A4865 Or. ANGEL G. LEMACHE POZO Avognco aaa ella, 108 6 Al Sr. RODRIGO PEREZ PALLARES #0 lo citaré en ls Ciudad de QUITO y ‘mediante deprecatorio a uno de los seiores jueces de lo Civil dela Provincia de Pichincha ( (QUITO) exto ex en la Av. 6 do Diciembre nimero 2816 y JAMES ORTON dic piso det dificio JOSUETH GONZALEZ. Reclame expresamvente gatos cose y bonorarios de mi defenso. ‘Adjumo 2 la prevemna demands las eecrcuras de mi propindad ox originales y que dejondo ‘copia en autos solicit el eagle deb sme. Notifcacons que re corepcadan lan recibir on ol eto jai do mi ABOGADO DEFENSOR DR. ANGEL LEMACHE POZO, ol mismo que ecumtra ubicado Av. Los Fondndore y Exenia Crp do et Canta Joya de fx Schas, rofecoal a que facto _y wwtvino smcriba cuanto eacto son nococario x ta promis causa y action las ligecias inher «wa clase de tris. FIRMO CON Mi ABOGADO DEFENSOR. Estusio: Edit. £1 Copitolio, Av. 6 de Diciembre 134 y Sodiro St0, Pleo OF, 608 - Tel. 647-478 - QuitoA4866, @ REPUBLICA DEL ECUADOR ee Quien, ae ae DISTRITO DE PICHINCHA : boys Quito, Mayo 5 de 1.997. Las OBN2S, Certificos SUGGADO DOCINO DE Lo CIVIL DE FIONICHAG Aukto, Mayo S do 1.997 Las OOn30, Chaplase con le eitecuén que esha depresede y devublvess originales f) Or. uen Toscan Garsbng Lo que Lev # au conccinento ¥ LE CIO, previnutndote de Le obligectén que sillero judicisl para posteriores notificacionees EN EL pec} vm cINCHAA4867 Republic of Ecuador “To: Dr. Rodrigo Pérez Pallaes, in hs capaciy ax defendant: FOURTH CIVIL COURT OF LA JOYA DE LOS SACHAS. La Joya de los Sachas, November 20, 1997, 10:00 am, (have taken over the hearing of this casein my capacity as residing Judge. In general, the lam is ler, precise and fulfils the adtonal requirements of Law. In accordance with Art. 40S and 406 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the copy of this claim and this order. the defendant TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY is hereby sotifed of this wansfer, in the person of its agent or legal ‘representative, Dr. Rodrigo Pérez Pallares, forthe term of GReen days, with a waming that failure to appear shall constinte contempt of cour, whom shall be summoned in the city of Quito athe indicted address, by means ofa request filed with ne ofthe Civit Judges ofthe city of Quito-Pichincha, sending bin a notce in due form and offering reciprocal services in analogous cass. Note the legal domicile ofthe appearing partes andthe authorization grand to Dr. Luis Tobar Sanchez. Summon and Notify. Atach the bith erica Dr. Jaime Espia Ferner FOURTH CIVIL JUDGE OF LA JOYA DE LOS SACHAS ‘You ae erchy terved notice and SUMMONED, for legal purposes, releasing you fom your obligation indicate a legal domicile inthe city of La Joya de los Sachas for subsequent sevice of process in these proceedings {signacue] The Clerk {samp illegible] Received today, March nincteenth nineteen hundred ninery-cigh, a 3.0 pun. Certified {sigrarre) THE CLERK, NINTH CIVIL COURT OF PICHINCHA, Quito, March 19, 1998 at 3:20 pm. Request received to be ‘Ulfilled and remured. Signed Dr. Albero Palacios D., Judge. You are hereby served notice for legal purposes, releasing you from your obligation wo indicate a legal domicile within the legal perimeter ofthe Fourth Civil Court of La Joye de os Sachas. Cente. {sigrarre) ‘THE CLERK [stamp] ‘NINTH CIVIL COURT OF PICHINCHA, QuitoA4868 ‘THE HONORABLE SECOND CIVIL JUDGE OF NAPO: We, ORLANDO MOLINA MELO AND MARY LUZ TORO MELO, common law husbarkd and wife, 36 and 21 years of age respectively, day laborer and housewife, Ecuadorian nationals, omiciled inthe einity of well No. 110 which was exploited by TEXACO, in the parish of San Carlos, inthe La Joya de Jos Sachas district, Napo Province, on behalf and in representation of out daughters, Rocio and Sofia ‘Molina Tor, hereby file a claim agains the company Texaco. ‘Whereas he defendant company hs is legal domicile inthe city of Quito, on the founh and fh lors of the Borja Paez Building, located at calle Rumipamba No. 706 inthe city of Quit, we hereby summon ‘them atthe aforementioned domicile. For subsequent service of process I indicate judicial pos office box No, 642 tthe Palacio de Justicia ofthe ‘Soperior Court of Quito ‘By virue ofthe domicile ofthe defendant is necessary 1oisue a request forthe fulfilment ofthe legal summons ofthe defendant company before the Ninth Civil Judge of Pichinchs, Upon the plaintiffs request and as ther duly authorized auorney [sienarre) Dr. Luis Tobar Stnchez Registration No. 378 QuioA4869, Republic of Eewador ‘To: Dr. Rodrigo Pérez Pallas, in is capacity as defendant: FOURTH CIVIL COURT OF LA JOYA DE LOS SACHAS. La Joya de fos Sachas, March 2, 1998, 11:00 ‘am. In accordance with the prior request, the Company TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY, represented by is legal representative, Dr. Rodrigo Pérez Pallas, is hereby summoned atthe new egal domicile indicated by the plaints, by means of a request filed with he Ninh Civil fudge of the City of ‘Quit Pichincha, sending hin x notice in due for and offering reciprocal services in analogous cases. Dr. Jsime Espn Femindez FOURTH CIVIL JUDGE OF LA JOYA DE LOS SACHAS You ate hereby served notice and SUMMONED, for the purposes of law, relensing you from your obligation to indicate a egal domicile in the city of La Joya de los Sachas, Napo Province, under legal Provisions fsignsure] Tec {samp} Mr. Gusavo Veloz Pozo CLERK OF THE FOURTH CIVIL COURT (OF LA JOYA DE LOS SACHAS Received today, March nineteenth, nineteen hundred niney-cght, at 3:00 pm. Certified {sigusure} THE CLERK {samp} [NINTH CIVIL COURT OF PICHINCHA Quito [NINTH CIVIL COURT OF PICHINCHA, Quito, March 19, 1998 at 320 pum, Request received to be {olliled and rerumed. Signed Dr. Alberto Palacios D. Judge. You are hereby served natice for legal purpotes, releasing you from your obligation to indiate legal domicile within the legal perimeter ofthe Fourth Civil Court of La Joye de los aches. Cenified (signarre} ‘THE CLERK {samp} [NINTH CIVIL COURT OF PICHINCHA QuitoA4870 ‘THE HONORABLE SECOND CIVIL JUDGE OF NAPO (SACHAS): We, ORLANDO MOLINA MELO and MARY LUZ TORO MELO, common law husband and wife, 36 and 21 years of age, respectively, day lborer and housewife, Ecuadorian nationals, domiciled in the parish ‘of San Carlor inthe La Joys de los Sachs district, Napo Province, on behalf and in representation of our ‘daughters, Rocio and Sofa Molina Toro, hereby file claim eganst the company TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY, represented by Dr. Rodrig Pérez Palaes, onthe following grounds: “More that two decades ago, the Texaco company entered ito the indigenous communities and extracted petroleum, destroyed forests, contaminated rivers and the environment, caused the disappearance of fish {and animals, destroyed the sil, todced colonists, and our territories were occupied by foreign people.” {Declaration of FECUNAIE from the Boo, Crudo Amazénico, published by Abya Yala, 1993). Now, we who fle the claim live a few meters fom well 10 which Texaco, th party against whom we file ‘the claim, exploited, and from which has owed contaminated water, and in the place we live, or more ‘than five years, we have used the water which flows through the nearby esuary to bathe and wash our ‘lotes wit the rtk of health problems which have occured fully, resuling in gastrointestinal ‘problems, skin iiaions and in adion, the lack of calcium absorption hasbeen detected which was. ‘determined tobe hypophosphatemic rickets according to x medial iagnosis which was presented onthe television program "Deroy fuer.” The medicines used to cure our two daughters, ages 3 and $, have been extremely costly. ‘We fle this claim against TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY as parents ofthe minors affected by the ‘environmental contamination, Here our chikren play on wel platforms stained with oi and the cate, ‘fen covered in ol, graze net to the pool of waste close o our homes. ‘According to An, 48 ofthe Codifieation of the Political Constitution ofthe Republic, and pursuant to Ar. 1012 ofthe Civil Code, Law 45 of the State-owned Company Peles del Ecuador und is General Regulation of Application which prohibits all environmental cotamipation, the Regulation forthe ‘prevention and control of environmental contamination, we fe his elaim inorder to be granted an indemnity by judgment ‘Toe amount ofthe claim is wo hundred fifty million sures. ‘This case shal tke place under Ordinary Proceedings pursuant to Art. 63 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure. ‘The defendant company TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY shal be summoned inthe city of Quito, in the person of Dr. Rodrigo Pérez Palies, a Avenida 6 de Diciembre and ames Orn, Joueth Gonzalez Building. 