Chevron Corporation v. Snaider

Filing 11

ORDER re: 1 Petition filed by Chevron Corporation. Petition is GRANTED. by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 5/20/14. (jdyne, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge R. Brooke Jackson
Civil Action No 14-cv-01354-RBJ
CHEVRON CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
ANDRES SNAIDER,
Respondent.

ORDER ON PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1782
PERMITTING CHEVRON CORPORATION TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS FOR THE TAKING
OF DEPOSITIONS AND THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM ANDRES
SNAIDER

The Petition and Application for an Order under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 Permitting Chevron
Corporation (“Chevron” or “Petitioner”) to Issue Subpoenas for the Taking of Depositions and
the Production of Documents (“Petition”) came on for hearing by application. By its Petition,
Chevron seeks, discovery from Andres Snaider. All evidence, arguments, and law having been
duly considered the Court rules as follows:
The Petition is GRANTED. The Court hereby GRANTS Petitioner leave to serve Andres
Snaider with the subpoenas annexed to the Declaration of Allison K. Kostecka as Exhibit A.
In so ruling, the Court finds that the requirements of Section 1782 are met. First,
Respondent resides or may be found in the District of Colorado. Second, the discovery sought is
for use in proceedings currently pending before foreign tribunals: a case before the Supreme
Court of Gibraltar against Russell DeLeon and an investment vehicle he controls, Torvia
1

Limited, Chevron Corp. v. James Russell DeLeon and Torvia Limited, Claim No. 2012-C-232
(the “Gibraltar proceeding”), as well as enforcement proceedings Chevron is facing in multiple
jurisdictions (“Enforcement Proceedings”). Third, as a litigant in those proceedings, Chevron is
an “interested person” within the meaning of Section 1782.
The Court further finds that the discretionary factors set out by the United States Supreme
Court in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 249 (2004), weigh in favor
of granting the Application. Those factors are: (1) whether the person from whom discovery is
sought is a participant in the foreign proceeding; (2) the receptivity of the foreign tribunal to
federal-court assistance; (3) whether the request conceals an attempt to circumvent foreign proofgathering restrictions; and (4) whether the request is unduly intrusive or burdensome.
DATED this 20th day of May, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

___________________________________
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge

2