As the battle between Baha Mar Ltd. (BML) and its flock of affiliated companies, China Construction America and its Bahamian subsidiary (CCA Bahamas), and the Export-Import Bank of China (CEXIM) over the resort developer’s right to U.S. Bankruptcy Court protection plays out in Delaware – given that CCA has filed a motion to dismiss the bankruptcy proceedings – lawyers for CCA Bahamas have asked the court to prevent what they term as BML’s attempt to go on a “fishing expedition” through deposing Bahamian lawyer Timothy Eneas.

CCA Bahamas’ lawyer in the Delaware proceedings has, in fact, suggested that Baha Mar’s actions are apparently intended to delay the scheduled hearing on the motion to dismiss and obtain political and strategic advantages in any settlement negotiations and the media.

Yesterday, writing for CCA Bahamas, lawyer Michael Guiffré of the Washington D.C.-based firm Squire Patton Boggs, wrote a pair of letters to the judge presiding over the matter, Kevin Carey, asking him for two protective orders: one concerning BML’s notice to take a deposition and a request for production of documents, and a second preventing the debtors from taking the deposition of Mr. Eneas.

The first order relates to the demand by BML - electronically served on CCA Bahamas on August 3, 2015 - of two discovery demands: a notice deposition on August 12, and a request for the production of documents by August 10. Guiffré wrote in the first letter that, “In each instance, the debtors seek testimony on or production of a broad array of unspecified documents ‘relating to’ communications between the government of The Bahamas and CCA Bahamas, and their respective affiliates, advisors, and others.”

He went on to list the same grounds for the protective order as have been given in CCA Bahamas’ objection to the discovery demands in the court docket: that BML is seeking discovery that goes well beyond the issues relevant to any matter before the Court, including the Motion to Dismiss, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, that BML is seeking this discovery for improper purposes and that the information sought is covered by the attorney-client, work-product, investigative, and/or other privileges - including in certain instances by foreign law preventing disclosure.

Guiffré added that upon receipt of BML’s notice to depose Eneas, CCA Bahamas endeavored to avoid a discovery dispute and offered to have Eneas travel from The Bahamas to the United States for a deposition “at the place and time debtors included in their notice.”

“However, given the pending request for a protective order concerning debtors’ other discovery requests, as well as our reasonable concern that debtors will attempt to use the deposition as a means to conduct a wide-ranging fishing expedition concerning matters that are unrelated to the Motion to Dismiss, CCA Bahamas proposed that any line of questions be limited to the scope of Mr. Eneas’ Affidavit, as supplemented.

“We also reserved our right to object to questions based on privilege, relevance and other grounds,” he reported.

According to Guiffré, BML refused to limit the questions they plan to ask, indicated that they will question Eneas concerning communications between CCA and the Bahamian government - the subject of CCA Bahamas’ pending request for a protective order - and refused to confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute.

“As set forth in our earlier letter today, debtors’ demands for this discovery are improper, irrelevant to the pending Motion to Dismiss, and apparently intended to delay the scheduled hearing on the motion to dismiss and obtain political and strategic advantages in any settlement negotiations and the media,” Guiffré charged. Given the limited scope of Eneas’ affidavits in support of CCA Bahamas’ motion to dismiss, Guiffré told the judge it was “unnecessary and inappropriate for BML to conduct any deposition of Eneas concerning the matters to which he attests.”

“Rather, if debtors disagree with his statements, they should submit rebuttal evidence.”

Guiffré pointed out that the only proper purpose for deposing Eneas would be to prepare to cross-examine him as a witness concerning the scope of his anticipated testimony, if any, at the hearing on the motion to dismiss, which would be limited to the matters Eneas addressed in his affidavits.

“Accordingly, debtors should not be permitted to conduct the invasive deposition they intend,” Guiffré wrote. “For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully seek a protective order preventing the debtors from taking the deposition of Mr. Eneas.”

“Alternatively, should the court determine that a deposition is warranted, we seek a protective order limiting the scope of that deposition to the matters addressed in Mr. Eneas’ affidavits, which would congruently be the scope of his testimony at the hearing on the motion to dismiss.”

Judge Carey has set a telephonic hearing on Monday, August 10, at 1PM, on the request for a protective order on the deposition and discovery demands by BML, and CCA Bahamas hopes the court will also address the Eneas dispute during Monday’s hearing.