Chevron Corporation v. Donziger
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:11-cv-00691
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In United States v. Donziger, Judge Preska denied reconsideration of the order keeping his September 9 criminal trial on schedule.
Steven Donziger and the lawyers involved in his defense, including Andrew Frisch, Martin Garbus, and Richard Friedman.
What happened
United States of America v. Steven Donziger concerned Mr. Donziger’s requests to reconsider an earlier order refusing to postpone his September 9 criminal trial. He argued that the COVID-19 pandemic made the trial date and travel by his lawyers unreasonable.
The court said Mr. Donziger identified no overlooked facts or law and had repeated arguments already rejected. The court also considered the government’s evidence that other criminal trials had proceeded and that one of Mr. Donziger’s lawyers had traveled internationally during the pandemic.
Judge Loretta A. Preska denied both motions for reconsideration. She kept the trial scheduled for September 9 and stated that Steven Donziger’s original lawyer would have to try the case if his current lawyers were not prepared to do so.
The detailed version
- Chevron Corporation v. Donziger · No. 1:11-cv-00691
- Lewis Kaplan
- Aug. 26, 2020
Background
The court considered two letters from Steven Donziger asking it to reconsider its August 17 order, which had declined to postpone the September 9 trial date. The letters argued, among other things, that criminal trials were generally not being held during the COVID-19 pandemic and that requiring Donziger’s out-of-state lawyers to travel to New York City was unreasonable.
Standard for reconsideration
The court explained that reconsideration is available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Under the applicable local criminal rule, the party seeking reconsideration must concisely identify matters or controlling decisions that the court overlooked. The court stated that a motion must be denied when it merely repeats earlier arguments or presents new facts.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Donziger’s letters identified no overlooked facts or law and simply repeated arguments raised and rejected in his earlier request to continue the trial. The court also said that the parties’ additional submissions supported keeping the trial date. The government reported that criminal trials had taken place in federal and state courts in recent weeks, including trials involving lawyers and defendants traveling to the trial location. The court further noted that Donziger’s lawyer Richard Friedman had traveled to Mexico twice during the pandemic, which the court viewed as undermining his reliance on air-travel concerns as a reason to delay the trial.
A footnote states that Martin Garbus, one of four lawyers who had undertaken to represent Donziger after Andrew Frisch was permitted to withdraw, said he was unwilling to travel to New York and reportedly could not obtain remote video access for the trial. The court said this did not change its view that the trial should proceed as scheduled and stated that, if Donziger’s current lawyers were not prepared to try the case on September 9, the condition of Frisch’s discharge would have failed and Frisch would have to try the case.
Disposition
Judge Loretta A. Preska denied Donziger’s motions for reconsideration, docket numbers 130 and 132. The order kept the September 9 trial date in place. This order addressed reconsideration of the trial schedule; it did not decide the underlying criminal charges.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.