Opinion ID: 2616
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Argo's Expert and Additional Discovery

Text: We review for abuse of discretion the bankruptcy court's refusal to allow the testimony of one of Argo's experts and the preclusion of additional discovery on the financial status of Telecom. See Wills v. Amerada Hess Corp., 379 F.3d 32, 41 (2d Cir.2004); In re DG Acquisition Corp., 151 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir.1998). The exclusion of a proposed expert witness will not constitute an abuse of discretion unless it is manifestly erroneous. Wills, 379 F.3d at 41 (internal quotation marks omitted). The bankruptcy court granted Telecom's motion in limine to exclude from admission at trial the testimony of one of Argo's proposed experts, Professor Israel Shaked, regarding the financial status of Telecom. After a hearing on the motion, the court explained that it considered Telecom's financial status at the time of the APE irrelevant to the issues that are before [the court], namely, comity. [16] In addition, the bankruptcy court stated that Argo had the opportunity to present a similar objection in Argentine courts by charging the APE proceeding as abusive, and that it would not allow Argo to present that objection after strategically refusing to make it in Argentina. The discovery request, which sought documents relating to Telecom's financial health, was denied in part for substantially the same reasons. The bankruptcy court stated that additional discovery on Telecom's financial status was not relevant to the issue of comity pending before it on the § 304 petition. Notably, however, the bankruptcy court did not deny discovery altogether. It permitted both sides the opportunity to depose witnesses that it intended to, and was permitted to, call at trial and it ordered both sides to make available for inspection and copying any documents that Messrs. Rivera and Lorente [the experts on Argentine Insolvency Law] may have relied upon, or may rely upon before trial, in formulating their opinions. Although Telecom's financial status may not be irrelevant to the bankruptcy court's comity analysis, as we discuss above, it was not manifestly erroneous for the bankruptcy court to deny Argo's request to permit testimony by a financial valuation expert and additional discovery. The bankruptcy court reasonably concluded that it had sufficient testimonial and documentary evidence from both parties to evaluate whether Telecom properly entered the APE process and whether to confirm the Petition.