USGen New England, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
at Greenbelt
In Re: 	Case No. 03-30465PM
USGen New England, Inc.,
Chapter 11
Debtor.
USGen New England, Inc.,
Movant,
v.
TransCanada Pipelines Limited,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This case came before the court on USGen New England, Inc.'s ("the reorganized debtor")
Expedited Motion to Compel TransCanada Pipelines, Limited ("TransCanada") to produce
additional discovery. A hearing was held on March 8, 2006, and the court took the matter under
advisement. After consideration of the record and the arguments presented in court and in the
papers, the court will issue the order accompanying this Memorandum of Decision.
While the court's order is self-explanatory, some further comment may be useful. It may turn
out, as TransCanada urges that under the applicable Canadian law, that the breadth of the defense to
the claim is far greater than the reorganized debtor urges and that much of the information requested
Date signed March 20, 2006
Entered: March 21, 2006 Case 03-30465 Doc 1947 Filed 03/21/06 Page 1 of 2

in the requested discovery is irrelevant. The court is not prepared to make a decision on this issue
at this time. Likewise, the court finds nothing in this record to support the proposition that either
the Motion to Compel and the opposition to it and the failure to supply the requested discovery are
bad faith actions to the slightest degree. The claim was filed in the original amount of
$71,133,275.63 CAD, It arises out of the reorganized debtor's rejection of an agreement with
TransCanada. Since the filing of the Proof of Claim, the claim has been reduced by more than
$20,000,000.00 CAD.
Nearly all of the evidence that may exist to support the objection is in the possession of
TransCanada. Its claim is very substantial. The fact that the verified claim has been reduced in
such a large amount militates in favor of further discovery. The reorganized debtor should not have
to rely solely on the self-analysis records by TransCanada. If the court is going to err in this
situation, it will be on the side of ordering more discovery than is warranted rather than limiting the
discovery as urged by TransCanada.
An appropriate order will be entered.
cc: 	Adam M. Spence, Michael J. Lentz, Law Office of Adam M. Spence, PC, 105 West
Chesapeake Ave., Ste 400, Towson, Maryland 21204
David W. Elrod, Craig Tadlock, Jennifer S. Roberts, Elrod PLLC, 500 N. Akard St., Suite
3000, Dallas, Texas 75201
Donald K. Dankner, Gordon A. Coffee, Peter Dykema, Winston & Strawn, 1700 K. Street,
NW, Washington, DC, 20006
Marc E. Richards, Blank Rome, at el., The Chrysler Building, 405 Lexington Avenue, New
York, New York, 10174
Leslie J. Polt, Blank Rome, et al., 600 New Hampshire Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20037
U.S. Trustee, 6305 Ivy Lane, Suite 600, Greenbelt, Maryland, 20770
End of Memorandum Decision
Case 03-30465 Doc 1947 Filed 03/21/06 Page 2 of 2