97-9102(L) 97-9104(CON), 97-9108(CON) In the United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT GABRIEL ASHANGA JOTA, individually and as guardian for Raul Antonio Ashanga Casteno, Paula Nerida Ashanga Casteno, Christian Ashanga Csteno and Judith Reutegui Casteno, RAUL ANTONIO ASHANGA CASTENO, (Caption continued on inside cover) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, JOINT APPENDIX ‘Volume I of VII (Pages Al - A639) KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1101 Market Street, Suite 2400 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 (215) 238-1700 SULLIVAN & DAMEN 470 Mamaroneck Avenue White Plains, New York 10605 (914) 287-2000 LAW OFFICE OF CRISTOBAL BONIFAZ, ESQ. 48N. Pleasant Street Tucker Taft Bldg, Amherst, Massachusetts 01004 (413) 253-5626 Attorneys for Plaintffs-Appellarus (Additional parties on inside cover) PRINTINGHOUSE PRESS 25 WEST 43RO STREET, NEVIYORK, NY 10036 (212) 719-0980PAULA NERIDA ASHANGA CASTENO, CHRISTIAN ASHANGA CASENO, JUDITH REUTEGUI CASTENO, MANUEL ANTONIO CANELOS, indivudually and as guardian for his children, ALIMPIO ‘COQUINCHE NOTENO, ARSENIO CONDO, JUAN MARCOS COQINCHE MERCIER, RONALD CONQUNICHE NOTENO, individually and as guardian for Tarcila Coquinche and Saul Coquinche, TARCILA CONQUINCHE, SAUL CONQUINCHE, SANTIAGO CONQUINCHE, individually and as guardian for Julian ‘Coquinche and Santiago Conquinche, JULIAN COQUINCHE, SANTIAGO COQUINCHE, FLORENTINO NOTENO, Floemtino Noteno, individually and as guardian for Mery Noteno, Greine Noten, Armitda Noteno and Nori Noteno, MERY NOTENO, GREINE NOTENO, ARMILDA NOTENO, NORIS NOTENO, REMEDIA PAZ DUENDE, individually and as guardian for Lizzie Pena Paz and JackiePena Paz individually and on behalf of all others similarly sitwated, LIZZIE PENA PAZ, JACKIE PENA PAZ, ASSOCIACION INTERNICA DE DESARROLLO DE LA SELVA PERUANA— AIDESEP(MULTI-ETHIC ASSOCIATION OF THE DEVELOPMETN OF THE PERUVIAN RAINFOREST), in representation ofits members and of ts member organizations, ORGANIZACION KICHUARUNA WANGURINA — ORKIWAN, (ORGANIZATION QUICHUA WANGURINA), FEDERACION DE COMUNIDADES, NATIVAS DEL MEDIO NAPO — FECONAMN, (FEDERATION OF NATIVE COMMUNITES OF THE MIDDLE NAPO) and FEDERACION DEL PUEBLO YAGUA DEL BAJO AMAZONA Y BAJO NAPO- FEPYBABAN (FEDERATION OF THE YAGUA PEOPLE OF THE LOWER AMAZON AND LOWER NAPO), MARK AGUINDA, Individually, and as guardian for Gesica Grefa, CARLOS GREFA, Individually and as guardian for Gesica Gefa, GESICA GREFA, CATARINA AGUINDA, MERCEDES GREFA, LIDIA AGUINDA, PATRICIO CHIMBO, Individually and as ‘guardian for his minor children, ELIAS PLY AGUAJE, Individually and as guardian for Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, faguaje and Elias Piyaguije, LOLA PLY AGUAJE, EDISON PIYAGUAJE, PAULINA. PIYAGUAJE, JIMENA PIYAGUAJE, ELIAS PIYAGUAJE, DELFIN PIYAGUAJE, Individually and as guardian for his ‘minor children, JAVIER PIYAGUAJE, HOMER CONE, Individually and as guardian for his minor children, SANTO GUILLERMO RAMIEREZ, Individually and as guardian for Danilo Ramirez, DANILO RAMIREZ, JUANA TANGUILA, ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFF, LISTED IN EXHIBITS “B", “C” AND “D” HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE, Individually and on behalf ofall others similarly situated, Plointifs-Appellants, REPLUBLIC OF ECUARDO AND PETROECUADOR, Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellants, -agninst- TEXACO, INC., TEXACO INC. 2000 Westchester Avenue White Plains, New York 10650, Defendant-Appeltee KING & SPALDING BELDOCK, LEVINE & HOFFMAN 191 Peachtree Street, N.E. 99 Park Avenue, 16th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30303 New York, New York 10016 (404) 572-4600 (212) 490-0400 KAYE, SCHOLER, FIERMAN, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant HAYS & HANDLER 425 Park Avenue ‘New York, New York 10022 (212) 836-8000 Attorneys for Defendant-AppelleeIDE T Al Description Docket Plaintiffs’ Notice Of Appeal And Certificate Of Service, Aguinda, et al v. ‘Texaco Inc,. Civ. Action No. 93-7527 (JSR) ‘Complaint, Aguinda, et al v, Texaco Inc,. Civ. Action No. 93-7527 Attachments: Exhibit “A” - Map Exhibit “B” - List of Plaintifis Exhibit °C” - List of Plaintiffs Exhibit “D” - List of Plaintiffs Appendix To Texaco Inc.’s Motions To Dismiss, Aguinda, et al v, Texaco Ine.. Civ. Action No. 93-7527 (VLB) Index To Affidavits: Affidavit of George S. Branch with Exhibits A and B Affidavit of Dr. Enrique Ponce Y Carbo Affidavit of Dr. Vincente Bermeo Lanas Affidavit of Texaco Petroleum Company by Denis York LeCorgne Plaintifs’ Exhibits To Their Opposition To Defendant's Motions To Dismiss The Complaint, Aguinda, et al Texaco Inc.. Civ. Action No. 93-7527 (VLB) Table Of Contents 1. Affidavit of Cristobal Bonifaz: 2. Sequihua v, Texaco Inc.. No. 93-3432 (Order Jan. 27. 1994); 3. Plaintiffs" Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motions in Sequihua v, Texaco Inc.: Affidavit of Dr. Julio Cesar Trujillo Vasquez and Dr. Ramiro Larrea Santos: Affidavit of Alberto Wray: Affidavit of Valadimir Serrano Perez: Affidavit of Dr. Ricardo Crespo Plaza: Affidavit of Dr. Aaron D. Bannett: Affidavit of Stephen N. Kales: Affidavit of Sarah Zaidi: Affidavit of Anthony D. Lamontagne; Affidavit of Anthony Avirgan: Affidavit of Mr. William Fray: > BSrSees4ay Page Number AI-A26, A2T-A29 30-67 AGB A69 A70 ANL-72 AB Ags ATS-98 99-109 A110-117 A1I8-121 Al22 A123-125 126-143 A144-155 A1SSa-189 190-210 A211-238 A240-254 A255-268a 269-280 281-286 A287 A288-294 295-299 300-3054 15. 16. 22. 23. 24, 25. 26. 2. 31 33. ASfidavit of the Secoya Tribe Given by Elias Piaguaje; ‘Affidavit of Pamela Kissling; . Affidavit of Steven Donziger; 17. 18. 19. 20. 2. Affidavit of Lalit P. Naithani; Affidavit of Chris Jochnick: Affidavit of Dinah L. Shelton Affidavit of Adriana Fabra Aguilar; Letter from the President of the National Congress of Ecuador, President of the Committee for the Environment, President of the Committee for Education, Culture & Sports, President of the Committee for Mines and Petroleum, All of Congress of Ecuador, dated January 17, 1993 together with translation and Affidavit; Speech of Alejandro Ponce Martinez with translation; Petition submitted to the Organization of American States Regarding Human Rights Abuses in Ecuador, dated April 16, 1993; Copy of Complaint filed by Texaco against Ecuador; ete inpeeon prepared by the Center for the Administration of Justice, Florida International University: Excerpts of the deposition of Denis York LeCorgne; Excerpis from Texaco Inc.'s Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs" Interrogatories Concerning Forum Non ‘Conveniens Issues: . U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights for Ecuador. 1991. 1992 and 1993: by Clive Grylls: Center for Economic and Social Rights, March 1994, Report on Rights Violations in Ecuadoran Amazon: Health Effects of Exposure to Crude Oil. Exposure and Health Study of Residents of the Oriente; Excerpts of the draft HBT AGRA Limited Environmental Assessment of the Petro Ecuador's - Texaco Consortiums Oil Fields: Decision of the International Water Tribunal in the case of CORDAVI v, Texaco Petroleum Company, et al.; Newspaper articles with translations concerning the Ecuadoran Congress’ Investigation of the Ambassador's Letter of December 3. 1993: 2 4306-315 A316-318 319-321 322-327 A328-332 333-350 351-358 359-363 363-400 401-433 A434-453 A454-461 462-519 520-546 A547-573 AS74-639 640-659 A660-672 673-675 676-69234, Opinion of Attorney General Charles J. Bonaparte, 26 Op. Atty Gen. 250, May 16, 1907 Plaintiffs’ Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Based Upon Forum Non Conveniens, Aguinda, et al vy, Texaco Inc. Civ. Action No. 93-7527 (VLB) Plaintiffs’ Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Texaco Inc.'s Motion To Dismiss Based Upon Principles of International Comity, ‘Aguinda, et al v, Texaco Inc.. Civ. Action No. 93-7527 (VLB) Plaintiffs’ Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Texaco Inc.'s Motion To Dismiss Individual Claims , Aguinda, et al v. Texaco Inc... Civ. Action No. 93-7527 (VLB) Plaintiffs Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Texaco Inc.'s Motion To Dismiss For Failure To Join Indispensable Parties, ‘Aguinda, et al v, Texaco Inc.. Civ. Action No. 93-7527 (VLB) Newspaper Clippings Contract Of Environmental Investigation Serviees For The Oil Fields Of The Cepe-Texaco Consortium Centficate Of Service Defendant Texaco Inc."s Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Reconsideration Or, Alternatively. For Certification Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) Stipulation Regarding Discovery. Aguinda, etal v, Texaco Inc.. Civ. Action No. 93-7527 (VLB) Memorandum Order. Aguinda, etal v, Texaco inc. Civ. Action No. 93-7527 (VLB) Attachment “A” - Memorandum Of Understanding Between The Government Of Ecuador. PETROECUADOR And Texaco Petroleum Company 693-695 696-710 ATI-723 724-740 ATA1-751 752-159 760-806 A807 A808-812 A813-818Notice Of Filing, Aguinda, et alv, Texaco Inc,. iv. Action No, 93-7527, (VLB) Affidavit Of Dr. Adolfo Callejas Ribadeneira Cenificate of Service, Notice of Filing, Aguinda, et al v, Texaco Inc.. Civ, Action No. 93-7527 (VLB) ‘Notice of Motion, Aguinda, et alv, Texaco Inc. Civ. Action No. 93-7527 (VLB) Affidavit Of Richard J. Kilsheimer In Support Of Motion For Substitution Of Counsel For Certain Plaintiffs, Aguinda, et al v, Texaco Inc,. Civ. Action No. 93-7527 (VLB) Certificate Of Service, Notice of Motion, Aguinda, et al v. Texaco Inc. Civ. Action No. 93-7527 (VLB) Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Motion To Substitute Counsel, Aguinda, et al v. Texaco Inc,. Civ. Action No. 93-7527 (VLB) Cenificate of Service. Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Motion To Substitute Counsel, Aguinda, et al v, Texaco Inc,. Civ. Action No. 93-7527 (VLB) A Preliminary Proposal To Redress Injuries To The Natural Resources And Indigenous Peoples Of The Oriente Letter dated August 2. 1994 from Judith Kimerling to Francisco Acosta Re: Article in Harvard Human Rights journal Draft: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan Prepared by Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council A Proposal To Evaluate Health Consequences Of Oil Exploration And Production In The Oriente Region Of Ecuador 4 A819-828 4830-831 A832-836 837-838 839-840 AB41-844 A845 846-848 Ag49 ‘850-857 859-863 866-977 979-984‘An Overview of the Ecosystem and Damage to Subsistence Resources in the Area Impacted by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Prepared for Chugachmiut; Fortier and Mikko and Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll May 14, 1993 Effects of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on Alutiiq Culture and People by Stephen R. Braund & Associates February 1993 Amazon Crude by Judithe Kimerling with the ‘Natural Resources Defense Council The Environmental Audit of Texaco’s Amazon Oil Fields: Environmental Justice or Business as Usual? By Judith Kimerling Harvard Human Rights Journal/ Volume 17 Plaintiffs’ Response to Texaco Inc."S Report on the “Settlement” Between Texaco Petroleum Company and Ecuador and Plaimtifis* Proposal for the Conduct of Further Proceedings February 1. 1995 Memorandum Decision and Order June 20, 1995 Modified Schedule: Motion for the Substitution of Counsel Stipulation and Order July 12, 1995 Information concerning documents Affidavit of Ambassador Edgar Teran January 3. 1996 A986-A996 A997-A1025, A1026-A1159 AI160-A1185 A1191-A1206 1207-1218 1219-1221 A1222-A1228Supplemental Brief Amicus Curiae of the Republic of Ecuador Jamuary 3, 1996 Memorandum April 11, 1994 (Texaco seeks to dismiss complaint) Memorandum April 29, 1994 (Reconsideration) Memorandum Order December 17, 1994 (Compulsory settlement procedures and Creation ofa structure for plaintiffs’ intervene) Stipulation and Order (Plaintffs’ have no knowledge, information or documents to prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of any facts relating to the categories of discovery...) December 17. 1994 Texaco Ine."s Appendix of Affidavits, Documents and Other Authorities in Support of its Motions to Dismiss July 11, 1995 Affidavit of Ambassor Edgar Teran April 8. 1994 Affidavit of Dr. Adolfo Callejas (English and Spanish versions) December 1. 1995 Independent Municipality of “La Joya de los Sachas” Province of Napo May 12. 1994 Petition from the people of Canton of Laloya De Los Sachas. province of Napo. 1229-41236 A1237-A1261 1262-1270 A1271-A1276 1277-41279 1280-1283, A1284-A1290 A1291-AA1298 1299-1319Municipality of “La Joya de los Sachas” Province A1320-A1345 ‘of Napo (Spanish and English versions); May 12,1994; Affidavit of Kerry Hegarty, translator; Mejia and Sanchezgo before the Civil Judge of La Joya de los Sachas pursuant to the provisions of Art. 74 of the code of Civil Procedure. Affidavit of Jorge F. Cajas Garzonm Agronomist. A1346-A1359 and Angel Erazo Ordonez, Attorney at Law Municipality of Shushufindi, Ecuador (Spanish and English versions); October 17, 1995; Affidavit of Tatiana Acosta, translator; Affidavit of Jorge Cajas and Angel Ordonez A1360-A1365 Affidavit of Michael C. Kingsley, translator. September 1, 1994 Letter from The Secretary of the Civil Court A1366-A1378 of Orellana, Rosa Jimenez to Dr. Pallares; (Spanish and English versions) August 30, 1994; Affidavit of Michael C. Kingsley, translator. September 1, 1994 Letter to the Provincial Civil Judge of Suembios Mayor Penarrieta and Main Alderman, 1379-41393, Wilfrido Moran of the Municipality of Lago Agrio Affidavit of Maribel Garcia. translator. December 18. 1995 Letter from Pedro Penarrieta and Wilfrido Basurto 1394-41405 of the Municipality of Largo Agrio to the Civil Judge of Joya de los Sachas “The Grounds in Law and Fact” Affidavit of Kerry Hegarty. translator: September 19. 1994 Letter to the Judge of Joya De Los Sachas from A1406-A1421 Dr. Martinez and Dr. Callejas Affidavit of Benjamin Harrison, translator, January 3, 1996“Municipality of La Joya de los Sachas” Province of ‘A1422-A1436 ‘Mapo; Letter from Adolfo Mejia and Dr. Sanchez to the civil judge of La Joya de los Sachas Affidavit of Maribel Garcia, translator; December 18, 1995 Letter to Judge of Joya de los Sachas fom Dr. Malo A1437-A1454 Civil Court of Napo (Summarization of the damage caused by Texaco) Affidavit of Maribel Garcia, translator; December 18, 1995 Affidavit of Dr. Enrique Ponce Y Carbo; A145S-A1465 December 7, 1995 CV of Dr. Enrique Ponce Y Carbo ‘A1466-A1477 Affidavit of Maribel Garcia. translator; December 14, 1995 A1478-A1480 Texaco Petroleum Company Subcontracts and A1481-A1488 Subcontract Language Contract Excerpts in Texaco Petroleum Company A1489-A1491 Contracts with Subcontractors Affidavit of DR. Vincente Bermeo Lanas A1492-A1496 December 11. 1995 Affidavit of Dr. Alejando Ponce Martinez A1497-A1511 Affidavit of Dr. Rodrigo Perez Pallares A1512-A1517 (English and Spanish versions) December 1, 1995 Letter to Dr. Callejas from Gladys Y. de Escober AISI8-A1519 List of Lawsuits And Admistrative Claims Filed A1520-A1549 By And Against Texaco Petroleum Company In Ecuador. From 1974 Through November 30, 1995 Affidavit of Dr. Jorge Perez-Serrano A1550-A1553 December 2. 1995‘Sample of Lawsuits Carried Out By Perez Bustamante & Perez By Which Foreign Companies Domiciled In Ecuador Are Being Sued Affidavit of Texaco Petroleum Company January 3, 1996 Contract for Implementing of Environmental Remedial ‘Work and Release from Obligations , Liability and ‘Claims; Definitions; Scope of Work; Performance of the Work; Certification and Acceptence of the Work; Release of Claims; Termination; Insurance; Force Majeure; Government Scope of the Environmental Remedial Work List of Drilling Sites; Abandoned Installations; List of Sites for the construction of dikes Contracts or Agreements Related to the Exploration, Production Transportation and Handling of the Petroleum of the Consotium (Spanish and English versions) Deposition of William C, Benton November 17, 1995 Deposition of Robert M. Bischoff. Volume 1 August 17, 1995 Deposition of Texaco. Inc. (William Doyle) August 3. 1995 Deposition of Denis York Lecorgne February 11. 1994 Deposition of Texaco. Inc. (Richard Myers) December 6. 1995 Confidential statement on the record of Robert C. Sheilds: August 23, 1995, A1554-A1558 A1559-A1573, A1574-A1583, A1584-A1612 A1613-A1660 ‘A1661-A1700 A1701-A1760 1761-1780 AI781-A1810 AI811-A1864Texaco Inc.'s Appendix of Affidavits, Documents, and Other Authorities in Support of Its Motions to Dismiss (Volume 2 of 2) Deposition of McNeill Watkins August 14, 195 Plaintiffs’ Responses to Defendant Texaco Inc."s First Set of Interrogatories Plaintiffs’ Responses to Defendant Texaco’s Inc.’s Second Set of Interrogatories Brief Amicus Curiae of the Republic of Ecuador January 26. 1994 Stipulation (Motions filed in Court by the parties shall be deemed to have been filed and submitted) February 2. 1995 Memorandum and Order - July 11, 1995 (Consolidation of several personal injury suits filed in various Texas courts) Plaintiffs" Original Petition: Legal Research - Sequihua v. Texaco: 1995 Pennwell Publishing Company Oil & Gas Journal Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment: Stockholm June 5-16. 1972 Rio Declaration and Forest Principles - Earth ‘Summit: Rio de Janeiro June 3-14, 1972 Texaco Corporate Conduct Guidelines Civil Cause for Status Conference Before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Smith June 12. 1995 -10- A1865-A1869 A1870-A1901 1902-41903 A1905-A1906 A1908-A1929 1930-41933, A1934-A2056 A2057-A2136 A2137-A2162 A2163-A2192 A2193-A2196Civil Cause for Status Conference Before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Smith October 21, 1995 PlaintiffS’ Response to Texaco Inc.’s Report on the Settlement Between Texaco Petroleum Company and Ecuador and Plaintiffs’ Proposal for the Conduct of Further Proceedings February 1, 1995 Affidavit of Dr. Charles B. Koons CV of Dr. Charles B. Koons Report: Proposal by the affected parties for the Reparation of the Environmental and Compensation for the Societal Damages Incurred as A Result of Texpet’s Operations (texaco) in the Amazon Region of Ecuador (Spanish and English versions) Texaco Contract with Quito- August 16, 1973 No. 925 General Guillerd Lara President of the Republic Notice of Reassignment To Judge Jed S. Radkoff February 29. 1996 Affidavit of Dr. Manuel Polanco CV of Dr. Manuel Polanco (Spanish and English versions) Affidavit of Jason Rossi, translator - June 27, 1996: Resolution of the National Congress of Ecuador Special Permanent Commission for the Environment (Spanish and English versions)- December 6. 1996 Official Letter from the President of the Special Commission of Environmental Defense of the National Congress of the Republic of Ecuador. Dr. Isauro Puente Davila - June 14, 1996 A2197-A2214 A2215-A2230 A2231-A2283 A2284-A2326 2327-2327 A2328-A2340 AQ341-A2345 A2346-A2348Official Letter from the General Secretary of the National Congress of Ecuador, Dr. Fabrizio Brito Moran - June 14, 1996 Martindale-Hubble Law Directory 1994 Ecuador-Quito section Certificate of Service Martin D’Urso - July 8, 1996 Plaintiffs" Supplemental Memorandum in Further Opposition to Texaco’s Motions to Dismiss Plaintifis’ Appendix of Affidavits, Documents and Other Authorities in Opposition of Texaco’s Motions to Dismiss - January 23, 1996 CV of Soren Hvalkof “Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries” “ILO Convention concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and other tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries” House Documents Vol. 3 62d Congress - 3d Session December 2. 1912-March 4. 1913 “Slavery in Peru” Message from the President of the United States February 7. 1913 “The Environmental Audit of Texaco"s Amazon Oil Fields: Environmental Justice or Business as Usual?” by Judith Kimerling Affidavit of Dr. Wade Davis; Biographical notes: Curriculum Vitae Official Announcement from the President of the Special Permanent Commission on Environmental Defense of the Honorable National Congress of Ecuador - translated from Spanish to English by the Lingual Institute Article: Oriente: “The hottest new Latin oil patch in years” by Frank J. Gardner dated March 24. 1969 Affidavit of Dr. Charles B. Koons 12 A2349-A2351 A2352-A2362 A2363-A2363 A2364-A2397 A2398-A2433, A2435-A2484 A24B5-A2512 A2513-A2544 A2545-A2557 2558-2561 A2562-A2565Environmental Assessment of the Oriente District of Ecuador by Dr. Charles B. Koons, Houston, Texas; Curriculum Vitae of Charles B. Koons “Savages” by Joe Kane “Oriente is Ecuador's new frontier” by Ing: Rene Bucaram The Oil and Gas Journal - September 24, 1973 . Environmental Management and Restoration During Oil Exploration in the Ecuadorian Amazon Basin - Dilworth W. Chamberlain United Nation - Economic and Social Counsil July 17, 1991, Commission on Human Rights “Discrimination Against Indigenous Peoples” Affidavit of Dr. Aaron D. Bannett, M.D.; Curriculum Vitae “Final Draft of Report on a Rapid Assessment of Oil Pollution & Environmental Health in the Oriénte Region of Ecuador” by Anthony D. LaMontagne, ScD, MA, Med; Curriculum Vitae of Anthony D. LaMontagne, ScD, MA, Med; Curriculum Vitae of Stephen N. Kales Plaintiffs’ Appendix of Affidavits, Documents and Other Authorities in Opposition of Texaco’s Motions to Dismiss (Volume 2 of 4) Affidavit of Lou Dematteis dated 02/09/96 - Photographic Record of Conditions in the Orient District of Ecuador 1993 United Notions Conference on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro, June 3-14, 1992 “Adoption of Agreements on Environment and Development” Memorandum of Hon. Vincent Broderick dated April 11. 1994 ‘Memorandum of Hon. Vincent Broderick dated April 29. 1994 Texaco - Gulf NAPO Agreements and NAPO Joint Operating Agreement (Ecuador) Oral Deposition of Robert C. Shields taken on August 23, 1995 -13- A2566-A2585 A2586-A2590 A2591-A2592, 2593-42602 A2603-A2636 A2637-A2651 A2652-A2732 A273 A2734-A2735 A2748-A2758 A2759-A2783, A2784-A2793, A2794-A2859 A2860-A2932Oral Deposition of William C. Benton (Minu-Script) taken on A2933-A2967 November 17, 1995 Introduction - Amazon Crude 2968-42974 Aguinda - Defendant Texaco Inc.'s Objections and Responses to A2975-A3036 Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories Concerning Forum Non Conveniens Issues Oral Deposition of McNeill Watkins (Minu-Seript) taken on A3037-A3039 August 14, 1995 Deposition of Robert M. Bischoff, Volume I taken August 17, 1995 43040-3090 Unswom Declaration by [LIC.] Bertha Margarita Yepez Silva Subject A3091-A3096 to Punishment for Perjury Cath of Mr. Galo Troya translated from Spanish to English 43097-3106 by Lingual Institute dated January 26, 196 ‘Affidavit of Thomas I. Braha dated February 9, 1996 and Resume A3107-A3111 Bischoff lewer dated 1/18/79; Quevedo letter dated 4/14/78 (Bischof? ABII2-A3113 dep. Exh, 14-16) Contract Approval check List. dated 4/25/73 (Bischoff dep. Exh. 2) agiig Palmer letter dated 9/13/76 (Shields dep. Exh, 17-19) ABIIS-A3I17 Bischoff memo dated 6/5/74 (Bischoff dep. Exh. 50) ABB ‘Savage memos dated 3/28/80 abd 3/24/80 (Bischoff dep. Exh. 7 & 44) A3119-A3122 Plaimiffs" Appendix of Affidavits, Documents and Other Authorities in A3123-A3126 Opposition of Texaco’s Motions to Dismiss (Volume 3 of 4) — Shields Conf. Letter with attachments dated 09/24/74 (Shields dep. A3127-A3131 Exh. 4) Evans Memo dated 10/12/73 (Bischoff dep. Exh. 25) A3I32 Olbrich Memo dated 12/30/74 (Shields dep. Exh. 42) A313 “14“New Era in Ecuador” Texaco Star Article General Rene Vargas Pazzos Affidavit ‘Unswor Declaration by-[LIC.]Manuel E. Navarro v. Subject to Punishment for Perjury Oath Given by Luis Arturo Araujo Minutes of Directors’ Meeting No. 457 (Shields dep. Exh. 9) TexPet & CEPE (Petroecuador) Contract Ethnic Conflict and Governance In Comparative Pespective Bischoff letter dated 07/30/73 (Shields dep. Exh. 22) Evans Memorandum dated 7/27/73 (Bischoff dep. Exh. 10) Bischoff letter dated 12/27/72; letter from Texas Pipeline Co. dated 7/27/73 (Bischoff dep. Exh. 21) Bischoff letier with attachments 12/28/77 (Bishoff dep. Exh. 23) Chart entitled Pipeline Breaks (Meyers dep. Exh. 13) Martinez letter with attachments 12/28/77 (Bischoff dep. Exh. 19) Bischoff memo dated 9/27/94 (Bischoff dep. Exh. 48) Brown letter with attachments dated 5/19/72 (Bischoff dep. Exh. 30) ‘Surge Tank - Palmer Memo dated 12/28/73 Richard K. Meyers deposition excerpts taken 12/06/95, Bates memo with attachments dated 12/3/79 (Bischoff dep. Exh. 34) Myers memo with attachments dated 12/5/79 (Meyers dep. Exh. 1) -15- 3134-43136 A3137-A3149 A3150-A3152 A3153-A3162 A3163-A3170 A31T1-A3177 3178-3209 A3210-A3230 A3231-A3233, A3234-A3236 A3237-A3257 3258-3271 3272-3307 3309 A3310-A3317 A3318-A3319 A3320-A3334 A3335-A3337 A3338-A3343Shields memo dated 5/20/74; Martinez letter dated 5/9/74; Bishoff letter dated 7/17/74; Coppoc memo dated 7/12/74 (Meyers dep. Exh. 5-7) Palmer memo dated 5/25/73 (Shields dep. Exh. 40) G. Tassi “Fish That Smell like Soap” “The Global Effects of Tropical Deforestation” Tropical Rainforests by Chris C. Park Tropical Deforestation - Hearings before the Subcommittee on International Organizations of the Committee on Foreign Affairs House of Representatives ninety-sixth Congress - May 7; June 19 and September 18. 