EXHIBIT 2

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3424-2 Filed:07/03/18 Entered:07/03/18 18:57:15 Desc:

Exhibit 2 Page 1 of 6
1

Gray, Bradley R.

From: Sushon, Bill <wsushon@omm.com>

Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 9:04 PM

To: Gray, Bradley R.; Hoplamazian, Garo; Friedman, Peter

Cc: Despins, Luc A.; Cooper, Samuel W.; Raiford, Landon S.; Pelanek, Laura E.; Holleb 

Hotaling, Keri L.; Steege, Catherine L.; Farrington.Yates@kobrekim.com; 

John.Couriel@kobrekim.com; Stephanie.Hauser@kobrekim.com

Subject: [EXT] RE: Committee Questions re. GDB Productions

Brad -- the quotations from Judge Dein concern the Committees knowing what has been “produced,” not 

requested. Between the production of non-privileged documents and logging of any withheld documents, the 

Committees will know what has been produced to the Investigator. As I made clear below, the questions you 

are asking go to requests that the Investigator made or the criteria the Investigator used to select them. Those 

questions do not concern the scope of the production itself, and we are subject to confidentiality obligations to 

the Investigator that prevent us from sharing this information, even if it were pertinent. 

Bill 

O’Melveny

William J. Sushon 

wsushon@omm.com

O: +1-212-728-5693

O’Melveny & Myers LLP 

7 Times Square 

New York, NY 10036 

Website | LinkedIn | Twitter

This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers LLP that may be confidential

and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received 

this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.

From: Gray, Bradley R. <bradgray@paulhastings.com>  

Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 5:52 PM 

To: Sushon, Bill <wsushon@omm.com>; Hoplamazian, Garo <ghoplamazian@omm.com>; Friedman, Peter 

<pfriedman@omm.com> 

Cc: lucdespins@paulhastings.com; Cooper, Samuel W. <samuelcooper@paulhastings.com>; Raiford, Landon S. 

<LRaiford@jenner.com>; Pelanek, Laura E. <LPelanek@jenner.com>; Holleb Hotaling, Keri L. <khotaling@jenner.com>; 

Steege, Catherine L. <CSteege@jenner.com>; Farrington.Yates@kobrekim.com; John.Couriel@kobrekim.com; 

Stephanie.Hauser@kobrekim.com 

Subject: RE: Committee Questions re. GDB Productions 

Bill— 

We appreciate your response below.   

We understand that the court indicated that supplemental discovery requests would generally be deferred until after 

the publication of the report.  However, in the quote you cite below, the court also directed that the “Committees will 

be aware of the scope of the information that has been produced” to the Investigator.  The court also indicated on June 

6 that “the Committee can't be in a position of saying I want these documents, and then not knowing whether or not 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3424-2 Filed:07/03/18 Entered:07/03/18 18:57:15 Desc:

Exhibit 2 Page 2 of 6
2

they've been produced.”  As such, we continue to maintain that it is essential for the Committee to understand before 

August 15 whether documents have been requested, reviewed, or produced so that the Committee’s review of any 

report is as complete and informed as possible.   

To that end, we continue to have a few questions that, according to your note, may be best answered by Kobre’s team:  

 With regard to the chart on Exhibit C to the Investigator’s report, were the search terms on that chart used to 

cull for the documents reviewed by the Investigator—meaning that emails from custodians like Melba Acosta 

were not independently reviewed?   

 How were documents selected by the Investigator for production?  If it was not a full set of the documents on 

Exhibit C to the status report, as we understand is the case, what criteria were used for the selection of these 

materials?    

 What specific requests remain outstanding, and approximately when will these materials be produced?   

Again, with regard to the request for board materials and D&O policies, we see no reason that these materials should 

not be produced to the Committee before August 15.  Such materials (a) will not be addressed in the exit plan to the 

extent they have not been collected by the Investigator; and (b) are essential for the purposes of allowing the 

Committee to evaluate the Investigator’s report and determine whether additional discovery is needed. 

