Chevron Corporation v. Aaron Page
768 F.3d 332
4th Cir.2014Background
- Chevron seeks discovery in U.S. courts to obtain evidence of alleged fraud in the Lago Agrio Ecuador judgment against Chevron.
- The Pages, Aaron and Daria Page, and two Ecuadorian Plaintiffs challenge subpoenas they say implicate privileged materials.
- District court in Maryland granted Chevron’s Rule 45 subpoena motion, finding waivers and other grounds justified production.
- Chevron later sought § 1782 discovery from the Pages for use in Hague arbitration and Ecuadorian appeals; the district court granted, finding waivers and crime-fraud/waiver grounds independent of privilege.
- The Pages, Naranjo, and Payaguaje appeal; Chevron cross-appeals on other rulings; the court must determine jurisdiction and merits of both tracks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 45 appeal is jurisdictionally available | Pages argue Perlman allows appeal by disinterested third party. | Chevron contends no jurisdiction under finality and Perlman limits; pages timely appealed. | Rule 45 appeal lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether Perlman applies to establish jurisdiction for Naranjo/Payaguaje | Perlman extends to disinterested third parties to permit immediate appeal. | Pages are not disinterested; Perlman does not apply here. | Perlman does not confer jurisdiction |
| Whether the Donziger Waiver comity doctrine supports applying waiver across forum | Waiver should be respected to avoid conflicting judgments and respect comity. | Chevron argues waiver should be confined; jurisdictional/factual issues unresolved. | Comity compels affirming waiver application to Pages’ documents |
| Whether the Donziger Waiver applies to documents created after October 20, 2010 | Waiver may extend; scope unclear without record evidence of post-2010 disclosures. | Waiver has no end-date; post-2010 materials may extend waiver; record insufficient. | Waiver applies to documents created on or before October 20, 2010 |
| Whether the § 1782 order is final and appealable | § 1782 orders aid foreign proceedings; appeal should be allowed as final. | § 1782 orders are interlocutory but many courts affirm them as final for appeal. | § 1782 order is a final, appealable decision; appeal lies |
Key Cases Cited
- Lago Agrio Plaintiffs v. Chevron Corp., 409 F. App’x 393 (2d Cir. 2010) (affirmed waiver and related discovery rulings)
- Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (U.S. 2009) (post-judgment privilege review limits interlocutory appeals)
- In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 341 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 2003) (disinterested status for Perlman-like appeals varies by context)
- Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1992) (Perlman-related considerations for immediate appeals)