Skip to content
Home » CITGO Auction: Judicial Expert Disputes Red Tree’s Emergency Request as Court Enforces Necessary Corrections

CITGO Auction: Judicial Expert Disputes Red Tree’s Emergency Request as Court Enforces Necessary Corrections

The judicial expert for the CITGO auction, Robert B. Pincus, opposed the emergency request made to the Delaware Court by Red Tree regarding the delivery of legal and expert documents from CITGO and PDVH.

Pincus aims to clarify before Judge Leonard Stark that the delay in providing documents to Red Tree was not a “joint refusal to serve” but rather a result of a necessary review process to address the confidentiality concerns of Venezuelan parties, namely CITGO and PDV Holding.

While the judicial expert agrees that documents should be submitted on time, he suggests a proactive procedure for confidentiality reviews in the future. He did not comment on Red Tree’s request to extend the deadline for expert response reports.

The judge found that the parties acted properly and established corrective measures based on the reasonableness of Red Tree’s requests.

Judicial Expert Responds to Red Tree

On July 11, 2025, the judicial expert for the CITGO auction, appointed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Robert B. Pincus, through his representative, Myron T. Steele, submitted a report to Judge Leonard Stark to respond to Red Tree’s emergency request for the delivery of legal and expert documents from CITGO and PDVH.

Pincus seeks to correct what Red Tree perceived as a “joint refusal to serve” documents on time and directly refutes the claim that there was a “joint refusal to serve” the legal documents and expert reports before the July 7, 2025, deadline.

“As an initial matter, the Special Master finds it necessary to correct the factual record and clarify that there was no ‘joint refusal to serve’ to Red Tree with the notification of objection from the Venezuelan parties regarding the Final Recommendation and the initial expert reports for the July 7, 2025, deadline,” the communication states.

Confidentiality Review Procedure

On behalf of Pincus, Myron T. Steele explained to Judge Stark that shortly before the July 7 deadline, the Venezuelan parties approached him to express their concern that their documents might contain confidential information. Accordingly, the judicial expert’s attorney agreed to review the documents to determine if any information needed redaction.

He reported that on July 7, 2025, the Venezuelan parties progressively sent their sealed notice of objection, two expert reports, and numerous attachments, requesting that the judicial expert provide any necessary redactions within twenty-four hours.

Thus, on July 8, 2025, according to Steele, it was communicated to CITGO and PDVH that no redaction was deemed necessary in the notice of objection or in the first expert report. However, “modest redactions” were proposed in the second expert report and its attachments to protect the identity of undisclosed competing bidders. The documents were subsequently delivered to Red Tree and the other parties.

Red Tree’s Requests and the Judicial Expert’s Position

Red Tree requested the Delaware Court to:

Order that henceforth, all parties, including the Venezuelan parties and the judicial expert, must deliver or submit legal documents to Red Tree in full on the due date, without any prior approval from Robert Pincus.

Extend the deadline for submitting expert reports in response to the Venezuelan parties’ reports until July 22, 2025, without extending the Venezuelan parties’ deadline to respond.

Meanwhile, the judicial expert, Robert B. Pincus, responded to Red Tree that he agrees that legal documents should be presented or delivered to all parties within the applicable deadlines. He stated that for future confidentiality inquiries, documents should be provided to him at least 24 hours prior to the deadline, highlighting concerning parties. This will allow him to advise on the need for redactions before the submission deadline.

Regarding the second request, Robert Pincus clarified that he “takes no position” on whether the Court should extend the deadline for expert reports responding to the Venezuelan parties’ reports.

Judge’s Order

On July 14, 2025, after reviewing Red Tree’s request for relief concerning the timely production of confidential information and expert reports, and acknowledging that PDVH and Citgo acted properly by seeking guidance from the judicial expert regarding their recent submissions, Judge Leonard Stark set forth the procedures to follow moving forward.

Stark determined that Red Tree showed that current government orders could be improved with slight modifications and, thus, established that:

  • Thereafter, any submission by an entity with access to confidential information that the presenting entity reasonably believes may disclose non-public materials must consult with the Special Master as soon as possible, and no later than 24 hours before the applicable submission deadline, regarding the upcoming submission and comply with the directives of the Special Masters regarding it;
  • Any sealed submission must, in all cases, be submitted on the due date and accompanied that same date by both a redacted version and a brief memorandum describing and justifying the redactions;
  • All remaining dates in the schedule set for June 13, 2025 (D.I. 1809) are EXTENDED by one day (e.g., expert reports in response to Citgo are now due on Tuesday, July 22, and response expert reports are due on Saturday, July 26; discovery concludes on Friday, July 31; and replies to objections are due on Saturday, August 16); and
  • The scheduled teleconference for Monday, July 14 (today) at 4:30 p.m. is canceled.

Judicial Expert’s Report on Special Conference

On July 11, he sent a communication to the judge in the Crystallex International Corp. case against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Leonard P. Stark, to confirm arrangements for a scheduled teleconference on Monday, July 14, 2025, at 4:30 p.m.

Access line details and the availability of a court reporter were provided. Members of the public interested in listening were informed that their microphones would be muted upon entering the call.