Collective Claims Examples

7/29/2019 Collective Claims Examples

1/23

Excerpts from Lago Agrio Complaint, May 7, 2003 at 11:30 a.m.


2/23

CERT. INTERMARK

[upper right hand-written text reading: 79; 79; seventy-nine; what appears to be a signature][lower center stamp reading: CHAMBER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE;

OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE COURT; Nueva Loja; signature]

[lower right what appears to be a signature]

ecosystems and biodiversity are in the public interest. Environmental rights are

constitutionally recognized as collective rights, which is why they are considered underChapter 5 of Section III of the Constitution. Any person may therefore make a claim for

violation of said rights and demand redress.

b) When it is a matter of preventing potential or contingent damage that threatensindeterminate persons, as occurs with contaminating material still found in theenvironment, Article 2260 of the Civil Code permits citizens to bring lawsuits to

demand that the entity creating the threat remove the cause or eradicate the threat.

c) Article 41 of the Environmental Management Law (Law 99-37, Official Gazette 245of 30 July 1999), permits citizens to bring lawsuits to denounce the violation ofenvironmental regulations, and Article 43 of the same law recognizes that individuals

or entities and groups of people linked by a common interest and directly affected by

the harmful action or omission, have the right to bring suits for damages and for thedeterioration of health or the environment, including biodiversity and its components.

VI. Claims

Based on the aforementioned legal provisions, and as members of the affected communities and

in defense of the rights collectively recognized for the communities, the persons appearingdemand of CHEVRON TEXACO CORPORATION, already identified in the statements of fact,

the following:

1. The elimination or removal of the contaminating elements that still threaten the

environment and the health of the inhabitants. In consequence, the ruling should order:


3/23

CERT. INTERMARK

[lower center stamp reading: CHAMBER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE;

OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE COURT; Nueva Loja; signature]

a) removal and adequate treatment and disposal of the contaminating waste andmaterials still found in the pits or basins dug by TEXACO and which have simply

been capped, covered or inadequately treated;

b) clean-up of the rivers, estuaries, lakes, marshes and natural and man-madewatercourses, and the adequate disposal of all waste material;

c) removal of all structural elements and machinery protruding from the soil in thewells, stations and substations that were closed, shut down or abandoned, as well asthe conduits, pipeline, intakes and other similar elements related to said wells; and

d) overall clean-up of the land, plantations, crops, streets, roads and constructions stillcontaining contaminating residues produced or generated as a consequence of the

operations directed by TEXACO, including the storage tanks for contaminating wasteconstructed as part of the badly executed environmental clean-up work.

2. The remediation of environmental damage pursuant to the provisions of Article 43 of theEnvironmental Management Law. Accordingly, the ruling should order:

a) any work on the pits dug by TEXACO necessary to restore the natural characteristicsand conditions prevailing in the soil and the surrounding environment before the

damage was inflicted;

b) hiring, at the defendants expense, people or institutions specializing in the design andexecution of a plan for restoring native flora and fauna, insofar as possible;


4/23

CERT. INTERMARK

[upper right hand-written text reading: 80; 80; eighty; what appears to be a signature]

[lower center stamp reading: CHAMBER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE;OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE COURT; Nueva Loja; signature]

c) hiring, at the defendants expense, people or institutions specializing in the design andexecution of a plan for regenerating aquatic life;

d) hiring, at the defendants expense, people or institutions specializing in the design andexecution of a plan for improving and monitoring the health of the populations

affected by the contamination.

The funds necessary to cover the cost of the activities being requested, in the amount tobe determined by experts in accordance with the provisions of the penultimate clause of

Article 43 of the Environmental Management Law, should be delivered to the AmazonDefense Front, so that with the help and advice of specialized international institutions, it

may apply the funds exclusively to the determinations of the ruling.

3. The payment of ten percent of the value represented by the amount of the remediation,

referenced in Article 43 of the Environmental Management Law, as well as payment of

the cost of the lawsuit and the value of the time and efforts employed in the same,according to the provisions of Article 2261 of the Civil Code. The amount ordered to be

paid in this regard should also be delivered, as expressly requested by the plaintiffs, to theAmazon Defense Front.

