javierluraschi · May 14, 2025 14:57
diff --git a/23andme-may-13-2025 b/23andme-may-13-2025
 I should be in 23 and me holding co.
 My parents was in the courtroom, please.
 Morning, Your Honor, Tom Risky, Carmine McDonald.
 On behalf of the death.
 20.
 200.
 You're all good.
 Check on behalf of U.S. Trustee.
 Morning.
 This is on the WebEx.
 Good morning, Your Honor.
 Kevin Barr, Class A shareholder.
 Morning.
 Good morning, Your Honor.
 Charles Lucido, Class A shareholder.
 Your Honor, I'd like to address the court at the end of the tour.
 The item is thoughtful.
 We'll see.
 We'll see how that goes.
 Ms. Choi, sorry.
 Sorry about that.
 Good morning, Your Honor.
 If you again, just a tour of Paralyze, lifting, warning, and dancing on behalf of the veterans.
 Good morning, Your Honor.
 Sorry.
 I'll just say my...
 Good morning, Your Honor.
 Magnum McLaughlin, Halley-Dran Warren, Council to the Committee.
 Good morning.
 Good morning, Your Honor.
 Michael Greger, Valor Mackinac, and Buck Campbell-Maloney.
 Now, for some behalf of landlord care, OpTech, LLC.
 Good morning, Your Honor.
 Tobias Keller, Representative of the Class Council.
 Good morning.
 Good morning, Your Honor.
 Matthew Langley, representing Memphis for the Lemonade Pixel Class Action.
 Pixel Class.
 Okay.
 Good morning.
 Anyone else on the WebEx?
 All right, Mr. Risky.
 Are you leading the way?
 Thanks, Your Honor.
 Tom Risky for the record.
 Yes, Your Honor.
 I think we have a pretty brief docket for today.
 Obviously, my colleagues and the folks at MolyS are spending a lot of their time preparing for tomorrow's auction.
 So I'm not sure we have a substantive update on the case generally other than that.
 If it pleases the court, I think I've just go in order of the agenda today.
 I can take the projection motion and then I'd ask Ms. Choi to kind of present the briefing issues with perspective class claimants and then allow your on-aggressive questions.
 You can do that if that works.
 Sure.
 Since the mention of an auction, I take if there's at least two bids.
 Correct.
 We have been.
 Multiple bids.
 I think there's still some issues going on with perspective, potential other qualified bids.
 But we are still hoping for this Mr. Hopkins instead of robust auction.
 Okay.
 Well, yeah, why don't we take up the rejection motion?
 Thank you, Your Honor.
 So I am pleased to report that the removal went smoothly last week.
 Everything was out as of Friday.
 However, as I said previous times, there's still an additional step of the county and the fire department signing off on that to make sure everything was fine.
 It's my understanding that's in process.
 Once we have that and I can get that to the landlord.
 I'm cautiously optimistic will be able to resolve this.
 So we do have an agreement to just adjourn this the next week's hearing.
 Okay.
 This whole after just a second.
 Are we on the record?
 Are we okay?
 We're still on the record.
 Everything is fine.
 Okay.

 Sorry.
 Go ahead.
 No worries.
 I'm not sure Ms. Jones or Mr. Gagger are on today for the landlord, but I did speak with them even.
 I heard Mr. Greg.
 This morning.
 Okay.
 Okay.
 So adjourned to next next Tuesday, 1 30.
 Correct.
 Okay.
 Mr. Gregor.
 Ms. Jones, anything further on that?
 Are we good with next Tuesday, 1 30?
 Gregor, I think you're on mute.
 I was at your honor.
 Nothing further.
 We're good for 1 30 next Tuesday.
 Okay.
 Currently, I think there would be the only thing set on that calendar.
 So if it's resolved or you need another continuance, if you'd let Mr. Spital know.
 I don't know when we could just take care of that.
 Wouldn't need to have everybody dial in and.
 For a non-substant appearance.
 But perhaps it will be resolved or perhaps there'll be something to dispute.
 So we'll see.
 Okay.
 Thank you.
 Thank you.
 Thank you.
 The next matter that I previewed is with respect to the issue of briefing the class claims.
 We filed one stipulation with respect to one.
 Class of claimants and then late last night held another resolution with pixel claimants.
 Ms. Choi from Paul Weiss is on.
