American court hearing recordings and interviews - Alex Jones bankruptcy hearing August 30, 2023, Southern District of Texas bankruptcy case # 22-33553

Episode Date: October 22, 2023

official hearing audio

If you're here for the 4 o'clock, I'd ask if you are speaking, why don't you hit 5 star? I'm going to call the 4 o'clock matter. If parties need to come in and out of the courtroom, that doesn't bother me one bit. Case number 22-3-553, the case of Alex Jones here on an emergency motion, I guess, related to a discovery dispute, so why don't I take that matter up right now? If you are in, if you are speaking in connection with the Jones matter, why don't you hit five star, and I will turn. I'll start by taking appearances in the courtroom.

Mr. Kavanaugh, good afternoon. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Matthew Kavanaugh and Victoria Agaropoulos here on behalf of Melissa Hazelden, the sub-chapter-5 trustee. And, Your Honor, we're here at the request of Ms. Freeman, who sends her apologies to you in the case. transit currently and could not attend the airport like during today. No worries.

Okay. Anyone else? I think we're going now to video. Please hit 5 star and I will unmute your line. Okay, I've got a few. I'm just going in the order. Here's a 512 number. Your Honor, Stephen Roberts, I represent the deponent or excuse me, the examiner the end of 2004

examination sent by the committee tomorrow. Mr. David Jones. Okay, good. This is a dispute involving the 2004-examination. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, sir. Okay, here is a 214 number. Christina Seuenson for Alex Jones.

Good afternoon. All righty, here's a 512 number. Your Honor, Steve Lemon, I'll have a BQPR. Okay, 713. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Ryan Chappell on behalf of the Connecticut plaintiffs. Okay, here's another 713 number. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Your Honor. Avi Motionberg on behalf of the Texas plaintiff. All right. And here's a 202 number. You have to me. Good afternoon, Your Honor. I'll wait for the U.S. trustee. Okay.

If I have missed anyone, why don't you hit five star? I'd also ask if there's a possibility that you may speak, why don't you hit five star? Once I start looking straight, I mess it up all the time. Ms. Porter, let me. Ah, all righty. We've got two more. 917 number? Captain.

Good afternoon, Your Honor. Catherine Porter from the UCC. Okay. So the UCC. And here's a 202 number. A 203 number, excuse me. Okay. Your Honor, this is Ryan Chappell.

Can you hear me okay? Yes, I can, Mr. Chappell. I believe that's Mr. Maddie, and I neglected to introduce him. He's my colleague for the Connecticut Clinic. I believe he was on mute. I believe he tried to speak. Mr. Maddie, could I get you?

Can you hear me now, Your Honor? I can. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Chappell, why don't you kind of tell me what's going on? Yes, Your Honor.

First of all, I know everyone on the line really appreciates the court's time. It's certainly short notice. I know the court doesn't enjoy getting involved in discovery disputes. I'll be as brief as I can. As Mr. Roberts alluded to, Mr. Roberts' counsel for Dr. Jones, Alex Jones' father. Dr. Jones' 2004 examination. Deposition is scheduled for tomorrow morning in Austin, Texas.

I'm in Austin right now. The reason we're here, Your Honor, yesterday Mr. Roberts informed the parties that he would allow the committee and the U.S. trustee to ask questions during the examination tomorrow, but he was going to attempt to prevent the Texas and Connecticut plaintiffs. from question Dr. Jones. He also noted, Your Honor, that only the committee had served a 2004 examination notice. Now, to be clear, I don't think that is his substantive problem with Texas and Connecticut going forward tomorrow, but I do want to address it just to make sure the court is fully informed.

He's correct initially. Only the committee noticed the 2004 exam. It's been rescheduled at least once to mine. I believe it was initially going to go forward a couple of weeks ago. Over the past several weeks, there's been discussion. There's been email correspondence among all of the parties regarding notice and whether or not the other parties intending to ask questions needed to file a notice. All of the other parties agreed that the committee's notice would suffice.

And incidentally, Your Honor, that was the course of action taken for Mr. Patrick Riley's deposition last week. I'm sure you'll recall Mr. Riley was a witness in your court earlier this year. And I know that question was on the table, at least via email to Mr. Roberts as early as August 18. So yesterday, he, while noting his opposition to Texas and Connecticut, not asked, or excuse me, being able to ask questions, he also raised the notice issue. So, number one, out of an abundance of caution, Texas plaintiffs and Connecticut plaintiffs. filed their own notice yesterday afternoon. Now, I believe the substantive issue that Mr. Roberts has, I don't want to put words in his mouth.

I know he'll speak in a moment. But he's concerned that with the committee going and then Texas and then Connecticut, that there may be a duplication of efforts. And that's really the substantive point that I want to address today. I believe Mr. Motionberg may have a few words after I speak or after Mr. Robert speaks, as Mr. Motionberg has really been more boots on the ground on the correspondence, both written and oral, over the past several weeks. And Mr. Motionberg also participated in the deposition of Mr. Riley, and I did not.