Thanks, 

Brad 

____________________________________________________________________________

Brad Gray | Associate, Litigation Department 

Paul Hastings LLP | 600 Travis Street, Fifty-Eighth Floor, Houston, TX 77002 | Direct: 

+1.713.860.7345 | Main: +1.713.860.7300 | Fax: +1.713.353.3318 | 

bradleygray@paulhastings.com | www.paulhastings.com

  

From: Sushon, Bill [mailto:wsushon@omm.com] 

Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 1:26 PM 

To: Gray, Bradley R.; Hoplamazian, Garo; Friedman, Peter 

Cc: Despins, Luc A.; Cooper, Samuel W.; Raiford, Landon S.; Pelanek, Laura E.; Holleb Hotaling, Keri L.; Steege, 

Catherine L.; Farrington.Yates@kobrekim.com; John.Couriel@kobrekim.com; Stephanie.Hauser@kobrekim.com

Subject: [EXT] RE: Committee Questions re. GDB Productions 

Brad – thanks for your e‐mail.  As you know, the Court contemplated that the Committees would first receive and review 

the Investigator’s report and the underlying documents before beginning the process of determining whether and to 

what extent any supplemental discovery under Rule 2004 may be appropriate.  See June 18, 2018 Hr’g Tr. At 40:25–41:8 

(“[T]he way I generally envision this is that the Committees will be aware of the scope of the information that has been 

produced, that they would await the report . . . and that, at that point, if the Committees required additional document 

requests, they would need to justify it and, as I talked about last time, some sort of budget on it.”).  The Committees’ 

questions seem aimed prematurely at assessing the adequacy of the investigation before the report has even been 

produced.  In addition, several of your questions seek information about work the Investigator did, rather than what 

GDB collected and provided to the Investigator.  Even if GDB and AAFAF had this information, we are under 

confidentiality obligations to the Investigator that would prohibit us from discussing the investigation with the 

Committees.  

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3424-2 Filed:07/03/18 Entered:07/03/18 18:57:15 Desc:

Exhibit 2 Page 3 of 6
3

With these principles in mind, we can tell you the following.  In response to the Investigator’s request under PROMESA 

section 104(c)(2), AAFAF, as representative of GDB, made available to the Investigator on a read‐only basis a Relativity 

database that contained custodial e‐mails from 33 individuals.  Those custodians are accurately identified in the 

Investigator’s June 13, 2018 status report to Judge Dein.  The files GDB provided included the entire set of available 

custodial e‐mails for each custodian, without applying any filters or search terms. 

The Investigator thereafter tagged for production individual documents it requested that GDB produce.  AAFAF and GDB 

do not have independent knowledge of the search terms or other methods that the Investigator used to identify 

documents for production.  AAFAF, acting as representative of GDB, then reviewed the requested documents for 

privilege and confidentiality and produced the requested documents.  GDB did not withhold from the Investigator any 

requested documents.  With the exception of privileged documents that have been listed on our categorical privilege 

log, the Committees have received all documents that AAFAF, as GDB’s representative, produced to the Investigator. 

There are outstanding requests from the Investigator for additional documents from GDB on which GDB and AAFAF are 

continuing to work.  We will produce to the Committees any non‐privileged GDB documents produced to the 

Investigator at the same time those documents are produced to the Investigator or shortly thereafter. 

As for documents outside the Relativity database, PROMESA section 104(c)(2), subject to its terms, affords the Oversight 

Board access to any and all documents at GDB.  The Investigator presumably determined what documents would aid the 

investigation and requested their production.  Any non‐privileged GDB documents produced to the Investigator have 

been provided to the Committees. 

Bill

O’Melveny

William J. Sushon 

wsushon@omm.com

O: +1-212-728-5693

O’Melveny & Myers LLP 

7 Times Square 

New York, NY 10036 

Website | LinkedIn | Twitter

This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers LLP that may be confidential

and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received 

this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.