 I'm not seeing her, but I saw her earlier.
 Yeah, she's on.
 I got here.
 We may have a different view, I guess.
 Wait.
 Oh, so there's nothing.
 You can't see anything.
 Oh, got you.
 Okay. Yes.
 I can see Ms. Choi is on.
 And so.
 We can take comfort in that.
 Okay.
 So with this, I'd ask if Ms. Choi is anything to put on the record with respect to the few stipulations.
 And I think she'd be available to answer any questions that the court may have.
 And Ms. Choi, you're muted.
 Hi, honor.
 Can you hear me?
 Yes.
 There we go.
 Okay.
 Great.
 Jessica Choi has Paul Weiss.
 I thought I would provide a brief update on the rule 73 briefing schedule.
 As Ms. Choi was muted, you know, the body order contemplates that the gutters in the committee
 would meet and confer with two sets of claimants.
 First, the main plaintiffs and the members of the settlement class have been conditionally
 and preliminary approved in the class section, currently pending before Judge Chen in the
 Northern District of California.
 And second, with the main plaintiffs and the class action law, currently pending before
 Judge Lin in the Northern District of California, which I will refer to as the typical
 litigation.
 I'm happy to report that the gutters have been able to agree on the rule 73 schedule with
 both sets of claimants.
 I'm scheduled with the data breach claimants as far as document number 401.
 And our rule 73 schedule with the official claimants as filed at document number 405.
 I'm happy to briefly go through what those briefing federal contemplates are, or through
 our specific questions.
 I'm happy to address them at this time.
 Sure.
 I have them both in front of me, so I'm familiar with them.
 I guess the general question is there.
 Is it beneficial to have separate hearings and separate tracks for these?
 Or would they benefit from being considered together?
 I think that's the equilibrium here.
 Yeah.
 I think we've engaged in separate discussions because the two class sessions are a bit differently
 situated.
 And one notable difference, Your Honor, is that our briefing schedule with the data breach
 claimants currently does not contemplate any discovery.
 So I think it would be efficient for the estate to proceed separately on a more exudated briefing
 schedule timeframe with the data breach claimants.
 Our schedule with the fixable claimants however, there are contemplates from discovery.
 And we've lamented and conferred and tried to see efficient with a time in the estate resources
 as much as possible.
 And the fixable claimants have agreed to offer their deposition to the time being, as well as the
 debtors.
 I said this to our right to seek deposition at a later time.
 If the document is produced, then the response is to the intermediary to be in
 sufficient or require further explanation.
 So given that the two matters are a bit differently situated in terms of where we stand on
 the suffering and other issues, I do think it would be beneficial to proceed on separate
 track.
 Okay.
 All right.
 That's certainly fine with me.
 Then for scheduling, a minor issue for pixelal, a larger one for cyber incident class.
 I have a trial on July 14th.
 It'll be perhaps a half day trial.
 I could hear you on the 15th on the pixelal class action if that would make sense.
 I'm out of town on June 10th when you identified hearing date for the cyber incident.
 And then as you know, we had the sale here at the schedule the next week.
 So that's a busy time.
 So tell me what other constraints there are on scheduling and hearing for the cyber incident.
 Thank you.
 And Mr. Rispy did remind me that the court might be unavailable the week of June 9th.
 I have anyone to get in touch with?
 Mr. Teller prior to this call.
 And we would be amenable to pushing all the dates in the data breach rule 73.
 You can schedule by a week so that the hearing such as the rule 73 motions for the data
 breach claimants will be heard.
 Sometimes the week of June 16th is that would work for your honor.
 I believe Mr. Teller is attending as well.
 So Mr. Teller speak up if he has any issues with that.
 I can confirm the same your honor.
 Okay, so here's what that week looks like.
 I really can't do it on the 16th given my travel schedule.
 And the need to absorb what I assume is going to be a lengthy CPO filing,
 whatever comes before the sale hearing and the briefing on the cyber incident.
 So we have the sale hearing on 17th.
 We have a holiday on the 19th.
 I have a mediation.
 I have regular hearing schedule on the 18th in the morning.
 I don't know how expensive those will be at this point, but not something that will take all day.
 So one possibility would be to leave the 17th for the sale hearing.
 If it goes on, we could pick it up the afternoon of the 18th.
