DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Court of Appeals for the SECOND CIRCUIT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States Court of Appeals for the SECOND CIRCUIT Case: 10-4341 Document: 154 Page: 1 11/22/2010 151840 134 10-4341-cv(L), 10-4405-cv(CON) IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT INdRE: CHEVRON CORPORATION LAGO AGRIO PLAINTIFFS and STEVEN R. DONZIGER, Respondents-Appellants, —against— CHEVRON CORPORATION, RICARDO REIS VEIGA, RODRIGO PEREZ PALLARES, Petitioners-Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BRIEF AND SPECIAL APPENDIX FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT LAGO AGRIO PLAINTIFFS ILANN M. MAAZEL JONATHAN S. ABADY O. ANDREW WILSON ADAM R. PULVER EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP 75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor New York, New York 10019 (212) 763-5000 Attorneys for the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs Case: 10-4341 Document: 154 Page: 2 11/22/2010 151840 134 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ...............................................................................1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT..........................................................................2 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES...............................................................................3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................................................................................3 A. Chevron’s Destruction of the Amazonian Rainforest.....................................3 (i) Chevron’s Audits and Internal Memos Reveal Massive Contamination4 (ii) The Outtakes Reveal Massive Contamination ........................................5 (iii) Chevron’s Recent Deposition of Bill Powers Reveals Massive Contamination .........................................................................................6 B. Plaintiffs Sue Chevron in New York ..............................................................9 C. The Release, the Sham Remediation, and the Criminal Prosecution .............10 D. Chevron’s Scorched Earth Policy in Lago Agrio: “We can’t let little countries screw around with big companies like this” ...................................11 E. Chevron’s Many Ex Parte Contacts with the Lago Court..............................13 F. Chevron’s Word-for-Word Contributions to the Report of a Neutral, Independent Court Expert...............................................................................14 G. Chevron’s Repeated, but Failed, Attempts to Undermine the Rule of Law in Ecuador .......................................................................................................15 (i) Chevron’s “Dirty Tricks”........................................................................15 (ii) Chevron’s Efforts to Pressure the President to Pressure the Lago Court to Rule in Chevron’s Favor .....................................................................16 (iii) Chevron’s Effort to Pressure Ecuador with Trade Sanctions .................17 (iv) Chevron’s Effort to Have Three Arbitrators Order the ROE to Order the Lago Judge to Rule in Chevron’s Favor............................................17 i Case: 10-4341 Document: 154 Page: 3 11/22/2010 151840 134 H. Chevron’s War of Attrition: “Until Hell Freezes Over”.................................18 I. This Section 1782 Application........................................................................20 J. The Massively Overbroad Subpoenas ............................................................22 K. Procedural History ..........................................................................................24 (i) The District Court Grants Petitions Demanding 600 Hours of Outtakes From the Documentary Crude.................................................................24 (ii) The District Court Rules for Chevron, Ex Parte.....................................25 (iii) The District Court Sua Sponte Questions Plaintiffs’ Standing, Notwithstanding Plain Second Circuit Precedent to the Contrary..........25 (iv) The District Court Grants Chevron’s Massive, Untimely Motion to Supplement, then Fails to Rule on Plaintiffs’ Modest Motion to Correct a False Translation by Chevron in the Petition..........................26 (v) At Oral Argument, the District Court Gives Its Unsupported View of the Merits of the Underlying Lago Litigation.........................................27 (vi) The District Court Denies the Motions to Quash in Their Entirety........28 (vii) The District Court Tells Donziger to Pay For His Lawyers, For Subpoena Review, and Even (in part) For a Cleary Gottlieb Partner to Serve as Special Master...........................................................................29 (viii) After the Appeal, the District Court Issues a Second Opinion Explaining the First .................................................................................29 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................................35 ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................36 THE GRANTING OF THE CHEVRON PARTIES’ SECTION 1782 APPLICATION SHOULD BE REVERSED ..........................................................36 