Assignment of the 5 Estate's Interests in the NFL Concussion Litigation to Goldberg Persky White P.C. Free 6 and Clear of Liens, Claims and Interests Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363 [Docket No. 389] 7 (the "NFL Concussion Litigation Motion"); and (B) Motion for Order Authorizing the 8 Transition and Assignment of the Estate's Interests in the Mesh Litigation to Nadrich & 9 Cohen LLP and The Oshman Firm, LLC, Free and Clear of Liens, Claims and Interests 10 Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363 [Docket No. 428] (the "Mesh Litigation Motion") (the NFL 11 Concussion Litigation Motion and the Mesh Litigation Motion collectively, the "Motions").1 MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002  1111123456 Tthhee M Roetpi olyn sa:d dOOCrorbednjseecscrue tAsisos untihto hoenof frLPoiziltaliiongrtwgay ti-tinIhongen- I pnTtoltere aaGrndeosisnlidttg iboEsenr irf kioglaef P dtGhe beirrysa E krEdysr iti Waktotaeh C'iGsteh iIr anPaptr.edtCerie. r ( sF"7tEr eiTrnierk ut ahas"ent)e doNe bC'FsjelL eMc atoirn toigof nto f or S T 17 Liens, Claims and Interests Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363 [Docket No. 445]; 18 and 19  Objection of Party-In-Interest Erika Girardi to Chapter 7 Trustee's Motion for 20 Order Authorizing the Transition of the Estate's Interest in the Mesh 21 Litigation to Nadrich & Cohen LLP and The Oshman Firm, LLC Free and 22 Clear of Liens, Claims and Interests Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363 [Docket 23 No. 481]. 24 25 26 27 1 Unless otherwise defined in this Reply, capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings 28 ascribed to them in the Motions. 2877601.4 REPLY

16

1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 The Motions should be granted and the objections overruled. First and foremost, 3 Erika has no standing to object. Assuming arguendo that Erika does have standing, her 4 objections have no basis and are completely devoid of any evidence. Instead, Erika 5 relies on alleged conversations between her counsel and unnamed sources that have 6 stated the Debtor's cases are "extremely valuable." These unidentified sources, who 7 Erika admits are competitors of the Debtor, provide no basis for their opinions. Based on 8 this speculation, Erika suggests that the Trustee is "giving" away Estate value. This 9 suggestion is short sighted. Erika ignores that the transition agreements in the Motions 10 (the "Transition Agreements") provide value to the Estate by avoiding the risk that the 11 Estate is left only to assert inferior quantum meruit claims. Conjecture and false MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002  1111123456 atccholsieeus nunEtmssse.tpT al ,thtI iefaoe .tnn hT dsMer a ataThrnkeersae iTnnt inorsouotint s ig motArenoiges uAr tewangekdirlmeesl beeatoemnb todfesauen cstnte shiytd o, a t uthwrheledie t n h MbDo epote rtaaboiopptvonppinrsrr g.oois v v u nee p odd ,q lbocuenlaicegnanetuutrss mi nea mrateh e pefrroyue siepti t rciteoolasn rie metrotvsa e sian evt r anvaleiu clwieek efiotlsyr S T 17 sizeable loss to the Estate. Importantly, the Transition Agreements also protect the 18 Debtor's clients. The Transition Agreements eliminate any confusion for the Debtor's 19 clients as to who represents them, while also providing them with qualified counsel who 20 can continue to protect their interests. In short, the Transition Agreements should be 21 approved because they are supported by a valid business justification and are in the best 22 interest of the Estate. 23 The Trustee is legitimately concerned that Erika's objections represent her latest 24 effort to interfere with the Trustee's administration of the Debtor's case, and are part of a 25 larger campaign to hinder the Trustee's investigation of claims against Erika. The Court 26 recently entered an order approving the Trustee's application to employ special litigation 27 counsel to pursue the Estate's claims against Erika. Prior to special litigation counsel's 28 employment, the Trustee filed five motions to transition cases to qualified counsel. Erika 2877601.4 REPLY

17

1 opposed none. Only when faced with a pending investigation has Erika's "shared 2 interest" for the Debtor's victims conveniently materialized. Erika's feigned concern is 3 nothing more than a distraction. In reality, Erika's objections could derail the Trustee's 4 work to maximize the Estate's value for the same creditors she claims to be looking after. 5 There is no dispute that Erika is entitled to defend herself against the Trustee's 6 investigation and adversary proceeding. But Erika's defense should not spill over into the 7 Trustee's work to maximize value for the Estate and protect the Debtor's former clients. 8 Her defense should not be at the cost of the Debtor's victims and current clients. 9 For all of these reasons, the Court should grant the Motions. 10 11 II. SUPPLEMENTAL BACKGROUND MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002 1111123456 hLthaiteivgseae t sicouAPanfr.fse"ee)-r.spe .edG Tt Oiocthiolnoden nb ocN,er ut rFhasgLseb P i ooCDeunoert snibDnktcjeoyuu crrW sieresemhsipio btfrerneeo s rPmL e2.inC t6rite,.ge p2(ad"e0t Gaia1oPpt2nepW,d rto h"b)xe liow mDwaaesstb etntoloya r tm1 ha0een0 ddh N eaGasFP dLc W o(pt-h lcaeeoyn ue"teNnrsrsFe ecLdll aoCinifmo tronein ccaguo Lsrtodesi toitnen r S T 17 of Agreement regarding the NFL Concussion Litigation. See Ex. "1." Under the Letter of 18 Agreement, the Debtor, GPW, and another firm, Russomano & Borrello ("RB") agreed to 19 fee sharing arrangements depending mainly on the origination of the specific case. 20 Depending on the case, the Debtor would receive either of the 21 attorneys' fees recovered after the payment of any referral fees. In addition, the Letter of 22 Agreement provided that the Debtor would be responsible for general litigation costs. Id. 23 GPW contends that the Debtor breached this obligation, instead leaving GPW to pay 24 nearly $2 million in costs throughout the NFL Concussion Litigation. See Declaration of 25 Jason Luckasevic. 26 Notwithstanding the Letter of Agreement, the court in the NFL Concussion 27 Litigation has entered an order modifying the fee agreements between plaintiffs and their 28 counsel, with plaintiffs' counsel only entitled to receive of all recoveries for their 2877601.4 REPLY

