1 4AJ0911C 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 ------------------------------x 2 3 In Re: September 11 3 Litigation, 4 4 21 MC 97 5 6 ------------------------------x 6 New York, N.Y. 7 October 19, 2004 7 2:15 p.m. 8 8 Before: 9 9 HON. ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, 10 10 District Judge 11 11 SPEAKERS 12 12 THOMAS J. MOLONEY 13 Attorney for Plaintiff 13 14 EUGENE R. SCHEIMAN 14 Attorney for City of New York 15 15 BETH D. JACOB 16 Attorney for The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 16 17 ROBERT CLIFFORD 17 Attorney for IRI 18 18 PATRICK MALONEY 19 Attorney for Certain Underwriters 20 CAROL A. SIGMOND 20 Attorney for GC Engineering 21 22 DES BARRY 22 Aviation Liason 23 24 MARC S. MOLLER 25 CAROL S. ROONEY, Attorney for QBE, et al SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 2 4AJ0911C 1 RICHARD A. WILLIAMSON 1 Liason Counsel for Ground Defendants 2 Counsel for the Port Authority and 2 World Trade Center Properties, LLC 3 4 STANLEY KALLMANN 4 Attorney for Aegis/ConEd 5 6 7 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 3 4AJ0911C 1 THE COURT: Good afternoon, please be seated. 2 ALL: Good afternoon, your Honor. 3 THE COURT: As usual, I have passed out an agenda for 4 everyone. But if anyone has some topic to be discussed, please 5 feel free to raise that topic. What prompted this conference 6 on rather short notice was the filing in this court with other 7 judges, mostly with Judge Koeltl, a number of cases having to 8 do with subrogation claims relating to property damage, mostly 9 in Seven World Trade Center, raising the issue of the explosion 10 of fuel kept in that building for other purposes, and claiming 11 that the owner or operator of Seven World Trade Center was 12 negligent in maintaining the fuel in the building. 13 I considered that the claims were related to those 14 that are before me, because all of the damage arises from the 15 terrorist-related air crashes into One and Two World Trade 16 Center, the fires in Seven, having been secondary to the fire 17 that resulted directly from the crashes. And under Section 408 18 of the Air Transportation Safety and Systems Stabilization Act, 19 all claims are in this Court and, by reason of the wonderful 20 fact that I was the earliest number, transferred to me. 21 Now, I know that some of the litigants are unhappy 22 that the cases have been transferred to me. They have not 23 expressed all their reasons. At this time and before I -- the 24 decision to transfer becomes final, I call upon the lawyers 25 affected to identify themselves, and to raise their claims to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 4 4AJ0911C 1 me. 2 MR. MOLONEY: Your Honor, Tom Moloney, on behalf of 3 Citigroup, an investment banking arm of Citigroup global market 4 holdings, normally known as Solomon Brothers. 5 Let me first say, we have no problem with being before 6 your Honor. And if your Honor decided to keep the case, it is 7 not a Judge Hellerstein, Judge Koeltl, Judge Karas issue. So 8 if -- our problem is -- 9 THE COURT: Oh, add Judge Casey to that, too. 10 MR. MOLONEY: Judge Casey. Our problem is this. We 11 really -- 12 THE COURT: Are you feeling a bit submerged? 13 MR. MOLONEY: Yeah, we don't deserve to be part of 14 this extremely complicated proceeding. It seems to me there 15 are four, and dashing it down, there were four distinct factual 16 questions that litigants are going to have to answer in this 17 case. And the first question that the Court is going to have 18 to decide, or a jury is going to have to decide, is essentially 19 what permitted the planes to succeed in being hijacked and 20 crashed into One and Two World Trade Centers. That is going to 21 be one distinct issue. And then a second issue that someone is 22 going to have to answer, is what caused the property damage and 23 the building to collapse, One and Two World Trade Center. And 24 a third issue that someone is going to have to answer is, what 25 caused the injury to the people in those buildings. And -- and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 5 4AJ0911C 1 none of those questions are of any particular relevance to us. 2 All of those questions are clearly part of the backdrop of what 3 brings us here. And we don't disagree that, in a 4 jurisdictional sense, our case arises under the statute, 5 although one of two parties suing us has disagreed and has 6 filed papers before Judge Koeltl claiming that our case does 7 not arise under the statute, and it is simply adversity case -- 8 that's IRI, your Honor -- 9 THE COURT: Industrial Risk Insurance. 10 MR. MOLONEY: Right. They have taken a position it 11 doesn't even arise under the statute. And then the last 12 question is what caused the property damage at Seven World 13 Trade Center. That is clear where we have an issue. And in 14 terms of, you know, just thinking far ahead to -- to how you 15 would try this case, it would seem to me you are never going to 16 try that question, at least I would be horrified if you tried 17 to try that question in the context of the first three 18 questions. So that case, I don't think that case is ever going 19 to be tried with the other cases, because you want to figure 20 out first who caused these buildings to collapse before who is 21 liable, if anybody, for the secondary fires that occurred when 22 the buildings collapsed. And I think the discovery in those 23 cases are on those three tracks, are going to be irrelevant to 24 us, other than they are going to be background information and 25 not going to really be germane. I don't think we're going to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 6 4AJ0911C 1 have claims against the airline companies, because no one is 2 going to say the issue is going to be if an ordinary fire arose 3 at Seven World Trade Center, did the fact that we had an 4 emergency generator system that the Port Authority approved of 5 and gave certificate of occupancy or equivalent under the Port 6 Authority, and we had these engineers put it in, it doesn't 7 matter, we would have exacerbated the problem and are they 8 going to find out. No. Are they going to say what you did was 9 fine, and what you did wasn't fine, the building was going to 10 be destroyed anyway, because there was no fire department, 11 there was no water, and you may have done us all a favor 12 because we don't have to tear the building down, like Deutche 13 Bank Building, which is right next to the World Trade Center. 14 Somebody will decide that, but that is going to be a very 15 different trial than the other trial. The discovery is going 16 to be very different than the other discovery. We are not 17 unhappy to be before your Honor, or before Judge Koeltl, but we 18 think that it doesn't make sense for us to be necessarily 19 showing up at conferences where a billion issues are going to 20 be discussed; lots of disputes, lots of discovery disputes, and 21 other disputes that we don't really care about whatsoever. 