Parts of Venezuela are pressing for the urgent delivery of documents related to the CITGO auction discovery and are advocating for hearings to be held in October. Similarly, the court has denied motions filed by Leroy A. Garrett, who requested to intervene, present witnesses at the sale hearing, and receive miscellaneous compensation. The judge found that he was not a party to the case and was not permitted to intervene.
A joint status report submitted to the Delaware District Court in the context of the Crystallex International Corp. vs. the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela case outlines the recent discovery requests made by Gold Reserve and the Venezuelan parties to the auction’s court expert, Robert B. Pincus, and his advisors, Weil and Evercore.
According to Pincus, the current scope of the requests makes Venezuela’s timeline unfeasible, indicating a significant disagreement regarding the speed of the discovery process.
The Joint Report: Need for Discovery
On September 16, 2025, a joint report focused on the discovery phase of the CITGO auction and the challenges surrounding the scheduling and scope of information requests.
Gold Reserve submitted 20 document requests to Weil and Evercore, as well as deposition notices to the court expert, Weil (Rule 30(b)(6)), and Evercore (Rule 30(b)(6)).
Meanwhile, the Venezuelan parties submitted 8 document requests to the court expert, Weil, and Evercore. They argue that the documents must be produced, and motions filed in a timely manner for arguments to occur in early October as reserved by the Court.
They claim to have made their requests “significantly more limited than would be appropriate without that urgency” in order to comply with a tight schedule.
The court expert for the CITGO auction, Robert B. Pincus, opposed this request, estimating that it directly contradicts the ability to meet Venezuela’s proposed timeline. He asserted that the nature and scope of the discovery requests and deposition notices are simply incompatible with the declared desire for expedited action from the Venezuelan parties.
Following the initial requests, the parties met and agreed to reconvene after the expert’s advisors have had the chance to review the requests and “investigate the inherent burdens of gathering and producing responsive documents.”
The parties agreed to:
- Meet and discuss again on Friday, September 19, 2025.
- Propose submitting another status report to the Court no later than Monday, September 22, 2025.
It has been reported that Weil and Evercore began gathering certain information consistent with previous statements made to the Court on September 15, 2025.
All parties “reserve all rights, including with respect to discovery requests.”
Court Denies Leroy A. Garrett’s Motions
On September 17, 2025, Judge Leonard P. Stark issued an order clearly stating that Leroy A. Garrett does not meet procedural and substantive requirements to intervene in the CITGO auction in the case of Crystallex International Corp. vs. the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
The denied motions from Garrett relate to intervention, witness presentation, relief requests, and active participation in the sale hearing. The court emphasized that Garrett is not a recognized party in the litigation, and his intervention would prejudice the existing parties.
Leonard Stark determined that Leroy Garrett’s motion to intervene is untimely for several reasons, including that intervention would harm the existing parties. Citing case law, he noted that “mere possession of a right does not suffice for a motion to intervene” according to the standard.
The court stated that Garrett is not a party to the case and has not been permitted to intervene, hence lacks the right to present witnesses. The motions for miscellaneous relief and the miscellaneous motions were also denied for the same reasons.