Garlock bankruptcy Manville Trust Sur-reply on Data Requested by Garlock 534388_4660

8/21/2019 Garlock bankruptcy Manville Trust Sur-reply on Data Requested by Garlock 534388_4660

1/20

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Charlotte Division

--------------------------------------------------------------x

In re:

GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES LLC,et al .,

Debtors.

::

:

::

:

::

Chapter 11

Case No: 10-BK-31607

(Jointly Administered)

--------------------------------------------------------------x

SUR-REPLY OF NON-PARTY MANVILLE PERSONAL INJURY SETTLEMENT

TRUST TO DEBTORS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE SUBPOENA

The Manville Trust respectfully submits this Sur-Reply to address certain

assertions made by Debtors in their Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to Serve Subpoena on

Manville Trust (the “Reply”) (Dkt. No. 4646).1

I.

THE MANVILLE TRUST OBJECTS TO THE SUBPOENA BECAUSE IT ISOVERREACHING, NOT BECAUSE OF ANY BIAS AGAINST GARLOCK

1. In their Reply, Debtors assert that, as a result of its “undisclosed

relationships” with certain law firms and individuals representing the interests of asbestos

claimants, the Manville Trust is “treat[ing] Garlock differently” from other co-defendants by

resisting the production of “information the Manville Trust normally provides to other co-

defendants as a matter of policy.” Reply at 12, 17. Debtors’ assertion is simply incorrect.

1 Unless otherwise noted, all undefined and abbreviated terms herein have the same meaning as in

the Objection of Non-Party Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust to the Debtors’ Motion for

Leave to Serve Subpoena (the “Manville Objection”) (Dkt. No. 4638). The factual bases for thisSur-Reply are set forth in the accompanying supplemental declaration of Jared S. Garelick

(“Supp. Garelick Decl.”).

Case 10-31607 Doc 4660 Filed 06/16/15 Entered 06/16/15 11:11:15 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 7


2/20

2

2. To start, the four (not three, as Debtors assert) Trustees of the Manville

Trust (the “Trustees”) make all final trust decisions based on what they determine to be in the best

interests of the Manville Trust and its beneficiaries. Debtors attempt to impugn the independence

of the Trustees by speculating that one of them, Dr. Mark Peterson, who serves as the

Committee’s claims expert, participated in the Manville Trust’s decision to file its objection. He

did not. Dr. Peterson recused himself from the Manville Trust’s consideration of the Motion. See

Supp. Garelick Decl. ¶¶ 2-4. Debtors also assert that the Manville Trust’s institutional

relationship with the Selected Counsel of the Beneficiaries (“SCB”), a group that includes law

firms and attorneys representing the interests of asbestos claimants in this and/or other actions,

swayed its decision to file its objection. See Reply at 12. Debtors’ assertion is incorrect. As a

governance matter, the Trustees are required to, and do, consult with the SCB on matters of

concern to the SCB’s constituents. There is nothing untoward about this. The Trustees have a

fiduciary obligation to consider the views of Trust beneficiaries as part of their decision-making

process. And it was the Trustees, not the SCB or its counsel, who decided to file the Manville

Objection after independently concluding that Debtors’ Motion was overreaching. See Supp.

Garelick Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.

3. Debtors’ contention that, in objecting to the Motion, the Manville Trust is

treating them “differently” than other co-defendants also lacks any basis in fact. As demonstrated

in the Manville Objection, the Manville Trust does not provide data extracts for tens of thousands

of claimants in response to mass subpoenas without first negotiating limits on the scope of

disclosure and on the use of any produced data, particularly personally identifiable claimant

information. See Manville Objection ¶ 21. The Manville Trust has taken this approach over many

years, in various fora, and its efforts in this regard have been successful, in part because other co-



3/20

3

defendants, in contrast to Debtors, have been willing to craft reasonable limits on the scope of

disclosure and on the use of information produced by the Manville Trust. See Supp. Garelick

Decl. ¶¶ 5-6. If the Manville Trust is treating Garlock “differently,” it is only because Garlock has

refused to limit its sweeping Subpoena or consider a protective order that would restrict its use of

Manville Trust data extracts to claim estimation.

II.

