1 1 5BT9SEPC 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 ------------------------------x 3 3 IN RE: SEPTEMBER 11 4 LITIGATION 4 5 5 21 MC 97 6 6 7 7 ------------------------------x 8 New York, N.Y. 8 November 29 2005 9 4:15 p.m. 9 10 Before: 10 11 HON. ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, 11 12 District Judge 12 13 APPEARANCES 13 14 SPEISER, KRAUSE, NOLAN & GRANITO 14 Attorney for Property Plaintiffs 15 BY: FRANK H. GRANITO, III 15 16 MICHAEL J. GARCIA 16 United States Attorney for the 17 Southern District of New York 17 SARAH SHEIVE NORMAND 18 BETH GOLDMAN 18 Assistant United States Attorney 19 19 FLEMMING, ZULACK WILLIAMSON, ZAUDERER LLP 20 Attorney for Plaintiff The Port Authority of NY and NJ and 20 World Trade Center Properties, LLC 21 BY: RICHARD WILLIAMSON 21 22 KREINDLER & KREINDLER 22 Attorney for Wrongful Death Plaintiff Liason Counsel 23 BY: MARC S. MOLLER 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 2 1 APPEARANCES CONTINUED 2 SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 2 Attorney for Defendant Port Authority of NY & NJ in World 3 Trade Center and Ground Defendant Liason 3 BY: BETH D. JACOB 4 4 CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP 5 Attorney for Citigroup 5 BY: THOMAS J. MOLONEY 6 6 KATHLEEN M. COLLINS 7 Attorney for The Port Authority of NY & NJ 7 8 GENNET, KALLMANN, ANTIN & ROBINSON, P.C. 8 Attorney for Plaintiff Aegis/ConEd 9 BY: MARK L. ANTIN 9 10 GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS LLP 10 Attorney for Plaintiff Aegis/ConEd 11 BY: FRANKLIN M. SACHS 11 12 ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL MASON & GETTE 12 Attorney for Allianz PD/BL PEC 13 BY: TONY PARSONS 13 14 CONDON & FORSYTH LLP 14 Attorney for American Airlines, Inc. 15 BY: DESMOND T. BARRY, JR. 15 16 CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES 16 Attorneys for Plaintiff IRI 17 BY: TIMOTHY S. TOMASIK 17 ROBERT A. CLIFFORD 18 18 GREGORY P. JOSEPH LAW OFFICES LLC 19 Attorneys for Plaintiff IRI 19 BY: GREGORY P. JOSEPH 20 DOUGLAS J. PEPE 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 3 1 THE COURT: Good afternoon everyone. More people here 2 than the jury I had this morning. 3 There's two items I'd like to add to the agenda that 4 was sent. One is to tell you about a proceeding this morning 5 where Mary Schiavo wanted to inspect the machinery that you 6 pass through. 7 MR. MOLLER: Security equipment at Portland. 8 THE COURT: Thank you. The security equipment at 9 Portland, and the government was concerned that it might be 10 SSI. Ms. Goldman is here, is going to circulate to liaison 11 counsel an order that will provide for the inspection. 12 Basically, the procedure is that the TSA will see it first. 13 This all has to be done in a very tight timeframe. The TSA 14 would see it first, make an initial determination whether it 15 thinks that there is SSI. If there is, they would cover over 16 the labels, which is that -- that's where the SSI would be, if 17 anywhere, and the inspection could go forward. Before that 18 there would be a photograph of the label itself so that 19 everything would be preserved. 20 Delta has vacated the premises. It's effective the 21 first of the month. Actually they're already out. I also 22 ordered Delta to provide a technical person who was familiar 23 with the equipment in case it had been moved. 24 The point of my telling you all this now is that since 25 there's a very narrow window, anyone who wants to conduct that SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 4 1 inspection ought to get in touch immediately with Mr. Moller, 2 you, or Ms. Ciablo. 3 MR. MOLLER: Contact me. 4 THE COURT: Mr. Moller. Obviously a large contingent 5 can't go. You have to organize amongst yourself a smaller 6 contingent. Mr. Joseph had a representative this morning. 7 MR. JOSEPH: Mr. Pepe was there. 8 THE COURT: Mr. Pepe, you were there, he is now, and 9 anyone else who needs to do that inspection should work it out 10 with one of them. 11 MS. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, just to update, around 12 3:00 o'clock today I circulated among liaison counsel a draft 13 order, so people were probably on their way here, but it's been 14 circulated. 15 THE COURT: Good. But the inspection will go forward 16 without my -- without anybody else having to see it or my 17 having to issue the order itself. The order is in the 18 transcript. Today is the 29th. I remind you the only day 19 for the inspection is probably tomorrow. 