The opinion
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
§
IN RE: § CASE NO: 00-10992
§
THE BABCOCK & WILCOX § CHAPTER 11
COMPANY, §
§ SECTION A
DEBTOR. §
§
§
THE BABCOCK & WILCOX §
COMPANY, §
§
PLAINTIFF, §
§ ADV. NO. 21-1014
V. §
§
PHILADELPHIA ENERGY SOLUTIONS §
REFINING AND MARKETING LLC, §
PES LIQUIDATING TRUST, §
WESTPORT INSURANCE COMPANY, §
XL INSURANCE AMERICA, INC., §
ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS US §
INSURANCE COMPANY, HDI GLOBAL §
INSURANCE COMPANY, AND §
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT §
LLOYD’S LONDON-SYNDICATE 1221 §
(NAVIGATORS), ZURICH AMERICAN §
INSURANCE COMPANY, CERTAIN §
UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S §
SUBSCRIBING TO ENNMG1800181, §
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT §
LLOYD’S SUBSCRIBING TO §
ENNMG1800281, CERTAIN §
UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S §
SUBSCRIBING TO ENNMG1800282, §
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT §
LLOYD’S SUBSCRIBING TO EN100070- §
18, §
§
DEFENDANTS. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This Court held a trial on April 7, 8, 10, and 11, 2025, to decide the claims alleged in the
above-captioned adversary proceeding by The Babcock & Wilcox Co. (“B&W”) against
Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing LLC and PES Liquidating Trust (together,
the “PES Entities”). A review of the background and posture of this case can be found in this
Court’s Order dated July 2, 2024, denying cross-motions for summary judgment. [ECF Doc. 199].
Pursuant to this Court’s Joint Pretrial Order dated April 4, 2025, the parties designated
excerpts of deposition testimony given by four witnesses to be offered into evidence in lieu of live
testimony. [ECF Doc. 254, ¶ K].
Before the Court are the following evidentiary objections to deposition designations:
(i) the Plaintiff’s Objections to Deposition Designation of Defendants (the “B&W
Objection”), [ECF Doc. 260];
(ii) the Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiff’s Page/Line Deposition Excerpts and
Memorandum in Support (the “PES Entities Objection”), [ECF Doc. 261];
(iii) B&W’s response to the PES Entities Objection, [ECF Doc. 266]; and
(iv) The PES Entities’ response to the B&W Objection, [ECF Doc. 267].
For the reasons below, the Court SUSTAINS IN PART and OVERRULES IN PART
both the B&W Objection and the PES Entities Objection.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has jurisdiction to grant the relief provided for herein pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1334(b). The confirmed plan of reorganization in B&W’s bankruptcy case also reserved
to this Court post-confirmation jurisdiction to resolve matters including, but not limited to, “all
controversies, suits, and disputes that may relate to, impact upon, or arise in connection with this
Plan or any other Plan Documents or their interpretation, implementation, enforcement, or
consummation.” [No. 00-10992, ECF Doc. 7003, § 9.5.3].
The matter presently before the Court constitutes a core proceeding that this Court may
hear and determine on a final basis under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). Venue is proper pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.
BACKGROUND
The parties designated excerpts from the following depositions:
(i) June 7, 2023, deposition of Timothy Kocis. Kocis is the Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 30(b)(6) corporate designee for Sunoco, LP. He has worked at the company for
24 years and currently is employed as an environmental engineer. In that role, Kocis
manages health, safety, and environmental risks and has developed programs to protect
workers and ensure regulatory compliance.
(ii) October 7, 2024, deposition of Dominic Giampino (fact witness for B&W).
Giampino was formerly employed by Philadelphia Energy Solutions (“PES”) as a technical
manager from 2012 through 2020. In that position, Giampino was responsible for
monitoring operations of the refinery, developing improvement items, and solving
operating issues. Prior to working with PES, Giampino worked for Sunoco in various
capacities including as a process-design engineer, technical supervisor, business-planning
supervisor, and process-design supervisor.