11® Floor, for which a request shall be sent o one ofthe honorable civil judges of Pichincha ‘We shal recelve all service of process atthe Hotel Americano in this ity. De. Luis Tobar Sdnchezis authorized to file all documents necessary forthe cate on our behal. {signature of Mary Toro] 171210773-7 _{signaare of Orlando Molina] 170745197-5 (signature) Dr, Luis Tobar Sénchez Regiswation No. 378 Quito Filed on October tweny-cighth, nineteen hundred ninety-sven at 4:00 pm. with copies. Crified. (Gignaure) The ClerkReceived todey. February second, nineteen hundred niney-ight, a 8:30 am. Cenifed. {signature} THE CLERK {stamp} ‘NINTH CIVIL COURT OF PICHINCHA Quito NINTH CIVIL COURT OF PICHINCHA, Quito, February 2, 1998 at 8:45 am, Request received to be {ulfted and originals retumed. Signed Dr. Alberto Palacios D. You are hereby served notice for egal rpotes, releasing you from your obligation to indie a legal domicile an judicial pos office bor ia de form and within the legal perimeter. Cerife. Usignanure) ‘THE CLERK {stamp} NINTH CIVIL COURT OF PICHINCHA QuitoA4872, Bowne Translation Services SeSrucuon suet eve You, ew ork 20034 2izya2e 3600. fee na;238 3400 BOWNE Certificate of Accuracy This is to certify that the translation described below is, to the best of our knowledge, a true and accurate rendition of the original document. Job Mumber: y-84502rv9 Job Name: King and Spalding Job Description: Notaria Decimo Quinta ‘translation! Language: Spanish Into: English \ £ 0 Date: November 30, 1999 xfadya 3 Operations Manager STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK’ Subscribed and sworn, to before me Abt. of 2 71998 Notary Sxuwrone ASnTO xr Pane, Seo oe wo. 20708079 cwcrinsinnneng ee (seal) Cenminne ten aren 9, 20 08 AMenber tne nenatona Foray of Bowne ComnaiesRe ded “= 8) Dre Rodrigo Péron Palghros, on 2a calidad demandadas INDO CULRTO DE LO CIVIL DS Li JOYA DE EOS SACHAS"= La Joya de los = Sichas= a 20 de Noviembre de 1.997; las 10HOO- VISTOS’- Avoco cono- Gimlento en 1a presente causa en mi calidad de Juez Thkularsen lo — principal, 1a Aemanda es clara, precisa y reGne los denSs requisites a Leys De conformidad con los Arts. 405 y 406 del C6dlgo de Proce Bimisnto Civil, con In copia de 1a demand y &sta providencta,cécra 50 teastato a 1a demandada TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPARY, en 1a persona de su mondatnrio © representante legal sehr doctor Rodrigo Pérez Pa Liares,por el t6rmino de quince dfas , con apercibimlento en rebeldt a quifn se le citarf en In ciudad de Quito en 1a direccién indicada mediante Deprecatorio Iibrado a uno de los sefores Jueces de lo Civt de 1a ciudad de quite-Pichincha, envigndole despacho en forma y ofre chonto reelprocididéss en cacos anSlogos.~ Témese en cuenta el domi= cilio liga de los compareciontes y Ba dutérizactén concedida al Dre Luis Tobar Sénchezs Cltese y notifiquesge~ Agréguese 1a partida de nicimbentos ee es De. Jaime Esyffn Fernéndez JUEZ CUARTO DE LO FIVIL..DE-LA JOYA DE LOS SK ey neg hte Sra eater egal en Le came an oars se ie © patra hnanad paEATGNd etiticectones gn_ecte: oF Juranno wovENd 6 Lo CIVIL pF rics Las 15890.-Por edibide el depredator£s cbmpl Alberto pelectos U.Juea. 1.0 que comunicuo us ley, previni’ndole de le ebligacién de séfialer dowiclilio ju icial, de lo Civil de ta Jo- Sentro dol periwetro legal on ol Jureager ya de los “achas.certifico.- yA4874 AGHOH JUBZ SEGUNEE HE Lo CEVIL DE NAFO: Noqotvos ORLANLO MOLINA MELO Y MARY LZ TORO MELO. convugee por unien tibre. de 38 v 21 -aflod reepectivanente. jornalerc #1 primero v quenaceres donésticos 1a gemunda. ecuatoriancs v Somieiliadoe en lae sercanise del pozo N@ 110 aue rue expictads bor FEXAOU. pertenectente s Le parroaiia San Varlos. del canton Me ta Jove fe los sachas. provincia de Napo. 2 nombre y en representacién de nuestras hijae Rocio v sofia Holina Tero. demandamo como en efecto Lo hacemos s 1a compania Texaco Por cuante 1a compania demandada tiene su domicilio Jegal en 1a rindad de Guite en gi ouarto y auinte piso del edificio Borja Paez. #ituado en 1a calle Kumipamba NO A&E de is ciudad de Suits. eitece con esta demand en el domicilic sefialade. Para postettores notificactones seiialo el casillers judicial te 842 dal Palaoje. de Justicia de 1a Corte Superior de Ouito Eh virtud Se] domict1io del demandado. es necesaric aue a9 remita atento deprecatorio para cumplir con les citacicnes legales 3 13 enprega demandada v ante el mismo Juez Noveno de le wivil ie Pichinene. 7 A ruege v como su defenaor debidamente sutorizadeTham inst inons yin segunda geste domtnton ectatorncs 9 Sonic ys Trotean teva de to Sachaa’prowicis ae Nap. anomrey an Ropes oneclon de iainria comatose detent Bae =z esrlaapera Rei Pagans oko ee ieee So dedon then conpatts Fora civ se eS addon paion dearod I 4 vrten otamied tony af meio art iso Ghajarverpocesy whos. des oe Seton. ngrenren ny naan teroron ton Setpn po Dey Sante Onctachn de FECONAE” Gr Ube Cradia Amnzinire, editade pre Anya "vale vasy) 67" a Iron bon quienes demancamon vivo a pasos maton dl para 110 que a Tmaco: nuosta demandada. Jo Sn yale! han ido peas coven, yam eve lua en donde von dee mig de nce aflon oe ioines sumisisivario de! agua que come por nl estoro cetcane, nos hemOs bafade y lavado fuestra ropa con ef alps deen potienus’ ae nck tur malmens seume'an presscanooee pebiomes. guorcnweralss y SEcZonen's it pel 30 he Selocado ademas la ike absorsbn de calc Qve determin Un TaquNsNG itqenbasmicn segin dnrdaico mo ave a denims en et poprars levave de Donte y fa” Us ‘trovon ame do hun doy Safe de ad as medcas bane oncom seed, ‘xnwvvnos ag comand encanta de TSSAGO PETROLEUM COMPANY por ter padres eles menores Nodes porn consminacn able od nvetton nies egan tobe luabnas & pono manchadas con ivory anada mca veces cies ptieo pa sw a det Pac de eves cea 8 Sins Mean ins) kt ef la Citation et Coatacon Folica dat Rapin ax come de conoid con 3 Art torbael Gsige Ot ney #5 den Empresa Esa Pesole el Eoradory 0 reprenana General de Apia, «hm pon tea Conninacon amblera del Pegaments para le provencon'y cond dla contuvacion ‘inhbvaal dame ese domanda aide qe en sevcncie se nos inne. 1 anne de a damanda es de doscientoa cnoventamilones de sucres Tidmite cea present causa 9s el Ordinnro segun AN 63 del Codigo de Proced mien Cn | compaia dansandada TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY sar ctada an a ludad de Quito, an Ia persona del Dr. Roo Fever Callas, en la Avenida 6 de Diciembre y James Orion, edit io Joaueth Gonadlez 11 Piso, para 10 ‘ain senath anwar alata deprecatonio a uno de tos safores jueces de tact de Pichincha. {Ca notiicacionns la eclbiremos enol Hoel Americano de esta ciudad Hovis