United Statesn v. Donziger
| Decision Date | 26 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | 11-CV-691 (LAK),19-CR-561 (LAP) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. STEVEN DONZIGER, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Rita Marie Glavin, Sareen Karla Armani Glavin PLLC Brian Paul Maloney, Seward & Kissel LLP, Attorneys for United States of America.
Ronald Laurence Kuby Rhidaya Shodhan Trivedi, Law Office of Ronald L. Kuby, Martin Garbus, Offit Kurman PA, Steven Donziger Attorneys for Defendant Steven Donziger.
Reed Michael Brodsky Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Attorneys for Non-Parties Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Anne M Champion, Randy M. Mastro, Andrea E. Neuman, & William E Thomson.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Introduction 1
II. Findings of Fact 4
1. The RICO Judgment, the Retainer Agreements, & the Amazonia Shares ........................................... 17
2. Mr. Donziger's Stay Request, Judge Kaplan's April 25, 2014 Stay Order, & the Appeal of the RICO Judgment ........ 23
3. The Supplemental Money Judgment ....................... 29
4. Chevron's March 19, 2018 Contempt Application ......... 32
5. The May 8, 2018 Hearing ............................... 34
6. The Amazonia Shares & the 2011 Retainer ............... 37
7. The 2017 Retainer ..................................... 44
8. The Agreement with David Zelman ....................... 51
1. Chevron Seeks Post-Judgment Discovery ................. 60
2. Chevron Moves to Compel & Judge Kaplan's May 17, 2018 Order ..................................................... 66
3. Mr. Donziger's May 31, 2018 Motion & Judge Kaplan's June 1, 2018 Order ............................................. 70
4. Mr. Donziger's June 15, 2018 Motion & Judge Kaplan's June 25, 2018 Order ............................................ 72
5. Judge Kaplan's July 23, 2018 Order, Mr. Donziger's August 13, 2018 Stay Motion, & Judge Kaplan's September 25, 2018 Order ..................................................... 79
6. Judge Kaplan's October 18, 2018 Order & Mr. Donziger's Refusals to Comply ........................................ 86
7. The Protocol .......................................... 95
8. Contempt Findings & Coercive Fines ................... 104
9. The Passport Order & Mr. Donziger's Emergency Motion for a Stay ................................................... 111
III. Conclusions of Law & Additional Findings .............. 120
1. Disinterested Special Prosecutors .................... 123
2. Home Confinement ..................................... 130
3. The Appointments Clause .............................. 131
4. Various Discovery Requests ........................... 149
5. Judge Kaplan's Alleged Animosity ..................... 153
6. The “Uniqueness” of This Case ........................ 155
7. The Court's Recusal .................................. 156
8. Conclusion ........................................... 158
1. Legal Standards ...................................... 159
2. Discussion ........................................... 162
A. Application of the Collateral Bar Rule ............. 164
B. The Protocol & the Passport Order .................. 170
3. Conclusion ........................................... 180
1. Legal Standards ...................................... 181
2. Issuance of Orders ................................... 184
A. Counts IV & V ...................................... 185
B. Count VI ........................................... 189
C. Count I ............................................ 193
D. Count II ........................................... 196
E. Count III .......................................... 197
3. Disobedience ......................................... 198
A. Count IV ........................................... 198
B. Count V ............................................ 200
C. Count VI ........................................... 203
D. Count I ............................................ 211
E. Count II ........................................... 213
F. Count III .......................................... 215
4. Willfulness .......................................... 218
A. Counts IV & V ...................................... 219
B. Count VI ........................................... 225
C. Counts I & II ...................................... 230
D. Count III .......................................... 237
5. Young & the Court's Discretion ....................... 238
IV. Conclusion 240
I. Introduction
The events giving rise to this criminal contempt case mark the latest chapter in a sprawling legal saga--spanning multiple continents and over twenty-five years of fierce litigation--between Defendant Steven Donziger and Chevron Corporation (“Chevron”) regarding oil pollution in the Orienté region of the Ecuadorian Amazon.[1] This case, however, is wholly unconcerned with the debate regarding any responsibility Chevron might bear for that pollution.[2] Yet, this case is no less important to a society, like ours, that holds the rule of law among its cardinal virtues.[3] Indeed, at stake here is the fundamental principle that a party to a legal action must abide by court orders or risk criminal sanctions, no matter how fervently he believes in the righteousness of his cause or how much he detests his adversary.[4]
By order to show cause dated July 30, 2019 (the “Order to Show Cause”), Judge Lewis A. Kaplan charged Mr. Donziger with six counts of criminal contempt arising from Mr. Donziger's refusal to comply with multiple court orders in Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, No. 11-CV-691 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y).[5] Contempt proceedings involving attorneys invariably are difficult, and “[t]his case is no exception.”[6] Following a five-day bench trial--and upon careful consideration of the trial record and arguments made in the post-trial briefing[7]--the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.[8]
II. Findings of Fact
Although the facts surrounding the decades of underlying civil litigation between Mr. Donziger and Chevron have little (if any) significance to the legal questions before the Court in this case, the Court will nevertheless provide some high-level context to set the stage. Mr. Donziger was one of the lead plaintiffs' lawyers in a lawsuit originally filed in this District but tried in the Republic of Ecuador (“the Lago Agrio Case”) alleging that Chevron's predecessor-in-interest, Texaco, Inc., had massively polluted the Amazonian rainforest through its oil operations.[9] In 2011, after years of litigation, Mr. Donziger won an $8.6 billion judgment (the “Ecuadorian Judgment”) against Chevron on behalf of his Amazonian clients.[10]That success, however, was relatively short-lived.
In 2011, Chevron sued Mr. Donziger and others in the Southern District of New York, claiming that they had procured the Ecuadorian Judgment by fraud.[11] In 2014, after a lengthy bench trial, Judge Kaplan ruled in Chevron's favor.[12] In doing so, Judge Kaplan found that Mr. Donziger and his team had engaged in a veritable smorgasbord of corrupt and fraudulent acts in the Ecuadorian case, including, inter alia, submitting false evidence, paying a consulting firm to “ghostwrite” a purportedly independent expert's report, and bribing the judge to rule in their clients' favor.[13] Judge Kaplan's comprehensive 485-page opinion was affirmed in full by the Court of Appeals.[14]Mr. Donziger has since been disbarred in New York State as a result of his misconduct in the Ecuadorian proceedings.[15]
In this case, Mr. Donziger faces six counts of criminal contempt for disobeying multiple orders issued by Judge Kaplan.[16]The criminal charges are premised on three of Judge Kaplan's orders: (1) the March 4, 2014 judgment entered in Chevron's favor (the “RICO Judgment”);[17] (2) the March 5, 2019 Forensic Inspection Protocol (the “Protocol”);[18] and (3) the June 11, 2019 order related to Mr. Donziger's passport(s) (the “Passport Order”).[19]
Also relevant to the charges are two agreements Mr. Donziger entered into related to his representation of the plaintiffs in the Lago Agrio case: (1) a January 5, 2011 retainer agreement (the “2011 Retainer”);[20] and (2) a November 1, 2017 retainer agreement (the “2017 Retainer”).[21] The 2011 Retainer was among four parties: (1) the individual plaintiffs in the matter Maria Aguinda y Otros v. Chevron Corporation (the “LAPs”), (2) El Frente de Defensa de la Amazonia (“ADF”), (3) Asamblea de Adectados por Texaco (“ADAPT”) and (4) Donziger & Associates, PLLC.[22] The 2017 Retainer was between Mr. Donziger personally (i.e., not his law firm) and ADF.[23]
The Order to Show Cause charges Mr. Donziger as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial