In the CITGO auction process, court-appointed expert Robert B. Pincus responded to Leroy Garrett’s motion submitted to the Delaware Court, requesting that the court compel him to answer questions regarding how they will compensate their rights in the asset sale process of the refinery.
Pincus argues against the motion, stating that he is not legally obliged to respond to a non-participant. He adds that the rules cited by Garrett are not applicable. Additionally, he claims that answering such questions would divert resources and incur unnecessary expenses at a critical time during the CITGO auction process.
The court’s resolution of this motion will determine whether Garrett, a former employee of the oil company acting to protect the interests of dismissed PDVSA workers, can compel the judicial expert to disclose information and respond to inquiries about the Venezuelan asset sale process. To achieve this, an explicit court order recognizing him as a party entitled to the requested information is crucial.
Pincus opposes the workers’ motion
On June 30, 2025, Robert B. Pincus, the court-appointed expert by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to oversee the CITGO auction, expressed his opposition to Leroy Garrett’s motion asking the court to compel him to answer the questionnaires in which dismissed PDVSA workers request an explanation of how their rights will be compensated during the asset sale process.
In the case of Crystallex International Corp. vs. the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Pincus maintains that he is not obligated to respond to Garrett, who is a pro se litigant and not a party to the current proceedings, unless the court orders otherwise. He argues that responding to these questionnaires would be a distraction and an inefficient use of resources at a critical moment in the sale process.
Arguments of Pincus
The expert, Robert B. Pincus, refutes Leroy Garrett’s arguments with the following points:
Lack of legal obligation
Pincus states that “he has no obligation to respond to the questionnaires and inquiries from Dr. Garrett (…) unless the Court orders otherwise.”
Inapplicability of Rules Cited by Garrett
He mentions that Federal Rule 53(f) governs “Actions on Orders, Reports, or Recommendations of the Expert,” and does not apply to the issues raised by Leroy Garrett.
Moreover, he states that Local Rule 7.1.3 governs the “Form and Content of Pleadings, Points and Authorities, and Appendices,” and is also not applicable.
Furthermore, the judicial expert notes that Federal Rule 53(b), which expresses that the appointment order should instruct the expert to proceed with reasonable diligence, and Local Rule 7.1.2(b), stating that “once a motion has been considered notified, the response shall be filed within 14 days,” do not compel him to respond to a questionnaire proposed by a non-party.
Not a party in the process
Pincus specified that “Until the Court resolves Garrett’s motion to intervene and his request for a restraining order, he is not a party to these proceedings, and his questionnaires only serve as a distraction.”
Distraction and unnecessary cost
Robert Pincus informs the court that he is unaware of any authority compelling him to respond to Garrett’s questionnaires, and an order requiring him to respond at this critical time during the CITGO auction process would result in an undue diversion of resources and create unjustified additional expenses.
Unprofitable use of resources
The judicial expert does not believe it would be a profitable use of available time and resources to respond to these or future questionnaires from Garrett.
Arguments of the workers to compel the judicial expert
Leroy Garrett on behalf of the dismissed PDVSA workers believes that the judicial expert should be compelled by the court to respond based on what is outlined in the Federal Civil Procedure Rule 53(f) and the Local Rule 7.1.3 of the District Court of Delaware.
He argued that these rules require the judicial expert to respond in the interest of focusing on the CITGO auction process and the consideration of claims from dismissed PDVSA workers.
Previous actions by the dismissed PDVSA workers
On several occasions, dismissed PDVSA workers, through Leroy Garrett, have undertaken various relevant actions in the CITGO auction process:
Separate litigation
Garrett initiated a separate lawsuit against PDVSA and PDVH, in which he sought a preliminary injunction to stop the CITGO auction process from the court, which was denied.
Appeal and mandamus
Leroy Garrett appealed the denial of his injunction and, while the appeal was pending, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Third Circuit accusing the court and Robert Pincus of conducting the proceedings with “unethical secrecy.” Both the appeal and the mandamus petition were denied.
Request for information from the judicial expert (without intervention)
On April 28, 2025, Leroy Garrett “without previously filing a motion to intervene, submitted a document in the record requesting that the Special Expert respond to a series of questions related to the sales process and the consideration of claims from former PDVSA employees.”
Additional investigations
On May 14, 2025, Garrett submitted an “investigation” demanding that the judicial expert respond to his questionnaire.
On June 5, 2025, he presented a second questionnaire directed at the judicial expert.
Motion to intervene and request for injunction
On May 28, 2025, Leroy Garrett filed a motion to intervene in these proceedings and requested the court grant him a restraining order over PDVH shares to join the group of creditors.
Expert informs the court about an ex parte meeting
On June 30, 2025, the judicial expert of the CITGO auction, Robert B. Pincus, informed the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware about an ex parte meeting between him and the court along with his advisors.
See in Sin Filtros: “Maduro imposes his local dictatorship | Petro on the brink of internal collapse.”