22 And then we have a secondary parochial interest, in 23 that we have a motion to dismiss fully briefed before Judge 24 Koeltl. I arrived parenthetically to release us of the very 25 claim they sued us for. We think that issue should be decided SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 7 4AJ0911C 1 as the threshold question because if we are entitled to our 2 release, and I understand they have different arguments, but if 3 we are entitled to our release and we decide that four years, 4 hundred million dollars in massive discovery later on, that is 5 really horrible. I think that threshold question should be 6 decided. 7 THE COURT: Let me add a few comments before taking 8 others. First of all, I have to add to your argument, Mr. 9 Maloney. There are two more tracks that you didn't mention 10 which could go to your argument. There is a track dealing with 11 the respiratory injuries and other injuries of people who were 12 working to clean up the pile. 13 MR. MOLONEY: We don't have that. 14 THE COURT: But, it would add to your argument; right? 15 MR. MOLONEY: Right. 16 THE COURT: So, okay, I'm adding to your argument. 17 MR. MOLONEY: Thank you, your Honor. 18 THE COURT: And there is one more track having to do 19 with a squabble among the insurance companies that insured 20 various interests in One and Two World Trade Center and are 21 trying to sort out who is responsible for what. All right. 22 That adds to your argument. 23 With regard to the two other issues that, really three 24 other issues that you are really raising having to do with the 25 nature of the trial, your immediate motion to dismiss, and the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 8 4AJ0911C 1 limited nature of your claims, and not wanting to get mixed up 2 with other tracks and other issues, let me say this. First of 3 all, I'm ready to decide your motion to dismiss as soon as you 4 are ready. I'll schedule it for argument and we'll go ahead 5 with it. Whether Judge Koeltl could reach those issues, having 6 his hands full with Lynn Smith's case ahead of me, or whether I 7 reach it before him, who knows. I mean we both have our fill 8 of cases. There is no shortage of work for judges in this 9 court. So you should be relieved of that. Your motions will 10 not take a second seat to anything else. 11 With regard to being mixed up, I am trying to run 12 these cases in tracks that make logical sense, so that the 13 people affected in the particular litigations, although having 14 the right to attend any of the conferences, need not. They can 15 make their choice. And I recognize, not having been so long 16 ago a lawyer working on fees myself, that clients don't like 17 their lawyers wasting their time and attending meetings that 18 don't really pertain to them. I'm sensitive to those issues. 19 I'll do what I can to economize your efforts. But, you will 20 focus your energies mainly on the tracks that interest you. 21 With regard to the third aspect of the issues, not 22 wanting to get mixed up in the trial, I have not yet begun to 23 think of the trials that are necessary in this case. We're far 24 away from them. And nothing I do is intended to prestage what 25 I have to do with regard to trials. There is a lot of people SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 9 4AJ0911C 1 who will probably clamor for attention when it comes time to 2 try the cases. So having dealt with the concerns that you 3 have, let me deal with the logic of why I suggested to Judge 4 Koeltl and to Judge Karas and to Judge Casey, that I should 5 deal with these cases. 6 I understand that you have sued only the City. Maybe 7 one or two other defendants. 8 MR. MOLONEY: We didn't sue anybody; we're a 9 defendant. 10 THE COURT: You're a defendant. But the claims 11 involve claims against the City in relationship to its 12 strategies with regard to Seven World Trade Center, what went 13 on at Seven World Trade Center. 14 MR. MOLONEY: No, your Honor. Maybe put it just a 15 second background about the Seven World Trade Center cases, as 16 I said, your Honor, we don't object to being before you, are 17 gratified to hear our motion to dismiss is going to be heard. 18 I think they are really a separate universe and separate track. 19 THE COURT: I'll treat them that way. 20 MR. MOLONEY: What the cases all involve is a lot of 21 people had fuel tanks in that building; the City has their 22 emergency fuel tank; there was a Secret Service -- they are not 23 here yet, but they may have had a fuel tank there. 24 THE COURT: And you had -- 25 MR. MOLONEY: And Citigroup had emergency back-up SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 4AJ0911C 1 generator system that, in fact, had fuel tanks in order to fuel 2 that generator system. And that is why I believe CitiBank was 3 sued because the Solomon Brothers, which actually CitiBank 4 bought Solomon Brothers ten years after this whole building was 5 built. But when it was built by Solomon Brothers, it had 6 emergency back-up system. And the City, obviously, when they 7 built their emergency management system, you know, put in fuel 8 tanks. And I think the Port Authority is being sued, in major 9 part, for having approved of, or allowed, or objected to these 10 other constructions. I think that is the plaintiffs's case. 11 And there are really two sets of insurance companies who have 12 brought those claims. One is IRI, which has sued on behalf of 13 Silverstein's interest and, second, is Aegis. And there are 14 other parties who have sued on behalf of Con Ed. They are all 15 brought in subrogation capacity. 16 THE COURT: I understand. As long as you are given 17 assurance that you will not be submerged in a very large set of 18 cases, you are content. 19 MR. MOLONEY: Yes. 20 THE COURT: All right. Is there any one else who 21 necessarily -- 22 MR. SCHEIMAN: Eugene Scheiman, for the City of New 23 York. I echo what Mr. Maloney said. We, too, have no problem 24 being before your Honor. And, indeed, it is an honor to be 25 here. We, too, are worried about being submerged and don't SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 11 4AJ0911C 1 want to get entangled in discovery of the larger issues. The 2 City is, as you know, your Honor, being sued by reason of its 3 having a tank in the building which allegedly aided -- 4 THE COURT: Are you a member of the corporate counsel? 5 MR. SCHEIMAN: No, your Honor, Buchanan Ingersoll; 6 outside counsel. 7 THE COURT: You represent an insurer? 8 MR. SCHEIMAN: No, I represent the City of New York. 9 THE COURT: The City made mention of some captive 10 insurer; is that part of what -- 11 MR. SCHEIMAN: That would not be part of our case, 12 your Honor. That would be part of personal injury cases. 13 THE COURT: Is there any particular reason why 14 corporate counsel is not functioning on this case? 15 MR. SCHEIMAN: I think they wanted a group of 16 attorneys that are acquainted with construction litigation and 17 picked us. 18 THE COURT: Because Gary Schaeffer, corporate counsel, 19 he has ably represented the City on other cases. 20 MR. SCHEIMAN: Yes, your Honor, I am aware of that. 21 THE COURT: Do you object to my taking these cases? 