Steven Donziger, the U.S. trial lawyer who has directed the infamous $113 billion litigation shakedown against Chevron, is scheduled to appear in court in the Southern District of New York.  Donziger, who could make millions in a successful lawsuit against Chevron, is being held accountable by the U.S. judicial system.

Last week Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Donziger to appear today with all the documents sought by Chevron so the company can defend itself from the accusations that its predecessor company, Texaco, left environmental damage behind after operations in Ecuador. (Updated and revised: The court hearing is at 2 p.m.)

Do we detect a level of judicial frustration in Kaplan’s order? Consider the judge’s hand-written note, which reads:

“ORDERED that this order shall not be construed* to imply that Donziger is not already in violation of a previous order that required the production forthwith of all documents responsive to the subpoena.”

Revelations from outtakes from the documentary-style film about the litigation, “Crude,” have already revealed Donziger and his team of activists to be manipulating the Ecuadorian judicial system, orchestrating bogus expert reports, and mounting a cynical, arrogant and dishonest public relations campaign to bludgeon Chevron into a settlement.

Kaplan has rebuffed Donziger’s claims that the New York trial lawyer’s actions in Ecuador are protected by attorney-client privilege  — he’s really running a political/PR operation   — and so must answer Chevron’s questions and provide documents sought by the company.

Chevron’s memorandum of law in support of its motion to require Donziger to produce documents does an excellent job of summarizing the games the U.S. trial attorney has played to avoid accountability, including appeals to the Second Circuit. After numerous delays, Donziger submitted a “privilege log” more than 2,000 pages long to claim he did not have to produce 8,562 documents.

Everything’s off limits! As Chevron’s attorneys from Gibson Dunn note: “Donziger even claims that communications with rock musician Sting’s wife, Trudie Styler, who appears with Donziger in the movie, Crude, as a celebrity touring the Rainforest, are somehow privileged.” (continue reading…)

The legal publication, Corporate Counsel, did a great service recently in publishing video outtakes from “Crude,” the documentary-style movie about the $113 billion lawsuit against Chevron for supposed environmental damage in Ecuador. The outtakes showed the U.S. trial lawyer driving the litigation, Steven Donziger, and his activist allies manipulating the Ecuadorian judicial system, orchestrating a bogus damage assessment, and scheming to have unjust criminal prosecutions brought against two of Chevron’s attorneys in the country.

The outtakes have destroyed any legal credibility and moral standing claimed by the plaintiffs. Most recently, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in New York repeatedly cited the footage as providing good reason for Donziger to submit to questioning by Chevron.

Obviously recognizing how damaging the outtakes would be to their cause, the plaintiffs originally tried mightily to keep the video out of court and the public eye. Now that the footage been made public, how to respond?

Karen Hinton, the PR person for the Amazon Defense Coalition, resorts to the usual bluster and claims “out of context” in her response to Corporate Counsel’s publication of the videos. The magazine has posted her comments online, “Plaintiffs Respond to the Chevron Outtakes.” The response follows Hinton’s usual modus operandi: Shout loudly and repeatedly, attack your critics for bad faith, and throw out whatever accusation you can to muddy the discussion. Here’s the gist: (continue reading…)

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan has issued his full opinion explaining his earlier order that Steven Donziger, the U.S. trial lawyer, answer the questions of Chevron’s attorneys about his orchestration of the $113 billion lawsuit against the company in Ecuador.

Released Friday in the Southern District of New York, Kaplan’s order denies Donziger’s claims that, among other arguments, being forced to submit to depositions would violate attorney-client privilege. But Donziger isn’t admitted to practice law in Ecuador where the litigation is taking place, and he does not play a counsel’s role. Judge Kaplan refers to Donziger as the “field general” of the anti-Chevron campaign.

Donziger is at the center of this controversy. While he is a member of the New York Bar and years ago worked on a predecessor to the Lago Agrio lawsuit that was brought in this Court, he is not qualified to practice law in Ecuador. He does not serve as litigation counsel there. He nevertheless has been extremely active in support of the Lago Agrio plaintiffs.

The evidence before this Court shows that Donziger has attempted to (1) intimidate the Ecuadorian judges, (2) obtain political support for the Ecuadorian lawsuit, (3) persuade the GOE to promote the interests of the Lago Agrio plaintiffs, (4) obtain favorable media coverage, (5) solicit the support of celebrities (including Daryl Hannah and Trudie Styler) and environmental groups, (6) procure and package “expert” testimony for use in Ecuador, (7) pressure Chevron to pay a large settlement, and (8) obtain a book deal. Among his efforts was his persuasion of Joseph Berlinger, a documentary film maker, to make a documentary about the Lago Agrio litigation from the plaintiffs’ point of view. That film, entitled Crude, purports to tell the story of the Lago Agrio litigation. It is no exaggeration to say that Donziger is the star of the film, much of which focuses on his words and activities.