18

1 attorneys' fees. Moreover, counsel for plaintiffs are required to divert of any amount 2 recovered to a common benefit fund. In sum, the plaintiffs' firms involved in the NFL 3 Concussion Litigation will receive just of any sum recovered, with the potential to 4 receive some proceeds from the common benefit fund. See Declaration of Jason 5 Luckasevic. 6 During the NFL Concussion Litigation, GPW, RB, and the Debtor entered into a 7 loan agreement with Virage SPV 1, LLC ("Virage"), where Thomas Girardi agreed to 8 guarantee the Debtor's obligations under the loan agreement. Currently, Virage asserts 9 to hold a secured claim against the Debtor's recovery of attorneys' fees in the NFL 10 Concussion Litigation. 11 B. Settlement of the NFL Concussion Litigation MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002 1111123456 r(NthethFeseLu o l"twtGehadTelos hrib neopa naaNl er PtFd ypreL owaf tiCrnoittoyicht ion vhilcne"au)d v.cse i onspTnigeohc nneiltud s Lss eoieitnoiwtgttn lnael.e tm ligeAoaegn lcna hrotle amprpesupr ptesl riisicenneas cpnteeeltna adstct aeigeottl itnooale.bn td a,wT .la ho pnHe-rpd ooGa tweorlatoecycbvo hcael l lrgaf ,oPo imsrvrmeoe tstertoylnrecs smNot etlFeh munLet t iwl psihzelhaaeteytsslree enarmi o nwet tanhste S T 17 complicated, multi-factor formula to calculate the threshold amount of a player's claim. 18 Specifically, the formula looks at whether the player was alive at a given date. From this 19 date, a player then has 65 years going forward to file a claim for brain injury 20 compensation. The formula also requires the player to have played a certain number of 21 seasons compared to the player's age, and considers the player's degree of injury. This 22 information is then input into a formula which then determines the amount of the claim. 23 See Declaration of Jason Luckasevic. 24 The players are not entitled to settlement proceeds automatically. To eventually 25 receive settlement proceeds, the players file an initial statement of claim after completion 26 of a lengthy test battery with two settlement-approved physicians. One evaluation in and 27 of itself by the neuropsychologist includes a test that spans 6 hours. If the player's 28 evaluation results in an approved qualifying diagnosis, then the player must submit a 2877601.4 REPLY

19

1 claim to the claims administrator, Brown Greer ("BG"). The claims process is filled with 2 complications throughout, including navigating a 126 page settlement agreement and 374 3 Frequently Asked Questions found on www.nflconcussionsettlement.com. To date, of the 4 class of over 20,000 former NFL players, just 1,220 former players have received a 5 monetary award from this settlement claims process. See Declaration of Jason 6 Luckasevic. 7 Once the claim is filed, BG performs an initial review of the claim. Based on the 8 initial review, BG may either reject the claim, request additional information from the 9 claimant, or cite other issues. After the initial review, BG then conducts an initial 10 administration determination. Under the Global Protocol, the NFL is entitled (and in fact 11 does) appeal these determinations. BG is also entitled to assign review of the claim sua MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002  1111123456 spedrepvleasoafioennlulntvtaiedfeft is intnto'hg g ce a ott h hpupeelnaaiirsnry eceeplllr aa usosi'mnf t c de mlteaxherpirm doethisurcet,gsa ah Gls sohel ouiclsebtlt acaothitlrme yePd,s rc sobhlcatyaohi mvcteheodse l ua,p Nl air6nosF5gc L p ey.el seav sCaya.eru l u rwrIsanrei t nnisnodehtnoleoyswdr,, t m,ast otusuh sbbceimhes st iawsettuntiotnbclregekmm criinteelta emnsimdtia m dsainip,nd slad y nnf orodert qlfauutlielryer S T 17 continued prosecution. Currently, GPW's efforts have caused over 70 of its 400 plus 18 clients to receive a monetary award. See Declaration of Jason Luckasevic. 19 C. The Mesh Litigation 20 As detailed in the Trustee's Mesh Litigation Motion, the Mesh Litigation involves 21 two different sets of cases against two primary defendants, Johnson & Johnson, et al. 22 (the "J&J Litigation") and Boston Scientific Corporation (the "BSC Litigation"). 23 Prepetition, the Debtor represented approximately 30 plaintiffs in the J&J Litigation and 24 approximately 22 plaintiffs in the BSC Litigation. The contingency fee for counsel in the 25 Mesh Litigation was either Pursuant to the Debtor's approximately 20 26 co-counsel/referral agreements with Nadrich, the Debtor was to receive of the 27 attorneys' fees to be recovered in the Mesh Litigation after referral fees are paid. The 28 Trustee has been informed that the majority of the Debtor's cases were referred, with 2877601.4 REPLY

20

1 referring counsel entitled to receive of attorneys' fees recovered. In addition, the 2 Trustee has been informed that the court in the J&J Litigation was on the verge of 3 dismissing the Debtor's clients for lack of prosecution. However, the court ultimately 4 declined to do so upon N&O's representation that the Trustee was seeking an order from 5 this Court approving the transition of cases to N&O. See Declaration of Jeffrey Nadrich. 6 D. Current Status of the Mesh Litigation 7 In the BSC Litigation, the Debtor has agreed to a proposed aggregate settlement 8 amount of . But this does not mean that the BSC Litigation has concluded. 9 Currently, not a single plaintiff has received a settlement offer, nor has a single plaintiff 10 agreed to the settlement and signed a release. Moreover, before the settlement award is 11 made to any plaintiff, a settlement master must first be retained and paid for. Next, all MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002  1111123456 mssnbeeoaetttcttd llkaeei cgmmtaorelee ledinnt iottgt ocmmau ttaaimhossenett ee nrarret naliaendtnia oadtsrn eispa a ulloa.sm ri n Mtmtothio faeefrsr aesy caoe fhrvtaet elspe rhrlm,ea iomqiennunat.ie tnf fsIty neit seodr dmafiv nttsihoda e( ulaay apsgzll e raiaefdi weno a taftitnforefdds nas' t r hhraeeaerclpeneop avtsehseuneerbisn.em ) s,mI if tt mthaaeednad eyy ct aobpbs yletaeh ti nehpt erifo fsc edeod s S T 17 encumbered by asserted medical liens. At some point, these medical liens will need to 18 be evaluated and reviewed to determine their validity. In sum, counsel is required in the 19 BSC Litigation to move the settlement process forward. The J&J Litigation has not 20 settled. The parties in the J&J Litigation are actively litigating the case, with trial to be 21 scheduled for either February or March of 2022. See Declaration of Jeffrey Nadrich. 22 The Trustee has been informed that certain clients are considering terminating the 23 Debtor as counsel due to inactivity. The Trustee has long acknowledged that the 24 Debtor's clients are free to choose their own counsel. However, if a client decides to 25 choose new counsel, the Debtor will only be entitled to a comparative contingent lien, 26 which is speculative and typically less than a quantum meruit claim. 27 28 2877601.4 REPLY

