American court hearing recordings and interviews - 11/7/23 hearing audio in the Prime Core/Prime Trust #bankruptcy, Delaware case no 23-11161, #crypto

Episode Date: November 10, 2023

--

Please be seated everyone. This is Judge Stickles. We're on the record in Prime Corps Technologies, case number 23-11161. Good afternoon. I do. Well, actually, I don't, but I've seen it. I've seen the papers.

Okay. Good afternoon. As you know, the detects have been conducting an investigation and to need a certain amount of signs that you have to be at the law. The other way is to get a hard to. device that are physical devices that would allow you to get access to that signer which allow you to affect the transaction of the wallet. We don't have that.

Because that was our mission in part. The wallet is electronic. Is that right? Well, yes. Okay. The wallet itself, the 98F wallet, is on the blockchain. Okay. That's what we thought.

We just... Yeah. So the 98F wallet is on the blockchain. It's called a multi-save wallet, which means it requires multiple signers. execute transaction into or out of the law. Problem is we don't have access to all of the signors of the hardware element. Right.

There are physical devices that allow you to access to the signer that allow you to get into the wallet. If you had the seed phrases, you could load those seedphrase onto the new hardware device and then get access to the law. We don't have enough. As a result, we sent 2004 discovery to 19 different linuses seeking information. We identified those linuses

who either previously had a seed phrase or were involved in wildlife management at crime or for which other witnesses identified as potentially having access to the seed phrase or other devices that kind of thing. This particular witness that's at issue today was the former chief technology officer at prime. He left prime in February 20th. Right before he left, the decision was made to offer this deposit digital address that went into 90-Def. which the company no longer has. There are contemporating his email, the site, in our motion that showed he was involved in those communications. As a result, he sent him a 2004 request asking

to voluntary discovery. We asked for documents. We asked for interrogatories. The interrogatory, the ask for, were really narrow. They were aimed at identifying whether he had the seat phrases, that he had the hardwet ones. For example, interrogatory one is identify C phrases concerning 98F.

Interrogatory 2. Identify the individuals or entities for in possession of our loss. And, 3 33. Identify the individuals or entities for in possession of seatbrates. These are all narrowly tailored to our goal. It acts as to an idea. We're a little bit out of loss. That's what we're arguing about. What is the basis for interrogatories under a 2004 exam? That's true, Your Honor. The Secretary language in 2004 described. in 2004 described document production and examination. There are multiple orders in this district and others

where interrogatory war ordered. The court has brought discretion to issue 2004 orders that are efficient that would serve the purposes in 2004. The primary purpose, the reason why you did this, is we have a lot of witnesses and not a lot of money. And we serve in interrogatory responses that were narrowly tailored to identify which ones

we really need to sit down and spend the time on and take a definition of. At the 19 witnesses that we served 2004 with, 14 responded voluntarily with in Toronto. We have five left, this particular witness as well. There was an offer made by this witness to provide requests for admissions, saying that this particular witness had no information

in his possession. We looked at that and we considered that. And the primary issue was we've already received text messages from another witness with this witness discussing issues critically relevant to this investigation including the wallet wallet access and then i need that so we know that at least at one time post-informed this particular witness had with possession relevant information can you step back a second and give me a sense of timing so this witness departed in february of 2021.

Yes. Walk me through the chronology. Yeah, the chronology when the information when you became aware that there was an issue with the wallet and then when when was the receiver appointed,

etc. So this wallet was actually created and it was previously used after the decision to what they called migrate the wallets to a third party called Fire blocks. Fire blocks is a place where crypto assets are traditionally

there was then a decision made in late December and early January to start reusing some of the old walls. This is December 2020. Correct. So December 2020, early January, is when the decision was made to use old wallets, including the 98F wallet,

this particular witness was involved in that discussion was the chief technology officer at the time and facilitated the issue and subject to be public. It is, this is public information that's on the blockchain, but there's been a lack of access into that wallet for a significant amount of time, so it's not like someone signing it every day and trying to log in. And so really looking for it, Judge, or pieces of paper that have 24-C phrases, snapshots, and people's phones, WhatsApp images, telegram images, that kind of thing, something that somebody might

forget they have it and have made some progress, but it's the one reason. No, I'll hear from the ejector. And is this party one, party seven? Party seven. Okay, all right. And it was a little complicated. No, that's okay. I just, I had seven in my notes, and I wasn't sure if I wrote it down on.