(iii) November 22, 2024, deposition of John Sitler (fact witness for B&W). Sitler has
experience with inspections of petrochemical facilities. He held inspector roles with
various companies. Starting in 1998, he served as an inspection subcontractor for
MISTRAS/QSL, then for Sunoco from 2003 to 2012, and finally for PES from 2012 until
2020. He is currently employed by Hilco Redevelopment Partners and works in a
management role that is involved with developing the former PES land where the refinery
at issue was located.
(iv) January 16, 2025, deposition of Brandy Johnson. Johnson is the Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) corporate designee for B&W. Johnson has worked at B&W for
over thirty years in a variety of roles. She previously served as the Vice President of
Engineering and Technology at B&W before being promoted to Chief Technology Officer.
The parties stipulate to or do not object to the admission of the following deposition
excerpts into evidence (collectively, the “Stipulated Excerpts”):
(i) Timothy Kocis Tr. 9:07–10:10; 18:23–19:24; 21:11–24:09; 27:23–28:12; 49:11–52:02;
78:15–79:10; 87:08–88:08; 88:19–89:13; 89:17–90:25; 92:05–24; 93:10–22.
(ii) Dominic Giampino Tr. 4:08–10; 7:11–12:10; 15:14–16:05; 16:11–13; 18:15–17;
20:10–16; 21:15–35:06; 35:24–36:09; 37:20–42:07; 42:13–44:02; 44:08–45:05;
55:04–07; 62:08–18; 65:07–66:21; 67:09–12; 71:19–73:15; 77:24–78:05; 79:14–
80:04; 92:09–94:19; 95:22–96:21; 98:02–10; 99:08–100:07; 123:15–124:11.
(iii) John Sitler Tr. 8:05–9:04; 10:02–11; 12:16–14:04; 14:08–16:07; 28:10–32:23; 38:14–
22; 39:19–40:16; 42:01–43:13; 44:13–45:18; 47:09–48:25; 49:22–53:19; 59:10–64:17;
81:15–82:05; 83:11–24; 100:15–101:07; 152:12–153:02; 154:01–165:15.
(iv) Brandy Johnson Tr. 9:08–23:25; 24:07–10; 27:07–28:23; 29:12–25; 35:09–36:10;
41:05– 41:25; 64:10–67:21.
Following the trial, the parties filed written objections to the designated depositions into
the record. [ECF Docs. 260, 261, 266 & 267]. The B&W Objection and the PES Entities
Objection raise the following evidentiary objections to certain designated excerpts: (i) lack of
personal knowledge or speculation under Federal Rule of Evidence 602, (ii) optional completeness
under Federal Rule of Evidence 106. (iii) hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 802, (iv)
relevance under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, (v) expert opinion testimony prohibited
under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, and (vi) cumulative testimony.
DISCUSSION
A. General Rules on Use of All or Part of a Deposition Transcript at Trial
“To the extent that the parties can stipulate to testimony and/or the admission of evidence,
the Court encourages them to do so.” Little v. Frederick, No. CV 6:17-0724, 2018 WL 6314730,
at *2 (W.D. La. Dec. 3, 2018). “The party objecting to the admissibility of evidence bears the
burden of showing that the evidence is inadmissible.” Chevron TCI, Inc. v. Capitol House Hotel
Manager, LLC, 541 F. Supp. 3d 687, 692 (M.D. La. 2021) (citing Lyondell Chem. Co. v.
Occidental Chem. Corp., 608 F.3d 284, 295 (5th Cir. 2010)).
Generally, parties may use all or part of a deposition at trial if “(A) the party was present
or represented at the taking of the deposition or had reasonable notice of it; (B) it is used to the
extent it would be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence if the deponent were present
and testifying; and (C) the use is allowed by Rule 32(a)(2) through (8).” FED. R. CIV. P. 32(a)(1).
“Subject to Rules 28(b) and 32(d)(3), an objection may be made at a hearing or trial to the
admission of any deposition testimony that would be inadmissible if the witness were present and
testifying.” FED. R. CIV. P. 32(b). Additionally, if only part of a deposition is offered into
evidence, “an adverse party may require the offeror to introduce other parts that in fairness should
be considered with the part introduced, and any party may itself introduce any other parts.” FED.
R. CIV. P. 32(a)(6); see also FED. R. EVID. 106 (“If a party introduces all or part of a statement, an
adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part — or any other statement
— that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time. The adverse party may do so over a
hearsay objection.”).
B. General Rules on the Admissibility of Testimony
Federal Rule of Evidence 402 provides that relevant evidence is admissible unless
otherwise provided for in the Constitution, a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or a
rule prescribed by the Supreme Court. See FED. R. EVID. 402. “Relevant evidence is that which
has ‘any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of
the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.’” Lubbock Feed
Lots, Inc. v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., 630 F.2d 250, 264 (5th Cir. 1980) (quoting FED. R. EVID.
401). Therefore, “when evidence is challenged solely on the ground that it is irrelevant, it is
inadmissible only if it fails to meet the definition of Rule 401. . . . If it is relevant as to any issue,
it is relevant to the action and is not inadmissible under Rule 402.” Id. at 267.
“A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a
finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.” FED. R. EVID. 602. If a witness
lacks the proper personal knowledge on a matter or provides unsupported speculative testimony,
then the testimony is inadmissible under the rules. See Malik & Sons, LLC v. Circle K Stores, Inc.,
No. CV 15-6938, 2017 WL 367662, at *3 (E.D. La. Jan. 25, 2017), aff’d sub nom. Malik & Sons,
L.L.C. v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 738 F. App’x 808 (5th Cir. 2018) (“Under [Rule 701 of the] Federal
Rules of Evidence, speculative opinion testimony by lay witnesses—i.e., testimony not based upon
the witness’s perception—is generally considered inadmissible.”). Further, testimony in the form
of an opinion from a lay witness is limited to an opinion that is “(a) rationally based on the
witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining
a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the
scope of Rule 702.” FED. R. EVID. 701.
Additionally, “[t]he rule against hearsay bars the admission of any statement, other than
one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the
truth of the matter asserted.” United States v. Age, No. 22-30656, 2025 WL 1201973, at *24 (5th
Cir. Apr. 25, 2025) (internal citations omitted); see also FED. R. EVID. 802.
The Court has reviewed each of complete deposition transcripts supplied by the parties for
context in ruling upon the parties’ objections to certain deposition designations.
C. Objections to Certain Deposition Designations of Timothy Kocis
The PES Entities object under Federal Rules of Evidence 602 and 802 to certain of the
deposition designations for Kocis identified in the table below. Specifically, the PES Entities
object to certain designations under Rule 602, asserting that Kocis lacks personal knowledge of (i)
the documents transferred from Sunoco to PES in 2012; (ii) how Sunoco obtained knowledge of
residual elements in carbon steel; (iii) the placement of corrosion-monitoring locations; (iv)
supplier certifications; (v) Sunoco’s procedures upon acquiring the GP Refinery; and (vi) Sunoco’s
mechanical-integrity inspections. [ECF Doc. 261]. The PES Entities also object under Rule 802,
asserting that Kocis’s testimony regarding Sunoco’s transfer of documents to PES constitutes
inadmissible hearsay. Id. Considering its review of Kocis’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition transcript
provided by the parties and applicable law, the Court rules as follows:
Objections to Designated Excerpts of Kocis June 7, 2023 Deposition
Start End Objecting Party Basis of Objection Ruling
33:13 34:05 PES Entities FRE 602 & 802 Overruled
58:24 60:20 PES Entities FRE 602 Overruled
61:16 63:17 PES Entities FRE 602 Overruled
67:05 69:07 PES Entities FRE 602 Overruled
72:01 72:13 PES Entities FRE 602 Overruled
73:04 73:22 PES Entities FRE 602 Overruled
74:08 75:02 PES Entities FRE 602 Overruled
D. Objections to Certain Deposition Designations of Dominic Giampino
Both B&W and the PES Entities object to certain of the deposition designations for
Giampino identified in the table below under Federal Rules of Evidence 106, 402, 602 and 701.