21

1 E. Recent Proceedings in the Debtor's Bankruptcy Case 2 On April 26, 2021, the Trustee filed an application (the "Application") to retain 3 special litigation counsel to investigate and pursue potential claims against Erika and any 4 of her related entities. On May 10, 2021, Erika filed an opposition to the Application. On 5 June 1, 2021, the Trustee filed a reply to Erika's opposition. Ultimately the court granted 6 the Application, and on June 10, 2021, the Court entered an order approving the 7 Trustee's request to retain special litigation counsel. 8 On June 24, 2021, Erika filed a motion to reconsider the Application. This motion, 9 filed in the midst of the Trustee's special litigation counsel's investigation, seeks to 10 remove special litigation counsel and is currently pending.2 On July 14, 2021, the 11 Trustee's special litigation counsel filed a complaint against Erika and her related entities. MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002  1111123456 Pt3IoI2Ir .i2 ao,pr patorn Lo dtEvh e3Ge 2 tACh6Le.o uAtErratrR'isnkG saoUi trdidMoidenE rsn Ng oorTtfa ocnpatipsneogss t ehto ea noAytph opeflri ctchaoetuisonens ,fe itvlh.e e S mTeoreut isDotneosec. k f ei let dN ofivse. 1s2e3p,a 2ra2t9e, m31o3ti,o ns S T 17 A. Erika Has No Standing 18 Erika lacks standing to bring the Motion. She is a litigation defendant – nothing 19 more. "A party's standing in a bankruptcy case is governed by the 'person aggrieved' 20 standard. A 'person aggrieved' is one whose pecuniary interests are directly adversely 21 affected." Sheen v. Diamond (In re Am. Comput. & Dig. Components, Inc.), 2005 WL 22 6960172 at *3 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. May 12, 2005); see also In re Autosport Int'l, Inc., 2013 WL 23 3199826 at *3-4 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. June 24, 2013) (determining that opposition 24 documents to motion could not be considered because the party lacked standing). 25 26 2 On July 5, 2021, the day before the scheduled hearing, Erika filed a late Opposition to the Motion 27 to Approve Stipulation Between Jason M. Rund (Chapter 7 Trustee) and Secured Creditors Joseph Ruigomez, Jaime Ruigomez, and Kathleen Ruigomez for Relief from the Automatic Stay Under 11 U.S.C. 28 § 362 [Docket No. 236] in Thomas Girardi's individual case. 2877601.4 REPLY

22

1 Erika has not made any showing of how she is a person aggrieved with standing. 2 Here, Erika has not filed a proof of claim, nor has she ever claimed to be a creditor of the 3 Estate. Erika has no pecuniary interest that would be adversely affected by the Motions. 4 Erika has previously asserted that Thomas Girardi "was the 100% equity holder of Girardi 5 Keese," and she "has a community property interest in any distributions due to Mr. 6 Girardi." See Reply In Support of Motion for Reconsideration at 11:9-11, Docket No. 511 7 (emphasis added). As acknowledged by Erika, her community interests, if any, are with 8 respect to Thomas Girardi's equity interest in the Debtor. Thomas Girardi's equity 9 interest is property of his individual bankruptcy estate and is controlled by its trustee, 10 Jason Rund—not the Debtor. As such, her alleged community property interest can only 11 be asserted against Thomas Girardi's estate. Erika's alleged residual interest against MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002  1111123456 TsffrrthaaaouunmddduuianllEeesg nnr.Gi ttk iattrrra aaarnndlsssio'ffsee crrin acadnacinvstioioedtn ude.a os lCet aesobs untliarostthste c hshotaaanvsnfee dn rri onos guttai tesinnsidme itlnopyg l tyh.h e biSsled eEc teash,uta aestt .eesg t.saa Ahntuebds b i dsoao tsate avsd. e dnDfeoeaftne fcdfn oa(dInnnaft en riertn ih nAae barb woittth), S T 17 183 B.R. 198 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995) (holding that the debtor's wife did not have standing 18 as a potential defendant to appeal the order reopening case so that trustee could pursue 19 fraudulent transfer claims against her); Wigley v. Wigley (In re Wigley), 886 F.3d 681, 685 20 (8th Cir. 2018) (holding that debtor's wife did not have standing to appeal bankruptcy 21 court's order granting the creditor relief from stay to prosecute fraudulent transfer action 22 against her). 23 The Ninth Circuit's decision in Fondiller v. Robertson (In re Fondiller), 707 F.2d 24 441 (9th Cir. 1983) mirrors the facts here. In Fondiller, the chapter 7 trustee employed 25 special litigation counsel to investigate and pursue fraudulent transfer claims against a 26 debtor and his wife, a non-debtor. The bankruptcy court approved the employment of 27 special litigation counsel, and the BAP affirmed. Subsequently, the wife appealed the 28 order, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the BAP. In its holding, the Ninth Circuit noted that 2877601.4 REPLY

23

1 the wife's only "demonstrable interest" was as a "potential party defendant in an 2 adversary proceeding[.]" Id. at 443. Thus, because the "order did not diminish her 3 property, increase her burdens, or detrimentally affect her rights," the wife lacked 4 standing to appeal the order. Similarly, the Motions have no direct impact on Erika. The 5 Motions do not diminish her property, increase any burdens, or detrimentally affect any 6 rights. In sum, Erika, is a mere defendant and does not have standing to object to the 7 Motions. The Court should disregard her objections on this basis alone. 8 B. The Transition Agreements Provide an Optimal Outcome for the 9 Estate 10 The Transition Agreements provide a highly desired outcome for the Estate by 11 maximizing value for the Estate. Erika's contention that the Trustee has raised a "false MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002  1111123456 eebDclxenieeintgbeneetrtofesnirt dcs'ms y i fn"aco taywro stc ihtethhhe,o e reoD evTsseerepbar eytntoo cscr tilr' tisteieoo mnE nttsha Aoteianfg t NtrewheF.ei et Lh AmD Csteeh ontbehntt eoDca rufTe tshebrsuartio ssoart nret ham eLes si h tt-cihalgheesaon trigTicoetrehncu o stnMogtee notgehitzoi eowetinirdao otrifsikrwo osinnn mts coc oa tothrnrureaden n cbsestee.vi tgla i.oT iln unhWna etihthn iTnieglergi uro ttsfhh tteeeh e e S T 17 cases to qualified counsel, the clients are under no obligation to do so. Thus, there is the 18 risk that clients will make the decision to terminate their relationship with the Debtor and 19 instead choose entirely new counsel. 20 This risk that clients will leave the Debtor is especially pronounced given the 21 publicity surrounding the Debtor's bankruptcy. Clients may be especially concerned or 22 even confused as to who represents them if they know of the Debtor's chapter 7 case. If 23 clients choose to retain new counsel, then the Estate's interest in attorneys' fees will be 24 limited to a quantum meruit claim. This quantum meruit claim will be far less than any 25 amount the Estate will receive under the Transition Agreements. This risk is not 26 speculative. The Trustee has since learned that certain of the Debtor's clients in the 27 Mesh Litigation are currently considering retaining new counsel if the Debtor remains 28 inactive. See Declaration of Jeffrey Nadrich. Finally, the court in the J&J Litigation nearly 2877601.4 REPLY