And it’s the outtakes of “Crude” that document so much of the wrongdoing, in the process destroying any vestige of legal or moral standing the plaintiffs could claim in their suit against Chevron. (continue reading…)

Of all the outtakes from the documentary-style movie, “Crude,” now posted online by The Corporate Counsel (see below), we like Video 5.

Entitled “Smoke and mirrors and bulls—,”  the video shows New York trial lawyer Steven Donziger at his most arrogant, commenting: “This is Ecuador. You can say whatever you want. At the end of the day there’s a thousand people around the courthouse, you’re going to get what you want. Sorry, but it’s true.”

What an imperious Norte Americano, contemptuously dismissing Ecuador’s judiciary as just something to be manipulated. You would think Ecuador’s leaders would be offended at this trial lawyer imperialism, but the leftist government of President Rafael Correa has been cheering it on.

There are least some judicial authorities who are not amused, however: “Ecuador disbars judge who heard Chevron case.”

Congratulations to Corporate Counsel for being the first media outlet to post the videos of the outtakes from the documentary-style movie “Crude” that have revealed the trial lawyer/activist lawsuit against Chevron for environmental damage in Ecuador to at its core a multi-billion-dollar shakedown against the U.S. company.

The magazine’s sister publication, The American Lawyer, obtained copies of the outtakes from the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, after Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered their release to the public.  Corporate Counsel has now posted the key videos with short summaries from Michael Goldhaber, the reporter who has provided the most thorough coverage of the court proceedings in New York.

From “EXCLUSIVE: Chevron In Ecuador — the Tapes the Plaintiffs Don’t Want You to See“:

In the final version of Crude — the 2009 Joel [sic] Berlinger documentary on the epic environmental suit brought by Amazon tribespeople against Chevron Corporation in Ecuador — lead U.S. plaintiffs’ attorney Steven Donziger remarks: “This is something you would never do in the United States, but Ecuador, you know, this is how the game is played, it’s dirty.”

If Donziger would say something so provocative for the final cut, reasoned Chevron’s lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, then just imagine how outrageous he must look in the extra footage.

Well, the public no longer needs to use its imagination.

As Goldhaber explains, Chevron views the first two outtakes (there are six total) as the most legally damning, showing the team of lawyers/activists orchestrating the supposedly independent court-appointed expert’s damage assessment.

• Video 1: “Plaintiffs’ lead Ecuadorian lawyer, Pablo Fajardo, gives a PowerPoint presentation to his team that envisions extensive coordination with the independent damages expert.” You mean the same Pablo Fajardo who won the ostensibly prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize in 2008?
• Video 2: “The day after the PowerPoint presentation where the Ecuadorian plaintiffs laid out their plan to coordinate with the court-appointed expert, one of plaintiffs’ consultants suggests that it was ‘bizarre’ that the meeting included ‘perito,’ which means ‘[the] expert.’” That expert is Richard Cabrera, who recommended the $27 billion damage figure.

The PR front group in the lawsuit, the Amazon Defense Coalition, claims that ex parte contacts are common in Ecuador. Sure, and no one worries that one side in the lawsuit gets to write the expert’s report and pick the damage figures.

Corporate Counsel is, of course, a special-interest publication, reaching an audience of mostly business attorneys. Now it’s up to all the major media outlets that have covered the litigation against Chevron — The New York Times and “60 Minutes” come mind — to follow-up and give these outtakes the attention they deserve.  Thomson/Reuters also requested copies of the videos from the U.S. District Court, so there’s a powerful media distribution system available.

Until then, good job, Corporate Counsel!

Thanks to a federal judge’s ruling, a New York attorney is going to have to answer questions about his scheming to manipulate the courts in Ecuador for advantate in the lawsuit claiming Chevron polluted the Amazon. The order by U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan delivers another hard blow against the multi-billion-dollar litigation targeting the company.

Thankfully, the U.S. judicial system is revealing the truth that the trial lawyers and wealth-redistributing activists sought to obscure and that the media failed to report. Aggressive lawyering by Chevron is proving more effective than the aggressive propagandizing by those trying to shake down the company.

In his Oct. 20 order, Judge Kaplan of the Southern District of New York ruled that Steven Donziger’s activities in Ecuador are not protected by attorney-client privilege. Donziger must respond to request for discovery from Chevron in the civil lawsuit (from the group known as the “Lago Agrio plaintiffs) and two Ecuadorian lawyers for Chevron who are being criminally prosecuted, Richard Reis and Rodrigo Perez.

Steven Donziger (left) and Joe Berlinger in happier, more PR propitious times -- the AFI Silver Docs festival.

