I. Introduction

1. Claimants’ theory of the case has plainly evolved since they first filed their Notice of Arbitration. With each new submission, they have offered entirely new factual allegations to go along with entirely new legal theories, all of which are allegedly supported by entirely new bands of exhibits. In response to Claimants’ barrage of successive interim measures requests, this Tribunal has required the Republic to respond to these perpetually evolving allegations in a matter of weeks, making an investigation into such allegations impossible.

2. At the risk of restating the obvious: the Republic is not and has never been a party to the underlying Lago Agrio Litigation. As a consequence, the Republic’s lawyers are not and will never be as familiar with the underlying Lago Agrio — or Aguinda — record as Claimants. Many of Claimants’ attorneys have been involved in the underlying litigation since its inception. The Republic’s lawyers did not retain any expert or offer expert testimony in or during the Lago Agrio proceeding or otherwise follow the scientific and testimonial evidence during the course of the judicial inspections. Nor did the Republic hire investigators to monitor and follow counsel for the Plaintiffs, or counsel for Chevron, during the course of the Lago Agrio proceedings. It is now clear that Claimants did.

3. Nor does the Republic have access to the internal files of Claimants’ counsel. On the other hand, U.S. courts have granted Claimants virtually unrestricted access to almost every email or other scrap of correspondence exchanged internally among Plaintiffs’ counsel or between Plaintiffs’ counsel and their experts or third parties.