I. Standard of Review........................................................................................36 II. Legal Framework...........................................................................................36 III. The Intel Factors Weigh Heavily Against the Chevron Parties ....................37 ii Case: 10-4341 Document: 154 Page: 4 11/22/2010 151840 134 A. The Proposed Discovery Is Highly Intrusive and Burdensome .....................37 B. The Nature of the Foreign Tribunal, the Character of the Proceedings Underway Abroad, and the Receptivity of the Foreign Court Weigh Heavily Against the Petition...........................................................................41 C. The Section 1782 Request Conceals an Attempt to Circumvent Foreign Proof-Gathering Restrictions and Other Policies of the United States...........44 IV. Chevron Cannot Use the BIT Proceeding to Support This Petition..............48 A. A BIT Arbitration Is Not a “Foreign Tribunal”..............................................48 B. The Donziger Subpoenas “In Aid of” the BIT Arbitration Conceal an Attempt to Undermine Foreign Proof Gathering............................................52 C. The Donziger Subpoenas Are Premature: the Arbitration Panel Has Not Yet Determined Its Jurisdiction and Is Subject to a Stay Application ...........55 V. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i) Prohibits Applicants From Taking Mr. Donziger’s Deposition...................................................................................56 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................59 iii Case: 10-4341 Document: 154 Page: 5 11/22/2010 151840 134 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Application of Sarrio, S.A., 119 F.3d 143, 148 (2d Cir. 1997) ......................................................26 Aventis Pharma v. Wyeth, 2009 WL 3754191 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2009)...............................................................43, 46, 55 Bayer AG v. Betachem, Inc., 173 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 1999)...............................................................................................39, 58 Chevron Corporation v. Mark Quarles, No. 3:10-cv-00686, Dkt. 108 ...................................................................................................20 Edelman v. Tattinger, 295 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2001).....................................................................................................40 EI Paso Corp. v. La Comision Ejecutiva, Hidroelectrica Del Rio Lempa, No. 08-20771, 2009 WL 2407189 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2009) .....................................................49 In La Comision Ejecutiva, Hidroelectrica Del Rio Lempa v. EI Paso Corp., 617 F. Supp. 2d 481,487 (S.D. Tex. 2008) ..............................................................................52 In re Apotex, Inc., 2009 WL 618243 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009) .................................................................37, 38, 41 In re Application of Babcock Borsig AG, 583 F. Supp. 2d 233 (D. Mass. 2008) ......................................................................................44 In Re Application of Blue Oil Trading Ltd., No. 3:09-MC-152, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97224 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 5, 2009)..........................39 In re Application of Caratube Int’l Oil Co., LLP, No. 10-0285, 2010 WL 3155822 (D.D.C. Aug. 11, 2010) ................................................50, 51 In re Application of Microsoft Corp., No. 06-10061-MLW, 2006 WL 1344091 (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2006).......................................42 In Re Application of OOO Promnefstroy, 2009 WL 3335608 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2009)..........................................................................45 In re Microsoft Corp., 428 F. Supp. 2d 188 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).............................................................................. passim iv Case: 10-4341 Document: 154 Page: 6 11/22/2010 151840 134 In re Minatec Finance S.A.R.L., No. 1:08-CV-269, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63802 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2008) ........................44 In re Opera-dora DB Mexico, S .A. DEC, No. 6:09-CV 383-ORL-22GJK, 2009 WL 2423138 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2009) ......................52 In re Subpoena Issued to Dennis Friedman, 350 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2003)............................................................................................... passim Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004)......................................................................................................... passim
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Response to Doug Cassel's Apology for Chevron's Human Rights Violations in Ecuador*