VII. Jurisdiction, Amounts and Procedures

1. Clause Two of Article 42 of the Environmental Management Law grants jurisdiction for

hearing civil suits arising from environmental damage to the President of the Superior

Court of the place in which said damage occurred. If several territorial jurisdictions areinvolved, jurisdiction is assigned to the President of any of the corresponding Superior

Courts.


5/23

Excerpts from Trial Court Judgment, February 14, 2011 at 8:37 a.m.


6/23

[Handwritten] - 216,354 -Two hundred sixteen thousand three hundred fifty-four[initials]

[initials]

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBOS [seal]OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT'S CLERK

CERT. MERRILL 33

third parties nor applicable to inalienable rights. Consideration should also begiven to the what is said in article 42 of the EMA: Any person, entity or humangroup can be heard in criminal, civil or administrative proceedings filed forviolations of an environmental nature, even though their own rights have not beenviolated, together with the fact that the complaint has been signed by 42 citizens,the plaintiffs, who have not requested personal compensation for any harm, butrather have demanded the protection of a collective right in accordance with theformalities provided by the EMA, the redress of environmental harm, which as hasbeen alleged in this lawsuit, affects more than 30000 people, these supposedlybeing undetermined. This Presidency has noted that the parties potentially affectedby the activities of the Consortium are divided into several different human groups,that claim to be united by the fact of being affected by an environmental harm,without all belonging to a single nationality or neighborhood, but rather who areidentifiable for sharing impacts coming from the environmental harm. There is no,

as far as the record shows, census or list that identifies them, precisely becausethey are diverse human groups, but connected by one same impact and a commoninterest in resolving it. In this way, the legal grounds on which the collective rightof the plaintiffs to file this claim rests have been established to the satisfaction ofthe Court, summarized in the fundamental, inalienable, substantive right of actionand petition, in the second place in the norms of the Civil Code to give grounds forthe right to ask for redress of the harm, and in the third place in the active legalstanding of the plaintiffs to be heard in this proceeding in defense of collectiverights. 3.7 Inadmissibility of the claim under 2260. During the answer to thecomplaint the defendant argued that article 2236 (previously 2260) confers a rightthat can only be exercised through an ordinary trial before a Civil Judge (page264, obverse), nevertheless the text of the norm sates:As a general rule, a popularaction [accin popular] is granted in all cases of contingent harm that threatensindeterminate persons because of someones imprudence or negligence. But if theharm threatens only determinate persons, only one of them may file the action,from which it can be appreciated that nowhere in the rule transcribed is there setforth the procedure or proceeding that must be followed to make this righteffective, nor is there any reference whatsoever to which Judge is competent tohear the case. The Civil Judge is the default Judge in whom competence falls for

proceedings that do not have a determined Judge of competence, but before thisnorm express provisions prevail,


7/23

[Handwritten] 216,406Back

CERT. MERRILL 138

it is used for cooking, drinking, bathing, washing clothes and animals. Because ofthese causes, the presence of illnesses originating from the exposure to andconsuming of the water of the rivers created skin infections, intestinal and vaginalinfections, and in many cases, cancer; in women, basically in the uterus, ovary andbreasts; in general in the throat, stomach, kidneys, skin and brain. One of theauthors of this report states in his testimony: I was hired by The Front. I imaginethat there is an inter-institutional agreement between Petroecuador and The Front,and thats probably why it was printed on Petro sheets. This witness assures thatthe samples were taken randomly; however, the challenge by the defendant to thisevidence asserts the lack of impartiality of the authors, which is apparentlycorroborated by the testimony itself, because its author admits to have been hiredby the Frente de Defensa de la Amazonia [Amazonian Defense Front], whichcould have affected his objectivity. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does notinclude this report as effective proof of the facts it contains, however they

