Case Doc 4110 Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 14:19:56 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 15

Transcription

1 Document Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte Division ) In Re: ) Chapter 11 ) GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES ) Case No LLC, et al. 1 ) ) Debtors. ) Jointly Administered ) RESPONSE OF OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMANTS TO DEBTORS MOTION TO PLACE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS IN THE MESOTHELIOMA ESTIMATION RECORD UNDER SEAL The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants (the Committee ) respectfully submits this response to Debtors Motion to Place Certain Documents in the Mesothelioma Estimation Record Under Seal, dated Sept. 11, 2014 [Dkt. No. 4058] (the Motion to Seal ). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Committee supports the Debtors Motion to Seal to the extent that Motion seeks to protect certain personally-identifying information and medical records of claimants. Likewise, the Committee supports redacting from record materials any other details that the Court determines, on the pending motions by claimants, implicate the claimants legitimate privacy interests. But the Debtors have moved to seal other documents that should not be sealed: the Debtors Major Expense Authorizations (or MEAs ) and Trial Evaluation Forms (or TEFs ), along with testimony and other materials relating to those documents. The MEAs are 1 Debtors consist of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd., and The Anchor Packing Company. As used herein, the term Garlock refers to Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC and Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd

2 Document Page 2 of 15 internal corporate records of the Debtors that memorialize the reasons why the Debtors settled mesothelioma cases for the amounts they did. The TEFs are standardized evaluations of cases proceeding to trial provided to the Debtors by their outside counsel. The Court found on two separate occasions that the Debtors had, by their own actions, waived any privileges that once protected these documents. The Debtors now would like to keep the documents and related testimony out of public view, suggesting that somehow they can turn back the clock and argue the waiver question yet again. The Committee opposes this attempt to sweep evidence under the rug. Until now, the Debtors have been enthusiastic advocates of disclosure, casting themselves as crusaders on the public s behalf. Indeed, on the eve of the estimation hearing, the Debtors insisted albeit unsuccessfully on the wholesale removal of confidentiality designations from plaintiffs materials that they wished to present at the estimation hearing. Motion of Debtors to Remove Confidentiality Designations from Certain Evidence for Purposes of Trial at 7, dated July 3, 2013 [Dkt. No. 2979] ( Debtors Motion to Remove Confidentiality ) ( Debtors... wish to ensure that when they do present the evidence, it will be publicly available. ). The Debtors complained that the confidentiality designations would, if imposed at the hearing, prevent... interested parties from getting the full story on these issues of major public concern. Id. Now, without any sense of irony, the Debtors maintain that their own documents critical pieces of the full story should remain sealed and shielded from public scrutiny. The Debtors must not be allowed to use sealing as a way to skew the public dialog about this case. The Debtors motion to seal the MEAs, TEFs and related material should therefore be denied

3 Document Page 3 of 15 In addition to opposing that portion of the Debtors Motion to Seal dealing with the MEAs and TEFs, the Committee raises in this Response several points regarding that portion of the Debtors motion that the Committee supports. Specifically, the Committee points out certain omissions from Debtors list of sealed materials that contain personally identifying information, attached as Exhibit B to Debtors motion, and addresses related procedural matters. ARGUMENT I. THE MAJOR EXPENSE AUTHORIZATION AND TRIAL EVALUATION FORMS AND RELATED TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT BE SEALED a. The Court has already ruled that Debtors waived privilege in the MEAs and TEFs when the Debtors placed at issue the reasons they settled Throughout this estimation proceeding, the Debtors have argued that the values at which they settled mesothelioma claims were inflated by improper conduct on the part of claimants and their lawyers. Specifically, the Debtors allege that asbestos claimants and their lawyers concealed evidence of exposure to other manufacturers asbestos products. Allegedly deprived of this other exposure evidence, the Debtors contend they were forced to settle with claimants for high values. i. The Court warns the Debtors in 2012 about the possibility of at-issue waiver In connection with their argument about missing other exposure evidence, the Debtors had both their in-house and outside counsel provide testimony early in these bankruptcy cases about how the Debtors settled cases and how allegedly missing exposure evidence affected them. To test these extraordinary allegations, the Committee sought discovery of communications between the Debtors and their counsel regarding the reasons the Debtors settled asbestos claims. But the Debtors refused to produce such evidence, claiming it was protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine

4 Document Page 4 of 15 The Committee moved to compel, arguing that the Debtors had waived any privilege and work-product protection that may once have applied to these categories of documents. See ACC s Motion to Compel on Grounds of Waiver the Production of Certain Documents the Debtors Have Withheld as Privileged, filed April 19, 2012 [Dkt. No. 2117] ( First Waiver Motion ). The Committee argued that under the doctrine of at issue waiver, the Debtors decision to have their attorneys testify about settlement decisions, together with their contentions about asbestos claimants purported concealment of other exposure information forcing their hand in settlement, waived privileges with respect to the communications and recommendations of the attorneys who advised the Debtors on settlement decisions. See Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., 32 F.3d 851, (3d Cir. 1994); Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574, 581 (E.D. Wash. 1975). Although the Court denied the Committee s First Waiver Motion, it ruled that: [I]f we come to the hearing and evidence is offered, I will either not permit that evidence to be offered or will give an opportunity for the full discovery to be made so that there can be a meaningful cross-examination about it and just leave it to you all to decide if and when we are going to come to that point. Hr g Tr. 108:8-13, May 31, Thus, the Debtors were put on notice that they were heading down a path towards waiver. ii. The first ruling that the Debtors had waived privileges In 2013, as the estimation hearing drew near, the Debtors revealed their intention to have experts including their own outside defense attorneys repackaged as experts offer testimony about why they settled certain cases, despite withholding documents on that subject in discovery and instructing their witnesses not to answer questions that would test these contentions. In effect, the Debtors hoped to have their own counsel tell stories about why they - 4 -

5 Document Page 5 of 15 settled cases when the Committee and the Puture Claimants Representative (the FCR ) had been prevented from testing those assertions with discovery. Under applicable case law, Debtors assertions about their settlements, coupled with their use of the testimony of the Debtors own counsel as a sword, while attempting to insulate the testimony from scrutiny with the shield of privilege, constituted a clear at-issue waiver. In response to the Debtors planned testimony, the Committee and the FCR jointly moved to preclude such testimony or, in the alternative, to compel discovery about why the Debtors settled, including discovery of materials previously claimed to be privileged. Motion of the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and Joseph W. Grier, III, Future Asbestos Claimants Representative, for an Order In Limine or, in the Alternative to Compel Discovery, filed May 24, 2013 [Dkt. No. 2894] (filed under seal) ( Second Waiver Motion ). This Court granted the Second Waiver Motion in part. 2 The Court found an at issue waiver with respect to a group of 26 claims the Debtors intended to feature, a group called the Designated Claims. [U]nder the doctrine of at issue waiver, the Debtors have waived privileges, including the attorney-client privilege and work product protection, with respect to the twenty-six mesothelioma claims (the Designated Claims ) listed on the ACC s Exhibit #133 introduced into evidence at the Hearing. 3 2 The Court announced its ruling at the June 6, 2013 hearing on the Committee and FCR s motion, and the Debtors moved immediately for reconsideration and for a stay of proceedings pending appeal. Debtors Motion to Stay Estimation Discovery Impacted by the June 6 Ruling and to Continue the Estimation Trial, filed June 10, 2013 [Dkt. No. 2939]. The Court denied the motion the next day. Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration of Bench Ruling or For Immediate Appellate Review; Denying Motion to Stay Estimation Discovery and Continue Estimation Trial and Denying Motion to Shorten Notice, filed June 11, 2013 [Dkt. No. 2948]. The Debtors took no further steps to challenge the ruling. 3 ACC Exhibit 133 was a copy of the Debtors RFA List #1.A. This was one of several lists produced by the Debtors in response to discovery from the Committee asking which claims the Debtors alleged were affected by claimant misconduct. In the end, Debtors produced two lists: (Footnote continued on next page.) - 5 -

