SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION, CIVIL PART MIDDLESEX COUNTY DOCKET NO. L-7385-16AS A.D.#___________________ 1 2 3 STEPHEN LANZO, III, AND KENDRA LANZO, Plaintiff, 4 vs. 5 6 7 8 CYPRUS AMEX MINERALS CO., INC., IMERYS TALC, AND JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., Defendant. 9 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) TRANSCRIPT OF DECISION 10 Place: 11 12 Date: 13 14 15 16 17 Middlesex County Courthouse 56 Paterson Street New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903 June 29, 2018 BEFORE: HONORABLE ANA C. VISCOMI, J.S.C. TRANSCRIPT ORDERED BY: LAUREN DI STEFANO, PARALEGAL (Levy Konigsberg) 18 19 20 21 22 23 Transcriber, Sherry M. Bachmann G&L TRANSCRIPTION OF NJ 40 Evans Place Pompton Plains, New Jersey 07444 www.gltranscriptsnj.com transcripts@gltranscriptsnj.com 24 25 Sound Recorded Recording Operator, 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES: MOSHE MAIMON, ESQ. BRENDAN LITTLE, ESQ. (Levy Konigsberg) Attorneys for the Plaintiff DENYSE CLANCY, ESQ. (Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood) Attorney for the Plaintiff JOHN MC MEEKIN, II, ESQ. (Rawle & Henderson) Attorney for the Defendant, Cyprus Amax, Imerys Talc SCOTT A. ELDER, ESQ. (Alston & Bird) Attorney for the Defendant, Imerys Talc JOHN C. GARDE, ESQ. (McCarter & English) Attorney for the Defendant, JJCI 3 1 I N D E X 2 3 PROCEEDING PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Judge's Decision on Motions 4 4 1 THE COURT: We're now going to go on the 2 record. 3 the matter of STEPHEN AND KENDRA LANZO V. CYPRUS AMAX 4 MINERALS COMPANY, ET AL., docket number 7385-16. 5 is the motions before the Court filed by the 6 defendants, JJCI and Imerys Talc America, respectively, 7 for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or motion for 8 a new trial or, alternative, for remittitur. 9 have appearances, please, on behalf of the plaintiffs. 10 11 Good afternoon. MR. MAIMON: We are here with regard to This Can I Good afternoon, Your Honor. Moshe Maimon and Denyse Clancy for the plaintiffs. 12 THE COURT: On behalf of the defendant, JJCI? 13 MR. GARDE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. If 14 Your Honor please, John Garde of McCarter & English, on 15 behalf of the defendant, JJCI. 16 THE COURT: 17 Imerys Talc America? 18 19 On behalf of the defendant, MR. MC MEEKIN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. John McMeekin on behalf of Imerys Talc America. 20 THE COURT: Okay. 21 MR. ELDER: Good afternoon. 22 behalf of Imerys Talc America. 23 THE COURT: Thank you. Okay. Scott Elder on Defendants, 24 JJCI and Imerys Talc America have filed respectively -- 25 one moment, please -- okay -- motions for judgment 5 1 notwithstanding the verdict pursuant to Rule 4:40-2B 2 or, alternatively, motion for a new trial pursuant to 3 Rule 4:49-1 or, alternatively, motion for remittitur 4 pursuant to Rule 4:49-1 and 4:49-2. 5 Some of the arguments overlap and some of the 6 arguments are defendant specific. 7 address the defendant-specific arguments as needed 8 individually. 9 The Court will With regard to the motion for judgment 10 notwithstanding the verdict, the Court is guided by 11 Rule 442B. 12 accept as true all of the evidence, which supports the 13 position of the party defending against the motion and 14 must accord that party the benefit of all legitimate 15 inferences, which can be deduced therefrom. 16 reasonable minds could differ, the motion must be 17 denied, DOLSON V. ANASTASIA, 55 N.J. 2 at Pages 5 and 6 18 (1969). 19 In considering this motion, the Court must Thus, if The Court may not weigh witness credibility 20 in determining this motion. RENA, INC. V. BRIEN, 310 21 N.J. Super. 304 at Pages 311 and 312, Appellate 22 Division 1998. 23 all of the evidence in support of the plaintiff and 24 according the plaintiff the benefit of all legitimate 25 inferences that may be deduced therefrom, the Court Under this standard, accepting as true 6 1 denies the motion for judgment notwithstanding the 2 verdict. 3 The jury considered evidence supporting 4 plaintiff's position that Johnson & Johnson's baby 5 powder product was contaminated with asbestos during 6 the time it was used on Mr. Lanzo and that he used it 7 personally. 8 Lanzo developed mesothelioma and that the asbestos 9 contaminating the baby powder -- and that asbestos The jury was presented evidence that Mr. 10 contaminated the baby powder he utilized for an 11 approximate 30-year time period, was a substantial 12 factor in the development of his mesothelioma. 