Tana aa aoe resents cman pra tras ae sche dons FEOF WISE i matic. N1378 Quito, Presentado, veinte y ocho de Octubre de wil venta y) siete 2 las dlectsels horas con copla- Certifico= ae BL Se o-A4876 ‘THE HONORABLE FOURTH CIVIL JUDGE OF NAPO, SACHA: |, De, Adolf Callejas Ribadenera, Ecundorian national, adult, Atoney, domiciled in Quito, in my capacity as Legal Representative of Dr. César Rodrigo Pérez Pallas, in his capacity ws Agent and Legal Representative of Texaco Pevoleum Company (TEXPET), aI support with the Power of Anorney _auached hereto int original copy as an insrument granting legal standing inthe ordinary proceedings ‘led against Texaco Peroleum Company by Amador SalinTalcin Melia and Nancy Molia, respectfully appear before you and eespond tothe claim nthe folowing term. ‘My first an lest ames and general logal background are indicated asi he capacity in which appear, 00 ‘behalf and in representation of Texaco Pevoleum Company (TEXPET).Lesablish my legal domicile tthe Lave Offices of Dr. Oral Chives, on Avenida Los Fundadoresy 12 de Febrero, in font of the Sache “Track Contol Station. ‘The claim fled against TEXPET by Amador Stalin Tun Molina and Nancy Molin i incomplete sine it doesnot fll he stiplations of At 70 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, in partial with regard to tem 3, pounds infact und ia lav. ‘With respect the grounds in fact the claim Inks precision, since it doesnot manage t establish the factual relation brea the supposed environmental contamination und the nesses claimed to have been ‘aused 10 one person ‘The claim afi tat te Tula Mona family has lived in the vicinity of Well SA-110 for more th ‘ve years. TEXPET cease operting what was the CEPE-Texaco Consortium on June 30,1950, hats, ‘more hn seven and ove half years ag, for which reason TEXPET cannot ke responsibility forthe ‘supposed damage caused to the envionment and to persons, according tobe claim, more than two Years afer the handover ofthe operation to another Organization. “The chim als affioms that one person supposedly named Verénica Alexandra. “suffers from askin Aisease and stomach problems due to having been exposed tothe atmosphere contaminated bythe burning ‘of clin areas clove to our home.” This ratement demonstrates that TEXPET cannot be responsible forthe ‘acs of which it is accuse, since the supposed buming of oi which ssuted as having caused the kin ‘iseae and somuch problems, could not have ben and was not caused by TEXPET. ‘That st forth above sheds ight ona fundarneneal ero the claim: he Plains are fing a claim against ‘the wrong person, since I clearly demonstrate that, athe ie the events expressed by te Plaintiff rok place, TEXPET was not in that location a any time. This eo require thatthe Honorable Judge reject the ‘ham without farther proceedings. ‘As furer evidence of the eror commited by the Plains, highlight the satement hat. 8 the ‘leaning of te wells near our home took plac, the runing ofthe water over the sll surface could not be ‘voided, and even day, layers of ol canbe sen” must emphatically set forth chat TEXPET di not ‘perform the cleaning of the wells near the home ofthe Plainifs tht the only poo! exsing in that ares ‘hat of SA-110, the same pool which is under he fll respoasibilty of he saue-owned company PETROPRODUCCION; and that if ny contamination has occured due to that pool, TEXPET i exempt fiom babi, Wit espet othe grounds in aw, the series of articles referenced does not establish the aninentiona fot ‘which TEXPET may have comand giving sista the obligation to pay indemnies by TEXPET, for ‘which reason no grounds in law exist.A4877 1 OBJECTIONS. 1 et (orth the following objetions tothe cluims ofthe Plain expressly setting forth hat accep none of si claims, al of whic I deny, duet ther unfounded pare and lack of legal grounds: 3.1 Pre and simple denil ofthe grounds in fact andin nw ofthe proposed action. 32 Plans" Lack of Lezal Grounds: allege the Pant’ tack of legal grounds to file the csi 10 which [reply since TEXPET has caused no damage tothe Phintifs, to their propery or to their daughter, Veronica Alexandra Tula Molina, since there are no legal grounds which demonstrate the existence of an obligation, 3.3. Lenpresny allege he egal nara of the legal capacity of he defend, since on he dae the cts suppesedly took place, it had already ceased being operator ofthe Peoscundor-Texaco ‘Consortium and had no petroleum production actives in tha area. 3A footie Chass TEXPET was ot in ie are of Well $410 athe ie tein othe beat of Verne Alenanra suppose ok plea have ed nd as wil demonsete shin he dseovey pv. Therefore the charge se. 35 Inconsiteney of the Clan: The claim tacks rounds i law, since t makes no specifi reference tw aricls of legislation which establish the existence of the unitentonal ort giving ise to the emomie obligation claimed by the Pani. “Another inconsistency st forth inthe cli refers oa period of ine in which TEXPET had ‘eased involvement ia all operations for more than two years pri to the oocurrence ofthe events Founding the claim. 3.6 Sit of Limitations: Pursuant othe provisions of Anicle 2259 ofthe Civil Code the ations ‘ated therein become unenforceable aft four years. TEXPET ceased operating the former (CEPE-TEXACO Consortium, subsequently PETROECUADOR-TEXACO, on June 30,1990. From that date tthe fing ofthe clam to which am replying, more than seven mi one half years have passed. Therefore, inthe event hat TEXPET bad commited some unitetiona! tort Biving rise to obligations, which we do nx grant, any actioe fo which the Plaintiffs could have ben entitled has already become unenforcsabe veto passage of time, 37 Deniabet Charges: ‘TEXPET filly an absolutely denies the grounds in fc and in aw ofthe elim. + TEXPET denies actions or omissions giving rset the effets on the health ofthe Pais’ daughter referenced in the claim. + TEXPET denies having any obligation to pay indemoities of any nature to he Pins? daughter, since no grounds exis for dings. + TEXPET denies having caused any injuries of any type to Verna Alexandra Tale ‘Molina oto the Plant. = TEXPET denies having engaged inthe burning of ol referenced inthe claim, which ‘caused the skin and stomach linesses of Verémca Alexandea, FIVE YEARS AGO.A4878 wv PLEADINGS ‘on the grounds ofthe foregoing objections and the evidence tobe pretend ina tely fashion, | request that te Honorable Judge reject he enire claim Bled by Amador Stain Tolcén Molina and Nancy Mona ‘guint TEXPET, on behalf and representation of ther daughter, Verénce Alexandra, and semence the Plant the payment ofthe cour costs, including the fes ofeach and every Atoney defending ‘TEXPET inthisease. “ DOMICILE ‘raiy thay, for fur service of process, my legal domicile i se atthe Law Offices of Dr. Oswaldo (Chiver, on Avenida Los Fandadores 12-de Febrero in font ofthe Sacha Truck Control Station. 