General Justification. The Claimants contend that upon the issuance of Resolution 381, Tele Fácil did all that it could to secure Telmex’s compliance with the provisions of the IFT’s resolution [Resolution 381]”. Hence: • On 9 December 2014, Telmex presented Tele Fácil a “drastically altered version of the agreement that had been ordered by IFT”. (SoC, ¶ 20) • On 10 December 2014, Telmex sent to Tele Fácil a second interconnection agreement (SoC, ¶ 21) • Tele Fácil “immediately follows up by sending Telmex for signature and signed, notarized and certified copy of the interconnection agreement as ordered by the IFT in Resolution 381” (SoC, ¶ 21) • Tele Fácil sought and secured a meeting with the Chief of IFT’s Compliance Unit (SoC, ¶ 22); • Shortly thereafter, a meeting was convened in mid January 2015 in the office of the IFT Chairman to discuss Telmex’s concerns about enforcement of the interconnection agreement between Telmex and Tele Fácil. (SoC, ¶ 23) • “During this period [early 2015], representatives of Tele Fácil met with Telmex several times. Two of these meetings included Xx. Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Telmex’s top litigation and regulatory counsel, who was also known to be personal counsel to the Slim family.” (SoC, ¶ 26) The documents sought by the Respondent in this section are relevant to the case and material to its outcome because they will establish: (i) that there was an unresolved disagreement between the operators as to the scope of Resolution 381 and the terms that were to be included in the interconnection agreement pursuant to Resolution 381 –particularly whether it encompassed the interconnection rates that were allegedly agreed upon by the operators– and (ii) that IFT’s interpretation of Resolution 381 (which resulted in Decree 77) was warranted and appropriate in the circumstances.
General Justification. The parties have agreed that, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the IBA Rules, expert reports shall include inter alia: the “Documents on which the Party-Appointed Expert relies that have not already been submitted shall be provided”. Hence, it is necessary for a party to have the complete set of documents relied on by the other party’s expert, in order to properly evaluate assertions made in the expert report. The requested documents under this section are necessary to properly understand, evaluate and challenge assertions made in the expert report and the Claimants’ assessment of damages. Request No. 8