13 The jury was presented evidence that the 14 issue of talc or source contamination and finished 15 product contamination with asbestos was knowable not 16 only during the time period Mr. Lanzo used the product 17 but prior thereto. 18 that defendants knew the methodology utilized to test 19 talc and talcum powder products was deficient but that 20 this methodology was advanced, as the proper 21 methodology by these defendants individually and 22 through their membership in the Cosmetic Talc Fragrance 23 Association, the CTFA. 24 25 The jury was presented evidence The jury was presented evidence that, although JJCI provided the FDA results of testing that 7 1 was negative for asbestos utilized in CTFAJ41 method, 2 that it did not provide test results showing the 3 opposite. 4 employee, a medical doctor, warned JJCI of the health 5 problems with asbestos contamination of its baby powder 6 product. 7 alternative safe design product utilizing cornstarch 8 was available and marketed by JJCI as an alternative 9 product. 10 The jury was presented evidence that a JJCI The jury was presented evidence that an The jury was presented evidence of marketing 11 of its talcum powder product to doctors and nurses with 12 what they should tell mothers of infants regarding the 13 safety of talcum powder. 14 all of this evidence presented to the jury and in 15 consideration of the principles guiding the Court, in 16 the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, 17 the motion is denied. 18 Based upon a consideration of With regard to defendant's motion for a new 19 trial, the Court is guided by Rule 4:49-1. The 20 standard for the Court to consider is whether there has 21 been a miscarriage of justice, DOLSON V. ANASTASIA. 22 The Court is to consider both tangible and credibility 23 factors and the feel of a case to determine if the 24 jury's verdict was a clear error or mistake, KITA V. 25 BOROUGH OF LINDENWOLD, 305 N.J. Super. 43 at Page 49, 8 1 Appellate Division 1997. 2 Jury verdicts should be set aside in favor of 3 a new trial sparingly and only in cases of clear 4 injustice, CAICEDO V. CAICEDO, 439 N.J. Super. 615, 5 628, 629, Appellate Division 2015. 6 a presumption of correctness, ROMANO V. GALAXY TOYOTA, 7 399 N.J. Super. 477, Appellate Division 2008. 8 9 Jury verdicts carry A new trial will be required, if the Judge concludes that his or her erroneous rulings resulted in 10 prejudice to a party, CRAWN V. CAMPO, 136 N.J. 494 11 (1994) or, if the Judge concludes that his erroneous or 12 confusing instructions to the jury have that effect, 13 CONKLIN V. HANNOCH WEISMAN, 281 N.J. Super. 448, 14 Appellate Division 1995, modified by 145 N.J. 395 15 (1996). 16 A new trial may also be required where no 17 single error was of a sufficient magnitude to so 18 warrant but where the aggregate of errors, that is to 19 say, cumulative error, had the capacity to have 20 affected the outcome. 21 N.J. 22 at 51 and 56 (2009). 22 PELLICER V. ST. BARNABAS, 200 In this context, cumulative error requires 23 that the aggregate effect of the individual errors 24 create the probability of prejudice and that simply 25 counting the errors does not satisfy the standard. The 9 1 defendants have cited a litany of errors they contend 2 requires a new trial because they are tantamount to 3 prejudice. 4 This Court disagrees. The defendants also 5 state, this Court's rulings were partial rather than 6 impartial and that, thus, this Court exhibited bias 7 against the defendants. 8 9 To truly assess whether this Court was partial and, thus, exhibited bias against the 10 defendant, one must examine the totality of the record 11 not just where the Court ruled against the respective 12 defendants, one must also consider where the Court 13 ruled against the plaintiffs. 14 inquiry with the case management and scheduling of this 15 trial. The Court begins this 16 Case Management Order Number 1 of February 17 10, 2017, set the deadline for fact discovery at May 18 31, 2017, defense expert reports for September 22, 19 2017, and the trial ready date for November 13, 2017. 20 Defendant Counsel for Imerys and JJCI, respectively, 21 attended that conference. 22 Case Management Order Number 2 of June 14, 23 2017, adjusted the deadlines for fact discovery to July 24 21, 2017, defense expert reports to September 29, 2017, 25 and the trial ready date remains the same, November 13, 10 1 2017. 2 conference. 