1980 Rainforest Action Network - Medicinal Agricultural and Industrial Benefits of the Rainforests The Importance of Biological Diversity - A statement by WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature Carbon Dioxide Uptake by an Undisturbed Tropical Rain Forest in Southwest Amazonia, 1992 to 1993 The Heat Trap - The threat posed by rising levels of greenhouse gases, Environmental Protection & Natural Resources “DEP Announces Six-Month Regulatory Agenda, January 5. 1996 Class Action Complaint Dated December 28. 1994 Plaintiffs’ Appendix of Affidavits. Documents and Other Authorities in Opposition of Texaco’s Motion to Dismiss (Volume 4 of 4) Swom Statement of Filomeno Encamacion translated from Spanish to English -16- 3344-43349 A3350-A3352 A3353-A3358 A3359-A3365 A3366-A3372 A3373-A3375 3376-3377 A3378-A3412 A3413-A3414 A3415-A3421 3422-43425 3426-43466 A3467-A3470 A3471-A3476 —Affidavit of His Excelleney Edgar Teran dated April 28, 1995 Affidavit of Edgar Teran dated June 16, 1995 Order dated 8/27/95 (Ecuadorian Pesticide Runoff Litigation Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief From Final Judgment and Memorandum In Support Thereof in Delgado Attorney General of Ecuador letter dated June 29, 1995 President of the National Congress of Ecuador letter dated July 5, 1995 Letter dated 1/17/93 from 4 Presidents of Key Ecuadorian ‘Commissions Announcement of the President of the Commission on Internal Affairs of the National Congress of Ecuador ‘Unsworn Declaration by Doctor Emesto Lopez Freire Subject to the Penalty for Perjury: Curriculum Vitae June 1990 Report to the Petroccaudor-Texaco Consortium by HBT AGRA Limited Bischoff letter dated 5/25/72 (Bischoff dep. Exh. 35) Affidavit of Chris Jochnick ‘Swom Affidavit of Auomey Vladimir Serrano Perez. Affidavit of Dr. Ricardo Crespo Plazo Transcript of Oral Argument on June 7. 1996 Judgment Dated November 13. 1996 Along With Exhibit B -17- A3477-A3482 3483-3485, 3486-3490 A3491-A3498 A3499-A3505, A3506-A3516 A3517-A3518 3519-43527 3528-3535 A3536-A3571 A3572 A3573-A3578 A3579-A3593, 3605 A3606-A3680 A3681-A3682Affidavit of Henry Saint Dahl Dated November 25, 1996 ‘Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Plaintiffs’ Motion For Reconsideration ‘Of The Court's Opinion And Order Of November 12, 1996 Declaracion Suramentada Del Dr. Francisco Acosta Vepez Affidavit Of Dr. Francisco Acosta Yepez Notice of Motion To Intervene Pursuant To Fed.R.Civ.P. 24 Dated December 20, 1996 Affidavit of Jonathan 8. Abady Dated December 20, 1996 Intervenor-Plaintiffs The Republic OF Ecuador And Petroecuador’s Complaint Opinion And Order Dated November 12. 1996 Certified Letter Dated December 19. 1996 Letter to Judge Rakoff Dated December 18, In English And Spanish Proposed Order Letter To Judge Rakoff From Jonathan Abady Dated December 26. 1996 Spanish Letter to Senor Juez From Doctor Leonidas Verduga Dated December 18. 1996 Along With Exhibits A. B.C Order Discussing Pending Motions Dated March 25. 1997 “18. A3683 A3684-A3691 3692-3697 43698-43699 A3700-A3702 A3703-A3705, 3706-3712 A3738-A3743 A3744 A3745-A3755 A3756-A3757 A378 A3759-A3789 A3790-A37924/25/97 Correspondence Addressed to Embassador Moreno Guerra translated from Spanish to English 4/25/97 Correspondence Addressed to Judge Rakoff translated from Spanish to English Memorandum Order dated 08/12/97 Reply Memorandum in Further Support of the Motions to Intervene Filed by Confeniae, Foise & Oise and to Appoint Lead Counsel and Plaintifis’ Steering Commitee Docket Sheet in Jota et al v. Texaco No. 93-7527 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal ‘Summons in a Civil Action to Texaco, Inc. Class Action Complaint in Jota v. Texaco et al. dated 12/28/94 Stipulation dated 02/02/95 Notice of Reassignment of Judge Barrington D, Parker dated 4/14/95 Complaint in Jota v. Texaco et a. 94-9260 dated 12/28/97 Order in Jota v. Texaco et al. dated 08/12/97 -19- A3793-A3795 43796-43800 ‘43801-43807 A3808-A3838 A3839-A3852 A3853-A3854 A3855 A3857-A3897 A3898-A3899 A3900-A3916 A3918-A4004 4005-44006Al PACER SESSION DATE: Tuesday October 07, 1997 09:45:43 AM EDT Docket as of September 5, 1997 Page 1 Proceedings include all event: was APPEAL 1:93ev7527 Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. cuoseD MAG APPEAL CLOSED U:S. District court Southern District of New York ~ Civil Database (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 93-CV-7527 Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. Filed: 11/03/93 Assigned to: Judge Jed 5. Rakoff Jury demand: Plaintift Demand: $0,000 Nature of Suit: 890 Lead Docket: None Jurisdiction: Federal Question Dkt# in other court: None cau 1: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury MARIA AGUINDA, individually Joseph Kohn and ae guardians for Gesica (COR LD wrcy Grefa. Kohn, Nagt & Graf plaintitt 2400 One Reading Center 3201 Market street Philiadelphia, PA 19107 Joseph ¢ Kohn [cor LD NTC} Kohn, Naat & Graf ‘2400 One Reading Center 2101 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 238-1700 Steve W. Berman {cor LD NTC) HAGEN & BERMAN 1301 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 2929 SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 D. Michaer {COR LD NTC} COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD &AZ TOLL 1401 NEW YORK AVENUE, W.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 (202) 628-3500 Judith gag. Kimerling [COR LD NTC] JUDITH KIMERLING, ESQ. APARTADO 720-A Docket as of September 5, 1997 Page 2 Proceedings include all events. MAG APPEAL 1:93cv7527Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. cxoseD CARLOS GREFA, individually and 8 guardians for Cesica crefa. plaintiff GESICA GREFA plaintiff CATARINA AGUINDA plaintift MERCEDES GREFA plainciff QurT0, ECUADOR, Joseph Kohn (See above) [cor Lo wrc) Joseph ¢ Kohn (See above) [cor to wre} Joseph Kohn (See above) [cor Lo wre} Joseph C Kohn (See above) [COR LD NTC} Joreph Kohn (see above) {COR LO NTC} Joseph ¢ Kohn (See above) [COR LD wrc} Joseph Kohn {See above) {COR LD NTC]LIDIA AGUINDA plaintiff PATRICIO CHIMBO, individually and as guardian for his minor children. plaintifé AB Joseph ¢ Kohn (See above) [cor ED NTC} Joseph Kohn (See above) (cor Lo NTC} Joseph ¢ Kohn (See above} [cor Lo NTC} Joseph Kohn (See above) {COR LD NTC} Joseph C Kohn (See above) Docket as of September 5, 1997 3:57 am Page 3 Proceedings include all events. mac APPEAL 1:93¢v7527Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. cLosED ELIAS PIYAGUAJE, individually and as guardian for Lola Piyaguaje, Edicon Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje and Elias Piyaguaje. plaintife LOLA PIYAGUAJE plaintité EDISON PIYAGUAJE plaintiff [cor Lo wre} Joseph Kehn (See above) {COR LD NTC) Joseph ¢ Kohn (See above) (CoR LD NTC) Joseph Kohn (See above) [cor Lo NTC] Joseph C Koha (See above) [cor Lo NTC} Joseph Kohn (See above) [COR LD NTC}PAULINA PIYAGUAJE plaintift SIMENR PIYAGUATE. plaintiff Ad Joseph ¢ Kohn (See above) [cor Lp NTC} Joseph Kohn (See above) [cor 1p nrc) Joseph ¢ Kohn {See above) {COR LD NTC) : Joseph Koha (See above) [cor 1D NTC} Joseph ¢ Kohn (See above) (oor LD NTC) ELIAS PIYAGUAJE Joseph Kohn plaintiff (See above) [coR LD NTC) Joseph ¢ Kohn Docket as of September §, 1997 3:57 am Page 4 Proceedings include all events. mac APPEAL 1:93ev7527 Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. cLosep DELFIN PAYAGUAJO, individually and ae guardian for his minor children. plaintiff JAVIER PIYAGUAJE plaintiff Joueph Kohn (See above) [coR Lo NTC} Joseph ¢ Koha (See above) [cor Lo nrc} Joseph Kohn (See above) [COR LD NTC}AS Joseph C Kohn (See above) iy {COR LD Nrc) HOMER CONDE, individually and Joseph Kohn as guardian for his minor {See above) children. (COR LD NTC} plaintige Joseph ¢ Koha (See above) [COR LD NTC} SANTO GUILLERMO RAMIREZ, Joseph Koha individually and as guardian (See above) for Danilo Ramirez. (cor LD NTC} plaintiee Joseph ¢ Kohn (See above) (cor LD NTC) DANILO RAMIREZ Joseph Kohn plaintift (See above) (cor Lp wre) Joseph ¢ Kehna (See above) (cor 1p NTC) JUANA TANGUILA, Joseph Kohn plaintift (See above) (cor Lp NTC} Joneph c Kehn (See above) [cor LD NTC] Docket as of September $, 1997 3:57 am Page § Proceedings include all evente. mac APPEAL 3ev7527 ‘Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. ctosep ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFF, Listed Joseph Koha in Exhibite “B", "C7 and “D> (See above) hereto and incorporated herein [COR LD NIC]by reference. Individually and on behalf of all others similarly eituated. plaintift ‘TEXACO INC., 2000 West Chester Avenue White Plains, New York 10650. defendant, Ab Joseph ¢ Kohn (See above) [cor ED NTC] Griffin 8 Bell (cor LD NTC) King & Spalding : 120 West 45th Street New York, NY 10036-4003 (212) $86-2222 George § Branch (con Lp NTC) King & Spalding 120 West 45th Street New York, NY 10036-4003 (212) 586-2222 Dan H Willoughby [COR LD NzC} King & Spalding 120 West 45th Street New York, NY 10036-4003 (212) $56-2222AT Docket as of Septenber 5, 1997 3:57 am Page 6 Proceedings include all events. MAG APPEAL 1:93cv7527 Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. ‘cLoseD 11/3/93, COMPLAINT filed; Summons issued and Notice pursuant to 28 12/3/93 2 11/9/93 3 31/12/93 4 31/18/93 5 12/14/93 6 32/14/93 7 32/28/93 12/17/93 8 12/27/93 12/27/93 9 32/27/93 U.S.C. 636(c); FILING FEE $ 120.00 RECEIPT # 203110 (1m) [Entry date 11/08/93) case Information Statement Addendum and Case Designation to a Magistrate Judge filed. Purs. to statement, it is suggested that the case be classified as comple, designated to Magistrate Judge Fox. (1m) [Entry date 11/08/93} case is order classifying case. Purs. to the Civil Justice Expense ‘and Delay Reduction Plan, this case has been determined to be standard . ( eigned by Judge Vincent L. Broderick ) (1m) Affidavit of service as to Texaco inc. by Stephen R. Jacobson on 11/8/93 by personally serving Texaco at 2000 Westchester Avenue, White Plains, NY Answer due on 11/29/93 for Texaco inc. (11) STIPULATION and ORDER Plaintiffs hereby stipulated and agree that defendant Texaco inc.’s time to answer or move with respect to the Complaint is hereby extended to and including December 29, 1993. So Ordered ( signed by Judge Vincent L. Broderick ). (1m) (Entry date 11/19/93) Rule 9 certificate filed by Texaco inc. (1m) case Information Statement Addendum and Case Designation to a Magistrate Judge filed. Purs. to statement, it is suggested that the case be classified as complex. Case is designated to Magistrate Judge Fox. (1m) Pre-trial conference held Judge Vincent L. Broderick. (1m) (entry date 12/16/93) Filed Memo_Endorsement on letter dated December 16, 1993 letter to reflect the results of Case Management conference. So Ordered ( signed by Judge Vincent L. Broderick } (Im) [Entry date 12/20/93] Pre-trial conference held by Judge Vincent L. Broderick. (im [Entry date 12/20/93) NOTICE OF MOTION by Texaco inc. for Griffin 8 Sell, George S Branch, Dan H Willoughby to appear pro hac vice (1m) (entry date 12/20/93) Memo endorsed on motion; granting [9-1] motion for Griffin B Bell, George § Branch, Dan H Willoughby to appear pro hac vice So Ordered ( signed by Judge Vincent L. Broderick }7 copies mailed. (1m) (Entry date 12/20/93)AS Docket as of Septenber 5, 1997 3:57 am Page 7 Proceedings include all events. APPEAL 307527 12/28/93 10 32/26/93 11 12/28/93 12 32/28/93 13 12/28/93 16 12/28/93 15 1/10/96 ac Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. cxoseD NOTICE OF MOTION by Texaco inc. to dismiss complaint pursuant te principles of international comity or alternatively (1m) NOTICE OF MOTION by Texaco inc. to dismiss plaintiffs” complaint based on principles of international comity failure to join indisoensable parties ,, Return date 2/16/94 (1m) MEMORANDUM by Texaco ine. in support of [10-1] motion to dismiss complaint pursuant to principles of international comity or alternatively (1m) MEMORANDUM by Texaco inc. in support of [11-1] motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint based on principles of international comity failure to join indisoensable parti [10-1] motion to dismiss complaint purauant to principles of international comity or alternatively (1m) MEMORANDUM by Texaco inc. in support of [11-1] motion to dismiss plaintiff’ complaint based on principles of international comity failure to join indiscensable parti [10-1] motion to dismise complaint pursuant to principles of international comity or alternatively (1m) MEMORANDUM by Texaco inc. in support of [11-1] motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint based on principles of international comity failure to join indisoensable parti [10-1] motion to dismiss complaint pursuant to principles of international comity or alternatively (1m) ‘Tele-conference held by Judge Vincent L. Broderick (1m) (Entry date 01/11/94)Docket a¢ of September 5, 1997 Page 8 Proceedings include all events. mas ‘APPEAL 4:930v7527 Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. cLoseD 1/25/94 16 ORDER This suit was brought as a class action under 28 USC 3/27/94 2/3/94 3/10/94 3/10/94 vv 18 19 20 1332(a)(2), 28 USC 1331 and the Alien Tort Statute 28 USC 3350, on behalf of some 30,000 citizens of the Republic of Ecuador seeking anong other things damages for alleged injury to individuals and property and injunctive relief in connection with oil exploration and land development in che Oriente region of Ecuador. During a telephone conference call held on January 11, 1994 with Joseph C. Kohn Esq-, on behalf of the plaintiffs Daniel J. King Esq. representing the defendant and George Weiss Esq., on behalf of the Republic of Ecuador it was agreed that: 1. The Republic of Ecuador may file as amicus curiae a brief not to exceed 12 (twelve) pages by January 31, 1994. All other menoranda of law will be limited to 10 (ten) pages in accordance with my Individaul Rule of Practice 6.3. 2. Discovery pertaining solely to the forum non conveniens motion will be complete by March 10, 1994. 3. Plaintiffs’ response to defendant's motions to dismiss will be due by March 10, 1994. 4. Defendant's reply papers will be submitted by March 30, 1994, So Ordered ( signed by Judge John S. Martin )} Copies mailed (1m) BRIEF of Amicus Curiae of the Republic of Ecuador (1m) (Entry date 01/28/94] MANDATE OF USCA (certified copy) Re: The undersigned counsel for the parteis stipulate that the above-entitled appeal is hereby withdrawn from active consideration by the Court such withdrawal to be without prejudice to a Feinatatment of the appeal by appellants’ counsel so notifying the Clerk in writing by January 32, 1994. If not thus reinstated the appeal shall be deemed withdrawn with prejudice. Withdrawal of the appeal from active consideration shall not operate as a dismissal of the appeal uner FRAP 42(b). (1m) [Entry date 02/02/94) BRIEF Amicus Curiae by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Grefa, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio chimbo, Elias Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Eli Piyaguaje, Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Conde, Santo Guillermo Ramirer, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, Additional plaintiff re: (1m) ANSWER to defendant Texaco Inc.'s motions to dismiss by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Greta, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chimbo, Elias Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje, Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Conde, Santo Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, Additional plaintiff (Attorney Joseph C Kohn), ; by attorney (1m) (Edi date 03/16/94)AlO Docket as of September 5, 1997 3:57 am Page 9 Proceadings include all events. MAG APPEAL 1:93ev7527Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. cxoseo 3/10/94 22 MEMORANDUM by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Grefa, 3/10/96 3/10/94 3/10/94 3/30/94 3/30/94 22 23 24 2s 26 Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chinbo, Elias Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje, Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Conde, Santo Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, Additional plaintiff in opposition to (1m) MEMORANDUM by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Grefa, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chinbo, Elias Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje, Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Conde, Santo Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, Additional plaintiff in opposition to (1m) MEMORANDUM by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Grefa, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chimbo, Elias Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Conde, Santo Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, Additional plaintiff in opposition to (1m) MEMORANDUM by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Grefa, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chimbo, Eliae Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje, Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Conde, Santo Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, Additional plaintiff in opposition to (1m) Plaintiffe’ Supplemental Submission regarding Humana Rights Violations against indigenous peoples MEMORANDUM by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Grefa, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chimbo, Elia Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje, Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Conde, Santo Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, Additional plaintiff re: (dh) Plaintiffe’ Supplemental submission regarding adminietration of Class Members’ Claims MEMORANDUM by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Grefa, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chimbo, Elis Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edieon Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje, Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Conde, Santo Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, Additional plainciff re: (dn)Docket as of September 5, 1997 Proceedings include all event: Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. ‘cLoseD 1:93ev7527 3/30/94 27 3/30/94 28 3/30/94 29 3/30/94 30 3/30/98 32 3/30/94 32 3/30/94 33 4/ajoa 34 4/4/9438 9/8/94 36 Plaintiffs’ supplemental Submission regarding Global effects of Ecuadoran Environmental destruction in further opposition to Texaco Inc’s Motion to dismiss MEMORANDUM by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Grefa, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chinbo, Elias Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje, Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Conde, Santo Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, Additional plaineifé re: (dh) MEMORANDUM by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Greta, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio chinbo, Elias Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje, Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Conde, Santo Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, Additional plaintiff in opposition to {11-1} motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint based on principles of international comity failure to join indisoensable parties (dh) Reply MEMORANDUM by Texaco inc. in support of [11-1] motion to dismiss plaintiffe’ complaint based on principles of international comity failure te join indiscensable parties (ec) REPLY MEMORANDUM by Texaco inc. re: regarding pitts’ individual claims (ec) REPLY MEMORANDUM by Texaco inc. re: on the isaue of forum non conveniens (ec) REPLY by Texaco inc. Reson the issue of international comity (ec) MEMORANDUM by Texaco inc. re: In response to the brief Amicus Curiae for the Federation of Comunas Union of Natives of the Ecuadorian Amazon (Feunae) and Affiliated Communities and of the Idigenous Organization of the Cofan Nation of Ecuador (Oince) and Affiliated Communities. (ec) REPLY by Texaco inc. Rerto pltfs" supplemental Human Rights Submission regarding Hunan Rights violations against indigenous peoples. (ec) {Entry date 04/05/96] REPLY by Texaco inc. Re: to plaintiffa’ supplenental submission regarding international law authorities. (ec) [Entry date 04/05/94) REPLY by Texaco inc. Re:to pltfa* supplemental submission regarding Adminiatration of Class members’ claims. (ec)Al2 Docket as of Septenber 5, 1997 3:57 am Page 11 Proceedings include all events. vas APPEAL 3ev7527 Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. ctosep 4/8/94 37 REPLY by Texaco inc. Resto pltfs’ supplemental submission regarding Global Effects of Ecuadorian Environmental Destruction. (ec) spss 38 MEMORANDUM ORDER terminating [11-1] motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint based on principles of international comity failure to join indisoensable parties,Decision Reserved terminating [10-1] motion to dismiss complaint pursuant to principles of international comity or alternatively, Decision Reserved pending further order, discovery is limited to the following: (a) events relating to the harm alleged by plaintiffd occuring in the U.S., including specific or generalized directions initiating fevente to be implemented elsewhere, communications to and from the United States and discussions in the United states concerning, or assistance to or guidance for events occuring elsewhere; and (b) events occuring outside the U.S. to the extent the information can be furnished or ecured voluntarily or through directives to parties in the U.S. to secure the information. No involuntary discovery requiring enforcement action to be taken outside the U.s. ia authorized by thie memorandum order. Pending resolution of Texaco's pending contentions, no default for failure to answer may be claimed. In the interim Texaco, without waiving any of ite rights, may answer the complaint, but need not unless it chooses to do so. This does not preclude any party from moving for summary judgment or for preliminary relief of any kind if appropriate. (See decision) So Ordered: Vincent L. Broderick ); Copi mailed (11) 4/12/94 39 AFFIDAVIT of Ambassador Edgar Teran Re: I submit this afidavit in response to certain statements made in the Affidavit of Roger Normand, and in further support of Ecuador's request that the Court abstain from exercising jurisdiction over this lawsuit to avoid interfering with Ecuador's sovereign right to develop and regulate its own natural resources and environment. (ec) 4/25/94 40 NOTICE OF MOTION by Texaco inc. for reconsideration of [38-1] order concerning defendants’ four motions to dismiss or alternatively for an order certifying these issues for appeal pursuant to 28 USC 1292(b), , Return date 5-18-94 10:00 a.m. (dh) 4/25/94 41 NOTICE OF MOTION by Texaco inc. for reconsideration oF, alternatively for certification pursuant to 28 USC 1292(b). + Retura date $/18/94 (dh)Al3 Docket as of September 5, 1997 3:57 am Page 12 Proceedings include all events. MAG APPEAL 1:93¢v7527 Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. cLoseD 4/28/94 42 MEMORANDUM by Texaco inc. in support of [41-1] motion for reconsideration or, alternatively for certification pursuant to 28 USC 1292(b)-, (40-1) motion for reconsideration of [38-1] order concerning defendants’ four motions to dismiss or alternatively for an order certifying these issues for appeal pursuant to 28 USC 1292(b), Oral. argument requested. (dh) 4/29/94 43 ORDER granting (41-1] motion for reconsideration or, alternatively for certification pursuant to 28 USC 1292(b)., granting [40-1] motion for reconsideration of [38-1] order concerning defendants’ four motions to dismiss or alternatively for an order certifying these issues for appeal pursuant to 28 USC 1292(b), The motion is granted, and the April 11 order is adhered to. The information described in the April 11 order remains necessary for determination of Texaco's motions... see document . ( signed by Judge Vincent L. Broderick }; Copies mailed (dh) [Entry date 05/02/94) 5/16/94 44 Filed Notice of Appearance on behalf of the Federation of Union of Natives of the Ecuadorian Amazon (FCUNAE) 5/25/94 45 NOTICE of attorney appearance by Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman; Ballen, Gertel & DiCintio; and Mario Julian Penaherrera, Esq., hereby entered on behalf