Okay, thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Jim Green, Ms. Seitzman Green, and his name about Secret Alex Gorge. Also representing Mr. Gorge's Catherine, themeer, who has any questions before that, but Ms. Deemer was primarily involved in the communications back and forth.

She's counseling in California to Mr. Gore to the objection. I can answer those before there's any questions about that. Yeah, I'm going to move past those issues, and I'd rather focus on the objections at hand. And so I don't know if the parties have had any discussions regarding the objections, what is left? What is being contested, or is all of it being contested? I'm going to see.

I'm having to answer, Your Honor, but with court to mention, I'll see the point to Ms. Deema, who's on soon. Okay. Ms. Deva? Good afternoon, Your Honor. It's still morning here. Good day, Your Honor. This is Catherine Deamer. I represent Mr. Gorge. We had multiple conversations with the debtor.

We offered to debtor to allow Mr. Gorge to have a traditional 2004 examination where if there was a request production of documents that was appropriately tailored, we would provide such documents, and that they could question Mr. Gorge under oath, as is traditional one in 2004 examination. They have not in any way ceded any ground. They insist that they have a right to interrogatories. They do not. They have not produced a single case, which authorizes them to do that. are express cases cited in our brief that prohibit the interrogatory is being published to a 2004 recipient who is a third party to the dispute. Mr. Gorge is very clearly a third party to the dispute. He is not a claimant until we filed this motion. He wasn't on the service

list. He's not identified anywhere. The problem here is, as Mr. Evans has said, Mr. Gorge left the company in 2021. he has not been involved in crypto in any way since 2021. He works in a completely different technology field. He does not have lots of documents or information, but I will be honest with you, my communications with Mr. Evans and Ms. Griffiths are such that there has been no movement whatsoever. There has been an insistence that

Rule 45D, the proportional response does not apply to Mr. Gorge. And what we are seeking here, Your Honor, is a ruling from the court that allows us to protect our witness and limit the 2004 order such that Mr. Evans and the debtor follow the rules of Rule 45, which is the mechanism which enforces rule. 2004, which means that the order, yes, I'm sorry. So you don't dispute that the debtor is entitled to a 2004 exam or the production of documents? No, we never have done so. We just believe that because Mr. Gorge is a third party, that the debtor must follow the rules

in Rule 45D, which requires that they seek, that they minimize the, burden on the third party and that they minimize that burden such that it is a limited amount of documents and limited burden. They have to go under the law, they have to go and look to other third parties for the information first, which apparently they're doing, which is fine. Once they have that, then they can come out to my jurisdiction where Mr. Gorge is resident, the Northern District of California, and enforce a proper security. I really must take issue with the way the debtor has handled this matter.

The debtor sent out subpoenas attached to a letter saying people had to respond within a week or they would go to the court to enforce. And these people weren't served. They didn't know. Mr. Gorge just got alarmed because he knew that Prime Corps had filed bankruptcy and he got alarmed and he got alarmed and contacted counsel. It was extremely overbearing if you were an independent third party without a lot of litigation experience to this individual. It's just an individual who happened to work at this company a couple of years ago. It in no way resembles the appropriate process that should occur in a 2004 exam. And we simply ask this court to issue its order in concurrence with the 2004 exam.

concurrence with the rules that govern 2004. No interrogatories, limited scope. And frankly, Your Honor, Mr. Evans and Debtor have to enforce in the Northern District. The rules are clear that enforcement, he can't just send out, he can send out the 2004 notice through worldwide or countrywide service, but he can't enforce. He has to properly serve and subpoena here in Northern district and enforcing. You've finally broken loose from work. Three friends, one tea time, and then the text.

Honey, there's water in the basement. Not exactly how you pictured your Saturday. That's when you call us, Cincinnati Insurance. We always answer the call, because real protection means showing up, even when things are in the rough. Cincinnati Insurance, let us make your bad day better. Find an agent at CINFIN.com. So we think that 2004 is fine, as long as it's only documents and a request, documents and testimony, but that it must be limited and reasonable.