6 Document Page 6 of 15 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Motion of the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and Joseph W. Grier, III, Future Asbestos Claimants Representative, for an Order in Limine or, in the Alternative, to Compel Discovery, filed on June 18, 2013 [Dkt. No. 2960]. The Court described the subject matter of this waiver as follows: Debtors investigation, settlement, or other disposition of the Designated Claims, including the Debtors reasons for settling or refusing to settle any Designated Claim, their evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of any Designated Claim and of potential trial outcomes of the same, their formulation of settlement offers and weighing of claimants settlement demands with respect to any Designated Claim, their alleged reliance on alleged misrepresentations and concealments of claimants or their counsel with respect to any Designated Claim, and any alleged connection between such alleged misrepresentations and concealments and the amount of any settlement payments made to resolve any Designated Claim. Id. The Debtors were required to provide a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify at deposition about the Designated Claims pursuant to the waiver so found. Likewise, the waiver would apply to depositions of the Debtors defense counsel styled as experts. Id. at 3. The Court did not, however, order production of all the privileged documents the Committee and FCR had sought in the Second Waiver Motion. Rather, the Court ordered the Debtors to disclose MEAs and TEFs pertaining to the 26 Designated Claims, expressly overruling all objections to production of the foregoing materials, including objections based on privilege or work product protection. Id. (Footnote continued from previous page.) one with approximately 26 plaintiffs the Debtors intended to feature with specific testimony and a larger list of about 200 claims the Debtors said were affected by misconduct. These were known as the RFA 1.A and RFA 1 lists respectively

7 Document Page 7 of 15 In so ruling, this Court again cautioned the Debtors that if they make any contention specific to any other asbestos claim that they were defrauded by any alleged misrepresentation, concealment, or misconduct on the part of the claimant or the claimant s counsel, or that they otherwise relied on any such alleged misrepresentation, concealment, or misconduct or paid an inflated settlement as a result thereof, the waiver determined by this Order shall apply to such other asbestos claim as well. Id. Thus, the Debtors knew that if they made claims about why they settled additional cases, they were at risk of expanding their waiver. iii. The Court finds the Debtors waive privileges again during the estimation hearing The Debtors did not heed the Courts second warning. During the estimation trial, the Debtors witness, the chief company lawyer in charge of asbestos litigation, Richard Magee, expounded upon his views of why the Debtors settled certain cases beyond the 26 Designated Claims that were the subject of the original waiver ruling. On the basis of that testimony, the Committee orally moved the Court to extend [its] previous waiver ruling and renewed its request to compel production of all MEAs for all 204 cases identified by the Debtors on the grounds that the Debtors had waived any privilege or protection regarding those documents, noting [t]hat is the basis upon which you previously directed the production of the MEA forms. Hr g Tr. 1416:8-9, 18-19, July 26, 2013 (counsel for the Committee) ( Third Waiver Motion ). This Court granted the Committee s Third Waiver Motion and ordered production of MEAs and TEFs for the remaining identified cases. The Court explained that [t]he ruling is because I think the waiver s been -- there s been a waiver of attorney-client privilege as to those matters by his testimony, that s the legal basis. Hr g Tr. 1418:2-5 (emphasis added)

8 Document Page 8 of 15 Subsequently, this Court admitted the MEAs and TEFs into evidence, and allowed the Committee to cross-examine the Debtors witnesses using these documents. Thus, whether the Debtors waived privilege with respect to the MEAs and TEFs is a question that has already been definitively answered not once but twice. In connection with both the Second Waiver Motion and the Third Waiver Motion, this Court has found that the Debtors waived any privilege or protection that may once have applied to the MEAs and TEFs. The Court also admitted the MEAs and TEFs into evidence. The Debtors present argument for sealing seems deliberately to ignore the Court s two previous decisions, making arguments about whether the privilege was waived as though waiver is somehow an open question. For example, Debtors assert that when a party brings an action alleging that fraud or misrepresentation by a counterparty affected such party s decision to settle, such party does not impliedly waive protections of privilege concerning the settlement decision, citing several cases that allegedly support its position. Motion to Seal at 3-4. The cases upon which the Debtors rely are beside the point; they simply set forth the standard for finding waiver. 4 The Court should disregard the Debtors untimely attempt to reargue this question. 5 b. Once waived, privileges cannot be resurrected The Debtors deliberate waiver, resulting from their decision to put their own lawyers on as witnesses to explain why they settled cases, is not limited to this bankruptcy case. Once a 4 In fact, Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Harried, 2009 WL (S.D. Miss. Aug. 6, 2009), cited by the Debtors, does not contain any mention of attorney-client privilege or waiver whatsoever. It is apparently miscited. Banc of America Securities, LLC v. Evergreen International Aviation, Inc., No. 03 CVS 9138, 2006 WL (N.C. Bus. Ct. Jan. 25, 2006), simply applies a Rhone-Poulenc standard and finds that no waiver occurred on the facts of that case. 5 The one-year period for seeking relief under Bankruptcy Rule 9024 from the orders finding waiver has passed