of the Federation of Indian Organizations of Sucumbios-Ecuador (FOINSE). (ec) 6/2/94 46 NOTICE OF MOTION by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Grefa, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chimbo, Elias Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje, Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Conde, Santo Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, Additional plaintiff pursuant to Rule 16(c)(9) and (16) of the F.R.Civ.P for a pretrial conference to address the issue of settlenent of this litigation , Return date 6/20/94 (ec) 6/10/94 == Tele-conference held by Judge Broderick. (dh) [Entry date 06/13/94) 7/8/94 a7 NOTICE OF MOTION by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Grefa, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chimbo, Elias Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje, Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Conde, Santo Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, Additional plaintiff for leave to intervene and to appoint lead counsel and a steering committe of counsel , Return date 7/22/94 (ec)Al4 Docket as of September 5, 1997 3:57 am Page 13 Proceedings include all events. MAG APPEAL 1:93ev7527 Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. cLoseD 1/6/94 48 STIPULATION and Protective ORDER ( signed by Judge Vincent 7/8/94 49 7/8/94 50 7yrajsa 52 7/22/94 $2 apiysa 53 8/17/94 $4 8/26/94 55 L. Broderick ). (ec) STIPULATION and ORDER regarding discovery, by 7-11-94, ‘Texaco shall serve objections and responses to document requests, During the time period to complete the discovery under the stipulation the time required for resolution by the court of any disputes concerning depositions or written discovery under paragraphs 8 and 9, Texaco agrees not to renew any of its pending motions to dismiss the complaint. ( signed by Judge Vincent L. Broderick ). (ah) RESPONSE by Texaco inc. Re:to pltfs' motion for a settlement conference pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ec) MEMORANDUM by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Grefa, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chinbo, Elias Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje, Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Conde, Santo Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, Additional plaintiffé in support of their motion for a settlement conference pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (dh) MEMORANDUM by Texaco inc. in opposition to motion to intervene and to appoint lead counsel and a steering conmitte of plaintiffs counsel. (dn) REPLY MEMORANDUM re: [47-1] in further support of the motion for leave to intervene and to appoint lead counsel and a steering committe of counsel (11) (Entry date 08/04/96) SUPPLEMENTAL Submission by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Grefa, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chimbo, Elias Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje, Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer conde, Santo Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, Additional plaintiff , (A)In response to the inquiry from the Court's Chambers concerning an impartial environmental audit and (B) concerning their Rule 16 and Intervention motions (ec) RESPONSE by Texaco inc. Re: to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental submission (A) in response to the inquiry from the court's chambers concerning an impartial environmental audit and (8) concerning their rule 16 and intervention motions. (ec) (Entry date 08/29/94)Al5S Docket as of September $, 1997 3:57 am Page 14 Proceedings include all events MAG APPEAL 4:93ev7527 Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. cLosep 9/29/94 56 FLD: Defendant Texaco Inc's submission regarding negotiations between Texaco Petroleum Company and the Republic of Ecuador. (ec) [Entry date 09/30/94) 10/28/94 57 DEFENDANT TEXACO INC'S STATUS REPORT CONCERNING THE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE REPUBLICE OF ECUADOR AND TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY (ec) [Entry date 10/31/94] 11/9/94 $8 RESPONSE by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Grefa, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chimbo, Elias Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje, Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Conde, Sante Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, Additional plaintiff Re:To Defendant Texaco, Inc October 28, 1994 “Status Report” (ec) 11/16/94 Pre-trial conference held by Judge Broderick. (dh) (entry date 11/17/94) 12/19/94 59 ORDER denying [54-1] supplemental motion (A)In response to the inquiry from the Court's Chambers concerning an impartial environmental audit and (B) concerning their Rule 16 and Intervention motions, denying [47-1] motion for leave to intervene and to appoint lead counsel and a steering committe of counsel, denying [46-1] motion pursuant to Rule 16(c)(9) and (16) of the F.R.Civ.P for a pretrial conference to address the issue of settlement of this litigation ( signed by Judge Vincent L. Broderick ); copies mailed (11) 12/22/94 60 Fld:Defendant Texaco Inc.'s Report on the Settlement between Texaco Petroleum Company, the Republic of Ecuador, and Petroecuador and Texaco Inc.'s response to the Court's Proposed conditions for diemissal of litigation. (ec) 12/30/94 61 RESPONSE by Texaco inc. Re: Response to the Court's Proposed Conditions for Dismissal of Litigation (kz) (Entry date 01/03/95] 1/5/95 82 NOTICE of Filing of Affidavits of Dr. Adolfo Callejas Ribadeneira by Texaco inc. (kz) 1/30/98 63 NOTICE OF MOTION by Plaintiffs Substituting Judith Kimerling, Esq., Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, Kaplan, Kilsheimer 6 Fox and Hagens & Serman as attorneys for pitfs ; Return date 2/14/95 (ec) 1/30/95 64 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of (63-1) motion Substituting Judith Kimerling, Eeq., Cohen Milatein Hausfeld & Toll, Kaplan, Kilsheimer 6 Fox and Hagens & Berman as attorneys for pltfs (ec)Alo Docket as of September 5, 1997 3:57 am Page 15 Proceedings include all event MAG APPEAL 1:93ev7527 Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. ctosep 1/30/98 65 Indigenous Plaintiffs’ RESPONSE Re:to Texaco’s Report on the Settlement between Texaco Petroleum Company, The Republic of Ecuador, and Petroecuador and Texaco Inc's response to the Court's proposed conditions for dismissal of litigation (ec) 2/2/98 66 NOTICE OF MOTION by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Grefa, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chimbo for summary judgment , Return date 2/21/98 (xz) : 2/2/98 67 MEMORANDUM by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Grefa, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chimbo in support of Indegenous Plaintitfs’ Motion for Sunmary Judgment on Issue of Liability and to Snow Cause (kz) 2/7/95 68 REPLY by Texaco inc. Re: [63-1] motion Substituting Judith Kimerling, Eag., Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox and Hagens & Borman as attorneys for pltfs, [65-1] opposition response by plaintiffs’ concerning the settlement with the Ecuadorian Government and Dismissal of this action (kz) [Entry date 02/08/95) 2/7/98 69 RESPONSE Of Plaintiffs’ Counsel Kohn, NAst & Graf, P.C. and the Law offices of Crsitobal Bonifaz to the Motion for Substitution of Counsel for Certain Plaintiffs. (rd) (entry date 02/08/95) 2/7/95 70 PLAINTIFFS‘ RESPONSE To Texaco Inc.'s Report on the Settlement Between Texaco Petroleum Company and Ecuador and Plaintiffs’ Proposal for the Conduct of Further Proceedings. (cd) (Entry date 02/08/95) 2/14/95 71 ORDER that case be referred to Mag. Judge Mark Fox for discovery motion or other motion which does not require a report and recormendation and settlement. So ordered. 2/14/98 ( signed by Judge Vincent L. Broderick ) (kz) (Edit date 04/06/95) 3/6/9872 Reply MEMORANDUM by Indigenous plaintiff in further support of Indigenous pltfe* motion to substitute counsel (ec) (Entry date 03/07/95) 3/28/95 73 Notice of reassignnent _ to Judge Barrington D. Parker Jr. Copy of notice and judge's rules mailed to Attorney(s) of record: Steve W. Berman . (11) (Entry date 03/29/95] [Edit date 04/04/95) 4/5/95 == Pre-trial conference held before Mag. Judge smith (kz) [Entry date 04/06/95) 4/5/9578 ORDER that case be referred to Magistrate Judge Smith for General Pretrial (So ordered. 4/5/95)( signed by Judge Barrington D. Parker Jr. ) (kz) [Entry date 04/06/95]Al7 Docket as of Septenber 5, 1997 3:57 am Page 16 Proceedings include all events. Mac APPEAL 1:93ev7527 Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. ‘cLosED [Bait date 04/06/95] 4/6/9878 Amended ORDER that case be referred to Magistrate Judge smith for all purposes except for trial ( signed by Judge Barrington D. Parker Jr. ) (kz) (Entry date 04/07/95) [Edit date 04/10/95} 6/5/9576 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSELS' SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH THE MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL FOR CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS (kz) 6/8/9577 NOTICE OF MOTION by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Grefa, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chimbo, Elias Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje, Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Cond Santo Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, Additional plaintiff restraining order and preliminary injunction , Return date (ec) 6/8/9578 Filed Meno Endorsement on letter from Richard J. Kilsheimer to U.S.M.J. Smith dated 6/5/95 rez in response to letter of Joseph Kohn which opposed Kilsheimer's request for an adjournment of the time for aubmission of affidavits © a continuance of the hearing on the motion to substitute counsel. ENDORSEMENT: Deemed letter motion to withdraw motion for substitution of counsel. Motion granted as to Richard Kilsheimer and Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox. Accordingly, no appearance is required on 6/12 by Mr. Kileheimer. SO ORDERED. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa M. Smith ) (Jag) [Entry date 06/09/95) 6/12/95 -= Pre-trial conference held before U.S.M.J. Smith. (Jag) [Entry date 06/14/95) 6/12/95 =~ Pre-trial conference held before USNJ Smith. (jag) [Entry date 07/06/95) 6/13/95 —~ Memorandum to Docket Clerk: withdrawing (63-1) motion Substituting Judith Kimerling, Eeq., Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox and Hagens & Berman as attorneys for pltfs. Pre-Trial conference held & continued 6/12/95. (jag) (Entry date 06/15/95) 6/13/95 79 RESPONSE by Texaco Inc. in opposition to [77-1] motion restraining order and preliminary injunction (jag) [Entry date 06/15/95) 6/19/95 80 Letter filed dated 3/2/95 to Judge Fox from Daniel J. King Esq. (dh) (Entry date 06/20/95)Docket as of Septenber 5, 1997 Page 17 Proceedings include all events. MAG APPEAL Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. ‘cLoseD 6/19/95 82 Letter filed by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Greta, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chimbo, Elias Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje, Deifin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Conde, Santo Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, Additional plaintiff dated March 6, 1995 to Mag. Judge Fox re request Court to deny Texaco’s request for a stay and to enter an Order enforcing the prior stipulation of the parties so that the Court ordered discovery can be completed promptly,....) (kz) (Entry date 06/20/95) Letter filed by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Grefa, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chimbo, Elias Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje, Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Conde, Santo Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, Additional plaintiff dated March 7, 1998 to Mag. Judge Fox re request to deny Texaco’s request for a protective order (see document) protective (kz) [Entry date 06/20/95) Letter’ filed from Atty. Daniel J. King to Mag. Judge Fox dated March 8, 1995 re request that the Court enter a protective order for the reasons set forth ...and in its March 2 letter to the Court. (kz) (Entry date 06/20/95} Letter filed to Mag. Judge Smith dated June 15, 1995 re request for court Order (kz) (Entry date 06/20/95) NOTICE of Filing please take notice that deft. Texaco Inc. is filing on this date the original copy of the affidavit of Rodrigo Perez Pallares. (ec) (Entry date 06/21/95]AIQ Docket as of September 5, 1997 3:57 am Page 18 Proceedings include all events. MAG APPEAL 1:93ev7527Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. ‘CLOSED 6/19/95 90 MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER: 1. That the motion for 6/20/95 6/20/95 6/20/95 2s ar 88 substitution of counsel dated 1/30/95, is withdrawn at the request of the moving party; 2. Withdrawing [66-1] motion for summary judgment because the moving party is not counsel of record; 3. That the proposals, applications, and request of dft’s counsel for reconsideration of the pending motions to dismiss do not constitute a motion requiring a decision of the District Court; 4. That the application of ft for a stay of discovery or a protective order is denied, and that discovery shall continue between the parties, limited only to the subject matter in the categories set forth in the 4/11 Order, within the following dates: (a) within ten days of the date of filing of thie Memorandum Decision and Order, dft shall provide plaintiffs with copies of the documents previously identified and requested for copying by plaintiffs; (b) within thirty days from the production of the documents, dft shall schedule the four witne designated in the Stipulation dated 7/5/95, for their depositions, end such depositions are to take place and be completed between thirty and sixty days from the date of the produciton of the documents; (c) At any time during or after completion of the depositons, if plaintiffs believe they will require additional discovery they shall promptly inform dft of their request(s), and if the parties are unable to resolve these or any other discovery issues, they shall promptly apply to thie Court for resolution. SO ORDERED. ( Signed by Magiatrate Judge Lisa M. Smith ); Copies mailed. (jag) (Entry date 06/26/95] Memorandum Decision & ORDER... The order of 6-19-95 is hereby modified... Within 10 days of the filing of this memorandum decision and order, the parties shall exchange documents previously identified and requested., within 20 days they shall complete any incomplete response to interroatories and requests for admissions, within 30 days form production of documents, dft shall schedule 4 Witnesses designated in the 7-5-94 stipulation, and the depositions are to take place between 30 and 60 days from the date of the production of documents... SO ORDERED. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Liea M. Smith ); Copies mailed (ah) Letter to Judge smith from Daniel J. King filed by Texaco Inc. dated 6/19/95 re: parties are unable to agree on a discovery schedule (jag) [Entry date 06/22/95] Memo endorsed on motion; withdrawing (77-1] motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. ENDORSEMENT: Motion withdrawn by movant. $0 ORDERED. ( signed by Judge Barrington D. Parker Jr. ); Copies mailed. (Jag) (Entry date 06/22/95} (Edit date 08/22/98}A20 Docket as of September 5, 1997 3:57 am Page 19 Proceedings include all events, MAG APPEAL 1:93ev7527 Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. CLOSED 6/23/95 89 ‘Transcript of record of proceedings filed for dates of June 12, 1995 (kz) 6/29/98 92 Letter to USMJ Smith from Daniel J. King filed by Texaco inc. dated 6/29/95 re: Memorandum Decision and Order dated 6/20/95 & depositions. (jag) 7/32/95 92 STIPULATION and ORDER...The named pitts in this action hereby stip. and agree as follows:That they have no knowledge, information or documents having any tendency to prove or digpove (or otherwise lead to the discovery of information or documents that might tend to prove or disprove) the existence or non-existence of any facts relating to the categories of discovery permitted by Judge Vincent L. Broderick’s Memorandum Decision, dated April 11, 1994 at pp. 2-3, his Memorandum Decision, dtd April 29, 1994, at pp. 1-2 and Mag. Judge Lisa M. Smiths Memorandum Decision and Order, dtd June 19, 1995 at pp. 2-3 namely:(see ; document). ( signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa M. Smith ). (ec) (Entry date 07/13/95) [Edit date 07/24/95] a/1/9s 93 Tranecript of record of proceedings filed for dates of 6/19/95 (Jag) [Entry date 08/03/95) 8/15/95 94 STIPULATION and ORDER...to withdraw: The motion to substitute counsel, dated 1/30/95, shall be withdrawn, the moving party and pltfs" counsel having amicably resolved all related matters; All responses to the motion to substitute counsel, including Joseph C. Xohn's letter to the Court, dated 6/2/95, and pltf’ supplemental response to the motion, also dated 6/2/95, as well as all exhibits thereto, also shall be withdrawn. SO ORDERED. (signed by Judge Barrington D. Parker Jr.) Copies mailed. (jag) 9/28/98 ~ Pre-trial conference held before USMJ Smith (pm) (Entry date 10/24/95) 20/27/95 95 Transcript of record of proceedings filed for dates of 09/28/95 (pm) 11/21/98 = Pre-trial conference held before USMJ smith (pm) [Entry date 12/15/95] 12/1/98 96 Letter to USMJ Smith from Daniel J. King filed by Texaco Inc. dated 11/29/95 re: Texaco Inc. is withdrawing its motiona to dismiss. (jag) [Entry date 12/04/95] 3/5/96 97 NOTICE OF MOTION by Texaco Inc. to dismiss, pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1), (3), (6) and (7), no return date (54g) 1/5/96 98 MEMORANDUM by Texaco Inc. in support of [97-1] motion to dismiss, pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1), (3), (6) and (7) (Jag)A21 Docket as of September 5S, 1997 3:57 am Page 20 Proceedings include all events MAG APPEAL 1:93ev7527 Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. ‘cLOsED 1/12/96 99 AFFIDAVIT of Edgar Terna submitted to advise the Court of 3/12/96 1/22/96 1/22/96 3/22/96 3/22/96 1/22/96 2/8/96 2/29/96 3/7/96 3/25/96 3/29/96 100 201 102 103 104 108 106 107 108 the Republic of Ecuador's opposition to the lititgation in a Us court and, further, to request that this Court decline to exercise jurisdiction. (jag) (Entry date 01/16/96} SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF Amicus Curiae of the Republic of Ecuador (Sag) (Entry date 01/16/96} Letter filed dated 1/19/96 to Judge smith from atty Daniel J. King. re:We are counsel for deft Texaco, Inc. ... we recently noted that Texaco Inc.'s memorandum in support of ita renewed motion to dismiss and the accompanying appendix, filed on January 5, 1996, contained mistaken citations to the accompanying appendix as a result of a misnunbered appendix exhibit. As suggested by your chambers... enclosed is a substitute (amended) courtesy copy for the Court, as well ae a substitute (amended) for transmittal to the Clerk's office. (ec) NOTICE OF MOTION by Texaco inc. to dismiss, pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1), (3), (6) and (7) No Return date (motion withdrawn and reinstated on 1/22/96 this entry replace motion docketed on 1/5/96 doc.#97). (ec) AMENDED MEMORANDUM by Texaco inc. in support of [0-1] motion to dismise, pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1), (3), (6) and (7) (ee) ‘Texaco Inc.'s Appendix of Affidavits, documents and other authorities in Support Re: (0-1] motion to dismiss, pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1), (3), (6) and (7) (ec) Texaco Inc's Appendix of Affidavits, documents and othe: authorities in support Re: (O-1] motion to dismiss, pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1), (3), (6) and (7) (ec) ORDER withdrawing [75-1] Order of Reference to USMJ smith. SO ORDERED. (signed by Judge Barrington D. Parker Jr.); Copies mailed (Jag) Notice of reassignment _ to Judge Jed S. Rakoff Copy of notice and judge's rules mailed to attorney(s) of record: Steve W. Berman . (11) Letter filed dated 2/22/96 to Ms. Bergreen from atty Daniel J. King re we request that the Clerk of the Court deem ‘Texaco Inc.'s motions to dismias withdrawn. (ec) REPLY MEMORANDUM by Texaco Inc. in support of (0-1] motion to dismiss, pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1), (3), (6) and (7), motion to dismiss, pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1), (3), (6) and (7) Gag Te! conference held (jag)A22, Docket as of september 5, 1997 3:57 am Page 21 Proceedings include all events. MAG APPEAL 1:93ev7527 Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. cLoseD 6/7/96 Memorandum to Docket Clerk: Hearing begun & concluded on 6/14/96 6/19/96 6/26/96 7/8/96 7/8/96 7/8/96 8/5/96 9/17/96 109 a0 at a2 a3 67-96 of Six motions to dismiss by defendants. Court rep.: Albi Gorn. Judge Decision: Decision Reserved in both casee. The reference order of USMJ Smith is hereby withdrawn. All matters are hereby stayed pending decision by the court. (ds) (Entry date 06/11/96] Tele-conference held by USDJ Rakoff (ds) [pntey date 06/17/96} . Letter to USDJ Rakoff from George Branch filed by Texaco inc. dated June 13, 1996 re In summary, plaintiffs’ additional authorities do not support the Court's exerci of jurisdiction, and we respectfully request this Court to dismiss this action. (ds) Tele-conference held by USDJ Rakoff (ds) [entry date 06/28/96) NOTICE OF MOTION by Texaco inc. to dismiss (prev filed on 1/22/96 and submission received as 7/6/96). (ec) [Entry date 07/18/96) MEMORANDUM by Texaco inc. re: in response to pintf’s supplemental submission (de) (Entry date 07/09/96] MEMORANDUM by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Grefa, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chimbo, Elias Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje, Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Conde, Santo Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, Additional plaintiff in opposition to {0-1} motion to diemiee, pursuant to PRCP 12(b)(1), (3), (6) and (7) (da) (Entry date 07/09/96) Transcript of record of proceedings filed for dates of June 7, 1996 (11) [Entry date 08/06/96) Letter filed to USDJ Rakoff from Ambassador of the Republic of Ecuador dated June 10, 1996 re the pintfs* attorneys in this matter are attiompting to usurp rights that belong th the gov't of the Republic of Ecuador under the Constituton and law of Ecuador and under international law. We respectfully request that the Court disregard such statements. (de) [Entry date 09/18/96}A23 Docket as of September 5, 1997 3:57 am Page 22 Proceedings include all events. MAG APPEAL 1:93ev7527 Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. CLOSED 31/12/96 114 32/13/96 135 12/13/96 -- 12/22/96 ~~ 32/26/96 117 12/2/96 OPINION AND ORDER # 96,0058WP (granting [0-1] motion to disnias) ...See document for complete details. wssAccordingly, Texaco’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment on behalf of the deft. In addition, counsel for the parties here, who also represent the parties in the related case of Ashanga et al. v. Texaco, Inc., 94cv9266 (JSR), are directed to submit within 20 days from the date of this order, memoranda of law, not to exceed 10 pages per side, addressing whether that case should be controlled by this opinion or whether dismissal of that action should be separately briedfed. so ORDERED: ( Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff ); Copies mailed. (ds) [Entry date 11/13/96) JUDGMENT for Texaco inc. against Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Grefa, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chimbo, Elias Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje, Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Conde, Santo Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, Additional plaintiff; Whereas the above entitled action having been assigned to USDJ Rakoff and the Court thereafter on 11/12/96, having handed down ite Opinion and Order, granting defts’ motion to dismiss, it is, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That the complaint be and is hereby diemissed. SO ORDERED: ( signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff ); Mailed copies and notice of right to appeal. (as) ca closed (ds) Tele-conference held before Judge Rakoff. (c}) [Entry date 11/27/96) NOTICE OF MOTION by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Grefa, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chimbo, Elias Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje, Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Conde, Santo Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, Additional plaintiff for reconsideration of the Court’ opinion and order of November 12, 1996, No Return date (ec) [Bntry date 12/09/96) Memorandum to Docket Clerk: 11/27/96 - Hearing begun & concluded of Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. (Court reporter: Christine Arendo-Dieck). Judge's Decision: Request for leave to file a motion for Intervention is withdrawn, but Court grants such leave if proper counsel, for Intervenors so requ (See transcript). court farther directs that defendant's response be due in 10 days. (kz)A24 Docket as of September 5, 1997 3:57 am Page 23 Proceedings include all events. MAG APPEAL 4:93¢v7527Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. cLosED 12/5/96 == Pre-trial conference held by USDJ Rakoff. Court reporter Adrienne Migano (ds) 12/6/96 118 MEMORANDUM by Texaco inc. in opposition to the pintts motion for reconsideration (ds) - Received from USPO returned to sender doc.