You are on page 1of 17



The Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C.; Baron & Budd, P.C.; Brayton Purcell, LLP; Hissey Kientz, LLP; The Lipman Law Firm; Reaud, Morgan & Quinn, Inc.; Thornton & Naumes, LLP; Waters & Kraus, LLP; Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.; and Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP (collectively, the Law Firms with each


being a Law Firm) hereby file this response opposing the Motion of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC for Orders Reopening Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cases for the Limited Purpose of Seeking Access to 2019 Statements (the Motion) and respectfully submit as follows. I. INTRODUCTION Intent on pressing its Quixotic agenda by obtaining 2019 Statements to which it has no rightmuch to the expense and detriment of creditors in its own bankruptcy, never minding its imposition on debtors and creditors in these cases Garlock has moved this Court to reopen seven long-closed bankruptcy cases (the Closed Cases)1 for no other purpose than to obtain access to exhibits to the 2019 Statements. Motion at 2. Setting aside the impropriety of Garlocks repeated attempts to access these documents, Garlock has yet to provide this Court with any valid argument or authority that would support the reopening of the Closed Cases. Instead, it has opted to continue to argue with the Court about an issue the Court has already decided: whether Garlock must move and receive from this Court an order reopening the Closed Cases before Garlock can seek the relief it requests in its 2019 Access Motion.2

Garlock filed the Motion in the above captioned cases at the following docket numbers: In re ACandS, Inc. at Dkt. No. 3658, In re Armstrong World Industries, Inc. at Dkt. No. 10719, In re Combustion Engineering, Inc. at Dkt. No. 3398, In re Owens Corning at Dkt. No. 20979, In re US Mineral Products Company at Dkt. No. 3895, In re USG Corp. at Dkt. No. 12615, and In re Mid-Valley, Inc. at Dkt. No. 2789.

Motion of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC for Orders Authorizing Access to 2019 Statements Filed in the Court and for Related Relief, filed on January 10, 2011 (the 2019 Access Motion), in these cases as well as In re The Flintkote Company, Case No. 04-11300; In re Kaiser Aluminum Corp., Case No. 02-10429; and In re W.R. Grace & Co., Case No. 01-1139, pending in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, and In re North American Refractories Co., Case No. 02-20198 and In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., Case No. 00-22876, pending in the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (collectively with the Closed Cases, the Bankruptcy Cases).


As discussed below, Garlocka stranger to the Closed Caseshas no standing to reopen them because it was not a debtor, creditor, or trustee therein. Further, Garlocks Motion completely ignores the authority from courts in this Circuit clearly stating that a motion to reopen should not be granted when doing so provides no clear benefit to creditors. Garlock has notand cannotidentify one benefit to these estates that would result from the Courts reopening the Closed Cases. Indeed, as the United States Trustee points out in its objection3 to Garlocks Motion, reopening these cases would impose substantial and unnecessary costs and obligations on these debtors, all serving no other purpose than facilitating Garlocks own self-serving and ill-conceived discovery agenda.4 Instead, Garlock merely argues that [r]eopening the Closed Cases will facilitate this Courts ability to decide the 2019 Access Motions and not unduly burden any party. 2019 Access Motion at 3. Clearly, this is an insufficient ground to reopen the Closed Cases. Opening these seven casesmost of which have been closed for years would be improper where, as here, Garlock has sat on its hands and has not sought relief from this Court in a timely manner. It would be futile for the Court to reopen the Closed Cases, because the relief Garlock ultimately seeksi.e., access to 2019 statement filed in the Closed Casesis improper under the circumstances presented. As this Court undoubtedly recalls, it has already rejected, not one year ago, a similar (if narrower) request for access in Pittsburgh Corning, one of the open cases. As a similar result is entirely likely in regard to Garlocks broader requesta

The United States Trustees Objection to the Motion of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC for Entry of an Order, Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 350(b), Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3020(d), 3022 and 5010, Reopening Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cases for the Limited Purpose of Seeking Access to 2019 Statements (D.E. 3658, 10719, 3398, 20979, 3895, 12615, 2789) (the U.S. Trustee Objection).