24

1 dismissed the Debtor's clients for lack of prosecution, only declining to do so when N&O 2 represented that the Trustee would be seeking an order to transition the cases to N&O. 3 Id. These clients should not suffer prejudice due to the Debtor's inability to handle their 4 cases. The Transition Agreements are necessary to prevent further erosion of the 5 Estate's financial interests in its cases and protect the Debtor's current clients. Delay 6 only guarantees increased risks to the Estate. 7 The Transition Agreements maximize the value for the Estate. Erika's objections 8 are founded on the flawed premise that the Trustee must focus on the "value" of the 9 cases and the amount that the Estate has "given up" under the Transition Agreements. 10 This framework is based on two faulty assumptions: (1) that the value of the cases can 11 be quantified; and (2) that the Estate is automatically entitled to the recoveries permitted MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002  1111123456 ufTparnrioaldsvne istdroi eti Fitcossio nr npsn otArs,e igetd-hrpveeeeirde tvtiemthainoeelcun nere itr ss efoko taf ar tr thihhenaee entr r Dot chateo egabn rpDtetoepeernrm'bosttiv oeocennrad tosts.he n. asl yEt artrhreiekeca e gc'sieva neasesenr saqa lucyllyasa innsn t oeuistvm aea bnlmsl eobe ertbuo avi tbac ckelulw aeqiadumr.ad s n Ilintofi fsotiehtkedeian. dg E, arnikda S T 17 Erika's counsel makes passing references to conversations with "experienced mass 18 tort/plaintiff's attorneys who were and are competitors" of the Debtor that have told 19 counsel the Debtor's cases "should be extremely valuable." See, e.g., NFL Concussion 20 Litigation Motion at 2:25-27. Erika offers no explanation for how these unnamed sources 21 have determined the Debtor's cases are "extremely valuable" when these sources are 22 admittedly "competitors" of the Debtor and have no access to any of the Debtor's 23 confidential information. In reality, the Debtor's cases cannot be easily valued.3 In 24 particular, the NFL Concussion Litigation cannot be valued. As noted earlier, potential 25 plaintiffs have 65 years to submit a claim, which is subject to a formula, with the claim 26 amount subject to dispute. As to the NFL Concussion Litigation, no expert can possibly 27 28 3 As discussed later, the opinion of experts as to the value of the Debtor's cases is not relevant. 2877601.4 REPLY

25

1 figure out the value of the cases given that players' claims may be submitted more than 2 half a century later. There is no way to value unknown claims. The Debtor's interest in 3 the J&J Litigation is also difficult to value. The Debtor did not have a full-interest in its 4 attorneys' fees, and the settlement amount in the BSC Litigation involved different 5 defendants. 6 Second, Erika wrongly assumes that the Debtor will automatically be entitled to all 7 of its fees and reimbursement of costs due under its pre-petition retainer agreements. 8 Such a result is far from certain, particularly given that the Debtor is no longer able to 9 fulfill its obligations to its clients. It is not unusual for Debtor's co-counsel to contend that 10 the Debtor breached its agreement by not adequately representing its clients or paying its 11 share of costs, and thus, the Debtor is not entitled to any of its fees (or a significantly MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002  1111123456 sttccrhomlueeseaa ta,srl l mw ewproouh puuresolntduhrt tsaerioe nrtn shtt u hetoole tfE iiiDntstsst e aa pfbt eresteeoi gw-srp n)wi eliflf ootirciutreai olcbdnner teb ilvyaaee gcd erhuiemninentidimgntel ieseard hn tm hettsoeda. trT ree errccaiaeonliv vsteeeitri royamn lfl oooArff g taihrt esec e ofEemnestertsaan atctestn.. d t hT Irnahe ts eimiuss mbefau ,cr rli satl eeiimssm snse ,otn hittf a onf S T 17 The Estate is not "giving up" value (value that as explained above, cannot be 18 easily quantified) under the Transition Agreements. Erika fails to consider that the 19 Transition Agreements avoid a result where the Estate is left only with quantum meruit 20 claims.4 In this outcome, the Estate would receive significantly less value, as the 21 amounts received under the Transition Agreements exceed any quantum meruit claims 22 the Trustee could assert on behalf of the Estate. Further, asserting the quantum meruit 23 claims is not without expense to the Estate. The Trustee will need to compile the 24 Debtor's disorganized cost ledgers and billing records to assert a quantum meruit claim 25 that will likely need to be defended. Compilation of this information and defense of the 26 claim will be at a great expense, and only to receive a significantly smaller recovery for 27 4 In the Mesh Litigation, the Estate may only be entitled to a comparative contingent lien, which is 28 speculative and potentially even less than a quantum meruit claim. 2877601.4 REPLY

26

1 the Estate. In sum, Erika's analysis ignores the risks the Estate may likely face if the 2 Transition Agreements are not approved. 3 C. The Transition Agreements Are In the Best Interest of the Estate and 4 the Debtor's Clients 5 The Transitions Agreements are in the best interest of the Debtor's clients and the 6 Estate. Substantial work remains in the both the NFL Concussion Litigation and Mesh 7 Litigation; work that the Debtor is no longer able to do. As detailed above, the NFL 8 Concussion Litigation requires counsel to conduct plaintiff intake, coordinate with health 9 care providers so that players can be diagnosed, and compile evidence for the player's 10 claim so that it can be submitted to the claims administrator. Once the claim is 11 submitted, counsel must continue to work to defend the player's claim against adverse MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002  1111123456 rrceJeua&vmllaiJcnl auugLilasniat tistefger aio ntahtm inoeb dn otvh ,tra heenl iaoccdca liasthsyei em ctostoslf e n otmahsf deeetmh nnmestin uehMissdae tisorcsa anbhtl oe tLlhriee ietanni gn asrade mbt aicoeochniuhna.neg l ltde Isan.n s t gotTshe ehebsre e tBef rpaSdoap Cmarpt g ioLetahristtieiin goa sNanrtete Fit odhLan e.ct ,o t riAc vecoedcliuldoeynivn tslietiotsering,ile aaamslts .iuw n wsIgonte r wskltlth iiatlehls S T 17 trial approaching in early 2021. The Debtor's clients in the NFL Concussion Litigation 18 and Mesh Litigation need counsel to continue to represent them, and the Transition 19 Agreements provide the clients with clarity as to who they are being represented by. 20 Moreover, the Trustee's selected counsel is best prepared. GPW has significant 21 experience and has been involved in the NFL Concussion Litigation since its inception. 22 See Declaration of Jason Luckasevic. In addition, because GPW is a co-borrower on the 23 loan to Virage, GPW is incentivized to maximize recovery for both its clients and to 24 reduce its obligations to Virage. The Estate is well-served by this motivation. Further, 25 both Nadrich and Oshman have extensive experience, with Nadrich settling over 1,000 26 mass tort cases over the past 20 years and N&O being involved in the Mesh Litigation 27 since 2010. In sum, the Transition Agreements prevent the Estates from losing value, 28 2877601.4 REPLY