#115 mailed to D. Michael. (ec) 22/10/96 12/12/96 118 NOTICE of Application of Taxation of Costs by Texaco (ec) {entry date 12/13/96) 12/12/96 119 NOTICE of Filing by Texaco ...filed with the Court the original and tranalation of the affidavit of Dr. Francisco Acosta Yepez in support of ite Opposition to pltf's motion for reconsideration. (ec) [Entry date 12/13/96) 12/20/96 120 “NOTICE OF MOTION TO INTERVENE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 24 by Republic of Ecuador (Atty. Jonathan S. Abady of ten Firm: Beldock, Levine & Hoffman, LLP) permitting the Republic of Ecuador to intervene as plaintiff-intervenora in thie action pursuant to Rule 24 of the FRCvP, and for leave to file a complaint as plaintiff-intervenor , and granting the relief requested in plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration presently pending before the Court and denying Texaco’s motion to dismiss this action , No Return date (kz) [Entry date 12/23/96] 12/20/96 121 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE by The Republic of Ecuador and Petroecuador in support of [120-1] motion permitting the Republic of Ecuador to intervene plaintiff-intervenors in this action pursuant to Rule 24 of - the FRCvP, [120-2] motion for leave to file a complaint as plaintiff-intervenor, [120-3] motion granting the relief requested in plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration Presently pending before the Court and denying Texaco‘s motion to dismisa thie action (kz) [Entry date 12/23/96] 12/20/96 122 PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF ‘THEIR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S OPINION AND ORDER OF NOVEMBER 12, 1996 by Additional plaintiff in support of [120-3] motion granting the relief requested in plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration presently pending before the Court and denying Texaco’s motion to dismiss this action (kz) (Entry date 12/23/96] 12/27/96 123 Letter filed dated December 26, 1996 re orig. sworn statement, w/translation of Leonidas Plaza Verduga submitted by Jonathan S. Abady (11) 12/27/96 124 Letter filed dated Dec. 18, 1996 re in spanish by Doctor Leonidas Piaza Verduga, Procurador General Del Estado Ecuatoriano (ds) [Entry date 12/30/96)A25 Docket as of September 5, 1997 3:57 am Page 24 Proceedings include all events. MAG APPEAL 3:93ev7527 Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. ‘CLOSED 12/30/96 125 1/3/97 3/28/97 4/30/97 4/30/97 4/30/97 5/2/97 5/12/97 5/12/97 126 127 128 129, 130 33h 132 MEMORANDUM by Texaco inc. in opposition to (120-1) motion permitting the Republic of Ecuador to intervene as plaintiff-intervenore in this action pursuant to Rule 24 of the FRCvP (da) [Entry date 12/31/96] Before J. Rakoff; Transcript of record of proceedings filed for dates of 11/27/96 (ed) ORDER, The Court deems it prudent, before further addressing the pending motions, to request the Republic of Beuador to provide fresh written asurances from the new attorney General or other authorized official that the Republic of Ecuador, if it still desires to intervene in this law auit, is expressly prepared to waive sovereign immunity and aubmit fully to the jurisdiction of this court. Such assurances, in affidavit or other binging form, ahould be filed with the Court by no later than 4/30/97. ‘The Court expresses no opinion at this time as to the merite of either of the pending motions, but will undertake to address them promptly after 4/30/97....S0 Ordered....( signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff ) (pl) AFPIDAVIT in support of R. Minkoff Re: (120-1) motion permitting the Republic of Ecuador to intervene as plaintiff-intervenors in this action pursuant to Rule 24 of the FRCVP (ed) [Entry date 05/02/97] Letter filed by Dr. Milton Alava Ormaza, Attorney General of the State, Republic of Ecuador dated 4/25/97 re Correspondence addressed to Enbaseador Moreno Guerra in Spanish and translated into English and certified by the Lingual Institute. (lamy [Entry date 05/05/97} Letter to Judge Rakoff filed by Dr. Milton alava Ormaza, Attorney General of the state, Republic of Ecuador dated 4/25/97 re in regards to the order issued by the Court on 3/25/97, translated from Spanish to English and Certified by the Lingual Institute. (lam) [Entry date 05/05/97] Tele-conference held before Judge Rakoff. (rg) [Entry date 05/06/97) RESPONSE by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa etal Re: [130-1] miscellaneous (cd) (Entry date 05/14/97) RESPONSE by Texaco inc. Re: [130-1] miscellaneous (cd) [Entey date 05/14/97)A26 . Docket as of Septenber S, 1997 3:57 an Page 25 ; Proceedings include all events. MAG APPEAL 4:93ev7527Aguinda, et al v. Texaco inc. CLOSED 8/13/97 133. MEMORANDUM ORDER denying [120-1] motion permitting the Republic of Ecuador to intervene as plaintift-intervenors in this pursuant to Rule 24 of the FRCvP; denying [120-2] motion leave to file a complaint as plaintiff-interveno: denying (120-3] motion granting the relief requested in plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration presently pending before the Court and denying Texaco's motion to dismis this action; denying (117-1] motion for reconsideration of the court's Opinion and order of November 12, 1996 ( signed by Judge S. Rakoff }; Copies mailed (kw) (Entry date 08/14/97] 8/28/97 134 NOTICE OF APPEAL by the Republic of Ecuador and Petroecuador, prospective plaintiff-intervenors ; from [133-1] order . Copies of notice of appeal mailed to Attorney(s) of Record: George 5 Branch, Joseph C Kohn, Christobal Bonifaz, Eeq., fee pd, $105.00, rec # 295969 . (as) (Entry date 08/29/97) (Edit date 08/29/97) 8/29/97 135 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Gesica Grefa, Catarina Aguinda, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Chimbo, Elias Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje, Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Conde, Santo Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila Additional plaintiff ; from (133-1] order, [114-1] order . Copies of notice of appeal mailed to Attorney(s) of Record: George S Branch, Milton J. Schubin, Ronald Minkoff, Eaq. Fee Pd. §105.00, rec # 296015 . (as) [Entry date 09/03/97) [END OF DOCKET: 1:93¢v7527}A2T FILED U.S, UG 25 29 OW S.D. OF N.Y. -* 93 CIV. 7527 (JSR) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARIA AGUINDA, et al., individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, ve TEXACO INC., Defendant. PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE CLERK OF COURT: Please take notice that all of the Plaintiffs in the above captioned action, individually and on behalf of the class named in their Complaint, hereby appeal to the United states Court of Appeals for the Second. Circuit from the Order of the United States District Court for The Southern District of New York dated November 12, 1996 dismissing Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Aguinda, et al. v, Texaco, Inc., 945 F.Supp. 625 (S.D.N.¥.A28 1966)) and from the Order dated August 12, 1997 denying Plaintiffs’ Motion For Reconsideration of the November 12, 1996 Order. Oh ae Any Mil se IgSeph c. Kohn : SULLIVAN & DAMEN tin J. D'Urso 470 Manaroneck Avetue GRo%N, SHIFT & GRAF, PAC. White Plains, NY 10605 1101 Market Street, Suite 2400 (314) 287-2000 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 238-1700 Cristobal Bonifaz John Bonifaz LAW OFFICES OF CRISTOBAL BONIFAZ Tucker Taft Building 48 North Pleasant Street Amherst, MA 01002 (413) 253-5626 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class oxren._{l ug wat 2 14 9hA29 SERTIEICATE OF SERVICE : th I, Amy Damen, hereby certify that on this Ale day of August, 1997, a copy of Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal has been served upon counsel below in the following manner: VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL George Branch, Esquire King & Spalding 191 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30303 Milton J. Schubin, Esquire Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler 425 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Attorneys for Texaco Ronald Minkoff, Esquire Jonathan Abady, Esquire Belldock, Levine & Hoffman, L.L.P. 99 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Attorneys for Republic of Ecuador dame y Damen (F. =FJoseph C. Kohn (JK-1755) Myles H. Malman (MM-2897) Martin J. D'Urso (MD-6576) Diana Liberto (DL-8313) KOHN, NAST & GRAF, P.C. 2400’ one Reading Center 1101 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 238-1700 Cristobal Bonifaz (CB-2949) John Bonifaz (JB-0987) Steven R. Donziger (SD-5700) Tucker Taft Building 48 North Pleasant Street Amherst, MA 01002 (413) 253-5626 Amy Damen (AD-1758) SULLIVAN & DAMEN One North Broadway White Plains, New York 10601 (914) 428-9414 Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARIA AGUINDA, CARLOS GREFA, individually and GESICA GREFA; CATARINA AGUINDA; MERCEDES GREFA; LIDIA AGUINDA; PATRICIO CHIMBO, individually and his minor children; ELIAS PIYAGUAJE, individually and as guardian for LOLA PIYAGUAJE, EDISON PIYAGUAJE, PAULINA PIYAGUAJE, JIMENA PIYAGUAJE and ELIAS PIYAGUAJE; DELFIN PAYAGUAJO, individually and as guardian for his minor children; JAVIER PIYAGUAJE; HOMER CONDE, individually and as guardian for his minor children; guardians for guardian for CIVIL ACTION NO. CLASS ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDA31 SANTO GUILLERMO RAMIREZ, individually and as guardian for DANILO RAMIREZ; JUANA TANGUILA, individually and guardian for her minor children, {Additional Plaintiffs Listed in + "C" and "D" hereto and incorporated herein by reference), individually and on behalf of all others sinilarly situated, Plaintiffs, ve TEXACO INC. 2000 West Chester Avenue White Plains, New York 10650, Defendant. Plaintiffs Aguinda, Gesica Grefa, Mercedes Grefa, Lidia Aguinda, Patricio Maria Aguinda, Carlos Grefa, Catarina Chimbo, Elias Piyaguaje, Lola Piyaguaje, Edison Piyaguaje, Paulina Piyaguaje, Jimena Piyaguaje, Elias Piyaguaje, Delfin Payaguajo, Javier Piyaguaje, Homer Conde, Santo Guillermo Ramirez, Danilo Ramirez, Juana Tanguila, individually and pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, bring this action to remedy the negligent, reckless, intentional and outrageous acts and omissions of defendant Texaco Inc. in connection with its oil exploration and drilling operations which have caused plaintiffs and the class to suffer property damagi -2-A32 personal injuries, increased risks of cancer and other diseases, and has resulted in the degradation and destruction of the environment in which plaintiffs and their families live. In support thereof, plaintiffs aver as follows: I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ° 1, ‘This Court has jurisdiction over this action under and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), § 1331 and § 1350. Plaintiffs are citizens of Ecuador. Defendant is a citizen of the states of New York and Delaware. The matter in controversy for each plaintiff and for each member of the class, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum or value of $50,000. 2. Venue is proper in this district under and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) and § 1391(b). Defendant has its principal place of business in this judicial district, and continuously and systematically transacts business in this district. A substantial part of the tortious acts and omissions giving rise to this Complaint took place in this judicial district. The policies, procedures and decisions relating to oil t_and made in New exploration and drilling in Ecuador were York. qr. NATURE OF THE ACTION AND SUMMARY OF CLAIMS 3. This is a class action brought on behalf of citizens and residents of the Amazon region of Ecuador known as -3-A33. the “Oriente” against Texaco Inc. ("Texaco"). Plaintiffs and the class seek compensatory and punitive damages, and equitable relief, to remedy the pollution and contamination of the plaintiffs’ environment and the personal injuries and property damage caused thereby. 4. In 1964, Texaco acquired rights to explore and drill for oil in the Oriente. From approximately 1972 through 1992, Texaco drilled more than 400 oil wells in the region and extracted approximately 220,000 barrels of oi] per day. 5. As more fully set forth in the "Factual Background" and "Claims for Relief" sections of this Complaint, Texaco did not use reasonable industry standards of oil extraction in the Oriente, or comply with accepted American, local or international standards of environmental safety and protection. Rather, purely for its own economic gain, Texaco deliberately ignored reasonable and safe practices and treated the pristine Amazon rain forests of the Oriente and its people as a toxic waste dump. 6. Texaco failed to pump unprocessable crude oi1 and toxic residues back into the wells as is the reasonable and prudent industry practice. Instead, Texaco disposed of these toxic substances by dumping them in open pits, into the streams, rivers and wetlands, burning them in open pits without any temperature or air pollution controls, and spreading oil on the roads. Texaco designed and constructed oil pipelines withoutA34 adequate safety features resulting in spills of millions of gallons of crude oil. 7, Texaco's practices of disposing of untreated crude and waste by-products into the environment has contaminated the drinking water, rivers, streams, ground water and air with dangerously high levels of such known toxins as benzene, toluene, xylene, mercury, lead and hydrocarbons, among ‘others. Texaco's acts and omissions have resulted in the discharge of oil into the plaintiffs’ environment at a rate in excess of 3,000 gallons per more oil has been spilled in the day for 20 years. Many tim oriente than was spilled in the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska. 8. Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent ed have suffered severe personal injuries and are at an incr risk of suffering other diseases, including cancers. Their sources of potable water have been contaminated, their properties polluted, their livestock killed or made ill, and their very existence as a people jeopardized. 9. Plaintiffs seek damages under common law theories of negligence (Count I), public and private nuisance (Count II and Count III), strict liability (Count Iv), medical monitoring (Count Vv), trespass (Count VI), and civil conspiracy (Count VII). Plaintiffs seek damages under the Alien Tort victims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (Count VIII). Plaintiffs also seek equitable relief (Count Ix). 10. Plaintiffs and the class have no means to redress wrongs other than through this action in this Honorable “5-A35, activities in Ecuador were at all relevant times court. Texaco designed, controlled, conceived and directed by defendant Texaco Inc. through its operations in the United states. ‘Texaco no longer does business in Ecuador. III. ‘THE PARTIES A. Plaintitts 21. Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of the nation of Ecuador who live in the geographic area adversely affected by defendant Texaco's oil drilling and exploration activities. This region is depicted on the map attached hereto Some of the as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by referenc plaintiffs are indigenous to this region. Others have immigrated from other parts of Ecuador, all as more fully set forth below. All plaintiffs have been exposed to toxic substances as a direct result of defendant's tortious conduct and have or will suffer property damage, personal injuries, and increased risks of disease including cancer. 12. Plaintiff, Maria Aguinda, is a resident of the rural area located on the main road south of Coca, Ecuador, in the immediate vicinity of a road marking denoting kilometer 156. She is married with children and suffers from illnes: including body growths, directly related to oil contamination. She is also at an increased risk of developing cancer. The only water available to her for drinking is water that she collects from theA36 rain as all the rivers, springs and wetlands in the vicinity of her home have been contaminated with toxic crude oil. Furthermore, she is constantly subjected to chemical poisoning as she must wash her feet regularly with gasoline to remove oil contamination acquired from walking on the crude oil contaminated roads. During the summer months when there is very little rain, due to the constant spreading of crude oil on'the roads, she is subjected to inhalation of heavy levels of dust particles covered with oil that are damaging her respiratory system. She is a Quichua Indian. 13. Plaintiff, Carlos Grefa, is a resident of the rural area located on the main road south of Coca, Ecuador, in the immediate vicinity of a road marking denoting kilometer 156. He is married with children and suffers fron illnesses directly related to oil contamination. He is also at an increased risk of developing cancer. The only water available to him for drinking is water that he collects from the rain as all the rivers, springs and wetlands in the vicinity of his home have been contaminated with toxic crude oil. Furthermore, he is constantly subjected to chemical poisoning as he must wash his feet regularly with gasoline to remove oil contamination acquired from walking on the crude oil contaminated roads. During the summer months when there is very little rain, due to the constant spreading of crude oil on the roads, he is subjected to inhalation of heavy levels of dust particles covered with oil that are damaging his respiratory system. He is a Quichua Indian. 7By ABZ 14. Plaintiffs, Carlos Grefa and Maria Aguinda also sue as guardians of their minor child Gesica Grefa. Gesica Grefa, is a resident of the rural area located on the main road south of Coc: Ecuador, in the immediate vicinity of a road marking denoting kilometer 156. She suffers from ilin including body growths directly related to oil contamination. She is also at an increased risk of developing cancer. The only water available to her for drinking is water that she collects from the rain as all the rivers, springs and wetlands in the vicinity of her home have been contaminated with toxic crude oil. During the summer months when there is very little rain, due to the constant spreading of crude oil on the roads, she is subjected to inhalation of heavy levels of dust particles covered with oil that are damaging her respiratory system. She is a Quichua Indian. 15. Plaintiff, Catarina Aguinda, is a resident of the rural area located on the main road south of Coca, Ecuador, in the immediate vicinity of a road marking denoting kilometer 156. She suffers from illnesses including body growths directly related to oil contamination. She is also at an increased risk of developing cancer. The only water available to her for drinking is water that she collects from the rain as all the rivers, springs and wetlands in the vicinity of her home have been contaminated with toxic crude oil. Furthermore, she is constantly subjected to chemical poisoning as she must wash her feet regularly with gasoline to remove oil contamination acquiredA38 from walking on the crude oil contaminated reads. During the summer months when there is very little rain, due to the constant spreading of crude oil on the roads, she is subjected to inhalation of heavy levels of dust particles covered with oil that are damaging her respiratory system. she is a Quichua Indian. 16. Plaintiff, Mercedes Grefa is a' resident of the rural area located on the main road south of Coca, Ecuador, in the immediate vicinity of a road marking denoting kilometer 156. She suffers from illnesses including body growths directly related to oil contamination. she is also at an increased risk of developing cancer. The only vater available to her for drinking is water that she collects from the rain as all the rivers, springs and wetlands in the vicinity of her home have been contaminated with toxic crude oil. Furthermore, she is constantly subjected to chemical poisoning as she must wash her feet regularly with gasoline to remove oil contamination acquired from walking on the crude oil contaminated roads. During the sumner months when there is very little rain, due to the constant spreading of crude oil on the roads, she is subjected to inhalation of heavy levels of dust particles covered with oil that are damaging her respiratory system. She is a Quichua Indian. 17. Plaintiff, Lidia Aguinda is a resident of the rural area located on the main road south of Coca, Ecuador, in the inmediate vicinity of a road marking denoting kilometer 156. =9- A38A39 She suffers from illnesses including body growths directly related to oil contamination. She is also at an increased risk ef developing cancer. The only water available to her for drinking is water that she collects from the rain as all the rivers, springs and wetlands in the vicinity of her home have been contaminated with toxic crude oil. Furthermore, she is constantly subjected to chemical poisoning as she must wash her feet regularly with gasoline to remove oil contamination acquired from walking on the crude oil contaminated roads. During the summer months when there is very little rain, due to the constant spreading of crude oil on the roads, she is subjected to inhalation of heavy levels of dust particles covered with oil that are damaging her respiratory system. She is a Quichua Indi: 18. Plaintiff, Patricio Chimbo is a resident of the rural area located on the main road south of Coca, Ecuador, in the innediate vicinity of a road marking denoting kilometer 156. He sues on his own behalf and as guardian of his minor children. He and his family suffer from illnesses including body growths directly related to oi1 contamination. They are at an increased risk of developing cancer. The only water available to him and his children for drinking is water that he collects from the rain as all the rivers, springs and wetlands in the vicinity of his home have been contaminated with toxic crude oil. He owns a farm from which he derived his living. In the past few years all his animals have died from drinking the water of the contaminated -10-A40 streans and he has been forced to stop raising cows, goats and chickens. Furthermore, he is constantly subjected to chemical poisoning as he and his wife and his children must wash their feet regularly vith gasoline to remove oil contamination acquired from walking on the crude oil contaminated roads. During the summer months when there is very little rain, due to the constant spreading of crude oil on the roads, he and his family are subjected to inhalation of heavy levels of dust particles covered with oi] that are damaging their respiratory system. He, his wife and his family are Quichua Indians. 