20 The second is the desirability of persuading the 21 bankruptcy judge over the Delta and over the Northwest 22 proceedings to partially lift the stays so that they could be 23 involved with all that's happening in those proceedings. That 24 was done with United and it should be done, I think, with Delta 25 and with Northwest. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 5 1 I'm advised that a stipulation is circulating among 2 various of the plaintiffs here, but I think from everyone's 3 concern we ought to get that done as quickly as possible so 4 that whatever is involved in Delta in one such event could go 5 forward with appropriate imprimatur. 6 Those are the two items. Where does it stand, 7 Mr. Moller? That stipulation? Do you know? 8 MR. BARRY: I think I can speak to that, your Honor, 9 Item 1 a. The stipulation concerning the provision of 10 settlement information -- 11 THE COURT: No. I was talking about the stipulation 12 for providing the partial lift stay. 13 MR. BARRY: I'm sorry. I thought you were talking 14 about the first item. 15 MR. LATO: Doug Lato on behalf of the plaintiffs' 16 executive committee. Your Honor, I handled the lifting of the 17 stay for United. I was dealing with it, with Delta. I 18 received a proposed stipulation from Michael Crowley. I 19 circulated that amongst the PEC. 20 Quite frankly, we have one problem and we're working 21 with Mr. Crowley to get that resolved. 22 MR. PARSONS: Tony Parsons for the PD/PEC. We're 23 working with U.S. Airways who's also in bankruptcy dealing with 24 their stay. We have one issue with their proposed stipulation. 25 We received that today. In which they're trying to address SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 6 1 some issues with protecting insurers and reinsurers of U.S. 2 Airways. We're trying to work through that and hope to have 3 something to work through here in the next couple weeks. 4 THE COURT: If I can help, let me know. 5 MR. LATO: We're trying to work it out, Judge. We 6 hope to have a resolution relatively soon. 7 THE COURT: Mr. Barry, the stipulation with which you 8 are concerned. 9 MR. BARRY: Yes, your Honor. We're still working with 10 Mr. Williamson's office and with the plaintiffs', property 11 plaintiffs' liason counsel, Mr. Moller. It's just about 12 together. I think we'll have it to you within a week. 13 THE COURT: Does everyone know what's going on? 14 Everyone seems to know what's going on. Good. 15 If anyone wants me to speak a little bit about it, 16 I'll be glad to do it. Okay. 17 In the ordinary case a settlement doesn't need a 18 judicial okay. Parties are free to settle as they wish. If 19 there is a -- an infant or some other disability, a judge has 20 to rule that there's enough in the settlement to make it fair. 21 We have a different situation. Under the Act, the Air 22 Transportation Safety and System Stabilization, there's a 23 maximum recovery that's allowed measured by the insurance 24 benefits. So there is desire on the part of the various 25 insurers to make sure that the amounts paid in settlement, and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 7 1 they can be significant, are credited against the cap. That 2 means that it's probably materially important for a judge to 3 approve the settlement. 4 The wrinkle that has arisen is that many of the 5 plaintiffs want to have privacy with regard to their 6 settlements. And therefore, there was a concern that if they 7 have to make a motion on notice, to obtain the judge's approval 8 of the settlement for proper crediting against the cap, there 9 could not be privacy. 10 So, there's tension between two values. I ruled on, 11 when this issue came up a week or so ago, that a group of 12 settlements would be bundled together and I would approve the 13 settlement balance. I would see who it is but initially at 14 least the defendants -- no one else except the parties involved 15 in this settlement would know the amounts of the settlement. 16 Mr. Barry, of course, knows because he's -- and some 17 others with him, they're making the settlements. But nobody 18 else knows. 19 So the thought was that by grouping a number of 20 settlements, obtaining my approval that way, we could resolve 21 the tension. 