Chevron Corporation v. Page et al
Filing
42
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles B. Day on 12/14/2011. (ranks, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHEVRON CORP.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAGE, et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. RWT-11-1942
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before this Court is Respondents Aaron Marr Page’s and Daria Fisher Page’s and
Defendants Hugo Gerardo Camacho Naranjo’s and Javier Piaguaje Payaguaje’s Motion for an
Order Directing Chevron Corporation to Return or Destroy Privileged Documents (the
“Motion”). The Court will refer to Mr. and Ms. Page as “Movants.”1 The Court has reviewed
the motions, memoranda, and applicable law. No hearing is deemed necessary. See Local Rule
105.6 (D. Md.). For the reasons presented below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case comes to this Court as a result of a subpoena served by Chevron Corporation
(“Chevron”) upon Aaron Marr Page and Daria Fisher Page (“Respondents”) in connection with a
case occurring in the Southern District of New York, Chevron Corp. v. Aguinda Salazar, No. 11CV-0691 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.). See ECF No. 1. On July 15, 2011, Chevron moved to compel
Respondents to produce the subpoenaed documents. Id. On August 31, 2011, at a hearing with
the parties, this Court granted Chevron’s motion. See Chevron Corp. v. Page (“Chevron Order
I”), No. 11-cv-1942 (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2011) (ECF No. 24). On September 1, 2011, Respondents
1
Mr. Naranjo and Mr. Payaguaje have not intervened in this case, and thus, cannot move for any
relief.
1
moved to stay the Court’s order “to allow both the Pages and the Ecuadorian Plaintiffs to file
Objections” to the order. ECF No. 25. The Court denied Respondents’ request on the same date.
Chevron Corp. v. Page (“Chevron Order II”), No. 11-cv-1942 (D. Md. Sept. 1, 2011) (ECF No.
28). Consequently, Movants produced the documents in question. Movants’ Br. 1.
Thereafter, on September 19, 2011, the Second Circuit stayed the proceedings in the
related Chevron Corp. v. Aguinda Salazar case in the Southern District of New York. See
Chevron Corp. v. Naranjo, No. 11-cv-1150 (2d Cir. Sept. 19, 2011) (ECF No. 597). After
obtaining notice from the parties of this event, on September 26, 2011, this Court vacated
Chevron Order II, granted Respondents’ motion to stay, stayed “all further proceedings . . .
pending further order of this Court,” and administratively closed the case until the stay is lifted.
Chevron Corp. v. Page (“Chevron Order III”), No. 11-cv-1942 (D. Md. Sept. 26, 2011) (ECF
No. 32). As a result, on October 14, 2011, Movants moved this Court to enter an order requiring
Chevron to return or destroy the documents that they produced pursuant to Chevron Order I. See
Movants’ Br.
DISCUSSION
The question before the Court is whether Chevron Order III requires Chevron to return
the documents that Movants provided to them in accordance with Chevron Order I. The Court
answers this question in the affirmative.
Typically, a stay requires the parties to maintain the status quo pending any further action
by the Court. Here, the Court vacated Chevron Order II, which denied Movants’ motion to stay
Chevron Order I and required Movants to provide documents to Chevron. See Chevron Order
II, Chevron Order III. Thus, had Movants not already produced the documents in question,
2
Chevron Order III would have required them to refrain from producing those documents to
Chevron.
Movants, however, provided these documents to Chevron before the stay was entered.
Movants’ Br. 1.2 Chevron cannot continue to use and possess those documents pursuant to
Chevron Order III. The stay requires the Court to place the parties back to the status quo as of
Chevron Order I. The result is similar to that sought by an appeal court when it determines that
a lower court should not have ordered production of privileged documents – to place the parties
where they were before the order was issued. See, e.g., Church of Scientology of California v.
United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12-13, 13 n.6 (1992) (Supreme Court ruled that if the government
entity wrongfully obtained tapes from the party, the lower court could provide relief by requiring
the entity to return the tapes or possibly requiring the entity to “refrain from any future use of the
information that it has derived from the tapes.”); Reich v. Nat’l Eng’g & Contracting Co., 13
F.3d 93, 98 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that if entities, which have already provided documents to
the government, are successful on appeal, the appeals court could order the government to
“return or destroy these copies.”).
Chevron argues that should be able to retain the documents despite the stay because it
possesses copies of some of those documents from other litigation and allegedly should have
received these documents from Movants regardless of Chevron Order I. Chevron Br. 13, 14 n.7.
If Chevron has obtained copies of the documents in question in other cases or from individuals
2
Movants have also asserted that Chevron has used those documents in other proceedings.
Movants’ Br. 2-3. The Court will not determine now whether this use was improper; but, the
Court notes that Chevron was not restricted from using the documents pursuant to a protective
order of this Court. Moreover, Movants cannot seek a protective order before they first seek to
lift the stay.
3
other than the Movants, this Court does not restrict Chevron’s use of those documents; but
reminds Chevron that other stay orders may restrict Chevron’s use of those documents.
Chevron also argues that Movants’ alleged unclean hands permit Chevron to retain
Movants’ documents. This argument is misplaced. Chevron may be displeased with Movants’
failure to produce the documents in question prior to Chevron Order I and may be displeased
with Mr. Page’s deposition testimony; but those are not the issues before the Court. The Court
must solely determine the definition of the status quo enacted by the stay. Given that the stay of
production was granted, the Court rules that the status quo precludes Chevron from possessing
the documents in question.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Motion. Chevron must return the
documents produced by Movants pursuant to Chevron Order I within seven calendar days. After
receiving the documents, Movants must retain those documents in a safe and readily-accessible
location should the stay be lifted and the Court order re-production.
December 14, 2011
/s/
Charles B. Day
United States Magistrate Judge
CBD/MKH
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?