Chevron Corporation v. Donziger et al

Filing 2663

ORDER: For these reasons, Mr. Donziger's motions for discovery [dkt. nos. 356 & 357] are DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall close the open motions. Mr. Donziger is reminded that any reply in support of his motion for a new trial shall be filed no later than August 21, 2021. SO ORDERED. ( Replies due by 8/21/2021.) (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 8/16/2021) (va)

Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-RWL Document 2663 Filed 08/16/21 Page 1 of 2

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

No. 19-CR-561 (LAP)

-against-

No. 11-CV-691 (LAK)

STEVEN DONZIGER,

ORDER
Defendant.

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge:
Before the Court are Mr. Donziger’s letters dated August 12
and August 13, 2021, seeking a variety of discovery related to
the Special Prosecutors’ use of Federal Bureau of Investigation
agents.

(See dkt. nos. 356 & 357.)

Without accepting or

rejecting the propositions and conclusions in Mr. Donziger’s
letters, the requests for discovery are DENIED.
Like many of Mr. Donziger’s requests for discovery before
this one, he identifies no legal rule applicable in criminal
cases authorizing him to obtain the discovery he seeks.

As the

Court has reminded Mr. Donziger numerous times throughout the
course of this case, he “is only entitled to disclosure of
statements expressly authorized by Rule 16 or otherwise
discoverable as exculpatory under Brady, or as impeaching under
18 U.S.C. § 3500.”

United States v. Souza, No. 06-CR-806 (SLT),

2008 WL 753736, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2008).

Mr. Donziger

does not explain how his current batch of requests fits within
that framework.
1

Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-RWL Document 2663 Filed 08/16/21 Page 2 of 2

Moreover, Mr. Donziger’s requests are targeted at
identifying what supervision the Department of Justice actually
exercised over the Special Prosecutors, i.e., specific decisions
by the Department in regard to requests to deploy and utilize
FBI agents.

(See dkt. nos. 356 & 357 at 1-2.)

That ignores,

however, that in the Appointments Clause context “what matters
is that [a superior officer] have the discretion to review
decisions” by the inferior officer, not that the superior
officer, in fact, exercised that discretion.

United States v.

Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970, 1988 (2021) (emphasis added).
In that sense, even if Mr. Donziger were entitled to this
discovery--to be clear, he is not--it would not help him
establish his Appointments Clause challenge anyway.
For these reasons, Mr. Donziger’s motions for discovery
[dkt. nos. 356 & 357] are DENIED.
close the open motions.

The Clerk of the Court shall

Mr. Donziger is reminded that any reply

in support of his motion for a new trial shall be filed no later
than August 21, 2021.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 16, 2021
New York, New York

__________________________________
LORETTA A. PRESKA
Senior United States District Judge

2