Chevron Corporation v. Donziger
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:11-cv-00691
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In United States v. Donziger, Judge Preska ordered a hearing about possible attorney conflicts and remote participation in trial proceedings.
Steven Donziger, his defense counsel, the special prosecutors, and the vendors invited to demonstrate remote-participation platforms.
What happened
United States of America v. Steven Donziger concerns a scheduled court conference about possible conflicts of interest involving Mr. Donziger’s attorneys. The opinion does not address the underlying charges.
The court ordered Mr. Donziger to appear on August 24, 2020, and allowed defense counsel and the special prosecutors to attend in person or by videoconference. The special prosecutors could propose questions for the court to ask, and vendors were invited to demonstrate platforms for remote lawyer participation in trial proceedings.
Judge Loretta A. Preska entered the order on August 17, 2020. The order set the conference and invited the demonstrations; it did not decide the underlying criminal case.
The detailed version
- Chevron Corporation v. Donziger · No. 1:11-cv-00691
- Lewis Kaplan
- Aug. 17, 2020
Background
The order concerns defendant Steven Donziger and a scheduled conference about potential conflicts of interest involving his attorneys. The opinion cites United States v. Curcio, a proceeding used to address possible conflicts involving a defendant’s legal representation. The order does not describe the underlying criminal charges or decide their merits.
What the Court Ordered
The court directed Mr. Donziger to appear in Courtroom 12A, or another courtroom designated by the court, at 11:00 a.m. on August 24, 2020, for the Curcio conference. Defense counsel and the special prosecutors could attend either in person or by videoconference.
The court invited the special prosecutors to propose questions for the court to ask Mr. Donziger during the conflict inquiry by August 21. The court also invited the vendors mentioned in the Government’s August 14 letter to demonstrate platforms that could allow lawyers who were not physically attending to participate remotely in trial proceedings. Counsel were required to inform the court by email by 4:00 p.m. on August 17 whether they planned to attend in person or remotely.
Disposition
Judge Loretta A. Preska entered the order setting the conference and addressing possible remote participation. The order did not grant or deny a motion, resolve the potential conflict, or decide the underlying criminal case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.