constitute levels that will be jointly considered with the rest. Finally, with regard tothe harm to peoples health, it should be noted that none of these harms or impactsto human health have been proven in a specious manner; that is, proof has not beenpresented of the existence of harm to the health of specific persons; rather, it hasbeen proved, epidemiologically, that there exists harm to public health. Regardingthe lack of proof of the harm or injuries to the health of specific persons, thisPresidency notes that the plaintiff point of view is correct in the sense that nomedical certificates have been submitted to show the existence of harm or injuriesto or a specific health problem of a given individual; therefore, in order to makethis decision, we consider, in the first place, that the reparation of particular harmhas not been requested, rather the plaintiff requests, in regards to health: contracton charge of the defendant, specialized persons or institutions in order to designand carry out a plan for the health improvement and monitoring of the inhabitantsaffected by contamination. (page 80); thus the submitted evidence does notnecessarily refer to the particular harm, but to the harm to public health, whichmeans that the fact that no particular injuries or harm have been proved isirrelevant; and in the second place, that the abovementioned claim is coherent withthe object of the complaint, which is the reparation of the environmental harm that,as been shown, are those caused to the environment or some of its components;

thus, we will only analyze the existence of harm to public health and if this harm isdirectly related to the reported environmental impacts for which


8/23

( [Handwritten] - 216,410 - )( Two hundred sixteen thousand four hundred ten[initials] )

[Handwritten] - 216,411 -Two hundred sixteen thousand four hundred eleven[initials]

[initials]

[Circular stamp] PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE - SUCUMBOS [seal]OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT'S CLERK

CERT. MERRILL 147

diseases, intestinal and vaginal infection, and in many cases, cancer, in womenbasically the uterus, ovaries and breasts, and, in general, the throat, stomach,kidney, skin and brain, which corroborates what was anticipated , in the sense that

the natural sources of water of the Concession area have been contaminated due tothe hydrocarbon activities performed by the defendant company, and that due tothe dangerousness of the substances dumped and to all the possible mediums ofexposure, this contamination puts the health and life of people in general at risk, aswell as the ecosystem. However, this case is more complex since as we havecautioned earlier, as we have said above, the environmental harm previouslydescribed, which are attributable to the activities of the defendant (in soil and inwater), can have particularly serious consequences in cases where there is analteration to an ecosystem where there live groups whose cultural integrity isfirmly associated with the health of the land, since that environmental degradationcan threaten the very existence of the groups themselves. In this way, as regardsthe impacts on the indigenous communities, given that these human groupsdepended on hunting and fishing, the impacts suffered by the ecosystem affectedthem directly. Yet, this Court will consider that the decrease in hunting and fishingfrom which these indigenous communities depended on, although this affects theirnutrition, and therefore, their right to health and life itself, is the result of theimpacts suffered by the flora and fauna. As a consequence, we must occupyourselves to repair the environmental harm caused to the flora and fauna in order torestore their source of subsistence and recover their traditional eating habits,

looking to recover from this impact. On the other hand, when it comes to the lossesof animals and domestic farming suffered by the citizens who have testified duringthe judicial inspections, we must observe that the compensation for this harm hasnot been specifically claimed, that is to say, a monetary compensation is not beingclaimed. What is being requested is that given that all the declarations heard duringthe judicial inspections are concurrent, they would contribute to reinforce thedecision of the judge as regards the reality of the situation described. No doubt thatall of this could have also affected their right to nutrition and, consequently, theirright to life, for The right to nutrition is a human right protected by theinternational law. It is the right to have access, in a regular,


9/23

[Handwritten] 216,429Back

CERT. MERRILL 184

(USD$100,000,000.oo) value obtained based on the costs for four years of nineand a half million dollars, of the CAIMAN project, referred to by expert GerardoBarros in his expert report (see volume 1576 and 1577), and which can share itsobjectives with the mitigation measure ordered here, but that should also duplicateefforts to recover community organization and values and to reaffirm the ethnicidentity of the different peoples, for a period of at least 20 years, whichproportionally increases the costs. Finally, this Presidency considers that there alsoexists sufficient indications to demonstrate the existence of an excessive number ofdeaths from cancer in the area of the Concession, and even many of the peopleinterviewed during the judicial inspections stated they suffer or have someoneclose to them suffering with some type of cancer, however we must note that thereparation of particular cases of cancer has not been demanded, nor are such casesidentified, thus they are not remediable, but rather to the contrary, it is consideredthat this evidence together with the statistics reflects an aggravating factor to the