And frankly, he should complete all of his other discovery first to see if he even needs Mr. Gorge, the independent third party to this dispute. Well, let me just say, um, the eye, based on the papers the debtor's shown calls for a 2004 exam. The debtors examination seeks information related to 98F wallet and that wallet issue is an important issue in this case and party one work for prime trust and then prime digital prior to February 21 and so I'm going to permit a 2004 exam and it sounds to me Ms. Dimer that you don't contest that and I'm going to also allow the production of documents. So what I'd like to do is, is it doesn't sound like the parties have gotten any closer with respect to resolving any issues.

So with respect to production specifically, it seems to me that, and correct me if I'm wrong, please, that the issues that are at hand are requests 10, 11, 13, 14, and then 20 through 23. Is that correct? Yes, Your Honor. Okay. So I've read the party's papers, but I would like, I don't believe that the debtors responded to request 10 and 11. So I'd like to focus on that request for a minute, and let's just address those two requests specifically for starters. And Ms. Dimer, I think since it's your objection, you should go first.

I'm sorry, I'm looking for your objection in my papers. Yes, I believe it's on page 16, Your Honor. So, request 10, 11, 13, and 14, and particularly request 10 and 11, seek documents relating to the exchange of monies between vendors. Vendors is defined in definition 21 at any entity contracted with or employed by the prime entities, whereas we're only talking about 10 and 11 now, not 13 and 14, Your Honor. Is that correct? Well, I was focusing first on 10 and 11, but if you, I mean, if you want to put them in

in one bucket, I'm happy to do it that way. I just want to focus the parties on what's truly an issue. Sure. The problem I have when I read this as a litigator is the definition of the Trump records is enormous. It broadens the term seek documents relating to the exchange of monies, which is already an extremely broad term and then identifies what that is with something on the order of 22 different things. According to Mr. Evans' argument, he said that what he's really interested in, and I hope I don't misquote him, I'm not as facile with the, cryptocurrency issues as he is, although I have handled them before, if they're really only

interested in the specific migration of this one wallet to fire chain and whether he has any physical things that would allow the, like the piece of technology that would allow them to access it or to use the old wallets, the identifier that would allow them to use the old wallets, I don't think that's a problem, but that's not at all what I got from requests for production of documents 10 and 11. It was this wide range of group of potential records, and I'm happy to go on to 13 and 14. Wait, can I, would you like to respond to that right now? Okay, yeah, let's see if we can. Joseph Evans up from 10-11, seek documents, communications, and records

concerning any payments made and vendor of the crime entities, or compensation of any kind named by vendors to gorge or any of a certain group of former employees. The reason for this request is that the decision was made in December of 2020 to move away from the vendors that were storing the walls, and the proper reasons during the course of, the internal investigation at the company and emails that we saw don't make any sense of this. And so we're trying to understand the reason by which the company decided to change from the fireblocks to go back to the Nilead-E-Dolks. The stated reason for complaints and issues with particular vendor reasons.

This particular witness only dealt with those vendors that concerned wallet management. That's the reason for the request. I do take your point around that these are a bit broader than the other request that issue. So if we had everything else with those two, we would be it. Okay, well, let me, before I rule, is there any way you can limit the scope or time? Sure. If we had documents, communications, and records concerning payments made to any vendor concerning wallet management, I would ensure that we're only seeking information

relevant to the 98F issue and not other vendors. Is there a time period? The time period is the date when this witness became employed at crime to now, 2020 to that matter. And I would note that this only relates to payments in compensation, and so it's already limited by its term for transactions. Can I just ask the question?

Did this person take business records with him? I'm saying him, I don't know. Did number seven, party seven? It's a good question. The off-boarding process at prime did use a little help. The documents we received from others indicated there were a lot of personal devices being used to discuss critical company business, in particular, tax messages with this witness,

post-employment about the idea of all. Ms. Daimah, do you want to respond? Yes, Your Honor. I do not believe that if we look at documents, qua documents, i.e. pieces of paper, I don't think so. I don't think they're already. I don't believe that there's any emails

after if you left the company. There might be some text messages or oral communications because, as I stated in my papers, Mr. Gorge and Mr. Lethanninity, I'm not sure I'm pronouncing that right. Excuse me, Your Honor, there's a. Thank you. Okay. The person who somehow designated, the guys who founded this company were personal, at least one of them was personal friends, of Mr. Gorge since he was about eight years old.

