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

Background

The provided filing is defendants’ opposition to plaintiffs’ request to disclose on the public docket the identity of defendants’ Venezuelan-law expert. Defendants asked the court to keep the expert’s name redacted.

Parties’ positions

Defendants argued that the expert had reasonable safety concerns because of Venezuela’s political and security conditions. They stated that the expert lives and practices law in Caracas, while the expert’s family, students, and colleagues remain in Venezuela. Defendants also argued that public disclosure could lead to retaliation by people associated with either the Guaidó administration or the Maduro regime.

Defendants further argued that the public interest did not require disclosure because the expert’s opinions, exhibits, and supporting materials were already publicly available; plaintiffs knew the expert’s identity; and plaintiffs had been able to challenge the expert’s opinions through rebuttal reports and sworn declarations. Defendants proposed alternatives such as not using the expert’s name in open court or closing the courtroom only when the identity might be revealed.

Court’s action

Judge Katherine Polk Failla stated that the court had all the information it needed to decide the motion and advised the parties that no further response was required. The text provided does not include an order granting or denying plaintiffs’ request, so the ultimate disposition of the request cannot be determined from this text.

Result

The record shown is an opposition filing followed by the court’s direction that no reply was required. It does not show a final ruling on whether the expert’s identity would remain redacted.