Both parties object under Rule 106 to certain deposition designations on the grounds of optional
completeness. [ECF Docs. 260 & 261]. B&W also asserts under Rule 602 that Giampino lacks
personal knowledge regarding the effect of hydrofluoric acid on residual elements present in
carbon steel. [ECF Doc. 260]. The PES Entities assert under Rule 602 that Giampino lacks
personal knowledge of (i) whether the rate of corrosion increases on elbow joints as opposed to
straight pipe; (ii) the effect of turbulence on piping; (iii) what PES would have done had PES
determined that certain pipes were below retirement level; (iv) the risks associated with allowing
pipes to thin below retirement level; (v) industry knowledge of other refinery explosions; and (vi)
Sunoco’s procedures for reviewing the process and design manual identified as Giampino Ex. 4
during the deposition. [ECF Doc. 261]. Further, the PES Entities assert that Giampino’s testimony
defining and describing a “dead leg” is not relevant under Rule 402 and his testimony regarding
what PES would have done had PES determined that certain pipes were below retirement level is
prohibited expert testimony by a lay witness under Rule 701. Id.
Considering its review of Giampino’s deposition transcript provided by the parties and
applicable law, the Court rules as follows:
Objections to Designated Excerpts of Giampino’s October 7, 2024 Deposition
Start End Objecting Party Basis of Objection Ruling
18:08 18:10 PES Entities FRE 106 Sustained: the Court will
admit Dominic Giampino
Tr. 17:18–18:14.
46:11 47:17 B&W FRE 602 Overruled
52:06 52:14 PES Entities FRE 602 Overruled
53:20 54:10 PES Entities FRE 602 Overruled
57:06 57:11 PES Entities FRE 106 Sustained: the Court will
admit Dominic Giampino
Tr. 55:18–57:11.
74:02 75:09 B&W FRE 106 & 602 Sustained as to FRE 106:
the Court will admit
Dominic Giampino Tr.
74:02–76:25.
Overruled as to FRE 602.
81:14 82:14 PES Entities FRE 402 Overruled
84:02 84:14 PES Entities FRE 602 & 701 Sustained as to FRE 701.
The Court will admit the
testimony as personal
opinion based on
deponent’s personal
knowledge and experience.
Overruled as to FRE 602.
87:09 91:12 PES Entities FRE 602 Overruled
102:20 105:04 PES Entities FRE 602 Overruled
105:17 106:05 PES Entities FRE 602 Overruled
116:05 121:10 PES Entities FRE 602 Overruled
E. Objections to Certain Deposition Designations of John Sitler
The PES Entities object to certain of the deposition designations for Sitler identified in the
table below under Federal Rules of Evidence 602, 402, and 701. Specifically, the PES Entities
object to certain designations under Rule 602, asserting that Sitler lacks personal knowledge of (i)
the visibility of the YOLOY stamp when the elbow joint was installed in 1972; (ii) whether the
elbow joint complied with ASTM A234 when it was fabricated; (iii) how Sunoco changed its
standards over time with respect to residual elements; and (iv) what would have happened had a
corrosion-monitoring location been placed on the elbow joint. [ECF Doc. 261]. The PES Entities
further object that (i) Sitler’s testimony regarding his involvement in the post-accident
investigation and his testimony about how other reliability events and operational issues affected
Unit 443 are not relevant under Rule 402; (ii) Sitler’s testimony as to whether the elbow joint
complied with ASTM A234 when it was fabricated is prohibited expert testimony by a lay witness
under Rule 701; and (iii) Sitler’s testimony regarding the stamping on the elbow joint is
cumulative. Id. Lastly, the PES Entities object under Rule 106 to certain deposition designations
on the grounds of optional completeness. Id.
Considering its review of Sitler’s deposition transcript provided by the parties and
applicable law, the Court rules as follows:
Objections to Designated Excerpts of Sitler’s November 22, 2024 Deposition
Start End Objecting Party Basis of Objection Ruling
55:12 57:21 PES Entities FRE 106 Sustained: the Court will
admit John Stiler Tr. 53:20–
57:21.
