Chevron Corporation v. Donziger
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:11-cv-00691
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In United States v. Donziger, Judge Preska denied reconsideration of a trial-adjournment request concerning remote testimony while reserving other issues.
Steven Donziger’s request to postpone his trial based on David Zelman’s remote testimony was denied; the court did not yet decide his separate arguments about defense witnesses and effective assistance of counsel.
What happened
In United States of America v. Steven Donziger, Steven Donziger asked to postpone his November 4 trial, arguing that a government witness, David Zelman, should testify in person rather than by live video. He also raised separate concerns about defense witnesses and COVID-19 safety measures.
The court had already ruled that Zelman could testify by video under the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation rules, citing Zelman’s heightened health risk and procedures designed to make the testimony reliable. Donziger renewed the same argument but did not identify a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error.
Judge Loretta A. Preska treated the request concerning Zelman’s testimony as a motion for reconsideration and denied it. The court reserved decision on Donziger’s other arguments until briefing was complete.
The detailed version
- Chevron Corporation v. Donziger · No. 1:11-cv-00691
- Lewis Kaplan
- Oct. 23, 2020
Background
Steven Donziger moved to adjourn his November 4 trial because of issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic. His motion raised three arguments: COVID-19 might prevent defense witnesses from attending; permitting government witness David Zelman to testify by live video rather than in person would violate the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause; and COVID-19 safety measures might interfere with his right to effective assistance of counsel.
The court had previously denied Donziger’s request to adjourn the trial and his request to reconsider that ruling. In an earlier order, the court granted the government’s request for Zelman to testify by video over Donziger’s opposition. The court had concluded that Zelman faced a heightened risk of serious health complications from COVID-19, that proposed procedures would support the reliability of his remote testimony, and that the testimony would comply with the Sixth Amendment under the legal framework discussed in Maryland v. Craig and related decisions.
Analysis
The court treated the portion of Donziger’s new motion concerning Zelman’s remote testimony and nonattendance as a motion for reconsideration. It explained that reconsideration requires an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Donziger argued that the court should revisit its prior decision because the trial had been moved from September 9 to November 4, but he did not explain why the later date changed the legal analysis. The court found that it did not.
The court also found that Donziger had not identified an intervening change in controlling law. The only new case cited was from a Kansas district court and was not binding on the court. In the court’s view, Donziger’s renewed argument showed disagreement with a legal analysis and conclusion that the court had already fully considered, which was not enough to justify reconsideration.
Disposition
The court denied Donziger’s motion to adjourn the trial so that Zelman could testify in person. It reserved decision on the remaining issues in Donziger’s motion pending completion of briefing. Judge Loretta A. Preska signed the order on October 23, 2020.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.