118_trusteeresponsetolettertojudge

8/7/2019 118_TrusteeResponseToLetterToJudge

1/3

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

In re:

RON WILSON,

LaRHONDA WILSON,

Debtors.

CASE NO. 07-11862

Section A

CHAPTER 13

UNITED STATES TRUSTEES RESPONSE TO LETTER

DOCKETED DECEMBER 30, 2008

TO THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH W. MAGNER:

COMES NOW R. Michael Bolen, the United States Trustee for Region 5 (the United

States Trustee), by and through his duly authorized counsel, and hereby responds to the

December 30, 2008 letter to the Court signed by Michael P. Cash and docketed December 30,

2008:

1. On December 30, 2008, counsel for Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.,

k/n/a Lender Processing Services, Inc. (Fidelity) delivered to the Court a letter (the December

30 Letter) concerning Fidelity counsels non-appearance at the December 29, 2008 status

conference. The status conference had been set to advise the Court of any potential resolution of

the motions to quash the United States Trustees discovery requests to various parties, including

Fidelity.

2. The December 30 Letter is a procedurally improper attempt to have this Court

enter a protective order relative to the requested discovery. Fidelity has not filed a motion for

protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), even though formal discovery has been issued to it.

Nor has Fidelity moved or sued under 11 U.S.C. 107(b) for an order protecting asserted trade

Case 07-11862 Doc 118 Filed 01/09/09 Entered 01/09/09 14:01:15 Main DocumentPage 1 of 3


2/3

Fidelitys position in the December 30 Letter is opposite to that stated on the1

record at the November 21, 2008 hearing in this case. At that hearing, the United States Trustee

objected to any proposal containing conditions like those in the TaylorOrder. Nov. 21 Tr. 82:7-

19. Fidelity Counsel assured, - - and here, I wouldnt ask for that kind of order to show the

demonstration that we showed there. Tr. 84:2-3.

Of course any trade secrets revealed by Fidelity would be protected by the Trade2

Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1905 (imposing criminal penalties for the unauthorized disclosure

of trade secrets by an officer or employee of the United States).

2

secrets. And while in substance it seeks an injunction against the United States Trustee, Fidelity

has not filed an adversary proceeding. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7001(7). For this reason alone, the

relief Fidelity requests in the December 30 Letter should be denied.

3 The December 30 Letter does not sufficiently explain the status of ongoing

litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The December 30 Letter references an October

21, 2008 Order Regarding Confidentiality of Production of Documents entered in In re Taylor,

07-15385 (Bankr. E.D. Pa.) (TaylorOrder). However, Fidelity fails to mention that the United1

States Trustee has moved to set aside the TaylorOrder. See United States Trustees Motion to

Amend Findings and to Vacate Order Entered on October 21, 2008 (Motion to Vacate),

attached as an Exhibit. The Taylorcourt has yet to rule on the United States Trustees Motion to

Vacate (and Fidelitys objection thereto).

4. As outlined in the Motion to Vacate filed in Taylor, Fidelity seeks a protective

order for an improper purpose, which is to prevent the United States Trustee from effectively

pursuing a national inquiry into whether Fidelitys business practices that may impact the integrity

or efficiency of the bankruptcy system. This necessarily requires the sharing the information2

between United States Trustees and others within the Department of Justice for the development

of the United States Trustees inquiries in this and other districts. Simply put, good cause does

Case 07-11862 Doc 118 Filed 01/09/09 Entered 01/09/09 14:01:15 Main DocumentPage 2 of 3


3/3