27

1 and provide the Debtor's clients with competent counsel to protect their interests. The 2 Transition Agreements should be approved. 3 D. The Transition Agreements Are Supported by a Valid Business 4 Justification Because They Are Reasonable 5 There is business justification for the Transition Agreements because they are 6 reasonable. With respect to the transition agreement for the NFL Concussion Litigation, 7 the Estate will receive 25% of the amounts recovered and any referral fees will be 8 deducted from GPW's share.5 This result benefits the Estate, and is especially 9 reasonable given that (a) the court in the NFL Concussion Litigation has reduced all 10 plaintiffs' counsel's fees to of any amounts recovered, and (b) there is extensive 11 work to be completed over a long period of time. Moreover, the amounts to be received MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002  1111123456 iosbnhfe at thhrreeeec JaeD&ni evodJebf dtLwao inirftlri'lygso i anmrcetsai octtsehoneaev sd e J irnb&y e.Jt h dLNe eai otMdingwudae,c tsBttihoheSen dLC riifst eriLo gfaiematlirsgtr iotoaah nltj eiufo e wsnaete lilsfori eecw dari eltlbi fonee naocrsrrtae e buod ersw,e e weda d(esiat doht)oun tt cahrNitbeae&l led DOi sebf .rf beoa Ttcmsoahtr ue taohs prneeepl yDcrth ooteeoavb cemrthoreyiarcn 'jsetgoo i rv iety S T 17 and it will be incredibly difficult to transfer cases to new counsel; and (b) the Debtor's 18 bankruptcy has prevented the Debtor from actively participating in the current litigation. 19 Accordingly, the Transition Agreements are reasonable, and a valid business justification 20 warrants their approval. 21 E. Expert Opinions on the Value of the Debtor's Interests in the NFL 22 Concussion Litigation and Mesh Litigation are Irrelevant 23 There is no need for the Trustee to retain and confer with experts to value the 24 Debtor's Interest in the NFL Concussion Litigation and Mesh Litigation. In seeking to 25 transition cases, the Trustee is working hard to secure the highest percentage of 26 5 Erika asserts that the NFL Concussion Litigation Motion states that certain of the cases have been 27 referred by GPW to the Debtor. This is false. The Motion's only mention of referrals is in the context of the terms of the transition agreement, which provides that to extent referral fees are owed to other firms, these 28 fees will be deducted from GPW's allocation rather than the Estate's allocation. 2877601.4 REPLY

28

1 recovery for the Debtor. Any valuation of the Debtor's cases is irrelevant to this goal. For 2 instance, the Trustee does not need an expert to explain that a proposed allocation of 3 10% for the Estate is not as valuable as an offer that the Estate receive an allocation 4 25%. The value of the cases does not change this analysis. Moreover, as discussed 5 earlier, the value of the Debtor's interest in the NFL Concussion Litigation and Mesh 6 Litigation is either difficult or impossible to value. Attempting to value the NFL 7 Concussion Litigation Cases and the Mesh Litigation Cases is a costly exercise in futility 8 that has no bearing on the Trustee's determination of what is best for the Estate. In 9 short, experts are not required for the Trustee to complete her duties. 10 In addition, the Trustee has neither the luxury of time nor the financial resources 11 available to retain experts. In a perfect world, that suggestion might make sense. MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002 1111123456 UaIVpn.pfooritnuCFtnmoOaert NenthClty.e L, ftU ohSraetIg OisoN innogt rtehaes roenasl,it yth teh aTtr uthsete Ter uresqteuee shtass t hbaete tnh ed eCaoliunrgt ewnitthe rs oinrcdee rhser S T 17 granting the Motions. 18 19 DATED: August 3, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 20 SMILEY WANG-EKVALL, LLP 21 22 By: 23 PHILIP E. STROK Attorneys for Elissa D. Miller, Chapter 7 24 Trustee 25 26 27 28 2877601.4 REPLY

29

EXHIBIT "1"

30

31

32

33

1 SMILEY WANG-EKVALL, LLP Philip E. Strok, State Bar No. 169296 2 pstrok@swelawfirm.com Kyra E. Andrassy, State Bar No. 207959 3 kandrassy@swelawfirm.com Timothy W. Evanston, State Bar No. 319342 4 tevanston@swelawfirm.com 3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 5 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: 714 445-1000 6 Facsimile: 714 445-1002 7 Attorneys for Elissa D. Miller, Chapter 7 Trustee 8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – LOS ANGELES DIVISION 10 In re Case No. 2:20-bk-21022-BR 11 MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002  1111123456 G IRARDI KEESE, Debtor. C DLOT (AAINAUREShUMT)aCU CSTNE pMKIHSLRGItBeATAOOENrUERST RSM7ESAEIIT OZE' VTSSRINNNII: ECOI TGNFP N IO O NLTT ORYF HHS FEEOTIUN H JRPNT ASEDRPFSU OLEAEOP RSNRCNP TSTOO A INOTRTICFOTE U 'NOSS FAS NIODN S T 17 LITIGATION TO GOLDBERG PERSKY WHITE P.C. FREE AND CLEAR OF 18 LIENS, CLAIMS AND INTERESTS PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 363; AND 19 (B) MOTION FOR ORDER 20 AUTHORIZING THE TRANSITION AND ASSIGNMENT OF THE ESTATE'S 21 INTERESTS IN THE MESH LITIGATION TO NADRICH & COHEN LLP AND THE 22 OSHMAN FIRM, LLC, FREE AND CLEAR OF LIENS, CLAIMS AND 23 INTERESTS PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 363 24 Date: August 10, 2021 25 Time: 2:00 p.m. Ctrm.: 1668 26 255 E. Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012 27 28 2877940.3 DECLARATION

34

1 DECLARATION OF JASON LUCKASEVIC 2 I, Jason Luckasevic, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice in Pennsylvania, Arizona, 4 Michigan, and the Supreme Court of the United States. I am also a shareholder and 5 member of the advisory committee with Goldberg Pesky White P.C. I know each of the 6 following facts to be true of my own personal knowledge, except as otherwise stated and, 7 if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify with respect thereto. I make 8 this declaration in support of the Trustee's Omnibus Reply in Support of Trustee's: (A) 9 Motion for Order Authorizing the Transition and Assignment of the Estate's Interests in 10 the NFL Concussion Litigation to Goldberg Persky White P.C. Free and Clear of Liens, 11 Claims and Interests Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363; and (B) Motion for Order Authorizing MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002 1111123456 t&Pahl uleC rt seoTurhrmaae2nnsn.ts dLittoeiLo fP1inn 1I ea a wdnUna dd.iSsn TA .ttChhshes.ee i § gOfR inr3sesm6htp 3mellay n(a wtatnh yro eeeFf r"itir nRhtmocee o, ps ErLulpysLeo"tCa) rt.ath, e teFUe's rdnN eI lneeaht steeaisorrne neodiasnt htlC sbeFl yeironw aot hrtitsh bioseeaf rldMLle eLifeeefeinsrnaehsegn, d LucC ieeitnlia .g( ittamhhtieisso n“adN netFodc Ll NaI”nr)aa,t edtirroeicnsh,t s S T 17 representing former players who suffered concussion injuries. In 2011, I commenced the 18 NFL Concussion Litigation and have been extensively involved in the NFL Concussion 19 Litigation to this day. Pre-petition, the Debtor represented approximately 100 NFL 20 players in the NFL Concussion Litigation and in these cases GPW was named as co- 21 counsel of record. 22 3. The Debtor and GPW entered into a Letter of Agreement regarding the 23 prosecution of former NFL cases and the attorney fee sharing arrangements on or about 24 December 26, 2012. Another firm, Russomano & Borrello, was also a party to the Letter 25 of Agreement. A true and correct copy of the Letter of Agreement is attached to the 26 Reply as Exhibit "1." 27 4. The Letter of Agreement provided: fees to be shared depending mainly on28 the origination of the specific case, the Debtor to receive either of 2877940.3 DECLARATION

