[CERT. GEOTEXT VER:JD]
fraudulent Cabrera report—secretly written by plaintiffs’ own consultants—by changingthe name attached to it.That was precisely the plan plaintiffs’ counsel executed with The Weinberg Group. Theagreement with that firm states that it was hired was to “
conduct a comprehensive reviewof selected sections of an expert report prepared by [Mr.] Richard Stalin Cabrera Ve-ga
not to produce new, independent scientific results. Plaintiffs counsel Jonathan Ab-ady described The Weinberg Group’s role best: He called it “providing a submissionwith their name on it.”
In what follows, I will show how that strategy was executed with respect to each one of the reports submitted by the plaintiffs as exhibits to their brief filed on September 16,2010 at 5:15 p.m., that is, “
[to the contents of the Cabrera report]
a submissionwith the name
[of each of the new experts presented by the plaintiffs]
”, which in factwas the only purpose of the new reports. Chevron has deposed through the U.S. Courtsfour of the new “experts” used by the plaintiffs to submit the reports attached to theirbrief filed on September 16, 2010 at 5:15 p.m., and will soon have deposed the remainingones. In a separate filing on December 21, 2010 at 11:00 a.m., I explained the disqualify-ing deficiencies of the report of Dr. Lawrence Barnthouse; in this motion I focus on thereports of the other three individuals Chevron has deposed in the U.S. Courts, the con-tents of which show that their reports are equally unreliable. It is clear that not one of them has provided true scientific opinions on which You, Your Honor, can rely or use toclarify the matters in dispute. Each of the experts whose reports were submitted by theplaintiffs admitted that they have never been to Ecuador, let alone to the former Conces-sion area, and each confessed his total ignorance of the relevant Ecuadorian law and pro-cedure, as well as of the facts regarding the environmental impact of the oil operations.Moreover, these experts admitted, despite the distorted impression one gets from readingplaintiffs’ submission of September 16, 2010 at 5:15 p.m., that they were not renderingopinions that this Court could use to assess damages. One of them, Douglas Allen, de-scribed his report as merely “
not an actual damages estimate. Another,Jonathan Shefftz, at one point protested that he was “
not making any sort of analysis
of Texaco’s unjust enrichment, and stated that his mathematical calculations used “
”numbers because Mr. Shefftz did not have “
any opinion on—on what the true underlyingvalues are.
DONZ00031477 at 1(Annex 1).
DONZ00031480 at 1(Annex 1).
Official Transcription of Deposition of Douglas C. Allen,Dec. 16, 2010, hereinafter “Al-len”, at 374: 16-17 (Annex 2).
Official Transcription of Deposition of Jonathan S. Shefftz,Dec. 16, 2010, hereinafter“Shefftz”, at 59:7-11 (Annex 3).