Poštová banka, a.s. and ISTROKAPITAL SE v. Hellenic Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/8), Procedural Order No. 3 (January 22, 2014)
1. Pursuant to Section 14.1 of Procedural Order No. 1 Respondent should file its request for production of documents related to the issues of jurisdiction on January 10, 2014 and Claimants should produce documents by January 24, 2014.
2. On January 14, 2014 Respondent submitted a letter informing the Tribunal that the Parties had agreed that Claimants would make any objections to Respondent’s requests to produce by January 15, 2014. Respondent would then submit its responses to any such objections to produce by January 17, 2014 in a Redfern Schedule to be filed with the Tribunal that same day for resolution of any remaining disputes between the Parties.
3. On January 17, 2014 Respondent submitted a Redfern Schedule for the production of documents related to the issues of jurisdiction. The Redfern Schedule, comprising 17 categories of documents to produce, included Respondent’s initial request, Claimants’ objections and Respondent’s reply to Claimants’ objections. The Redfern Schedule also listed Claimants’ general objections to Respondent’s request as well as Respondent’s general objections to Claimants’ objections.
4. Together with the Redfern Schedule, Respondent submitted a letter to the Tribunal indicating that no ruling was necessary in relation to requests 1, 3, 7 and 13 and that the Parties have a dispute over the remaining requests, which is for the Tribunal to decide.
5. The Tribunal notes that in its objections to requests 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 16, Claimants offered to produce certain documents, and Respondent replied by narrowing the corresponding request for production of documents.
6. Claimants objected to the production of documents in request 6 and Respondent narrowed the request for production.
7. With respect to request 11, Claimants offered to produce certain documents and Respondent maintained its original request.
8. Claimants objected to the production of documents in requests 4 and 17, and Respondent maintained its requests as originally submitted.