19. Plaintiffs named above and other plaintiffs named in Exhibit "B" are all similarly situated and all are bringing this Complaint on their behalf and the behalf of all other Quichua Indians similarly situated as well as members of other indigenous communities similarly situated, all residing in the region of Ecuador that comprises the area surrounded on the North by the Ecuadorian frontier with Colombia, on the South by the Parallel at 1.5 degrees south of the Equator, on the West by the Meridian located at 77.5 degrees West of Greenwich England, and on the East by the 76th Meridian West by Greenwich England. For the convenience of the Court and parties, the plaintiffs named in this Complaint who are Quichua and Cofan Indians similarly situated to the plaintiffs are listed in alphabetical order in Exhibit " which is incorporated into this Complaint as if set forth fully herein. -11-A4l 20. Plaintiff, Elias Piyaguaje, is a resident of San Pablo de Aguarico in the Province of Sucumbios, in Ecuador Amazonian lands. His land is located in the rain forest in the vicinity of the Aguarico River and the town of Shusufundi. He sues on his own behalf and as guardian for his minor children, Lola who is eighteen years old; Edison, who is fifteen years old; Paulina, who is ten years old; Jimena vho is seven years old and Elias who is five months old. Plaintiff Piyaguaje and his family suffer from illnesses caused by oi] contamination of their air, ground and water sources. Defendant has contaminated the river from which he and his family derived their sustenance to a degree that has practically eliminated fish from his diet and the diet of his wife and children. All the waters previously used by him and his family for drinking and bathing are contaminated with crude oil and they are forced to drink and bathe only in rain water collected in barrels. Even this rain water, however, has been determined to be contaminated with Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons a carcinogine by-product of oil contamination. They are also at an increased risk of developing cancer. He and his family can no longer swim in the rivers, as is the Sekoya's ancient tradition, to cool from the tropical heat during the day or to warm from the coolness of the Amazon nights at sun rii due to the high levels of oi1 contamination of the river waters. He and his family's way of life has been dramatically changed due to the oil contamination including their culture, their diet and other ancient traditions. He and his family are Sekoya Indians. -12-a Fn Ad2 21. Plaintiff, Delfin payaguajo, is a resident of san Pablo de Aguarico in the Province of Sucumbios, in Ecuador Amazonian lands. His land is located in the rain forest in the vicinity of the Aguarico River and the town of Shusufundi. He sues on his own behalf and as guardian for his minor children. He and his family suffer from illnesses caused by oil contamination of their water sources. Defendant has contaminated the river from which he and his family derived their sustenance to a degree that has practically eliminated fish from his diet and the diet of his family. All the waters previously used by him and his family for drinking and bathing are contaminated with oil crude and they are forced to drink and bathe only in rain water collected in barrels. Even this rain water, however, has been determined to be contaminated with Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons a carcinoginc by-product of oil] contamination. They are also at an increased risk of developing cancer. He and his family can no longer swim in the rivers, as is the Sekoya's ancient tradition, to cool from the tropical heat during the day or to warm from the coolness of the Amazon nights at sun rise, due to the high levels of oil contamination of the river waters. He and his family's way of life has been dramatically changed due to the oil contamination including their culture, their diet and other ancient traditions. He and his family are Sekoya Indians. 22. Plaintiff, Javier Piyaguaje is a resident of San Pablo de Aguarico in the Province of Sucumbios, in Ecuador Amazonian lands. His land is located in the rain forest in the -13-- A43 vicinity of the Aguarico River and the town of Shusufundi. He suffers from illnesses caused by oil contamination of his water sources. Defendant has contaminated the river from which he derived his sustenance to a degree that has practically eliminated fish from his diet. All the waters previously used by him for drinking and bathing are contaminated with crude oil and he is forced to drink and bathe only in rain water collected in barrels. Even this rain water, however, has been determined to be contaminated with Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons a carcinogine by-product of oil contamination. He is also at an increased risk of developing cancer. He can no longer swim in the rivers, as is the Sekoya's ancient tradition, to cool from the tropical heat during the day or to warm from the coolness of the Amazon nights at sun rise, due to the high levels of oil contamination of the river waters. His way of life has been dramatically changed due to the oil contamination including his culture, his diet and other ancient traditions. He is a Sekoya Indian. 23. Plaintiffs named above and other plaintiffs named in Exhibit "C" are all similarly situated and all are bringing this Complaint on their own behalf and on behalf of all other Sekoya Indians similarly situated as well as members of other indigenous communities similarly situated, all residing in the region of Ecuador that comprises the area surrounded on the North by the Ecuadorian frontier with Colombia, on the South by the Parallel at 1.5 degrees south of the Equator, on the West by the -14-N A44 Meridian located at 77.5 degrees West of Greenwich England, and on the East by the 76th Meridian West by Greenwich England. For the convenience of the Court and parties, the plaintiffs named in this Complaint who are Sekoya Indians similarly situated to the plaintiffs are listed in alphabetical order in Exhibit "Cc", which is incorporated into this Complaint as if set forth fully herein. 24. Plaintiff, Homer Conde is a thirty year old resident of land located adjacent to the road South of Coca, Ecuador, near a marking denoting kilometer 128. Homer Conde moved to this land in 1984 with his family. He is bringing this law suit on his behalf and as guardian of his minor children. In 1986, defendant opened an oil well near his home and the lake behind his home which is on his property became contaminated. conde and his family suffer from illnesses related to drinking and bathing in water contaminated with crude oil. They are also at an increased risk of developing cancer. Defendant has since 1986 ruined all sources of water in the vicinity of plaintiff's home. His cows have suffered spontaneous abortions after drinking the contaminated water of the streams. During the. summer months when there is very little rain, due to the constant spreading of crude oil on the roads, he and his children are covered subjected to inhalation of heavy levels of dust particl . He is an with oi] that are damaging their respiratory sys' immigrant to this region of the Amazon. 25. Plaintiff, Santo Guillermo Ramirez is a resident of land located adjacent to the road south of Coca, Ecuador, near -15-A45 a marking denoting kilometer 143, He brings this law suit on his behalf and as guardian of his minor child. His child, Danilo, suffers from body growths directly attributable to the water contamination of the region with oil crude. Santo Guillermo Ramirez also suffers from illnesses related to the contamination of the water of the region with crude oil. All the fish in the stream that passes through his property have died from the oil contamination. They are also at an increased risk of developing cancer. Whenever it rains, the oil that is constantly being discarded by spreading the same on the roads washes on the land owned by Ramirez and his family making it impossible for Danilo, Santo Guillermo or other inhabitants of the region not to be exposed and contaminated daily with toxic crude oil. During the summer months when there is very little rain, due to the constant spreading of crude oil on the roads, they are subjected to inhalation of heavy levels of dust particles covered with oil that are damaging his respiratory system. Ramirez and his family are immigrants to this region of the Amazon. 26. Plaintiff Juana Tanguila is a resident of the Pimampiro Community located near La Joya de los Sachas, in Sucumbios, Ecuador. Juana moved to Pimampiro twenty years ago with her family. Her husband died five years ago and she is the head of a household composed of herself and her children. She and her children suffer from many illnesses related to the contamination of the river near their home with crude oi] Ancluding but not limited to: growths on their bodies, fevers, -16-A46 migraine headaches, and corporal pains. They are also at an increased risk of developing cancer. In addition, her married daughter, Fabiola, who resides with her, suffered a spontaneous abortion after bathing in the river on a day when the oil contamination was particularly heavy. She and her family are Limited to drinking rain water that is collected in barrels during the rainy season. During the dry season they are forced to drink the water from the heavily contaminated river. The river water contains high levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons at levels capable of causing cancers in those who drink the water. She and her family have also attempted to draw water from a small well on the ground to avoid the oil contamination and have reason to believe that the water from this shallow well is also contaminated from the oil spread on the roads and the contamination of the ground water caused by oil spilling from the oil lagoons created by defendant to dispose of unmarketable and toxic crude. During the summer months when there is very little rain, due to the constant spreading of crude oil on the roads, she and her family are subjected to inhalation of heavy levels of dust particles covered with oil that are damaging their respiratory systems. She and her family are immigrants to this region of the Amazon. 27. Plaintiffs named above and other plaintiffs named in Exhibit "D" are all similarly situated and all are bringing this Complaint on their behalf and the behalf of all other immigrants to this region of the Amazon who are similarly -17-A47 i situated. All plaintiffs named above and those named in Exhibit "Dp" as well as all other plaintiff members of the class reside in the region of Ecuador that comprises the area surrounded on the North by the Ecuadorian frontier with Colombia, on the South by the Parallel at 1.5 degrees south of the Equator, on the West by the Meridian located at 77.5 degrees West of Greenwich England, and on the East by the 76th Meridian West by Greenwich England. For the convenience of the Court and parties, the plaintiffs named in this Complaint who are immigrants to the region are listed in alphabetical order in Exhibit "D" which is incorporated inte this Complaint as if set forth fully herein. B. Defendant 28. Defendant, Texaco Inc. is a Delaware Corporation, with its principal place of business at 2000 West Chester Avenue White Plains, New York 10650. Texaco is a vertically integrated enterprise engaged in the exploration, extraction, production, transportation, refining, distributing and marketing of oil natural gas and petroleum products worldwide. Texaco operated oil exploration, drilling and crude transportation activities in the Oriente region of Ecuador, which activities were directed, designed, controlled and conceived by defendant in the United state -18-A48 Iv. GLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 29. Plaintiffs bring this action individually, and pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23 (b)(3), on behalf of the following class: All individuals who at any time from 1972 to the present reside in the region of Ecuador comprised by the area bounded on the North by Colombia, on the South by the Parallel at 1.5 degrees south of the Equator, on the West by the Meridian located at 77.5 degrees West of Greenwich England and on the East by the 76th Meridian West of Greenwich England. 30. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiffs believe there are at least 30,000 members of the class. 31. There are questions of law and fact common to the class. 32. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class. Plaintiffs seek redress for the same conduct which has affected all class members and press legal claims which are the same for all class members. 33. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the class. Plaintiffs do not have any conflicts of interest with the members of the class and they have retained counsel who are experienced in complex litigation, including class actions, who will vigorously prosecute this action. 34. Common questions of law and fact predominate over any individual issues. Such common questions include, but are not limited to, the following: -19-AdQ a) the policies, procedures and guidelines used by defendant in exploring and drilling for oil; b) the policies, procedures and guidelines used by defendant in handling and disposing of crude oil and waste by- products of oil exploring and drilling; ¢) the technological suitability of defendant's exploration and drilling practic a) whether defendant's exploration, drilling and disposal practices were negligent; e) whether defendant's exploration, drilling and disposal practices constitute intentional malfeasance; f) the policies, procedures and guidelines used by defendant in tré sporting oil; g) whether defendant's conduct in transporting oil was negligent; h) whether defendant's design, construction and maintenance of oil pipelines in the Oriente was negligent; i) whether defendant's design, construction and maintenance of oil pipelines in the Oriente constituted intentional malfeasance; 4) whether the region defined in the class definition has been contaminated with crude oil as a result of defendant's activities and the extent of such contamination; .k) whether the region defined in the class definition has been contaminated with by-products, wastes, -20-A50 chemicals and other toxins as a result of defendant's activities and the extent of such contamination; 1) whether the pollutants which defendant has discharged into the environnent are toxic; m) whether defendant's conduct constitutes a nuisance; n) whether the class should receive medical monitoring; ©) whether defendant is liable for compensatory damages and the measure of such damages; P) whether the defendant's conduct was wanton and outrageous; q) whether defendant is liable for punitive damages and the amount of such damages, and x) whether the class is entitled to equitable relief. 35. A class action is the superior method for adjudication of this controversy. In the absence of a class action, the courts will be unne sarily burdened with multiple, duplicative individual actions. Moreover, if a class is not certified, many meritorious claims will go unredressed as the individual class members are not able to prosecute complex - litigation against a large, multi-national corporation -21-36. The region of Ecuador in which plaintiffs and the class reside contains some of the most ecologically diverse tropical rain forests in the world. This region, known as the oriente, lies in the Eastern half of Ecuador, on the downward slope of the Andes Mountains. 37. The Oriente rain forests lie at the head waters of the Amazon river system, and are vital to the flood control of the entire river. The rain forests regulate the climate not only of the Oriente region, but indeed, contribute to climate conditions throughout the world. It is well accepted that destruction of the tropical rain forests contributes to global warming, a major environmental problem with potentially disastrous effects for the entire planet. 38. Approximately eight groups of indigenous people live in the Oriente. ‘These people have lived for centuries in the rain forests and depend on them for their livelihoods and their very existence. While of general concern to everyone, Texaco's destruction of the rain forests already has caused physical injury to plaintiffs and the class and continues to threaten their health, way of life, and very survival as a people. 39.. In or about 1964, defendant Texaco began oil exploration and drilling activities in the Oriente region of Ecuador. Texaco's activities as described herein have devastated -22-A52 the rain forests of the Oriente and the health of the people who live there. 40. Texaco's activitii led to the discovery of many oil fields. Eventually, these fields would, according to Texaco, Produce at their peak 220,000 barrels of crude oil per day, from over 400 wells. 41. In 1972, Texaco completed construction of a 500 kilometer oil pipeline which it designed. Texaco also designed and constructed numerous subsidiary pipelines. These pipelines have had repeated ruptures, leaks and discharges of oi] causing damage to the plaintiffs and the class. 42. Texaco directly operated oil facilities in Ecuador up to July, 1990. From July 1990 through 1992, Texaco remained involved in the operation of these facilities. 43. Texaco's acts and omissions have inflicted damage on the people and environment of the Oriente of outrageous Proportions. In conducting its oil exploration, drilling and transportation activities, Texaco failed to exercise due care, failed to abide by industry standards, failed to follow accepted international rules and standards, and failed to follow its own which it contends were used in Ecuador. stated guidelin Instead, Texaco acted with callous disregard for the health, well being and safety of plaintiffs and the class. For example: (a) Texaco's exploratory drilling practices generate waste products which contain toxic substances. Rather than contain these wastes, or dispose of them in environmentally -23-A53 wastes were discharged into open pits. The sound ways, the pits would overflow, allowing these toxins to discharge into streams, rivers and groundwater from which plaintiffs and the class obtain drinking water and food; (b) Texaco also burned off the waste oil products in the open pits or lagoons without sound or prudent temperature or air pollution controls. As the result, the air plaintiffs and the class breath is contaminated with toxic particles; (ce) Defendant has also placed these wastes in crude "landfills," without proper linings or capping. As a_ result, the toxins leak and are discharged from these landfills"; (a) The problems identified in subparagraphs (a) = (¢) above in connection with exploratory drilling were repeated and exacerbated with production drilling. Large quantities of toxic wastes are generated and discharged, untreated, into the open pits, burned off in an unsafe manner, or "landfilled"; (e) In addition to the waste products, crude oil itself is highly toxic. Through the negligent, reckless and intentional practices of defendant, crude oil has been repeatedly spilled and discharged in the Oriente. Streams and rivers in the region are black with untreated, discharged crude oil. Aquatic life in the streams has been destroyed; (f) Defendant intentionally disposed of oil on have their the roads in the Oriente. Plaintiffs and the cli -24-A54 bodies and vehicles covered with this oil and are constantly exposed to dust covered with the oil; (3) The major pipeline designed, constructed, maintained and operated by Texaco has repeatedly ruptured and leaked. The Ecuadorian government estimates that 16.8 million That is gallons of oil have spilled from the pipelin approximately 6 million gallons more than was spilled in the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The pipeline was negligently designed and constructed by defendant with an inadequate number of shut- off valves, so that when a rupture occurs, oil will flow unchecked for days. Various secondary pipelines were also constructed without due care in light of the unique topography of the land resulting in the discharge of oil into the environment; (h) The defendant failed to have equipment for cleaning up oil spills available. Accordingly, no effort was made by defendant to clean up spills from the pipelines; (4) The defendant never warned plaintiffs and the class of the dangers of exposure to oil and the by-products of oil drilling. 44, The defiling of the oriente has had grave consequences for plaintiffs and the class. The vaste products discharged in open pits typically contain such toxins as arsenic, lead, mercury, benzene, naphthalene and other hydrocarbons. These substances are toxic to animals and humans and are known or suspected carcinogens. -25-ASS: 45. These heavy metals, hydrocarbons and other substances bioaccumulate in the environment and in the food chain. 46. Plaintiffs and the class continuously ingest th substances through dermal contact, breathing the polluted air, drinking polluted water and eating fish and other foods contaminated with these substances. 47, 0i1 discharge is so prevalent that the dirt roads in the region are covered with oil. Texaco also intentionally dumped oil on the dirt roadways. In the dry season, oil laden dust "storms" further expose the class to these poisons. The plaintiffs and the class members frequently become covered with oil, particularly on their feet and are forced to apply gasoline to their bodies as a solvent to remove the oil. Similarly, vehicles become heavily coated with oily dust so that they can only be cleaned with gasoline. 48. The streams, rivers, lakes and aquifers of the oriente have becone so contaminated with oil and oil by-products that the water is unsuitable for drinking. Testing of the water has revealed the presence of hydrocarbons and other carcinogens at levels many times higher than EPA's recommended safety levels. 49. Recently, testing of rain water has revealed that even the rain water contains dangerous levels of toxic substances attributable to oil exploration and production. As a result, plaintiffs and the class have no source of safe water for drinking, cooking or bathing. -26-A56 50. Plaintiffs and the class members have been exposed to toxic substances from at least the early 1970's or the length of their lives, whichever is shorter. Plaintiffs nave suffered physical injuries, including rashes, skin irritations, cancers, emotional distress and other ailments as a direct result of this exposure. 51. Plaintiffs and the class are at a significantly increased risk of developing cancer as a result of their exposure to these toxins. 52. The acts and omissions described herein were - committed by defendant maliciously, intentionally, and with a flagrant disregard for the rights of plaintiffs and the class, and with actual awareness on the part of the defendant that the acts and omissions would, in reasonable probability, result in great bodily harm to plaintiffs. vr. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF count I Negligence 53. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 52 of this Complaint as fully as if set forth herein. 54. Defendant owed a duty to plaintiff and the class to exercise reasonable care in conducting its oil exploration, oil drilling, pipeline construction and other activities in connection with the extraction of oil from the Oriente. -27-AST 55. Defendant breached its duty of care by engaging in the negligent activity set forth above and by otherwise failing to employ safe, prudent and technologically current techniques to prevent the discharge of oil and other by-products into the environment. 56. The defendant was negligent in one, some and/or all of the following respects: (a) In using oi] drilling technology inadequate for the tropical region of the Amazon; (b) In failing to develop proper technology to prevent the contamination of the pristine and fragile Amazon environment with crude oi and its by-products. (c) In failing to exercise due care in the exploration and extraction of oil; (a) In failing to exercise due care in the design and construction of oil pipeline: (e) In failing to prevent spills, discharges and leaks of oil and its by-products; (f) In failing to warn the inhabitants of the region of the toxicity of crude oil and its by-product: (g) In failing to adequately warn the immigrants to the region and the indigenous inhabitants in their respective languages of the toxicity of oil and its by-products; (h) In failing to take reasonable precautions or reasonable care to publish, adopt and enforce safe |A58 methods of disposal of unprocessable crude oil and its by- products; (i) In failing to reveal to the inhabitants of the region tests conducted by defendant on the toxicity of the products released by defendant into the environment; (4) In failing to test all chemical products released into the environment for adverse health effects, or to cause said products to be tested (kx) In concealing from plaintiffs information concerning the effects of such products in humans and animals; (1) In failing to adequately monitor the health of plaintiffs exposed to toxic crude oil or its by-products. 57. Defendant's breach of duty was wanton, outrageous, reckless and intentional. Defendant made the decision for its own economic gain to dump unprocessed oil into the environment, and thereby to expose plaintiffs and the class to toxic crude oil, and to benzene, toluene, arsenic, lead, mercury, hydrocarbons and other toxins, knowing that such substances were toxic to humans. 58. As a direct and proximate result of defendant's breaches of duty, plaintiffs and the class have suffered injuries to their persons and property. Plaintiffs and the class are entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be ascertained at trii -29-A59 Sount IT Public Nuisance 59. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 58 of this Complaint as fully as if set forth herein. 