22 Now, that still is a problem for particular 23 defendants, at least it's theoretical, but it doesn't seem to 24 be more than a theoretical problem. Clearly the insurers are 25 not going to pay anymore than they have to. And the danger SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 8 1 here is that the settlement soaks up too much of the recoveries 2 allowable before we hit the cap. It's not likely to happen. 3 So, I think the problem really doesn't substantively 4 exist. It exists only theoretically, and that's why I think 5 it's a safer procedure to bundle together a number of these 6 settlements and obtain the approvals that way. But that's how 7 it was resolved in No. 97. I wanted to present it here to make 8 sure there are no problems with anyone here. There should be 9 no problem, I think. 10 Doesn't seem to be. 11 Mr. Barry, so you can go ahead. 12 We're at No. 2, the status of discovery. Who wants to 13 speak to that? 14 MR. CLIFFORD: Your Honor, good afternoon. Robert 15 Clifford on behalf of the -- 16 THE COURT: I'm glad to hear that you're feeling 17 better. 18 MR. CLIFFORD: The problem is I'm not particularly 19 stoic so my wife doesn't think I'm handling this very well. 20 THE COURT: I know the problem. 21 MR. CLIFFORD: The production of the insurance claim 22 files is on track and due to occur on January 15. 23 And with respect to the meet-and-confer sessions, 24 those are continuing, and all of the depositions are being 25 renoticed, consistent with the discussions that the court has SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 9 1 had about SSI preservation of record issues. I think that's 2 it. 3 MR. TOMASIK: That is it. 4 THE COURT: Does everyone know the status of things? 5 Anybody need more elaboration? 6 Item three. 7 MS. NORMAND: Good afternoon. Sarah Normand on behalf 8 of TSA. In response to your Honor's instructions at the last 9 conference, TSA has begun working on final orders. The first 10 order will address essentially plaintiffs' request for an 11 exception to the general policy that's expressed in the 12 regulations which limit disclosure of SSI to persons with 13 regulatory need to know. There is a mechanism in the regs for 14 requests for conditional disclosure to persons outside of that 15 category and TSA will be issuing its first final order in 16 response to this request for conditional disclosure. 17 THE COURT: How is the need to know defined? 18 MS. NORMAND: It's defined in the regulations, your 19 Honor, to include persons who need information SSI for purposes 20 of carrying out security duties pursuant to regulations as well 21 as attorneys who are needed to advise covered parties with 22 regard to either pending judicial or enforcement actions or 23 other questions arising from the regs, among others. 24 THE COURT: But the carrying out of the function of 25 the litigation for the Air Transportation Safety and System SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 1 Stabilization Act doesn't count. 2 MS. NORMAND: That's right, your Honor. TSA has 3 interpreted the regs, as expressed in the McHale declaration, 4 to include a so-called litigation need-to-know. 5 THE COURT: You know, I ruled in the duty case that 6 Congress intended two purposes, among others, in passing the 7 act. One was a system of compensation that flowed from 8 Mr. Feinberg's activities as a special master. The other was 9 to conduct litigation. And that was the purpose of exclusive 10 jurisdiction of this court in creating the forum. So it seemed 11 to me that the very same act that created the concept of SSI 12 should accommodate the needs of the litigants in this court. 13 MS. NORMAND: Your Honor, SSI existed before that 14 statute. There were regulations that preexisted that 15 legislation and had been issued by the FAA which are 16 substantially similar to the regulations that are in place 17 today. So the regulatory scheme, in fact, predates the events 18 that precipitated enactment of legislation, and TSA's 19 interpretation of its regs does, in fact, exclude persons who 20 have only a litigation need-to-know as opposed to a need to 21 know that's expressed in the regulations. 22 THE COURT: Mr. Clifford, do you want to say 23 something? 24 MR. CLIFFORD: Yes, your Honor. Robert Clifford. 