9 Document Page 9 of 15 party has waived the attorney-client privilege, the party is precluded from raising the privilege in all future litigation. Once waived, forever waived. See, e.g., United States v. Swain, 1991 WL 47102, at *9 (D.S.C. Feb. 5, 1991) ( Once waived the attorney-client privilege cannot be reasserted at the convenience of client or counsel ); In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Billing Practices Litig., 293 F.3d 289, 307 (6th Cir. 2002) ( [O]nce the privilege is waived, waiver is complete and final. ); Reitz v. City of Mt. Juliet, 680 F. Supp. 2d 888, (M.D. Tenn. 2010) (same); Texas v. United States, 279 F.R.D. 24, 31 (D.D.C. 2012), vacated in part, 279 F.R.D. 176 (D.D.C. 2012) (subject matter waiver through intentional disclosure in one case applies in future litigation); Louen v. Twedt, 236 F.R.D. 502, (E.D. Cal. 2006) ( The generally recognized principle [is] that once waived, the attorney-client privilege cannot be subsequently asserted ). The same rule applies with equal force to work-product protection. See, e.g., In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 293 F.3d at 307 ( Like attorney-client privilege, there is no reason to transform the work product doctrine into another brush on the attorney s palette used as a sword rather than a shield ). Any rule to the contrary would permit a party to waive the privilege in one case where it is advantageous and then assert it in another when it would prefer to keep certain matters confidential. Courts have disfavored such tactical application of privileges. The client cannot be permitted to pick and choose among his opponents, waiving the privilege for some and resurrecting the claim of confidentiality to obstruct others, or to invoke the privilege as to communications whose confidentiality he has already compromised for his own benefit. Permian Corp. v. United States, 665 F.2d 1214, 1221 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The Debtors refer in passing to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), implying that 502(d) means that a privilege waived in one case can spring back into life in another. It means no such - 9 -

10 Document Page 10 of 15 thing. Rule 502(d) is designed to address only a certain kind of waiver, namely waiver by the accidental production in discovery of a privileged document, not waiver resulting from deliberate litigation conduct such as the at issue waiver found here. 6 See Olaoye v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 2013 WL , at *3 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 30, 2013) ( [T]he cases that have interpreted Rule 502 in the discovery context also note that Rule 502(d) protects parties against inadvertent disclosure of privileged information. ) (emphasis added); Potomac Elec. Power Co. & Subsidiaries v. United States., 107 Fed. Cl. 725, 731 (2012) (finding no support in the Rule s plain language, purpose, or any relevant case law that Rule 502(d) would allow a party to make intentional disclosures in the instant litigation... but nonetheless preserve the same privileges with respect to third parties, and/or in other court proceedings ); see also Fed. R. Evid. 502 Advisory Committee Notes ( [Fed. R. Evid. 502(d)] is designed to enable a court to enter an order... that will allow the parties to conduct and respond to discovery expeditiously, without the need for exhaustive pre-production privilege reviews. ). c. The Debtors have not articulated any legitimate basis for sealing MEAs or TEFs Courts have refused to seal materials that would be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product but for the Court s order that certain privileged communications were waived. Pall Corp. v. 3M Purification Inc., 764 F. Supp. 2d 478, (E.D.N.Y. 2011). See also Grand Elec., LLC v. Int l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local 265, 2011 WL , *4 (D. Neb. Dec. 22, 2011) (denying a motion to seal on the basis of privilege because to the extent that any privilege might have been applicable, it has been waived ). 6 The at-issue waiver identified by the Court, preventing tactical abuse of privilege or workproduct protection, is categorically distinct from the mistaken production of a privileged document. Rule 502(d) applies only to the latter