public health problem referred to above. Considering that the lack ofindividualization of the victims does not free from the responsibility of repairingsuch harm, what is appropriate to analyze is who would be the beneficiary of saidremediation, therefore, paying attention to the fact that it has that it has beenproven that a serious public health problem exists, whose causes are reasonablyattributable to hydrocarbons production, it becomes necessary that the mitigationmeasure ordered to cover the public health problem originated in Texpetsmisconduct, be directed also at mitigating this public health problem, in this wayincreasing by EIGHT HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS (USD $800,000,000.oo),the award for the provision of funds for a plan of health which shall necessarilyinclude treatment for the persons who suffer from cancer that can be attributed toTexpets operation in the Concession. FOURTEENTH.Considered as signs ofprocedural bad faith on the part of the defendant are failing to appear for theordered presentation of documents or present an excuse on the date indicated;trying to take advantage of the merger between Chevron Corp. And Texaco Inc. asa mechanism to evade responsibilities; abusing the rights granted by the proceduralLaw, such as the right to submit the appeals that the Law provides for, such as thevertical right of appeal, repeated motions on resolved issues, and incidentalpleadings that by mandate of the Law there is no place for within summary verbal

proceedings, and that have each warranted admonishments and fines against theprofessionals that have defended the defendant from the different


10/23

Excerpts from Clarification Order, March 4, 2011 at 3:10 p.m.


11/23

CERT. MERRILL VER: JD 4

formal issues (see p. 23 of the judgment of February 14, 2011): such as the fact thatthe same people hold the positions of executive directors and other managerial posts in

both companies; they also share the same trade name, the same personnel, and aredirectly linked to the parent company in an uninterrupted chain of operational decision-

making. The Court also considered the abuse that would result against the rights of thirdpersons and the fraud that we would be allowing to occur if we fail to pierce thecorporate veil and attribute the liability to a company without sufficient capital, and thecapital to a company without liability. Before addressing the sixth request, the Court firstnotes that the complaint was ratified by people who do not know how to read and write,as is made clear on page 56 of the judgment, where the Court clarifies that a formalityof this type can by no means interfere with the administration of justice. I would like toexpand and reaffirm that position, indicating that the unfairness against the Court and theopposing party are surpassed and expanded in this attempt to take advantage of the

unfortunate situation of some of the plaintiffs by trying to void their actions because theydo not know how to read and write. The Court points out that the complaint was signed

by a group of individuals, the plaintiffs, but they are not suing on their own behalf.Rather, they are suing on behalf of thousands who say they have been affected by theexistence of environmental damage. And they filed the complaint to benefit all of these

people. So even if one or more signatures were missing, a single person could have filedthe action. Indeed, under Article 43 of the Environmental Management Act, Persons orentities or human groups linked by a common interest and affected directly by theharmful act or omission may file with the court of competent jurisdiction actions for

damages and for deterioration caused to health or the environment, includingbiodiversity and its constituent elements. So a missing signature, or the absence of someformality regarding signatures, would not prevent the others from enforcing their rights,and it is especially untenable to attempt to use this procedural formality to ask the Courtto annul the entire case without that implying a sacrifice of the administration of justice

because a formality was skipped. If those allegedly affected by the alleged omissionratify the act before a notary public, as occurred in this case, then the proceedings are notdefective to the point of being invalid. In the seventh request, the defendant once againtakes out of context the statements made in the judgment to request expansion, while at

the same time distorting what was ordered in the judgment. The Court points out that thejudgment does not say that the merger allegedly constituted a mechanism to avoidliability, as