 Otherwise, we could schedule the cyber incident to claim hearing from the 18th.
 And if that's not enough time for that, we'd have to continue to probably follow.
 How does that sound?
 Well, our suggestion, we go ahead and take the 18th.
 We also are engaging in discussions with the debtor and there is some possibility that we will have a consensual resolution.
 So between the two of those, my fingers are crossed that we can get this resolved kindly.
 All right, I think we can work with that.
 We don't have anything scheduled for 113.
 We are just to comfort that that will push out the remainder of the briefing schedule items with the structure of the data breach claimants.
 So right now we have the deadline for the data breach claimants to follow the rule 73 motion on May 16th.
 I think that will get kicked to May 23rd.
 And the other deadlines that are contemplated in the data breach rule 73 motion will also get kicked, I think, by a week.
 I'm happy to follow an updated notice from the docket if that will be helpful.
 I'll leave that up to you.
 Or you and Mr. Keller know what the deadlines are.
 If it makes sense to clarify that on the record for any others who may be observing that's certainly fine with me.
 Maybe simplest considering how straightforward it would be to do that.
 We'll schedule the hearing on the cyber incident proof claim for 130 central time on Wednesday, June 18th.
 And if the sale hearing doesn't wrap up on the 17th, I guess I'll defer to you as to which is more important to jump into on the afternoon of the 18th, considering we have a holiday next day.
 So that will work and then we'll schedule the pixel proof of claim hearing.
 Do we have West Coast lawyers who will be participating remotely in that or should we start at 9 a.m. Central?
 I'll refer to Mr. Langley who I believe is online.
 9 a.m. start with work.
 Mr. Langley, I'm not sure where you're located, although I imagine you'll probably be in court to handle this.
 Yeah, so I'm in Chicago, so 9 a.m. Central time works for works for us.
 All right, so let's get to that hearing at 9 a.m. Central on Tuesday, July 15th.
 Great.
 All right, and if the if the move ants when they file their motion for leave to file the class proof of claim, if you would trigger that hearing date in ECF file.
 Notice that out as well.
 Okay, anything further on either of those class proof of claim matters.
 Thank you.
 Mr. Risky, anything further from the creditors committee.
 Mr. Visito, you mentioned you wanted to make a comment.
 It's more than a comment, Your Honor.
 To make the court aware, there was a post on the exsocialmedia.form on May 6th by a former founder and officer of the company.
 That was reposted 23 times with 14,000 views.
 The post was, well, based on what I'm hearing on the page, there's 23 in May.
 I think it makes no sense for customers to download their data first, then to leave their account.
 Some of the more reputable getters are decided to drop out, give them all the challenges.
 23 in these cases.
 In the future, there may be great options to upload your S&T data files, the other platforms offering comprehensive analysis.
 And then my opinion, Your Honor, the confidentiality stipulations and in agreements in the bidding procedures has been violated.
 And the debtors have stayed at the farm.
 And all stakeholders, including the equity shareholders, have been prejudiced negatively based on any genetic database diminishing because of this post.
 In addition, the stock that was trading at May 6th for more than a dollar 20 a share yesterday and today was trading for less than 60 cents a share.
 In my opinion, there might be negligence on the part of the debtors.
 I think it's a pretty good question.
 And it appears that confidential bidding information has and is being traded upon by a privileged party.
 Our requesting release from the court to put all shareholders on equal footing and provide information that will allow the nonrepresented party's inability to potentially and appropriately object to any sales transaction.
 And of course, the impacting breaches may have had on the bidding and sales profit.
 And I could go over that that release that I would be requesting.
 But the bottom line, Your Honor, is this was an inappropriate post.
 And in my opinion, the confidentiality agreements have been violated in the bidding procedures.
 All right, Mr. Rosito, if there's relief that you want from the court, you'll need to file a motion and file that with the clerk of the court and serve that on the debtors and other parties who.
 Who you think may be responsible so that they can respond to that.
 As you know, anyone can post anything on Twitter.
 It doesn't mean it's true. I have no basis to determine whether or not it's true.
 And so I don't have anything that I can act on based on your report of a post on Twitter earlier this month.
 So if you'd like relief from the court, put it in writing, please file with the clerk of the court and serve it out and and said for hearing.
 And we'll figure out what to do about it. And you can kind of take Mr. Spital, the courtroom deputy, if you need information about the logistics of getting something filed and served.