11 Document Page 11 of 15 The Debtors suggestion that courts routinely seal formerly privileged material is not supported by the cases they offer. They cite, for example, two cases that on inspection stand only for the unremarkable proposition that an interest in protecting the confidentiality of attorney-client communications where the privilege is intact overcomes the presumption of public access to judicial records, justifying the sealing of the still-privileged materials. Motion to Seal at 7. Nor does Zawadzki v. Community Hospital Association, 2010 WL (D. Colo. Aug. 6, 2010), stand for the proposition that formerly privileged material must be sealed. It addresses sealing only in a single paragraph regarding an unopposed motion to seal materials the court found retained privilege. In Zawadzki, the plaintiff sought to compel the defendant to produce notes from an investigation file that the defendant characterized as protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. The defendant submitted the documents for in camera review of privilege, and sought to file the documents under seal. Id. at *1. The court found the documents were protected by either the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine with the exception of a single page of a multipage document. Id. The court also granted the defendants unopposed motion to seal the documents submitted for in camera review, noting that the plaintiff filed no response nor objection to the motion, and stating that it did so because the documents contain information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine.... Id. at 6. That is, sealing was appropriate because privilege survived, not because it was waived. 7 7 To the extent the Court grants that portion of the Debtors Motion to Seal that the Committee supports, or seals or redacts other information in response to other motions, the MEAs and TEFs may need to be redacted in part

12 Document Page 12 of 15 Thus, the MEAs and TEFs and related testimony and materials should not be sealed merely because the documents were privileged before the Court found that the Debtors had waived their privileges, compelled the production of those materials, and entered them into evidence. d. Sealing should not be a tactic to slant publicly-available information The Debtors have cast themselves as the guardians of justice attempting to bring wrongdoing by the plaintiffs bar to light. The Debtors June 2013 pre-hearing motion to remove the confidentiality from certain plaintiffs material claimed to do so in order that Congress, the public, state legislatures, state and federal courts, other defendants, and other interested parties can get the full story on these issues of major public concern. Debtors Motion to Remove Confidentiality at 7. Executives of the Debtors and their corporate parents have opined in national magazines and broadcast news programs about the plaintiffs alleged concealment and suppression of evidence. 8 It is fair to say that the Debtors have decided to make a publicity campaign against the plaintiffs bar part of their strategy to avoid asbestos liability. The Debtors attempt to seal their own documents evidence that undermines their narrative reveals that their commitment to openness applies only when it serves the Debtors interests. Of course, openness goes both ways. As much as the public deserves to know about the Debtors allegations of the plaintiffs wrongdoing, the public deserves to see that the Debtors recent claims about why they settled cases are at odds with their own contemporaneous documents. The MEAs and TEFs provide this important window by disclosing the reasons the 8 Case Sheds Light on the Murky World of Asbestos Litigation, February 4, 2014, NPR All Things Considered, avaialble at Embattled Gasket Maker Sues Asbestos Lawyers for Fraud, January 10, 2014, available at embattled-gasket-maker-sues-asbestos-lawyers-for-fraud/