4 authorize Dr. Patricio Campazano Merino and Dr. Enrique CarvajlSaas, jointly or invidally, file sll documents necessary in defense ofthe interest | repretent. (signane) PR. ADOLFO CALLEJAS RIBADENEIRA LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. sigan) (ipune) DR. PATRICIOCAMPUZANO M. DR. ENRIQUE CARVAJAL S. ATTORNEY ‘ATTORNEY REGISTRATION NUMBER 1820-CAP. __REGISTRATION NUMBER 2055 -C.AP. Filed inday, Wednesday, April rwenty-niath, nineteen hundred niney-tight a four fiften pan. Various documents and the copies required by law are atached hereto, CERTIFIED. {signee} Mr. G, Velo Poao ‘CLERKSonne TanutionSorvices iSrvason Sveet ew York ew or 10034 2izys2esso0. feet42/2299400 BOWNE Certificate of Accuracy This is to certify trat the translation described below is, to the best of 2ur knowledge, a true and accurate rendition of the original document. Job Numbe: 4502r10 Job Mame: King and Spalding Job Description: Notaria Decimo Quinta ‘eransiation| Language: Spanish Into: English Date: November 30, 1998 oss Operations Manager STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK Subscribed and, sugrn to before ne Able: ue ‘Notary Public (seal) Conmigo 9,20 2D Mee lie water Fam Boone CompaniesA4880 SEROR JUEZ CUARTO DE LO CIVIL DE NAPO, SACHA: Yo, De. Adolfo Callejas Ribadeneira, ecuatoriano, mayor de edad, de profesién Abogado, domiciliado en Quito, en mi calidad de Procurador Judicial del Or. Rodrigo Pérez Pallares, en su calidad de Mandatario y Representante Legal de Texaco Petroleum Company (TEXPET), cono lo justifico por medio de la. Procuracion Judicial ' que como instrumento habilitante en copia original acompaho, en el juicio ordinario planteado en contra de Texaco Petroleum Company por Orlando Molina Melo y Mary Luz Toro Melo, ante usted Fespetuosanente, conparezcd y contest a la denanda en los siguientes términos: 1 Mis nombres _y apellidos y més generales de ley quedan Tndicadons as! como ia ca faad en ‘que conparesco, a nombre fren vepresentacion del br. Kodrigo Péret Paliaves, "en su Uaflaad de Mandatario de Texaco Petroleum Company (TEXPET). Ni Goniciiio judicial ie fijo en ei estudio Juridica ei Dr. “oawaldo chives, en ia Avenida Los Fundadores y 12 de Febrero, freste si control de canionstas de sacha- 1 La demanda presentada por el sefior Orlando Molina Melo y 1a seflora Mary Luz Toro Melo es incompleta, pues no cumple con lo que ordena el Art. 70 del Codigo de Procedimiento Civil, especialmente en relacién con el ordinal 30., fundamentos de hecho y de derecho. En lo referente a los fundamentos de hecho, 1a denanda carece de precisién, pues no establece de manera alguna la Felacién fectual entre la supuesta contaminacion ambiental y los danos que afirnan ce ha causado a las personas. En relacién con los fundanentos de derecho, los Actores no han establecido la base legal por la que ‘se denuestre la existencia del delito o cuasi-delito que hubiera podido dar origen a 1a obligacién que reclaman. La demanda indica que los Actores viven on una finca en la Vecindad del poz0 SA-110, en San Carles, cantén Sacha, Gesde hace née de cinco anos. TEXPET dejé de operar lo que fue el Consorcio CEPE-Texaco ¢1 30 de Junio de 1990, es Gecir, hace nas de siete ahos y medio, por lo cual TEXPET no puede responsabilizarse “por hechos supuestanente Seurridos, segtin 1a denanda, varios afos después de haber entregado’ 1a operacién a otra organizacién. En el evento no consentido de que TEXPET hubiera sido Fesponsable del. dane que se le acusa, cualguier reciano podria haberse denandado hasta cuatro ahos despues de haber Gejade de ser Operadora del Consorcic, de conformidad con lo que dispone el Art. 2259 del Codigo Civil. (es pragenitores de las dos nifas de 3 y $ anos de edad, Fespectivamente, sefor Orlando Nolina MELO y sefora Mary U2 tore MELO, ‘son pacientes cercanos entre ‘si. conocidoA4881 es, tanto por 1a sabiduria popular coao por la experiencia einvestigacién ‘cientitica, que 1a procreacion entre Parientes y. Pater! ZANO.M. ‘ABOGADO, ‘ABOGADO. MATRICULA No. 1820 C-A-P. MATRICULA No. 2055 C.A.P.A4884 (lenerhead} ret ASOCIADOS: Condominium Management ~ Building and induswialFaciiy invurance Consuling Building Maintenance Auditing ~ Securty, Accounting, General Repairs and Cleaning Sales, Leasing and Transfers ~ Condominium Fee Collections {Foote} sez 229 y 18 de Septiembre, Ofcina 205 ~ Telephone: S44672~ 543880 fapanado] PO Box 4925 CCL uit uw jio79e fim) 4998, ‘THE HONORABLE SECOND CIVIL JUDGE OF NAPO:We, AMADOR STALIN TULCAN MOLINA and NANCY MOLINA, common ler husband and wife, 33 and 23 years of age, day laborer and housewife, respectively, Ecuadorian nations, domiciled inthe vicinity of well No. 110 which was exploited by TEXACO, inthe parish of San Carlos, i the La Joya dela Sachas dire, Napo Province, on bealf and in represenation of our minor daughter, Verniea Alexandra Tucdn Maing, eleven years of ‘sg, hereby file a claim under ordinary proceedings agains the company TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY, represented in Ecuador by Dr, Rodrigo Pérez Pallas on the following grounds: Grounds in Fact and In Lew: “Before the Texaco company aived in Ecuador, the natural resources were mainitined intact, they were cared for, managed and conserved by the indigenous inhabitants ofthe region. We were living without problems, there were no strange diseases, colonization was not known Our rivers, lagoons and brooks had ‘any fish. Thee waters were clear, without contamination. Wood was fot forested ike its today. There were many animals to hunt inthe forest. The Texaco company built wells and ands. With that everything has changed and now thee are many sociocutural and ecological problems.” “More than two decades age, the Texaco company entered into the indigenous commanities and exploited pevoleun, destroyed forests, contaminated rivers and the envirwement caused the disappearance of fish and animals, destroyed the soils, introduced coleass, and our teitories were occupied by freien people.” “Give the fat that Texaco is leaving Ecuador, we demand thatthe company estore the area and compensate us. We afi our commitment wo defend, files claims and denounce the damages and losses ‘caused by Texaco...” Declaration ofthe Federation of Communes Native Union ofthe Ecuadorian ‘Amazon Region [Federocién de Comnat Uniin de Novos de fa Amazone Ecuatoriana] (FECUNALE) taken fom the Book, Crude dmaxdnico, published by Abya Yala, 1993. Justa few meters from well 110 now operated by Pewoecuador, from which contaminated water has ‘owed, close to the place we ive, for more than five years, having used the water which lows through the nearby estunry to bathe aed wash our clothes wih thera of health problems nests and kin dseses, ‘qato-imtetnal problems all of which hs affected our children, in particle, ow daughter Verbaica ‘Alexandra, 11 years ol, who suffers from «skin seas and serach problems duet having been exposed othe amosphere contaminated bythe baring of olin areas close wo our home ‘We have become involved in this claim against Texaco Petroleum Company as parets of the minor who has been seriously affected by the envionmental contamination, by virue ofthe parental ight granted in the Civil Code. We mus state that as the cleaning ofthe wells near our home took plac, the running ofthe ater over thes surface could not be avoided, and even today, layers of oil can be sen. “Children pay ‘on well plarforms stained with ol andthe ean, often covered in ol graze next tothe pools of waste The desperate poverty andthe miserable living conditions ofthe colonists are aggravated by the contamisation, “which is rapidly destroying cops and cate and poisoning their sures of fresh wate.” (Crude ‘Amaxénco, p. 108).A4885, Pursuant fo Ant 48 ofthe Codification of the Poitcal Constitution of the Republi: “Without prejudice wo the rights ofthe victims or the ejored partes, any private wdiviual or egal eaity may exercise the tions considered inthe Law, forthe protection ofthe environment.” Pursuant to An 1012 ofthe Civil Code. in the flld of ecology and the environment, his ia defense ofthe ‘quality of if ofthe iabitants ofthe Amazon region. Law 45 the Special Law ofthe Sate-onned ‘Company PeSeos det Ecuador (Pezoecunor) and is subsidiaries (Ministerial Order No. 283 of, September 26, 1989), Exeutive Order No. 935, the General Regulation fr the Operation of Petroecuador, ‘Supplement to Ministerial Order No. 283 of September 26 1989. Ministerial Agreement No, 14629 Regulation forthe Prevention and Condo of Environmental Contamination with respec to Sol Resources (Miniieral Ordet No 