 All right, anything further to come.
 Thank you.
 Okay, we'll be adjourned. Thanks.
	I should be in 23 and me holding co.
	My parents was in the courtroom, please.
	Morning, Your Honor, Tom Risky, Carmine McDonald.
	On behalf of the death.
	20.
	200.
	You're all good.
	Check on behalf of U.S. Trustee.
	Morning.
	This is on the WebEx.
	Good morning, Your Honor.
	Kevin Barr, Class A shareholder.
	Morning.
	Good morning, Your Honor.
	Charles Lucido, Class A shareholder.
	Your Honor, I'd like to address the court at the end of the tour.
	The item is thoughtful.
	We'll see.
	We'll see how that goes.
	Ms. Choi, sorry.
	Sorry about that.
	Good morning, Your Honor.
	If you again, just a tour of Paralyze, lifting, warning, and dancing on behalf of the veterans.
	Good morning, Your Honor.
	Sorry.
	I'll just say my...
	Good morning, Your Honor.
	Magnum McLaughlin, Halley-Dran Warren, Council to the Committee.
	Good morning.
	Good morning, Your Honor.
	Michael Greger, Valor Mackinac, and Buck Campbell-Maloney.
	Now, for some behalf of landlord care, OpTech, LLC.
	Good morning, Your Honor.
	Tobias Keller, Representative of the Class Council.
	Good morning.
	Good morning, Your Honor.
	Matthew Langley, representing Memphis for the Lemonade Pixel Class Action.
	Pixel Class.
	Okay.
	Good morning.
	Anyone else on the WebEx?
	All right, Mr. Risky.
	Are you leading the way?
	Thanks, Your Honor.
	Tom Risky for the record.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	I think we have a pretty brief docket for today.
	Obviously, my colleagues and the folks at MolyS are spending a lot of their time preparing for tomorrow's auction.
	So I'm not sure we have a substantive update on the case generally other than that.
	If it pleases the court, I think I've just go in order of the agenda today.
	I can take the projection motion and then I'd ask Ms. Choi to kind of present the briefing issues with perspective class claimants and then allow your on-aggressive questions.
	You can do that if that works.
	Sure.
	Since the mention of an auction, I take if there's at least two bids.
	Correct.
	We have been.
	Multiple bids.
	I think there's still some issues going on with perspective, potential other qualified bids.
	But we are still hoping for this Mr. Hopkins instead of robust auction.
	Okay.
	Well, yeah, why don't we take up the rejection motion?
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	So I am pleased to report that the removal went smoothly last week.
	Everything was out as of Friday.
	However, as I said previous times, there's still an additional step of the county and the fire department signing off on that to make sure everything was fine.
	It's my understanding that's in process.
	Once we have that and I can get that to the landlord.
	I'm cautiously optimistic will be able to resolve this.
	So we do have an agreement to just adjourn this the next week's hearing.
	Okay.
	This whole after just a second.
	Are we on the record?
	Are we okay?
	We're still on the record.
	Everything is fine.
	Okay.

	Sorry.
	Go ahead.
	No worries.
	I'm not sure Ms. Jones or Mr. Gagger are on today for the landlord, but I did speak with them even.
	I heard Mr. Greg.
	This morning.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	So adjourned to next next Tuesday, 1 30.
	Correct.
	Okay.
	Mr. Gregor.
	Ms. Jones, anything further on that?
	Are we good with next Tuesday, 1 30?
	Gregor, I think you're on mute.
	I was at your honor.
	Nothing further.
	We're good for 1 30 next Tuesday.
	Okay.
	Currently, I think there would be the only thing set on that calendar.
	So if it's resolved or you need another continuance, if you'd let Mr. Spital know.
	I don't know when we could just take care of that.
	Wouldn't need to have everybody dial in and.
	For a non-substant appearance.
	But perhaps it will be resolved or perhaps there'll be something to dispute.
	So we'll see.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	The next matter that I previewed is with respect to the issue of briefing the class claims.
	We filed one stipulation with respect to one.
	Class of claimants and then late last night held another resolution with pixel claimants.
	Ms. Choi from Paul Weiss is on.
	I'm not seeing her, but I saw her earlier.
	Yeah, she's on.
	I got here.
	We may have a different view, I guess.