67:11 71:08 PES Entities FRE 602 Sustained as to John Sitler
Tr. 70:25–71:08.
76:02 77:05 PES Entities FRE 602 Sustained
79:05 80:08 PES Entities FRE 602 Overruled
89:01 89:22 PES Entities FRE 106 & 402 Sustained as to optional
completeness: the Court
will admit John Stiler Tr.
88:03–89:22.
Overruled as to FRE 402.
114:22 116:05 PES Entities FRE 602 & 701 Sustained as to John Sitler
Tr. 115:13–116:05.
Sustained as to FRE 701.
The Court will admit the
testimony as personal
opinion based on
deponent’s personal
knowledge and experience.
124:21 125:04 PES Entities FRE 106 Sustained: the Court will
admit John Stiler Tr.
124:21–125:09.
130:25 134:06 PES Entities FRE 602 Sustained as to John Sitler
Tr. 131:06–132:05.
135:06 136:01 PES Entities FRE 402 Overruled
140:09 141:21 PES Entities Asked and Overruled
answered,
cumulative,
relevance,
speculation
F. Objections to Certain Deposition Designations of Brandy Johnson
The parties dispute the scope of the matters for examination during Johnson’s Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition. According to the exhibits to the PES Entities Objection, the PES Entities sent B&W a
list of 23 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics on October 25, 2024. [ECF Doc. 261-1]. At some point,
the parties agreed upon January 16, 2025 as the date for Johnson’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. [ECF
Doc. 261, ¶ 14]. The PES Entities did not issue the notice of deposition until January 7, 2025,
attaching a list containing 34 matters for examination. [ECF Doc. 261-2]. B&W responded to the
deposition notice on January 14, 2025, objecting to all 34 matters for examination, but agreed to
present Johnson for the deposition as to three of those topics. [ECF Doc. 261-3]. B&W never
filed a motion for a protective order with this Court seeking to cancel or reschedule Johnson’s
deposition or limit the matters for examination and the parties proceeded with the deposition as
scheduled for January 16, 2025.
In the B&W Objection, B&W suggests that Johnson was only designated as its corporate
representative with respect to three topics and thus it contends that any testimony given by its own
Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative outside the scope of those three topics qualifies as her own
individual testimony. [ECF Doc. 266]. The PES Entities disagree. [ECF Doc. 261].
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), made applicable to this proceeding pursuant to
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7030, provides:
In its notice or subpoena, a party may name as the deponent a public or private
corporation, a partnership, an association, a governmental agency, or other entity
and must describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination. The
named organization must designate one or more officers, directors, or managing
agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on its behalf; and it may
set out the matters on which each person designated will testify. Before or promptly
after the notice or subpoena is served, the serving party and the organization must
confer in good faith about the matters for examination. A subpoena must advise a
nonparty organization of its duty to confer with the serving party and to designate
each person who will testify. The persons designated must testify about
information known or reasonably available to the organization. This paragraph (6)
does not preclude a deposition by any other procedure allowed by these rules.
FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6). “[T]he deponent must make a conscientious good-faith endeavor to
designate the persons having knowledge of the matters sought by [the party noticing the
deposition] and to prepare those persons in order that they can answer fully, completely,
unevasively, the questions posed . . . as to the relevant subject matters.” Brazos River Auth. v. GE
Ionics, Inc., 469 F.3d 416, 433 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). As further explained
by a Magistrate Judge in this District recently:
Courts generally recognize that Rule 30(b)(6) establishes the minimum
about which the witness must be prepared to testify, not the maximum. The
“reasonable particularity” requirement of Rule 30(b)(6) is thus not a proper basis
to limit what is asked of the designated witness during a deposition. There are two
primary reasons behind the Rule allowing examining parties to ask questions
beyond the scope of the Rule 30(b)(6) notice. First the main thrust of the Court’s
liberal discovery rules is to allow parties to obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case. Second, the purpose of adopting Rule
30(b)(6) was not to provide greater notice or protections to corporate deponents,
but rather to have the right person at deposition. Limiting the scope of a 30(b)(6)
deposition to what is noticed in the deposition subpoena frustrates the objectives of
Rule 26(b)(1) whenever a deposing party seeks information relevant to the subject
matter of the pending litigation that was not specified. The examining party thus
may ask questions outside the scope of the matters set forth in the Rule 30(b)(6)
notice subject to the general deposition rules . . . (i.e., [Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(b)(1)]).