DEBTORS DO NOT REQUIRE CLAIMANT IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION

TO ESTIMATE THEIR AGGREGATE NON-MESOTHELIOMA LIABILITY

4. In its Objection, the Manville Trust made clear that an anonymized

production of claimant data would suffice for purposes of estimation. Manville Objection ¶¶ 40,

53. In their Reply, Debtors insist that “the Manville Trust’s request for an anonymous production

would render it useless, because Dr. Bates needs identifying information . . . to match the

produced data to claimants in the Garlock Analytical Database . . . .” Reply at 3 (emphasis

added); see also Bates Decl. ¶ 7(1) (“The claimant identifying information will be used to match

the Manville Trust data to specific claimants in the Garlock Analytical Database . . . . If the

information provided does not include identifying information, such a matching exercise would

not be possible.”) (emphasis added).

5. Debtors’ assertion that they require personally identifiable claimant

information to match Garlock claimants with data for those same claimants in the Manville Trust

database is incorrect. Debtors provide no reason why the Manville Trust – or some third party

service vendor – could not use personally identifiable claimant data to match Garlock claimants

with claimants in the Manville Trust’s database and then produce data for matched claimants in an

anonymized format, with data fields such as the claimants’ names, social security numbers, home

addresses, and the like deleted. Although the Manville Trust remains concerned that Debtors’



4/20

4

“first name, last name” matching procedure would yield “false positives,” Manville Objection ¶

33, Debtors appear sanguine that Bates White will be able to “apply advanced algorithms . . . to

identify and remove potential false positives.” Reply at 7. If disclosed, the Manville Trust would

be open to considering the use of these same “advanced algorithms” to provide Garlock with an

anonymized, matched set of claimant data.

6. Even if they require claimant specific information for matching, Debtors

provide no support for their assertion that they need such information to then estimate their

liability for already matched claimants. Accordingly, if Debtors conduct the matching process

themselves, the Court should order them, after completing that process, to (i) anonymize the

matched data, (ii) place the anonymized data in a segregated database where it would be available

for estimation purposes, (iii) secure the database containing claimant identifiable information and

not place it in the public record; and (iv) delete all claimant identifiable information at the end of

the estimation proceeding. The Hon. Robert E. Gerber endorsed such an approach in connection

with the estimation litigation in In re Motors Liquidation Co., Ch. 11 Case No. 09-50026 (REG)

(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2010) (Dkt. No. 7526) (Supp. Garelick Decl., Ex. A), in which Bates

White also acted as a claims estimation expert. Such an approach would provide the parties with

the data they require for claims estimation without prejudicing individual plaintiffs in their

litigations against other asbestos defendants in the tort system.

III.

THE DISSEMINATION OF DATA FOR 91,000-PLUS

CLAIMANTS WOULD OFFEND THEIR PRIVACY INTERESTS

AND IMPAIR THE VALUE OF THE MANVILLE TRUST’S DATABASE

7. The Manville Trust demonstrated that, when it discloses data on the scale

called for by the Subpoena, it does so subject to strict confidentiality and use limitations described



5/20

5

in its form of License Agreement. Manville Objection ¶¶ 22-25, 55. Debtors respond that the

Manville Trust’s concerns about the unrestricted use and disclosure of extracts from its database

are unwarranted because the “Manville Trust ‘generally releases’ all the data . . . to asbestos

defendants who subpoena it. . . .” Reply at 3-4; id. at 17 n.10. Debtors ignore the stark

distinctions between the Manville Trust’s approach to responding to “one-off” subpoenas in

individual litigations and its approach to responding to subpoenas in mass litigation, see Manville

Objection ¶ 19, as well as the reasons why such distinct approaches are appropriate.

8. From the perspective of individual claimants, there is an important

distinction between the Manville Trust’s producing claim information in response to one-off

subpoenas and producing a computerized, easily searchable data extract containing scores of

thousands of claim files. As the Supreme Court has recognized,

[B]oth the common law and the literal understandings of privacy

encompass the individual’s control of information concerning his or

her person. In an organized society, there are few facts that are notat one time or another divulged to another. Thus the extent of the

protection accorded a privacy right at common law rested in part onthe degree of dissemination of the allegedly private fact and the

extent to which the passage of time rendered it private . . . . [T]he

issue here is whether the compilation of otherwise hard-to-obtaininformation alters the privacy interest implicated by disclosure of

that information. Plainly there is a vast difference between the

public records that might be found after a diligent search of

courthouse files, county archives, and local police stationsthroughout the country and a computerized summary located in a

single clearinghouse of information.

U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 763-64 (1989).

9.

