Catz, I was inclined to agree with your logic on this, but then I read the exchange in it's entirety and the fact that the judge said she would rule on this after the Brown and Rudick reaffirmed their position on the 30(b)(6). The judge indicated that the debtors would file a motion to quash and TPS would file a follow up motion and she would decide. As such I think the logic of TPS feeling that rosen could quash the motion with some assumed underlying support of the Court was not enough to get TPS to cancel.
Moreover, in this case I, nor anyone else for that matter would agree that TPS has been passive aggressive in this case. In fact, myself and others included would be inclined to say that they have been the pitbulls, (well at least in hearings) in this case. So for them to simply cancel instead of having the judge rule and without having seen a Motion from the Debtors objecting (maybe I missed it,if so the first point and my last still stand) and their counter to the debtors objection (this has not been produced) goes against their MO in this case.
So personally, I think there is something much more to this cancellation than meets the eye. I'm not going to speculate, but based on the facts and the way TPS has proceeded in this case IMHO it is doubtful that the reasons you listed serve as the basis for the cancellation. Although you do point out that TPS could have been scared that it would not have gotten taken care of before confirmation...I do believe there issues and line of questioning under 30(b)(6) were in direct relation to the plan of confirmation. Actually it was if you read their argument. not to mention there would have been plenty of time this week for the judge to hear arguments this week and make a ruling well in advance of confirmation...and enough time for TPS to actually depose whomever. Remember the judge had free time this week as this week were the original dates for confirmation anyway. Considering that the EC indicated that they could depose and be prepared for a confirmation hearing in a matter of two days, leads me to believe that TPS may very well be capable of doing so as well. So the more I think about it and read the more it seems there is something else than the points you laid out/ and/or your reasoning!
Below is the exchange re the debtors, court and TPS about the 30(b)(6) issue:
MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I’m going to keep with the 12 tradition that people refer to this as the open mic, and I do 13 want to bring one point to the Court’s attention. 14 Late on Monday night, we received from Brown and 15 Rudnick, counsel to the TPS group, co-counsel to the Arkin 16 firm, a notice of a 30(b)(6) deposition, and a request for 17 production of documents. 18 As several people have eluded to already today, 19 tomorrow is the scheduled deposition of Mr. William Kosturos, 20 CRO of Washington Mutual, Inc. pursuant to the 30(b)(6) notice 21 that was served on the debtors a while back, well not that far 22 back, but Mr. Sargent told us that they were going to do it, 23 and we knew that it was going to come, certainly well in 24 advance of this past Monday evening. 25 And so we’re in somewhat of a quandary here. We’re heartened by the fact that the Court’s rulings today to try and 2 keep confirmation on track. We are struggling, however, with 3 the fact that another deposition, a 30(b)(6) deposition on 4 topics completely different than those that are being requested 5 by the equity committee in its 30(b)(6) deposition, and 6 documents that are -- 7 THE COURT: I’m not going to prejudge it, but I assume 8 you’re going to file a motion to quash that? 9 MR. ROSEN: Well, Your Honor, we’ve already objected 10 to the 30(b)(6) deposition but here’s the quandary. We’re 11 going to produce one 30(b)(6) witness, seven hours maximum 12 under the federal rules. That’s scheduled for tomorrow. The 13 problem is, our witness is not prepared, however, to deal with 14 all of these other issues, which now have been belatedly served 15 upon us. 16 I don’t want to delay the deposition of the equity 17 committee because it has been served, and everybody I think in 18 this courtroom wants it to go forward tomorrow if it were 19 limited to those topics. If we were to tell the TPS guys to 20 come in and talk with us at that point, or ask questions of the 21 witness at that time, on topics that we said we were not 22 objecting to, the person wouldn’t be reason to talk about it 23 tomorrow. 24 Again, and we get to July 1st, and your Court’s 25 decision about when they will file their objection to pg 117 1 confirmation, and everything starts to delay, delay, delay, 2 Your Honor. That’s my point. 3 If we start to give any credence to the TPS actions, 4 the late Monday night request served upon us, it’s going to by 5 definition, delay the entire process, because we’re not going 6 to give them a witness tomorrow, because we need to have this 7 person sit only once, Your Honor, and we’re going to be faced 8 with the difficulty that they’re going to say, we need to take 9 that deposition and therefore we need to delay our confirmation 10 objection. 11 THE COURT: I suggest you go ahead with the deposition 12 tomorrow, that the equity committee has served. I’ve already 13 stated I’m not inclined to let anybody else serve late 14 discovery. 15 MR. ROSEN: Then we will do that, Your Honor, we’ll 16 move to quash the other, thank you. MR. COFFEY: Your Honor, may I be heard? It’s Jeremy 18 Coffey with Brown Rudnick. We are counsel for certain of the 19 TPS holders, but I just want to make clear that the Arkin firms 20 represents some of our group for a purpose for which my firm is 21 not in a position to serve as a result of conflicts. 22 The document request and the 30(b)(6) notice that we 23 served on Monday are -- pertain to confirmation issues that 24 were raised in our confirmation objection which was timely 25 filed over five weeks ago. We’ve still not seen from the pg 118 1 debtors a list of witnesses they intend to call at 2 confirmation. We think it’s our right as a party to a 3 contested matter to be prepared to meet whatever evidence they 4 put on. 5 We have raised issue -- we have asked for witnesses on 6 issues that were raised in our objection that do not overlap 7 what the equity committee is going to do, at least our 8 understanding from the notice of what they’re going to do. 9 They pertain just to confirmation of this new -- or the plan 10 that we now understand is going forward, whereas, in the past 11 couple of weeks, there was some question as to whether or not 12 there would be this plan or another plan, we’re simply trying 13 to prepare for trial. 14 THE COURT: All right. They’ll file a motion, you’ll 15 respond, and I’ll decide it. 16 MR. COFFEY: We look forward to the opportunity. 17 Thank you, Your Honor. 18 THE COURT: All right. We’re done? 19 MR. ROSEN: Thank you, Your Honor. 20 THE COURT: We’ll stand adjourned.
AI
