Chevron Corp. v. Salazar
275 F.R.D. 422
| S.D.N.Y. | 2011Background
- Chevron seeks to compel depositions of Fajardo, Saenz, Prieto, and Yanza, Ecuadorian lawyers for LAPs, who reside in Ecuador.
- LAP Representatives appeared in Action No. 1; the 45 other LAPs, Fajardo, Yanza, the ADF, and others defaulted.
- Chevron filed Action No. 1 in 2011 seeking declaratory relief about the Ecuadorian Judgment’s non-recognizability and non-enforceability.
- Deposit notices were issued to the witnesses (not the witnesses themselves) for deposition in New York, served on counsel, with no subpoenas issued to the witnesses.
- Fajardo failed to appear for a June 3, 2011 deposition; other Ecuadorian witnesses were expected to follow.
- The court may not compel the LAP Representatives to produce these witnesses under a simple deposition notice when the witnesses are nonparties or not properly served; the issue involves whether the witnesses can be compelled as agents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 30(a) authorizes compelling depositions of nonparties. | Chevron argues LAPs' agents are within reach as their witnesses. | LAP Representatives are not subject to deposition by simple notices for these witnesses. | Denied; simple notices cannot compel nonparties to appear. |
| Whether an association can be deposed under Rule 30(a) as a 'person'. | Chevron contends the association of LAPs qualifies as a deployable entity under 30(a). | Not a party; even if an association can be deposed under 30(a) 30(a) notices cannot compel LAP Representatives to produce. | Denied; notices did not name the association; service on witnesses insufficient without subpoena. |
| Whether LAP Representatives can compel production of their agents (Fajardo, Saenz, Prieto, Yanza) for deposition. | Agents are within control of the LAPs and therefore subject to deposition. | Individual parties cannot be compelled to produce their agents under Rule 30; no authority supports compelling an individual to produce an agent. | Denied; Rule 30 does not authorize compelling an individual to produce his or her agent. |
| Whether the LAP Representatives can be deemed principals and their lawyers agents for purposes of compelling testimony. | Fajardo and Yanza hold powers of attorney; funding/retention agreements show agency; lawyers are agents of LAPs. | Even if agency exists, that does not justify compelling deposition under notices; lack of authority by rule. | Denied; agency alone does not permit compelment via deposition notices. |
Key Cases Cited
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (U.S. 1962) (attorney-client relationship; agency concepts relevant to deposition)
- Jenkins v. General Motors Corp., 164 F.R.D. 318 (N.D.N.Y.1996) (agency principles in deposition; organization as subject)
- Sugarhill Records Ltd. v. Motown Record Corp., 105 F.R.D. 166 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (deposition of organization; choice of officer or 30(b)(6))
- Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 768 F.Supp.2d 581, 768 F.Supp.2d 581 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (procedural rulings in Donziger I)