	Wait.
	Oh, so there's nothing.
	You can't see anything.
	Oh, got you.
	Okay. Yes.
	I can see Ms. Choi is on.
	And so.
	We can take comfort in that.
	Okay.
	So with this, I'd ask if Ms. Choi is anything to put on the record with respect to the few stipulations.
	And I think she'd be available to answer any questions that the court may have.
	And Ms. Choi, you're muted.
	Hi, honor.
	Can you hear me?
	Yes.
	There we go.
	Okay.
	Great.
	Jessica Choi has Paul Weiss.
	I thought I would provide a brief update on the rule 73 briefing schedule.
	As Ms. Choi was muted, you know, the body order contemplates that the gutters in the committee
	would meet and confer with two sets of claimants.
	First, the main plaintiffs and the members of the settlement class have been conditionally
	and preliminary approved in the class section, currently pending before Judge Chen in the
	Northern District of California.
	And second, with the main plaintiffs and the class action law, currently pending before
	Judge Lin in the Northern District of California, which I will refer to as the typical
	litigation.
	I'm happy to report that the gutters have been able to agree on the rule 73 schedule with
	both sets of claimants.
	I'm scheduled with the data breach claimants as far as document number 401.
	And our rule 73 schedule with the official claimants as filed at document number 405.
	I'm happy to briefly go through what those briefing federal contemplates are, or through
	our specific questions.
	I'm happy to address them at this time.
	Sure.
	I have them both in front of me, so I'm familiar with them.
	I guess the general question is there.
	Is it beneficial to have separate hearings and separate tracks for these?
	Or would they benefit from being considered together?
	I think that's the equilibrium here.
	Yeah.
	I think we've engaged in separate discussions because the two class sessions are a bit differently
	situated.
	And one notable difference, Your Honor, is that our briefing schedule with the data breach
	claimants currently does not contemplate any discovery.
	So I think it would be efficient for the estate to proceed separately on a more exudated briefing
	schedule timeframe with the data breach claimants.
	Our schedule with the fixable claimants however, there are contemplates from discovery.
	And we've lamented and conferred and tried to see efficient with a time in the estate resources
	as much as possible.
	And the fixable claimants have agreed to offer their deposition to the time being, as well as the
	debtors.
	I said this to our right to seek deposition at a later time.
	If the document is produced, then the response is to the intermediary to be in
	sufficient or require further explanation.
	So given that the two matters are a bit differently situated in terms of where we stand on
	the suffering and other issues, I do think it would be beneficial to proceed on separate
	track.
	Okay.
	All right.
	That's certainly fine with me.
	Then for scheduling, a minor issue for pixelal, a larger one for cyber incident class.
	I have a trial on July 14th.
	It'll be perhaps a half day trial.
	I could hear you on the 15th on the pixelal class action if that would make sense.
	I'm out of town on June 10th when you identified hearing date for the cyber incident.
	And then as you know, we had the sale here at the schedule the next week.
	So that's a busy time.
	So tell me what other constraints there are on scheduling and hearing for the cyber incident.
	Thank you.
	And Mr. Rispy did remind me that the court might be unavailable the week of June 9th.
	I have anyone to get in touch with?
	Mr. Teller prior to this call.
	And we would be amenable to pushing all the dates in the data breach rule 73.
	You can schedule by a week so that the hearing such as the rule 73 motions for the data
	breach claimants will be heard.
	Sometimes the week of June 16th is that would work for your honor.
	I believe Mr. Teller is attending as well.
	So Mr. Teller speak up if he has any issues with that.
	I can confirm the same your honor.
	Okay, so here's what that week looks like.
	I really can't do it on the 16th given my travel schedule.
	And the need to absorb what I assume is going to be a lengthy CPO filing,
	whatever comes before the sale hearing and the briefing on the cyber incident.
	So we have the sale hearing on 17th.
	We have a holiday on the 19th.
	I have a mediation.
	I have regular hearing schedule on the 18th in the morning.
	I don't know how expensive those will be at this point, but not something that will take all day.
	So one possibility would be to leave the 17th for the sale hearing.
	If it goes on, we could pick it up the afternoon of the 18th.
	Otherwise, we could schedule the cyber incident to claim hearing from the 18th.
	And if that's not enough time for that, we'd have to continue to probably follow.
