Chevron Corporation v. Donziger et al

Filing 2578

ORDER: Having considered the parties' submissions, the Court agrees that the appropriate course is to defer ruling on the collateral bar issue until trial, when the Court will have the benefit of a fuller factual record. Accordingly, the Government's motion in limine (dkt. no. 105) is denied without prejudice to renewal at trial. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 10/24/2020) (va)

Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-RWL Document 2578 Filed 10/24/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
19-CR-561 (LAP)
11-CV-691 (LAK)

-againstSTEVEN DONZIGER,

ORDER

Defendant.

LORETTA A. PRESKA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
On July 16, 2020, the Government filed a motion in limine
asking the Court to apply the collateral bar doctrine to
preclude Mr. Donziger from “disputing the validity, lawfulness
and constitutionality” of the orders underlying the criminal
contempt charges and from “arguing that his disobedience could
not constitute criminal contempt because he had a good faith
belief that the orders were unlawful, in error, or would cause
him to violate his ethical duties.”

(Dkt. no. 105.)

Mr.

Donziger opposed that motion, arguing, among other things, that
the Court should defer ruling on the collateral bar doctrine’s
applicability until trial.

(Dkt. no. 110 at 3-4.)

It appears

that the Government does not disagree with Mr. Donziger’s point
about the proper timing for deciding issues related to the
collateral bar doctrine.

Specifically, in its reply brief, the

1

Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-RWL Document 2578 Filed 10/24/20 Page 2 of 2

Government states that it “does not object to the defendant
developing an appropriate evidentiary record” but asks “that the
Court remain vigilant to the defendant’s assertions of purported
exceptions to the collateral bar doctrine and how the defense
presents evidence in that regard, such that this trial is
conducted in an orderly fashion and legal and factual issues are
not confused.”

(Dkt. no. 117 at 4.)

Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Court
agrees that the appropriate course is to defer ruling on the
collateral bar issue until trial, when the Court will have the
benefit of a fuller factual record.

Accordingly, the

Government’s motion in limine (dkt. no. 105) is denied without
prejudice to renewal at trial.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 24, 2020
New York, New York

___________________________
LORETTA A. PRESKA, U.S.D.J.

2