22 MR. SCHEIMAN: No. Not at all, your Honor. As I 23 said, it's an honor to be here in your court. It is not a 24 problem. We don't care if it is before Judge Koeltl, your 25 Honor, or any other district judge. We are worried about SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12 4AJ0911C 1 getting entangled in the larger cases which we believe are not 2 relevant to us. We have what I would call a relatively simple 3 case with respect to the tank that your Honor mentioned, 4 however one of the considerations we would have is catching up 5 with the other cases, and perhaps -- 6 THE COURT: Unfortunately, they have not gone too far. 7 MR. SCHEIMAN: I have tried to read those transcripts, 8 your Honor. But we would be concerned with the course of 9 discovery in those cases, even though it might not be concerned 10 with the substance, or depositions, and probably would want a 11 seat at the table of one of the committees, property 12 committees. 13 THE COURT: We'll need to discuss that separately. 14 But who else wishes to speak? 15 MS. JACOB: Beth Jacob, representing the Port 16 Authority of New York and New Jersey in World Trade Center 17 Seven and the Port Authority has separate counsel in these two 18 cases for various conflict reasons. And I would reiterate what 19 other defendants in these cases have said. We are concerned 20 with the Trade Center Seven issues getting lost in the more 21 global 911 litigation. The only common issues that we have 22 seen is the claims against the aviation defendants which were 23 just brought in under the new complaints which were filed at 24 the beginning of September of this year. And later on in the 25 agenda, you wanted us to discuss what the distinction issues SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 13 4AJ0911C 1 were for World Trade Seven, so I won't go through them now. 2 But they really are very separate. 3 One suggestion I wanted to throw out, although it 4 sounds as if the Court has analyzed this and is pretty clear 5 about what is going to happen. But one thing we were thinking 6 about was the possibility of perhaps consolidating, bifurcating 7 the World Trade Seven litigation, consolidating aviation claims 8 in the Court where they are already being heard with respect to 9 the towers, and leaving World Trade Seven and our own 10 independent issues with respect to construction in that 11 building, with respect to the lease agreements in that 12 building, with respect to insurance policies -- 13 THE COURT: I want to interrupt this. I think it is 14 too early to think of consolidation of cases, although I have 15 used that term in terms of giving different index numbers. But 16 what we're really talking about is coordination. 17 MS. JACOB: Okay. 18 THE COURT: And my goal is to coordinate the cases in 19 a way that makes them most efficient, recognizing that some 20 counsel, some parties will have varied interests and will want 21 to expand, rather than constrict, the nature of the activities. 22 But I want to deal with all of these cases in a way that makes 23 them most efficient. 24 MS. JACOB: Okay. Then I guess what I would do is 25 reiterate and just flag, as an issue, that we're hoping World SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 14 4AJ0911C 1 Trade Seven will not get dragged into the larger group because 2 of the claims against the aviation defendants. And there may 3 be some way to separate those. And if you separate those in a 4 way of coordinating before your Honor, our concern, again, we 5 echo the others in World Trade Seven, we were content to be 6 considered separately because we felt that our litigation had 7 separate issues, and we are concerned that we'll lose that. 8 THE COURT: My thought was to give it a new master 9 calendar number. I have given a number of those. I may have 10 to give some other subdivisions and different numbers. But I 11 think Seven should have a separate master calendar number. But 12 we can talk about that as we get down the agenda. 13 MS. JACOB: Thank you. 14 THE COURT: Anybody else wish to be heard? 15 MR. CLIFFORD: Robert Clifford on behalf of IRI. Only 16 one point, if I may ask the Court to keep in the back of its 17 mind, if you will -- 18 THE COURT: Can you hear Mr. Clifford in the back? If 19 any of you don't hear, raise your hands. No one is speaking. 20 Mr. Clifford, now, they can't hear you. Mr. Clifford 21 will now speak loudly. 22 MR. CLIFFORD: Thank you, your Honor. 23 Just one point to ask your Honor to keep in mind when 24 you are making decisions about World Trade Center Seven. One 25 current that is undergoing some of the discussion thus far SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 15 4AJ0911C 1 that's not entirely surfaced because of the state of discovery, 2 is the proximate cause issues relating to fire, the planes, and 3 the building, that they are not completely distinct as at least 4 as has been actually suggested to you today. And I ask you to 5 be mindful of that. 6 THE COURT: I raised that issue at the beginning. I 7 think what is going to come is the issue of independent 8 supervening cause. 9 MR. CLIFFORD: Right. 10 THE COURT: The fires, I understand, began because of 11 fires spreading from One and Two World Trade Center. And as I 12 read one of the complaints, it was alleged that that fire was 13 the cause of a much greater explosion and fire because of 14 alleged negligence in storage of fuel in Seven. And I thought 15 inevitably the defense of what happened in Seven, and perhaps 16 the allegations of negligence in what happened in Seven would 17 give rise to various issues of independent and supervening 18 cause. And if, notwithstanding the interest that anyone had to 19 constrict the issues to just the fuel stored in Seven, 20 inevitably they would expand. Inevitably, I would be called on 21 to decide issues that are run under the Section 408 issues of 22 the Air Transportation System and Safety System Stabilization 23 Act. And it would be better to understand that and plan for it 24 at the outset without knowing now just exactly how I would 25 rule, because I don't know. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 16 4AJ0911C 1 I want to say this also. When the first issues of 2 Seven arose, I had a conversation with Judge Koeltl. I think 3 they came to me, if I remember correctly, and I thought they 4 were not sufficiently related. And Judge Koeltl started to 5 handle those. But as experience developed, I think the 6 arguments of keeping all of these cases in one place outweighed 7 the arguments of separateness. In particular, the concern of 8 this district judge that there was more than I could really 9 handle. But I think I need to. I think in the interest of 10 efficiency from your perspectives, I need to. And I think that 11 will best argue for keeping what is separate separate, and what 12 is together, treated in some common fashion. And nothing I do 13 needs to be for all time. As we gain experience in the cases, 14 we may find ways to break them apart. I also want to say that 15 I have begun to think that there has to be a better way of 16 dealing with all of these cases than allowing them to wind 17 through the processes of litigation. At some early point, we 18 