Chevron Corporation v. Donziger

Background

Steven Donziger asked the court to discontinue, or end, the pretrial conditions requiring home confinement and electronic location monitoring. The Special Prosecutor opposed the motion. The opinion also identifies a related civil docket, No. 11-CV-691 (LAK).

The court had imposed home confinement and location monitoring at Donziger’s arraignment. It cited the possibility of imprisonment, the weight of the evidence, his past refusal to comply with court orders, and his frequent travel to and contacts in Ecuador, including contacts with high-level officials. The conditions allowed him to handle family obligations and meet with his lawyers. The court had previously denied several requests to remove or loosen these conditions, and the Court of Appeals had affirmed an earlier bail determination and denial of a request to discontinue home confinement and electronic monitoring.

Arguments and analysis

Donziger argued that he was being treated differently from other misdemeanor defendants and attorneys, that his professional reputation and community ties weighed against home confinement, and that the possible sentence and his ties to New York made flight unlikely. He also argued that travel to Ecuador would be difficult and repeated other arguments previously presented to the court.

The court explained that pretrial-release conditions require an individualized assessment of the particular defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). It rejected comparisons to other defendants and reaffirmed its earlier finding that Donziger was a flight risk. The court concluded that nothing significant had changed concerning the factors supporting that finding, including Donziger’s history of disobeying court orders, his travel history and contacts in Ecuador, the weight of the evidence, and the fact that he faced possible incarceration.

Ruling

Senior United States District Judge Loretta A. Preska denied Donziger’s motion to discontinue the pretrial conditions of home confinement and electronic location monitoring. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the open motion. The order did not decide whether Donziger was guilty of the criminal charges.