District Court, S.D. New York, 2020

Chevron Corporation v. Donziger

District Court, S.D. New York · Decided August 18, 2020

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 19-CR-561 (LAP) -versus- 11-CV-691 (LAK) STEVEN DONZIGER, ORDER Defendant.

LORETTA A. PRESKA, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: On July 22, 2020, the Court entered an order directing the special prosecutors to produce redacted excerpts of the invoices they submitted to the Southern District of New York for their work and expenses on this case. (Dkt. nos. 108, 109.) The next week, Mr. Donziger filed a letter (1) seeking “copies of any forms generated as part of these invoices, or in response to these invoices,” and (2) requesting that the prosecutors produce documents or make an individualized showing as to why specific invoice entries should not be disclosed. (Dkt. no. 114.) Mr. Donziger’s requests are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

As to Mr. Donziger’s first request, upon reviewing each invoice from the special prosecutors and finding that it was in good order, the Court sent a letter to the District Executive’s Office approving the invoice for payment. The invoice approval letters are attached to this order at Appendix A.

As to Mr. Donziger’s second request, no disclosure beyond what the Court directed in its July 22 order is warranted at this point. Mr. Donziger is incorrect in arguing that United States v. Suarez, 880 F.2d 626 (1989) requires the production of “all information related to the public payment of attorneys in a criminal case . . . absent a particularized showing.” (Dkt. no.

112 at 1.) In Suarez, the Court of Appeals emphasized that the scope of the requested information was “narrow,” covering only “barebones data” provided in CJA payment coversheets “with none of the detail or back-up information, such as attached timesheets.” 880 F.2d at 631. Mr. Donziger, by contrast, is asking for invoices with the very kind of detailed timesheet information that was not at issue in Suarez. Given that distinction, nothing in Suarez requires the special prosecutors to make an individualized showing as to each timesheet entry.

Mr. Donziger may renew his request for complete invoices once the case closes and there is no risk of revealing trial strategy or violating work-product protection for the prosecution. See United States v. Gonzalez, 150 F.3d 1246, 1262 (10th Cir. 1998) (upholding order for the release of CJA vouchers at the end of trial and rejecting arguments for immediate release).

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Donziger’s request is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part without prejudice to reapplication upon the conclusion of the case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18 , 2020 New York, New York LORETTA A. PRESKA, U.S.D.d.

APPENDIX A MINE TE Cb Wb AA ED he AEN oO NWA I SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK $00 PEARL STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007-1312 LORETTA A, PRESKA □□□□□□□□□□□□ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FAX 805-7941 July 7, 2020 James Puskuldijian United States District Court Daniel Patrick Moynihan Pearl Street, Suite 820 New York, NY 10007-1312 Re: United States v. Donziger, 19-Cr-561 Dear James, I have reviewed the Seward and Kissel invoice for May 2020 (Invoice Number 9160012212) and find it to be in good order. Accordingly, the invoice is approved for payment.