Mr. Chappell, let me ask you a question, kind of a, kind of a, was there any kind of agreement, not on file, just email or something like that, between, the Texas and Connecticut plaintiffs and Dr. Jones, there is counsel about setting a time and a date for a 2004 examination. Your Honor, let me quickly tell you my understanding of the back and forth on that issue over the past several weeks, with the caveat that I wasn't a material participant in those discussions. Can someone just tell me? I guess what I'm trying to find out. I'm just asking really fast.

Then we can tell me this. I'm just trying to get to the 10,000 foot level. This is not going to affect the committee's 2004, so I'll put that off the table. I just want to know, is there some email agreement where there was saying, hey, we're going to, you know, Texas and Connecticut can ask questions on August 30th or whatever at this time and time. Is there any kind of agreement there between Dr. Jones? or obviously Mr. Roberts and any other Texas and Connecticut plaintiffs. Your Honor, my understanding is that there's...

Anyone can answer. Anyone can answer. I just want to know kind of... Mr. Motionboard, go ahead. Jeff, thank you. So the bottom line is since June we've been trying to schedule this deposition... I'm asking a more laser-targeted question. Sure.

It's not... Yeah, go ahead. I'm looking for kind of yes or no, and yeah, I can show you an email. Yeah, there is no express that agreement, and that's one of the reasons why he finally responded two days before the deposition, saying Texas and Connecticut can take the deposition. All of the parties, including the sub-5, the U.S. trustees office,

everyone together scheduled this deposition date for weeks since June together. And it wasn't until yesterday afternoon that we heard, for some reason, Texas can't ask questions. Other people can, but apparently Texas and Connecticut aren't allowed to ask questions. I'm not getting an answer. Okay. I want to answer your question, I'm sorry. I want to make sure. Let's see if Ms. Arjoropoulos.

Judge, I hear you. There is a general agreement between all of the parties that people don't have to serve cross-notices for every single deposition because there are many of them. There is not, as far as I'm aware, and I'm not as involved as everybody else, As far as I'm aware, there's no agreement specifically with respect to Mr. Jones' deposition. Okay. So what are we doing here then? In other words, I have to start with the rule.

That's where I'm starting, right? And I start with our local rules, and our local rules say, our local rules avoid filing a motion for a 2004. And you don't have to kind of go through that. But a written agreement between the proposing, opposing counsel and the person to be examining about the date and time of a 2004, is enforceable by a motion to compel without necessity of the court. So if you all agree on a date and time, you don't need me. But they get to file, if they oppose it, they oppose it,

they got to file something. And that kind of starts. It's the opposition that kind of starts it. But there has to be agreement between, in this case, Dr. Jones, through Mr. Roberts or some other counsel, and the 2004 date and time. And if there's not, then we're going to have to figure something out. Your Honor, I think that's not my eye.

So until yesterday afternoon, Your Honor, I thought there was an agreement. They had never raised the issue. We had all together planned a day. I know. But they get to show, but they don't have to raise it until there's either someone files a motion or there's an agreement on a date and time. May I speak, Your Honor. I'm going to hear of Mr. Roberts here.

I might be winning this for you, Mr. Roberts. I don't know if you want to... I understand. I keep hearing. I sound like I've bushed back these parties. I've been in communication with the... There is an agreement with the creditors committee in the Alex Jones case

as to the committees taking the 2004 generation tomorrow in Austin. That is the only agreement. There have been e-mails, back and forth between these other parties, but the committee was open to other people asking questions. I advised the committee.

I was not so open. And anybody who wanted to contact me directly to discuss it, I would. And so that's where we are on the technical points. Our view just one step further, the creditors committee is representing the creditors. Now we have two members of the creditors committee. We want to add questions. We don't think that is any more appropriate than three lawyers representing the same side asking one witness

questions. I would add one more thing. We have provided 140,000 297 pages of documents to the committee. We spent hundreds of hours on document production. We're still working with the committee cooperatively so far.

We have worked with them. The notion of anybody coming in saying, hey, we want to ask additional questions, and those being not providing us prior notice, or 14 days notice required by the rule, not conferring with us and leaving it out to assume that we would agree is where we are. I got it.

Let me just end this. I will tell you on the 2004 for the Texas and Connecticut plaintiffs, there's nothing for me to take up. And it was just a notice officially filed yesterday, so there's nothing for me to take up on that there. there's no 2004 scheduled for Mr. or Dr. Jones. So I think you all are going to have to reach a practical solution about this. I will tell you as to the multiple lawyers asking questions

as long as they don't go over their time, it's going to be completely fine with me about what that is. So there's no one, you know, 2004 is you can have more than one riot for arrangers, you know. And so I think you can have it. I think you can go. So I think the committee can go forward if it wants to tomorrow,

and 8 in time is set, and they can conduct their examination however they see fit within the bounds of 2004. I think Texas and Connecticut, there's nothing yet for me to consider at this time because the local rules haven't been complied with, and I've got to call it fair down the line, down the middle every time. So anything else we need to talk about? No, Judge. All righty, folks. You'll have a good deal.

Thank you. Thank you.