Opinion ID: 1476448
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading:  Access To Proof

Text: Relying solely on two paragraphs in an affidavit describing the location of certain Pan American employees and documents, the Court of Chancery found that Pan American's expected defense would depend on witnesses, physical evidence and documents. . . located in a remote area of Argentina; that travel for these witnesses to Delaware for trial would be extremely inconvenient and cause Pan American to suffer significant disruption; and that producing English translations of relevant documents in Delaware will entail substantial burdens to Pan American and may cause Pan American to suffer the deprivation of live testimony and to have difficulty presenting rebuttal testimony. [36] These findings lack proper record support, and they ignore admissions by Pan American that significantly, if not fatally, undercut Pan American's assertions. Pan American's affidavit amounts essentially to bare conclusions that do not constitute a particularized showing that witnesses, documents, or other evidence necessary to defend the allegations contained in [Candlewood's] complaint cannot be brought to or otherwise produced in Delaware. [37] Pan American did not identify any damages evidence that could not be assimilated and presented in Delaware by an expert. Nor did Pan American show why it needs any fact testimony (whether live or by deposition) from any Pan American employee concerning the effect of its extraction activities upon FSB's land. The Court of Chancery's findings also do not take into account admissions by Pan American that significantly undercut its assertions of hardship. In its response to interrogatories, Pan American admitted that it does not contend that it would be an undue hardship for some of its employees to travel to the United States. [38] Pan American also admitted that four of the six employees referenced in its affidavit as most knowledgeable, had traveled internationally on business in recent years, and that three had traveled to the United States. Finally, Pan American admitted that it customarily enters into contracts that include forum selection clauses that require it to litigate in the United States and the United Kingdom, and that recently it had defended a case in the Court of Chancery. The Court of Chancery's opinion does not come to grips with, or acknowledge, those admitted facts.