3 Defense Counsel were present for that Case Management Order Number 3 of July 24, 4 2017, adjusted fact discovery to August 17, 2017, 5 defense expert reports to October 13, 2017, and kept 6 the same trial ready date of November 13, 2017, and 7 defense Counsel were present for that conference. 8 9 This Judge, as opposed to the special master who conducts case management conferences, had a 10 preliminary conference with Counsel to discuss pretrial 11 matters and to advise that the Court would be starting 12 the trial in another living mesothelioma, CAROL 13 SCHOENIGER V. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE, on October 23, 2017, 14 and if that trial proceeded to verdict, the November 15 13, 2017, trial in this matter would be delayed. 16 Counsel also instructed they should be prepared to 17 proceed forward on November 13, 2017, in the event 18 SCHOENIGER resolved, which it did on October 30, 2017. 19 The Court then had another pretrial But 20 conference with the parties to discuss this trial. 21 Defense Counsel requested and the Court granted a new 22 trial date of January 3, 2018. 23 was interrupting the trial for judicial college and the 24 late November through New Year's. 25 The concern expressed In December, for the first time and only 11 1 because this Court repeatedly asked whether there was 2 anything left to discuss in the context of pretrial 3 discussion, defense Counsel advised for the first time 4 it was seeking leave to explore a genetic mutation 5 defense as alternate causation. 6 Although it had obtained plaintiff's medical 7 records through the records retrieval company used by 8 the parties, Counsel never reviewed those records but, 9 rather, grouped them all to send to their shared 10 pathology expert. 11 they would have noticed that Mr. Lanzo's treating 12 physician sent tumor pathology for genetic testing and 13 defendants could have sought those records earlier. 14 Had they reviewed those records, In December, defendant now sought not only 15 those genetic testing records but, also, for the 16 plaintiff to submit to genetic testing of non-tumor 17 tissue. 18 the proviso of assuring the trial date of January 3, 19 2018, despite the fact that the first listened trial 20 date was November 13, 2017, and experts reports were 21 due October 13, 2017. 22 Plaintiff ultimately voluntarily agreed with Later in December, the Court is apprised for 23 the first time that defendants were seeking reliance 24 material for plaintiff's pathology expert, Dr. Gordon, 25 who performed a fiber analysis of Mr. Lanzo's lymph 12 1 node tissue. 2 report was due, October 12, 2017, defendants requested 3 reliance material for the first time. 4 On the day before defendant's expert Defendant served their expert report of Dr. 5 Sanchez, a microscopist, timely on October 13, 2017. 6 That was a generic report and clearly intended to be 7 only a generic, non-case specific report. 8 forwarded reliance materials but did not -- but not the 9 grids of the fiber study performed by Dr. Gordon. 10 In late December, they Court orders the Plaintiff 11 plaintiff to turn over the grid to the defendants for 12 Dr. Sanchez' review for purposes of cross-examination 13 only. 14 reserved on the issue of whether a new opinion could be 15 issued by the defendants less than two weeks before the 16 January 3 trial date. 17 At defendant's request, the Court ultimately Dr. Sanchez conducted his review of Dr. 18 Gordon's grids and determined that one of the grids 19 contained a crocidolite fiber, which was not reported 20 by Dr. Gordon. 21 report. 22 and, ultimately, the Court adjourned the trial date for 23 one week after the jury had been empaneled to allow the 24 plaintiff to address this new defense report. 25 the Court permitted one week -- by delaying the trial Dr. Sanchez served a new case specific At least three motions were heard by the Court Thus, 13 1 one week, the defendant to now serve another defense 2 expert report. 3 Defen-- plaintiff served an expert report of 4 Dr. Finkelstein timely. 5 own initiative, he served a supplemental report 6 purportedly to address some of the issues raised at his 7 deposition. 8 plaintiff's Counsel served this report upon the 9 defendants. 10 After his deposition, on his Defendants who had never -- and Defendants, who had never served a timely 11 report to counter Dr. Finkelstein then served an out- 12 of-time report without leave of court by Dr. Brooke 13 Mossman. 14 that she was retained to solely address the 15 supplemental report and testimony of Dr. Finkelstein. 