13 Document Page 13 of 15 Debtors settled, showing that the missing other exposure story is a fiction the Debtors constructed for this bankruptcy. Testimony given in light of the Debtors waiver by their chief in-house lawyer, Mr. Magee, and their outside counsel, regarding why the Debtors settled cases, likewise provides an important counterweight to the Debtors public position. Any attempt to keep the public debate one-sided by suppressing these materials should be denied. Moreover, one of the important purposes of public access is to promote the public s ability to oversee and monitor the workings of the Judicial Branch. Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 263 (4th Cir. 2014). Hobbling public access by sealing material that supports one side of an issue hinders that purpose. II. DOCUMENTS BEYOND THOSE LISTED ON DEBTORS EXHIBIT B MUST HAVE PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION REDACTED The Committee supports that portion of the Debtors motion seeking to seal or redact certain specified categories of personally identifying information ( PII ), including social security numbers, birthdates, the names of minor children, financial account numbers and medical information (except for asbestos disease claimed). Debtors undertook in the Notice issued pursuant to the Protocol to move to redact certain information from all Sealed Materials. The Debtors motion attaches an Exhibit B that purports to list Sealed Materials in which this information is found. Likely because of the difficulty of reviewing large numbers of documents, Debtors Exhibit B omits certain sealed materials that contain such information. By way of illustration, a review of the Sealed Materials revealed the following sealed material contains PII covered by the Debtors motion but does not appear on the Debtors Exhibit B. Exhibit No. ACC-796 (summary) ACC-529 Description RFA List 1 and 2 Spreadsheet Debtors Amended Responses to Requests for Admission Nos

14 Document Page 14 of 15 ACC-532 ACC-535 ACC-36 ACC-194 ACC-196 ACC-197 ACC-6227 ACC-6228 ACC-6264 ACC-7593 ACC-7597 ACC ACC and 2 of the ACC s First Requests for Admission and Supplemental Interrogatory Responses and Document Requests Pursuant to Stipulation 8/3/2012 Supplemental RFA List #1 and RFA List #2 and RFA List #1.A to Debtors Amended Responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 1 and 2 of the ACC s First Set of Requests for Admission and Supplemental Interrogatory Responses and Document Requests Pursuant to Stipulation 10/22/2012 Supplemental RFA List #1 and RFA List #2 and RFA List #1.A to Debtors Amended Responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 1 and 2 of the ACC s First Set of Requests for Admission and Supplemental Interrogatory Responses and Document Requests Pursuant to Stipulation 2/8/2013 Debtors Amended Responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 1 and 2 of the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants First Set of Requests for Admission and Supplemental Interrogatory Responses and Document Requests Pursuant to Stipulation, In re Garlock Sealing Technologies ( ) Garlock v. Debtors, Case No , Supplemental RFA List #1, RFA List #2, and RFA List #1.A to the Debtors amended responses to requests for admissions Nos. 1 and 2 of the official committee of asbestos claimants first set of requests for admission and supplemental interrogatory responses and document requests pursuant to stipulations Huey v. A.W. Chesterton, no. 02-L-530, Notice of Compliance and Answers to Interrogatories Huey v. A.W. Chesterton, no. 02-L-530, Certificate of Service of Plaintiff and Supplemental Answers to Interrogatories Union Carbide Corp. v., Clerks Record for Appeal vol. III Union Carbide Corp. v., Clerks Record for Appeal vol. IV v. Union Carbide Corp., Plaintiffs Responses to Master Interrogatories Requests for Production and Disclosures v. A.O. Smith Water Prods., Plaintiff s Initial Fact Sheet v. A.O. Smith Water Prods., Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Fourth Amended Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents : Itemized Statement of Earnings In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, Trial Transcript (4/18/2001) These omissions demonstrate that the Court should order that all Sealed Materials, whether or not on Debtors Exhibit B, be reviewed for any material that the Court determines should be redacted, to ensure that the sealing and redaction process is implemented consistently

15 Document Page 15 of 15 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny that portion of the Debtors motion in which it seeks to seal MEAs, TEFs and related transcripts and materials. The Court should, furthermore, order that all Sealed Material be reviewed for personally identifying material or other items the Court determines must be redacted, so that ordered redactions are consistently applied. Dated: October 2, 2014 Respectfully submitted, CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED By: /s/ Trevor W. Swett III Trevor W. Swett III James P. Wehner One Thomas Circle, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC Telephone: (202) Facsimile: (202) Elihu Inselbuch 600 Lexington Avenue, 21 st Floor New York, NY Telephone: (212) MOON WRIGHT & HOUSTON, PLLC Travis W. Moon (Bar No. 1067) 227 West Trade Street Suite 1800 Charlotte, NC Telephone: (704) Co-Counsel for the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants