I can't see how the valuation and expert testimony can't be heard, especially since Blackstone's valuation numbers are part of the record. If there is a discrepancy between the valuations, it should be argued in court.
Exactly. As WMI states in their Motion to Shorten:
...The Debtors believe that consideration of the Motion to Exclude at the Confirmation Hearing is necessary because the expert testimony and reports that the Debtors'[sic] are seeking to exclude are inextricably bound up with the entire confirmation process. Specifically, the testimony and reports that the Debtors are seeking to exclude are a significant piece of the Equity Committee's objection to confirmation of the Modified Sixth Amended Plan.
Without knowing the substance of Rosen's argument, is it strong enough to convince Judge Walrath that the EC's POR objection effectively not be heard?