need to start thinking creatively about a way to settle these 19 cases. And I want to have input on that issue. I want to be 20 able to discuss it with separate groupings of you, and with the 21 whole as well. Because, there are any number of really very 22 difficult problems that are unique to these cases. Not only 23 the size and complexity of them, not only the potential for a 24 limited cap, although a very large cap in terms of the 25 provision in the Act through a limiting exposure to, by and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 17 4AJ0911C 1 large, insurance. But because much of the discovery in this 2 case has to be filtered through the Transportation Security 3 Administration. And the Transportation Security Administration 4 is charged with identifying what is called sensitive security 5 information, SSI. And, either blocking it from being produced, 6 or causing it to be redacted, or causing substituted documents 7 by way of summaries to be created. We have found the process, 8 those of us who have become involved with it, extremely 9 difficult. It is time consuming. But, TSA is charged with an 10 overwhelming public responsibility which, from its point of 11 view, may outweigh the interests of litigators and litigants 12 and cause a different perspective on what has to be produced 13 and what ordinarily is considered relevant in these cases. And 14 furthermore, as an administrative agency, it comes to a final 15 determination from appeal from which goes to the courts of 16 appeals, and any one of the courts of appeals where the 17 aggrieved party is resident may be charged with jurisdiction. 18 The prospect is many years of expensive litigation which could 19 affect a much wider net than the parties that are directly 20 involved. It is not clear how prejudice may run in this case. 21 It may run against plaintiffs, it may run against defendants. 22 It may impair the ability of plaintiffs to prove their case, or 23 they may be able to make available presumptions that shift the 24 burden to the defendants, and the net effect of what the TSA 25 does could impair the ability of defendants. And apart from SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 18 4AJ0911C 1 issues of substantive liability, the sheer expense that would 2 be involved in the process, and the delay that would be caused, 3 would frustrate, I think, the intent of Congress, the normal 4 expectancy of both plaintiffs and the defendants, and the 5 ability of the district court to deal with these issues. So, I 6 have been thinking about other ways to resolve these cases. 7 And it would not be unprecedented in these mass litigant cases 8 for district judges to explore those possibilities. I need to 9 do more of that, and I need your input and suggestions. And 10 that's one reason, one additional reason, why the argument for 11 having a broad umbrella is an important one. And I point out, 12 this is a voluntary aspect. Whoever wishes to have his or her 13 rights adjudicated by a court of law will have those rights 14 adjudicated. 15 All right. I think this completes Item 1. And not 16 having heard any objection, I will accept the transfer of the 17 cases from Judge Koeltl, from Judge Casey, from Judge Karas 18 and any others that come along. 19 We have already begun to discuss Item Number 2, the 20 motion to dismiss, motions to dismiss ready for adjudication. 21 MR. MOLONEY: The IRI motion to dismiss is fully 22 briefed and submitted since, I believe, the end of July. 23 THE COURT: Based essentially on release. 24 MR. MOLONEY: Release and those intervening causes you 25 raised, your Honor, and supervening cause. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 19 4AJ0911C 1 THE COURT: Those are likely to be fact intensive. 2 MR. MOLONEY: I think this is one reason why we were 3 concerned about the prejudice of being caught up with One and 4 Two World Trade Center and Seven World Trade Center, because we 5 are, for example, this whole discovery that you just discussed 6 and the difficulty of getting -- 7 THE COURT: Can you hear Mr. Maloney? 8 MR. MOLONEY: The whole discovery we just discussed 9 and the difficulty of handling it, in our view, is just totally 10 irrelevant, vis-a-vis us, because the fact of the matter is 11 whoever caused the plane to crash, it's a matter of record, the 12 plain crashed. Whoever caused the building to collapse, One 13 and Two, it is a matter of record, the building collapsed. 14 THE COURT: A separate track -- I'll interrupt again. 15 MR. MOLONEY: If I could just finish, your Honor. Our 16 supervening and cause issue, and our proximate cause issue is 17 that a building collapsed on us, two buildings collapsed on us, 18 and a fire main disappeared, so now the water main disappeared, 19 so there is no water. And half of the fire department was 20 destroyed, so no one ever came to fight this fire. And under 21 those circumstances, to actually say that, you know, we should 22 be liable because we didn't anticipate this, is obscene. 23 THE COURT: I'll deal with it in a motion. When 24 you're ready, I should schedule it. 25 MS. JACOB: The three defendants who were named before SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 20 4AJ0911C 1 this September had also made motions to dismiss. They are 2 fully briefed, fully submitted, everyone has requested 3 argument. Argument has not yet been had. 4 THE COURT: Is this related to Mr. Maloney's case? 5 MS. JACOB: Yes. These are the three World Trade 6 Seven complaints. There were only three before early September 7 of this year. There have been new parties brought in with new 8 pleadings. And, obviously, those motions have not been 9 briefed. 10 THE COURT: Ms. Effron will be in touch with you and 11 schedule an argument date. Make sure that we have all of the 12 papers. 13 MR. SCHEIMAN: The City's motion to dismiss, your 14 Honor, is also fully briefed and ready for argument. 15 THE COURT: Thank you. I think what you're saying, I 16 should hear them at one time. 17 MR. SCHEIMAN: I think so, your Honor. 18 MR. MOLONEY: I think that would be the most efficient 19 use of the Court's time, to hear those motions together. 20 THE COURT: Decide amongst yourselves who should 21 argue. We don't need multiple arguments. 22 MR. MOLONEY: The City has some unique statutes. 23 THE COURT: Unique arguments will be made. I don't 24 want repetition. 25 MR. MOLONEY: We'll solve that. But there are some SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 21 4AJ0911C 1 very unique -- we have a release issue unique to us. They have 2 a statute they are relying on that is unique to them. I think 3 the intervening cause will be provided and you don't have to 4 hear it more than once. 5 THE COURT: Who is opposing the motion? 6 MR. CLIFFORD: ARI. Either be myself or Gregory -- 7 MR. KALLMANN: And for Aegis, Stanley Kallmann. 8 MR. PATRICK MALONEY: And for plaintiff's under 9 underwriters, Patrick Maloney. 10 THE COURT: Again, I ask you to join together and come 11 up with, as much as possible, a main spokesman and, of course, 12 anybody in particular can handle supplementary argument. I 13 will not allow duplication. We'll set an argument date about a 14 month hence. 