12/23

CERT. MERRILL VER: JD 24

Chevrons Twentieth request is clarified in the sense that duplicating efforts refers tothe fact that the program foreseen in the judgment shall have the dual objectives of aCAIMAN project, used as a reference. Concerning costs, the judgment is clear inindicating the sum earmarked for this program and the time foreseen. Therefore, its

terms should be abided by. Concerning the twenty-first request, it is clarified that whenmention is made of damage to persons, it is explained in the judgment that what isinvolved is damage to their culture and damage to their health, but that are a directconsequence of the environmental damage. This should not be confused with personaldamage in the sense of damage to individuals. Rather, it should be understood as damageto persons or human beings in general, and should only include such damage as is adirect consequence of the contamination, as is explained in the judgment. Finally,concerning the last request for expansion, this issue was already addressed above, and itis emphasized that it does not correspond to reality to affirm that greater claims have

been granted than those originally contained in the complaint. Indeed, the judgment isclear in explaining how each damage proven constitutes an environmental damage, inaccordance with the definition of environment set forth in a piece of evidencecontributed by the Chevron company itself (page 3208). Thus, all of the requests forclarification and expansion of the [defendant] have been addressed, and there are nomore pleadings to address at this stage of the proceedings. Given that the appeal has beenfiled in a timely manner on the judgment handed down on February 14, 2011, at 8:37a.m., brought by Pablo Fajardo, Joint Counsel of Record of Mara Aguinda et al., it isadmitted to go before the Higher Court. Therefore, the entire proceedings of the Sole

Division of the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbos shall be remitted, and theparties are notified so that they may pursue their rights at that level. SERVICEHEREOF IS ORDERED.

[signature]THE HONORABLE NICOLS ZAMBRANO

PRESIDENT OF THE CHAMBER

I certify:[signature]

GLORIA CABADIANA, Esq.COURT REPORTER (ACTING)

Signed) The Honorable Nicilas Zamborano [sic], President of the Sole Division of theProvincial Court of Justice of Sucumbos, which I communicate to you for legal purposes.

[signature]GLORIA CABADIANA, Esq.

COURT REPORTER (ACTING)

[seal with emblem:]PROVINCIAL COURT OF

JUSTICE[illegible]


13/23

Excerpts from Appellate Court Judgment, January 3, 2012 at 4:43 p.m.


14/23

CERT. MERRILL VER

[Three handwritten sets of initials in bottom left corner]

recognize it as an act of government. The attitudes of abuse of the right to defense as it understood it would

have been able to defend itself, lead to the public declarations of some North American judge of the surname

Kaplan who tried to offend, without motive or justification, the Ecuadorian Administration of Justice. The

defendants reference to the US$3 million attempted bribery, implicating one of the lower court judges, is to

the Division a clear demonstration of behavior dissociated from the record of the process, and that behavior

does not find any support in the law. There are, among others, the natural spaces in which the defendant

understood it was appropriate to defend itself and to be heard in the case, and the Division - this Division -,relying fully on reasoning and a prudent attitude as befits the Magistracy of Justice, and because of the

necessity to obviate a litigant from continuing to complain about the so-called disparate treatment that was

harming it according to it, before ordering the return of the insolent motions with which it appeared in court,

instead accepting them without issuing the official letter to the Judicial Council for corrective measures against

those who signed them, as counsel making the petitions. Apparently, the policy for action of the defendant

was no different at the lower level or, to put it another way, it was no different at this level and, it is worth

noting that in a kind of itch to file motions concerning everything the court said or did, it found ways to safely

obstruct the proceeding. This recounting of the proceeding has become necessary, referring to the attitudes

and behavior of the litigant from whom it is necessary to request composure, because in the final instant that

defines a case with the judgment, it is the judges turn to speak, and the litigants must listen. FOURTH.-

Concerning the plaintiffs appeal, inasmuch as it references damages that have supposedly not been

considered by the judgment of the lower court, we note, on the contrary, that the judgment does indeed refer

[to] the existence of these damages, or losses. However, such damages have not been the object of any

measure of remediation, as appropriate, for various reasons, explained as follows: The economic losses

suffered by the plaintiffs would constitute a loss and as such they were not alleged in the complaint and

neither is there any claim whatsoever for their compensation, for which reason the record contains no

grounds that would justify ordering the defendant to indemnify them, even if the existence of those losses

were proven in the eyes of the judge. The complaint asks for the remediation of the environmental damage

which refers in part to losses. Regarding the damage associated with the ancestral territories of the

indigenous nationalities in the zone in which Texpet operated, it is observed that the rights to these territories

that have been recognized for these peoples were not in effect at the time of the events that provoked thiscase, so they are not remediable by means of this lawsuit, and neither are they subject to compensation by

the defendant in this case. On this matter, which relates to application of the principle of non-retroactivity of

the law, we note the difference between the right to the indigenous territories, which was not recognized as a

substantive right until subsequent to those that are the basis of this case, and the right to obtain remediation

for the damages suffered in various forms, which were recognized by the Civil Code long before the start of

