Chevron Corporation v. Donziger
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:11-cv-00691
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In United States of America v. Steven Donziger, Judge Preska denied discovery requests because they lacked a legal basis and would not support Donziger’s constitutional challenge.
Steven Donziger, the criminal defendant seeking discovery, and the special prosecutors whose supervision and use of FBI agents were the subject of his requests.
What happened
In United States of America v. Steven Donziger, Steven Donziger asked for discovery about the Department of Justice’s supervision of special prosecutors and their use of Federal Bureau of Investigation agents.
The court said Donziger did not identify a criminal-case rule allowing the requested discovery. It also explained that his requests would not help his challenge under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, because the relevant question is whether a supervising officer had authority to review a prosecutor’s decisions—not whether that authority was actually used.
Judge Preska denied both discovery motions and directed the clerk to close them. The court also reminded Donziger that any reply supporting his motion for a new trial was due by August 21, 2021.
The detailed version
- Chevron Corporation v. Donziger · No. 1:11-cv-00691
- Lewis Kaplan
- Aug. 16, 2021
Background
Steven Donziger, the criminal defendant, submitted letters dated August 12 and August 13, 2021, requesting discovery concerning the special prosecutors’ use of Federal Bureau of Investigation agents. The requests sought information about what supervision the Department of Justice actually exercised over the special prosecutors, including decisions about requests to deploy and use FBI agents. The court addressed the letters as motions for discovery, docket numbers 356 and 357.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that Donziger identified no legal rule in criminal cases authorizing the discovery he requested. It reiterated that criminal discovery generally includes disclosures specifically authorized by Rule 16, material favorable to the defendant under Brady, and material that can be used to challenge a witness’s credibility under 18 U.S.C. § 3500. The court said Donziger did not explain how his requests fit within those categories.
The court also addressed the relevance of the requested information to Donziger’s Appointments Clause challenge. The Appointments Clause concerns the appointment and supervision of certain federal officers. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the court explained that the key issue is whether a superior officer had discretion to review an inferior officer’s decisions, not whether the superior officer actually exercised that discretion. The court therefore stated that, even if Donziger were entitled to the discovery, it would not help establish his challenge.
Disposition
Judge Preska denied Donziger’s discovery motions, docket numbers 356 and 357. The clerk was directed to close the open motions. The court also reminded Donziger that any reply supporting his motion for a new trial had to be filed no later than August 21, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.