25 Your Honor, that raises an issue that we would ask you to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 11 1 entertain a motion about, and that is who has currently, in our 2 rights, the SSI clearance, and it's my understanding that 3 requests have been made to expand that with counsel giving the 4 response that she just did. But for an example, if there's -- 5 this inspection tomorrow, within our regs we only have two or 6 three people who currently have the proper clearance to attend 7 that inspection. 8 THE COURT: I think, Mr. Clifford, that's become 9 academic. Early in our history counsel were cleared, but I 10 think TSA has taken the position that they don't have a need to 11 know under the categories that Ms. Normand has expressed and, 12 therefore, it doesn't make a difference if you're cleared or 13 not, you're not going to get access, and I don't know that I 14 have jurisdiction. 15 MR. CLIFFORD: That's why I asked if you wanted to 16 entertain a motion because it would help frame the issue. 17 THE COURT: You can make whatever motion you want, but 18 I don't think it will be useful. 19 The way we discussed this issue, when it came up, I 20 guess it was in '97, Ms. Normand, was that plaintiffs were 21 pressing TSA to issue a final order so that they can appeal to 22 the Second Circuit. TSA was trying to work out some kind of a 23 protocol. Further discussion suggested the reasons, among I 24 just mentioned, but others as well, that the protocol was not 25 going to produce very much utility, and it might just as well SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12 1 be useful to get the final order and go up to Second Circuit. 2 There was an alternative procedure as well, if you 3 were to go with the depositions, someone would ask a question 4 which if answered would disclose something that TSA thought was 5 SSI. And since it's a discovery issue, I'll rule. But since I 6 can't rule on what may or may not be SSI, it would force, in 7 effect, TSA to issue a final order. Absent a final order, it's 8 not -- one could think SSI, but with a final order, it is. 9 But for whatever reason, Ms. Normand is reporting that 10 TSA will be issuing a final order in the very near future, and 11 for those of you who wish to appeal will have a basis to do it. 12 The protocol had to do with various working arrangements with 13 information which, as we talked about it, appeared to not be 14 productive. There's too much difficulty in getting through to 15 the issue and also I have jurisdiction over the discovery but I 16 don't have issue over the information -- I don't have 17 jurisdiction over the information. 18 Mr. Joseph or Mr. Pepe. 19 MR. PEPE: Your Honor, Douglas Pepe. I just wanted -- 20 one point of clarification. I think your Honor just suggested 21 that TSA may be issuing a final order and as I heard 22 Ms. Normand, she was suggesting that TSA would be issuing first 23 an order on our request for an SSI protocol and the second 24 order I believe would follow, which would relate to the 25 documents, and my concern is just one with respect to timing SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 13 1 because that could give rise to two separate appeals when it 2 would be unnecessary. 3 THE COURT: Ms. Normand. 4 MS. NORMAND: Your Honor, TSAs plan is to issue final 5 orders on a rolling basis, that is in part in response to your 6 Honor's desire to move things along. The first final order, as 7 I said, will address sort of the overall request for disclosure 8 of SSI. The next final order will relate to specific SSI 9 designations with regard to the documents that were part of the 10 so-called first wave. And then subsequent to that TSA will 11 issue a final order or more than one final order with regard to 12 documents in the second wave. We do think that the petitions 13 could easily be consolidated upon request to the Second Circuit 14 and that in effect all of the final orders will be reviewed at 15 the same time. 16 THE COURT: I think that's right. That creates a 17 pressure for timeframe. 18 MS. NORMAND: That brings me to another -- I'm sorry 19 to interrupt. 20 THE COURT: What would be the timeframe? 