989m of aly 30,1992; and law O8 Law Creating the Ecvadorin Insite of Forestry, Natural Areas and Wildlife (TMEFAN)) (Ministerial Order No. 27 of September 16, 192) ll of ‘these legal provisions provide forthe ivemnfication of damages and lesses resulting from eaviroamental ‘contamination. The TEXACO Company has volte these laws fr which reason we claim the paymeat of damages sod losses rerun from the e:vionmentl contamination in he person of or miner daughter Verdes. ‘The emount ofthe clatm is ONE HUNDRED MILLION SUCRES. ‘This cate shal tke place under Ordinary Proceedings pursuant wo Art. 63 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure. ‘The company TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY stall be summoned in the person of Dr. Roig Pérez Pallares, agent of sa company, by means of a request toon ofthe Honorable ci judges of Pichincha, at Avenida 6 de Diciembre and James Orton, Jueth Gorziez Building, 11° Foe ‘We shall recsve all coresponding sevice of process tthe Hotel Americano inthis city. Dr. Luis Tobar Stncher is authorized to fle al documents necessary forthe case on our beh ‘AMADOR STALIN TULCAN MOLINA NANCY MOLINA [signaru] LD. No. 170361926-4 {sigpanve] LD. No. 171064650-6 (signanure] Registration No. 378 QuitoA4886 Republic of Ecuador To: Dr. Rodrigo Pérez Pallas. in his capacity a defendant FOURTH CIVIL COURT OF LA JOVA DE LOS SACHAS. La Joya dels Sachas, November 20, 1997, 10000 am. WHEREAS: Ihave taken over he hearing ofthis casein my capacity as Presiding Sadge. fn _genera, he claim i clear, precise and flfls the adctinalrequiremenss of Law. In accordance wth An. 405 and 406 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, with the copy ofthis claim and this oder. the defendant TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY is hereby notified of this wanse, in the person ofits agent or legal ‘epresenaiv, Dr, Rodrigo Pérez Pallares, forte term of fifteen days, witha warning that failure to appear shal consinte contempt of cour, whom shall be suminoned ia the cy of Quito the indicated adres, by means of request filed with one ofthe Civil Judges ofthe city of Quito-Pichinch, sending him mie ia de form and offering reciprocal services in analogous cases, Not the legal domicile of he ppearing paris and the sutorzaion grated to Dy. Luis Tobur Stachez Summon and Notify. Artach the ‘birth certificate (signene) Dr. ime Espia Ferinder FOURTH CIVIL JUDGE OF LA JOYA DE LOS SACHAS ‘You are hereby served notice and SUMMONED, for legal purposes, releasing you from your obtgntion to indicate a legl domicile in the city of La Soya de los Sachas under legal provisions. {signature} The Clerk (stamp lei]BOWNE Sepne Tanglin Services ew York New Yom 20038 2id/a2ess0o Fecesareaooai0 Certificate of Accuracy ‘This is to certif y that the translation described below 4g, to the best of our knowledge, a true and accurate rendition of the Job Ymber: Job Name: Job Description: Ranguage: Spaniah original docunent. ¥ra4502e12 King and Spalding Notaria Decimo Quinta (translation: Into: English ( bate: Hvesber 30, 1998 (av Xdaoyu & Operations Manager STATE OF NEW YORK, 1» COUNTY OF NEW YORK Subscribed and sworn to before me this date of 32 aL tary Public (seal) = 1998 AMenoe cine mtr as Fan Bowne ComparesA4888 NNowtros: AMADOR STALIN THLCAN MOLINA y NANCY MOLVA, obayiges por usin fi y Phatce repeenawent, jommkiro cl prinere y quchaceres doméstion ta segind, ces Gane ls exesnst de Foro" 110 que fe sxploiad por TEXACO,pevencccnt ata gare =" Sar {ler el cant des Joya ose Solan, provinea ds Nope, a nomibre 7 ee representa de> "p menor cob. Veréaka Alcea da Tulcin Mules ds once alos espctivametts, demons €xF cenefetol-beceen en jeio xd: a Ya compmlia TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY. represent nel Betador po el RetrigePéve Tales, fundodos eal siglens——————— Los Fu: damantos do Hecho y de Deracho.- Antes de legos de ls competa Texaco al Ecuador, ls recurso rotrals 9 manienis intact, fueron cuidnle, eines yeonersads por habincsindigeras de ln reitm, vise sn singin probit uly peoenene fe alcrmetades ate, ws comela {a eolonizacige, stot dls, Lygwas 3 ‘oeligclos foran aces pease se igs ert limes, ea conanimsci, no se expe 3 mae ce ‘ro ads sus aioe do ebeeta mak ale. La compata Tevacs constr lr pore 2 vce ie-domatnscda sta sandhaa Per ene muchorprolou “oc cuales eco.” es ic de de dad, 4 compa Texaco env a as comuidos faigsaas, y expo peteeo, Going branes etnuaning rok yt Wed seins, hire deeparecerpeeesy animales, siusd Io ‘soe ngecion clos, y nce errs Fuctow ocdes por eee extra,” ie ade Teaco el Feusder exigines que fa cmpata rehabilis [a vona y ns reopens Afrmaning wee como de deiwder, slams} dsnunae poe las dao y precios ocasionadoe orl foaco .” Dachvactn def Federalén de Comnst Union de Navas dea Anrvonts Fewtnnans {e-CUNAE) lends dt Lio CRUDO AMAZONICO, ead rot Aba Yala 199) 1A poses cles ci gave 110 ye ahora explota Potroccunor. de donde use agess cotaenzads, yor 1a ‘oreana deerte girs And heme sido desde hace mis de cinco ahs. bbiéndonossminisrdo Ul gia que core eu pet etera xreano, os cmos a bata y lvodo musta ops cone eso noble de stad ve focionen y enfermedndc fe, problemas gastcestiales, todo Fo cul 2 ‘Sfextsne este joe, 2 expec 9 macs: js cris Alena de 1 ales Gs edad ovien aves (io ver enorme de La SE y problemas del suwiago or haber econ ospuests a 12 sumster= ‘conamidad go Is que el pte en lngne = secanos a mostra ivi es hemes implode con cst demands en contra dea Cornpoa Texaco Peto poe sor padies rmceae fetals port conaminacin sublet. en vcd dela pea potest coat 20 Catigo Chet fraeiedar que ha mids res ha rcfizad ba Limpira de los pore sied'cs teen viendo 8 pid) eat que bt aguas Ge Frcion se cseuran sabes bx suerfle de =! frernkee ata aes cre: Je pete.” Nidos ergs scbe pltaformas de pares marcha: = [parGko, el gana, norhcy vec suato de paedlen,gua # wm lad las retina oe dees sims hose rs rotamer ne we ‘culver > ganado, yenvencaan susfuenes gua duce Con marin Dg) ae Sas = Maes Pie by teCKsri d montesininets dy ediicna = Seguidads de wlan Conta Crea = vote Attentonienta 7 oulcesh Cobior de noter de condone ‘rttcn "Sim pequlcio lor derchor de lo ofenddosy es rericadescuslipier persona ata! 0 Inetica pou ger a actos controls en a Ley, ara pretesciu del ene ica.” De confor enn Art. 1012 del Ciign Cis eel rea deta ecology el medio anbieve, es ura fone dy cad do vila Ge Noe hastens deta savanna Ley 43. Ley Fepeia det Empress ase Potters ol Eonadoe (Pace) ye cmprésa iloks ( RLG.NERY del 26 de stirbre de 189, of Deerta Excutiva N°233 Reglamenlo Geacrat para at fancionaenio de" Tetccerne 5 UHL HCO N28) de 26 de scpiembre de WWD, ef Acuerdo Mintel NP 14629 Reghameme a preveuciony Cont dela Contaminacion Ambiental en lo referealé 3 Rees kt Soto (RS) 8 ‘rn ee flip de 102; ya ey O8 Ley de Creaibn tel Taste Beware Portal y [Nawedrs y Vide Siogice (NEFAN)) ( R-GN® 27 gel 16 de xptnbre de 1992), En logs cas, ejossions eater ent Ts inderanvactb de at yperucios por contamindcion ambient. Leyes que 1 compafia TEXACD Ine fs ining, anda poe 1s cil deans el pogo de ctor AUIS oe Seceataennacin ambiental en la pera de nae hia Verniea ener de ead La cuantia ds estardemanda es da CIEN WILLOW: wets a cunpetia TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY see ca: com eta demands en la erong Ut De akin Ter poles. mandtore de eta empresa. mene Ucprecatoro a uno dels scores jcces dc to ‘chile china, emt Avenida 6 Oe Dienibes Fumes Orton lee Fosucth Gost, _sncentrsponda lat rectiremos en la Hotel Americana de ota cha, 1 presets causa cs el Onmatio, conforme le dispone el Art 6) del Cédigo de Preceimicna AMADON ae ct Me urir 64 Mattie. NITACAP. ee 10718 de Spee ey HS Tel ST? SHA apie ES GO ODA4890 Re dal Be a)0r, Rodrigo Pérez Pallarcs, en la calidad ¢omandaia iano GUSATO DE £0 SIVEL OF LA JOYA DE EOS SACHS’ La Joya dn Los» Srehr-= 2 20 de tloviembee de 1.997; Las 1CHOO~ YTSCOH'= fv9c9 zon. nisato an la presente causa en mi calidad de Jus: Tikutarta to + la domanda ee eLaca, precisa y caine Los dente cans.kty “ts Unys= Be conformidat con los Arts. 405 y (C6 del 2$dico de Pea dimlsato Civil, cen in copla de la demanda y Ssta providencis,cser 3 eas Lalo a 1a domandada TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPAfIY, mn La persona Jn xu mondntacio © reprecantonte legal setor tocts: Rodel zo Paez | Lineneyr0¢ el tSenine de quince dias , con aperctb!mianto er enbele quilt ne Le cltee§ on In cludad de Quito en Ia dlrecsién indtend wntant Bapencntecio Libeada a uno de los seficens duces cle to CL tn Ly qlutad dy quito-PichLuchs, eavisndole Jespacto an forma y of sinmin reelproctiiddss en casos anSlogos.