Chevron Corporation v. Donziger
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:11-cv-00691
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chevron v. Donziger, Judge Kaplan denied a letter motion without prejudice because it violated the court’s filing rules.
Steven Donziger and his attorneys were affected because the letter motion was denied without prejudice and could be refiled in the civil case using the required formal procedure. The court did not resolve whether Ronald Kuby represented Donziger in that case.
What happened
In Chevron Corporation v. Donziger, an attorney filed a letter seeking, among other relief, to undo an earlier order assigning Judge Loretta A. Preska to handle Steven Donziger’s criminal-contempt matter. The letter was filed only in the criminal-contempt case, although the challenged order was entered in this civil case.
The court said it was unclear whether the attorney had appeared for Donziger in the civil case and therefore whether he had authority to seek relief there. The court did not resolve that issue.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied the letter motion without prejudice because the court’s rules did not allow that type of request by letter. The ruling allowed a new motion to be filed in the civil case if it followed the required procedure, including a formal motion, legal memorandum, and supporting evidence.
The detailed version
- Chevron Corporation v. Donziger · No. 1:11-cv-00691
- Lewis Kaplan
- Nov. 20, 2020
Background
On July 31, 2019, the court directed Steven Donziger to explain why he should not be held in criminal contempt. The criminal-contempt matter was assigned to Judge Loretta A. Preska, who directed that it receive a separate criminal docket and caption while retaining a reference to the civil case.
On November 16, 2020, attorney Ronald Kuby filed a notice of appearance in the criminal-contempt matter. The notice suggested that he might not be appearing in the underlying civil case, where Donziger had proceeded without a lawyer for some time. Kuby then filed a letter only in the criminal-contempt matter, although it was addressed to Judge Kaplan and sought, most importantly, to undo the July 31 order assigning Judge Preska to try the contempt matter.
Issue
The court considered whether the letter motion could be addressed even though it was filed in the wrong docket and it was unclear whether Kuby had appeared for Donziger in the civil case. The court also considered whether the requested relief could properly be sought by letter.
Ruling
Judge Kaplan denied the motion without prejudice. He explained that it did not comply with Instruction 13.1 of the district’s electronic-filing rules and Local Civil Rule 7.1. Those rules limited which requests could be made by letter and generally required a formal motion or an order to show cause, a legal memorandum, and supporting affidavits and exhibits containing the necessary facts and record materials.
The court stated that the motion had to be filed in the civil case because the July 31 order had been entered there. It did not decide whether Kuby had standing, meaning a sufficient legal basis, to make the motion. The denial was without prejudice to filing a new motion in the civil case that complied with Local Civil Rule 7.1. The court also stated that Donziger and his attorneys presumably would clarify which attorneys, if any, represented him in the civil case or whether he would continue without a lawyer.
Disposition
The letter motion was denied without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.