Texpets activities in the Amazon and which has been the basis of this claim. The Civil Code does not

distinguish the types of damage that may occur but deals with very old rules that without a doubt could not

have anticipated the situations being faced now. So it is clear to the Division that the rules of the Civil Code

did not foresee an enumerated list of typology of damages, and it was not limited. There is no legal basis for

the position that the rules of the Civil Code exclude environmental damage from their scope. Beyond this, it is

the manner of filing the claim, that is, the formalities or procedure, which is established by the Environmental

Management Act of 1999, and as such its application is mandatory, in accordance with rule 20 of Art. 7 of the

Civil Code. On this basis it is explained that the loss of territory is not recognized as compensable damage, by

application of the principle of non-retroactivity of the law; but the right established by the Civil Code which

provides that as a general rule a popular action is granted in all cases of contingent damage which, due to

someones imprudence or negligence, threatens unspecified


15/23

Excerpts from Interview with Steven Donziger, Donziger & Associates,New York, New York, November 9, 2009


16/23

They engage in all sorts of activities inWashington and Quito to generate political pressureto kill the lawsuit and deny the rights of theseAmazonian indigenous groups to assert their claims.CCR: What part of this is the public relationsbattle? And what part is the legal battle?DONZIGER: To us, the legal battle is the battle.The public relations part is something that Chevronhas forced us to devote resources to. They havehired no fewer than five major public relations firmsto deal with this problem.

They use Edelman.As we understand it from people working with

Chevron, Edelman's plan is to design a major WalMart style campaign against us.

It hasn't been launched. They are developing it.Whether it will be launched and when are openquestions.

They use Hill & Knowlton. They use SingerAssociates in San Francisco. They use RobinsonLerer Montgomery. They use Ogilvy for lobbying inWashington, D.C. They have hiredMac McLartyand Mickey Kantor - Clinton administrationofficials - to lobby their old agencies.

McLarty is lobbying the State Department andthe U.S. Trade Representative.

Mickey Kantor is lobbying the U.S. trade rep. and Congress.Carla Hills, another former trade rep, is

lobbying the trade rep on this issue.They use Trent Lott and John Breaux.They use a guy named Brian Pomper. He's a

former staffer to Senator Max Baucus.They are devoting significant resources in

Washington to try to enlist the power of the U.S.government to pressure Ecuador's government toquash the legal case.CCR: So, there is a major public relations battle DONZIGER: Well, I wouldn't call it a publicrelations battle. You have Chevron spendingmillions and millions of dollars in public relationsand lobbying. And we have one person to help uswith public relations - and she works out of herhouse.CCR: Who is paying her?DONZIGER:We are. But it's not a lot ofmoney.And it's nothing compared to what they arespending.

The fundamental problem Chevron has withpublic relations is that the facts on the ground areterrible for the company. And the evidence at trial is

terrible for the company. And anyone who visits cansee it with their own eyes. And it's indisputable thatthey did this. They don't even deny it.

So, i t' s very hard to spin your way out of asituation where you systematically dumped billionsof gallons of toxic waste into the Amazonrainforest. And indigenous groups and other peoplesare suffering.

What's your explanation?Even if you believe you have a technical

defense, it is still outrageous to the average observerwhen they find out that an American company wentinto the Amazon rainforest, one ofthe most delicateecosystems on the planet, filled with all sorts ofprosperous indigenous groups but vulnerable tooutside pressure and did this.And in the end of the day you literally havehundreds if not thousands of people who are dyingor at risk of dying because of constant exposure totoxic contamination.This behavior if it were to have happened in theUnited States, it probably would have beenprosecuted.

