Chevron Corp. v. Donziger

• Decision Date: 31 July 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11 Civ. 0691 (LAK).,11 Civ. 0691 (LAK).
• Parties: CHEVRON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Steven DONZIGER, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

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.

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                                             ¦       ¦

...