35

1 the attorneys' fees recovered after the payment of any referral fees, and that the Debtor 2 would be responsible for general litigation costs. 3 5. As of the time of bankruptcy filing, Debtor was in material breach of its4 obligation to pay costs under the Letter of Agreement and as of that date GPW paid over 5 $1.9 million in costs throughout the NFL Concussion Litigation. 6 6. During the course of the NFL Concussion Litigation, the Court entered an 7 Order modifying all of the fee agreements for counsel for plaintiffs. Pursuant to the 8 Court's ruling, plaintiffs' counsel are only entitled to receive of all recoveries for their 9 attorneys' fees, irrespective of what they were entitled to receive under their agreements 10 with their clients. In addition, plaintiffs' counsel are also required to divert of any 11 amount they recover for their attorneys' fees to a common benefit fund. Thus, plaintiffs' MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002 1111123456 cuCthopoeuon nnDcs uewesb7lhs t.woo io riwnl'sl i eLlolsT ibtusihlgleitegainm atDtitioaaieontlebln.y ltsy orU. re r nec e dce neeitveirve rtee ho detnh illenyo taon a a lsgo eoraetfn- eaa masngiyedr neset ue,f ommTrh ertohenmect o wacvisoteh mGr eVmidriaro. arn dIg tib e rae edgnmureerafieinitnd gfs u t tnothod eg .b uN e aF rrLau nletde e S T 17 8. The NFL entered into a global settlement of the Concussion Litigation in 18 January 2017, but the settlement did not resolve all issues with respect to the player's 19 claims. Instead, a complex global protocol governs the settlement in the NFL 20 Concussion Litigation (the "Global Protocol"). Further, the settlement put in place a two- 21 party claim system wherein the NFL was one party having its own legal representation, 22 and each former NFL player was the other party, with independent legal representation. 23 9. Under the Global Protocol, a multi-factor formula is applied to calculate the 24 threshold amount of a player's claim. The formula looks at whether the player was alive 25 at a certain date. From this date, the player then has 65 years going forward to file a 26 claim for compensation for brain injury should he be diagnosed with one of the qualifying 27 diagnoses from an approved physician. In addition, the formula also requires the player 28 to have played a certain number of seasons compared to the player's age, and considers 2877940.3 DECLARATION

36

1 the player's degree of injury. Once this information is compiled, it is input into the formula 2 to calculate the amount of the player's claim. 3 10. Players are not automatically entitled to the claim amount determined under 4 the formula. In order for players to eventually receive any settlement proceeds, the 5 players must file an initial statement of claim after completion of a lengthy, complicated 6 test battery with two settlement-approved physicians. One evaluation in and off itself by 7 the neuropsychologist includes a six hours test battery. Should their evaluation result in 8 an approved qualifying diagnosis, then they must submit a claim to the claims 9 administrator, Brown Greer ("BG"). This process is filled with complications throughout 10 that requires navigating a 126 page settlement agreement and 374 Frequently Asked 11 Questions found on www.nflconcussionsettlement.com. It should be noted that only MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002  1111123456 1maa,dfo3tden0irte0 iiot taf n1oisra1ry mls. aiunewbfro mapTrrmlidhatt eyeafr edtcoiro.lms an Bi om tfahursosits meao dsdf te mahot etniclne lctaimhslsateersi amn ionttoa fitc rnio alBatv,l i eGmroerr svt 2hc i0peiet,rwen0o ,0cop B0eteh sGrfesfoo r rm trmiomsa esdysura eaepteinsltah.. iye n Ter it rhirsaee lh j eNraecFvvt eLiteh riwese ceocelnfa ittviihmteleed, d cra elta oqim ue st S T 17 appeal, and does often appeal, the determinations made by BG. In addition, BG is 18 entitled to assign review of the claim sua sponte to a panel of experts that are selected by 19 the NFL. 20 12. Given the complicated process in submitting claims, much work remains for 21 plaintiffs' counsel under the Global Protocol. Currently, players need assistance in simply 22 evaluating their past medical history, scheduling evaluations, submitting claims and later 23 defending their claim throughout the claims process. 24 13. To date, our efforts have caused over 70 of the GPW law firm’s 400 plus 25 clients receiving a monetary award. 26 14. Based on my direct involvement with the first former NFL player cases, 27 familiarity with the Settlement and ongoing work for current GPW clients, I am well 28 qualified to be approved to receive assignment of the representation of the Debtor clients. 2877940.3 DECLARATION

37

38

39

1 SMILEY WANG-EKVALL, LLP Philip E. Strok, State Bar No. 169296 2 pstrok@swelawfirm.com Kyra E. Andrassy, State Bar No. 207959 3 kandrassy@swelawfirm.com Timothy W. Evanston, State Bar No. 319342 4 tevanston@swelawfirm.com 3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 5 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: 714 445-1000 6 Facsimile: 714 445-1002 7 Attorneys for Elissa D. Miller, Chapter 7 Trustee 8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – LOS ANGELES DIVISION 10 In re Case No. 2:20-bk-21022-BR 11 MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002 1111123456 GIRARDI KEESE, Debtor. CDIS(AAILNNAIUEShUTT )aSCPSTIEGpMUPIHLRGtAePAOOOENrTPRRT RSM7IOAOITIT OZER TNSOINNNIT OFI TT GNFO ON TO O TFT RORGF HHOU FOEEOTSM L H JRNTTNDEEDERFIFB BELEAEFEU 'RSNRCSRSTS:EOG AIYRNT TP EICNOEEPUA'NRSLSD SYASRK NIIIONYCD NH S T 17 WHITE P.C. FREE AND CLEAR OF LIENS, CLAIMS AND INTERESTS 18 PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 363; AND 19 (B) MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING THE TRANSITION AND 20 ASSIGNMENT OF THE ESTATE'S INTERESTS IN THE MESH LITIGATION 21 TO NADRICH & COHEN LLP AND THE OSHMAN FIRM, LLC, FREE AND 22 CLEAR OF LIENS, CLAIMS AND INTERESTS PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 23 363 24 Date: August 10, 2021 Time: 2:00 p.m. 25 Ctrm.: 1668 255 E. Temple Street 26 Los Angeles, California 90012 27 28 2878014.1 DECLARATION