15 MR. MOLONEY: We'll volunteer to get you a full set of 16 papers. 17 THE COURT: So you'll work that out. Okay. We're 18 down to three. And I think your arguments are all for separate 19 tracks with a separate master calendar number. Anybody opposed 20 to that? 21 What is the stage of the pleadings. I guess that 22 would await determination of the pending motions. 23 MS. JACOB: That's correct, your Honor. There are 24 complaints -- Beth Jacobs, for the Port Authority. 25 THE COURT: The rule in some of these other cases is SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 22 4AJ0911C 1 that the reporter does not do anything unless you identify 2 yourself. So since lawyers always want to be on the record, 3 when they speak, identify yourselves. 4 MS. JACOB: We are rapidly learning the procedures, 5 your Honor. 6 There are amended complaints. There are no answers, 7 because of the motions to dismiss. 8 THE COURT: And they won't be until the motions are 9 decided. Either you'll be out of the case, or you'll be 10 answering them. 11 MS. JACOB: I assume, yes. 12 MR. KALLMANN: Your Honor, Stanley Kallmann, Aegis and 13 Con Ed. Plaintiffs have recently filed a new complaint that is 14 before your Honor, naming a number of parties who are involved 15 in the construction and design of the fuel systems at Seven 16 World Trade Center. And many of those have just recently been 17 served. We are getting stipulations extending time to answer 18 and no answers have yet been filed. 19 THE COURT: Mr. Kallmann, would those complaints give 20 rise to similar issues, at least to some of the similar issues 21 that will be coming to me on motions? 22 MR. KALLMANN: No, I don't think so. The -- the 23 motion, for example, by the City, is largely based upon a 24 statute. The motion based from the Port Authority is a 25 different type of motion. I don't think those parties would be SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 23 4AJ0911C 1 involved in this type of motion. These would be nonpublic 2 entity defendants, who are involved in the design. And I don't 3 think any of the present issues would be -- I can't predict, 4 but I don't think they would be raising those kind of issues. 5 Perhaps the -- the proximate causation issues could come up, as 6 far as those parties are concerned. 7 THE COURT: I would like you to invite those 8 defendants. You'll have notice of the argument date. I would 9 like you to invite those people to come to the argument if they 10 wish. 11 MR. KALLMANN: Okay. 12 MR. MOLONEY: I was going to say that Citigroup has 13 been sued in a new complaint. That is the second suit that 14 we're in. So, obviously, some of the -- the -- some of the 15 argument we'll be making before your Honor, you don't have to 16 hear me twice, but we'll -- this is applicable to these other 17 lawsuits, as well. 18 THE COURT: It causes me to be concerned that I should 19 not set an argument date until the field is known. 20 MR. MOLONEY: We would have no objection to briefing, 21 you know. We have a briefing schedule. We'll file a brief, I 22 think, and motion to dismiss on November 24, I believe. Is 23 that right. And so I think that that will be fully briefed by 24 some time in December your Honor, but on the other hand -- 25 THE COURT: That would just relate to Mr. Kallmann. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 24 4AJ0911C 1 MR. MOLONEY: Right. But if we wait for the rest, 2 they have sued a lot of architectural firms, engineering firms. 3 I don't know whether those people have counsel, what issues are 4 raised. 5 THE COURT: They are likely to come in on different 6 motions themselves. I think it would be sufficient if you or 7 Mr. Kallmann became involved in this motion to involve -- 8 MR. MOLONEY: I think we're both going to be here on 9 the argument that we just tentatively set for a month from now. 10 We're both going to be heard, right, just on other issues; 11 right? 12 MR. KALLMANN: I get the impression that Mr. Maloney 13 is talking about a motion addressed to our new complaint. They 14 are all going to be here at the same time. We'll not be 15 adverse on his pending motion. 16 THE COURT: But -- 17 MR. KALLMANN: -- because his pending motion is 18 addressed to IRI. 19 THE COURT: But he wants it to be addressed to you, as 20 well. 21 MR. KALLMANN: No, I'm just saying, your Honor, he is 22 going to be here because the City is going to be making the 23 same argument against him on the same day. And so these issues 24 are going to be -- all of the issues, I think with perhaps one 25 exception which we're looking at, are going to be raised before SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 25 4AJ0911C 1 you when we show up before you that are relevant to us. 2 THE COURT: I leave it to you. When I hear this 3 motion and decide it, if someone is not before me and is 4 affected by the motion, it is going to be very difficult for me 5 to have a different frame of mind on the next motion. So, I 6 need to have before me all those who are affected and wish to 7 have input. Ma'am? 8 MS. SIGMOND: Carol Sigmond, GC Engineering in the 9 Aegis case. And I regret to say that my client is one of the 10 engineers who is named in that case, in the alleged design and 11 construction. And I must say, Judge, we have presented, I -- I 12 believe these defendants present two separate sets of issues. 13 One, are parties, engineers, and perhaps even contractors 14 involved in the actual construction of Seven or even in these 15 disputed fuel tanks. And then a series of parties, my client 16 among them, but my actual favorite of the parties that will be 17 coming to the Court for release is Rosewoch Tanks(phonetic). 18 Rosewoch Tanks build the wooden water tanks that sit on the top 19 of high rise buildings. And it has been named in this case. 20 My client, which was a consulting engineer on Ten and 21 improvements was named in this case. There are a series of 22 defendants that are going to be looking for a very short 23 discovery track, Judge, for rapid motions for summary 24 judgement. 25 THE COURT: What will be the nature of the motions? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 26 4AJ0911C 1 MS. SIGMOND: We have no role in either the CitiBank 2 tank, the Secret Service tank, the American Express tank. We 3 didn't approve, design, or have any role in the construction of 4 the City's Office of Emergency Management tank. I mean we had 5 nothing to do with construction of this building. In our case, 6 we wrote a letter that said if this is approved, you might 7 consider the following things. It seems to be the basis of 8 suing us through the World Trade Center Seven collapse case. 9 As I say, I don't know why the water tank company was 10 sued. There is a utility company that does piping, they have 11 been sued. There are a whole number of people with very 12 tangential involvements that have been named in the Aegis case. 13 And all we ask for, Judge, is a discovery on our issues and an 14 opportunity to make a summary judgement motion quickly. We are 15 anxious to -- 16 MR. KALLMANN: Your Honor, I would totally concur. 