60. Defendant's conduct and the resulting contamination of the Oriente environment has created a public nuisance which endangers and will continue for ny years to endanger the safety, health and comfort of a large number of persons. 61. Plaintiffs and class menbers have suffered special and peculiar harm of a kind different from that suffered by others, in that their health already has been injured, their properties already have been damaged and their sources of clean water and food already have been curtailed. 62. Though it may be liable irrespective of fault, defendant's conduct was unreasonable, wanton, outrageous, reckless and intentional, and plaintiffs and the class are entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be ascertained at trial. count IIT Private Nuisance 63. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 62 of this Complaint as fully as if set forth herein. 64.: Defendant's conduct has caused nontrespassory (as well as trespassory) invasions of plaintiffs‘ and class members! private use and enjoyment of their land. =30-A60 65. Defendant's conduct has been unreasonable in that it has caused severe annoyance, harm, inconvenience and damage to plaintiffs’ and class members’ enjoyment of their private properties. 66. Though it may be liable irrespective of fault, defendant's conduct was unreasonable, wanton, outrageous. reckless and intentional, and plaintiffs and the class are entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be ascertained at trial. Count Iv Strict Liability 67. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 66 of this Complaint as fully as if set forth herein. 68. The technology used by defendant for extraction of crude oil from the Oriente was designed, created and used by defendant to maximize its profits. ‘This technology was defective and unreasonably dangerous in the following respects: (a) The technology lead to the contamination of the waters of the region with toxic crude oil and its by-products without providing adequate warning to plaintiffs and the class in their own languages, of the health hazards associated with the exposure to crude of{1 and its by-products resulting from defendant's defective and unreasonably dangerous technology (b) The technology was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous in that at all times alternative technology existed for extraction of oil without discarding toxic -31-a A61 crude ofl and its by-products into the environment, and without creating unreasonable health hazards to plaintiffs and the cl: (c) Defendant was in the business of extracting and selling oil, and defendant by use of unreasonably dangerous technology contaminated the environment, and this contamination is the direct cause of the damages sustained by plaintiffs and the class. (@) Plaintiffs and the class were unaware of the dangerous propensities of crude oil and its by-products which rendered them unsafe if spilled and discarded into the environment. Plaintiffs and the class were exposed to crude oi] and its by-products in manners that were reasonably anticipated by defendant. Defendant intentionally exposed plaintiffs and the class to crude oil and its by-products by deliberately discarding oil and its by-products into the environment 69. Plaintiffs and the class are entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be ascertained at trial. Count Vv Medical Monitoring 70. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 69 of this Complaint as fully as if set forth herein. 71. As a result of defendant's negligent and reckless conduct, plaintiffs and the class have been significantly exposed to known hazardous substances. =32-A62, 72. As a result of such exposure, plaintiffs and the class are at an increased risk of contracting latent diseases, including cancers. 73. Early detection and treatment of these diseases is medically necessary and advisable. 74. Plaintiffs and the class are entitled to recover the costs of a medical monitoring program, and’ to recover punitive damages in amounts to be ascertained at trial. Count VI Trespass 75. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 74 of this Complaint as fully as if set forth herein. 76, Defendant's intentional and reckless acts and omissions have resulted in the discharge of oil and other pollutants onto the real property of the plaintiffs and the class. 77. Such acts and omissions constitute a trespass upon the properties of plaintiffs and the clas 78. Plaintiffs and the class are entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages as a result of defendant's trespass in amounts to be ascertained at trial. count VII civil conspiracy 79. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 78 of this Complaint as fully as if set forth herein. -33-A63 80. Defendant and its subsidiaries, affiliates and others knowingly agreed, contrived, combined, confederated, and to cause plaintiffs injury, illness conspired among themselv and disease by exposing plaintiffs to harmful crude oil. Defendant and its co-conspirators committed the above described wrongs by intentionally dumping, spilling and discharging crude oil and other toxins into the environment and by willfully misrepresenting and suppressing the truth as to the risks and dangers associated with exposure to crude oil and its by- products. 81. In furtherance of said conspiracy, defendant performed the following overt acts, among others, and in addition to the acts and omissions described in Counts I through V which are incorporated herein by reference: (a) For many years defendant, individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with others, has possessed medical and scientific data, literature, and test reports which clearly indicated that Amazon crude oil and its by-products were unreasonably dangerous, hazardous, deleterious, carcinogenic, and potentially deadly; (>) Despite the medical and scientific data, literature, and test reports by and available to defendant, defendant jointly and in conspiracy with others, fraudulently, willfully and maliciously: (1) withheld, concealed and suppressed said medical and scientific data, literature, and test reports -34-—-aenom Seca A64 Fegarding the health risks associated with amazon crude oil and its by-products, from plaintirts; (44) caused to be released, published and isseminated literature containing information and statements Fegarding the risks of exposures of plaintiffs to Amazon crude oil and its by products which defendant knew were incorrect, incomplete, outdated, and mislead; (iii) by the false and fraudulent nisrepresentations, omissions, and conceaiments set forth above, defendant intended to induce plaintiffs to rely upon said false and fraudulent misrepresentations, omissions, and concealments and to continue to expose them to the dangers inherent in exposure by plaintiffs to crude oi1 and its by-products. 82. Plaintiffs and the class reasonably and in gooa faith relied upon the false and fraudulent representations, omissions and concealments made by defendant regarding the lack of health risks to humans of oil extraction activities as well as the lack of risk of contaminating the environment with toxic and harmful products. Plaintiffs and the class have suffered Personal injuries and property dazages as a result of the tortious conduct which defendant committed in conspiracy with others. 83. As a direct and proximate result of defendant! conspiratorial acts, plaintiffs have suffered damages. Plaintiffs and the class are entitled to recover compensatory and icertained at trial. Punitive damages in amounts to be -35-A65 Sount VIIT Violation of 28 U.S.¢. § 1250 84. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 93 of this Complaint as fully as if set forth herein. 85. Defendant's acts and omissions of intentionally and tortiously discharging crude oi] and other toxins into the environment; in damaging the pristine rain forests of the oriente; in destroying the streams, rivers, waterways and acquifers, and in threatening the survival of the indigenous people of the Oriente violate the law of nations, international law, worldwide industry standards and practices, as well as the laws of the United states 86. Defendant's conduct in violation of the law of nations has caused plaintiffs and the class damages in amounts to be ascertained at trial. Count Ix Equitable Relief 87. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 86 of this Complaint as fully as if set forth herein. ee. As a result of defendant's conduct, plaintifts' properties and environment are highly contaminated with toxic substance Plaintiffs! drinking water supplies have been contaminated with carcinogens, rendering them unsuitable for consumption. -36-. A606 89. In the absence of injunctive relief, plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm. Plaintiffs do not have an adequate remedy at lav. 90. Plaintiffs are entitled to equitable relief to remedy the contamination and spoliation of their properties, water supplies and environment. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 91. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all issues. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request the Court (a) determine that this case may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Fed.R.Civ.P.; (b) enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the class and against defendant on all counts of the Complaint; (c) award plaintiffs and the class compensatory and punitive damages; (a) grant plaintiffs and the class equitable relief; (e) award plaintiffs and the class the costs of suit, and (f) award plaintiffs and the class such other and further relief as the Court deems just under the circumstances. -37-DATED: November 3, 1993 Respectfully submitted, Martin J. D'Urso (MD-6576) Diana Liberto (DL-8313) KOHN, NAST & GRAF, P.C. 2400 One Reading Center 1101 Market Street: Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 238-1700 Cristobal Bonifaz (CB-2949) John Bonifaz (JB-0987) Steven R. Donziger (SD-5700) Tucker Taft Building 48 North Pleasant Street Amherst, MA 01002 (413) 253-5626 Amy Damen (AD-175: SULLIVAN & DAMEN One North Broadway White Plains, New York 10601 (914) 428-9414 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Clai3 AGUINDA, Maria - AGUINDA, Catarina AGUINDA, Lidia AGUINDA, Patricio AGUINDA, Ramiro ANDI, Gerardo ARMAS, Luis CRIMBO, Patricio GREFA, Carlos GREFA, Gesica GREFA, Lucio GREFA, Mercedes RIASCOS, Bolivar VEGAY, Jaine VEGAY, Jose Enrique‘A0 EXEIBIT C CHINBO, Venuncio LUCITANTE, Daniel LUCITANTE, Emilio LUCITANTE, Esteban LUCITANTE, Marcelino LUCITANTE, Simon LUCITANTE, Reinaldo PAYAGUAJE, Alfredo PAYAGUAJE, Alirio PAYAGUAJE, Colon PAYAGUAJE, Delfin PAYAGUAJE, Fermin PAYAGUAJE, Guillermo PAYAGUAJE, Hernan PAYAGUAJE, Luis PAYAGUAJE, Miguel PAYAGUAJE, Teodoro PAYAGUAJE, Wilson PIAGUAJE, Armando PIAGUAIE, Elias PIAGUAJE, Javier PIAGUAJE, Jose PIAGUAJE, Ramon PIAGUAJE, RicardoALVARADO, Francisco ALVARADO, Lorenzo ALVARADO, Matias AMANTA, Angel ABILEZ, Nicolas BALSECA, Alsidez CAMACHO, Gerardo CASTILLO, Rosa CASTILLO-PUGACHT, Rommel CHIMBO, Lourdes CHIMBO-CHUGANDO, Luis CHIMBO, Rosa GREFA, Olga ILLIAPA, Gregorio ILLIAPA, Jose IPIALES, Miguel NOTERO, Prudencio PATALON, Heliodoro RAMIREZ, Danilo RAMIREZ, Santos Guillermo REVELO, Gabriel RIASCOS, Lourde: RIASCOS, Marco Tulio RIASCOS, Maria A771 EXHIBIT DA72, EXHIBIT D (CONTINUED) RIASCOS, Yolanda RODRIGUEZ, Maria TANGUILA, Delia TANGUILA, Juana TANGUILA, Lucrecia TANGUILA, Narcisa TANGUILA, Victor VIVERO, Irene VIVERO, Hortencia VIVERO, Maria YUMBO, Berta YUMBO, Fabiola YUMBO, Narcisa| COPY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARIA AGUINDA. et al.. Plaintiffs, : | 98 CIV. 7527(VLB) -against- 7 TEXACO INC., Defendant: APPENDIX TO TEXACO INC.’s MOTIONS TO DISMISSI | I { I | I = AT4 INDEX TO AFFIDAVITS |. Affidavit of George S. Branch with Exhibits A and B Affidavit of Dr. Enrique Ponce Y Carbo Affidavit of Dr. Vicente Bermeo Lanas Affidavit of Texaco Petroleum Company by Denis York LeCorgneUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x MARIA AGUINDA, et al., : Plaintiffs, + 93 CIV. 7527 (VLB) against- 2 TEXACO INC., z Defendant. ' AFFIDAVIT OF GEORGE 5. BRANCH George S. Branch, being first duly sworn on oath and competent to testify, hereby states as follows: 1. I am counsel of record for Texaco Inc. in this ci ama partner of the law firm of King & Spalding. 2. The matters set forth in this affidavit are within my personal knowledge. 8 Act: ua 3, This action ("the Aguinda action") is the second action filed against Texaco Inc. on behalf of a class of Ecuadorian plaintiffs relating to the Oriente region of Ecuador. On August 31, 1993, two months before the filing of this action, another group of Ecuadorian residents filed another putative class action, Sequihua, et al_v. Texaco Inc. et _al., No. 93-46719 (Dist. Ct. Harris County), in Texas state court against Texaco Inc. and others alleging similar claims of nuisance, environmentalA76 contamination, and negligence in Ecuador. I have attached the Sequihua Complaint as Exhibit “A" to this Affidavit. 4. ‘The Sequihva action was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) (Black, J.), Case No, H-93-3432, on October 27, 1993. on November 26, 1993, plaintiffs in the Sequihua action filed a motion to remand the action to Texas state court. Texaco Inc. and the other defendants will file their response in opposition to that motion to remand on January 6, 1993. 5. The Complaints in both these lawsuits allege that Texaco Inc.'s oil production operations in Ecuador have caused personal injuries, property damage, and environmental contamination in the Oriente. Both actions involve Ecuadorian residents, Ecuadorian law, Ecuadorian natural resources and Ecuadorian territory. Both actions seek monetary damages and equitable relief, including court-ordered equitable relief with respect to Ecuadorian territory. 6. The defendants in the Sequihva action are Texaco Inc. as well as “Texas Petroleum Company and/or Texaco Petroleum Company, * Gulf 0i1 Corporation, Chevron USA, Inc., Texaco de Petroleos de Ecuador S.A., Texaco Proprietaria, Parker Drilling Company, Ecuadorian Gulf O11 Company, Perforaciones Andinas, Norsul Oil and Mining, Ltd. and Phoenix Canada Oil Company Ltd. (Sequihua Complaint 4 II). By contrast, Texaco Inc. is the sole defendant in the Aguinda action. 7. ‘The proposed plaintiff class in the Sequihua action includes all indigenous people and colonists in the Oriente, i.e. -2-AZT All residents and former residents of COMUNA SAN CARLOS, members of the Quichua community and/or he: enous mn ‘and who have been the object of nuisances, sustained personal injuries or property damages, and/or have been placed at risk of future injury or disease by reason of the pollution caused by the Defendants in the nation of Ecuador. (Sequihua Complaint 1 VII) (emphasis added). definition in the Sequihua Complaint includes the proposed class members in this action. According to 8. The cli plaintiffs’ Complaint in the Aguinda action, the 95 named plaintiffs are all Ecuadorian Indians in the Oriente or immigrants to the Oriente from other parts of Ecuador. (Complaint 14 3, 11- 27, and Exhs. A, B, C, and D thereto.) They purport to represent a class of approximately 30,000 similarly situated Indians, indigenous communities, and immigrants living in the Oriente since 1972. See Complaint 11 3; 29 ("alll individuals who have resided at any time from 1972 to 1992 in the Oriente, as defined by latitude, longitude, and Ecuador’s natural boundary) (emphasis added); Complaint 19 19, 23, 27. 9. In this action, the Ecuadorian plaintiffs seek damages under common law theories of negligence (Count I), public and private nuisance (Counts II and III), strict liability (Count Iv), medical monitoring (Count v), trespass (Count VI), civil conspiracy (Count VII), and violations of the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (Count VIII). They also seek equitable relief to remedy the alleged contamination of their properties, water supply, and environment in Ecuador (Count IX). They also claim that Texaco Inc.’s practices damaged “their culture, their diet =3eBt AT8 and other ancient traditions" and their ‘way of life. (Complaint 11 20-22, 38.) 10. The Ecuadorian plaintiffs in the Sequihua action, like Plaintiffs in the Aguinda action, seek damages and equitable relief for personal injuries, property damage, nuisance, and environmental contamination that allegedly occurred in Ecuador a result of defendants’ oi] production activities in Ecuador. (Sequihua Complaint 1 v.) 11. In summary, both this case and the Sequihua action seek certification of an overlapping class of Ecuadorian plaintiffs. Both ci 6 involve similar claims of property damage and environmental contamination, similar claims of personal injury to indigenous people and immigrants living in the Ecuadorian rain forest, similar factual allegations against Texaco Inc., similar requests for relief, and similar legal issues. As in this case, Texaco Inc. and its co-defendants have already filed a motion to dismiss in the Sequihua action based upon comity, failure to join indispensable parties, forum non conveniens, the local action doctrine, and other grounds. 1 have been advised that the Sequihua plaintiffs’ responses to those motions to dismiss are due in early January 1994. 12. If and when Judge Black denies plaintiffs’ motion to remand in the Sequihua action, Texaco Inc. intends to file a motion to transfer this action to Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for consolidation with the Sequihua action if this Court has not Previously granted Texaco Inc.’s Motions to Dismiss the Complaint in this action. Texaco Inc. will seek to transfer the case to -4-tt A79 federal court in Houston in the interest of judicial economy because the Texas action was filed first, involves an overlapping class of plaintiffs, similar issues and similar motions to dismiss, and includes additional defendants not subject to the Jurisdiction of this Court. ‘Texaco Inc.'s Comity and Porum Non Conveniens Defenses Complaint, the 95 named 13. According to plaintifé plaintiffs are all citizens and residents of Ecuador (Complaint WW 1, 11), Plaintiffs estimate that the proposed class will approximate 30,000 individuals, all of whom are residents of the Oriente region of Ecuador (Complaint 1% 11-27, 29-30, 36). The allegations of the Complaint relate to land and water located exclusively in Ecuador (Complaint 14 36 et seq.) and involve claims of personal injuries and property damage in Ecuador based nui upon alleged acts of trespas: nce, negligence, and contamination in Ecuador from 1972 to 1992 (Complaint 1 43). Accordingly, extensive site visits in Ecuador and site-specific tests and analyses of the allegedly contaminated areas of Ecuador would be necessary to prove or disprove the Complaint’s allegations of nuisance trespass, contamination, and personal injury. Extensive discovery and testimony from Ecuadorian witnesses relating to plaintiffs’ claims of injury would also be necessary. In-all likelihood, the vast majority of those witne! speak Spanish or Indian languages such as Quichua. In addition, a determination of whether Texaco Inc.‘s conduct has interfered with ‘plaintiffs’ and the class members’ private us.te A80 and enjoyment of their land" will involve access to the land as well as witnesses and evidence in Ecuador (Complaint 1 64). 14, Texaco Inc. would need discovery on these issues and would need to present Ecuadorian witnesses at trial in order to refute plaintiffs’ representations and allegations. This evidence and related proof, however, are beyond the compulsory process of this Court but would be available in Litigation in Ecuador according to the Affidavit of Dr. Enrique Ponce y Carbo, a former Justice of the Ecuador Supreme Court. See the Appendix filed herewith. 15. I have attached as Exhibit *B" to this Affidavit a copy of the diplomatic note from the Embassy of Ecuador to the United States Department of State (including a translation), dated December 3, 1993, expressing the Government of Ecuador’s official position that the United State courts should refuse jurisdiction of this case. The Government of Ecuador cites the following reasons, among others: (a) this case involves Ecuadorian claims, Ecuadorian laws, Ecuadorian citizens, the Ecuadorian economy, and Ecuadorian national sovereignty, (b) plaintiffs can receive a fair hearing in an Ecuadorian court knowledgeable about Ecuadorian law, and (c) Ecuador has an established record of protecting its environment, its minorities, and indigenous people. Texaco Petroleum Company 16. Texaco Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York. It is the ultimate parent company of Texaco Petroleum Company (“TexPet"), a fourth-tier subsidiaryA81 that formerly operated in Ecuador but ceased all oil exploration, drilling, and pipeline operations in the Oriente prior to July 1990, according to the accompanying Affidavit of Texaco Petroleum Company. The Affidavit of Texaco Petroleum Company, by Dennis Y. LaCorgne, includes additional facts concerning Texaco Petroleum Company's organizational structure and its historical operations in Ecuador. 17. If this Court retains jurisdiction of some or all issues in this case following the Court's ruling on the pending motions, Texaco Inc. intends to file at a later date a motion for summary judgment to dismiss Texaco Inc. on the grounds that Texaco Inc. neither conducted nor directed the activities at issue in this case. TexPet, not Texaco Inc., is the entity that actually operated in Ecuador until mid-1990. It is unnecessary, however, for the Court to address the issue of parent company liability at this time in order to decide the pending Motions to Dismiss based upon international comity, indispensable parties, forum non sonveniens, the local action doctrine, and plaintiffs’ failure to tate a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (the Alien Tort Statute) and for civil conspiracy. Therefore, it is also unnecessary for the Parties to incur the expense and delay of discovery and briefing on this issue at this stage if this Court grants these dispositive Motions to Dismiss. 