Opinion ID: 582893
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appointment of an Examiner

Text: 28 Shuck asserts that the district court erred in finding that he had ample opportunity to examine documents in possession of Seminole. Shuck argues that the bankruptcy court conducted no formal hearing, would not listen until after confirming the liquidation plan, and would not give him the opportunity to cross-examine Varah and others. 3 Under Rule 2004(a), the Court may order the examination of any entity. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(a) (emphasis added). The decision whether to appoint an examiner is within the sound discretion of the bankruptcy court. We cannot find any abuse of discretion on the part of the bankruptcy court. Furthermore, Shuck has offered no evidence that would indicate that the bankruptcy court would not have been receptive to a motion to compel if Shuck's initial attempts at discovery proved fruitless. As the district court stated, Shuck offers only unsupported urgings and conclusions that the court failed to heed his requests for court intervention in the discovery process. 29