If the examining party asks questions outside the scope of the Rule 30b(6)
deposition notice, the corporation is under no obligation to have prepared the
designee to answer the question. Further, testimony in response to questions
beyond the scope of the notice constitutes the testimony of the designee in an
individual capacity and not on behalf of the entity, and counsel may note this
distinction on the record. Counsel may not, however, instruct the witness not to
answer the question because Rule 30 authorizes that instruction only when
necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to
present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3). If none of the enumerated objection grounds
exists, the objection may be noted on the record, but the examination still proceeds
with the testimony taken subject to any objection.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. CEVA Logistics Singapore, Ltd., 348 F.R.D. 54, 72–74 (E.D. La.
2024) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
The Court reviewed Johnson’s deposition transcript and none of the questioning appears
to be outside the scope of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice; indeed, no party asserts otherwise.
Therefore, the Court overrules B&W’s general objection and finds that Johnson was properly
designated as B&W’s Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative for all matters of examination
identified in the January 7, 2025 deposition notice.
B&W also objects under Rule 602 to certain of the PES Entities’ designations from
Johnson’s deposition identified in the table below. Specifically, B&W asserts that Johnson lacks
personal knowledge of (i) whether B&W had knowledge that the elbow joint was going to fail
when the elbow joint was manufactured and installed; (ii) whether B&W had knowledge that the
elbow joint was going to fail at any time prior to the 2019 explosion; and (iii) the material
specifications and testing performed on the elbow joint when the elbow joint was manufactured
by B&W. [ECF Doc. 260].
Considering its review of Johnson’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition transcript provided by the
parties, the Court’s overruling of B&W’s general objection regarding the scope of the matters of
examination on which its Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative was subject to testify, and
applicable law, the Court rules as follows:
Objections to Designated Excerpts of Brady Johnson’s January 16, 2024 Deposition
Start End Objecting Party Basis of Objection Ruling
9:08 23:25 PES Entities Object to counsel’s Sustained
statements on page
17, lines 10-18
regarding limitation
on the scope of
matters of
examination
41:01 41:04 B&W FRE 602 Overruled
42:02 43:08 B&W FRE 602 Overruled
47:21 53:02 B&W FRE 602 Overruled
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the B&W Objection and the PES Entities Objection are
SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART as set forth herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Stipulated Excerpts are admitted into evidence.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following disputed deposition excerpts are
admitted into evidence based upon the Court’s rulings herein, and will be weighted accordingly:
(1) Timothy Kocis Tr. 33:13—34:05; 58:24—60:20; 61:16-63:17; 67:05—69:07; 72:01-13;
73:04—22; 74:08-75:02.
(11) Dominic Giampino Tr. 17:18—-18:14; 46:11-47:17; 52:06—-14; 53:20-54:10; 55:18-
57:11; 74:02-76:25; 81:14-82:14; 84:02-14; 87:09-91:12; 102:20-105:04; 105:17—
106:05; 116:05—121:10.
(ii) = John Sitler Tr. 53:20—57:21; 67:11—70:24; 79:05—80:08; 88:03—89:22; 114:22-115:12;
124:21-125:09; 130:25-131:05; 132:06—-134:06; 135:06—-136:01; 140:09-141:21
(iv) Brandy Johnson Tr. 41:01—41:04; 42:02—43:08; 47:21-53:02.
New Orleans, Louisiana, May 16, 2025.
MEREDITH S. GRABILL
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
14