40

1 DECLARATION OF JEFFREY NADRICH 2 I, Jeffrey Nadrich, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts in the 4 State of California and the United States District Court. I know each of the following facts 5 to be true of my own personal knowledge, except as otherwise stated and, if called as a 6 witness, I could and would competently testify with respect thereto. I make this 7 declaration in support of the Trustee's Omnibus Reply in Support of Trustee's: (A) Motion 8 for Order Authorizing the Transition and Assignment of the Estate's Interests in the NFL 9 Concussion Litigation to Goldberg Persky White P.C. Free and Clear of Liens, Claims 10 and Interests Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363; and (B) Motion for Order Authorizing the 11 Transition and Assignment of the Estate's Interests in the Mesh Litigation to Nadrich & MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002  1111123456 CPa1,luol0 rht0see0urnm am 2nLs.at L dstPoes fa1tinon1Ie rd htdU acT .ivaSnhes e.t Ce heOs.ex §sto eRh v3nmee6sprai3 vltyn he( eta Fhe rielxeram p s"ienRt, rc2Leioe0Lprn Clpyyco,e"e )rFa. a lrri ttseUeig.e dna Ilatenhinns eadsgrde Comdintlihaet ibeoasyrsnrw ,tot hioNfsi rseLat idrcederaneifcsesfihe,rn e sCe&n,d l cahC eiianmo.v htsihne iagnsn , s ddLee LtIctnPlleta edhrra aeotssivo tesnr , S T 17 partnered with co-counsel The Oshman Firm, LLC, in the Mesh Litigation since 2010. 18 3. Prior to the Debtor's bankruptcy case, my firm entered into approximately 19 20 co-counsel/referral agreements with the Debtor concerning the Mesh Litigation. 20 Under these co-counsel/referral agreements, the Debtor was to receive of the 21 attorneys' fees to be recovered in the Mesh Litigation after referral fees are paid. 22 4. The Debtor disclosed to N&O that the majority of the Debtor's cases were 23 referred to the Debtor, with the Debtor to receive of the attorneys' fees recovered 24 after paying referring counsel. 25 5. The BSC Litigation has settled. Under the settlement agreement, the 26 defendants in the BSC litigation have agreed to pay to resolve the litigation. 27 6. The settlement of the BSC Litigation does not mean that no work remains to 28 be done. The Debtor has agreed to a proposed aggregate settlement amount of 2878014.1 DECLARATION

41

1 However, not a single plaintiff has received a settlement offer, nor have any 2 plaintiffs agreed to the settlement and signed a release. Before the settlement award can 3 be made to any plaintiff, a settlement master needs to first be retained and paid for. 4 After, all medical documentation for each plaintiff will need to be analyzed and then 5 submitted to the settlement master in a summary fashion. Later, individual awards are 6 then made by the settlement master and plaintiffs are requested to agree to a release. If 7 a plaintiff does not agree to the release or the settlement terms, which often happens, 8 then the case proceeds back to ligation and trial. Many of the plaintiffs' health care 9 providers may assert medical liens against the plaintiffs' recoveries. Eventually, these 10 medical liens must be evaluated and reviewed to determine their validity. 11 7. The J&J Litigation has not settled. In fact, the parties in the J&J Litigation MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002  1111123456 awsmcraaehsn ec acdogoun8enlte.mis ndidue teinonrt gi tInca ptgokoe ne draf siepscorlmteainvnciaeseclsllye yien s likig ttohni gtveohaerwe trie ntDt h htFheaeeebt cb tTcooreauru'dsasr es rOcye. l s i 2eoAh0nftm 2 ttosh2an e fnoeo lr rhap asMloats ican 1kart0c ,to t hteyfh en2pead0r rcoe2sosd2 uei .nv rc iturt htitnuieo a tnJhll.y&e C JaJ ul&Ll ritJrthei gLenai ttctliyigao,as ntter.i oi a Inl is S T 17 know this because my firm, Nadrich & Cohen, LLP has partnered with The Oshman Firm 18 in the Mesh Litigation since 2010. If the Debtor had to prove up an attorney's lien in the 19 J&J Litigation based upon a comparative contingent lien (the law in New Jersey where 20 the litigation is pending), the Debtor would be entitled to a nominal amount at best for 21 filing the complaint and plaintiff fact sheet, . 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 26 27 28 2878014.1 DECLARATION

42

43

EXHIBIT "2"

44

1 SMILEY WANG-EKVALL, LLP Philip E. Strok, State Bar No. 169296 2 pstrok@swelawfirm.com Kyra E. Andrassy, State Bar No. 207959 3 kandrassy@swelawfirm.com Timothy W. Evanston, State Bar No. 319342 4 tevanston@swelawfirm.com 3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 5 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: 714 445-1000 6 Facsimile: 714 445-1002 7 Attorneys for Elissa D. Miller, Chapter 7 Trustee 8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – LOS ANGELES DIVISION 10 In re Case No. 2:20-bk-21022-BR 11 MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002 1111123456 GIRARDI KEESE, Debtor. (COP(DPC12AUOOhR))aRRDCTUFpTSOOEURteEUR RMTFr A MEI7MGOLN NOREARTTT AND RSTINUEOE OURTANP IN LLL:NA BD YGSURE E ATTR CH5NR 0TSODU0IER O3SRAI-NTZE2LE I(L2NcEA.)G8' TSA(bE NE)D;DX A NDS T 17 HEARINGS ON MOTIONS TO BE HELD IN CAMERA WITH AUDIO 18 RECORDINGS/TRANSCRIPTS SEALED 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2878253.1 ORDER

45

1 The Court, having reviewed and considered the Trustee's Ex Parte Motion: (1) To 2 File Reply and Related Documents Under Seal Pursuant to LBR 5003-2(c) and Court 3 Manual Section 2.8(b); and (2) For Order Authorizing Hearings on Motions to Be Held in 4 Camera With Audio Recordings/Transcripts Sealed (the "Ex Parte Motion")1, and finding 5 good cause appearing therefrom, 6 IT IS ORDERED that: 7 1. The Ex Parte Motion is granted; 8 2. The Trustee is authorized to file the unredacted versions of the Reply, 9 Exhibit, and Declarations of Jason Luckasevic and Jeffrey Nadrich in support under seal, 10 with the filing date reflected in the Court's docket, pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 11 5003-2(c), and such Documents shall remain under seal until further order of this Court; MILEY WANG‐EKVALL, LLP  3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 el  714 445‐1000  •  Fax 714 445‐1002  1111123456 pdroeirescdrcoeslroord nsoi3n ufo .grt reh/ tp irsaaa gCnrrtTsyeohc eueremriip tth;het eaenoanrtf rdvctihn ior egtnu scha eoellrnyan, ri tinthnegegl e stMhp sehoh otMainololin cbtsaioe lsln yhss,ea oballr el beifnedo- rphaeeenhrldads n oridenn m ,ac tnaahdiman t te uhhrneaad saae unnrd dosi toen s aoilgt unoneptdeil nafu tnroto hanen-ry S T 17 4. The Trustee is authorized to redact and file the redacted versions of the 18 Documents on ECF. 19 ### 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Ex Parte 28 Motion. 2878253.1 ORDER

