Chevron Corp. v. Donziger

Document Cited authorities (114) Cited in (26) Precedent Map Related
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
Writing for the CourtLEWIS A. KAPLAN
CitationChevron Corp. v. Donziger, 886 F. Supp. 2d 235 (S.D. N.Y. 2012)
Decision Date31 July 2012
Docket NumberNo. 11 Civ. 0691 (LAK).,11 Civ. 0691 (LAK).
PartiesCHEVRON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Steven DONZIGER, et al., Defendants.

886 F.Supp.2d 235

CHEVRON CORPORATION, Plaintiff,

v.Steven DONZIGER, et al., Defendants.

No. 11 Civ. 0691 (LAK).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

July 31, 2012.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Randy M. Mastro, Andrea E. Neuman, Kristen L. Hendricks, Scott A. Edelman, William E. Thompson, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, for Plaintiff.

John W. Keker, Elliot R. Peters, Christopher J. Young, Jan Nielsen Little, Matthew M. Werdeger, Nikki H. Vo, Paula L. Blizzard, William S. Hicks, Keker & Van Nest, LLP, for Donziger Defendants.

Julio C. Gomez, Julio C. Gomez, Attorney at Law LLC, Tyler G. Doyle, Craig Smyser, Larry R. Veselka, Christina A. Bryan, Garlard D. Murphy, IV, Smyser Kaplan & Veselka, L.L.P., for Defendants Hugo Gerardo, Camacho Naranjo and Javier Piaguaje Payaguaje.

OPINION ON PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge.

+-----------------+
                ¦Table of Contents¦
                +-----------------¦
                ¦                 ¦
                +-----------------+
                
+----------------------------------+
                ¦Facts                         ¦241¦
                +------------------------------+---¦
                ¦                              ¦   ¦
                +----------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------+
                ¦I.¦Background                  ¦241¦
                +-----------------------------------+
                
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦A. ¦Texaco's Activities in Ecuador (1964–1992)          ¦241   ¦
                +----+---+----------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦B. ¦The Aguinda Litigation                              ¦241   ¦
                +----+---+----------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦C. ¦Important Developments During the Aguinda Litigation¦242   ¦
                +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+---------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦1.¦The Settlement and Final Release        ¦242  ¦
                +---+---+--+----------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦2.¦The Environmental Management Act of 1999¦242  ¦
                +---+---+--+----------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦3.¦Chevron Acquires Shares of Texaco       ¦243  ¦
                +---------------------------------------------------------+
                
+---------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦                                          ¦    ¦
                +---+------------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦II.¦The Lago Agrio Litigation                 ¦243 ¦
                +---------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦A.  ¦Filing the Lawsuit                                        ¦243    ¦
                +----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦B.  ¦Summary of the Lago Agrio Proceedings                     ¦244    ¦
                +----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦C.  ¦Summary of the Lago Agrio Judgment                        ¦245    ¦
                +----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦D.  ¦The Ecuadorian Appellate Court's Treatment of Chevron's   ¦246    ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦Fraud Claim                                               ¦       ¦
                +----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦E.  ¦Developments Since the Appellate Decision                 ¦248    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦                                                       ¦      ¦
                +----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦III.¦Prior Proceedings in this Litigation                   ¦248   ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+------------------------------------------+
                ¦  ¦A.¦The Pleadings                  ¦248 ¦
                +------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦1.¦The Amended Complaint               ¦248 ¦
                +---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦2.¦The Answers                         ¦249 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦B.¦Prior Proceedings in this Court    ¦250 ¦
                +---+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦C.¦Proceedings in the Court of Appeals¦251 ¦
                +---+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦D.¦The Present Motion                 ¦252 ¦
                +-----------------------------------------------+
                
+---------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦                                          ¦    ¦
                +---+------------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦IV.¦The Alleged Fraud in Ecuador              ¦252 ¦
                +---------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦A.  ¦The Alleged Ghost–Writing of Portions of the Court's      ¦253    ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦Judgment                                                  ¦       ¦
                +----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦B.  ¦Allegedly Fraudulent Evidence, the Termination of Judicial¦255    ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦Inspections, and the Appointment of Cabrera               ¦       ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦1. ¦Calmbacher Reports                                    ¦255    ¦
                +----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦2. ¦Ending of Judicial Inspections and Cabrera's          ¦256    ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Appointment                                           ¦       ¦
                +----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦3. ¦The Cabrera Report                                    ¦258    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a. ¦Defendants Secretly Were Involved in Defining the ¦258    ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦Scope of Cabrera's Report                         ¦       ¦
                +----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b. ¦The LAP Team Wrote Much of the Cabrera Report     ¦259    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦4.¦The “Cleansing” Reports             ¦260 ¦
                +---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦  ¦                                    ¦    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------+
                ¦Discussion                    ¦262¦
                +------------------------------+---¦
                ¦                              ¦   ¦
                +----------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------+
                ¦I.¦Summary Judgment Standard   ¦262¦
                +-----------------------------------+
                
+------------------------------------------+
                ¦  ¦A.¦General                        ¦262 ¦
                +--+--+-------------------------------+----¦
                ¦  ¦B.¦S.D.N.Y. Civil Rule 56.1       ¦263 ¦
                +--+--+-------------------------------+----¦
                ¦  ¦  ¦                               ¦    ¦
                +------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦II. ¦The Res Judicata–Collateral Estoppel Defense Is Properly Before¦264    ¦
                ¦    ¦the Court and Is Not Moot                                      ¦       ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦A.  ¦The Answers Are Sufficient to Assert the Judgment As Claim¦265    ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦or Issue Preclusive and Were Intended to Do So            ¦       ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦1. ¦The Answers Sufficiently Assert These Defenses Based  ¦265    ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦on the Judgment                                       ¦       ¦
                +----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦2. ¦The Defendants' Intentions                            ¦267    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a. ¦The SJ Defendants' Prior Communication With This  ¦267    ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦Court                                             ¦       ¦
                +----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b. ¦The Argument to the Second Circuit                ¦268    ¦
                +----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦c. ¦The Lack of Any Other Arguable Basis for the      ¦268    ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦Defenses                                          ¦       ¦
                +----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦d. ¦The Finality Argument                             ¦270    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦The Disclaimer of Intention to Seek Enforcement of the    ¦       ¦
                ¦    ¦B.  ¦Judgment in New York Neither Moots the Defenses Nor       ¦271    ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦Sufficed to Withdraw Them Without Prejudice               ¦       ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦1. ¦The Representation Would Be Ineffective Even on Its   ¦271    ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Own Terms                                             ¦       ¦
...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
28 cases
  • Chevron Corp. v. Donziger
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 4, 2014
  • United States v. Dicristina
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • August 21, 2012
    ... ... that skill of the contestants may also be a factor therein.”); In re Plato's Cave Corp. v. State Liquor Auth., 115 A.D.2d 426, 496 N.Y.S.2d 436, 438 (1st Dep't 1985), aff'd 68 N.Y.2d ... ...
  • Chevron Corp. v. Donziger
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 4, 2014
  • United States v. Dicristina
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • August 6, 2013
    ... ... See Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 724 F.2d 349, 350 (2d Cir.1983) (per curiam) (indicating statutory ... ...
    • Get Started for Free