Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02506/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02506-88/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY BOWOTO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 99-02506 SI

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY REQUEST

Defendants have filed a motion to reopen discovery in order to access “facts recently gathered”

by plaintiffs. The motion is scheduled for hearing on May 16, 2008. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-

1(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and hereby

VACATES the hearing. Having considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, and

for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART defendants’ motion to reopen discovery.

DISCUSSION

In February and March of this year, plaintiffs’ attorneys traveled to Nigeria to gather information

related to the claims of the Opia/Ikenyan plaintiffs. Shortly after their return, the Opia/Ikenyan plaintiffs

voluntarily dismissed their claims, leaving only the claims of the Parabe plaintiffs at issue in this

litigation. Defendants now ask that discovery be reopened so that defendants can have access to facts

regarding the Opia/Ikenyan plaintiffs discovered on the recent trip to Nigeria. Although the claims of

these plaintiffs will not be raised at trial, plaintiffs have stated that they may put forth evidence

regarding the attacks at Opia and Ikenyan as part of the case of the Parabe plaintiffs.

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 1795 Filed 05/15/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

As plaintiffs point out, discovery in this case closed in 2005. The Court may, however, modify

the schedule where good cause is shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Here, defendants have shown good

cause to reopen discovery into the events at Opia and Ikenyan. See generally U.S. ex rel. Schumer v.

Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512, 1526 (9th Cir. 1995), vacated on other grounds, 520 U.S. 939

(1997). Defendants have been diligent in seeking this discovery because plaintiffs have only recently

discovered this information themselves. If plaintiffs decide to put on evidence regarding the village

attacks, evidence in plaintiffs’ possession regarding those attacks is relevant, and defendants are entitled

to discovery of it. The Court does not see how plaintiffs would be prejudiced by defendants’ request,

and plaintiffs have not put forth any evidence of prejudice. Therefore, the Court will reopen discovery

to permit defendants to seek recent information learned by plaintiffs regarding the Opia and Ikenyan

attacks. The Court also finds that plaintiffs must supplement their prior discovery responses if they

determine that those responses are incomplete or incorrect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A). However, the

Court will neither reopen discovery nor require privilege logs related to earlier communications

regarding the Opia and Ikenyan claims (“communications from Nigeria that led to the filing of these

claims”) because the newly-gathered information will be sufficient and defendants have not shown that

good cause exists with regard to those communications.

Plaintiffs contend that the information they learned on their 2008 trip to Nigeria is not

discoverable because they learned of the information through attorney-client communications. The

Court does not reach any question of privilege at this juncture. Instead, plaintiffs shall disclose any facts

or documents they have in their possession from the 2008 trip; if plaintiffs believe any such information

is protected by privilege, they may submit a privilege log to defendants. Plaintiffs also contend that the

Court should not decide whether defendants are entitled to reopen discovery until after the Court rules

on defendants’ motion in limine regarding evidence of the attacks on the Opia and Ikenyan villages.

The Court disagrees, because any evidence defendants discover now may inform their motion in limine,

which has not yet been filed. In addition, plaintiffs argue that the motion is premature because plaintiffs

have not yet decided whether to present evidence of the Opia and Ikenyan incidents. However, until

plaintiffs announce that they do not plan to put forth that evidence, it remains relevant and discoverable.

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 1795 Filed 05/15/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

defendants’ motion to reopen discovery [Docket No. 1773]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 1795 Filed 05/15/08 Page 3 of 3