Common use of Reply Clause in Contracts

Reply. Claimants refer to and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein their responses to Respondent’s General Objections Nos. 1-4 and 6 and their responses to Requests No. 1, 2, and 14 above. In addition, Respondent’s objections are without merit and should be overruled for the following reasons: First, contrary to Respondent’s suggestion, Claimants are not required to seek documents from a third party even if they know such documents exist. They are prohibited only from requesting documents that are are “in the possession, custody or control of the requesting Party,” which is not the case here. See IBA Rules Art. 3(3)(c)(i). Moreover, this Request seeks “internal or external government correspondence, memoranda, official resolutions, reports, and analyses,” which are not documents that Claimants would be able to obtain from a third party, as most such documents would be only in the possession, custody, or control of the Respondent. Finally, Respondent’s objection as to relevance is undetailed and fails to identify the reasons for such assertion. Second, Respondent has not explained how documents relating to Pemex’s contracts with Seamex are confidential commercial information that cannot be provided to Claimants, particularly since Oro Negro is no longer a competitor of Seamex as it is not in business. Furthermore, confidentiality itself is not a basis to refuse production under the IBA Rules and/or Procedural Order 3, ¶ 4 (i), but rather, allows for certain protection of the documents produced. Claimants would be willing to receive documents Respondent considers confidential under the terms of Procedural Order 3, including, if appropriate, as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” information.Fourth, Respondent claims that these documents should not be produced because they concern confidential information. Confidentiality itself is not a basis to refuse production under the IBA Rules and/or Procedural Order 3, ¶ 4 (i), but rather, allows for certain protection of the documents produced. Claimants would be willing to receive documents Respondent considers confidential under the terms of Procedural Order 3, including, if appropriate, as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” information. On these grounds, Claimants respectfully request that the Tribunal order Respondent to produce the requested documents.

Reply. Claimants refer to and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein their responses to Respondent’s General Objections Nos. 1-4 and 6 and their responses to Requests No. 1, 2, and 14 above. In addition, Respondent’s objections are without merit and should be overruled for the following reasons: First, contrary to Respondent’s suggestion, Claimants are not required to seek documents from a third party even if they know such documents exist. They are prohibited only from requesting documents that are are “in the possession, custody or control of the requesting Party,” which is not the case here. See IBA Rules Art. 3(3)(c)(i). Moreover, this Request seeks “internal or external government correspondence, memoranda, official resolutions, reports, and analyses,” which are not documents that Claimants would be able to obtain from a third party, as most such documents would be only in the possession, custody, or control of the Respondent. Finally, Respondent’s objection as to relevance is undetailed and fails to identify the reasons for such assertion. .Second, Respondent has not explained how documents relating to Pemex’s contracts with Seamex are confidential commercial information that cannot be provided to Claimants, particularly since Oro Negro is no longer a competitor of Seamex as it is not in business. Furthermore, confidentiality itself is not a basis to refuse production under the IBA Rules and/or Procedural Order 3, ¶ 4 (i), but rather, allows for certain protection of the documents produced. Claimants would be willing to receive documents Respondent considers confidential under the terms of Procedural Order 3, including, if appropriate, as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” information.Fourth, Respondent claims that these documents should not be produced because they concern confidential information. Confidentiality itself is not a basis to refuse production under the IBA Rules and/or Procedural Order 3, ¶ 4 (i), but rather, allows for certain protection of the documents produced. Claimants would be willing to receive documents Respondent considers confidential under the terms of Procedural Order 3, including, if appropriate, as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” information. On these grounds, Claimants respectfully request that the Tribunal order Respondent to produce the requested documents.