This distinction is equally important from the perspective of the Manville

Trust, which regards the data it has compiled and maintained, at its own expense, as a

commercially valuable asset. See Supp. Garelick Decl. ¶ 5. So do Debtors. See Reporters

Comm., 489 U.S. at 764 (noting that if the information sought “were ‘freely available,’ there



6/20

6

would be no reason” for the party to seek disclosure of the compiled files). Although, from time

to time, the Manville Trust licenses access to extracts from its database in exchange for a licensing

fee, it imposes strict confidentiality and use limits on such extracts (including on the disclosure of

personally identifiable claimant information), both out of deference to claimant privacy concerns

and to safeguard the value of the database. Unaccompanied by such restrictions, the compelled

production of data for 91,000-plus individuals – approximately 10 percent of the claim files

maintained by the Manville Trust – could materially diminish the value of the database as a trust

asset while conferring a windfall on claims estimation experts, who would obtain unrestricted

access to a sizeable volume of Manville Trust data free of charge. See Supp. Garelick Decl. ¶ 8.

CONCLUSION

10. For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Manville Objection, the

Manville Trust respectfully requests that this Court deny the Motion, without prejudice to

Debtors’ applying for leave to issue a modified subpoena that:

a. requires the production of data and documents for a random sample of no

more than 10% of the relevant Manville Trust claimants;

b. excludes from disclosure information irrelevant to estimation or Plan

feasibility, including personally identifiable information, Manville Trustsettlement offers and information about claimants’ non-asbestos-related

medical conditions;

c. permits the Manville Trust to produce data and documents in an

anonymized format or, alternatively, bars Debtors from sharing personallyidentifiable claimant information with third-parties or disclosing such

information in any court filing or other public disclosure; and

d. requires Debtors to compensate the Manville Trust for all costs it incurs in

connection with complying with the modified subpoena, including the costof redacting personally identifiable information from all medical and other

records produced by the Manville Trust.



7/20

7

Dated: Charlotte, North Carolina

June 16, 2015Respectfully submitted,

HORACK TALLEY PHARR & LOWNDES, P.A.

/s/ Kristin Decker Ogburn

Kristin Decker Ogburn (N.C. Bar No. 20506)2600 One Wachovia Center

301 South College Street

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-6006(704) 377-2500

-and-

FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEILER & ADELMAN LLPJason C. Rubinstein ( pro hac vice)

7 Times Square New York, New York 10036-6516(212) 833-1100

Attorneys for Non-Party

Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust



8/20

3078476.1


FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Charlotte Division

--------------------------------------------------------------x

In re:

GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES LLC,

et al .,

Debtors.

:

:

::

:

::

:

Chapter 11

Case No: 10-BK-31607(Jointly Administered)

--------------------------------------------------------------x

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JARED S. GARELICK

JARED S. GARELICK, under penalty of perjury, declares:

1. I am the General Counsel of non-party Manville Personal Injury

Settlement Trust (the “Manville Trust”). I make this declaration to supplement my original

declaration, executed on June 3, 2015, which was filed in support of the objection (the

“Objection”) of the Manville Trust to the Motion of the Debtors for Leave to Serve Subpoena on

Manville Trust (Docket No. 4599), in support of the Sur-Reply of the Manville Trust to Debtors’

Motion for Leave to Serve Subpoena (the “Sur-Reply”), and to make part of the record an

additional document referenced in the Manville Trust’s Sur-Reply. I am fully familiar with the

facts set forth herein.

2.

A Board of Trustees (the “Trustees”), presently comprised of four

members, makes all final decisions on behalf of the Manville Trust, including with respect to the

positions the Manville Trust will take in responding to subpoenas issued in connection with mass

Case 10-31607 Doc 4660-1 Filed 06/16/15 Entered 06/16/15 11:11:15 DescSupplemental Declaration Page 1 of 4


9/20

2

3078476.1

litigations that call for the production of claims data extracts and related files for tens of

thousands of Manville Trust claimants.

3. The Trustees make such determinations based on what they determine to

be in the best interests of the Manville Trust and its beneficiaries. As a governance matter, the

Trustees routinely consult with the Selected Counsel of the Beneficiaries (“SCB”), a group that

includes law firms and attorneys representing the interests of asbestos claimants in the above-

captioned action and/or other actions. Although the Trustees are required to consult with the

SCB, they have a fiduciary obligation to consider the views of all Trust beneficiaries as part of

their independent decision-making process. Ultimately, the Trustees, not the SCB or its counsel,

are responsible for making decisions on behalf of the Manville Trust.

