Southern District of New York Orders Chevron CEO and General Counsel to Testify in RICO Suit Related to $18 Billion Ecuadorian Judgment

by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

On May 14, 2013, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the Southern District of New York affirmed a magistrate judge's decision denying plaintiff Chevron Corporation's ("Chevron's") motion to quash deposition notices for Chevron CEO John Watson and General Counsel Edward Scott.1 Chevron had objected to defendants' notices of deposition for these high-ranking corporate officials-so called "apex depositions" - arguing that all relevant, non-privileged information in their possession could be obtained through corporate designees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6).2 Under Judge Kaplan's order, Watson and Scott's depositions are to be taken prior to the scheduled completion of discovery at the end of May 2013.3

Judge Kaplan's ruling was made in connection with a RICO suit in which Chevron alleges that an Ecuadorian court's $18 billion judgment against the company was obtained through fraud and extortion. The Ecuadorian case involved claims that Texaco, Inc. ("Texaco") caused environmental destruction in that country prior to its merger with Chevron in 2001. Defendants in Chevron's RICO suit are the plaintiffs in the Ecuadorian suit and their lawyer, Steven Donziger.4

In the May 7, 2013 order leading to the recent ruling by Judge Kaplan, Magistrate Judge James C. Francis found that although courts give special scrutiny to requests to depose apex witnesses because of the possibility of business disruption and harassment, only "compelling circumstances" may excuse any witness from giving testimony.5 With respect to the deposition of CEO Watson, Magistrate Judge Francis described Chevron's harassment concerns as credible in light of the "rancorous history" of the litigation.6 Magistrate Judge Francis determined, however, that "there is little doubt that Mr. Watson has relevant knowledge"7 because he led the company's integration with Texaco and monitored potential litigation liabilities.8 Magistrate Francis acknowledged that, in other circumstances, it may have been prudent to defer Watson's deposition until Rule 30(b)(6) depositions were concluded in order to determine whether Watson's testimony would be redundant. But in this case, the impending discovery deadline removed the "luxury" of such a deferral.9

With respect to Edward Scott, Chevron's general counsel, Magistrate Judge Francis found that, attorney-client privilege and work product concerns notwithstanding, "[i]t cannot be assumed . . . that the only relevant information Mr. Scott possesses is privileged."10 Magistrate Judge Francis explained that "defendants have the right to develop the record by seeking Mr. Scott's knowledge and, where an objection is lodged, asking the questions that will help to determine whether the privilege is properly asserted."11

In its objections to Magistrate Judge Francis' order, Chevron raised four key arguments why broad depositions of CEO Watson and General Counsel Scott should not be permitted. First, Chevron argued that Watson and Scott possessed no unique personal knowledge on relevant topics and that defendants had not exhausted less intrusive means of obtaining the desired information.12 Second, Chevron argued that the court already had ruled that the subjects on which Watson and Scott were to be questioned were irrelevant or protected by the attorney-client privilege.13 Third, Chevron also argued that defendants, who noticed the Watson and Scott depositions on April 5, 2013-less than two months before the scheduled completion of discovery-should not be rewarded for their "dilatory discovery tactics."14 Finally, Chevron requested that, in the event the Watson and Scott depositions were allowed, they should be limited to no more than 3.5 hours.15

Judge Kaplan rejected each of Chevron's arguments, finding no error of law or fact in Francis' ruling.16 With respect to the relevance and permissibility of certain lines of questioning, Judge Kaplan ruled that those issues would "be determined by the special master(s) . . . who will apply this Court [sic] rulings and, in the absence of pertinent rulings, use their own best judgment, in each case subject to review by this Court."17 Judge Kaplan also declined to limit the duration of the depositions, leaving it to the special masters to shorten or lengthen any deposition for good cause shown.18

Three lessons can be drawn from Judge Kaplan's ruling. First, it obviously serves as a frightening reminder that even the most senior officers in a company, the CEO and general counsel, may be deposed if a court determines there is a possibility that such "apex officials" have personal knowledge relevant to a legal dispute. Such a possibility is an important consideration in shaping corporate communications, crisis management, and general strategy with respect to significant events. Second, the ruling illustrates the multifaceted roles that general counsel often play in major companies and the resulting risk that some of those roles may one day be a topic of discovery. Finally, Judge Kaplan's ruling is a reminder of the importance of special masters in managing discovery calendars and the deference that judges give them. Establishing and maintaining a strong, positive relationship with a special master is critical in any litigation.

The editors would like to thank James Treanor for his contribution to this article.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.