Reply. Claimants refer to and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein their responses to Respondent’s General Objections Nos. 1-4 and 6 and their responses to Requests No. 1, 2, and 14 above5. In addition, Respondent’s objections are without merit and should be overruled for the following reasons: First, contrary Xxxxxxxxx’ request is relevant to this case, as it is directly related to their claim of retaliation and specifically that Respondent used the PGR investigation as a vehicle to fabricate evidence against Oro Negro so that the Bondholders could use it to initiate other criminal proceedings against Oro Negro and its agents, as well as their claim that such criminal investigation was among Respondent’s suggestionmany efforts to destroy Integradora, Perforadora, and Claimants’ investments and ensure the complete destruction of their assets and investments in México. As explained in the request, such documents are also relevant to assessing Respondent’s claims that Claimants’ contention regarding this PGR investigation “is totally false and lacks any evidence.” See SOC ¶¶ 222, 224, 229; Izunza Decl. ¶¶ 20, 22, Gil Decl. ¶¶ 111–112; RFIM ¶ 41; SOD ¶¶ 313- 323. Moreover, Respondent’s objection as to relevance is undetailed and fails to identify the reasons for such assertion.Second, Claimants’ request is reasonable and specific. It asks for discrete information related to a specific PGR investigation (Case No. FED/SEIDF/UEIDFF-CDMX/0000864/2018), which took place in a limited time frame as specified in the Statement of Claim. See SOC ¶¶ 220-229. Moreover, Claimants provided examples of the types of documents that would be responsive to this Request (the investigation file, any internal or external government correspondence, memoranda, reports, or analyses regarding the specific investigation). Additionally, Claimants have provided Respondent with the relevant case file number (Case No. FED/SEIDF/UEIDFF-CDMX/0000864/2018) and the types of documents that would be responsive, as described above. Such information sufficiently identifies the requested documents. Third, Xxxxxxxxx’ request should not be denied, as Respondent asserts, because it is based on Xxxxxxxxx’ allegations and the statements of their own witnesses. Claimants make their document requests for the very reason of preparing their case and obtaining documentary evidence in support of thoseassertions. Respondent’s reason to not produce documents based on such requests is inapposite. As the tribunal noted in Xxxxxxx Res. Ltd. v. Romania, “while each Party bears the burden to prove its own case, a Party should also have access to documents that will permit it to develop such case, whether that is in the form of a claim or a defence or both.”15 Fourth, Claimants are not required requesting any information that they already have, as they are asking for documents in Respondent’s files related to seek the PGR investigation (Case No. FED/SEIDF/UEIDFF- CDMX/0000864/2018). Moreover, even if Claimants would be able to obtain some of the requested documents from a third party another source (assuming they are even if they know such documents exist. They are prohibited able to do so and in time to submit the information as part of their Reply), the IBA Rules require only from requesting that Claimants not request documents that are are “in the possession, custody or control of the requesting Party,” which is not the case here. See IBA Rules Rules, Art. 3(3)(c)(i). MoreoverAdditionally, this Request seeks “internal or external government correspondence, memoranda, official resolutions, reports, and analyses,” which are not documents Respondent’s statement that Claimants would be apparently have access to the requested information because of Xxxxxxxxx’ assertion in the Application for Interim Measures that “[f]inally, in March 2019, the PGR allowed Perforadora to access the PGR’s case file”16 is ludicrous. Claimants having been able to obtain access to some documents from a third party, as most such documents would be only PGR’s case file does not mean that Claimants have in their possession the possession, custodyentire investigation file, or control any of the Respondent. Finally, Respondent’s objection as other documents requested related to relevance is undetailed and fails to identify the reasons for such assertion. Second, Respondent has not explained how documents relating to Pemex’s contracts with Seamex are confidential commercial information that cannot be provided to Claimants, particularly since Oro Negro is no longer a competitor of Seamex as it is not in business. Furthermore, confidentiality itself is not a basis to refuse production under the IBA Rules and/or Procedural Order 3, ¶ 4 (i), but rather, allows for certain protection of the documents produced. Claimants would be willing to receive documents Respondent considers confidential under the terms of Procedural Order 3, including, if appropriate, as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” information.Fourth, Respondent claims that these documents should not be produced because they concern confidential information. Confidentiality itself is not a basis to refuse production under the IBA Rules and/or Procedural Order 3, ¶ 4 (i), but rather, allows for certain protection of the documents produced. Claimants would be willing to receive documents Respondent considers confidential under the terms of Procedural Order 3, including, if appropriate, as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” informationPGR investigation. On these grounds, Claimants respectfully request that the Tribunal order Respondent to produce the requested documents.