16 Plaintiffs, thereafter, withdrew Dr. Finkelstein and 17 sought to bar the testimony of defense expert, Dr. 18 Brooke Mossman. 19 Dr. Mossman clearly indicated in her report The Court fashioned a remedy to allow 20 defendants to now have an expert testify on such 21 crucial issues as pathogenicity and other topics. 22 was difficult to do because of the way that the report 23 had been prepared by Dr. Mossman wherein it primarily 24 critiqued Dr. Finkelstein in order to do this, -- in 25 order to allow the defendants to have Dr. Mossman This 14 1 2 address crucial issues for the defense. The defendants should have served a report by 3 Dr. Mossman timely. Without the Court's intervention 4 and in complete violation of the case management orders 5 and the rules of court and on the eve of trial and with 6 the trial being delayed a week. 7 defendants to have an expert testify with regard to a 8 genetic mutation defense, permitted an expert to 9 testify with regard to crocidolite fiber, and to have The Court permitted 10 Dr. Mossman, who served an out-of-time report, limited 11 to critiquing plaintiff's expert testify. 12 The Court weighed substantial prejudice to 13 the plaintiff, the real probability of adjourning the 14 trial, Mr. Lanzo losing his day in court, and giving 15 the defendants a defense. 16 been developed during the discovery time period. 17 minimum, defendants should have come to the court 18 earlier and advised that they were not prepared to try 19 this case and needed additional time. 20 These defenses should have At a In addition, although Mr. Lanzo was deposed 21 in January of 2017 and the defendants inquired about 22 the potential of asbestos exposures, including at 23 schools he attended and houses he lived in, defendants 24 did not seek these records by freedom of information 25 requests until January or February of 2018. 15 1 In defending these cases, defendants are 2 obliged to pursue alternate causation as soon as they 3 have the information necessary to proceed. 4 that information with Mr. Lanzo's depositions in early 5 2017. 6 They have These school abatement records should have 7 bene subpoenaed and provided to defense experts, so 8 they could have addressed alternate causation opinions. 9 Despite this, the Court permitted defendants to use 10 some of these records and despite what they have 11 indicated in their pleadings in support of their 12 respective motions now pending before this Court, they 13 did ask Dr. Moline whether she considered school 14 asbestos and home asbestos exposure and they did ask 15 Dr. Lanzo about these records as well. 16 The Court asked defense Counsel which records 17 they wanted to use and allowed those. 18 the gatekeeper could not permit the defendants to 19 backdoor in all of the technical asbestos abatement 20 records through cross-examination of plaintiff's 21 experts to essentially make plaintiff's experts their 22 own. 23 But the Court as Additionally, defendants sought to bar any 24 evidence of ovarian talc litigation or ovarian cancer 25 studies. Plaintiffs opposed the motion and the Court 16 1 granted defendant's motion on relevancy and substantial 2 prejudice grounds 3 During the course of the trial, defendant 4 sought to admit a document received during the course 5 of a trial pursuant to a FOIA request. 6 sought to admit the entire document but, clearly, had 7 not reviewed it. 8 within the document was a lengthy discussion of talc 9 and ovarian cancer. 10 The defendant The Court had to advise Counsel that That part was excluded from being admitted into evidence. 11 With regard to the errors by the Court as 12 raised by Counsel in their respective motions, the 13 Court relies upon its previous rulings on these issues 14 and incorporates them herein now by reference. 15 Court will only highlight a few that it feels should be 16 addressed again. 17 The The Court excluded Imerys' witnesses, David 18 Krause and JJCI's witness, Dr. Fred Pooley, as fact 19 witnesses because the testimony sought to be elicited 20 from these respective witnesses required expert 21 testimony. 22 them so. 23 was made by the clear, unambiguous representation of 24 defense Counsel. 25 Calling them fact witnesses doesn't make The Court's barring of the idiopathic defense The Court quotes from Counsel's 17 1 representation to the Court. "One of the defendants -- 2 excuse me -- "One of the defenses that the plaintiff 3 say the defendants can continue to pursue is an 4 idiopathic cause. 