Chevron Corporation v. Donziger et al

Filing 2552

ORDER: For the reasons set out above, Mr. Donziger's request for certain discovery relating to any communications between the Special Prosecutors and Judge Kaplan (dkt. no. 131) is denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 8/28/2020) (va) Modified on 8/28/2020 (va).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
-against-

19-CR-561 (LAP)
11-CV-691 (LAK)

STEVEN DONZIGER,
Defendant.

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge:
By letter dated August 21, 2020 (dkt. no. 131), Mr.
Donziger requested that the Court:
1) require the Special Prosecutor to disclose any
communications with Judge Kaplan regarding Mr. Donziger;
2) require the Special Prosecutors to produce documents
reflecting or referring to any such communications; and
3) disclose whether any of the Special Prosecutors’ invoices
reflect communications between them and Judge Kaplan or his
chambers.
For the reasons set out below, the request is denied.
First, this is a criminal case, not a civil case.
Discovery in criminal cases is governed by Fed. R. Crim. P. 16,
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United
States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).

There is no provision permitting

the disclosure requested by Mr. Donziger, and he cites to none.
Second, the Court has already denied this request (dkt. no.
52, transcript of January 6, 2020 hearing, at 18), and Mr.

1

Donziger cites no fact or law overlooked by the Court sufficient
to merit reconsideration.
Third, on the merits, the Special Prosecutors stated at the
January 6 hearing (dkt. no. 52 at 4, 16-17), and re-iterated in
their letter in opposition to Mr. Donziger’s requests (dkt. no.
141): “the prosecution does not seek Judge Kaplan’s input with
respect to [their] prosecution decisions or [their] strategy,
and Judge Kaplan does not weigh in on [their] prosecution
decisions or strategy.”
Finally, the request for the details of the Special
Prosecutors’ invoices is unwarranted, at least before resolution
of the case.

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).

In any event, the Court re-iterates that it

is not aware of any “rule of law that entitles a defendant to
serve discovery demands on the presiding judge.”

(Dkt. no. 68

at 12 n.3).
For the reasons set out above, Mr. Donziger’s request for
certain discovery relating to any communications between the
Special Prosecutors and Judge Kaplan (dkt. no. 131) is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 28, 2020
New York, New York

_____________________________
LORETTA A. PRESKA, U.S.D.J.
2