    Response to Doug Cassel's Apology for Chevron's Human Rights Violations In Ecuador* Notre Dame law professor Doug Cassel has sold his credibility as a human rights advocate to Chevron, a company that in Ecuador and elsewhere has proven itself to have committed significant human rights abuses against vulnerable peoples.1 In an argument based heavily on Chevron’s own misrepresentations, Cassel asserts in an “Open Letter” to the human rights community that a court finding in Ecuador that Chevron's toxic dumping decimated indigenous groups and wrecked the delicate Amazon ecosystem is illegitimate. We believe that Cassel's facts are inaccurate or stripped from context, his scholarship is rife with shortcomings, and his conclusions are deeply flawed. What is indisputable is that Cassel remained silent for the entire 18 years of this landmark battle for human rights justice until Chevron recently retained him.2 This is a sad spectacle indeed for a man who has dedicated much of his career to the field of human rights law. Cassel cites supposed "defects" in the Ecuador trial process—defects which take place regularly in trials the world over—to condemn not only the entire eight-year proceeding that resulted in the judgment against Chevron, but also the entire judicial system of a U.S. ally with an independent judiciary where Chevron itself has won multiple cases in recent years.3 Cassel also engages in false and defamatory * This document was prepared by members of the legal team that represents the Lago Agrio plaintiffs. Chevron operated under the “Texaco” brand in Ecuador from 1964-1992.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Southern District of New York
    Case 1:19-cr-00561-LAP Document 328 Filed 06/09/21 Page 1 of 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, 11 Cr. 0691 (LAP) v. STEVEN DONZIGER, Defendant. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND OFFER OF PROOF Martin Garbus, Esq. OFFIT | KURMAN 590 Madison Ave., 6th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel. 347.589.8513 Fax. 212.545.1656 [email protected] Counsel for defendant Case 1:19-cr-00561-LAP Document 328 Filed 06/09/21 Page 2 of 26 INTRODUCTION This case is extraordinary. For the first time in the history of the United States, a private law firm with substantial ties to the oil and gas industry has been granted the powers of the United States to prosecute an adverse party and human rights attorney. To make matters worse, Mr. Donziger has been denied a jury of his peers and the presiding judge (the Hon. Loretta Preska) was handpicked by the aggrieved party (the Hon. Lewis Kaplan) to preside over the case.1 Even more disturbing is that this appears to be the nation's first corporate prosecution given that the oil company (Chevron) against whom Mr. Donziger won a large pollution judgement in Ecuador is a client of the very law firm (Seward & Kissel) now prosecuting him after the charges were declined by the U.S. attorney. In short, this case has all the trappings of a deeply troubled and conflicted prosecution run by an oil company. As a threshold issue, this case has been riddled with such structural decay as to warrant immediate dismissal on all charges.
    [Show full text]
  • Donziger's Counterclaims
    Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK Document 567-1 Filed 08/15/12 Page 94 of 152 COUNTERCLAIMS Defendants and Counter-Claimants Steven Donziger, The Law Offices of Steven R. Donziger, and Donziger & Associates, PLLC (collectively, “Donziger”) for their Counterclaims against Plaintiff and Counter-Claim Defendant Chevron Corporation (“Chevron”) allege as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. By no later than 2009, Chevron recognized that it was on the verge of losing one of the largest oil-related contamination lawsuits ever to go to trial, Maria Aguinda y Otros v. Chevron Corporation (the “Lago Agrio Litigation”), which had been wending its way through the United States and then the Ecuadorian court systems for 16 years. Chevron’s own documents, internal environmental audits, and expert analyses confirmed the toxic legacy its predecessor, Texaco, Inc. (“Texaco”), intentionally and knowingly had left behind in the Oriente region of Ecuador. And Chevron was running out of maneuvers to dodge entirely or delay a final adjudication of the claims against it on the merits. 2. Texaco—and, later, a merged entity referring to itself as “ChevronTexaco” — repeatedly had demanded that the trial not be heard in United States federal court in New York, the plaintiffs’ preferred forum, but rather in Ecuador, a forum which Chevron successfully argued to the Southern District of New York and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was “fair” and “totally adequate” and capable of handling a complex lawsuit against a foreign corporation such as Chevron. In so doing, Chevron did not believe that the 30,000 indigenous peoples and others impacted by Texaco’s misconduct (the “Afectados”)—who grew up drinking from the streams into which the company has admitted dumping billions of gallons of toxic “production water” during its 25 years of profitable operations in the region—would re- 92 685851 Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK Document 567-1 Filed 08/15/12 Page 95 of 152 file their environmental claims in Ecuador, or that Chevron would fail in its efforts to derail any Ecuadorian lawsuit.