- Témese an cuenta el don ‘lia [east de los cmpazeci-ntes y 14 autactzrctén concadtds al D: Tebse SSnchez. Chtass y nobLElquese.= Agesqunsa va pactida ¢ peinetp. fi foes en * De, Jaime Esifin Facnind=z WRT OF LO fvIL DE LA Jor: go SACHS AS fh erx0 pees‘ 10s ttre 2 tay, seovh to yue comunico 3 Ua. ¥ fone da sofalar “omlcti nt$ndole d2 1a obligaciéa qua &) siuiad de 1a Joya d> los gachad bajo prevoncto: ser Maye ee FE Hf Seceotaciow‘THE HONORABLE FOURTH CIVIL JUDGE OF NAPO, SACHA: 1. De. AdoifoCalejas Ribadenera, Ecuadorian national, aul, Antorney, domiciled in Quit, in my ‘capacity as Legal Representative of Dr. Rodrigo Pérez Pallas. in his capacity as Agent and Legal Representative of Texaco Pevoleum Company (TEXPET), a8 suppor with the Power of Attrney tached beretoin is orginal copy aban instrument grating legal standing inthe ordinary proceedings ‘led agnnst Texaco Pewoleum Company by Orlando Molina Melo and Mary Luz Toro Meo, respect appear before you and respond to the cam inthe following terms My fis and last names and genera legal background are indicted a isthe capacity in which | appear on beta andi representation of Dr. Redrigo Perez Pallares, in his capaciy at Agent of Texaco Pevoleun ‘Cornpany (TEXPET) exablish my legal domicile athe Law Offices of Dr. Oswaldo Chiver, on Avenida ‘Los Fundadoresy 12 de Febrero, ia font ofthe Sacha Truck Control Satin. ‘The claim Fle by Mr, Orlando Molina Melo and Ms. Mary Luz Tore Melo is incomplete since it doesnot Afi the sipalations of Ar. 70 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, in particular with regard totem 3, grounds infact andi law. [With espct tthe grounds in fact, the claim lacks precision, since in no way whatsoever dos iset forth the factual elation between the supposed environmental contamination and te damages they claim have been cnused tothe private individual. With respect othe grounds in lav, the Panis have not set fort the legal basis by which they demonstrate the existence of the crime or the uniotetional rt which may have given rie 1 the obligation they chim. ‘The chim indicates that the Plants have been living on a farm in the vciniy of well SA-11O, in San ‘Calo, Sacha disc, for more than five year. TEXPET ceased operating what was the CEPE-Texaco ‘Consctiu on June 30,1990, tha i, more than seven and one half years ago, for which reason TEXPET. ‘cannot take responsibility forthe ats which rupposedly occured according ote claim, several years afer anding ovr te operation to another organization Inthe event at TEXPET wee lable forte alleged camages, which we o not gan any lim cout ‘ave been fie up fou year afer is termination 2 Operator ofthe Consortia, pursuant othe ‘visions of Ar. 2289 of the Civil Code ‘The parents ofthe wo cre, 3 and 3 years ld respectively, Mr. Orlando Mona MELO and Mary Luz Toro MELO, ae closely rated themseve. ts kao, by bot popular wisdom and seat experience td researc ta prcraion berwen cose relatives ges eto pce probes In Bis ease, he paren donot ecape ts ely. Inhas become commoaplace to blame TEXPET for all ofthe unfortunate events hat ave occurred around what was its perolewa operation area more than seven years. ago, Bu, {ust point out tat the ede of the ‘wo gir, whos five yours old was bom two years afr TEXPET ture the operation over PETROAMAZONAS, a Subsidiary of Petroecunde, and therefore, itis a clear eror to atemptto hold "TEXPET responsible for something which is completely unrelated in time. ‘The vague legal grounds referenced by the Paintin no way esablsh any specific obligations whatsoever for anyone, which renders said grounds, due to thir extremely general nue, without ecient applicablry tothe case st fot inthe claim,A4892, a ‘OBJECTIONS 1 se forthe following objections to the claims ofthe Plainti, expresly sting fonh that accep one of sid elaims, ll of which I deny, due to ther unfounded nate and lack of legal grounds 3:1 Pureand simple denial of he grounds in fact and int ofthe proposed action. 3.2 Paints’ Lack of Lezal Grounds: allege the Pint’ lack olga! grounds fete lan to which Iepy, since TEXPET has caused no darage to the Plains, 10 her daughtrs, family members or propery, fo which reason it owes them nothing for any reason whatsoever, even less Se fr the supposed physical injures referenced in their claim. 33. expressly allege te ipa nature ofthe legal capacity ofthe defendant, since Texaco Peroieum ‘Company ceased being operator ofthe Petrocuador-Texaco Consortium long before the ai alleged inthe claim occured, and on that date was aot operating in the aes. 34 Eads ofthe Charges: TEXPET is no and cant be responsible forthe genetic damage which ‘may have been passed from parents to children, the ase under consideration. Therefore he charge is ae 35 Incomsistncy of the Claim The claim lacks ground ia law, since makes no specifi reference to articles of legislation which esablsh the uninteational tort which TEXPET may have ‘comsined snd by means of which arises the obligation claimed by the Pies. Another fat. ‘which renders the cai inconsistent sha refers toa period of time in which TEXPET bad ‘eased involvement in all operations fr more than two ears rie tothe bith ofthe elder ofthe two daughter, and sald operation wa already the rspoasibiity of Peroamazonas. 36 Stan of Limiasions: Pursuant othe provisions of Anicle 2259 ofthe Civil Code, the actions therein become unenforceable after four yur TEXPET ceased operating the CEPE ‘TEXACO Consortium, subsequently PETROECUADOR-TEXACO, on June 30,1990 andthe operation was taken over by PETROAMAZONAS, a Subsidiary of Petoceunder. From the dae ‘indicated to the dae the claim was filed by the Pani, seven and one half years have sed “Therefore inthe event hat TEXPET had commited some unintentional tort giving rise to the the forum non convenes issue before we filed our initial motion extensive questions with respect to the location of witnesses and the identification of documents ask whether or not there were any reports that had been done and we identified very specifically three reports. This report by a Mr. Henderson that was done in November of 1990, we identified. It is there. It’s in the record. It’s a matter of which he knows. It is also something that occurred, Your Honor, in Novenber of 1990 which is subsequent to the time that Texaco Petroleum Company was the operator of this consortium. So it is Jeffectively a report on the operation of Petro Ecuador rather than Texaco Petroleum. As I say, we've identified this. ‘There’s no mystery about these things that have occurred. But it’s emblematic of the concern we've got about this discovery about going into these issues that really relate to the merits of the litigation as opposed to stopping with what we think are clear issues that were delineated by Judge Broderick. Was there