Kaplan writes that the outtakes from the documentary-style movie “Crude” provide ample evidence of the Donziger’s efforts to manipulate the supposedly independent court-appointed expert’s report on environmental damages. The fact Donziger is a counsel in some proceedings is also not relevant here. From the order:

As an initial matter, Donziger is not representing the Lago Agrio plaintiffs before the Ecuadorian courts. He is not admitted to practice there. While he is a member of the New York Bar and presumably benefits from his legal training, there is abundant evidence in the outtakes that Donziger’s role in connection with events in Ecuador has been at least primarily in capacities other than that of an attorney. His principal functions have included lobbying, media and press relations, and politics. He has acknowledged in the outtakes that the purported civil litigation in Ecuador “is not a legal case. It’s a political battle” in which “[w]e need to get the politics in order in a country that doesn’t favor people from the rainforest.” On another occasion he said:

“Hold on a second, you know, this is Ecuador, okay. You can say whatever you want. In the end of the day, there’s a thousand people around the courthouse. You’re going to get what you want. * * * At the end of the day, this is all for the Court, just a bunch of smoke and mirrors . . .”

Donziger’s role at least in major respects is that of a political operative, not a lawyer. Moreover, Donziger admitted in March 2007 that he had not done legal work in two years. While this comment perhaps was offered in a somewhat jocular vein, there is substantial truth to it.

A prompt response is also warranted. The judge expresses serious concern about the fate of the two Chevron attorneys in Ecuador, who now face a preliminary criminal hearing on Nov. 10. In addition, the Lago Agrio plaintiffs are pushing to have a civil judgment entered against Chevron as soon as possible.

Several observations… (continue reading…)

With U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan ordering the public release of outtakes from the anti-Chevron film “Crude,” blogger Bob McCarty wonders where the national news coverage is.

After all, if employees of a huge oil company had been in league with a right-wing director to produce a “documentary” to help fend off a multi-billion dollar lawsuit in a third-world court, that would be huge news. But when “Crude” director Joe Berlinger and the U.S.-Ecuador legal team led by U.S. trial lawyer Steven Donziger try but fail to suppress damning outtakes, footage that blows up their litigation shakedown, nothing.

McCarty concludes in his Big Government post, “Biased Media Outlets Ignore ‘CRUDE’ Outtakes,” with two messages:

To the mainstream media, I say, “Your bias is showing!”

To Mr. Berlinger, I say, “I hope you remember how much emphasis you placed on your First Amendment freedom of expression when you were vehemently opposing the release of outtakes from your film [To refresh your memory, click here or here]. When people start to air the outtakes from your film in YouTube videos, remember that those outtakes are now part of the public record and, therefore, protected by federal law.”

The principle of fair use can be invoked, as well.

As a former slothful journalist ourself, we tend to think laziness and passivity are just as common explanations as bias for the media failing to report the news. But in this case, no excuses. It’s a big story!

Earlier Shopfloor.org post on the subject, “‘Crude’ Outtakes Made Public; What an Opportunity for ’60 Minutes’.”

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan of the Southern District of New York has just issued an order (.pdf file) making outtakes from the documentary-style film, “Crude,” available to the public. 

Footage from Joe Berlinger’s movie has been available to the attorneys involved in the contingency-fee litigation against Chevron for environmental damage in Ecuador. Transcripts from the outtakes have also been entered into the court record, documenting the  manipulation of the judicial process by Steven Donziger, the lead U.S. trial lawyer, and the U.S. and Ecuadorian legal team/activists. (Shopfloor, “‘Crude’ Footage Reveals Lies Behind Trial Lawyers’ Suit Against Chevron.”)

However explosive, the transcripts still fail to capture the full disdain for the truth shown by the players behind the litigation and PR campaign against Chevron.  Thanks to Judge Kaplan’s Oct. 7 order, now everyone can see the video that shows the plaintiff’s team scheming and swearing and orchestrating the shakedown against the company. From the order:

Reporters with Thomson Reuters and with The American Lawyer magazine and ALM Media have requested copies to a total of approximately ten compact disks filed as Exhibit A to a declaration of Kristen Hendricks [DI 14 -10 MC 0002]; Exhibits A and D to another declaration of Ms. Hendricks [DI41 – 10 MC 0002]; and Exhibits 1 and 2 to the declaration of Paul E. Dans [DI 40-10 MC 0002]. The parties have no objection to the requests.

Accordingly, the Clerk shall provide copies of these disks to the requesters and any member of the public who requests copies of the same disks upon payment of the reasonable cost of duplication and blank media.

