American court hearing recordings and interviews - 10/18/23 hearing audio in the Prime Core/Prime Trust #bankruptcy, Delaware case no 23-11161, #crypto

Episode Date: October 21, 2023

hearing starts approximately one minute into the recording

Good afternoon. Please be seated. World record in Prime Corps Technologies, case number 23 of 116.1. Good afternoon. I have a copy. I have a copy. I'm not going to mention the names of these parties before we've talked to it quickly taking great strides to redact the names pursuant to the matrix order that you're on our entered and so I'm going to refer to on this party one to three.

So we've met with each of these parties prior. These parties, party number one has agreed to comply but has conditioned such compliance on entry of this order. Party two is agreed to comply with the debtor's objection to the entry of the order, but I'm not sure if council is is present on the virtual courtroom because I'm not, the counsel to issue with a provision in the order that since the filing of the motion has agreed to comply. Let me ask, does anyone wish to be heard with respect to the motion of proposed score of order?

Ms. Grybner, good afternoon. Good afternoon, Your Honor. I represent party one, and I just wanted to note, for the record, my client has no issue sitting for the deposition, but because of various confidentiality agreements in employment agreements that he had with the debtor, we felt that it was necessary to have a court order in place beforehand. Okay.

I wish to be heard with respect to the motion of the proposed formal order. Mr. Detweiler, I have reviewed the order. I don't have any issue with the form of order, and certainly I appreciate it's uncontested, but I did have a question about paragraph of order, the fourth paragraph of the order, and I understand that it's relatively routine to allow additional discovery. I think this should be modified to say in line two, including without limitation, reasonable request based upon the information, and then also indicate at the end without prejudice to the deponent's rights. Yes, please.

Yeah, and it's, I mean, I don't know how you want to word it, but I just want to make sure that the deponent's rights are reserved and the requests are reasonable, because it's kind of broad as written, but I understand you don't know what you're going to get in terms of discovery. So you need to maintain optionality, but I need to put a little bit of curb on it. Absolutely, granted with those changes when filed under certification.

Yes. I have a brief update on the bill process, there's one house keeping out of the legislative order. Yes. That we filed under certification of counsel. I have a question about that. So first of all, it was brought to my attention last year that the United States Trustees' office likes the opportunity to review protective orders before they're submitted under

certification of counsel. So I'm glad to see Mr. Cootia here because I want to know if the U.S. trustee's office had an opportunity to review it. And then also, I had a question with respect to paragraph, well, it's E. It's 3.2E on page 7. But if I could hear from Mr. Cudia, and I didn't mean to cut you out, unless you wanted to give a presentation. No. Okay.

Good afternoon, Your Honor. Good afternoon. Yes, I have had an opportunity. to review the protective order and the U.S. trustee is aware of it. We did ask for certain language to be answered as far as allowing us access, but the U.S. trustee has not taken a position as to the relief requested. Okay. Is the debtor and committee willing to allow the U.S. trustee access?

Yes, sir. Okay. Oh, okay. Yeah, you need them prior to filing. Okay, terrific. Thank you. My only question, and U.S. trustee might want to stay around for this point as well. In paragraph E on page 7, this talks about documents being generated and being able to file them under seal without the necessity of filing a separate motion.

And it references Local Rule 90371, and that really deals with PII. And I was wondering, was it intended here this section to deal with Local Rule 1918, which is the seal. motion process. I wasn't sure what the interplay was here. So you're right, Your Honor. So in 19- wanted to give the opportunity to these third party 2004 targets to redact their personally identifiable information or that of others without having to formally file a seal motion. And that's why it triggered by that particular section.

It's also that local rule. I'm not entirely clear it requires a motion to redact if references one. So I wanted to be just to be just one. I wanted to, we just wanted to have that sort of. So I guess the presumption in E is that the only type of information that would be potentially redacted is PII, right? Right. And I think here you're right.

Yeah, I mean, is that accurate? No, I think we're going to have it. Right. So I think you're right. So I think you should modify this to address 1918. And I don't know what the U.S. Trustee's position is on that. So I think the parties should probably consult

and come up with a revised stip. I just want to make sure that we were all in the same pages what was being redacted and when emotions required. And like I said, if there's going to be for 1980, I would like the opportunity for my client to review that. Right. It's been your client's position if they want to review that. So do you guys want to confer offline

and submit a revised stip under cert? And let me just make sure while we're here because the committee, does committee have any position with respect of that? No issues, right. All right. I just want to make sure we avoid any issues down the road. So if you could confer and they just submit a formal order, that would be great. Anything else for today? Yeah, I would appreciate a status. I'll think that would be great. Oh, okay.

It was adjourned a couple of days there. She had to sit there. So your next hearing in this case, I believe, is. November 14th? Is that going to, is that, if you need additional time, you'll reach out? Before the... Yeah, actually, um, that we can put a more fulsome update in our disclosure statement. I don't have time availability.

Let me, let me ask you this. Do you need a 2004? I'm just thinking out loud if there's a way to do a process that you, you can avoid multiple 2004 requests, but which leads to another issue. It may be more helpful if the names are all one exhibit and you redact the exhibit as opposed to the pleading, the names and the pleading themselves, and then you can just redact the exhibit. Unfortunately, I had no availability, the eighth or the ninth.

So perhaps the seventh? Could you do the seventh at two? So with the auction being tomorrow, the 19th, and I just ask, and maybe this is a premature question, but otherwise is the debtor's time frame still in place with respect to confirmation? was to a 360 free sale. So that's why we've adjourned the sale hearing and are focusing on. All right. Okay.

Thank you. Appreciate the update. Is there anything further? Okay. Then I just asked Mr. Lugano to mark the calendar for hearing on the 7th at 2. Okay, everyone. Thank you. Have a great afternoon.

We stand adjourned.