Garlock strains to provide a rational justification for seeking this information as part of its own bankruptcy case, relying on unsupported assertions that it is somehow relevant to the estimation of its own asbestos liability.


rank fishing expeditionreopening the cases for a redo of the Pittsburgh Corning 2019 litigation last winter is an exercise in futility that would benefit no one and present an appreciable burden on the Debtor and their creditors in the Closed Cases. This burden will fall disproportionately on claimants in the Closed Cases whose counsel filed 2019 Statements and who wish to prevent a litigation adversary like Garlock from obtaining access to materials long held confidential at this Courts direction. Garlocks persistent attempts to access protected documents for reasons completely unrelated to these Bankruptcy Cases and for purposes that the documents were never meant to be used are inappropriate, harassing, and should be denied. Certainly, the Court should decline to re-open long-closed bankruptcy cases for the mere purpose of indulging Garlocks improper discovery agenda, especially where Garlock has no standing to seek such relief and doing so would result in a burdennot a benefitto these bankruptcy estates. II. RESPONSE It is interesting that Garlock repeats its thoroughly repudiated argument that it need not actually reopen the Closed Cases for this Court to adjudicate Garlocks 2019 Access Motion. Motion at 3 (Garlock respectfully disagrees that reopening the Closed Cases is required in order for this Court to grant relief on the 2019 Access Motions). The Court could not have made it clearer that Garlocks filing of the 2019 Access Motion in the Closed Cases was procedurally improper and ordered it to first seek to reopen the cases before this Court would even consider the 2019 Access Motion. Feb. 14, 2011 Hrg. Transcr. at 84 (Its not done correctly. I dont have jurisdiction. The cases arent open. The motion should have been stricken. Ive said this at least 15 times. I dont know what else to tell you. Im going to dismiss the motions without prejudice because theyre filed in closed cases and

there is no case. There is nothing to be adjudicated in those cases. There is no case. If you want a case, you have to reopen the case). Garlock must, of course, establish a legitimate reason for the Closed Cases to be reopened before it may proceed with the 2019 Access Motion in the Closed Cases. Section 350(b) gives bankruptcy courts broad discretion to reopen closed bankruptcy cases. However, that discretion should be exercised only where a compelling reason for reopening the case is demonstrated. V.I. Bur. of Internal Rev. v. St. Croix Hotel Corp., 60 B.R. 412, 414 (D.V.I. 1986), affd, 867 F.2d 169 (3d Cir. 1989). The burden of demonstrating circumstances sufficient to justify the reopening is placed upon the moving party. In re Antonious, 373 B.R. 400, 406 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2007). Garlock has not articulated even a rational reason why the Closed Cases should be reopened, much less a compelling reason. Indeed, it cannot because no compelling reason exists. Garlock seeks to obtain protected documents filed in the Closed Cases for self-serving and ultimately ill-fated purposes relating to its own bankruptcy case, not the Closed Cases. A. Garlock lacks standing to request the reopening of these cases because it is not a party in interest. As an initial matter, Garlock lacks standing to request that the Closed Cases be reopened. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5010 limits those parties who may invoke Section 350(b) of the Bankruptcy Code to reopen a closed bankruptcy case to debtors or parties in interest in the case sought to be reopened. FED. R. BANKR. P. 5010 (A case may be reopened on motion of the debtor or other party in interest pursuant to 350(b) of the Code). More particularly, [t]he case law on standing in the circumstance of reopening a closed case has been confined to debtors, creditors, and trustees with a particular and/or direct stake in the reopened case. In re Canal Street Ltd. Partn., 269 B.R. 375, 379 (8th Cir. B.A.P. 2001); see also, In re Alpex Computer Corp., 71 F.3d 353, 356 (10th Cir. 1995) (recognizing that

standing to reopen a closed bankruptcy case is implicitly confined to debtors, creditors, or trustees, each with a particular and direct stake in reopening cognizable under the Bankruptcy Code). Clearly, Garlock was not the debtor or a trustee in any of the Closed Cases. Garlock originally attempted to claim that it had an interest in these cases because it was likely a creditor in most of the cases. 2019 Motion for Access at 29 (In several of the bankruptcy cases, Garlock is a creditor or potential creditor of the debtors by reason of, among other things, rights of indemnity or contribution it may have against such debtors). However, Garlocks contrived status as a likely creditor is an empty attempt to whitewash its failure to file a proof of claim in any of the Closed Cases. As the Court has already recognized: I dont have a party in interest because Garlock didnt even appear in those cases, so I dont know how Garlock could reopen . Feb. 14, 2011 Hrg. Transcr. at 12:7 - 12:9. Garlock has not filed a proof of claim in the Closed Cases; it cannot assert any pecuniary interest in their already concluded administration; and it cannot assert that any of its property, burdens or rights have been affected in the Closed Cases. Garlock is a complete stranger to the Closed Cases. Garlock may by now have realized that it cannot reasonably claim an interest in the Closed Cases as the Motion contains no reference to Garlocks likely creditor status. Instead, Garlock now seeks to parlay its position as a litigation adversary of asbestos claimants and its desire to obtain a free source of discovery into First Amendment, common law and statutory rights of access to judicial records the mere invocation of whichin Garlocks mindjustifies its attempted resurrection of these Closed Cases. Motion at 3. Much more is required of one seeking to reopen a closed bankruptcy caseviz., proper cause associated with the cases the applicant seeks to reopen.


Garlocks sole reason for reopening the Closed Cases, as has been noted, is to pursue a discovery agenda unrelated to these cases. As the Tenth Circuit ruled in Alpex, such an agenda does not confer standing. 71 F.3d 353. In Alpex, the debtors confirmed Chapter 11 plan authorized a liquidating trustee to pursue a patent infringement claim against Nintendo. Id. Nintendo filed a motion to reopen the bankruptcy case to obtain an order interpreting the confirmed plan so as to limit the amount the trustee could recover in the patent infringement lawsuit. Id. Nintendo claimed it had standing to seek such an order because the amount of its potential liability would be adversely affected depending on how the liquidating trustee decided to enforce the plan and that its potential liability to Alpex gave it standing to challenge the plan. The Tenth Circuit disagreed. It found that the obligation of Nintendo to Alpex was affected not by the bankruptcy, but by the course of the separate lawsuit, and that Nintendos status as a defendant in a civil suit does not create standing here. Id. at 358. Here, as in Alpex, the movant seeking to reopen the Closed Cases (i.e., Garlock) has not articulated any particular, direct stake relating to any of the Closed Cases. Garlocks aspiration to circumvent the discovery process in the tort system (and now in its own bankruptcy case) does not make it a party in interest with standing to seek to reopen any of the Closed Cases. If the Court were to accept Garlocks asserted standing to reopen the Closed Cases, a free-for-all would ensue and anyone might seek to reopen any bankruptcy case at any time by the mere invocation of a contrived and unsubstantiated prerogative. No bankruptcy case would ever be truly closed. Simply put, if Garlock has standing to move to reopen these Closed Cases, anybody has standing, and no debtor or creditor could ever have confidence that a bankruptcy case were in all actuality closed.



Even if Garlock were a party in interestwhich it is notits request to reopen the Closed Cases to pursue its discovery agenda is improper because it will not benefit the estates or their creditors. Section 350(b) provides that a closed bankruptcy case may be reopened only

to administer assets, to accord relief to the debtor, or for other cause. 11 U.S.C. 350(b); See also, Antonious, 373 B.R. at 405. Courts in this Circuit have recognized that other cause must entail some benefit to the estate or its creditors. [T]he court will not grant a motion to reopen when no clear benefit is shown to creditors. Antonious, 373 B.R. at 406; In re Nelson, 100 B.R. 905, 907 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1989); In re Fellheimer, 2010 WL 4008461 at *1 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 2010). Here, Garlock is neither seeking to administer assets nor obtain relief for the benefit of the respective debtors. Moreover, its attempt to acquire 2019 Statements filed in these bankruptcies will have no discernable benefit to the respective creditor bodiesof whom Garlock is not a party. As the Court has recognized: Garlock isnt here alleging that its going to vindicate some public interest orI dont know you do with a 2019 statement on a public record, but whatever it is, thats not what Garlocks intended purpose is. Garlock wants to be able to access these statements for the specific purpose of then suing a law firm saying that in another proceeding, unrelated to the bankruptcy, that law firm lied. Feb. 14, 2011 Hrg. Transcr. at 28:7 28:14. Instead of conferring a benefit on these estates or their creditors, reopening the Closed Cases would impose significant added expense and obligations on these reorganized debtors years after the reorganized debtors have emerged from bankruptcy. The Court itself has identified this issue: The reorganized debtors may have significant issues about reopening cases when they then have to start paying U.S. Trustee fees on all their distributions again. There are reasons why cases are closed. Feb. 14, 2011 Hrg. Transcr. at 86:10 86:13). As the United States Trustee points out in the U.S. Trustee Objection, reopening the Closed Cases would impose on the


reorganized debtors in those cases the obligation to file post-confirmation operating reports and pay United States Trustee Quarterly Fees.5 U.S. Trustee Objection at 3. As the United States Trustee also points out, [t]here are no exceptions to the statutory requirements to pay the Quarterly Fees. Regardless of the purpose for reopening the cases, the simple act of reopening the case initiates the reporting and fee requirements. U.S. Trustee Objection at 4. Garlocks only stated reason for seeking to impose unnecessary obligations on these reorganized debtors by reopening the Closed Cases (i.e., to to access documents filed in the Court) is insufficient because it would not occasion any concomitant benefit for the respective debtors or their creditors. Indeed, it would not even confer a benefit to Garlocks estate because the 2019 Statements do not support the proposition for which Garlock desires themviz., the erroneous and slanderous assertion that asbestos claimants have lied about their exposure to certain companies products. As the Court has recognized:

As the U.S. Trustee points out, 28 U.S.C. 1930(a)(6) states that: In addition to the filing fee paid to the clerk, a quarterly fee shall be paid to the United States trustee, for deposit in the Treasury, in each case under chapter 11 of title 11 for each quarter (including any fraction thereof) until the case is converted or dismissed, whichever occurs first. The fee shall be $325 for each quarter in which disbursements total less that $15,000; $650 for each quarter in which disbursements total $15,000 or more but less than $75,000; $975 for each quarter in which disbursements total $75,000 or more but less than $150,000; $1,625 for each quarter in which disbursements total $150,000 or more but less than $225,000; $1,950 for each quarter in which disbursements total $225,000 or more but less than $300,000; $4,875 for each quarter in which disbursements total $300,000 or more but less than $1,000,000; $6,500 for each quarter in which disbursements total $1,000,000 or more but less than $2,000,000; $9,750 for each quarter in which disbursements total $2,000,000 or more but less than $3,000,000; $10,400 for each quarter in which disbursements total $3,000,000 or more but less than $5,000,000; $13,000 for each quarter in which disbursements total $5,000,000 or more but less than $15,000,000; $20,000 for each quarter in which disbursements total $15,000,000 or more but less than $30,000,000; $30,000 for each quarter in which disbursements total more than $30,000,000. The fee shall be payable on the last day of the calendar month following the calendar quarter for which the fee is owed.