contact, direction, control between the united states and Ecuador as to the matters that the plaintiffs allege caused actionable harm? Well, they have the fact of this inguiry occurring in November of 1990. I don’t think that as to what was said or what conclusions Mr. Henderson reached with respect to Petro Ecuador’s operations {som ' I 1 9 a n 23 Fa A4974 25 at the time really relates to anything other than the nerits in the litigation. Similarly, the kind of questions they've asked Mr. Doyle, Mr. Bischoff, and Mr. Shields about what was going on down in Ecuador -- did they use particular types of ‘technology? Were there mud pits in place? Did they oil roads in Ecuador? ‘They are allegations of something having been done wrong in Ecuador which we discussed. But it’s an issue for another day -- for discovery to be taken if and when this court determines it’s going to address the merits of the case and if we get into that, Judge, it’s just going to be that much longer and that much more expensive and difficult for the parties to get these initial jurisdictional matters heard. Judge, if I might just add one other thing when you first look at our letter -- and this discovery that was authorized by Judge Broderick and then again by you recently was done entirely at the time when we got the information from most recent discoveries from the plaintiff. And in response to your last order, Judge, you indicated that you thougnt, Jdiscovery should be bilateral. We should be able to obtain information that the plaintiffs hi In response to that, plaintiffs have entered into a stipulation in which they to the issues acknowledge they have no information that got that Judge Broderick said are appropriate for this linited discovery prior to the time there’s going to be a redetermination on these pending motions. The plaintiffsne " 2 3 6 6 v 2 2 2 2 A4975 26 acknowledge essentially that they have no basis at all for alleging as they did in their complaint -- Paragrapn 2e -- that Texaco, Inc... . THE COURT: I think you‘re reading far too much into it, Mr. King. I think the individual plaintiffs acknowledged that they personally don’t have such knowledge but that doesn’t mean that counsel on their behalf may not have undertaken sone investigation that revealed an appropriate basis for their complaint. And that’s not so unusual when you're talking about individual plaintitts who are, themselves, peasants as opposed to defendants who are a giant corporation and it’s subsidiaries, So I hear your point. I don’t think it’s well-taken in this particular circumstancs MR. KING: Well, Your Honor, I guess when you go on to putting stipulations aside, there has been nothing produced by plaintiffs otherwise that would suggest that Texaco, inc. was in fact in possession of the record of the activities down in Ecuador. The only major discovery that we have received from them prior to that time. At any rate, Your Honor, in conclusion I’d just say that we have done a great deal. A lot of effort and activity has gone into what was acknowledged and described repeatedly by Judge Broderick to be limited discovery. We think the Plaintiffs have gotten everything and more to which they are10 " 2 2 a Pa A4976 a7 entitled in order to respond to what our preliminary notions fon the part of Texaco, Inc. with respect to where this case should be heard and who are the appropriate defendants in the action. fut we think that it’s tine for the court to address those. And what we would ask, Judge, ig not that you permit additional discovery but that ve go ahead and set a briefing schedule for the determination . . - THE COURT: Along those lines, Mr. King, ming that discovery is either concluded or very nearly concluded, how long do you anticipate that you would require for preparation of a full. . MR. KING: Your Honor, we could prepare to submit our motion and memorandum within the next 30 days. ‘THE COURT: Which is essentially a renewal of the motion that’s on the table. MR. KING: Well, it is, Judge, but if you recall from your review of the file what Judge Broderick’s chanbers bad suggested at the tine was that we actually file separate Imenoranda and separate notions with respect to each of the Jgrounds which we were pursuing. what we would ask in this instance is that we be permitted to file a single notion with Ja consolidated menorandum of law. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the issues here, it will have to be lengthy, but lwe believe we could submit a memo of no more than 80 or 90 pages in length and then file a single, consolidated appendix2 n n u 28 as well. THE COURT: That's fine. MR. KING: Judge, there is one other issue with respect to the notions. In reviewing the materials and the motions that we submitted at the time initially, one of the grounds on which we moved relating to the local action, it really properly denominated as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. So we recharacterized this. And we previously advised the court and Mr. Kohn when we resubmit these motions we think the record is clear now that the plaintiffs have failed to bring their claim within the applicable statute of Limitations, so we'll raise that issue as well. THE COURT: Sure. That’ fine. Mr. Kohn. Briefly. MR. KOHN: ‘Thank you, Your Honor. I won't use up any of ay brief rebuttal tine to pond to the various new conditions that have occurred. 1 ‘think thei already about 50 pages of briefs that were in the record prior to Your Honor’s June decision that raised those very same new conditions. On response, they've indicated that those lawsuits in Ecuador . . . ‘THE couRT: And prior to that June decision I did read then. I haven‘t read them before today. MR. KOHN: ‘There‘s certainly nothing new since then. Let me just respond in the way that Mr. King ticked2 2 A4978 2) off sone of these issues fon this question of nether of not the individuals that were produced had the best knowledge or the best information concerning these operations, we don’t want to cast aspersions on these gentienen. Host of them were retired. ‘Tey were -~ I hope i'm doing as well when I’m their age as sone of then were —- but their nenories were not the best. We had to go repeatedly through things ~~ Were you involved? pid you have any communications with New York about approving contracts? I don’t know. ¢ don’t renember. It was a long tine ago. That sort of thing. But with respect to technical information, for example, this is what Mr. Bischoff said, not that it vas all confined to Ecuador, but he said, for example, there was 2 senorandum that communicated fron Mr. Bates in Florida to Hr. Palmer in New York. Hr. Painer had requested additional information to support the drilling recommendation -- Q 00 you have any understanding why those materials are being sent to Mr. Palmer in White Plains, New York? -~ This is at Page 186 -- A Working tor Mr. Palmer in New York is a five or six man group of the most senior explorationists in the | Jorganization. They were an additional service group that Me. Palmer would be involved in exploration. In this c: would probably ask their opinion since that was an exploratory jwell, etc. Then on Page 167 -~ Were you, Mr. Bischofr,1 2 a 2 B Pa 4979 involved with that? A No, to my knowledge that would have been handled on a technical level. 