Reply. Claimants refer to and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein their responses to Respondent’s General Objections Nos. 1-4 and 6 and their responses to Requests No. 1, 2, and 14 above5. In addition, Respondent’s objections are without merit and should be overruled for the following reasons: First, contrary Xxxxxxxxx’ request is relevant to this case, as it is directly related to their claim of retaliation and specifically that Respondent used the PGR investigation as a vehicle to fabricate evidence against Oro Negro so that the Bondholders could use it to initiate other criminal proceedings against Oro Negro and its agents, as well as their claim that such criminal investigation was among Respondent’s suggestionmany efforts to destroy Integradora, Perforadora, and Claimants’ investments and ensure the complete destruction of their assets and investments in México. As explained in the request, such documents are also relevant to assessing Respondent’s claims that Xxxxxxxxx’ contention regarding this PGR investigation “is totally false and lacks any evidence.” See SOC ¶¶ 222, 224, 229; Izunza Decl. ¶¶ 20, 22, Gil Decl. ¶¶ 111–112; RFIM ¶ 41; SOD ¶¶ 313- 323. Moreover, Respondent’s objection as to relevance is undetailed and fails to identify the reasons for such assertion.Second, Claimants’ request is reasonable and specific. It asks for discrete information related to a specific PGR investigation (Case No. FED/SEIDF/UEIDFF-CDMX/0000864/2018), which took place in a limited time frame as specified in the Statement of Claim. See SOC ¶¶ 220-229. Moreover, Claimants provided examples of the types of documents that would be responsive to this Request (the investigation file, any internal or external government correspondence, memoranda, reports, or analyses regarding the specific investigation). Additionally, Claimants have provided Respondent with the relevant case file number (Case No. FED/SEIDF/UEIDFF-CDMX/0000864/2018) and the types of documents that would be responsive, as described above. Such information sufficiently identifies the requested documents. Third, Xxxxxxxxx’ request should not be denied, as Respondent asserts, because it is based on Xxxxxxxxx’ allegations and the statements of their own witnesses. Claimants make their document requests for the very reason of preparing their case and obtaining documentary evidence in support of thoseassertions. Respondent’s reason to not produce documents based on such requests is inapposite. As the tribunal noted in Xxxxxxx Res. Ltd. v. Romania, “while each Party bears the burden to prove its own case, a Party should also have access to documents that will permit it to develop such case, whether that is in the form of a claim or a defence or both.”15 Fourth, Claimants are not required requesting any information that they already have, as they are asking for documents in Respondent’s files related to seek the PGR investigation (Case No. FED/SEIDF/UEIDFF- CDMX/0000864/2018). Moreover, even if Claimants would be able to obtain some of the requested documents from a third party another source (assuming they are even if they know such documents exist. They are prohibited able to do so and in time to submit the information as part of their Reply), the IBA Rules require only from requesting that Claimants not request documents that are are “in the possession, custody or control of the requesting Party,” which is not the case here. See IBA Rules Rules, Art. 3(3)(c)(i). MoreoverAdditionally, this Request seeks “internal or external government correspondence, memoranda, official resolutions, reports, and analyses,” which are not documents Respondent’s statement that Claimants would be apparently have access to the requested information because of Xxxxxxxxx’ assertion in the Application for Interim Measures that “[f]inally, in March 2019, the PGR allowed Perforadora to access the PGR’s case file”16 is ludicrous. Claimants having been able to obtain access to some documents from a third party, as most such documents would be only PGR’s case file does not mean that Claimants have in their possession the possession, custodyentire investigation file, or control any of the Respondent. Finally, Respondent’s objection as other documents requested related to relevance is undetailed and fails to identify the reasons for such assertion. Second, Respondent has not explained how documents relating to Pemex’s contracts with Seamex are confidential commercial information that cannot be provided to Claimants, particularly since Oro Negro is no longer a competitor of Seamex as it is not in business. Furthermore, confidentiality itself is not a basis to refuse production under the IBA Rules and/or Procedural Order 3, ¶ 4 (i), but rather, allows for certain protection of the documents produced. Claimants would be willing to receive documents Respondent considers confidential under the terms of Procedural Order 3, including, if appropriate, as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” information.Fourth, Respondent claims that these documents should not be produced because they concern confidential information. Confidentiality itself is not a basis to refuse production under the IBA Rules and/or Procedural Order 3, ¶ 4 (i), but rather, allows for certain protection of the documents produced. Claimants would be willing to receive documents Respondent considers confidential under the terms of Procedural Order 3, including, if appropriate, as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” informationPGR investigation. On these grounds, Claimants respectfully request that the Tribunal order Respondent to produce the requested documents.