Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/44408870/11-29-10-SDNY-Memorandum-Order
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:58:45+00:00

Document:
U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan orders trial lawyer to turn over documents to Chevron, reubkes Government of Ecuador's attempt to intervene.
LEWIS A. KAPLAN , District Judge.
collusion among them and the government of Ecuador (“GOE”).
The Lago Agrio plaintiffs are forty-eight individuals.
settled environmental claims with its government.
will determine whether they must stand trial in Ecuador on allegedly tainted criminal charges.
Application of Chevron Corp., [DI 277] No. 10-1918 (2d Cir. filed July 15, 2010).
inquiry concerning possible cooperation in seeking stay of Ecuadorian proceedings).
Street Journal, Bloomberg News, Conde Nast, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times.
to any of the Lago Agrio plaintiffs – the clients whose privilege supposedly is being asserted.
intervene, claiming that it shares a common interest privilege with the Lago Agrio plaintiffs.
WL 4118093 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2010) (“Summary Order”).
with documentary film concerning litigation); In re Application of Chevron Corp., __ F.
(full opinion explaining decision to deny motions to quash Donziger subpoenas).
Summary Order, 2010 WL 4118093, at *4.
directed him both to testify and to produce all of the requested documents without delay.
subsequently purported to withdraw that motion although he still seeks the relief it requested.
the Lago Agrio plaintiffs, whose privileges and protection Donziger was claiming.
Donziger Mot. [DI 88], at 1.
disposed of. In re Chevron Corp., [DI 100] No. 10 MC 00002 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2010).
documents sought by the subpoenas.
district court for . . . a stay . . . pending appeal”).
Id. DI 17, at 9-10.
Lago Agrio Mem., Ex. A [DI 114], at 4.
the circumstances of that application intervention until later in this opinion.
GOE resist any such order. The starting point is to consider exactly where matters stand.
counsel as he implored the Second Circuit to stay the Summary Order, “[i]mmediately[,] . . .
clearly meant that Donziger was obliged to produce all requested documents.
vacated its stay on November 15, 2010.
of whether the documents are in fact privileged”26 because he now has submitted a privilege log.
Donziger Mem. [DI 112] at 1-2.
114], at 1 (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)).
2d Cir. DI 4, at 8.
Id. at 16-17 (emphasis added).
omitted) (emphasis added) (bracketed word added)).
Lago Agrio Mem., Ex. A [DI 114-1] at 3-4 (emphasis added).
the denial of the motion to quash necessarily would require determination of such privilege claims.
responsive, privileged documents.”) (footnote and citation omitted) (emphasis in original)).
of the Court's discretion.” Chevron II, 2010 WL 4449197, at *23.
to the Court of Appeals are inconsistent with their argument here.
have been ineffective for want of jurisdiction.
and produce documents that never came within any privilege.
In this context, it first is appropriate to determine what lies within the Court’s power.
orders.37 The Court therefore may require Donziger to turn over the documents.
to adjudicate the privilege claims on their merits is not difficult either.
850 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 829, 105 S.Ct. 113, 83 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984)), cert.
Lago Agrio Mem. [DI 114], at 1.
Griggs, 459 U.S. at 58.
101 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 1996).
Rodgers, 101 F.3d at 251.
disposed to do so. Two considerations militate against any such conclusion.
appeals.41 These are such appeals.
(1981); Nat’l Council of La Raza v. Dep’t of Justice, 345 F. Supp.2d 412, 413 (S.D.N.Y.
2004), aff’d, 411 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 2005).
See Leonhard, 633 F.2d at 611.
would be disserved by any contrary conclusion.
invitation to reconsider the waiver issue.
This reflects a 1997 modification to the local rules “to specifically require that the privilege list . .
F ED . R. C IV . P. 45(c)(2)(B), 45(c)(3)(A)(iii), 45(d)(2)(A).
S.D.N.Y. C IV . R. 26.2(c) (emphasis added).
45)). See also, e.g., See, e.g., Nextg Networks, of NY, Inc. v. City of New York, No. 03 Civ.
preparation of a privilege log to seek relief from the Court.
F.3d 79, 85 (2d Cir. 2000).
at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2006); Smith v. Franklin Hosp. Med. Ctr., No.
04-CV-3555(LDW)(ARL), 2005 WL 2219294, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2005); A.I.A.
at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2000).
See, e.g., Lopez v. City of New York, No. 05-CV-3624, 2007 WL 869590, at *3-4 (E.D.N.Y.
2005 WL 545218, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2005) (collecting cases).
free to take into account all relevant factors.
2 S ILBERBERG & S PIRO § 22:12, at 22-29.
FG Hemisphere Assocs., 2005 WL 545218, at *5 (emphasis in original).
Atta Buick/GMC Truck, Inc., 127 F.3d 248, 250 (2d Cir.1997).
then, however, no privilege log was forthcoming and no request for an extension was made.
other considerations also are pertinent.
DI 37, at 6-7. See also DI 38, at 47 n.23.
litigation of the issues here.
discretion to relieve them of that waiver.
interests could occur at any time.
adversaries was not simply a consequence of errors made and positions taken for benign reasons.
attempt to pull Donziger’s chestnuts out of the fire.
The Court does not so find as to Donziger’s counsel, who entered this matter only recently.
present arguments here reinforce that impression.
refuse that simple exchange speaks volumes.
most important documents responsive to the subpoenas.
Burlington Northern, 408 F.3d at 1150.
objective effects are sufficient for this purpose without regard to the intent.
court in order to assert a claim of privilege in some of the documents in Donziger’s possession.
interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.
a common question of law or fact.
adjudication of the original parties’ rights.
timeliness.’”66 On balance, these factors cut heavily against the Republic of Ecuador.
(intervention as of right); F ED . R. C IV . P.24(a) (same), 24(b)(3) (permissive intervention).
Id. at 390 (quoting United States v. New York, 820 F.2d 554, 557 (2d Cir.1987)).
Docket items 11 and 12, In re Application of Veiga, Nos. 10-370 (CKK), 10-371 (CKK) (D.
D.C. filed June 8, 2010).
materials in a circumstance in which time is of the essence.
alleviate time pressures on its adversaries that it might well be able to alleviate.
The proposed intervention is untimely.
more -- from the log -- and I have not gone through and examined everything in -- in the log.
are correspondence between Donziger and Winston & Strawn).
(3) The motion of The Republic of Ecuador to intervene is denied.
in effect unless and until this or a higher court otherwise orders.
The foregoing constitute the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 22
 v.