18. I am advising the Court of this i: @ of parent company liability at this stage, however, as it may relate to the issue of whether Texaco Inc. would agree to submit to the jurisdiction of an Ecuadorian court for purposes of this litigation if this CourtA82. declines to dismiss this case unconditionally based upon international comity or plaintiffs’ failure to join indispensable parties but conditionally grants Texaco Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss based upon forum non conveniens. In that event, Texaco Inc. has authorized me to inform the Court that it would submit to jurisdiction in the appropriate judicial forum in Ecuador solely for purposes of this litigation if plaintiffs refile this lawsuit in Ecuador. Texaco Inc.'s submission to Ecuadorian jurisdiction, however, is subject to an express reservation of its rights to argue without prejudice in that forum in Ecuador (just as it would argue in this Court) that plaintiffs have sued the wrong entity, that Texaco Inc. did not conduct the alleged activities, that Texaco Inc. is not liable for the activitii of its subsidiary (Texaco Petroleum Company), and that. Texaco Inc. should therefore =e be dismissed. ‘Georgé sb Branch Sworg tp and subscribed before me this, day of December, 1993. i Snax meres enceA83 93-46715 he cause No. IGNACIO SEQUIHUA and MAURICIO IN THE-DESTRICT COURT OF SEQUIKUA, Individually; COMUNA SAN CARLOS, @ legally constituted quasi-municipality under Ecuadorian law, by and through ite President IGNACIO SEQUIHUA and ite Secretary MAURICIO SEQUIKUA; HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS And All Named Plaintiffs Sue Individually and as Representative of Those Similarly situated. Plaintiffs, ve JUDICIAL DISTRICT TEXACO INC.; TEXAS PETROLEUM COMPANY and/or TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY; GULF OIL CORPORATION; CHEVRON U.S.A., INC.; TEXACO DE PETROLEOS DEL ECUADOR S.A.j TTEXACO PROPRIETARIA; PARKER DRILLING COMPANY; ECUADORIAN GULF OIL COMPANY; PERFORACIONES ANDINAS. NORSUL OIL AND MINING, LTD.; and PHOENIX CANADA OIL COMPANY LTD; MOMMA MOMOMODDDDOROODOOOODOD Defendants PLAINTIFFS‘ ORIGINAL PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COME NOW IGNACIO SEQUIHUA and MAURICIO SEQUIHUA, individually; COMUNA SAN CARLOS, a legally constituted quasi- municipality under Ecuadorian law, by and through its President. IGNACIO SEQUIHUA and its Secretary, MAURICIO SEQUINUA, Ali Individually and as Representative of those Similarly Situated, hereinafter referred to as Plaintiffs, complaining of TEXACO INC. and TEXAS PETROLEUM COMPANY and/or TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY; GULF OIL CORPORATION; CHEVRON U.S.A., INC.; TEXACO DE PETROLEOS DEL ECUADOR S.A.; TEXACO PROPRIETARIA; PARKER DRILLING COMPANY; sequimaa.or1 1 EXHIBIT "A" TO AFFIDAVIT OF GEORGE S. BRANCHA84 ECUADORIAN GULF OIL COMPANY; PERFORACIONES ANDINAS; NORSUL OTL AND MINING, LTD.; and PHOENIX CANADA OIL COMPANY LTD. hereinafter referred to as Defendants, and for cause of action would respectfully show the Court as follows Plaintiffs IGNACIO SEQUIHUA and MAURICIO SEQUIHUA are resident citizens of Ecuador. COMUNA SAN CARLOS is a legally constituted quasi-municipality under Ecuadorian law, situated in Ecuador. mu. TEXACO INC., a corporation authorized to do business in the State of Texas, may be served with process by serving ite istered agent for service, to-wit: Mr. David G. Yetter, Texaco Heritage Plaza, 1111 Bagby, Houston, Texas 77002. TEXAS PETROLEUM COMPANY and/or TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY is a wholly owned subsidiary of TEXACO INC. and may be served with process by serving its registered agent for service c/o L. R. Jerz, Asst. General Counsel, 2000 Westchester Avenue, White Plains, New York 10658, by serving them through the Secretary of State of Texas by mailing citation, certified mail, to the same addre: GULF OIL CORPORATION, is a corporation authorized to do business in Texas and may be served with process by serving its registered agent for service, C. T. Corporation Systems, 350 .N. St. Paul, Dallas, Texas 75201. CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. is @ corporation authorized to do business in Texas and may be served with process by serving its registered agent for service, C. T. Corporation Systems, 350 N. St. equttae.oe1 2A85 Paul, Dallas, Texas 75201. TEXACO DE PETROLEOS DEL ECUADOR S.A. is8 a wholly owned subsidiary of TEXACO INC. and may be served with process by serving its registered agent for service c/o L. R. Jerz, Asst. General Counsel, 2000 Westchester Avenue, White Plains, New York 10658, by serving them through the Secretary of State of Texas by mailing citation, certified mail, to the same address. TEXACO PROPRIETARIA is a wholly owned subsidiary of TEXACO INC. and may be served with process by serving its registered agent for service c/o L. R. Jerz, Asst. General Counsel, 2000 Westchester Avenue, White Plains, New York 10658, by serving them through the Secretary of State of Texas by mailing citation, certified mail, to the same address. PARKER DRILLING COMPANY is a corporation authorized to do ving its business in Texas and may be served with process by registered agent for service, C. T. Corporation Systems, 350 N. St. Paul, Dallas, Texas 75201. On information and belief, said Defendant has its home office in Texas. ECUADORIAN GULF OIL COMPANY is a foreign subsidiary of GULF OTL CORPORATION. Information necessary for service of process upon this Defendant will be provided as soon ible. por PERFORACIONES ANDINAS is a foreign corporation. Information necessary for service of process upon this Defendant will be provided as soon as possible. Information necessary for rvice of process upon NORSUL OIL AND MINING, LTD. will be provided soon as possible. sequinaa.cet 3l I I | | I A86 PHOENIX CANADA OIL COMPANY LTD. is a foreign corporation. ary for service of process upon this Defendant Information nec: will be provided as soon as possibl qIr. Plaintiffs would show that Defendants have contaminated and polluted with toxie hydrocarbons and other toxic substances the air, ground, and water in the areas in which said Plaintiffs’ residences and habitats are located in Ecuador. This contamination and pollution vas the result of negligent and intentional misconduct by the Defendants, which proximately caused the danages, and necessitates the remedies, hereinafter alleged. IW. By reason of this pollution, Defendants’ conduct constitutes a nuisance as that term is defined by law, which nuisance has the remedi proximately caused the damages, and necessite hereinafter alleged. v. Plaintiffs would now show that they have suffered and sustained the following damages hereinafter stated and the conduct of the Defendants necessitates the remedies hereinafter stated, as follows: 1) Some of the Plaintiffs have suffered and sustained injuries thus entitling said Plaintiffs to recover actual damages for loss of income, loss of earning capacity, physical pain and mental anguish in the past and future, physical impairment and loi of quality of life in the past or future, medical expenses in the saath ert 4A87 past and future and other tangible and intangible actual danage! permitted by law. Plaintiffs now sue for these damages and would show that they far exceed the minimum jurisdiction of this Court. 2) Some of the Plaintiffs have suffered damage to their property in terns of loss of use, impairment of use, diminution in to value and other types of los id property, ell of which entitle said Plaintiffs to recover their property damages permitted by law. Plaintiffs now sue for these danages and would show that they far exceed the minimum jurisdiction of this Court. 3) All Plaintiffs, including some now suffering sone injury and those who are not presently suffering any injury, are “at risk” by reason of the misconduct of the Defendants and have a much higher risk of developing cancer and other serious diseases. Plaintiffs now request the Court to create a trust fund to be administered by the Court sufficient to provide sufficient funds for medical monitoring of all Plaintiffs and, upon the detection of any malady or disease caused by their exposure to id pollution, to provide adequate compensation for their damages. 4) By reason of the nuisance and pollution caused by these Defendants, Plaintiffs request the Court to utilize its legal, equitable and implicit power to order the Defendants to pay for the clean-up of all areas polluted by them, to pay for the costs of of remediation and to thereby place the rainforests and other a: pollution back in the condition it was in prior to the tragic pollution caused by these Defendants. seuita. ort $si | | A888 vie Moreover, Defendants conduct was reckless, willful, malicious and calloused, and demonstrated Defendants’ conscious indifference to the health and property rights of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs therefore come now and sue for the maximum amount of punitive and exemplary damages to which they are entitled to receive under the damages far exceed the law. Plaintiffs would show that the minimum jurisdiction of this Court. vit. Plaintiffs hereby invoke the terms and provisions of Rule 42 Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs hereby request of the Te: the Court to certify a class action which shall be defined as follows: “All residents and former residents of COMUNA SAN CARLOS, members of the Quichua community and/or tribe, and other indigenous, traditional persons and colonists who live in or near the rainforests of Ecuador and who have been the object of and/or nuisances, sustained personal injuries or property damage have been placed at risk of future injury or disease by reason of the pollution caused by the Defendants in the nation of Ecuador.* Plaintiffs would show that all prerequisites of Rule 42 are and have been met; that Plaintiffs are sufficient, competent and adequate for representing the class so defined; that the class action is the most manageable way of handling the litigation; that are typical of the claims or defenses of the representative parti the claims or defenses of the class; that the Plaintiffs will sequinua.ortA89 fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members ie impracticable; and that there are questions of law or fact common to the class. ‘The representatives of the class hereby requests that all members of the class, once it is certified, be entitled to the damages and medies herein above requested. vitt. Plaintiffs come now and request prejudgment interest as permitted by lew. Ix. Plaintiffs hereby request trial by jury and have paid the jury fee simultaneously with the filing of this petition. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray for all actual damages mentioned above; punitive and exemplary damages; attorneys fees; prejudgment interest; costs of court; class action treatment; the creation of a monitoring fund; Court ordered clean-up; and for such other and further relief to which they may be justly entitled to receive. ectfully submitted, BENTON MUSSLEWAITE ‘BAH: 14752000 1250 Lyric Centre 440 Louisian Houston, Tex (713) 222-2288 (713) 222-0319 Fax 77002 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS sequinue. ort 7we Preducidos en el ambiente y en le salut. Trdependiamtesents de los hechos = caso o a Ja respuesta da loa desandantes, las accionss y cBisiones de las compafiias antes moncionadas on este on: rere laa ee ee Preccupa a oa ‘= que Entadoe unidos pucieren scepter Juriedicoite para de dafcs que ban ocurride evantualnante La aceptacién de le jurisdiocién en estas casos por las Cortes de dstados Unidos vielentarian ‘i sistema procesal internacional. Baje tal sisteus, las Cortes de Estados Unidcs no podeten actaar pruebas ni realisar sctos procesales en ¢) erritorio de otro pele, donds aarecen a ls mutoridad y dal eonecimiente necesarics pure considerar y jurger ammntce sonsarniantas a leyes extranjeren y a 6a apiicaaién. Departancnte de tatede Washington, D.C.Hs AQL EMBAJADA DEL ECUADOR WASHINGTON. D.C. : e ; : i i i E z 3 Bete deneatinuic tondrin lugar preciaanerts cumds ol. isotendo todas tes Gururtdee pocisios pass aguarite see Pees caren: ‘yurantios o8 Anvarsiones en al fouasor. twtos cafusrses ea reciejan enval becee Teatedo sobre Inversiones y un Conveuie sabre Tousdor ba reclbise ies weneficios de la Lay de prererencia Comercial Andina, qe fue @icetade para estinular la economia da los paises andince que aPliceren politicas para conbstir ei narcetririco. ‘Bates Deneficies quedarian eignificstivemente disaimddos’ por les Aesestimutoe que extarian inplicitos ei ee scepta in jurisdiction de 1a Cortes axericanas an tales cusve. a or Sei ing, conaitersetenes anteriores, 10 Bebajads de ‘Repablicn Beuador so! el Cepartasento de Pata: haga presente. al Departamento ae Justicia y's ine Cortes dence eutas demandas ee ban ys, Sue de acuerdo con <1 Derecto Féblico internacional y los principice de Derecho universuinante sceptades, ia Surindicctén eohte actos ‘Gasce oorraepondie exclusivasente 4° las artoridedes y jeccas ¢01 sonsder, donde cualquier enjuiciamiente debe realisarse 4e conferaided con les eyes ecuatorisnas, false y difanatoria. ta aoeptnelén da ate atgumanto per parte Se scttcden samnas que anal anfalznterte eh besereaeetto da Sentieas ea ack lento a! Yin cies Corres Sotadomiganeee se" Wags peter oy eae uetLed internacional qua ha recteide la Replnlica del Rousse pas se Proteceién cigurosa del medio anbiente, sfexpice de la cual aon lasA92, EMBAJADA DEL ECUADOR WASHINGTON, D.C. Fequlaciones sobre las Islas Cal otros parquen-y reserves naturales; y es tome an cuanta tianikn goo peiesr meer Tes tradieion de respato « 10s cerechos bunenca, "can purticuler eei@sne Sa proteves los carechos ux ine ainaride y Ge lee poses indtqeras, an enpoctel) 7 se anote que Dousdor he sctuace en Seren Mninat “todos lea ‘cuitives da coca y astoiener Figuromamante a cualquier personas invelucreds an al’ tration se narcetit Finalmente, 19 Rebwjada dal Rousdor desos enfatiser que Suante ge refiere al’ aprovechaziento de loc recursos Maturelas ecuatariandn es darecne soberanc de la Zapaplica gel Zousder. Le Deciarncion Ga Rio sobre medio Aubiente y rollo, produciéa an 2292. Y qe ast suserita por el Gobierno de los Estados Uniges, Feconede #] derecho ssberans de len Estados para aprovechar ses [a BrbnjaGa G01 Eowador aprevecha 1a oportunidad para zeiterer a) Departasento de Estado las seguri¢ades da st mis site Y distinguida considerseian. * Washington, > €e dicieumre as 21Ag9B EMBAJADA DEL ECUADOR WASHINGTON. D.C, GNOPFICLAL TRANSLATION States. In thie regard, the Sabascy vishes to explain to the Department voy this natter could do eevere hara to the Republic of Bruader. and other of) ‘that have operated in Bouader or are owners of businsases in the RepUBlis of Souader. These individuals seek as compensation foe damages to the eavircrmant ang thee porwonal health, Without regard te the fects ef the case or the of the defendants, the actions and omissions companies in this case clains Of damages that occurred Ln ander founderien leve, to citizens of the and concerning damages attributed to continue to subait themselves to Ecuadorian fect, only Pruadorian authorities have the levs. As 2 point Competence to pess judguent in such cases. Acceptance of jurisdiction in thie case by the os courts vouid de vieienoe to thd Intarsetiondt 2" oyetane Gndee Saas cytes, OF pares would pet be peraltcad te Soneiter evitenoe or pertese procedurel ectx tarritery ef smother country, Where tiny Yoon the autherily wal auseluape fasted te euler aes judge matters concarning fereign lave and thelr applications Te the Departaant of state ‘wasningten, 04!Ag4 EMBAJADA DEL ECUADOR: WASHINGION, 0.6. ject te Seu eopricious and femi}iarity thet tha inappropriste exercise of jurisdiction in this case vould Benepe « serious Gisinoentive te 08 caspanies thet bave invested in Feusdor. This disinomtive vould take place just as Bousder attanpts to attrect investors from ene Dnited states al] possivie Ny tatce cho. imrest. in Bovadon. efforte are reflected in the fact that zcuecor is the first {a the haniepbere that Nes signed sgreenacte with the United stat including ® Treaty on Investwenta ang 6 Convention cn Intellectual Yeoperty. Woreover, Housdor has received the benefits cf the Andeon Trade Preference Act which vas designated to stimulate the economy of the Andaan countries thet bad sdopted policies to Ciiminate drug trafficking. Those benefits vould be eroded if tha U.S. Courts accept jurisdiction in these cases. ene Repunlic ef Rounder requoets that the Departaent of with the lave of Zouador. Mercovar, the Babesay requests that this petition addrene 4 sscond point. The plaintifzs have euggestad to the US courts that thay cannot expect a fair hearing in Eousdorian ceurte. Such s ciate is falea urd defamatory. Acceptance of this argument by 8 US court vould ‘be highly offensive. me maser, therefore, requests ‘that the presentation to the Tustice Departaent end US omurte note the international recognition Figoreus protection of the environsent, examples of which are the requlations protecting the Galapagos Islands, nature reserves $05 ESS ata casurtily ane has taten pervicaiat care to for biman fi generelly and nas care to the rights of minorities and pecs hee taken decisive action te elininate all cultivation of coca and has egyraseively prosecuted anyone invalved in narcoticeae A95 EMBAJADA DEL ECUADOR WASHINGTON. D.C. weatricning. Finally, the oat tae expos soveralgn £1 ef Bapublis of xcusder, The i%82 Zio Declaration on wupeceibed to by right of states resources ies Teaponsipiitey to ensure, tat the sotivities performed witedn jee territories ‘The Eabessy of Rounder evaile itsols of this ity te ar of Rowates Seuile Joes cunces "ian highestA96 Joseph C. Kohn (JK-1755) Myles H. Malman (¥M-2897) Martin J. D'Urso (MD-6576) Diana Liberto (DL-8313) KOHN, NAST & GRAF, P.C. 2400 One Reading Center 1101 Market street Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 238-1700 Cristobal Bonifaz (cB-2949) John Bonifaz (JB-0987) Steven Donziger (SD-5700) Tucker Taft Building 48 North Pleasant Street Amherst, MA 01002 (413) 253-5626 Amy Damen (AD-1758) SULLIVAN & DAMEN ‘One North Broadway White Plains, New York 10601 (914) 428-9414 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARIA AGUINDA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, ve TEXACO INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 93-7527 CLASS ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED: AQT 7 Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, and pursuant to Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby notice the deposition of the following individual for the date, time and location set forth below: DEPONENT. DATE/TIME LacaTION Denis York Lecorgne February 11, 1994 Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, io a Hynes & Lerach One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, N¥ 10119 ‘The above named individual is hereby notified to appear for his deposition. DATED: January 18, 1994 Diana Liberto KOHN, NAST & GRAF, P.C. 2400 One Reading Center 1101 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 238-1700 Cristobal Bonifaz John Bonifaz Steven R. Donziger Tucker Taft Building 48 North Pleasant Street Amherst, MA 01002 (413) 253-5626 Any Damen SULLIVAN & DAMEN One North Broadway White Plains, New York 10601 (914) 428-9414 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Cl7 AB SERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Joseph ¢. Kohn, hereby certify that on this 18th day of January, 1994 a copy of Plaintiffs Notice of Deposition was served via telecopy and first cla 12 upon: George Branch, Esquire Daniel Xing, Esquire King & Spalding King & Spalding 191 Peachtree Street, N.E. 120 W. 45th Street Atlanta, GA 30303 32nd Floor New York, NY 10036 joseph &. KohnA99 REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR PROVINCE OF PICHINCHA CITY OF QUITO AREIDAVIZ_OF DR. ENRIOUE PONCE ¥ CARBO Dr. Enrique Ponce y Carbo, being first duly sworn on oath and competent to testify, states as follows: 2. My name is Dr. Enrique Ponce y Carbo. I have been licensed to practice law in Ecuador for 53 years. I served as a Justice on the Supreme Court of Ecuador for 3 years, and was Professor of Civil Procedure and Civil Code at the Catholic University of Ecuador for 15 years. I also served as Ecuador’s Ambassador to the United Nations, and the Vatican. Attached is a copy of my resume, which describes my background more thoroughly. 2. Ihave been asked to describe, in general, the government and legal system in Ecuador, the procedures that are used in the judicial system, and the availability of a claim for damages to property and personal injuri GOvEE 3. The Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, was brought into force on August 10, 1979, the day that the military transferred control of the government to a constitutionally elected civilian leadership. It provides for three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. The executive branch is headed by the nation’s president, who is elected to a single four-year term. The legislative branch consists of a one-chamber Congress composed of 12 national congressmen elected for four-year terms, and 65 provincial 25. A100 congressmen elected for two-year terms. The judicial branch is headed by the supreme Court and includes various special Purpose courts and lower courts. Ecuador is now in its fourth successive democratically elected government. The last presidential election was in June 1992. Ecuador is a member of the United Nations and the Organization of American States, and signed and ratified the following international human rights treaties: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (ratified January 24, 1969), the International covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (ratified January 9, 1969), the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the Declaration under Article 22 of the Convention, recognizing the competence of the Committee against Torture to consider individual complaints of violations of the convention (ratified March 9, 1988). Ecuador has signed and ratifed the American Convention on Human Rights (ratified october 27, 3977), along with the Declaration under Article 62 recognizing es binding the jurisdiction of the Inter-American court on Hunan Rights on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of the American Convention. In addition, Ecuador has signed and ratified the Protocol of San Salvador to the Inter-American Convention on Economic, Social and cultural Rights (ratified Feb.10, 1993). LEGAL SYSTEM @ Civil Code based on Roman Law, like many European nations. Thus, many of the Ecuadorian legal norns are similar to those existing in other nations that apply Roman law,Al0L Justice is administered by: (1) The Supreme Court, which is @ cassation court (i,e., a court with the powers to correct errors of law in the decisions of lover courts), hears certain appeals, has original jurisdiction in certain cases, such a! those relating to contracts made by the executive, and exercises general supervision over the courts; (2) superior courts, which hear appeals from lower courts, and have certain additional functions; (3) criminal judges in each province, which have jurisdiction in criminal matters; (4) civil judges in the cantons and certain provinces, who have jurisdiction in civil matters; and (5) such special courts or judges as estabished by law, including the Special Hydrocarbons Judge. (Organic Judiciary Law, as codified on September 2, 1974, as an/d. on December 22, 1992). ‘The Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador guarantees to ali parties due process before the judicial system (Art. 19, No. 17, Ch & P). The Constitution also guarantees the following rights, among others: the inviolability of life and the right to express thought and opinions freely (Art. 19, No. 1 and 4). Capital punishment is not allowed (Art. 19, No. 1). Also, any discrimination for reasons of race, color of skin, language, religion, sex, political opinions or social status is forbidden. There is equal protection before law, freedom of labor, commerce, and industry; and freedom to meet and associate together for peaceful purposes; freedom to travel in the territory of the Republic, to change domicile, and to leave and return to country; and the right to keep political and religious convictions secret (Art. 19, No. 6, 7, 11, 13 and 15).10. A102 An individual plaintiff in Ecuador may bring a civil action in a civil court or other appropriate judicial forum, if the Person has suffered a personal injury or suffered damages to Property, which have been caused by the act of another person, either intentionally or negligently. (Art. 2241 Civil code Art. 71, No. 1, Organic Judiciary Law). A citizen of Ecuador may sue the Government of Ecuador,,or its agencies, or instrumentalities, for injuries suffered by Government action or by the failure of the Government to enforce its constitutional duties (art. 19, Constitution). Under Ecuadorian Law, Courts in Ecuador are empowered to grant appropriate remedies similar to equitable relief. It is not necessary to base the claim on any specific theory. ‘The Statute of Limitations for those causes of actions is four years. (Art. 2259, Civil Code). There are no obstacles to indigent plaintiffs filing a law suit in Ecuador. There are no filing fe in Ecuador. Under the Ecuadorian system, contingent fees for plaintiffs’ counsel are permissible. (Art. 42, para. II, Law on the Federation of Lawyers). Under the Code of Civil Procedure, persons or entities with causes of action arising out of the same or similar facts may join together in one law suit. (Art. 76, Code of civil Procedure). Under the law organizing the "Comunas" (a "Comuna" 4s an association of individual Ecuadorians recognized by the Government of Ecuador), an official group called the "cabildo" is authorized to represent all of the individuals within each Comuna, (Title I, Art. 8, Comunas Organization Law). Accordingly, the Comunas in the oriente, if they satisty the civil procedure rules, would be permitted to join into one law suit and create, in effect, a "class 4a. 12. 