4. In this action, the Trustees, not the SCB or its counsel, determined that the

Manville Trust should file its Objection after independently concluding that doing so was in the

best interests of the Manville Trust and its beneficiaries. Because one of the Trustees, Dr. Mark

Peterson, serves as an expert for the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants

in these proceedings, he recused himself from, and did not participate in, the Trustees’ decision

to file the Objection.

5. I understand that Debtors assert that, in filing its Objection, the Manville

Trust is treating them “differently” than other co-defendants. Debtors’ assertion is incorrect.

When it receives mass subpoenas seeking data extracts for tens of thousands of claimants, the

Manville Trust has historically succeeded in negotiating strict limits on the scope of disclosure

and on the use of any produced data, particularly personally identifiable claimant information.

The Manville Trust has insisted on such restrictions both to protect the privacy interests of



10/20

3

3078476.1

Manville Trust claimants and to safeguard the value of its database, which the Manville Trust has

compiled and maintained at its own expense, as a trust asset.

6. The Manville Trust has successfully taken this approach over many years,

in various fora, and it has been aided in its efforts by the willingness of the parties seeking

disclosure to craft reasonable limits on the scope of the Manville Trust’s productions and on the

use and disclosure of information produced by the Manville Trust.

7. Courts have also been receptive to requiring asbestos defendants to use

anonymized claimant data when estimating their liabilities. For example, in In re Motors

Liquidation Co., Ch. 11 Case No. 09-50026 (REG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2010) (Dkt. No.

7526), the Hon. Robert E. Gerber required the creation of an anonymized claims database to be

used for estimation purposes. A true and correct copy of Judge Gerber’s Order Concerning

ACC’s Request for an Anonymity Protocol is annexed hereto as Exhibit A.

8. I understand that Debtors seek to compel the Manville Trust to disclose

claims data for 91,000-plus Manville claimants – approximately 10 percent of the claims files

maintained by the Manville Trust – free of most use and disclosure restrictions and without

anonymizing such data. Producing such information in the format sought by Debtors, and

subject to the permissive protective order urged by Debtors, could materially diminish the value

of the database as a trust asset while conferring a windfall on claims estimation experts, who

would obtain unrestricted access to a sizeable volume of Manville Trust data free of charge.

9.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.



11/20



12/20

EXHIBIT A to the Supplemental Garelick Declaration

Case 10-31607 Doc 4660-2 Filed 06/16/15 Entered 06/16/15 11:11:15 DescExhibit to Supplemental Declaration Page 1 of 8


13/20

1KL2 2671736.2


SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------- X

:In re: : Chapter 11 Case No.:

:

MOTORS LIQUIDATION COMPANY., et al., : 09-50026 (REG)f/k/a General Motors Corp., et al., :

:

Debtors. : (Jointly Administered):

---------------------------------------------------------- X

ORDER CONCERNING ACC’S REQUESTFOR AN ANONYMITY PROTOCOL

On August 24, 2010, the Court entered an Order (the “UCC 2004 Order”) [Dkt.

No. 6749], pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004, granting the Motion (the “UCC 2004 Motion”)

[Dkt. No. 6383] of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Motors Liquidation

Company (the “Creditors’ Committee”) for an Order authorizing the Creditors’ Committee,

among other things, to obtain certain discovery from (i) the Delaware Claims Processing Facility

and Claims Resolution Management Corporation (the “Claims Processing Facilities”) and

(ii) the Armstrong World Industries, Inc., Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust, the

Babcock & Wilcox Company Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust, the Owens

Corning/Fibreboard Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, the DII Industries, LLC Asbestos PI Trust,

the United States Gypsum Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust and the Manville Personal

Injury Settlement Trust (collectively, the “Trusts”).

The UCC 2004 Order required, before service of the Subpoenas1 by the Creditors’

Committee on the Claims Processing Facilities and Trusts, the parties, including the Official

1 Terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the UCC 2004 Order.

09-50026-reg Doc 7526 Filed 10/22/10 Entered 10/22/10 14:40:21 Main Document Pg 1 of 7Case 10-31607 Doc 4660-2 Filed 06/16/15 Entered 06/16/15 11:11:15 DescExhibit to Supplemental Declaration Page 2 of 8


14/20

2KL2 2671736.2

Committee of Unsecured Creditors Holding Asbestos-Related Claims (the “ACC”), to attempt to

reach agreement on the terms of a protocol (an “Anonymity Protocol”) that would enable the

Creditors’ Committee to obtain the information it seeks from the Claims Processing Facilities

and/or the Trusts in a form that maintains the anonymity of the claimants whose data is

produced, while at the same time enabling the Creditors’ Committee and other parties to a

potential contested estimation hearing in these cases to make use of such information in the

manner described in the UCC 2004 Motion and at the August 9, 2010 hearing on the UCC 2004

Motion.