From: Gray, Bradley R. <bradgray@paulhastings.com>  

Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 10:15 AM 

To: Sushon, Bill <wsushon@omm.com>; Hoplamazian, Garo <ghoplamazian@omm.com>; Friedman, Peter 

<pfriedman@omm.com> 

Cc: lucdespins@paulhastings.com; Cooper, Samuel W. <samuelcooper@paulhastings.com>; Raiford, Landon S. 

<LRaiford@jenner.com>; Pelanek, Laura E. <LPelanek@jenner.com>; Holleb Hotaling, Keri L. <khotaling@jenner.com>; 

Steege, Catherine L. <CSteege@jenner.com> 

Subject: Committee Questions re. GDB Productions 

Bill— 

We spoke with Kobre yesterday and reiterated our open questions regarding the extent of the GDB materials reviewed 

by the Investigator.  Kobre indicated that we should ask these of your team.  To that end, we and the Retirees have a 

few questions below:  

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3424-2 Filed:07/03/18 Entered:07/03/18 18:57:15 Desc:

Exhibit 2 Page 4 of 6
4

 D&O policies and Board materials (including but not limited to agendas, minutes, presentations, and board 

books): Can you state whether these were requested by the Investigator?  If so, were they formally produced or 

simply reviewed as part of the “read‐only” process? 

   

 Search terms related to Regulator communications:  Ex. C to the June Status Report does not appear to include 

terms that would obtain communications about or with regulators, including the SEC or the Puerto Rican 

regulator.  Were these communications between GDB and regulators otherwise targeted?  If so, how? 

 Types of Information made available:  Were there types of documents that could have been available to the 

Investigator other than custodial emails (e.g., user created files, communication apps, mobile phone data (text 

messages, etc.))?  Did the Investigator request such items?  If not, are electronic files available?  What is the 

retention policy of the same? 

 Offering marketing materials: Can you state whether these materials, including all drafts and communications 

related to offerings, sales, marketing and roadshow materials for the offerings were requested? 

 Bond Bible:  Were the Bond Bibles references in PR‐FOMB‐000098887 requested?  (The document begins at PR‐

FOMB‐000098886.)  If so, were they formally produced or reviewed as part of the “read‐only” process? 

 Extent of “read‐only” review: We understand from the Investigator’s draft exit plan that a Relativity database 

was established, and that database contained 1.3 million documents.  Were those documents identified and 

narrowed using search terms from Kobre, or was it the full suite of documents collected from a list of 

custodians?  If so, which custodians were used?   

 Subsequent requests by Kobre for “produced” documents: We understand that approximately 7,500 

documents were “produced” to Kobre.  We would like to know the process through which these documents 

were produced, including the specific requests made by Kobre, any ultimate agreement on the scope of 

production, and whether any additional productions remain forthcoming.  This information regarding the 

materials collected by the Investigator remains critical to allowing the Committees to evaluate whether, and 

how, to move forward on any additional areas of inquiry.   

We would be happy to speak over the weekend or on Monday about these issues if you’re available.    

Thanks, 

Brad 

____________________________________________________________________________

Brad Gray | Associate, Litigation Department 

Paul Hastings LLP | 600 Travis Street, Fifty-Eighth Floor, Houston, TX 77002 | 

Direct: +1.713.860.7345 | Main: +1.713.860.7300 | Fax: +1.713.353.3318 | 

bradleygray@paulhastings.com | www.paulhastings.com

  

****************************************************************************************** 

This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received 

this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. 

If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3424-2 Filed:07/03/18 Entered:07/03/18 18:57:15 Desc:

Exhibit 2 Page 5 of 6
5

and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings’ information collection, privacy 

and security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com. 

****************************************************************************************** 

This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received 

this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. 

If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name 

and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings’ information collection, privacy 

and security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3424-2 Filed:07/03/18 Entered:07/03/18 18:57:15 Desc:

Exhibit 2 Page 6 of 6