So it's unlikely that he doesn't have, let me rephrase that, he for sure has communications with his childhood about life. But is it about payments to vendors? I don't think so, Your Honor, but I don't have any heartburn about producing payments or compensation.

compensation related to that limited amount of information. So we'd be all documents communications and records concerning any payments made to any vendor, the prime entities concerning wallet management from your employment date to now? Okay. Okay. So we're maintaining the same time period. The time period from the time he was employed until present. That's fine.

As long as it's only compensation and payments, that's okay. I don't think that's a big deal. Okay. I think 13 and 14 are unfortunately not amenable to the same solution. Because, as I said, certainly the one gentleman, one of the founders, was a, literally a lifetime friend. Okay. The other two gentlemen who were founders, I think they were both founders, are people who also are friends, not of such long duration. And so when in 13 and 14, they seek broadband, all communications between Mr. Gorge and these people, that literally

get you the discussion of my client's actual party, the discussion of my client's wedding and who's getting there when and who's bringing a girlfriend, that's ridiculous and inappropriate. I have to disagree with Mr. Evans. It specifically asked for communications between Mr. Gorge and all these people. And the problem is because they're lifelong friend, there are

a lot of communication. But it says, concerning the prime entities. So I'm Ms. Dimer. Can you connect the dots for me? I'm not sure what I'm missing something. So let me give you some examples. Do they want any time the word prime is mentioned? Because it's mentioned,

my understanding is quite a bit, hey, I'm at the company right now. Oh, I'm going to do X, leaving the company to come to your, party, that sort of thing is included. That would be under the definitions that they have put forth, which includes everything known to mankind, over 22 categories, those would fall within it, even if it just had, if it was a communication using as part of the identifier in the email or in one of the other forms of communication mentions Prime. So it's Mr. X, founder

at prime.com or whatever their email address is, that would fall under their definitions. I suspect Mr. Evans is not interested in the man's private life, but, you know, the way these are drafted, they're so vastly overbroad. May I make a suggestion, Your Honor? Of course. If Mr. Evans is only concerned about the time when this decision was made, let's limit communications to the year before, say, you know, January 2020 through the time, you know, I guess maybe a year after, that should cover everything.

And then let's limit the topic to communications about the issue of the transfer of the 98F, any transfers of the 98F, and then you're going to limit it to what needs to be limited. We are looking for an idea of all of us. We're also looking to see if there are cause of action that they're in 2004. So, this communication is about prime with the three key executives relevant response in recovery

2004. And your honor under Rule 45, he can go to those other parties that he's already uncovered and he can be specific and limited because he had that information from the third parties. The 45D required

that he's specifying. Well, he's not. I mean, this is a simultaneous investigation of multiple people, and you've indicated there are five left. So we're not going to, we need to move promptly on this issue. I agree. Thank you. So my concern here is that while 2004s have been referred to as fishing expeditions,

this language is really, it is broad. I'm not as troubled by the time period as I am that it's concerning the prime entities. I don't know if that's a meet in the parking lot to go to lunch, the prime entities, or if it has something to do with the wallet. And I'm wondering if there's a way to craft this to make it more specific to the investigation that's ongoing. going. Your Honor, my concern is having to go back and see more information if we see one thing or see another thing and I'd rather do this once instead of twice and it's already been pretty truncated

given the process here. But if that's what Your Honor is comfortable with, we have to have a defined term. I was going to say you're going to have to come up with a defined term. I mean, I'm certainly going to let you explore this. Right. It's just the way it's written, it's broad. We could define issues concerning digital wallets. Seed phrases, migration.

Digital wallets at prime, seed phrases, hardware devices, 98F, firebox, and dip. I mean, is this something, I know it's difficult because obviously the parties could not agree on the motion, but is this something the parties could work? Yes, sir. I'm happy to see her and do it. If that's easier. I hope so. My hesitation, we probably haven't really been able to work that well.

Okay. Well, why don't we do this? Why don't, let's continue going through this and know that we have to come back to 13 and 14, but we're going to take a break. And I'm not going to go home until I have the definition. Okay. How's that? That'll be great, Your Honor.

