Lago Agrio v. Chevron Corp.
409 F. App'x 393
2d Cir.2010Background
- This appeal concerns district court orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 granting discovery for Donziger's deposition and document production in aid of foreign proceedings.
- Chevron Corporation and two of its attorneys sought U.S. discovery to defend themselves in Ecuadorian civil litigation and criminal proceedings; Lago Agrio Plaintiffs (LAP) challenged the subpoenas.
- The District Court denied LAP's motion to quash the subpoenas and ordered Donziger to disclose documents and attend deposition.
- The parties dispute whether the subpoenas should be quashed or whether any attorney‑client privilege should be waived, with the district court applying an abuse‑of‑discretion standard.
- The Second Circuit independently reviewed the record and affirmed the district court’s orders, remanding for further proceedings consistent with its order.
- The Special Master will determine the allocation of costs arising from the privilege proceedings under Rule 53(g)(3); interim costs shall be divided between Chevron and the Individual Petitioners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quashability and privilege waiver | LAP argues the subpoenas should be quashed and privilege properly upheld. | Chevron/Donziger contend the district court properly denied quash and governed privilege appropriately. | No abuse of discretion; subpoenas affirmed and privilege handling upheld. |
| Costs allocation for the Special Master | LAP contends costs should be allocated to petitioners for discovery against LAP. | Chevron/Donziger seek cost allocation in a manner consistent with the court’s guidance and timing. | Special Master to recommend cost allocation under Rule 53(g)(3); interim costs divided by formula chosen by the parties or directed by the district court. |
| Potential stay or broader stay considerations | LAP and others urge tighter control or stay to reassess privilege/relevance. | Petitioners acknowledge urgency but resist broad stays that delay discovery. | Court notes possible stay considerations but leaves discretion to the district court; no final stay ruling issued. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for district court deference in discovery rulings)
- In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 219 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2000) (waiver of attorney-client privilege standard)
- In re Austrian and German Holocaust Litig., 250 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2001) (limits of judicial intervention where executive/legislative areas implicated)
- Attorney Gen. of Can. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., 268 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2001) (separation of powers and privilege considerations in international matters)
- United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1994) (contextual authority cited for appellate handling of subpoena-related issues)