Estreamer: "Personally I didn't like the judge's tone at all. I heard her say "The Debtor's have done all the discovery in the world and not found anything worthy of handling things differently. The EC has a right to the discovery and should be given it, but that's procedural." "
My impression in listening on the phone [but not 'seeing'] was that she was kind of scrambling awkwardly to justify her decision. It seemed like she was using a combination of 'responding' to the arguments while, at the same time, perhaps reading off some 'points' she might have had before her - points that she might have made up in advance.
She did say, however, that [in effect] she preferred seeing the parties use "adversarial" methods to clarify the claims status. Was this, then, a veiled attempt on her part to both speed up the process, yet, at the same time, allot the examiner function, not to an 'independent', but to, in effect, the EC committee? If this was indeed the case then what she was really doing was 'leap-frogging' a delaying Examiner selection/approval/arguments/scope/ investigation process with an already in-place EC-Soloman entity. Just turn on the 'cooperation' spigot.
Rod