	How does that sound?
	Well, our suggestion, we go ahead and take the 18th.
	We also are engaging in discussions with the debtor and there is some possibility that we will have a consensual resolution.
	So between the two of those, my fingers are crossed that we can get this resolved kindly.
	All right, I think we can work with that.
	We don't have anything scheduled for 113.
	We are just to comfort that that will push out the remainder of the briefing schedule items with the structure of the data breach claimants.
	So right now we have the deadline for the data breach claimants to follow the rule 73 motion on May 16th.
	I think that will get kicked to May 23rd.
	And the other deadlines that are contemplated in the data breach rule 73 motion will also get kicked, I think, by a week.
	I'm happy to follow an updated notice from the docket if that will be helpful.
	I'll leave that up to you.
	Or you and Mr. Keller know what the deadlines are.
	If it makes sense to clarify that on the record for any others who may be observing that's certainly fine with me.
	Maybe simplest considering how straightforward it would be to do that.
	We'll schedule the hearing on the cyber incident proof claim for 130 central time on Wednesday, June 18th.
	And if the sale hearing doesn't wrap up on the 17th, I guess I'll defer to you as to which is more important to jump into on the afternoon of the 18th, considering we have a holiday next day.
	So that will work and then we'll schedule the pixel proof of claim hearing.
	Do we have West Coast lawyers who will be participating remotely in that or should we start at 9 a.m. Central?
	I'll refer to Mr. Langley who I believe is online.
	9 a.m. start with work.
	Mr. Langley, I'm not sure where you're located, although I imagine you'll probably be in court to handle this.
	Yeah, so I'm in Chicago, so 9 a.m. Central time works for works for us.
	All right, so let's get to that hearing at 9 a.m. Central on Tuesday, July 15th.
	Great.
	All right, and if the if the move ants when they file their motion for leave to file the class proof of claim, if you would trigger that hearing date in ECF file.
	Notice that out as well.
	Okay, anything further on either of those class proof of claim matters.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Risky, anything further from the creditors committee.
	Mr. Visito, you mentioned you wanted to make a comment.
	It's more than a comment, Your Honor.
	To make the court aware, there was a post on the exsocialmedia.form on May 6th by a former founder and officer of the company.
	That was reposted 23 times with 14,000 views.
	The post was, well, based on what I'm hearing on the page, there's 23 in May.
	I think it makes no sense for customers to download their data first, then to leave their account.
	Some of the more reputable getters are decided to drop out, give them all the challenges.
	23 in these cases.
	In the future, there may be great options to upload your S&T data files, the other platforms offering comprehensive analysis.
	And then my opinion, Your Honor, the confidentiality stipulations and in agreements in the bidding procedures has been violated.
	And the debtors have stayed at the farm.
	And all stakeholders, including the equity shareholders, have been prejudiced negatively based on any genetic database diminishing because of this post.
	In addition, the stock that was trading at May 6th for more than a dollar 20 a share yesterday and today was trading for less than 60 cents a share.
	In my opinion, there might be negligence on the part of the debtors.
	I think it's a pretty good question.
	And it appears that confidential bidding information has and is being traded upon by a privileged party.
	Our requesting release from the court to put all shareholders on equal footing and provide information that will allow the nonrepresented party's inability to potentially and appropriately object to any sales transaction.
	And of course, the impacting breaches may have had on the bidding and sales profit.
	And I could go over that that release that I would be requesting.
	But the bottom line, Your Honor, is this was an inappropriate post.
	And in my opinion, the confidentiality agreements have been violated in the bidding procedures.
	All right, Mr. Rosito, if there's relief that you want from the court, you'll need to file a motion and file that with the clerk of the court and serve that on the debtors and other parties who.
	Who you think may be responsible so that they can respond to that.
	As you know, anyone can post anything on Twitter.
	It doesn't mean it's true. I have no basis to determine whether or not it's true.
	And so I don't have anything that I can act on based on your report of a post on Twitter earlier this month.
	So if you'd like relief from the court, put it in writing, please file with the clerk of the court and serve it out and and said for hearing.
	And we'll figure out what to do about it. And you can kind of take Mr. Spital, the courtroom deputy, if you need information about the logistics of getting something filed and served.
	All right, anything further to come.
	Thank you.
	Okay, we'll be adjourned. Thanks.