It was totally foreseeable.Ifyou are going to design a system to dump in

an area where people are living, you would end upputting people at great risk. And probably many ofthose people would die, as has happened and ascontinues to happen today, even though Texaco leftthe country in 1992.CCR: Chevron still is dumping there?DONZIGER: No. They are not operating today.The pits and system they left in place, that they builtin the 1960s and 1970s, and that they abandoned in1992 when they left the country, are still out therecausing pollution.The pollution is still there and it is stilldischarging, even though they are not operatingthere. If you leave a pit filled with this oil gook, it isstill migrating into soils and groundwater everysingle day.CCR: How much will it cost them to clean that up?DONZIGER: It will be in the many billions ofdollars to do a proper clean up because of theenormous size of the affected area.CCR: And you are asking for a clean up, right?DONZIGER: Yes.CCR: And for damages for the injured people?DONZIGER: Yes. But not individual damages. It'scompensation for health and contamination ofwater.

MONDAY NOVEMBER 9, 2009CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER 13


17/23

Excerpts from Interview with Julio Prieto on Radio Cristal ProgramInformativo Cristalino, September 11, 2009 at 10:33 a.m.


18/23

the Judgeship Council signed by the Ecuadorian lawyers regarding this.

The only thing that has been submitted is this letter of a North American

individual to the Prosecuting Attorney; namely, an accusation by means of

which they have tried everything, but the Ecuadorian lawyers in this

lawsuit, the ones that say that this is going to be requested, where arethey, have you ever talked with any one of them, has any Ecuadorian lawyer

of Chevron stand up to face the situation? Until now they say nothing,

this has simply been used as a media scandal. We believe that the excuse

Interviewer:

In other words, a media campaign

Julio Prieto:

that the excuse shall not be accepted since this was a trap. What we

have here is bad faith and if the excuse is accepted, we would be allowing

Chevron to take advantage of its own bad faith.

Interviewer:

During the interview I conducted precisely with the person I am referringto, there were some points I clarified. For example, I told him that they

are the ones who caused the ecological disaster and environmental damages,which have caused many consequences, that there are more than one hundred

death persons. There are still persons suffering cancer due to manydiseases caused by the damages; but this is what this man James Craig told

me, it is incredible mister reporter, that they [the plaintiffs] have not

submitted any proof of a single case of what you already described. Lets

say, what I am repeating to you this moment, is that the lawyers or those

who filed this lawsuit, have not even submitted one single case. So, howcan we understand this?

Julio Prieto:With respect to what he says that we have not even submitted one case,

more specifically they refer to the fact that we have not submitted a

medical certificate stating that Juan Prez [John Doe] died with cancercaused by Texaco petroleum brand. This is what they demand. And this is ashame.

Well, to start we know that in the Amazon Region we do not have health

systems, that there is no State presence and that the great majority ofpersons suffer in silence. Many people have already died, how can we have

results of this? What we are claiming in this lawsuit has never been

indemnifications for damages to individuals due to health reasons, or forthe death of a particular person.

This is an environmental damage that is much larger and complex. Damage to

health that we are suing for are damages to public health. Therefore,

damages to public health cannot be proved with medical certificates. Thisis what they would like because they know that it is impossible to prove

and this way they can wash their hands of this whole issue.

Damage to public health is statistically proven and this is what we havedone. We have proven that in the areas where Texaco operated there are

higher cancer rates than in similar areas, used as control groups, wherethe company has not operated.

Well, this difference, this increase in cancer rates, this excess of


19/23

Excerpts from Interview with Pablo Fajardo on Ecuadorinmediato RadioProgram El Poder de la Palabra (The Power of Words), December 20,

2010 at 7:00 p.m.


20/23

CERT. GEOTEXT VER: JD

Pablo Fajardo:Lets see, there is something important here that we should mention, Francisco. First, thejudgment or decision that we are awaiting must be based on the complaint that the plaintiffs

filed. In the complaint we never asked for compensation for any particular person, we asked for

remediation of the environmental damage, the social and cultural damage created by the

environmental contamination Chevron left. Second, the government, as we know, is not a partyto the lawsuit and cannot benefit in any way from this lawsuit. The government must raise its

defense only in the international tribunals, but it has no reason to benefit from or try to, quote,

interfere with the judicial proceeding that we have in the Sucumbos court. This is a lawsuitpertaining solely to the Amazon communities against Chevron, period. The government is not a

party to this lawsuit.