These statements, the 2019 statements arent evidence that a creditor has filed a false claim against Garlock. Theyre a statement by a lawyer that says we represent these folks. Feb. 14, 2011 Hrg. Transcr. at 30:4 30:6). All that reopening the Closed Cases would do is facilitate improper and illconceived discovery pertaining to litigation wholly unrelated to the Closed Cases. Garlocks unprecedented fishing expedition should not be enabled; it would be improper to reopen the Closed Cases. C. The cases cited by Garlock to support the reopening of the Closed Cases make clear the limited purposes for which cases may properly be reopened.

It is instructive to examine the cases Garlock cites in support of its application to reopen the Closed Cases. In In re Zinchiak, 406 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 2005), a secured creditor of a one-time Chapter 7 debtor sought to reopen the case to obtain a valuation of certain estate assets in respect of which it had received relief from the automatic stay to foreclose upon. In In re Jet Florida Systems, Inc., 883 F.2d 970 (11th Cir. 1989), a creditor who had sued the debtor prepetition for defamation sought relief from the discharge injunction in order to seek a judgment against the debtor so that he might proceed against the debtors insurer. The only case that bears even a passing resemblance to the request before this Court is In re North Bay General Hospital, Inc., 404 B.R. 429 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2009). This bankruptcy case from another circuit is readily distinguishable and representsin any eventa palpably unwise exercise of the courts discretion to reopen a bankruptcy case. North Bay involved a request by a debtor in an unrelated bankruptcy in the same district to unseal certain documents sealed pursuant to an agreed order resolving a dispute over an estate professionals fees. The order had been entered without the sealing court considering whether the documents should be kept confidential or entertaining the merits of the Section 107(b) question at all. Id. at


439-440. The North Bay court, in considering whether to unseal the documents, was heavily influenced by the particular factual circumstances of the case. It noted that FED. R. BANKR. P. 9018which governs the sealing of documents in bankruptcy casesprovides that: If an order is entered under this rule without notice, any entity affected thereby may move to vacate or modify the order, and after a hearing on notice the court shall determine the motion. Id. at 439 (citing FED. R. BANKR. P. 9018). Even though the case was closed, the North Bay Court decided, perhaps unwisely, to reopen the case to adjudicate for the first time the issue of whether the sealing of the records was warranted. Whether this Court should reopen the Closed Cases at Garlocks request involves a very different calculus. Here, we have a litigation adversary of asbestos claimantsa bankrupt debtor whose case is pending in another districtseeking a vast amount of entirely unrelated records gathered for a singular and very specific purpose (verifying agency in the cases in which the 2019 Statements were filed). This diverges sharply from North Bay where the debtor sought the unsealing of a small and identified number of pleadings in a case recently closed and pending in the same district in which the debtors case was pending. It bears noting that there is no suggestion North Bay involved materials that contained the confidential personal and medical information of tens of thousands of vulnerable individuals as do the 2019 Statement exhibits Garlock covets. However, the biggest and most compelling difference is that the North Bay court reopened the case to decide for the first time whether the documents had been properly sealed. Here, the Court has already undertaken to balanceat great length and with the benefit of arguments of counselthe competing concerns of confidentiality and disclosure.


Garlocks counsel even represented to the bankruptcy court presiding over Garlocks own reorganization case that this Court had fully considered the issue of access to the Rule 2019 Statements in the Closed Cases and had entered a reasoned decision that the documents were worthy of protection.6 It is worth noting that Garlock sought a different regime for Rule 2019 compliance in its own bankruptcy case, but the court decided that an order similar to and consistent with the orders entered by this Court in the Closed Cases was preferable. Garlock continued to press for language in the 2019 Order in its own case that would essentially create a presumption of access to nominally confidential exhibits, with the burden placed upon the claimants to rebuff any bare request for access.7 In a hearing on the entry of an order requiring filing of 2019 Statements in the Garlock Case on October 14, 2010, counsel for Garlock stated that: In Judge Fitzgeralds case, it is important for you to know that she didnt enter the order until the law firms came in and they attempted to make some showing on why the language should be protected. In fact, the original order that she entered required that all of the information be on the public record. So law firms came in, they provided evidence, they made a showing. She entered an order based on that. That has not happened in this case. Garlock Transcript at 16-17 (emphasis added). Continuing to press Garlocks case for the entry of an order with specific language pre-judging the issue of access, counsel for Garlock again commended this Courts prior consideration of the Section 107 issues, noting that: before the court bypasses section 107, there has to be a showing, and our proposed language gives the court the basis for doing that by