We were disappointed to see that “60 Minutes” was not one of the requesters asking for copies of the videos. The CBS news-entertainment magazine delivered a miserably one-sided report on the litigation in May 2009, “Amazon Crude,” that accepted as fact the trial lawyers’ thesis: Chevron is a corporate monster that does not care that its predecessor, Texaco, polluted Ecuador’s Amazon with no regard for the native people, so damn right they should pay up.

Along with “Crude” and William Langewiesche’s evocative story-telling in Vanity Fair, “Jungle Law,” the “60 Minutes” piece represented one of the most powerful PR weapons in the U.S. trial lawyers’ litigation war against Chevron. Of course, as this Columbia Journalism Review analysis concluded, “How 60 Minutes Missed on Chevron,” the report fell short on facts and relied instead of innuendo.

Judge Kaplan’s order provides “60 Minutes”  a great opportunity for more serious journalism in the form of a powerful follow-up segment, recounting how their producers and reporter Scott Pelley gave too much credence to the trial lawyers’ claims, failed to appreciate the legitimacy of Chevron’s arguments, and ultimately produced an unfair and inaccurate account of the litigation.

It’s a heck of story: Foul-mouthed New York trial lawyer and supposedly heroic activists work with left-wing Ecuadorian government to corrupt the courts and shake down a U.S. company for billions of dollars.

“60 Minutes,” you already have all the earlier footage shot in Ecuador. Now the damning, explosive outtakes from “Crude” are available just for the price of copying the files onto DVDs.

What a great opportunity for serious journalism.

OK, it’s not that imaginative a description, but it IS accurate and we’re pleased that The Wall Street Journal editorial page joins us in describing the U.S. trial lawyer-instigated litigation in Ecuador against Chevron as a “shakedown.” Today’s lead opinion piece is, “Shakedown in the Rain Forest.”

The editorial brings readers up to date on the collapse of the trial lawyer/activist combine’s legal attack against the company, including last week’s preposterous increase of claims against it for environmental damage in Ecuador to $113 billion. As the Journal recounts, testimony and outtakes from the documentary-style movie, “Crude,” demonstrate the suit to be a cynical, orchestrated, well, shakedown, using bad publicity as a hammer in an attempt to beat Chevron into a settlement.

The Journal concludes:

Perhaps the definitive verdict on the case was delivered by one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Joe Kohn of the Philadelphia firm Kohn Swift & Graf, who told the makers of “Crude” that “a lot of my motivation is, at the end of the day, is that it will be a lucrative case for the firm.” And that’s not even in the outtakes.

The (non-jury) trial stage of the litigation ended in Ecuador last week. For an update, see our post at Point of Law, “Anti-Chevron suit reaches new stage in Ecuador, still ridiculous,” and this AmLaw Daily report, “Back for More in Ecuador.” And this news release from Chevron offers a “greatest hits” of the trial lawyer conniving and admissions against interest.

UPDATE (2:50 p.m.): Bob McCarty, who blogs at Bob McCarty Writes, has been following the Chevron litigation as well and takes satisfaction at the major media accounts now confirming what should have been obvious all along, that the lawsuit was a ginned-up effort to judicially “extort” billions of dollars from a U.S. company. See his post, “Sixteen Months of Reporting Validated by Major Media Reports About Chevron-Ecuador Lawsuit.”

A follow-up to the Shopfloor post immediately below, “Judge’s Ruling on ‘Crude’ Shows that the Truth is in the Outtakes“…

In ruling that movie director Joe Berlinger had to submit to depositions so Chevron can fully defend itself in court, Judge Lewis Kaplan also rejected Berlinger’s attempt to punish the company because it had suppposedly violated an order from the Second Circuit when it used the film outtakes for public relations purposes.

Berlinger’s claim rested in part on the assertion that Chevron supplied one of its court filings to Shopfloor, the blog of the National Association of Manufacturers, and that I wrote about the document in this Aug. 3 post. See, PR! But the assertion wasn’t true — as we explained here — and even it were, so what? There’s this thing called the First Amendment.

Judge Kaplan did not treat Berlinger’s claims kindly. In his 28-page ruling, starting on page 24, he writes:

As an initial matter, there is irony in Berlinger’s application. On the one hand, he has resisted production of his outtakes, and resists the discovery that Chevron now seeks, by invoking the Free Press Clause of the First Amendment. Yet he seeks to prevent Chevron from publicly discussing litigation taking place on the public record. The First Amendment, however, protects Chevron’s right to speak about this litigation at least to the same, and probably to a greater, extent than it protects Berlinger’s desire to avoid giving evidence in court like any other citizen. But Berlinger’s cross-motion fails for reasons having nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Alas, First Amendment advocates and media mavens like Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press appeared untroubled by Berlinger’s disregard for constitutionally protected liberties.

Judge Kaplan then provides a quick lesson on how federal courts use electronic filings, which make the documents public records, accessible by people like bloggers: (continue reading…)