46

PROOF OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENT am over the age of 18 and not a party to this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding. My business address is 3200 ark Center Drive, Suite 250, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled (specify): TRUSTEE'S EX PARTE MOTION: ) TO FILE REPLY AND RELATED DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO LBR 5003-2(c) AND COURT ANUAL SECTION 2.8(b); AND (2) FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING HEARINGS ON MOTIONS TO BE HELD IN AMERA WITH AUDIO RECORDINGS/TRANSCRIPTS SEALED will be served or was served (a) on the judge in hambers in the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b) in the manner stated below: . TO BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (NEF): Pursuant to controlling General rders and LBR, the foregoing document will be served by the court via NEF and hyperlink to the document. On (date) ugust 2, 2021 I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and determined that thellowing persons are on the Electronic Mail Notice List to receive NEF transmission at the email addresses stated below:  Service information continued on attached pag . SERVED BY UNITED STATES MAIL: n (date) ________ , I served the following persons and/or entities at the last known addresses in this bankruptcy case r adversary proceeding by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope in the United States mail, first lass, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that mailing to the judgill be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed.  Service information continued on attached pag . SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY, OVERNIGHT MAIL, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OR EMAIL (state method r each person or entity served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling LBR, on (date) August 2, 2021, I served the llowing persons and/or entities by personal delivery, overnight mail service, or (for those who consented in writing to uch service method), by facsimile transmission and/or email as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration at personal delivery on, or overnight mail to, the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is led. ia Courier Service he Honorable Barry Russell .S. Bankruptcy Court oybal Federal Building 55 E. Temple Street, Suite 1660 os Angeles, CA 90012  Service information continued on attached pag declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. August 2, 2021 Gabriela Gomez-Cruz /s/ Gabriela Gomez-Cruz Date Printed Name Signature

47

O BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (NEF):  Kyra E Andrassy kandrassy@swelawfirm.com, lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;gcruz@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com  Rafey Balabanian rbalabanian@edelson.com, docket@edelson.com  Michelle Balady mb@bedfordlg.com, leo@bedfordlg.com  Ori S Blumenfeld ori@marguliesfaithlaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaithLaw.com  Evan C Borges eborges@ggtriallaw.com, cwinsten@ggtriallaw.com  Richard D Buckley richard.buckley@arentfox.com  Marie E Christiansen mchristiansen@vedderprice.com, ecfladocket@vedderprice.com,marie-christiansen-4166@ecf.pacerpro.com  Jennifer Witherell Crastz jcrastz@hrhlaw.com  Ashleigh A Danker Ashleigh.danker@dinsmore.com, SDCMLFiles@DINSMORE.COM;Katrice.ortiz@dinsmore.com  Clifford S Davidson csdavidson@swlaw.com, jlanglois@swlaw.com;cliff-davidson-7586@ecf.pacerpro.com  Lei Lei Wang Ekvall lekvall@swelawfirm.com, lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;gcruz@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com  Richard W Esterkin richard.esterkin@morganlewis.com  Timothy W Evanston tevanston@swelawfirm.com, gcruz@swelawfirm.com;lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com  Jeremy Faith Jeremy@MarguliesFaithlaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaithlaw.com  James J Finsten , jimfinsten@hotmail.com  Alan W Forsley alan.forsley@flpllp.com, awf@fkllawfirm.com,awf@fl-lawyers.net,addy.flores@flpllp.com  Eric D Goldberg eric.goldberg@dlapiper.com, eric-goldberg-1103@ecf.pacerpro.com  Andrew Goodman agoodman@andyglaw.com, Goodman.AndrewR102467@notify.bestcase.com  Suzanne C Grandt suzanne.grandt@calbar.ca.gov, joan.randolph@calbar.ca.gov  Steven T Gubner sgubner@bg.law, ecf@bg.law  Marshall J Hogan mhogan@swlaw.com, knestuk@swlaw.com  Sheryl K Ith sith@cookseylaw.com, sith@ecf.courtdrive.com  Razmig Izakelian razmigizakelian@quinnemanuel.com  Lillian Jordan ENOTICES@DONLINRECANO.COM, RMAPA@DONLINRECANO.COM  Lewis R Landau Lew@Landaunet.com  Daniel A Lev dlev@sulmeyerlaw.com, ccaldwell@sulmeyerlaw.com;dlev@ecf.inforuptcy.com  Elizabeth A Lombard elombard@zwickerpc.com, bknotices@zwickerpc.com  Craig G Margulies Craig@MarguliesFaithlaw.com, Vicky@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Helen@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithlaw.com  Ron Maroko ron.maroko@usdoj.gov  Peter J Mastan peter.mastan@dinsmore.com, SDCMLFiles@dinsmore.com;Katrice.ortiz@dinsmore.com  Edith R. Matthai ematthai@romalaw.com, lrobie@romalaw.com  Kenneth Miller kmiller@pmcos.com, efilings@pmcos.com  Elissa Miller (TR) CA71@ecfcbis.com, MillerTrustee@Sulmeyerlaw.com;C124@ecfcbis.com;ccaldwell@sulmeyerlaw.com  Eric A Mitnick MitnickLaw@aol.com, mitnicklaw@gmail.com  Scott H Olson solson@vedderprice.com, scott-olson- 2161@ecf.pacerpro.com,ecfsfdocket@vedderprice.com,nortega@vedderprice.com  Carmela Pagay ctp@lnbyb.com  Leonard Pena lpena@penalaw.com, penasomaecf@gmail.com;penalr72746@notify.bestcase.com  Michael J Quinn mquinn@vedderprice.com, ecfladocket@vedderprice.com,michael-quinn-2870@ecf.pacerpro.com  David M Reeder david@reederlaw.com, secretary@reederlaw.com  Ronald N Richards ron@ronaldrichards.com, morani@ronaldrichards.com  Kevin C Ronk Kevin@portilloronk.com, Attorneys@portilloronk.com  Frank X Ruggier frank@ruggierlaw.com, enotice@pricelawgroup.com

48

 William F Savino wsavino@woodsoviatt.com, lherald@woodsoviatt.com  Kenneth John Shaffer johnshaffer@quinnemanuel.com  Richard M Steingard , awong@steingardlaw.com  Philip E Strok pstrok@swelawfirm.com, gcruz@swelawfirm.com;1garrett@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com  Boris Treyzon bt@treyzon.com, sgonzales@actslaw.com  United States Trustee (LA) ustpregion16.la.ecf@usdoj.gov  Eric D Winston ericwinston@quinnemanuel.com  Christopher K.S. Wong christopher.wong@arentfox.com, yvonne.li@arentfox.com  Timothy J Yoo tjy@lnbyb.com

49