The UCC 2004 Order provided that any party was authorized to notify the Court

in the event an Anonymity Protocol had been proposed and, in the party’s view, the Creditors’

Committee had unreasonably refused to agree to its terms, and, in the event of such notification,

the Creditors’ Committee was not to issue any subpoenas to the Claims Processing Facilities or

Trusts pending further direction from the Court.

On September 14, 2010, the ACC filed a notice with the Court in which it

asserted that the Creditors’ Committee had unreasonably refused to agree to the terms of its

proposed Anonymity Protocol, and the parties subsequently filed written submissions with the

Court regarding that proposed Anonymity Protocol.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Court having reviewed and considered the various

submissions of the parties regarding the ACC’s proposed Anonymity Protocol and the record at

the hearing of October 21, 2010, and the Court having found that it has jurisdiction over this

matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334, that this is a core proceeding pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), and that notice of the briefing schedule and hearing on an Anonymity



15/20

3KL2 2671736.2

Protocol were appropriate and no further notice thereof is necessary, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

THAT:

1. The ACC’s request that the Court order the implementation of its

proposed Anonymity Protocol is denied in part and granted in part on the terms and conditions

set forth below. Subject to this Order, the Creditors’ Committee is authorized to issue the

Subpoenas forthwith.

2. In producing the Trust Information, the Claims Processing Facilities and

the Trusts shall be permitted to redact or otherwise withhold the following fields (in addition to

those data fields that may be withheld pursuant to the UCC 2004 Order): (a) claimant address,

phone, fax and email (except state); (b) personal representative name, Social Security Number

(“SSN”), address, phone, fax and email; (c) occupationally exposed person address, phone, fax

and email (except state); (d) dependent name (except number of dependents); (e) dependent date

of birth (except year); (f) attorney address; and (g) contact name, address, phone, fax and email.

3. Each of the claims estimation experts retained in these cases – namely,

Bates White LLC, Legal Analysis Systems, Inc., Analysis, Research and Planning Corporation,

and Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. (each an “Expert”) – shall use the names and

Social Security Numbers of the Mesothelioma Claimants only for the following purposes

(“Permitted Matching Purposes”): (i) matching and combining the Trust Information, on a

claimant-by-claimant basis, with data from General Motors LLC or other sources, (ii) verifying

the accuracy of other Experts’ matching of such data, and (iii) defending challenges to the

accuracy of the Expert’s matching of such data. To enforce this limitation, each Expert shall be

subject to the data security restrictions set forth in this Order and such additional restrictions as



16/20

4KL2 2671736.2

may be agreed upon by the parties to the asbestos estimation proceeding in this case (namely, the

ACC, the FCR, the Debtors and the UCC), the Trusts, and the Claims Processing Facilities.

a. A defined period of time shall be provided for matching and

combining the data as described in paragraph 3 above (the “Matching Period”), as follows:

(i) Within 2 weeks of the production of the Trust Information,

the Experts shall exchange (a) a list of claimants (identified by

their unique identifiers within the data produced by GM, but not

name or Social Security Number) that each Expert believes is the

unique set of Mesothelioma Claimants, and (b) for each unique

claimant, a list of the Trusts’ records to which the Expert believes

the claimant matches.

(ii) Following the exchange of such lists, the Experts and

counsel to the parties shall make a good faith effort to reconcile

their views concerning the exchanged lists. As part of these

efforts, each Expert shall promptly provide the other Experts and

counsel to the parties with any additional data relied upon for his

or her position with respect to any disagreement concerning the

exchanged lists.

(iii) By no later than 4 weeks after the production of the Trust

Information, the Experts shall collectively determine the extent of

their agreement and disagreement on these lists.

(iv) Within 6 weeks of the production of the Trust Information,

the Experts will exchange reports.