Interviewer Francisco Herrera:If the government is not a party to this lawsuit, it wont be beneficiary if you win?

Pablo Fajardo:Exactly, the Ecuadorian government may not [benefit] in any way, and we have stated this

publicly over and over again, and it is on the record, and the parties are clear on that. But werecognize the work Chevron has done to try to involve the government and draw it into the

lawsuit. For example: when Chevron pressures the U.S. Senate to sanction the country by not

extending tariff preferences, Chevron is trying to get the government to intervene in the lawsuit.I mean, thats what Chevron does, Chevron tries to get the government to intervene in the lawsuit

at any cost in order to discredit it and obviously endorse the Ecuadorian governments liability.

Interviewer Francisco Herrera:

And we will see that when the judgment is issued.

Pablo Fajardo:The government is not a party, the government released Texaco from all liability between 1995and 1998, and cannot benefit in any way whatsoever regardless of the outcome of the case.

Interviewer Francisco Herrera:Right. I do appreciate Pablo Fajardos having been so kind as to be with us on Ecuadorinmediato

Radio. File requested for judgment for what could be the trial of the century, this is also news in

Ecuador.


21/23

Excerpts from the Official Transcript of the Deposition of StevenDonziger, December 23, 2010


22/23

1 DONZIGER

2 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Some

3 l awyer in 2003 made a de term inati on th at

4 i n o rd er t o h av e t ha t l aw su it p ro ce ed f ro m

5 2 003 on, some named plai ntif fs ha d to be

6 p ut in to a capt ion; is t hat fair to sa y?

7 THE WITNESS: Yes.

8 THE SPECIAL MASTER: And who

9 was that lawyer?

10 THE WITNESS: I believe it was

1 1 M r. Bo nifa z, Dr . Wr ay, and Mr. Ko hn.

12 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Okay.

1 3 N ow, t here is n o cl ass a ctio n, as I

1 4 u nders tand it, in Ecuado r, correc t?

15 THE WITNESS: Not exactly

16 correct, in my opinion.

17 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Whether

1 8 t here is o r not , ev en in the Unit ed

1 9 S ta te s, w he re t he re i s a c la ss a ct io n,

2 0 t here need to be na med plain tiffs ?

21 THE WITNESS: Correct.

22 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Is there

2 3 a ny do ct ri ne in Ec ua do r t ha t p er mi ts th e

2 4 n am ed pl ai nt if fs to a l it ig at io n t o h av e

2 5 n o f in an ci al i nt er es t i n t he ou tc om e o f

Page 1890

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY

212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400


23/23

1 DONZIGER

2 the litigation?

3 THE WITNESS: Well, yes. As I

4 u nd er st an d i t, a ga in , I 'm n ot a n e xp er t o n

5 E cuado rian law, and this was vett ed by

6 l oc al c ou ns el , i nc lu di ng D r. W ra y, w ho , a s

7 you know, is a well-credentialed

8 E cu ad or ia n l aw ye r, bu t m y u nd er st an di ng i s

9 u nd er t he 1 99 9 E cu ad or E nv ir on me nt al A ct ,

1 0 a nd al so I thin k ot her autho rity, an

1 1 i nd iv id ua l, be it on e o r m or e, ca n b ri ng a

1 2 c ollec tive acti on on beh alf of ot her

13 people similarly situated.

1 4 And so colle ctiv e act ion w ould

1 5 b e a rough equi vale nt of a U .S. style

1 6 c la ss a ct io n. B ut i n t hi s c as e i t d oe sn 't

1 7 i nclud e th e per sona l inj ury claim s.

18 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Counsel,

1 9 D r. Wr ay has be en depose d; has he not?

20 MR. DANS: Yes.

21 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Was he

2 2 d epose d on this sub ject, Ms. Neum an?

23 MS. NEUMAN: I am unsure, but I

24 don't think so.

25 MR. DANS: Your Honor, Paul

Page 1891

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY

Documents

Collective Claims Examples