Thank you. All right. Sorry, Maddie. Okay, and then so the next issues is I read the pleadings and please correct me if I'm but there are requests 20 to 23. Yes, Your Honor. These all identify requests for information about public events that happened after,

long after, almost two, more than two years after Mr. Gorge left the company. And they all resolve around things like filings in courts, which violate will 45, five D's requirements that they seek the information in least intrusive manners and frankly is not something that Mr. Gorge likely to have any information by the wasn't at the country. It hadn't been for two years. Let me hear from the data. On the 20 to 23, the capturing communications when these issues became public between

Mr. this particular witness and other people about what happened at prime. Oh my god, who would happen at prime, I have a secret on my dead, right? Right. We're not seeking any public information. We're not seeking copy of articles and that kind of thing. We want to know if he has communications about this that happened recently concerning these events because as counsel knows, he wasn't at the company for some time and then this became public. I don't know how much he knew or didn't know that should get different points in time, but this would capture those sorts of

It would seem to me, and Ms. Dimer, obviously, you can comment, but it would seem to me if he truly doesn't have anything, this is not an overly burdensome search. Your Honor, I have asked him, I do not believe he has anything, and therefore I don't think it is particularly burdensome. I just think it's not something that's appropriate. I think I would say to you, Your Honor, there's no need for you to work with. I'm fairly confident with your direction that Mr. Evans and I can work this out. The problem to date has been very specific. Mr. Evans and Ms. Griffiths would not agree unless we agreed to the interrogatories and didn't limit the scope. So when they took that very hardline position, we had no room to give.

I am quite confident that given the information Mr. Evans has told the court, today that if he sent me an appropriate, you know, a couple of definitions, we're going to come to an answer, but of course it's up to you, rather. We always try to work something out. We can try to work this out resolution today. I do have a proposed definition for wallet management. Okay. wallet management issues concerning digital wallets at prime addresses hardware devices seed phrases firebox dick code 90f and self-hosted wallace i don't have any problems with that but i must disagree with what mr evans said we offered mr gorge both document production and for that for 2004 examination But I draw the line at something that is absolutely unavailable under the law.

I appreciate both parties' arguments, but the point of today is to move forward. And I think then we have resolved the issues with respect to request for reduction, correct? Okay. So I think the only other issue is with respect to interrogatories. Is that correct? I think so, Your Honor, and except for the timing of the document production versus the deposition, this witness has refused to provide documents in advance of the deposition. They won't show up the deposition with the documents.

That is absolutely not true, Your Honor. We have absolutely agreed that if we could limit the number of documents or the scope, and if we could pick a consensual date and have it out here, that we would provide the document. documents in advance. The sticking point was the interrogatories and the scope. Okay. Okay. All right. So we're resolved on the subpoena and the document production, correct? Yes. Yes. And we haven't said a document production under that. No, Your Honor, because I have to ask my client what is being it for him. I happen to know that my client is traveling at the moment and the overbearing way in which this matter has been feed up makes me concerned that we'll be unable to identify a mutual agreeable

date. This is, is the proposed date that date Ms. Dimer says she needs to check with her client? Yes. Yes. So we could, I'd like to set an outside date, if you could, 14 days, one day's? What date did you propose? Or it's stale? Your Honor, I cannot. I absolutely cannot do any. anything the week of the... It's a Thanksgiving. How about the end of the month? Ms. Dimer, how about November 30th?

I believe that that's fine for my calendar. Hold on just a minute. I have a, I just need to double check. I have a jury trial in early December and I need to double check that that date is... Could we make it December 1st? I have an all-day mediation that's been saying. for nine months on the 30th. Yes, December 1st, Friday, December 1st.

And I will have to talk to my client because I do know the man is traveling. So I will have to check if he's available. Yes. And then are you going to reserve a deficit? The next tour is a second card to the interrogatories. Yes. And the deposition, both gate and the interrogatories and then. Okay, so I'm going to like to

let you both present your arguments with respect to interrogatories because, frankly, well, go ahead and present your arguments. No. For efficient discovery to make sure that debtors in creditors' committees and others can examine the assets and liabilities are concerned the debtors. We have nine, he does not have, for example, any secrets. The answer is, I don't have. each of these interrogatories in there was tailored.

