Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
TN Magistrate Judge Limits Discovery in Chevron-Ecuador Case

TN Magistrate Judge Limits Discovery in Chevron-Ecuador Case

Ratings: (0)|Views: 232|Likes:
Published by coldmtn
A Nashville Magistrate Judge overseeing one of Chevron’s numerous U.S. 1782 discovery proceedings related to the environmental lawsuit against Chevron in Ecuador issued a ruling yesterday that limits the oil giant’s aggressive attempts to pierce work-product protected documents from the plaintiffs' former scientific consultant expert. In the order, Judge Joe B. Brown wrote that the statutory relief sought is limited and Chevron cannot “use this court to try a dispute that is pending in a foreign proceeding.”
A Nashville Magistrate Judge overseeing one of Chevron’s numerous U.S. 1782 discovery proceedings related to the environmental lawsuit against Chevron in Ecuador issued a ruling yesterday that limits the oil giant’s aggressive attempts to pierce work-product protected documents from the plaintiffs' former scientific consultant expert. In the order, Judge Joe B. Brown wrote that the statutory relief sought is limited and Chevron cannot “use this court to try a dispute that is pending in a foreign proceeding.”

More info:

Published by: coldmtn on Sep 22, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/23/2010

pdf

text

original

 
1IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISIONIn re Application of )CHEVRON CORPORATION, a )Delaware corporation,))Case No. 3:10-cv-00686Applicant,)Judge Nixon/Brown)))MARK QUARLES, an individual,))Respondent.)O R D E R Presently pending before the Magistrate Judge are Chevron’s Motion to Compel andaccompanying memorandum (Docket Entries 96, 97) and Respondent Mark Quarles’s Motionfor a Telephonic Hearing. (Docket Entry 105). Respondent has filed a Response to Chevron’sMotion, and Chevron has in turn filed a Reply. (Docket Entries 104, 107). At the request of theMagistrate Judge, Respondent has submitted a privilege log and documents for 
in camera
review, as well as an
ex parte
brief in support of its claims of privilege and work product protection. (Docket Entries 90, 91, 100). For the reasons set forth below, Chevron’s Motion is
GRANTED in part
, and Respondent’s Motion is
DENIED
.Chevron essentially raises four categories in which they allege Respondent’s testimonyand document production have been inadequate or improperly withheld. First, Chevron believesRespondent and his attorneys, who also represent the Ecuadorian Plaintiffs, have improperly
Case 3:10-cv-00686 Document 108 Filed 09/21/10 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 3726
 
2claimed that all documents related to Respondent’s 2007 declaration, submitted on behalf of theRepublic of Ecuador in
 Repub. of Ecuador v. ChevronTexaco Corp.
, No. 04 Civ. 8378(S.D.N.Y.), are subject to work product and/or attorney-client privilege protection. Second,Chevron also believes Respondent and his attorneys have improperly claimed that documentsrelated to Respondent’s 2008 work for the Ecuadorian Plaintiffs are subject to work productand/or attorney-client privilege protection. Third, Chevron asserts Respondent declined totestify about matters Respondent’s attorneys improperly characterized as privileged, subject towork-product protection, or outside the scope of the subpoena in his deposition testimony.Finally, Chevron alleges Respondent has not thoroughly examined the materials in his custody or control in responding to the subpoena.The Magistrate Judge believes it is important to note at the outset that this proceeding,initiated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, is not an opportunity to put on a full trial. Chevron hasraised accusations that would indeed be subject to intense scrutiny had they occurred in thisCourt or in any court of the United States. The simple fact remains, however, that this proceeding is limited to the statutory relief provided in § 1782--namely, discovery for use in aforeign proceeding. Chevron had an opportunity to litigate this matter in the United States andstrongly opposed jurisdiction in favor of litigating in the Ecuadorian courts. While fraud on anycourt is a serious accusation that must be investigated, it is not within the power of this court todo so, any more than a court in Ecuador should be used to investigate fraud on
this
court. TheMagistrate Judge has found that § 1782 relief is appropriate in this matter, and Chevron isentitled to discovery from Respondent. Neither party is entitled, however, to use this court to trya dispute that is already pending in a foreign jurisdiction. This limited proceeding is quickly
Case 3:10-cv-00686 Document 108 Filed 09/21/10 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 3727
 
1
One symptom of the problem is reflected in the parties’ voluminous filings with thecourt. While the Magistrate Judge realizes this is a proceeding involving a largeamount of background documents, the parties have not adequately edited their filings.For example, the Reply brief for the instant motion attached as an exhibit a 352-pagedeposition transcript, while citing only 8 pages of that transcript.3spiraling out of control.
1
 
I. Claimed Privilege and Work-Product Protection
As to the first two categories of issues, the Magistrate Judge believes Quarles wasretained by the Ecuadorian Plaintiffs as a consulting, non-testifying expert in 2006 and remainedsuch through 2008. The Ecuadorian Plaintiffs were involved in the Lago Agrio litigation in2006, and Quarles was clearly retained in anticipation of litigation. The requirements of Fed. R.Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(B) are met, and Quarles’s work in that capacity is generally subject to work- product protection.Chevron argues that the Ecuadorian Plaintiffs have waived any protection over Quarles’swork with regard to the 2007 declaration submitted on behalf of the Republic of Ecuador’sResponse to a Motion to Dismiss and, consequently, they are entitled to examine the materialsunderlying Quarles’s declaration. The Magistrate Judge has not located any cases on all fourswith this situation,
i.e.
, where a consulting expert retained by a non-party to the lawsuit (theEcuadorian Plaintiffs) provided, at the request of the non-party, a declaration in support of a party’s preliminary pleading in a related proceeding.Whether the underlying documents are subject to work-product protection in a relatedlawsuit to which the non-party (the Ecuadorian Plaintiffs) is a party is a question that has not been addressed by the courts. If the declaration were submitted on behalf of the EcuadorianPlaintiffs in a previous proceeding, the consulting expert’s underlying work likely remains
Case 3:10-cv-00686 Document 108 Filed 09/21/10 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 3728

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->