Chevron Corporation v. Donziger
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:11-cv-00691
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Chevron Corporation v. Donziger, Judge Kaplan denied Chevron’s civil-contempt motion against Aaron Marr Page after finding one branch moot, without reaching the merits.
Chevron Corporation’s motion to hold Aaron Marr Page in civil contempt was denied; the court did not decide the merits of that motion.
What happened
Chevron Corporation v. Donziger concerns Chevron’s motion to hold Aaron Marr Page in civil contempt.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, and no one objected to that recommendation. The court stated that one branch of the motion was moot and that reviewing it would not serve a coercive or compensatory purpose.
Judge Kaplan denied Chevron’s motion and expressly said the court was expressing no view on its merits.
The detailed version
- Chevron Corporation v. Donziger · No. 1:11-cv-00691
- Lewis Kaplan
- June 8, 2021
Background
On August 28, 2019, Chevron Corporation moved to hold Aaron Marr Page in civil contempt. Civil contempt is generally intended to coerce compliance with a court order or compensate for an injury caused by violating one, rather than to punish a completed act of disobedience.
Recommendation and Mootness
Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger issued a modified report and recommendation recommending that Chevron’s motion be denied. No objections were filed. The court stated that one branch of the motion was moot and that, because the time to object or appeal had expired, the recommendation could no longer be disputed. The court also stated that reviewing the recommendation would not serve a coercive or compensatory purpose.
Ruling
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied Chevron’s motion. The order expressly stated that the court expressed no view on the merits of the civil-contempt motion. This was a procedural disposition based on mootness and the unchallenged recommendation, not a decision about whether Page actually committed civil contempt.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.