And we did this to be efficient. We did this to determine which witnesses are we going to have to spend time and model an effort on a limited budget to take that position for six, seven hours of counsel for the debtors council for the creditors committee and everyone else's present. And so that's why the interrogatory in this case are the most efficient means of determining

doesn't have to see reasons, does we know who else have it. And one of the other issues, the reason why this has been helpful in the process, because interrogatory from other witnesses have revealed due comments that they have to see that. We're looking for a needle in the case that for really a piece of paper in the safe of pothops. And so identifying new witnesses

with very narrowly generally fraudicories most efficiently to go out there. Your Honor, I apologize, Mr. Allen. I'm sorry. Committee's counsel wants to be heard, and then we'll get to you, Ms. Dimea. Good afternoon. Okay.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Your Honor. For the record, Sharon Walskin from Brown-Grenwick on behalf of the committee. My motion for ProHawk admission was filed at docket number 389, and I appreciate, Your Honor, allowing me to speak and allowing me to participate by Zoom. Look, Your Honor, from the committee's perspective, recovering the 98F wallet feed phrases is of utmost importance to the committee, right? It's of utmost importance to the case.

It's tens of millions of dollars. of ETH that are currently unavailable to the estate and its creditors. But preserving estate assets is also of utmost importance. Your Honor is well aware of the thin margins of this case right now. Depositions are expensive. If they're necessary, they're necessary. But if the debtors are able to get the information that they need through interrogatories, depositions can't be streamlined or avoided entirely.

And frankly, Your Honor, we think that the debtors are able to get the information that they need through interrogatories, think that that is most efficient for the debtor and less burdensome for this particular witness. You know, we think that the procedure requested by the debtors, right, interrogatories and documents followed by a deposition if necessary, reduces the fee burden on the estate and on the witness. And so, Your Honor, I think that this court has the ability to craft orders in its discretion under 2004 that minimize the fee burn. of the estate, and we would ask, Your Honor, to do so. To the same question that I asked the debtors,

what is the basis under 2004 for permitting or interrogatories? Your Honor, I don't have a good answer to the question. I think that 105 gives this court broad powers, and I think that the overall equity of them is court, right, the ability to look at what would be most cost-effective for the state while protecting everybody's rights is the way to go here. But, Your Honor, I agree. This is a gray area.

And, you know, other courts have done it. Other courts have ordered it. And other witnesses in this case have done it. But frankly, if the concern here is what would be most burdensome on this witness, in the committee's view, answering nine interrogatories may be less burdensome then not doing so and having to sit for a deposition. Well, I don't think that's the position, but the witness is taken here. I mean, I'll hear from Ms. Dimer, but I think Ms. Dimer's position is different.

I'm not intending to put words into Ms. Dimer's mouth. Our view is that reducing the burden on the estate is absolutely critical here. We think that interrogatories would do that. And as a side benefit, it would reduce the fee burn for the witness. I understand that the witness has other concerns about whether interrogatories are appropriate at all. And let me ask you, are you aware of any precedent from this court where, in a contested scenario, the courts permitted interrogatories under 2004 exam? I believe, Your Honor, that the debtors have quoted some in their response,

but I would let Mr. Evans speak to that. They were non-contested, and there were parties, weren't they? Yes. And I don't... And I don't... And I don't disagree with you. It happens all the time because parties don't contest that, but I have a different scenario here.

If I had one, I give you, but I... Okay, thank you. I appreciate it. Ms. Dimer? Yes, Your Honor. I would have had no problem if the request was answer these interrogatories, these nine quite broad interrogatories, which are not narrowly tailored because the definitions that accompany them

are extremely broadly. But I wouldn't have had any problem answering nine interrogatories if what I was being offered on behalf of my client was, answer these nine interrogatories, and then we'll get back to you and see if we need the request for production of documents and the exam. A hundred percent of the response from the debtor was, answer the interrogator, produce the documents, answer the interrogatories,

and then I'm going to take your 2004 exam. This is of an independent individual who has no party, no, no, was not involved in this case at all. And they kept telling me, well, here, look at these cases. The cases they cite were the two cases they cited are cases what the court said no, and they involved parties. This is, there is clear precedent under Rule 45 that under the SEC versus the side case that I cited, that said absolutely, you cannot,

interrogatories from an independent party. The Roos page, it's all cited at pages seven and eight. There is no authority to get interrogatories from a witness who was a first party to the dispute. The only choice they have is the subpoenaed 2004 examination or if they were in a disputed matter or an adversary proceeding, they could that issue the interrogatories. They're not available under Rule 45 of a third party. And if, in fact, this were a situation where they said, hey, we'll get the responses to those

interrogatories and see if we really need to go any farther, I probably would have reacted differently, but that has never been their position. Their position was, you give me the answers to the interrogatories and all the documents under the wider scope, and then we're going to take your examination. I think the problem here, I too do debtors work out here in the Ninth Circuit. I'm sure, I didn't hear that. What did you say? I also do debtors work here in the Ninth Circuit and in California.