    [Show full text]
  • Will What Happened in Ecuador Stay in Ecuador?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Richmond Richmond Journal of Global Law & Business Volume 13 | Issue 3 Article 4 2014 Will What Happened in Ecuador Stay in Ecuador? How the Existing International Due Process Analysis May Be Ineffective in Keeping Fraudulent Foreign Judgments Out of U.S. Courts Christopher Lento Louisiana State University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/global Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Christopher Lento, Will What Happened in Ecuador Stay in Ecuador? How the Existing International Due Process Analysis May Be Ineffective in Keeping Fraudulent Foreign Judgments Out of U.S. Courts, 13 Rich. J. Global L. & Bus. 493 (2014). Available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/global/vol13/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Richmond Journal of Global Law & Business by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 35295-rgl_13-3 Sheet No. 32 Side A 09/09/2014 14:33:00 \\jciprod01\productn\R\RGL\13-3\RGL303.txt unknown Seq: 1 9-SEP-14 8:51 WILL WHAT HAPPENED IN ECUADOR STAY IN ECUADOR? HOW THE EXISTING INTERNATIONAL DUE PROCESS ANALYSIS MAY BE INEFFECTIVE IN KEEPING FRAUDULENT FOREIGN JUDGMENTS OUT OF U.S. COURTS* By: Christopher Lento** ABSTRACT: Recent evidence in the decades-old Chevron/Ec- uador litigation suggests that the $18 billion judgment rendered against Chevron by an Ecuadorian court may have been a product of conspiracy and fraud on an al- most unprecedented scale.
    [Show full text]
  • Nadler Letter .Sept10
    STEVEN R. DONZIGER 245 WEST 104TH STREET, SUITE 7D NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10025 (917) 566-2526 September 10, 2020 The Honorable Jerold Nadler 2132 Rayburn House Office Building The United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Re: Chevron’s Attacks On Environmental Lawyer Steven Donziger Dear Chairman Nadler: I write to ask you to consider initiating an investigation of the oil giant Chevron’s disgraceful misuse of the federal judiciary to violate the fundamental rights of me and my family and to deny 30,000 Ecuadorians—many of them Indigenous peoples—a $9.5 billion judgment as compensation for more than 30 years of appalling environmental crimes. I’ve attached the names of 24,000 people who signed an online letter asking you and Congress to take this action. This case has been covered extensively by the mainstream press and generated attention from hundreds of human-rights lawyers, dozens of Nobel Laureates, the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights, and two retired U.S. federal judges, but none of this has changed Chevron’s actions. I believe you are the only person in America who can shift Chevron’s behavior, as a result of the immense power you wield as Chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. First, as regards my personal situation, I am a graduate of Harvard Law School and one of your constituents as a resident in Manhattan for the last 25 years. As a lead lawyer on this successful and historic case, I have for the last 13 months been detained without trial in my Manhattan apartment where I live with my wife and young son.
    [Show full text]
  • Chevron V. Donziger RICO Opinion
    Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF Document 1874 Filed 03/04/14 Page 1 of 497 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x CHEVRON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, -against- 11 Civ. 0691 (LAK) STEVEN DONZIGER, et al., Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x OPINION Appearances: Randy M. Mastro Richard H. Friedman Andrea E. Neuman FRIEDMAN | RUBIN Reed M. Brodsky William E. Thompson Zoe Littlepage Anne Champion Rainey C. Booth GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP LITTLEPAGE BOOTH Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven Donziger G. Robert Blakey William J. and Dorothy K. O’Neill Attorneys for Defendant Steven Donziger and Professor Emeritus Steven R. Donziger & Associates LLP Notre Dame Law School Amicus Curiae Julio C. Gomez JULIO C. GOMEZ, ATTORNEY AT LAW LLC Attorney for Defendants Hugo Gerardo Camacho Naranjo and Javier Piaguaje Payaguaje Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF Document 1874 Filed 03/04/14 Page 2 of 497 Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF Document 1874 Filed 03/04/14 Page 3 of 497 Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................1 Facts........................................................................5 I. The Background ...................................................5 A. Texaco’s Operations in Ecuador ................................5 B. Aguinda ...................................................7 1. The Principal Plaintiffs’ Lawyers in Aguinda ...............8
    [Show full text]
  • Chevron's Abusive Litigation in Ecuador