17 We are equally anxious, as counsel, to get to the 18 bottom of all of these claims, and to get documents from the 19 defendants, and to cut loose as many as we can, if applicable, 20 based upon the review of our engineers. So I am totally 21 amenable to a prompt exchange of discovery as far as the 22 individual new defendants are concerned, and disposition, and 23 perhaps not even needing a summary judgement motion upon review 24 of the documentation submitted. 25 THE COURT: I think what I need to do is dispose of SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 27 4AJ0911C 1 the motions first, and then have a conference after that to see 2 where we go. If the motions are granted, you would be out of 3 the case very quickly. If the motions are denied, then we need 4 to discuss how to go forward. But I don't think you'll be 5 needing to spend much time until those motions are decided. 6 MS. SIGMOND: Thank you very much, Judge. 7 THE COURT: Is there any other need for discovery 8 to -- we have cleared the field of these motions. 9 All right. Let's go down to 3E, the committee 10 structure for these cases. 11 MR. CLIFFORD: Robert Clifford, again, IRI. There has 12 been some preliminary discussion with Mr. Moller and Des Barry 13 on behalf of the property damage claims that, within the 14 existing structure that your Honor has in place, that a 15 property damage subcommittee be formed. And from its 16 membership, two firms join the executive committee so as to 17 coordinate better the PD claims plus those claims against the 18 airlines. That's what has just been the discussion thus far. 19 Mr. Moller will certainly speak for himself, but he has not 20 been able to fully discuss that with his group. The property 21 damage claimants met this morning. There is a consensus of 22 support for that concept, but -- 23 THE COURT: Louder, louder. 24 MR. CLIFFORD: Okay. 25 THE COURT: Louder. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 28 4AJ0911C 1 MR. CLIFFORD: I'm sorry. Okay. 2 THE COURT: Just speak louder. 3 MR. CLIFFORD: Should I start over? 4 THE COURT: No, no. 5 MR. CLIFFORD: Okay. There was a meeting this morning 6 among the property damage claimants, and that there is a 7 consensus of support for that concept. And that is why we 8 proposed it to Mr. Moller. And so that's at least the thinking 9 thus far. Obviously, we were not certain of your Honor's 10 preferences. 11 THE COURT: My concern is to have as few people as 12 possible to whom we need to give our notices. 13 MR. CLIFFORD: Right. 14 THE COURT: We file all that we do on the court web, 15 under the numbers of the cases that we're going to consolidate, 16 just for numbers only, into a new master calendar number for 17 the Seven World Trade Center cases. So what I want to give is 18 some notice, or call a conference. I would like to have a 19 single address from the plaintiff's side and from the 20 defendant's side. 21 MR. CLIFFORD: We're still in full accord with that 22 being funneled as currently as in place with Mr. Moller on 23 behalf of plaintiffs, and Mr. Barry on behalf of the 24 defendants. This is in the airline litigation. 25 THE COURT: What happens if something that just SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 29 4AJ0911C 1 relates to Seven -- 2 MR. CLIFFORD: Then you're on your separate master 3 calendar track. And there, if the Court would prefer, we can 4 designate one of us among us on both sides to be the designee 5 there. 6 THE COURT: I would like that. 7 MS. JACOB: Your Honor -- 8 THE COURT: Ms. Jacobs. 9 MS. JACOB: For Port Authority and Seven World Trade. 10 And we have also had some preliminary conversations on the 11 defense side. The suggestion that perhaps we should have a 12 separate committee or separate track for Seven World Trade, 13 whatever the terminology will be, is one I think, as you may 14 have gathered, the defendants would be quite anxious to have in 15 place. And, at least preliminarily, we had discussed that 16 perhaps we would be that liaison counsel with the Court, 17 because at the moment the Port Authority is the only party 18 everybody is claiming against in Seven World Trade. 19 MR. SCHEIMAN: Your Honor -- 20 THE COURT: So tentatively, then, Mr. Clifford and Ms. 21 Jacobs will be respectively the addresses for us. 22 MR. SCHEIMAN: Your Honor, that is fine with the City, 23 as long as we understand that liaison counsel is for notice 24 purposes and not decision purposes. 25 THE COURT: Correct. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 30 4AJ0911C 1 MR. BARRY: Your Honor, in respect of the Seven World 2 Trade Centers, that I also should be given notice on that as 3 representing aviation defendants in those. 4 THE COURT: Okay. 5 MS. JACOB: And then I would concur with that, your 6 Honor. 7 THE COURT: So for Seven, I need to give notice to Mr. 8 Moller, Mr. Clifford, Mr. Barry, and Ms. Jacobs. Okay. We're 9 down to Roman IV. A motion by QBE International to enlarge 10 time. Mr. Moller, I think this probably relates to you. Why 11 should I give more time? 12 MR. MOLLER: I think it depends on how much time they 13 need. As long as it doesn't cause the schedule that we have in 14 place now to slide, if they need a little bit more time, we're 15 not opposed to it. As I see the -- the state of the -- of our 16 calendar right now, we have a service of process date on the 17 calendar for November 29, and answers due at the end of 18 December. And the last day for cross claims set for March 15. 19 If they can accomplish it within a little bit more time, really 20 doesn't create a problem for us. 21 THE COURT: Have you seen these papers? I would like 22 you to look at it and give me -- 23 Yes, ma'am? 24 MS. ROONEY: Carol Rooney. I represent QBE. The 25 purpose of the motion to enlarge is, as you recall, following SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 31 4AJ0911C 1 the September 24 case management conference. You did issue an 2 order ordering that all of the newly filed complaints be served 3 on the defendants within 60 days, which was November 29. And 4 as noted in our motion, in order to serve the four defendants 5 via Hague, Article 5, if the process is at least three to six 6 months -- 7 THE COURT: We have dealt with this in earlier time. 8 There is a provision in the Hague that allows for quicker 9 service, which I want to explore. I don't remember the details 10 of my order. 11 MS. ROONEY: Right. And your Honor, we've referenced 12 your March 8, 2004 order in which you address this exact issue 13 by motion of the plaintiffs executive committee to enlarge the 14 time for service on the part of defendants. Essentially, 15 Article 10A of Hague, which permits service by registered mail. 16 Basically, your Honor, our motion is just asking you to issue a 17 new order stating that the previous March 8, 2004 order would 18 now apply to our present complaint and give us the option of 19 serving the defendants by Article 10A of Hague by registered 20 mail and also by Article 5, basically adopting, verbatim, what 21 you had already ruled on in your March 8, 2004 order. 22 THE COURT: All right. Would you get together with 23 Mr. Moller. If that is the case, I'll sign the order. 24 MS. ROONEY: Certainly, your Honor. 25 THE COURT: Talk as soon as this breaks, and get back SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 32 4AJ0911C 1 to me. 2 MS. ROONEY: Yes, your Honor. Thank you. 3 THE COURT: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Clifford. 4 MR. CLIFFORD: May I go back to item three, just so 5 I'm clear. Your Honor, is it the Court's wish then, also, 6 pending Mr. Moller reporting back to us about his existing PDC, 7 that for purposes of the property damage claims against the 8 airlines so that we have that discovery -- 9 THE COURT: Yes, you should have a very close 10 interchange. 11 MR. CLIFFORD: Okay. And what we would ask is, again, 12 barring their objection to it, that the IRI group and the 13 alliance group be added to the PDC for that purpose. 14 THE COURT: Mr. Moller. 15 MR. MOLLER: My response has simply been to -- that I 16 will take it up with the committee. I don't really see an 17 objection in principle. We may have -- 18 THE COURT: If there is an objection, I'll have to 19 deal with it. 20 MR. MOLLER: I understand. 21 THE COURT: But I think the coordination is required. 22 MR. MOLLER: Coordination, there will be. The 23 question is who is on it and the constitution of the 24 representatives to the -- to the committee. It is not a 25 problem. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 33 4AJ0911C 1 THE COURT: If there is a problem, let me know and 2 I'll work it out for you, okay. 3 MR. MOLLER: I don't anticipate a problem, okay. 4 THE COURT: Okay. 5 MR. CLIFFORD: Thank you, sir. 6 THE COURT: All right. That deals with all of the 7 items on the agenda. I want to go back to this concept of 8 settlement. 9 Beyond everyone being theoretically interested, is 10 this a proposal that might make sense? Does anyone wish to 11 talk to this issue? 12 MR. CLIFFORD: Your Honor, I think that at some 13 juncture, and it may well be after the motions to dismiss are 14 decided, which is now, then, at least I would assume six weeks 15 from now, there might be some merit to the notion of the 16 appointment of a mediator. I certainly favor ADR and I think 17 that -- 18 THE COURT: Or a set of mediators. 19 MR. CLIFFORD: Or a set of mediators. Or have at 20 least someone initially sit down with a group to identify 21 whether multiple tracks of mediation that need to be resolved. 22 There are multiple insurance issues here that vary, depending 23 upon policy language. And those may impact the claims. 24 Certainly, the claims of the decedents and injured parties need 25 to be viewed in a, you know, when put against these property SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 34 4AJ0911C 1 damage claims, there are many, many issues that I would at 2 least recommend the Court consider the appointment, down the 3 line -- I -- I don't know that it can be done yet -- of a 4 mediator for this purpose. 5 MR. MOLLER: I don't want to sit silent, and by my 6 silence suggest that we're not interested in getting these 7 cases disposed of as quickly as possible. I would like to say, 8 however, that if you will allow us a month or so to respond to 9 your -- to what you have now put on the table, I think we might 10 then be able to give you a more constructive suggestion than 11 would be made off the cuff today. 12 THE COURT: My purpose is not to do anything today. 13 My purpose is to make you aware of what I'm thinking and to try 14 to enlist your imaginative cooperation in this endeavor. 15 Let me say a few more things, just share with you my 16 thinking. 17 First, I think there needs to be identification of 18 aggregates of claims. And I could think of a number of 19 aggregates of claims. And there are also to be a thinking of 20 aggregates of defendants. There are those who lost -- and 21 we're talking about everyone who was not opted into the victim 22 compensation funds; all of those who have opted to go to law. 23 So there are those who are the next of kin, or the estates of 24 people who lost their lives. There are those who were 25 grievously injured. A third category are those who suffered SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 35 4AJ0911C 1 injury in the rescue efforts. And maybe a forth in the 2 clean-up efforts. And I make these third and fourth because 3 there may be jurisdictional issues and issues of maximum 4 exposure that follow from the jurisdictional issues. And that 5 is an issue that the Court of Appeals has to deal with. And 6 then there are the property claims; the direct property claims 7 and the subrogated property claims. And there are those 8 property claims against One and Two World Center. And, now, 9 those involved in Seven World Trade Center. There's the issue 10 of the Port Authority which, in one category is a defendant, 11 and then another category is also a property damage claimant. 12 And then the groups of defendants; the airline companies, and 13 among them, airline companies of greater and lesser 14 involvement; the aviation security companies, issues, perhaps, 15 of indemnification between the airline companies and the 16 aviation security companies. And I think the airports are 17 mixed in with this as well. The Port Authority. The City, 18 with regard to the respiratory injuries, as well as the Port 19 Authority. And the need to sort out issues of responsibility. 20 The lessees, Silverstein interests, the Westfield interests. 21 The insureds of those varying interests, and the issues among 22 them. Perhaps others. And I thought to myself that the end 23 results of litigation will spawn additional litigation that 24 will never end in any estimable time. And so if a mediator is 25 to be successful, the mediator or mediators have to deal with SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 36 4AJ0911C 1 all of these issues. I then started to think that the 2 complexity of these issues and the masses of detail, because 3 all of these aggregates not only make a complexity among them, 4 but a complexity within each group of aggregates, would be 5 beyond the capacity of any particular mediator. Most of these 6 mediators work alone. Most of them are retired people who may 7 not have the energy to deal with all of these matters. The 8 time devotion would have to be considerable. The concentration 9 of time would have to be considerable. I thought that it could 10 not be done with just one mediator, but there would have to be 11 a team approach. That the services of a law firm would 12 probably be required, because of the ability to gather people 13 of intelligence and ability. That there would be a need to 14 compensate whoever is serving. Not at rates that I used to 15 charge, others now charge, but at a decent rate. And then, how 16 to stage the sessions. Groups of this nature are unwielding. 