325 F. Supp. 3d 371
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- This case arises from the district court’s finding that Steven Donziger and associates procured a multi‑billion dollar Ecuadorian judgment by fraud and engaged in extortionate racketeering and related misconduct; the court entered an injunction barring Donziger from profiting from or monetizing that judgment and the Second Circuit affirmed.
- The court later entered a supplemental money judgment against Donziger for taxable costs (~$811,602.71) which is currently enforceable (no stay).
- Chevron sought to enforce the costs judgment and moved for contempt and post‑judgment discovery alleging Donziger violated the injunction (notably by soliciting financing from Elliott Management in exchange for an interest in the Ecuadorian judgment).
- The court bifurcated post‑judgment discovery into (a) Money Judgment Discovery (locating assets/revenue to satisfy costs) and (b) Paragraph 5 Compliance Discovery (whether Donziger violated injunction provisions limiting monetization), permitting certain discovery and an evidentiary contempt hearing on the Elliott matter.
- Donziger moved for (1) declaratory relief and dismissal of the contempt application, (2) a protective order to shield identities of funders/supporters (invoking the First Amendment), and (3) an emergency administrative stay; the court denied all three motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Donziger) | Defendant's Argument (Chevron) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Donziger could obtain declaratory relief re: scope of 2014 injunction by motion and dismiss contempt under Rule 12(b)(6) | The 2014 injunction should be construed to permit certain fundraising and third‑party enforcement activity; court should declare scope and dismiss contempt allegation | Declaratory relief must be sought by complaint; Rule 12(b)(6) inapplicable to contempt motion; contempt hearing will resolve scope questions | Denied: declaratory relief procedurally improper and discretionary; Rule 12(b)(6) does not apply to contempt motion; evidentiary hearing appropriate |
| Whether contempt allegations re: solicitation from Elliott are legally insufficient | Donziger contends his conduct did not violate injunction as modified by earlier stay‑related remarks | Chevron says solicitation exchanged interest/proceeds for funding and thus violates injunction; discovery and hearing warranted | Court declined to dismiss and ordered limited discovery and an evidentiary hearing on Elliott matter |
| Whether Donziger may obtain a broad protective order shielding identities of funders/supporters on First Amendment grounds | Disclosure would chill association/speech and expose supporters to reprisals; First Amendment protects anonymity | Chevron needs discovery to enforce money judgment and to determine compliance with injunction; non‑parties can seek individualized protection | Denied: Donziger forfeited timely objection and lacks standing to assert rights of wide non‑party class; no good cause shown and First Amendment arguments fail on the merits |
| Whether to stay Sullivan order clause requiring discovery from non‑party pending protective order | Emergency stay requested to halt discovery about payments to Donziger | Chevron opposes stay; needs discovery for contempt hearing and enforcement | Mooted/denied after protective order denial; Sullivan order enforced for specified topics |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 974 F. Supp. 2d 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (trial court opinion finding fraud and entering injunction)
- Chevron v. Donziger, 833 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2016) (affirming district court judgment)
- NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) (First Amendment protection for associational anonymity balanced against government interest)
- State of New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 763 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1985) (post‑judgment discovery to aid enforcement of monetary judgments)
- Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrod's, Ltd., 346 F.3d 357 (2d Cir. 2003) (factors for exercising discretion to grant declaratory relief)