17/20

5KL2 2671736.2

b. The results of each Expert’s matching (the “Matched Data”) shall

be isolated from the original sources from which they are derived and may be preserved only in a

new, discrete database. At the conclusion of the Matching Period, each Expert may assign a

unique numeric identifier to each claimant included in his or her Matched Data and create a

separate file (a “Linked IDs File”) that will link these identifiers to the identifiers of each dataset

that was incorporated into the Matched Data. Subsequently, each Expert shall delete the

following fields from the Matched Data:

Claimant name, SSN, address, phone, fax, email;

Personal Representative name, SSN, address, phone, fax, email;

Occupationally exposed person name, SSN, address, phone, fax, email;Other exposed person name, SSN, address, phone, fax, email;

Exposure affiant name;Dependent name;

Dependent date of birth (except year for each dependent);

Lawsuit case numbers (except jurisdiction); andThe identifiers of each dataset that was incorporated into Matched Data.

The databases that have been subjected to these required deletions are referred to below as the

“Anonymized Databases.”

c. Immediately after the creation of the Anonymized Databases, each

Expert shall remove the Trust Information and the Linked IDs File, and all excerpts thereof (but

not the Anonymized Databases), from his or her firm’s computer network, put such data on an

external storage device, and keep it in a secured location. Thereafter, each Expert shall use such

data only for Permitted Matching Purposes. Except to the extent necessary for Permitted

Matching Purposes, each Expert (a) shall not in any way, directly or indirectly, retain, copy, link ,

reflect, or use the Trust Information or the Linked IDs File, or use any portion or element

thereof, in any database, report, document, or statement other than in the Anonymized Databases,



18/20

6KL2 2671736.2

and (b) shall not retain any record of any kind linking any unique identifier used in an

Anonymized Database to any information outside the Anonymized Database.

d. Pursuant to section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, none of the

Trust Information, Matched Data, Linked IDs Files, or the Anonymized Databases shall be

subject to subpoena or otherwise discoverable by any person or entity other than the Debtor, the

Creditors’ Committee, the ACC, and the FCR.

e. For the avoidance of doubt, the Trust Information, any Matched

Data, any Linked IDs Files, and any Anonymized Database shall be Confidential Estimation-

Related Information for purposes of the Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order entered

in the above-captioned cases on or about August 24, 2010.

f. No claimant-specific data from, or derived from, the Trust

Information shall be (i) placed on the public record, or (ii) filed with the Bankruptcy Court, the

District Court, or any reviewing court, except under seal.

g. At the conclusion of the estimation litigation in this case, each

Expert shall destroy the Trust Information and the Linked IDs File, and all excerpts thereof,

without in any way retaining, preserving, or copying the Trust Information or the Linked IDs

File. In addition, the provisions of paragraph 18 of the Confidentiality Agreement and Protective

Order of August 24, 2010 shall apply, without limitation.

4. Nothing in this Order shall constitute a waiver by the ACC, the FCR, the

Trusts, or the Claims Processing Facilities of any objection previously asserted with respect to

the UCC 2004 Motion.



19/20

7KL2 2671736.2

Dated: New York, New York

October 22, 2010

s/ Robert E. Gerber UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE



20/20

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

CHARLOTTE DIVISION

IN RE: )) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, )LLC, et al. ) Case No. 10-31607TAX ID: 10-0002339 ) (Chapter 11)

)Debtor. ) Jointly Administered

)

This is to certify that the Sur-Reply of Non-Party Manville Personal InjurySettlement Trust to the Debtors’ Motion for Leave to Serve Subpoena was servedelectronically upon the parties listed on the electronic mailing matrix, including to the following

parties:

Linda SimpsonU.S. Bankruptcy Administrator 402 West Trade Street, Suite 200

Charlotte, NC 28201

Rayburn Cooper & Durham, P.A.

Albert F. DurhamJohn P. Miller, Jr.

1200 Carillon227 West Trade StreetCharlotte, NC 28202

Robinson Bradshaw & HinsonGarland S. CassadaJohathan C. Krisko101 N. Tryon Street, Suite 1900

Charlotte, NC 28246

Dated this 16th

day of June, 2015.

s/ Kristin Decker OgburnKristin Decker Ogburn

Attorney for Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust

North Carolina State Bar No. 20506

OF COUNSEL:Horack, Talley, Pharr & Lowndes, P.A.

301 S. College Street, Suite 2600

Charlotte, NC 28202

Telephone: 704-377-2500Telefax: 704-372-2619

Case 10-31607 Doc 4660-3 Filed 06/16/15 Entered 06/16/15 11:11:15 DescCertificate of Service Page 1 of 1

Documents

Garlock bankruptcy Manville Trust Sur-reply on Data Requested by Garlock 534388_4660