21 MS. NORMAND: As I mentioned at the last conference, 22 we received requests from parties to make final submissions 23 with regard to TSA's determinations. TSA is inclined to accept 24 those submissions. However, the agency is cognizant of your 25 Honor's request that we move things forward quickly. As a SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 14 1 result, TSA is asking parties to make any submissions either as 2 to the requests for conditional disclosure of SSI or as to 3 TSA's SSI designations in the first wave no later than 4 December 15. TSA will endeavor and make its best efforts to 5 issue final orders as to those two items as soon as reasonably 6 feasible after December 15. Subsequent to that, TSA will turn 7 to the documents in the second wave and will follow essentially 8 the same process and again will use its best efforts to issue 9 final orders as soon as it can. 10 THE COURT: I think you'll probably need multiple 11 petitions for review and I think once the first petitions are 12 issued, someone should be in touch with staff counsel of the 13 circuit to set up some kind of procedure and enlist that 14 person's help in creating some form of schedule. I don't 15 really have jurisdiction to set the timetable of the agency. I 16 only have jurisdiction over discovery issues. 17 What it probably would make most sense if we could 18 have at least a frame of dates looking forward to the 19 completion of all the final orders, which I think TSA ought to 20 think about completing by the end of February. So the briefing 21 schedule ought to be set for everything and let's move on 22 those. 23 MS. NORMAND: If I could, your Honor, I'd like to 24 consult with the agency and advise the court. 25 THE COURT: I can understand that. Beyond that, I SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 15 1 think my patience as the judge responsible for the conduct of 2 this litigation might be tried and I might be urging the 3 parties to start their discovery. That would not -- that would 4 just complicate your task. 5 MS. NORMAND: Understood, your Honor. 6 MR. MOLLER: May I just inquire whether or not the 7 matters relating to the December 15 date will be embodied in 8 some piece of correspondence that we will get? 9 MS. NORMAND: We will circulate a letter shortly. 10 MR. MOLLER: So we'll be able to deal with it. 11 Thanks. 12 THE COURT: How about a briefing order from TSA? 13 MS. NORMAND: Pardon? 14 THE COURT: A briefing order? An order providing for 15 the briefing? 16 MS. NORMAND: Your Honor, there is no requirement that 17 the parties make submissions. It's only in response to the 18 parties' request that TSA is considering the submissions. 19 THE COURT: Okay. 20 So I think that completes all of item two. Is there 21 anything more on item two? 22 Item three. As I understand it, Mr. Williamson is 23 suggesting and Mr. Barry is suggesting a six-month postponement 24 of time. 25 MR. BARRY: Yes, your Honor. I believe we have SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 16 1 agreement to that. We're just working out the terms of a 2 stipulation right now. We should have that next week. 3 THE COURT: That takes care of item three. 4 Item four is the 21 MC 101 database. Mr. Pepe has got 5 something to tell us on that. 6 MR. PEPE: Yes, I do. We've made substantial 7 progress. A great deal of the information, I'd say about 8 90 percent of the information has been input. I understand the 9 court had a meeting with Mr. Casey about a week-and-a-half ago 10 or two weeks ago now. Mr. Casey, we have hired, on the 21 MC 11 101 side to do our database as well. We'll be using the same 12 vendor. 13 Our database is a tad bit more complicated to put 14 together so that is some explanations for why it's taking a 15 good deal of time to put the information into the database, but 16 Mr. Casey has given us an estimate of approximately two weeks 17 to one month from the time we complete inputting information to 18 the time it's up and running for the court. We should be in a 19 position to complete the input of the data within a week or two 20 tops. 21 THE COURT: When you fix all the fields, could you 22 give me a memorandum? 23 MR. PEPE: The fields have been fixed and I've 24 actually provided that to your former law clerk. I'd be happy 25 to resend it. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 17 1 THE COURT: We have it. 2 MR. PEPE: We'll also -- well, I can send to the 3 court, we've come up with a proposed structure for what it's 4 likely to look like so the court can take a look at it in 5 advance. 6 THE COURT: And everyone thinks that those fields are 7 sufficient? People reviewed that? 8 (Continued on next page) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 18 5Btbwsep2 Conference 1 THE COURT: (continuing) Because the purpose of that 2 is to capture all the essential information that will be coming 3 to all the cases. 