See Transcript of Hearing in In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, Inc., et al., (Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Case No. 10-31607) (Dkt. No. 633) (the Garlock Transcript) at 16-17. A true and correct copy of the relevant portions of the Garlock Transcript is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Garlocks attempts ultimately failed, and the Garlock Court entered an order substantially the same as the order in the Closed Cases.


postponing the showing until someone comes and asks for the information. But to-date, the showing hasnt been made. It was made before Judge Fitzgerald. Apparently, you know, there were appeals and appellate courts got to review her order in the context of the evidence that supported that relief. None of that has happened here. (emphasis added) Garlock Transcript at 18. In Garlocks own viewat least as expressed in it own bankruptcy casethis Court made a considered and fully reasoned decision in full contemplation of the issues raised by Section 107.8 This contrasts with North Bay, where the appropriateness of confidentiality was a matter of first impression. It is appropriately difficult to reopen a closed bankruptcy case, and those seeking to do so must show a cognizable needproperly related to the case in respect of which reopening is soughtand a legitimate interest in the case such that would compel reopening. Garlock has wholly failed to provide any cogent reason why this Court should take the unusual and provocative step of reopening any of the Closed Cases. Garlocks concession that it seeks such relief for reasons entirely unrelated to the Closed Cases but rather in furtherance of its own litigation agenda effectively hoists Garlock on its own petard. D. Garlocks newfound interest in the contents of the Rule 2019 Statements is untimely, and should be barred. Most of the Closed Cases have been closed for several years. Yet, only now does Garlock appear, asserting a right to review 2019 Statements that have no relevance anymoreand certainly not outside the context of the particular Closed Cases in which they were submitted. As the Court has recognized: I have not kept jurisdiction over a Rule 2019 motion in a closed case. Theres no purpose any longer to 2019 in a closed case.

This Court may take what it will from the differences in the manner in which Garlocks counsel has characterized the 2019 Orders in the Closed Cases before this Court and before its own bankruptcy court.


Feb. 14, 2011 Hrg. Transcr. at 17:7 17:9. Although no time limit is specified by the Bankruptcy Code during which a motion to reopen must be filed, such a motion must be brought within a reasonable time; laches may justify denial of such a motion. Nelson, 100 B.R. at 906. Some courts hold that the most important consideration in deciding whether to reopen a case is the timeliness of the motion. In re Serafini, 30 B.R. 606, 608 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1983). This is consistent with the purposes of bankruptcy proceedings, which are to secure a prompt and effectual administration and settlement of the estate of all bankrupts within a limited period. Id. (quoting Crosby v. Mills, 413 F.2d 1273 (10th Cir. 1969)). Here, most of the bankruptcy cases Garlock seeks to reopen have been closed for years: ACandS, Inc. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Combustion Engineering, Inc. Owens Corning US Mineral Products Company USG Corp. Mid-Valley, Inc. Closed June 30, 2010 Closed October 6, 2008 Closed June 8, 2007 Closed August 29, 2008 Closed November 3, 2006 Closed September 29, 2009 Closed November 30, 2005

Garlock showed no concern for or interest in these cases while they were pending and should not be permitted long afterward to reopen them to pursue its own discovery agenda. As Garlock noted in the 2019 Access Motion, it has been aware of at least some of the Closed Cases since the early 2000s. See 2019 Access Motion at 4 (In 2000, Garlocks position in asbestos litigation changed significantly, when the most prominent defendants in asbestos litigation began to file for bankruptcy. Between 2000 and 2004, dozens of companies filed (the Bankruptcy Wave). The Bankruptcy Wave caused Garlocks resolution costs to increase).