17 How to break up these groups into smaller committees. How to 18 gain the trust of one another to allow that to go on. How to 19 deal with issues of prior insubordination where every creditor 20 alike and where the masses of people affected in personal 21 injury, and death, and property, make aggregate claims beyond 22 ceilings imposed by laws. I think there needs to be a lot of 23 exploratory work in a collaborative way to identify these 24 issues. And I mean collaborative, because before we become 25 adversaries, we need to define the field as accurately as we SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 37 4AJ0911C 1 can, in all its complexity, and then try to simplify an 2 abstract. We need the help, perhaps, of the mediators to do 3 that, although much of the work could be done before that 4 happens. In terms of mediators, we need someone of uncommon 5 ability, and energy, with a commitment to see this through, and 6 with a stake in the effort to see it through. And we need a 7 support group as well. And we need the ability to have a 8 number of mediators to work with different tracks of people 9 involved in a coordinated fashion. That's what I have been 10 thinking. And I wanted to share this with you, because this 11 is, even if I wanted to impose it, the groups are too large for 12 me to impose anything. I can only do this by enlisting your 13 active interest and, perhaps, a commitment to this process. 14 All right. That is the end of my speech. 15 MR. MOLLER: I think applause is in order, because you 16 have really put something very good on the table. What I would 17 like to suggest, if I might, is that you give the parties an 18 opportunity to consider what you have said and, in essence, to 19 report back to you when there is some consensus or a consensus 20 on some, or all of what you have said and maybe identify the 21 areas of which there is agreement, and where there is not 22 agreement. Maybe there is no agreement. But if you give us a 23 chance in, I'd say, four, five, six weeks, to meet among 24 ourselves and to interchange views guided by what you have just 25 suggested, because you have given us a lot of food for thought. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 38 4AJ0911C 1 If we then come back with some coherent response, we might well 2 define the parameters of what is doable and not doable. 3 And then take it from there with your guidance as to what the 4 next step might be. 5 THE COURT: Do you think it might be feasible to 6 create a ten person working group? 7 MR. MOLLER: To create a -- 8 THE COURT: Ten person working group. 9 MR. MOLLER: Yeah, why not? I think so. 10 THE COURT: All right. I will wait for your work. 11 You will be talking with everyone else. 12 I know you and Mr. Barry have also explored this and I 13 think Mr. Weeks(phonetic)have also been involved in some of 14 these explorations. I think you need to enlarge the people 15 involved. 16 MR. MOLLER: If you give us a chance. 17 THE COURT: I will. 18 MR. MOLLER: In terms of time to explore an a 19 effective way to give you an informed response, we'll be able 20 to take the next step with the some degree of intelligence. If 21 your blackberry gives you a date sometime in December, maybe we 22 can revisit the issue at that time. 23 MR. CLIFFORD: I don't know if it is left to say, but 24 I'll certainly try to get the property damage people to 25 coordinate and cooperate, as Mr. Moller describes. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 39 4AJ0911C 1 THE COURT: Well, thank you, Mr. Clifford. 2 I have a meeting with the Zurich lawyers, that is the 3 group of insurance carriers representing the Port Authority and 4 the Silverstein defendants and the like, dealing with questions 5 of who are insureds, who are additional insureds, what the 6 relationships among the different lines of insurance companies 7 are, and so on. They need to be involved in this process also. 8 And we can give you the names of some of the people to call. 9 But I'm to meet with them on December 3. Do you think I could 10 hear from you before that, that week, perhaps? 11 MR. MOLLER: We can try. We can try. Again, it is 12 hard -- it is hard to give you a date that soon, until we have 13 done a little bit of spade work among the various parties. 14 And -- 15 THE COURT: Could we have an informal meeting here, 16 off the record? 17 MR. MOLLER: That's fine. 18 THE COURT: Say five o'clock on November 30. 19 MR. MOLLER: Five o'clock on November 30. Is the 30th 20 a Tuesday? 21 THE COURT: Right. And if you are not ready, we'll 22 tell -- you tell me you're not ready and we'll cancel. 23 MR. WILLIAMSON: Richard Williamson for the Port 24 Authority and World Trade Center Property, LLC. We'll poll the 25 ground defendants as well, your Honor, and be able to report to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 40 4AJ0911C 1 you. 2 THE COURT: All right. I don't mean to exclude 3 anyone, but I think everyone has to recognize in order make 4 this work, we have to discuss things off the record, as it 5 were. We have to create some measure of working trust among 6 the people. And none of this is going to be binding. I am not 7 going to impose any -- this can only work if you all are 8 interested in making it work. I think the alternatives are so 9 drastically bad, that there has to be some need to do this. 10 MR. MOLLER: One of the things, if I may, one of the 11 things that would be useful, is if the property damage 12 defendants who asserted claims -- excuse me -- against the 13 aviation defendants, if we could know somehow what the 14 magnitude of those claims are. It is unclear how much is at 15 issue in the respective pleadings. And I say that because the 16 aviation defendants have limited coverage. The magnitude of 17 the claims helps frame the issue. 18 THE COURT: Try to pull that information. 19 MR. CLIFFORD: Mr. Moller is right about that. So 20 we'll work on that that right away. 21 THE COURT: All right. Anything else that -- on 22 needs? I have issued an order with regard to the respiratory 23 cases which, if observed, will create some greater specificity 24 with regard to those claims. We'll see what happens. 25 MR. MOLLER: When was that order issued, your Honor? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 41 4AJ0911C 1 THE COURT: Last week. We'll give you a copy -- 2 MR. MOLLER: Thank you. 3 THE COURT: -- Mr. Moller, and who all would want 4 copies, be in touch with Mr. Moller. It's at 21MC100. We're a 5 little rusty on the procedures because we're affecting 6 transition. By the time we'll be perfect, we'll have another 7 transition. 8 MR. MOLLER: Yes, we have an order, we'll mail it to 9 them. I don't know if it is helpful, we're also preparing a 10 catalogue, your Honor, with all of the plaintiffs with an 11 action alleging respiratory injuries, attempting to take your 12 Honor's order indicating what specificity is required, 13 indicating those that we think fall short of that, and if they 14 hopefully agree, then they can prepare, as you say, an amended 15 complaint, tell us how much time they need, and so on. So 16 we're already under way trying to enforce your Honor's order. 17 THE COURT: Thanks. Is there anything else anyone 18 wants to bring up? 19 Thank you very much for your attendance. 20 ALL: Thank you, your Honor. 21 (Adjourned) 22 o0o 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300