1 would not have been involved. -- So there’s technical people in New York and technical people in his own office in Florida and then it continues 10 pages later -- Q Did you have any involvement with technical matcers as you've described them at this deposition? A Wo. -- So that was the record that we were left with on those issues. Now with respect to these additional names that we communicated to Mr. King -- last week, he’s indicated, 25 of these folks are either retired or out of the country. Well, the four witnesses they produced under Rule 30(b)(6) were all retired. Those are the people they selected so 1 don’t think to "secure" that is an impediment. We’re not asking ths their cooperation. Quite the contrary, you give us their address and we'll be happy to subpoena them. We actually prefer to take their depositions without their cooperation having been secured. As to the Beacon, New York issue, again, just one reference from one of the depositions to clarify what that group was called upon to do -- Q To your knowledge, did the environmental group of Texaco in Beacon provide any specific information with respect to practices that should be utilized in a rain forest other than what you had talked about yesterday with respect to some research that they had10 " rs a 2 A4980, “provided? A I remember seeing a docunent when T was preparing for this which was a request from Texaco Petroleun company as the operator to Beacon, New York asking if they had or could gather from industry methods to preserve the environment in jungle operations -~ Now T want to get sone further information fron those people on what did they do in response? If they did nothing, there’s got to be a potential problem. If they did provide information it either was or was not followed. 1 think that also goes to shed some light on these issues. With respect to the docu nt that we requested, that was ny recollection that this had been a document that we nad asked for. It was identified in the Henderson report. It’s been part of the back and forth, I get suspicious when somebody says they have a docunent right there but they still don’t want to turn it over to us as to what may be in it. And even if it is prepared after their operations ceased, there have been environmental audits which were prepared before the operation ceased which have been produced and the report nay my" damage -- and that may be information we can then use in the other discovery to say -~ Who told you to do "x"? who nade the decision to do "Xx"? Did you know that you were doing "x" back in 1980 and why didn’t you change *X"? -- So [ think the information in there could be very probative of these say something that -- We did "Xx" in Ecuador and "x" has caused |i i a 2 Fa A4981 2 issues. | With respect to the notions, Your Honor, we just would point out just so that it is clear -- Mr. King has contemplated this -~ the second complaint that was filed on behalf of the Peruvian residence which was under a stipulation informally coordinated with the consolidation would be too formal a term for the treatment of that case, and we agreed that the notion which had been filed in the first filed case ~ = the Aguinda case -- applied to that case so that we vere proceeding that the defendant didn’t have to answer that complaint or file a new round of motions. But there would be separate issues with respect to the adequacy of a forum for the Peruvians that would be separate and apart from the issues jon the Eouadorians. And we would assune when Texaco said they wanted to renew notions they’re going to be notions addressing ‘the consolidated litigation for both complaints, not simply the first five. MR. KING: Judge, I’m trying to understand with respect to that last issue is that these cases have not been consolidated. ‘THE COURT: ‘That's ny understanding. MR. KING: So our answer is basically is that we would file motions in the Aguinda case. And, frankly, we think it would be a great deal of guidance for the parties from whatever the court does in the Aguinda case - .2 2 Pn Fo 1 A4982 a THE COURT: My Understanding is the only case before me is the Aguinda case. + + + that other case is separate issues of {INAUDIBLE} that would relate to that. MR. KOHN: We're not suggesting, Your Honor, that your disposition of the Aguinda motions is going to effect or resolve the . . - ‘THE COURT: I think that’s clearly true. And after all, I can’t dispose of it any way. can only report and recomend. MR. KING: Judge, can I define one thing... THE COURT: Briefly. 1 do have a criminal matter waiting. WR. KING: I/d just point out that I think Your Honor probably noted it yourself and what Mr. Kohn made reference to in each of the illustrations of deposition testimony -~ he has indicated there’s something additional he needs to inquire into -- was it with respect to document -- for example, the instance of Mr. Bischoff’s testinony with respect to a request that Texaco Petroleum Company in Ecuador | made of the environnental protection division in New York of certain information. That's a produce document. It’s an Jexchange of correspondence. He can make whatever he wishes of that. But for us to try and find the witnesses who were | associated with the activities of Texaco’s environmental :a 2 a ™ Ad983, if 34 || protection division in that period of time and make then available for a deposition, Your Honor, is what we think are | very tangential issues. It’s a real burden on both us and then as individuals and ve would ask the court not to inpose that burden now. ‘THE COURT: I take your point, counsel. It is quite clear to me -- and I make this comment, I suppose, directed primarily to plaintitts for guidance purposes only -- that the issues that are before the court or that will, indeed, be before the court in further submission of the notions that have been held in abeyance is necessarily the kind of issue which is more likely to be decided based on docunentary proot than by testimony from those whose memories are probably sonevhat limited and blurred sinply by the passage of tine. And, certainly, I think the likelihood of getting valuable information from additional depositions is pretty limited. Tt also seens fairly clear to me that defendants have, indeed, proceeded in good faith to produce huge quantities of certainly docunentary discovery that goes beyond simply those categories which are addressed in Judge Broderick’s previous orders and in my order in Jun Nevertheless, as I indicated it does seem to me there's a very fine line between the issues of decision-making and the junderiying merits. For example, a question that I think Mr. Konn posed was that he wanted to know why certain decisions2 2 a 2 A4984 jwere made. It strikes me that for purposes of the issues before the court it’s not so relevant why certain decisions were made but the process by which they were made. And yet, it does seen sonewnat ludicrous to only limiting him to asking ‘2 question how and not to ask the further question why if in fact it could possibly result in simply having to renew all of the depositions aguin at sone later date. and, certainly, as to some of those issues the question of how certain decisions were made is very relevant. So, I recognize that the questions that have to be addressed can’t easily be segregated from those which are, And to that perhaps, not primarily relevant at this sta end, I’m going to permit sone very, very circumscribed additional discovery. First of all, I’m not going to direct that the docunent in question prepared by the exploration producing and technology department of Texaco in Novenber of 1990 be turned over at this point in time. Tt seoms quite clear to me that while it may in fact be a compilation of Information that would be of value to the plaintitts it is, nevertheless, a compilation that had to have been based on sonething. Tt was prepared at a tine beyond the tine period relevant to the allegations in the complaint. again, it nay be useful but 1 don’t believe that under the circumstances of jthe case at this point in tine it is appropriate for ne to direct that that be produced. ‘That decision would certainly