5 Lanzo has evidence of commercial asbestos exposure in 6 his tissue. The problem is we know that Mr. 7 By definition, we cannot put forward -- it 8 would be a fiction to put forward affirmative expert 9 testimony that the cause of his mesothelioma is 10 idiopathic. 11 crocidolite. 12 fiction in which I understand the defendant's belief 13 that's an available defense to us but it is a defense 14 that would be based on something that we know is not 15 supported by the physical evidence in this case. 16 It is not. It is caused by exposure to And so we would be engaging in a pure Based on this representation to the Court, 17 the Court permitted defendants to introduce the 18 crocidolite fiber defense. 19 representation of Counsel, allowing the defendants to 20 pursue that defense again, which they sought to do, 21 would have permitted a fraud on the Court. 22 The Court relied on the Mr. Maimon's closing statement was not 23 improper, although the Court did not permit side bar 24 with every objection lodged by the defendants during 25 summations. The Court heard and decided upon each 18 1 objection after summations. 2 give an instruction to the jury or strike part of the 3 summations, the Court would have done it then. 4 If the Court determined to His statements regarding damages were not 5 improper and did not mislead the jury. His statement 6 to the jury followed the model charges on pain and 7 suffering. 8 FDA was not improper. 9 results showing no asbestos and withholding or failing The closing statement with regard to the Providing the FDA favorable 10 to provide unfavorable results, which show asbestos, is 11 a form of a misrepresentation by omission. 12 With regard to Alice Blount's post-trial 13 deposition, this is not new evidence. 14 new evidence, it must be by due diligence, not be able 15 to have been discovered in time before the trial. 16 Defendants have not demonstrated due diligence. 17 could have deposed her as a fact witness in this case 18 during the discovery period. 19 her in pretrial disclosures as a witness. 20 neither and review of her testimony at a deposition 21 after this trial, at most, presents a credibility 22 issue. 23 In order to be They They could have disclosed They did Defendant, Imerys, did not answer truthfully 24 in certified answers to interrogatories. First, it 25 denied having any talc samples, which its corporate 19 1 representative said was an untrue statement. 2 provided a sample of a warning it gave to JJCI with its 3 corporate -- which its corporate representative 4 testified it did not give. 5 Then it It is a -- it is proper -- excuse me -- in a 6 failure to warn case for the plaintiff to inquire of 7 defendant's corporate representatives about warning. 8 Mr. Downey testified that a different warning was 9 provided in the context of an MSDS in 2006. Permitting 10 carefully guided inquiry was not improper and did not 11 elicit a response with regard to ovarian cancer. 12 Ultimately, between the certified answers to 13 interrogatories denying the existence of talc samples 14 and then the admission to destruction of talc samples 15 during the pendency of asbestos litigation, the Court 16 determined a spoliation charge was proper. 17 ultimate charge given, though, was weak and was 18 carefully drafted with the input of all Counsel, so 19 that the defendant, JJCI, would not be prejudiced. 20 The The Court accepted every request made by JJCI 21 with respect to the charge and while JJCI indicated 22 then as now that the charge would prejudice JJCI, the 23 Court believes it did not and does not. 24 ultimately made all of its rulings based on its 25 understanding of the court rules, the rules of The Court 20 1 evidence, and relevant case law. 2 met their burden to demonstrate a miscarriage of 3 justice for the Court to order a new trial. 4 is denied. 5 Defendants have not The motion Finally, with regard to the motion for 6 remittitur, the Court is guided by Rule 4:49-1, 4:49-2, 7 and the Supreme Court's decision in CUEVAS V. WENTWORTH 8 GROUP, 226 N.J. 480 (2016). 9 extraordinary remedy. Remittitur is an TRAMUTOLA V. BORTONE, 118 N.J. 10 Super. 503 at 518, Appellate Division 1972, modified, 11 63 N.J. 9 (1973). 12 A trial Court should not order a new trial or 13 remit a jury's damages award unless it is so clearly 14 disproportionate to the injury and requires that it be 15 said to shock the conscience of the Court. 16 SCACCETTI, 192 N.J. 256 at 281 (2007). 17 conscience standard refers objectively to the judicial 18 conscience -- conscious -- conscience -- excuse me -- 19 and is not dependent on examination of supposedly 20 similar verdicts or a trial Judge's personal 21 experience, CUEVAS V. WENTWORTH GROUP at 503 to 505. 