Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
By Louis M. Solomon
The most recent installment in the U.S.
proceedings in which Chevron is trying to avoid the $8 billion judgment entered
against it in an Ecuadorian court (which we have posted on many times) takes the
form of a decision by a Magistrate Judge in the Southern District of New York on
Chevrons claims of waiver of privilege relating to the written communications of
various of the plaintiffs' lawyers. Chevron Corp. v. Salazar, et
al., 11 Civ. 3718 (LAK)JCF) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2011) [enhanced
version available to lexis.com subscribers ]
. The international litigation issues in the decision include:
The Magistrate Judge addressed the issue
whether a prior determination of waiver made by the District Court concerning Attorney
Steve Donziger was transferable to the documents at issue such that those documents,
or the communications found to have been waived, were waived even in the hands of
other counsel for some of the plaintiffs. The Court held that the waiver applied
to all such documents/communications: "Thus, any document within the scope
of the Donziger waiver is stripped of its privileges for the purposes of this action".
With respect to the crime fraud exception,
the Court engaged in a choice of law analysis. The issue was made harder,
said the Court, because "much of the alleged wrongdoing took place in Ecuador and
was directed toward an Ecuadorian court". Relying on prior case law, the Court
ruled that: "Whether foreign law should play a role in defining the contours
of the attorney-client privilege in any given case is a determination within the
sound discretion of the court". Among the considerations to be considered
are whether the conduct challenged was a crime or other wrong under either the U.S.
nor non-U.S. regimes. Because "what constitutes a crime will vary from one
jurisdiction to the next", the crime-fraud exception "is forum specific".
Here the Court found that the claimed conduct, procuring a judgment through fraud, would
be a sufficient wrong under New York law (which has jurisdiction over the plaintiffs'
counsel) to warrant invocation of the crime fraud exception. The Court further
ruled that the scope of the waiver was not broader than the specific areas found
by the District Court.
International Practice Law Blog for more analysis of international
and foreign law issues.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with
us through our corporate site.