Petroleos De Venezuela S.A. v. MUFG Union Bank, N.A.

Background

Defendants submitted a letter under Local Civil Rule 37.2 and the court's individual practice rules requesting a conference about two discovery-related issues. The letter states that plaintiffs challenge the validity under the Venezuelan constitution of approximately $1.68 billion in principal amount of 2020 Notes issued by Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. and guaranteed by PDVSA Petróleo, S.A. The letter also states that fact discovery was ongoing and that expert reports were due on February 20, 2020.

Disputed Witness Communications

Defendants alleged that Jose Ignacio Hernandez and representatives of the Guaidó administration made public statements between January 16 and January 20, 2020, criticizing any Venezuelan-law expert who might testify for defendants. Defendants argued that the statements were intended to intimidate potential defense experts and asked the court to direct plaintiffs and persons coordinating with them to stop making statements that intimidated or could foreseeably intimidate witnesses. Defendants also sought limited, expedited discovery concerning the communications and asked plaintiffs to stop efforts to contact people they believed were working with defendants.

Plaintiffs responded that the statements merely expressed confidence in their litigation position. Plaintiffs also attributed potential experts' reluctance to participate to the case's visibility and political implications. The letter states that the parties could not resolve the dispute during their meet-and-confer discussions.

Highly Confidential Discovery Materials

Defendants also objected to plaintiffs' request to provide discovery materials marked “Highly Confidential” to Hernandez or another person in his office. Defendants agreed to access to materials marked “Confidential” but opposed access to the more restricted materials. They argued that Hernandez and his colleagues were not counsel of record or U.S. lawyers and had multiple business and political roles. Defendants asked the court to approve a proposed protective order containing the disputed provisions.

Court’s Action

The court stated that it had received defendants' letter requesting a conference and explaining that defendants were prepared to discuss their concerns at a conference scheduled in a related case on February 6, 2020. To ensure that it was fully informed before the conference, the court ordered plaintiffs to respond to defendants' letter by “February 2020, at 10:00 a.m.” The opinion text does not specify the day of February in that deadline. The order did not decide whether the public statements were improper, whether additional discovery should be provided, or whether Hernandez should receive highly confidential materials.

Disposition and Classification

This was a procedural discovery-related order requiring a response before a conference. It did not reach the merits of the parties' underlying dispute or finally resolve the requested witness-related or protective-order relief.