Plaintiffs Alana and Frederick Addotto filed a Petition for Damages in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, initiating an asbestos-exposure personal injury action against numerous defendants on January 7, 2013 .

Case 2:13-cv-05807-ILRL-MBN Document 32 Filed 03/31/14 Page 2 of 10 Department of Agriculture, and alleges that she was exposed to asbestos while working at Building 350 in the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) in New Orleans, Louisiana, from 1981 to 2005.

NASA owns the Michoud Assembly Facility, (Rec. Doc. No. 18-1 at 3) and entered into contracts with Martin Marietta Corporation (“Lockheed Martin”) to construct a space shuttle’s fuel tanks from 1973 to 2010 at MAF.(Rec.

“[W]hen faced with a motion to remand, it is the defendant’s burden to establish the existence of federal jurisdiction over the controversy.” Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chemical Co., 149 F.3d 1 The Court initially granted expedited review in light of Plaintiff's deteriorating health.

The Department of Defense had imposed detailed specifications on the defendant contractors concerning the Case 2:13-cv-05807-ILRL-MBN Document 32 Filed 03/31/14 Page 5 of 10 ingredients, formulation, packaging, labeling and delivery of Agent Orange.

The Court found that the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources had been improperly joined in the Brown and Landry cases.

The Court also advised Texas Brine that it questioned whether the allegations regarding jurisdictional amount contained in the notices of removal would suffice to demonstrate that at least one plaintiff from each action has a claim that exceeds $75,000.00.

The Court clarified that the CMO currently in place does not govern the claims of the non-class plaintiffs and pertains solely to the bellwether damages trials scheduled to begin in April 2014.

But that will not occur until after the bellwether trials on the class claims are concluded and after the improper joinder issue with respect to Miller Engineers is resolved.

Counsel have conferred and reached an agreement as to reasonable deadlines which will govern the third-party defendants’ participation in the bellwether damages trials.

NOW COMES the Plaintiff Steering Committee (“PSC”) who files this Opposition to the Motion to Lift Seal on Exhibit 5 to the Class Action Settlement Agreement (Rec.Doc.

However, the Movers opted out of the class action and thus have no standing to object to any portions of the Settlement Agreement, including filing Exhibit 5 under seal.

“[W]here there are multiple claims arising out of an accident, the liability insurer, in entering compromise settlements pursuant to the right accorded it under the provisions of the policy, may exhaust the entire fund and thus one or more of the injured parties may find that they have little or no recourse against such insurer.”5 In Holtzclaw v. Falco, Inc.,6 the Louisiana Supreme Court further held: “We also reaffirm our decision in that case to reject the argument that the direct action statute grants to each person injured in an accident ownership of or a privilege upon a pro-rata share in the insurance proceeds which become available after liability of the insured tort- feasor is established.

The remedial purpose of the statute was to remove obstacles to the claimant’s recovery, not to create for him a privilege or an ownership interest in insurance proceeds.

A privilege can be claimed only for those debts to which it is expressly granted by law.”7 In sum, nothing in the direct action statute allows a third party to discover confidential settlement documents by filing a motion to unseal with the court.

But nothing in Exhibit 5 will provide the Neil Landry Plaintiffs with substantive information regarding their claims against Texas Brine and others for damages allegedly sustained because of the sinkhole.

2 Texas Brine submits that the Neil Landry Plaintiffs’ arguments vis-à-vis Richard v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, 223 So.

363, 366 (D.D.C. 2001) (district court denied leave for potential class members to conduct limited discovery regarding the adequacy of the settlement fund, when the potential members had not yet made a decision to participate in the class by not opting out, notwithstanding their claim that they had insufficient information to make a reasonable decision whether to opt out).

Conversely, disclosure of Exhibit 5 would put the Neil Landry Plaintiffs at an unfair advantage over Texas Brine and the Class Members in settling their claims.

WHEREFORE, Texas Brine Company, LLC respectfully requests that the Court deny the Neil Landry Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Seal on Exhibit 5 to Class Action Settlement Agreement.