Opinion ID: 786193
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ex Parte Communications and the Advisors

Text: 39 On December 20, 2001, Judge Wolin held a case management conference for the Five Asbestos Cases. Although there is no official record of what was said at that conference, Judge Wolin produced a script (talking points) which reflects what he said to the parties. According to the script, Judge Wolin announced that  [i]n order to effectively case manage complex litigation, it is necessary for the judge to speak and/or meet with attorneys on an ex parte basis, without permission of adversary attorneys.  Judge Wolin further announced that  [a]ny objection to such ex parte communications is deemed waived,  but he assured the parties and attorneys that he would use his power to meet ex parte sparingly. None of the parties objected at that time. 40 A week later, Judge Wolin named five Court Appointed Consultants (the Advisors) to assist him in the Five Asbestos Cases. The five individuals he named were David Gross, Judson Hamlin, William Dreier, John Keefe, and Francis McGovern, all of whom had prior experience with asbestos or mass tort litigation either as state court judges, private practitioners, or academics. Pursuant to Judge Wolin's order, the Advisors were to advise the Court and to undertake such responsibilities, including... mediation of disputes, holding case management conferences, and consultation with counsel, as the Court may delegate to them individually. The Advisors could also be delegated certain authority to hear matters and to advise the Court on issues that may arise in these five large Chapter 11 cases. Judge Wolin's order provided that he could, without further notice, appoint any of the Court-Appointed Consultants to act as a Special Master to hear any disputed matter and to make a report and recommendation to the Court on the disposition of such matter. 41 Over the next two years, Judge Wolin met repeatedly, on an ex parte basis, with the parties and their attorneys. Despite his prior assurance that he would do so sparingly, he acknowledged more recently that he met ex parte with interested parties on innumerable occasions. (Supp. Resp. dated Nov. 20, 2003). This is supported by the fee applications filed by the Advisors, which reveal more than 325 hours of ex parte meetings with the attorneys for various parties in the Five Asbestos Cases. Many of these meetings took place at restaurants over lunch or dinner or at law firms. During the proceedings on remand, Judge Wolin acknowledged that he received extra-judicial information at the ex parte conferences. ( See Joint Appendix JA at 1165.) 42 The ex parte meetings were not limited to the parties and their attorneys. In the first half of 2002, Judge Wolin and the Advisors held a series of four ex parte meetings at which they discussed, in Advisor McGovern's words, [j]ust whatever issue you can think of, including claims bar dates, the chrysotile defense, 6 proof of claim forms, pleural plaques, 7 the pros and cons of various approaches to estimation under 11 U.S.C. § 502(c), 8 the tensions between various creditor classes, and Rule 706 panels. 9 These issues are highly relevant concerns in asbestos litigation. The primary purpose of these meetings was to educate Judge Wolin on the issues likely to arise in the Five Asbestos Cases or, as Advisor Gross put it, to assist Judge Wolin ... in becoming more conversant with the details of the asbestos litigation. 43 One of these initial meetings was attended by Bob Komitor, a plaintiff's attorney. According to Advisor Dreier, Komitor described an expert, Dr. Peter Barrett, as a charlatan and criticized the chrysotile defense. Dr. Barrett had been previously engaged by USG Corp. While there is no official record of this meeting, notes taken by Advisor Gross suggest that some of the Advisors also expressed negative views about the positions taken by USG's expert and other USG Corp. defenses. 44 Following this series of initial meetings, Judge Wolin also held an ex parte meeting on November 19, 2002 with Advisors Gross, McGovern and Dreier to discuss certain issues in the Owens Corning bankruptcy. There is no official transcript of this meeting, but Advisor Dreier took notes. On remand, Judge Wolin rejected inquiries concerning this meeting on the ground that it included settlement discussions. As a result, Advisor Dreier's notes were filed under seal both in the District Court and by us. 45 Two days before the meeting, Owens Corning had distributed a draft plan of reorganization that was supported by Credit Suisse First Boston, as agent for the pre-petition creditors. The draft plan called for certain issues to be resolved prior to plan confirmation. At the November 19th meeting, the Advisors discussed some of the key issues contained in the proposed plan with Judge Wolin and explained their effects as well as what appear to be certain settlement figures that had been discussed with the parties. 46 At a conference held on November 21, 2002, Judge Wolin stated that he did not favor Owens Corning's proposed plan. In January 2003, Owens Corning filed a revised plan of reorganization that this time was supported by the tort claimants who had objected to the first draft plan. 10 47 During the course of the Five Asbestos Cases, Advisor Hamlin prepared a draft opinion in each of the Five Asbestos Cases, a role that Hamlin likened to that of a federal magistrate judge. At his deposition, Hamlin explained that he would normally receive a phone call from Judge Wolin's chambers informing him that an appeal had been taken from the Bankruptcy Court and that he was to prepare a draft opinion for Judge Wolin. The issues on which he drafted opinions included, among other things, bar dates for asbestos property claims, defenses by USG Corp. to asbestos personal injury claims, and proof of claim forms.