## Facts

- Residents of the Lago Agrio region pursued environmental claims arising from oil operations originally associated with Texaco, later merged into Chevron.
- After the dispute proceeded in Ecuador, an Ecuadorian court entered an approximately $18.2 billion judgment against Chevron in 2011.
- Chevron sued Steven Donziger and related parties in the Southern District of New York, alleging a scheme to procure and enforce the Ecuadorian judgment through fraud and racketeering activity (including evidence fabrication, ghostwriting, and improper pressure tactics).
- In discovery, Chevron served a subpoena duces tecum on Donziger seeking litigation-related documents and electronically stored information, including communications with co-counsel, consultants, funders, and Ecuador-related contacts.
- Donziger moved to quash or limit the subpoena, asserting attorney-client privilege, work-product protection, First Amendment associational/advocacy concerns, and undue burden.
- The court addressed these objections in a memorandum opinion resolving whether, and to what extent, Donziger had to comply with the subpoena.

## Issues

1. Whether attorney-client privilege or work-product protection shielded Donziger’s communications and files from production in Chevron’s RICO and fraud case.
2. Whether Chevron made a sufficient prima facie showing to apply the crime-fraud exception to otherwise protected materials.
3. Whether the First Amendment barred or limited discovery into Donziger’s communications related to advocacy, public relations, or funding.
4. Whether the subpoena was overly broad or unduly burdensome under federal discovery standards.

## Decision

- The court largely denied Donziger’s efforts to block discovery and granted Chevron’s request to enforce the subpoena, with limited tailoring.
- The court ordered production of substantial categories of documents, including communications involving consultants, funders, and other non-client participants, particularly where tied to the alleged fraudulent procurement and enforcement campaign.
- The court held Chevron made a sufficient prima facie showing that the crime-fraud exception applied to specific categories of communications and work product allegedly made in furtherance of fraud.
- The court rejected Donziger’s First Amendment objections as insufficient to bar discovery, given Chevron’s demonstrated need for relevant materials and the availability of protective measures.
- The court rejected generalized undue-burden objections, finding the discovery proportionate to the stakes and claims, while recognizing practical limits and confidentiality protections.

## Legal Principles

- The crime-fraud exception defeats attorney-client privilege and work-product protection when there is probable cause to believe a crime or fraud was attempted or committed and the communications or materials were in furtherance of it.
- Privilege is narrower (or absent) for many communications involving third parties such as consultants, funders, and media or political allies, especially when not necessary to provide legal advice.
- First Amendment associational or advocacy interests do not categorically bar civil discovery; courts balance any burden against the requesting party’s need, and may use protective orders to reduce collateral disclosure risks.
- Under Rule 26, discovery scope turns on relevance and proportionality; high-stakes fraud and racketeering allegations may justify broad document production, subject to reasonable limits to manage burden.

## Conclusion

The court compelled substantial compliance with Chevron’s subpoena, concluding that targeted applications of the crime-fraud exception overcame privilege and work-product assertions, and that First Amendment and burden objections did not justify blocking discovery central to Chevron’s fraud and RICO allegations.


Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 2013 WL 1087236 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2013)