4 MR. PEPE: Yes, your Honor. We discussed the field 5 that should be included and all parties are in agreement this 6 is a database. We're making a sincere effort to put together a 7 database that would be acceptable to the court. 8 THE COURT: In the past, Mr. Clifford is known to take 9 part in settlement discussions and stood by as the settlement 10 discussion on 97 were unfolding. Is it possible, Mr. Barry, to 11 suggest the time frame for when those discussions will be over 12 and we know which cases will be settled and which ones are much 13 less likely to be settled? 14 MR. BARRY: In 97, your Honor? 15 THE COURT: Yes. 16 MR. BARRY: It's difficult to predict. I think we've 17 made some good progress in recent weeks, but I would say we 18 would not have a firm idea of where we stand in terms of 19 completion at least to the point of saying, okay, we've settled 20 all the cases we can for at least six months. 21 THE COURT: Do you want to be conducting your 22 discovery to the database? I think that a six-month period 23 would not substantially delay the property damage matters. In 24 the meantime, complete the discovery you need to do before you 25 get into conditions, and then we need to see how we go from SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 19 5Btbwsep2 Conference 1 there on. It seems to me that it's right to give you a window 2 and personal injury plaintiffs, but at some point all the cases 3 have to advance. I think six months is a good target. 4 MR. BARRY: I understand. 5 THE COURT: We are down to five additional items. One 6 of the items is how you reacted to how well I'm doing things. 7 I don't mean solicited flattery or anything like that, but can 8 I do something that provides easier access to information? Is 9 there a quicker way of proceeding? It is frustrating that the 10 cases are taking so long to move. I don't know what to do 11 about it. Mr. Clifford? 12 MR. CLIFFORD: Yes, your Honor. Robert Clifford. The 13 only item, which I don't mean to be patronizing, you cover a 14 lot of ground very quickly and we read the transcripts from 15 the, for example, the 18th conference you had with the case 16 counsel. So that's all very helpful. We think, though, as we 17 move along, it would make more and more sense if it's 18 conceivable, if it's your Honor's view, to put the status 19 conferences back together, either back or united as one once 20 again. 21 THE COURT: I understand that there is that request, 22 and I think I should oblige you with it because many of you are 23 traveling and some likely to like to attend both conferences. 24 I need to address that and I will. Yes. 25 MR. SACHS: Your Honor, Franklin Sachs. I represent SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 20 5Btbwsep2 Conference 1 Aegis Agency and Con Ed in the WTC 7 case. 2 THE COURT: I still owe you a decision. 3 MR. SACHS: In the nicest way possible, your Honor. 4 THE COURT: We're working on it. 5 MR. SACHS: Because discovery can't go on until we get 6 one. 7 THE COURT: We're working on it. It's got first 8 priority. 9 MR. SACHS: Thank you, sir. 10 THE COURT: It's been held up by some other things 11 that had to be done. We're working on it. 12 MR. SACHS: I understand, and I understand Robin left 13 also. So I understand the problem. 14 THE COURT: Her shoes have been filled. Anything else 15 that you want to bring up? 16 MR. SACHS: No, sir. 17 THE COURT: Next conference date. Let's go off the 18 record fora minute. 19 (Discussion off the record) 20 THE COURT: Let's go back on the record. 21 The next meeting will be March 3, 2006 at one o'clock. 22 I will try to get the ceremonial courtroom for that. I will 23 communicate the information to Mr. Mollinger. 24 The meeting that we have scheduled for 97 is now for 25 January 27 at one o'clock. We will go forward with that, but SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 21 5Btbwsep2 Conference 1 if that is not enough to do, then we know I can cancel the 2 March 3 date. I think we should try because it's a good target 3 to have some other issues to work out, if we can. 4 MR. MOLLER: We will keep it on the calendar. 5 THE COURT: Thank you all. Sorry it's so short. 6 MR. CLIFFORD: Thank you, your Honor. 7 (Adjourned) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300