And I am sympathetic to the fact that this is a tight budget. And I understand that this is a court of equity, but the Court of Equity is bound also by the rules. And the rules are that they cannot do what they are asking you to do. There is no authority for it. And I will tell you that had they not wasted so much time and energy trying to get something they didn't have a right to, then I suspect we would not be before you today. I'm trying to avoid this is that we get our documents,

we get our interrogate employees, the UCC and the debtors need to confirm decide whether it's a useful use of resources to pursue the deposition, I'm fine with them. I just don't want to have to come back to court and file a motion or compels it. We are not willing to give Mr. Evans interrogatory responses that he is absolutely not entitled to. He is correct. Rule 45, the cases I cited are under Rule 45. The code is clear. Under 916 is the enforcement mechanism that causes Rule 45 to be the enforcement policy for Rule 2004, and it absolutely does not allow interrogatories.

If what he meant to say was he was comfortable with the request for productions of documents as lymphed and the testimony of a 2004, then that would be fine if he wished to withdraw his request for interrogatories. I think you just talk past each other. Let me ask, is the U.S. trustee have a position on this issue? Good afternoon, Your Honor, just to the United States Trustee. The United States Trustee does not have a position on the second. Okay, thank you, Mr. Cootia. There isn't a mechanism to have a third party respond to interrogatories in 2004.

So I'm not going to allow the interrogatories at this time unless the parties reach an alternative agreement amongst them. Thank you, Your Honor. If we're not going to be doing a deposition, it sounds like we're going to. I think you are. The request is that the deposition you conducted in the Zoom, so don't waste time the state assets traveling at California, Mr. Lorge. That's fine, Your Honor. We don't have any opposition to that.

I frankly assume that would be true. Okay, so you're going to consent to all parties being on Zoom? Yes. Is there anything further for today? Not for me, Your Honor. I appreciate your time in this matter. Just an outside date for the deposition. Oh. Your Honor, I'm in a two-week jury trial.

At least we believe it will only be two weeks. That starts on the seventh and continues to the 20th of December. And I am Chief Trial Council in Marin County on the Sun-Tack Water. And how does that fit in with like confirmation and the timing of the case? It's a good question, Your Honor. We have a number of targets. We are likely not going to have all the depositions done in the advance of the 10th. So we anticipate an evidence to continue to investigate and continue to investigate.

But I don't know where we are. Our first deposition is scheduled for Friday. So you're in trial until the 25th of December? No, the 20th, Your Honor, we hope, fingers crossed. It is a jury trial with 17 plaintiffs. We are one of the defendants. And so I can't promise you that it won't go closer to Christmas. I am profoundly hoping we will all be expeditious,

as all three of my children will be returning to California for the holiday and I'd like to see them. What is the debtor proposing? I'm sorry. What is the debtor proposing in terms of deposition outside date? The trial is supposed to the 20th? Yes. In first, I guess.

Because I will have so much time to prepare my witness and go over the documents while I'm in the middle of a two-week jury trial, Mr. Evans? How about January 5th? How about January 5th? Thank you, Your Honor. That's fine. It's just so many holidays. And, of course, the parties can obviously conferring greed at a time before that.

That's the outside date. Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. Okay. Could you confer and submit a form of order? Mr. Detweiler, do you want to be heard? Mm-hmm. Okay, understood all rates reserved.

And I do encourage the parties to be practical. There will be an examination. That's fine, Your Honor. We never opposed that. All right. Well, I just want to be clear. So is there anything further for this afternoon? I would only ask that we'd be able to review the order before it be submitted to the court.

Yes, I ask the parties to confer and agree on a full award. And if you can't agree on a form of order, submit competing orders, and I'll pick one. Absolutely. And please share with Mr. Cudia and the committee as well. Okay, thank you all very much. We stand in recess. Have a great afternoon. Thank you.