22 JOHNSON V. The shock the Although the defendant, Imerys, invited the 23 Court to compare the verdict with the verdict in 24 BUTITTA, the Court declines to do so as it must, CUEVAS 25 at 503 to 505. Based on the evidence in this case, in 21 1 consideration of the proofs both during the 2 compensatory phase and punitives phase, the 3 compensatory verdict and punitives verdict do not shock 4 the judicial conscience. 5 The evidence before this jury was of an 6 alternative safe product, cornstarch, that was marketed 7 as an alternative product. 8 jury was of an Imerys high-level employee announcing 9 time to create confusion with regard to defining 10 The evidence before this asbestos and testing protocols. 11 The evidence before this jury was of JJCI 12 medical doctor internally advising JJCI of a health 13 concern because of asbestos in the talcum powder, and 14 the evidence before this jury was of uncontested 15 medical opinions regarding the treatment and prognosis 16 for Mr. Lanzo. 17 the testimony of pain, suffering, and impact on the 18 lives of the plaintiffs. 19 The evidence before this jury was of The evidence, too, before this jury was of 20 countless negative tests and numerous studies and 21 organizations deeming the product safe. 22 ultimately rejected that. 23 collectively paid very close attention to the evidence. 24 They submitted cogent questions, which is proof of that 25 and I want to read some of them in just by way of But the jury This was a jury who 22 1 example. 2 the Court ultimately asked after consultation of -- 3 with Counsel. 4 These were questions that they submitted that C6, dilution of samples. Please give more 5 detail of its purpose. C8, asbestiform habit was used 6 in the iso-definition. What does habit refer to, 7 geology, characteristic, et cetera? 8 before OSHA changed the definition to include the non- 9 asbestos varieties, how do you determine which were C11, Dr. Weber, 10 truly asbestos? 11 sample was tremolite or tremolite asbestos? 12 Specifically, how do they know if the C15, during quality -- this was of Dr. 13 Hopkins. 14 PowerPoint, which is considered a specification? 15 Absence of asbestos intel or non-detected? 16 2, what year did OSHA make the changes to asbestos 17 definition (making clear distinction between 18 asbestiform and non-asbestiform). 19 During quality assurance section of the C15, Part C20, after -- this was of Dr. Longo. After 20 modifying the Blount technique, you stated that your 21 method was not sensitive enough for chrysotile, so TEM 22 does not identify chrysotile. 23 sensitive enough for chrysotile? 24 25 C20, continued. Is there another method Using the heavy liquid density method, the density of the middle layer is 2.85 23 1 grams per cubic centimeter. 2 is 2.6 grams per cubic centimeter, tremolite density 3 3 to 3.2 grams per cubic centimeter, anthophyllite 4 density, 2.85 to 3.2 grams per cubic centime. 5 Shouldn't chrysotile rise to the top after centrifuge? 6 Did it? 7 count all particles or count all particles in a bundle? 8 Does it include two -- include single fibers? 9 refer to Exhibit DX-858. 10 What is richterite? The density of chrysotile Does AST on 7402 state to Please And, finally, -- and this was asked of Dr. 11 Moline -- was Mr. Lanzo's pneumothorax a side effect or 12 cause from his pleurectomy? 13 the questions that were submitted and asked. 14 will not disturb this jury's verdict. 15 denied. 16 conclusion today. And those are just some of The Court The motion is We will e-mails orders out to everyone at the Thank you, everyone. Thank you. 17 MS. CLANCY: Thank you, Your Honor. 18 MS. MAIMON: Thank you, Your Honor. 19 MR. GARDE: Thank you, Your Honor. 20 THE COURT: And we're off the record. 21 you. 22 MS. CLANCY: Thank you, Your Honor. 23 THE COURT: Okay. 24 MR. ELDER: Thank you, Your Honor. 25 THE COURT: We can e-mail them to your Thank 24 1 2 office, if you want or make copies -(Proceedings concluded) 3 4 CERTIFICATION 5 6 I, SHERRY M. BACHMANN, the assigned transcriber, do 7 hereby certify the foregoing transcript of 8 proceedings, time from 2:02 p.m. to 2:31 p.m., is 9 prepared in full compliance with the current 10 Transcript Format for Judicial Proceedings and is a 11 true and accurate non-compressed transcript of the 12 proceedings as recorded. 13 14 15 16 ____________________________ 17 SHERRY M. BACHMANN AOC #454 G&L TRANSCRIPTION OF NJ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Date: June 30, 2018