Chevron Corporation v. Donziger
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:11-cv-00691
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In United States v. Steven Donziger, Judge Preska denied Donziger’s recusal request and moved trial from November 3 to November 4.
Steven Donziger’s request to remove Judge Preska’s court from the case was denied, and the start of his trial was moved from November 3 to November 4.
What happened
In United States v. Steven Donziger, Steven Donziger asked the court to remove itself from his case, repeating earlier claims about Judge Kaplan’s role and adding complaints about the court’s rulings and treatment of him.
The court rejected those arguments, finding that Donziger had identified no overlooked law or facts and that disagreement with the court’s decisions did not show bias. The court denied the motion to disqualify.
Judge Preska also said that setting the trial for election day resulted from an oversight and adjourned the trial’s start to November 4.
The detailed version
- Chevron Corporation v. Donziger · No. 1:11-cv-00691
- Lewis Kaplan
- Sept. 16, 2020
Background
Steven Donziger filed a second request for the court to remove itself from his case. His earlier request had challenged Judge Kaplan’s direct assignment of the case to Judge Preska and alleged that Judge Kaplan was improperly involved or communicating with the court. The court had denied that earlier request on May 7, 2020.
In the renewed request, Donziger repeated those arguments and claimed that the court had treated him unfairly and favored the Government. He pointed to the court’s description of parts of his litigation strategy, conditions imposed on his release before trial, and the setting of trial for November 3, which was election day.
Analysis
The court treated Donziger’s renewed arguments about Judge Kaplan as a motion asking the court to reconsider its earlier decision. It explained that reconsideration requires the moving party to identify controlling decisions or information the court overlooked that could reasonably change the result. The court found that Donziger had identified no such law or facts and had instead repeated earlier speculation.
The court also rejected Donziger’s claims based on the court’s rulings and treatment of him. It stated that a party’s unhappiness with decisions against that party is not a basis for removing a judge. The court concluded that, considering all the facts, a reasonable person would not question its impartiality.
Disposition
The court denied Donziger’s motion to disqualify the court. It also stated that the November 3 trial date had resulted from a simple calculation error and ordered that the trial instead begin on Wednesday, November 4.
Judge
The order was signed by Loretta A. Preska, United States District Judge.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.