    Rainforest Chernobyl Revisited† The Clash of Human Rights and BIT Investor Claims: Chevron’s Abusive Litigation in Ecuador’s Amazon by Steven Donziger,* Laura Garr & Aaron Marr Page** a marathon environmental litigation: Seventeen yearS anD Counting he last time the environmental lawsuit Aguinda v. ChevronTexaco was discussed in these pages, the defen- Tdant Chevron Corporation1 had just won a forum non conveniens dismissal of the case from a U.S. federal court to Ecuador after nine years of litigation. Filed in 1993, the lawsuit alleged that Chevron’s predecessor company, Texaco, while it exclusively operated several oil fields in Ecuador’s Amazon from 1964 to 1990, deliberately dumped billions of gallons of toxic waste into the rainforest to cut costs and abandoned more than 900 large unlined waste pits that leach toxins into soils and groundwater. The suit contended that the contamination poisoned an area the size of Rhode Island, created a cancer epi- demic, and decimated indigenous groups. During the U.S. stage of the litigation, Chevron submitted fourteen sworn affidavits attesting to the fairness and adequacy of Ecuador’s courts. The company also drafted a letter that was By Lou Dematteis/Redux. Steven Donziger, attorney for the affected communities, speaks with signed by Ecuador’s then ambassador to the United States, a Huaorani women outside the Superior Court at the start of the Chevron former Chevron lawyer, asking the U.S. court to send the case trial on October 21, 2003 in Lago Agrio in the Ecuadoran Amazon. to Ecuador.2 Representative of Chevron’s position was the sworn statement from Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • 14-0826(L) Chevron Corp. V. Donziger UNITED STATES COURT OF
    Case 14-832, Document 319-1, 08/08/2016, 1834987, Page1 of 127 14-0826(L) Chevron Corp. v. Donziger 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 - - - - - - 4 August Term, 2014 5 (Argued: April 20, 2015 Decided: August 8, 2016) 6 Final briefs submitted June 1, 2015 7 Docket Nos. 14-0826(L), 14-0832(C) 8 _____________________________________________________________ 9 CHEVRON CORPORATION, 10 Plaintiff-Appellee, 11 - v. - 12 STEVEN DONZIGER, THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN R. DONZIGER, DONZIGER 13 & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, HUGO GERARDO CAMACHO NARANJO, JAVIER 14 PIAGUAJE PAYAGUAJE, 15 Defendants-Appellants, 16 STRATUS CONSULTING, INC., DOUGLAS BELTMAN, ANN MAEST, 17 Defendants-Counter-Claimants, 18 Pablo Fajardo Mendoza, Luis Yanza, Frente De Defensa De La Amazonia aka Amazon 19 Defense Front, Selva Viva Selviva CIA, LTDA, Maria Aguinda Salazar, Carlos Grefa 20 Huatatoca, Catalina Antonia Aguinda Salazar, Lidia Alexandra Aguinda Aguinda, Patricio 21 Alberto Chimbo Yumbo, Clide Ramiro Aguinda Aguinda, Luis Armando Chimbo Yumbo, 22 Beatriz Mercedes Grefa Tanguila, Lucio Enrique Grefa Tanguila, Patricio Wilson Aguinda 23 Aguinda, Celia Irene Viveros Cusangua, Francisco Matias Alvarado Yumbo, Francisco 24 Alvarado Yumbo, Olga Gloria Grefa Cerda, Lorenzo José Alvarado Yumbo, Narcisa Aida 25 Tanguila Narváez, Bertha Antonia Yumbo Tanguila, Gloria Lucrecia Tanguila Grefa, 26 Francisco Victor Tanguila Grefa, Rosa Teresa Chimbo Tanguila, José Gabriel Revelo 27 Llore, María Clelia Reascos Revelo, María Magdalena Rodríguez Barcenes, José Miguel
    [Show full text]
  • Donziger Brief
    Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF Document 1850 Filed 12/23/13 Page 1 of 81 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHEVRON CORPORATION, Case No. 11-CV-0691 (LAK) Plaintiffs, v. STEVEN DONZIGER, et al., Defendants. POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANTS STEVEN DONZIGER, THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN R. DONZIGER AND DONZIGER & ASSOCIATES, PLLC Richard H. Friedman Friedman | Rubin 1126 Highland Avenue Bremerton, WA 98337 Tel: (360) 782-4300 Fax: (360) 782-4358 Zoe Littlepage Littlepage Booth 2043A West Main Houston, TX 77098 Tel: (713) 529-8000 Fax: (713) 529-8044 Steven R. Donziger 245 W. 104th Street, #7D New York, NY 10025 Tel: (212) 570-4499 Fax: (212) 409-8628 December 23, 2013 Attorneys for Steven R. Donziger, Law Offices of Steven R. Donziger and Donziger & Associates, PLLC Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF Document 1850 Filed 12/23/13 Page 2 of 81 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities ........................................................................................................................ ii Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 Statement..........................................................................................................................................7 A. For eighteen years, Ecuadorian rainforest communities seek—and ultimately win—a judgment holding Chevron responsible for dumping billions of gallons of toxic waste into the Amazon ...............................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Claimants' Memorial on the Merits
    IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE RULES OF THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW ________________________________________________________________________ CHEVRON CORPORATION and TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY, CLAIMANTS, v. THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR, RESPONDENT. ________________________________________________________________________ CLAIMANTS’ MEMORIAL ON THE MERITS ________________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND........................................................................................... 12 A. TexPet’s Operations in Ecuador ........................................................................... 12 1. The TexPet-Petroecuador Consortium...................................................... 12 2. Ecuador’s Control over the Consortium ................................................... 15 3. The Consortium’s Operations................................................................... 17 4. TexPet’s Operations Complied with Then-Prevailing Industry Standards................................................................................................... 20 5. The Government Required TexPet to Build Public Infrastructure ........... 23 B. Post-Consortium Negotiations and Environmental Audits................................... 26 1. HBT AGRA’s Audit ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Open Letter Demanding an End to Unprecedented House Arrest Of
    OPEN LETTER DEMANDING AN END TO UNPRECEDENTED HOUSE ARREST OF HUMAN RIGHTS ATTORNEY STEVEN DONZIGER AND A CALL TO THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMUNITY TO #MAKECHEVRONCLEANUP “ALMOST TWENTY YEARS AGO, the United Nations General Assembly adopted by consensus the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. All governments made the strong commitment to prioritise the security and protection of Human Rights Defenders, recognizing the right of all individuals and organisations to peacefully defend human rights. Yet, the world seems less and less safe for those who stand up for human dignity.” – Michael Forst, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders1 As members of the international legal community, including human rights, environmental rights, and indigenous peoples’ rights organizations, we must protect human rights defenders. We are outraged by the attack on the rule of law evidenced in the arbitrary detention of human rights attorney, Steven Donziger. Thanks to corporate-friendly federal Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who openly stated his pro-corporate bias in a case involving a multinational corporation,2 a dangerous precedent is being set chilling legal representation. In the “Land of the Free,” Donziger has now spent more than 9 months under unprecedented house arrest in retaliation for his work on behalf of indigenous people of the Ecuadorian Amazon against oil giant, Chevron, in one of the most important corporate accountability and human rights cases of our time. In 1993, U.S. human rights attorney, Steven Donziger, became part of the legal team for 30,000 indigenous peoples and affected campesinos in the Ecuadorian Amazon seeking justice from the environmental damage and ongoing health crisis caused by oil company Texaco, for deliberately polluting the Amazon Rainforest.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Letter to the New York Court of Appeals October 21, 2020 Chief
    Open Letter to the New York Court of Appeals October 21, 2020 Chief Judge Janet DiFiore Judge Jenny Rivera Judge Leslie Stein Judge Eugene M. Fahey Judge Michael J. Garcia Judge Rowan D. Wilson Judge Paul Feinman New York Court of Appeals 20 Eagle St Albany, NY 12207 Re: Steven R. Donziger’s Motion for Permission to Appeal his Disbarment Dear Judges of the New York Court of Appeals, We, law students pursuing careers in the public interest, write to support Steven Donziger’s motion for permission to appeal his disbarment by the Appellate Division, First Department. In particular, we are disturbed that the First Department applied collateral estoppel to deprive Mr. Donziger of an opportunity to challenge the grounds for his disbarment. We urge the Court of Appeals to end this practice. Future public interest lawyers must be able to expect fair proceedings in front of the bar if they are forced to defend themselves against the retaliatory tactics that Mr. Donziger has faced. Between 1993 and 2011, the American attorney Steven Donziger represented indigenous Ecuadorians in a class action lawsuit.1 The Ecuadorians hoped to hold Chevron accountable for severely damaging their region of the Amazon. Mr. Donziger succeeded in obtaining a $9.5 billion judgement for his clients, which Ecuador’s highest court affirmed unanimously. However, shortly before the Ecuadorian trial court issued its judgment, Chevron commenced a civil RICO action against Mr. Donziger in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The oil giant accused Mr. Donziger of bribing an Ecuadorian judge to issue a ghost- written decision in favor of his clients.
    [Show full text]