If Garlock had a legitimate interest in the contents of the Rule 2019 Statement exhibits, it had ample opportunity during the pendency of the Closed Cases to either contest the manner in which this Court determined compliance with Rule 2019 or seek access to the confidential Rule 2019 Statement exhibits under the proper procedures. That Garlock sat on its purported rights for several years is reason enough for the Court to refuse to reopen these long-closed cases. E. Garlocks request to reopen these cases should be denied, because to do so would be futile and a waste of judicial resources as Garlocks request for the Rule 2019 Statements is facially improper and should itself be denied. A bankruptcy court should not reopen a bankruptcy case where, as here, to do so would be futile and a waste of judicial resources. Fellheimer, 2010 WL 4008461 at *1 (citing In re Carberry, 186 B.R. 401, 402 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1995)). Garlock seeks to reopen these cases to pursue its 2019 Access Motiona motion that should be denied on its merits by this Court. As the Law Firms argue at length in their response to the 2019 Access Motion, Garlock requests access to the confidential Rule 2019 materials in these cases for use in its own reorganization, and not for any purpose even tangentially related the purpose for which Rule 2019 disclosures are requiredi.e., the vetting of agency by counsel representing multiple clients. Garlock insists that it need show no cause to access these materials, brandishing 11 U.S.C. 107 as if it were a one-sizefits-all incantation in the nature of open sesame, which it is not. It is entirely proper for this Court to deny Garlock access to the 2019 Statements under these circumstances. As the Court has recognized: MR. CASSADA: First, Your Honor, I would submit that Garlocks purpose is not relevant nor is the purpose of the Rule 2019 Statements. THE COURT: Oh, but it is, it is for this reason, because public access, even under the constitution, in civil cases is limited when the


purpose for the access is improper . . . I dont see how this is proper on behalf of Garlock to do a wide fishing expedition through 2019 statements that have a lot of private information. Feb. 14, 2011 Hrg. Transcr. at 12:23 - 13:8. Garlocks stated purpose for requesting these protected documents lays bare its total disregard for concerns the Court has voiced many times about the sensitivity of some of the information contained therein and the potential for abuseconcerns that even Congress undertook to address with the passage of 11 U.S.C. 107(c) mere months after the Court entered its 2019 Orders in the Closed Cases. The relief requested in the 2019 Access Motion is improper and should be denied and, therefore, the Court should not reopen the Closed Cases for the purpose of entertaining that motion. Doing so would revive long-concluded cases for no salutary end and would significantly burden the actual parties in interest in the Closed Casesand this Courtin the pursuit of an ultimately insupportable quest for information to which Garlock is not entitled. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Law Firms respectfully requests that this Court deny the Motion in its entirety, with prejudice, deny Garlock permission to reopen the Closed Cases, and grant the Law Firms such other and further relief to which they may be entitled.


Dated: March 11, 2011

/s/ Peter J. Ashcroft Peter J. Ashcroft (PA I.D. #87317) BERNSTEIN LAW FIRM, P.C. Suite 2200 Gulf Tower Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 456-8107 (412) 456-8255 (facsimile) /s/ Daniel K. Hogan Daniel K. Hogan (De. Bar No. 2814) The Hogan Firm 1311 Delaware Avenue Wilmington, Delaware 19806 Telephone: (302) 656-7540 Facsimile: (302) 656-7599 -andSTUTZMAN, BROMBERG, ESSERMAN & PLIFKA, A Professional Corporation Sander L. Esserman TX Bar No. 06671500 David A. Klingler TX Bar No. 11574300 David J. Parsons TX Bar No. 24037238 Cliff I. Taylor TX Bar No. 24042007 2323 Bryan Street, Suite 2200 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 969-4900 (214) 969-4999 (facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR THE LAW FIRMS