23. A103 action" suit on behalf of all of the represented tribesmen. Cases for damages in general may be heard by a civil court or other appropriate judicial forum. The trial would be conducted without a jury, as is the practice in all Civil code countries. The court has the full range of subpoena powers over witnesses and evidence, and may inspect the property or other evidence relevant to the law suit. Appeals are handled by the superior courts, with the recourse of cassation before the civil and commercial chamber of the Supreme court. Ecuadorian courts have the capacity to translate and interpret the languages and dialects of the various indigenous Indian Tribes that live in Ecuador and come before the courts. (Art. 97, Const.; Art. 218, 255, and 270 of the Criminal Code; Art. 7, No. 3 and Art. 169 of the Organic Judiciary Law; Art. 122, 123, 136, 200, 227, 249, 251, and 842 of the Code of Civ. Procedure; Art. 55 of the Commerce Code; and Art. 2 of the Regulations for the Judicial Police, Ex. Decree No. 585, Official Gazette 99, Aug. 7, 1992). I have read the complaints filed by the plaintiffs in the United States: Maria Aguinda, et al vs. Texaco Inc. (United States for the Southern District of New York) and Ignacio Sequihua et a1 vs. Texaco Inc. et al (Harris County, Texas). Such claims, seeking damages and equitable relief for personal injury and property damage, may be brougth in Ecuador. However, Ecuador Law does not recognize a separate course of action for "civil conspiracy", as alleged in Count VII, of the New York complaint. A plaintiff in a civil case has the opportunity for pretrial discovery requested from a court. Such discovery would be conducted by and in the presence of the judge and may include:aa. 1s. Al04 a Production of written documents in the hands of the partis to the suit or third partie: (Art. 68, No. 3. Code of Civil Proc.) b. Deposition of other parties; (Art. 68, No. 1, Code of Civ. Pro.) c. Inspection out-of-court of the subject matter of the dispute, including the situs of the dispute. Exper: reports are filed as a consequence of the site inspection; (art. 68, No. 5, Code of Civ. Pro.). da. Exhibition in court of the object of the claim; (Art. 68, No. 5, Code of Civ. Pro.). @. Authentication of private documents signed by parties to the suit (Art. 68, No. 3, Code of Civ. Pro.); and f. Preservation of witness testimony; under very special circumstances, such as illness or old age of the witn that might cause him to die or if the witness is going to travel abroad or to the Galapagos Islands or the provinces in the Amazon jungle. The judge is empowered to compel the witness to appear in court and render his testimony. The judge may travel to the location of the witness if he is sick. (Art. 241, Code of Civ. Pro.). A final judgment in the United states in a class action suit would not prevent other claims from being filed in Ecuador against the same defendant. Under the law of Ecuador, an Ecuadorian court would not bar, because of a judgment in a United States class action, an Ecuadorian citizen from suing in Ecuador a party who has caused the citizen to suffer damages. only personal actions where the Ecuadorian citizens were parties and participants may be barred. (Art. 3, Civil Cod Art. 301,Code of Civ. Pro.). Under the law of Ecuador, a corporation that has been 6A105 cancelled ceases to exist and cannot be sued. (Art. 429, Corporation Law; Art. 43, Law Noo/31, official Gazette 222, Jun. 29, 1989). 7 -” Dr. Enrique Ponce y Carbo a, brvipen, fre y bale presuaaiee REPUBLICA DEL ECUADOR MGMSTEAO DE AELACIONES EXTENOMES Conitiaciéa, No. 5 Qui CERTIFICO, que ls lirme preecdnA106, REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR PROVINCE OF PICHINCHA : erry oF qurTo EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DENNIS P, HARRINGTON: “ete CONSUL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AT 2UITO, ECUADOR; DULY: COMMISSIONED AND QUALIFIED, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT Suillermo Terin Hidaloo WHOSE SIGNATURE AND OFFICIAL SEAL ARE RESPECTIVELY, SUBSCRIBED AND AFFIXED TO THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATE, WAS ON THE DATE THEREOF, DIRECTOR OF LEGALIZATIONS DEPARTMENT OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR, DULY COMMISSIONED AND QUALIFIED TO WHOSE OFFICIAL ACTS FAITH AND CREDIT ARE DUE. QUITO, ECUADOR dee 17 198 BL “VECE CONSUL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAA107 ENRIQUE PONCE Y CARBO CURRICULUM VTTAE FIRST NAME: ENRIQUE LAST NAME: PONCE Y CARBO BIRTH DATE: 1995 PLACE: QUITO, ECUADOR AGE: 78 = ADMITTED TO PRACTICE.- Quito, 1941. Educated at Contra) univers‘ty of Ecuador. Licenciate of Laws and Social Sciences, LL.D. and Yale Unversity LL.M. Law courses at George Washington University and Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. - PROFESSOR OF CIVIL CODE (WiLLS) AND PROCEDURAL LAW (1950-1963); DIPLOMACY (1970-1974), AND COMMERCIAL LAW since 1978, Cathelic University of ‘Quito. - PUBLIC DEFENDER FTRST CRIMINAL COURT.- 1942. + PUBLIC DEFENDER SUPREME COURT.- 1943 - IBGAL COUNSFIJOR.- Ministry of Economy 1945-47; Ministry of Justice 1948-49; Ministry of Public Affairs 1956-1960 and 1986-1990. ~ UNDERSECKETARY.- Ministries of Public Works 1949-1950; and Foreign Affairs 1959-1960. > JUDGE OF PARTITIONS IN TI CIRCUIT COURT OF QUITO.- 1963-1964. - ALTERNATE JUSTICE - SUPREME COURT OF ECUADOR.- 1952-1963. = JUSTICE - SUPREME COURT OF ECUADOR.- 1970-1973. - SENATOR IN RRPRESENTATJON OP PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES.~ 1952-1953. ~ MEMBER COUNCIL OF STATE.- 1954, - MEMBER OF TI UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISBION.- 1962-1965. ~ CHAIRMAN OF THE UNITED NATIONS UUMAN RIGIITS COMMISSION, -A108 ~ PRIEGAYE 70 INTER-AMERICAN CONFERENCE ON CONTINENTAL SHELF.- Santo Pomingo, 1956. ~ ABPRFSENTATIVE TO INTER-AMERICAN COUNCIL Or gurisrs.~ Mexico, 1956. ~ PLENIPOTENTIARY TO UNITED NAT ONS GENEVA ‘CONFERENCE ON THE LAW OF THE SER.- 1958 and 1960. > AMRASSADOR TO cuz: 1963. ~ AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATTONS IN GENEVA. - 1964-1966, ~ AMBASSADOR TO THE NOLY SRE.- 1966-1968, ~ AMBASSADOR 10) THE SOVEREIGN ORDER OP MALTA.~ 1966-1970, ~ PAITED NATIONS SECRETARIAL EXPERT AT CONFERENCES ON THE NAW OF TREATIES. ~ Vienna, 1968 and 1965 © MEGAL ADVISER 10 ATTORNEY GRNKRAL OF ECUADOR. « 1976-1978, ~ MEMBER OP TUF PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION.- The Hague, Netherjands. ~ MEMBER OF THE ADM) N1STRATIVE ‘TRIBUNAL ORGANIZATION OF THE AMERICAN STATES. MEMBER OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF QuTTO. ~ MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN SOCLETY OF INTERNATIONAL Law, © MEMRER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN ACADEMY OP COMPARATIVE LAW. ~ AAMBER OF THE WORLD FEDERATION OP LAWYRRS AND INTER-AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION. SREEGATE TO INTER-AMERICAN CONFERENCE ON CONTINENTAL SHELP.- Santo Domingo, 1956. REPRFSENTATIVE TO A1NTER-AMEKICAN COUNCIL OF JURISTS.~ Mexico, 1956, ~ PLENIPOTENTIARY TO UNITED NATIONS GENEVA CONFERENCE ON THE LAW OF THE SEA.- 1958 and 1960. > AMBASSADOR TO CHILE.- 1963, AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS IN GENEVA.- 1964-1966. AMBASSADOR TO TL HOLY SEE. AMBASSANOX TO THE SOVEREIGN ORDER OF MALTA.-"1966-"07" 1966-1968.> UNITED NATIONS SECRRTARIAL, YXPEKT AT CONFERENCES ON THE LAW OF TREATIZS.- Vienna, 1968 and 1969. ~ LEGAL ADVISER TO ATTORNEY GENERAL OP FCUADOR.- 1976-1978. + MEMBERSHIPS.- Perinanent Court of Arbitration.- The Hague, Netherlands, Administrative Tribunal Crganization of the American St Bar Association of Quito. American Society cf International Law, inter-Anerican Academy of Comparativ: Law, world Federation of lawyers and Inter- American Rar Association.A110 REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR PROVINCE OF PICHINCHA CITY OF QUITO AYFIDAVIT OF DR. VICENTE BERMEO LASAS Dr. Vicente Bermeo Lafias, being first duly, sworn on oath and competent to testify, states as follow Le My name is Dr. Vicente Bermeo Lafias. I have been licensed to practice law in Ecuador for 41 years. I served as Minister of the Supreme Court of Ecuador for 14 months. Attached is a copy of my resume, which describes my background in more detail. I have been asked to describe the nature of the Government of Ecuador; the laws that pertain to hydrocarbon exploration and development in Ecuador; and the procedure for claims related to hydrocarbon exploration and development. STATE CONTROL OF RYDROCARBON EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT Consistent with international law, all subsurface minerals are owned by the State. (Title III, Section 2, art. 46, Constitution). Under the Hydrocarbons Lay, enacted in 1971, “(t)he deposits of hydrocarbons and accompanying substances...located in the national territory... belong to the inalienable and imprescriptible patrimony of the state." (Chapter I, Art. 1) This law was made retroactive by the Government in 1972 (Supreme Decree No. 430, June 6, 1972, Official Gazette No. 80, June 14, 1972). The hydrocarbon industry, including all production, refining,All transport .and commercialization, is a public utility. Competent private companies may conduct such activities under contracts or with certain requirements. (chapter I, Art. 4, Hydrocarbons Law; Res. 628 of Aug.2, 1972, Official Gazette 170, Oct. 24, 1972; Decree 1393 of Dec. 14, 1973, Official Gazette 460, Dec. 26, 1973; codification of the Hydrocarbons Law, Supreme Decree 2967 of Nov. 6, 1978, Official Gazette No. 711, Sept. 15, 1978, as am/d by Law 101 of Aug. 6, 1982, Official Gazette 306, Aug. 13,1982; Law 08 of Sept. 20, 1985, Official Gazette 277, sept. 23, 1985; and Decree-Law 24 of May 29, 1986, Official Gazette 446, May 29, 1986; Decree 1747 of April 9, 1986, Official Gazette 416, April 15, 1986, as am/d by Decree 2370 of Nov. 4, 1986, Official Gazette 557, Nov. 5, 1986; Accord 1311 of April 29, 1987, Official Gazette 681, May 8, 1987 as an‘d; Law No. 44, Official Gazette No. 326, November 29, 1993) Hydrocarbon policy is set by the Ministry of Energy and Mines. Hydrocarbon development is critical to the future development of the nation since Ecuador derives nearly one half of its national budget from petroleum revenues. The national oil agency, Empresa Estatal Petroleos del Ecuador (commonly known as Petroecuador), or its subsidiaries may execute professional service contracts for exploration and development of hydrocarbons with private companies under various stipulated arrangenents by competitive bid or by the creation of “mixed economy companies". A “mixed econony company" is a company or joint venture established between a private company -- either foreign or domestic and a governnent-owned enterprise, like Petroecuador. (See, Decrees 1491 of Jan. 31, 1983, Official Gazette 427, Feb. 7, 1983 a am‘d; 535, Feb. 21, 1985, Official Gazette 130, Feb. 22, 1985, '@ by Decree 1810 of Apr. 29, 1986, Official Gazette 430,All2 May 7, 1986; Accord 1733, May 25, 1983, Official Gazette 516, June 17, 1983 as am/d; Decree 2630 of May 11, 1984, Official Gazette 747, May 18, 1984; Law 45 of Sept. 18, 1989, Official Gazette 284, Sept. 26, 1989, regulated by Decree 935 of September 1989, official Gazette of Sept. 26, 1989. Participation Contracts have been admitted in recently enacted legislation (Lav 44, Official Gazette 326, November 29, 1993). Petroecuador replaced corporacion Estatal Petrolera Ecuatoriana (CEPE), created in 1972, which had been the previous name for the national oil agency of Ecuador. If during the exploration period marketable petroleum reserves are found, a company may enter into a 20-year development agreement, renewable according to the public interest. If « commercial quantity of petroleum is found under service agreements, Petroecuador will reimburse the company either in cash, crude or both, the investment and costs incurred during the exploration phase. At the termination of the service contract, all equipment and installations must be turned over to Petroecuador. All oil and gas pipe lines must also be approved and authorized by the Government of Ecuador. Under the participation contracts recently created, companies will have the right to share in the production according with the Proportion offered and the production volumes. All petroleum development plans must be submitted to the Government of Ecuador for approval. All plans for refining, transporting, marketing, and exploiting petroleum must be approved by the Minister of Energy and Mines. (Chaper III, Art. 31, Hydrocarbons Law). In Ecuador, the majority of hydrocarbon reserves are located in the Oriente area, which is the eastern half of Ecuador.a. 20. All3 ‘The economic development of the Oriente is considered vital to the national security interests of Ecuador. As a result, the entire Oriente area, where oi1 production is now at issue, is considered a national strategic area under the protection of the armed forces. (Art. 46, Constitution). Most of the Oriente area is considered under Ecuadorian law to be "tierras baldias" or unoccupied lands. The Governnent of Ecuador owns all of the unoccupied or public lands. (Art. 624, Civil Code). Ecuadorian law declares the colonization of these lands to be an urgent national priority, and offers land titles only to settlers who clear the rainforests for crops or Pastures. (See, Law of Unoccupied Lands, and Law of Colonization of the Amazon Region). The Constitution of Ecuador provides that the state will guarantee “the right to live in an environment free of contamination. It is the duty of the State to ensure that this right is not infringed upon and to promote the Preservation of the natural world." Citizens of Ecuador may bring an action against the Government of Ecuador, or Petroecuador, for injuries arising out of environmental contamination (Art. 19, No. 2 Constitution and Art. 20, Law 44, Official Gazetter 326, November 29, 1993). In 1984, a government environmental agency, the Direccion General de Medio Ambiente (DIGEMA) was created within the Ministry of Energy and Mines. Later, in 1990, the Ministry of Energy and Mines established « new environmental department, the Subsecretaria de Medio Ambiente (SMA). DIGEMA was added to this department and renamed Direccion Nacional de Medio Ambiente (DINAMA). Environmental regulations with respect toan. 22. All4 the exploration and production of petroleum resources, and abandonment and site remediation of oil wells, have been issued by the Governnent. Texaco Petroleum Company was authorized by a specific legal decree to explore and produce oi1 in Ecuador. Such legal decree of the Government authorizing Texaco Petroleum \Company’s agreement with Ecuador required Texaco Petroleum Company to adopt appropriate ures to protect plant and animal life and other natural resources, and to prevent contamination of air, soil, and water. See, Supreme Decr: No, 925, Official Gazette No. 370, Aug. 16, 1973, Chapter IX, Clause 46, 46.1, which provides: “the contractors shall adopt suitable measures to protect the flora, fauna, and other natural resources and to prevent contamination of water, air, and soil under the control of pertinent organs of the State." The Ecuadorian Legislature amended the Hydrocarbons Law effective November 29, 1993 (Law 44, Official Gazette 326, November 29, 1993). As per that Amendment, any controversy arising out of the agreements foreseen in the Hydrocarbons Law shall be submitted before the Ecuadorian Superior Courts of Justice, by means of an oral summary proceeding, or the arbitration procedure, recognized by Ecuadorian Law and in accordance with the provision of the agreemets. In the exercise of legal jurisdiction, the judicial review proce: in First Instance lies with the respective president of the Superior Court, and in Second Instance, with one of its Chambers. One of the new provisions of the Hydrocarbons Law, as amended by Law 44, provides that “the State will watch over that no danages are inficted to persons, properties, or the| l l | I Cenifiaciéa i — Quito iovit: ee cue ln isms prec dene da L £uoiie date. SF iiencies ALIS, environment, as a result of petroleum relat¢d\ activities. Socio~environmental audits will be perforned| fiom time to time" (Art. 20, Law 44, Official Gazette 326, 2p Nov 1993). El suscrits Noterio Pablico de Quite, en lege! for las firma y rubsiea conttanies ai pie det dgcuneny nen fe puestas ente mi por o! Sr.1o) JA eses ROE. REPUBLICA DEL ECUADOR MONSTEMO DE AELACIONES EXTEMORESA116 REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR PROVINCE OF PICHINCHA CITY OF QUITO EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA “¥EEB-CONSUL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AT QUITO, ECUADOR; DULY COMMISSIONED AND QUALIFIED, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT Guillermo Terén Hidalgo WHOSE SIGNATURE AND OFFICIAL SEAL ARE RESPECTIVELY, SUBSCRIBED AND AFFIXED TO THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATE, WAS ON THE DATE THEREOF. DIRECTOR OF LEGALIZATIONS DEPARTMENT OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR, DULY COMMISSIONED AND QUALIFIED TO WHOSE OFFICIAL ACTS FAITH AND CREDIT ARE DUE. Dec 17 19 QUITO, ECUADOR. “VEGE_CONSUL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAeee epee All1Z Dr. Vicente Bermeo Lakas, Quito, July 16, 1921. Lavver and Doctor Jurisprudence at Universidad Central. 1952 Corporate Law Profesor at Universidad Central trom 1980, President of the Coleaio Americano Foundation 1978-1980 Ministry of the Supreme Court of Justice 1978-1980 Lawyer of National Institution of Protection 1953-1570 Undersecretary of the Ministry of Labor and Protection 1965-1971 Affiliated it: USTA, FICPI. ITMé. Ecuadorian Association of Industrial Property Agents, AIPPI.A118 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARIA AGUINDA, et al. $ Plaintiffs, i against ' 93 CIV.7527 (VLB) TEXACO INC., i Defendant. { AEFEIDAVIT OF TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY Denis York LeCorgne, being duly swom on oath and competent to testify, states as follows: 1. My name is Denis York LeCorgne, and I am President of Texaco Petroleum Company (hereinafter *TexPet*) in Coral Gables, Florida. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained herein of directed others under my supervision to gather the facts, and the same are true and correct. 2, ‘TexPet is a Delaware corporation, having its principal place of business in Coral Gables, Florida, 3. TexPet is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Texaco International Financial Corp., which, in turn, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Texaco Overseas Holdings Inc., which, in turn, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TRMI Holdings Inc., which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the defendant Texaco Inc. ("Texaco"). 4, TexPet has conducted business in Ecuador. In 1965, with the authorization of the Ecuadoran government, TexPet began operations in a petroleum concession in the Oriente.All9 5. TexPet operated the Ecuadoran petroleum concession for a consortium formed between a wholly-owned subsidiary, Texaco de Petroleos del Ecuador C.A., and Gulf Ecuatoriana de Petroleo S.A. from 1965 through 1973. In 1969, TexPet first discovered oil in the Oriente. At the request and approval of the Ecuadoran govemment, TexPet, as operator, eveloped the fields that it had discovered. As a requirement of the Ecuadoran government and with TexPet as the operator, TexPet helped build the Trans-Ecuadorian Pipeline, a 318-mile pipeline across the Andes to the Pacific coast. In 1973, TexPet acquired direct interests in the Ecuadoran petroleum concession from Texaco de Petroleos de! Ecuador C.A. 6. Since 1974, the Ecuadoran government, through its government oil agencies (Corporacion Estatal Petrolera Ecuatoriana or as it is commonly known *CEPE,” and its successor, the Ecuadorian Petroleum Company, known as Petroleos del Ecuador, or as it is ‘commonly known *PetroEcuador") was involved in the concession with TexPet. On June 6, 1974, CEPE acquired a twenty five percent interest in the concession. Later, on December 31, 1976, CEPE acquired a majority interest in the concession. 7, ‘TexPet remained the operator of the Trans-Ecuadorian Pipeline until October 1, 1989, when the operation of the pipeline was transferred to an agency of the Ecuadorian government, Empresa Filial Temporal de Petroecuador, or as it is commonly known “Petrotransporte", which is part of Petroecuador. On October 1, 1990, Petrotransporte was merged into another government agency, Empresa Estatal de Comercialisacion y Transporte de Petroleos del Ecuador, or as it is commonly known “Petrocomercial", which is also part of Petroecuador. 8. TexPet remained the operator of the fields it discovered until July 1, 1990, when Petroamazonas, another government agency, which is a part of Petroecuador, took over theA120 operation. Petroamazonas, which in June 1993 was absorbed by another government agency, Empresa Estatal de Exploracion y Produccion de Petroleos del Ecuador, or as it is commonly mown, "Petroproduccion*, also part of Petroecuador, has continued in its operation of the fields. 9. On June 7, 1992, TexPet surrendered all its interests in the fields that it had discovered and formally dissolved any relationship to PetroBcuador. Asa part of the withdrawal from Ecuador and dissolution with PetroEcuador, TexPet is now engaged in negotiations with the Ecuadoran government with respect to payment of royalties, taxes, and related matters. 10. No current employees of TexPet, to my knowledge, who may have relevant Imowledge about the Ecuadoran operation, live in New York. Many of the TexPet employees ‘who may have relevant knowledge live in Ecuador or in Florida. Many of these are former employees over whom Petroecuador, not TexPet, has control. In particular, all former employees of TexPet, who had direct operational responsibility for any wells or the operation of the pipeline, are now employed by Petroecuador's companies in Ecuador. 11, The plaintiffs in this case claim to be residents of the Oriente in Ecuador. Most of the residents of the Oriente are indigenous populations. ‘These indigenous inhabitants speak different languages and dialects. Otherwise, Spanish is the official language of Ecuador. 12, Any investigation, inspection, testing, or viewing of any location where there is alleged environmental damage to the property could only occur in Ecuador. Such activities, moreover, will require the consent of Petroecuador.A121 13. Any clean up or remediation of the oil exploration, production or transportation facilities in Ecuador would require the consent of the government of Ecuador and Petroecuador. Denis York’ ne SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO pefore me on aber (=, 1993 “personaly Kuma to We. 7 Van! Notary Public in and for ‘The State of Florida lode} Printed Name of Notary ‘My Commission Expires: Ty 6 17e .A122, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARIA AGUINDA, et al, : CIVIL ACTION NO. individually and on behalf of all : 93 CIV 7527(VLB) others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, TEXACO INC, Defendant. PLAINTIFFS EXHIBITS TO ‘THEIR OPPOSITION TO. DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT Joseph C. Kohn (JK-1755) Cristobal Bonifaz (CB-2949) Myles H. Malman (MM-2897) Jobn Bonifaz (JB-0987) Martin J. D'Urso (MD-6576) Steven Donziger (SD-5700) Diana Liberto (DL-8313) Tucker Taft Building KOHN, NAST & GRAF, P.C. 48 North Pleasant Street 2400 One Reading Center Amherst, MA 01002 1101 Market Street (413) 253-5626 Philadelphia, PA. 19107 (215) 238-1700 Amy Damen (AD-1758) SULLIVAN & DAMEN ‘One North Broadway ‘White Plains, New York 10601 (914) 428-9414 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class DATED: March 10, 199410. i 12, 14, 16. 17. 18, 19. 20. A123 TABLE OF CONTENTS Affidavit of Cristobal Bonifaz; ‘Sequibua v, Texaco Inc, No. 93-3432 (Order Jan. 27, 1994); Plaintiffs: Memorandum in Opposit Motions in Sequihua v, Texaco Inc; Affidavit of Dr. Julio Cesar Trujillo Vasquez and Dr, Ramiro Larrea Santos; to Defendants’ Affidavit of Alberto Wray; ‘Affidavit of Valadimir Serrano Perez; ‘Affidavit of Dr. Ricardo Crespo Plaza; ‘Affidavit of Dr. Aaron D. Bannett; Affidavit of Stephen N. Kales; Affidavit of Sarah Zaidi; ‘Affidavit of Anthony D. Lamontagne; Affidavit of Anthony Avirgan; Affidavit of Mr. William Fray; ‘Affidavit of the Secoya Tribe Given by Elias Piaguaje; Affidavit of Pamela Kissting; Affidavit of Steven Donziger; Affidavit of Lalit P. Naithani; Affidavit of Chris Jochnick; Affidavit of Dinah L. Shelton; Affidavit of Adriana Fabra Aguilar2. 24, 27, 31. 32. Al24 Letter from the President of the National Congress of Ecuador, President of the Committee for the Environment, President of the Committee for Education, Culture & Sports, President of the Committee for Mines and Petroleum, Alll of the Congress of Ecuador to the President of Ecuador, dated January 17, 1993 together with translation and Affidavit; ‘Speech of Alejandro Ponce Martinez with translation; Petition submitted to the Organization of American States Regarding Human Rights Abuses in Ecuador, » dated April 16, 1993; Copy of Complaint filed by Texaco against Ecuador; D ion of Justice in E. prepared by the Center for the Administration of Justice, Florida International University; Excerpts of the deposition of Denis York LeCorgne; Excerpts from Texaco Inc.'s Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories Concerning Forum Non Conveniens Issues; USS, State Department Country Reports on Human Rights for Ecuador, 1991, 1992 and 1993; by Clive Grylls; Center for Economic and Social Rights, March 1994, Report on Rights Violations in Ecuadoran Amazon: Health Bffees of Exposure to Crude Ol, Exposure and Health Study of Residents of the Oriente; Excerpts of the draft HBT AGRA Limited Environmenal Assessment of the Petro Ecuador's - Texaco Consortiums Oil Fields; Decision of the International Water Tribunal in the case of CORDAYL, Texaco Petroleum Company, et al.;