Chevron Corporation v. Donziger et al

Filing 2464

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Accordingly, the Court's observations upon which DOnziger relies, which were included in what the Court said was "a provisional interim view," were entirely appropriate and unremarkable. In any case, as the S upreme Court made clear in Liteky v. United States, comments based on evidence adduced before a judge are not a basis for recusal even where they reflect a disposition with respect to a litigant. Nor is this the first time that this portion of the Court's 2011 TRO ruling been relied upon as a basis for an attempt to disqualify the undersigned. It was made in the 2011 recusal motion as well, rejected by this Court, repeated in the 2011 mandamus petition, and contested in the an swer to the petition, which, as noted, the Second Circuit denied. Finally, every ruling, question, and comment relied upon in Donziger's motion relates to events prior to trial and final judgment in this action, in some cases in the Section 1782 proceedings that came before them. Donziger appealed from the 2014 final judgment on the merits, which the Court of Appeals affirmed in 2016. Although he challenged several of this Court's legal rulings in that appeal, he did not contest the undersigned's denial of his recusal motion or otherwise argue that the undersigned should have recused himself, although that argument was available to him on direct appeal. That failure alone is fatal to this attempt to breathe new life into the issue. As the Second Circuit has held, "a [district court's] legal decision made at one stage of litigation, unchallenged in a subsequent appeal when the opportunity to do so existed, becomes the law of the case for future stage s of the same litigation, and the parties are deemed to have waived the right to challenge that decision at a later time. The vintage of Donziger's allegations defeats them, as well. An argument for recusal "must be made 'at the ear liest possible moment after obtaining knowledge of such facts demonstrating the basis for such a claim. Donziger's motions rely statements and questions that occurred primarily in 2011. The Court holds that it is not obliged to recuse itself under 28 U.S.C. § 455. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 3/11/2020) (jca)