Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Appellate newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360, New York (April 16, 2021, 4:27 PM EDT ) Disbarred attorney Steven Donziger wants his upcoming criminal contempt trial televised, citing Derek Chauvin's televised state court murder trial in his request on Thursday to override rules barring cameras in federal courtrooms.
A lawyer for Donziger told U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska that television crews should be allowed to tape the proceedings because of barriers to public attendance created by the COVID-19 pandemic and significant public interest in the case. Donziger's misdemeanor charges stem from a civil suit brought by Chevron over his $9 billion win against the oil giant in Ecuador for alleged environmental abuses.
The request comes after Judge Preska rejected Donziger's bid to livestream the proceedings, which are set to begin May 10.
"The broadcast networks are ready to come to court," Donziger's attorney Martin Garbus of Offit Kurman PA wrote. "The public trial of the man who killed George Floyd is critical to the awareness of all citizens of what this country now needs. In a very different way, the trial involving issues related to the plunder of Indigenous ancestral lands by the oil industry and the prosecution of an innocent man named Steven Donziger that held an oil company accountable are essential for this country to see."
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly bar electronic media coverage of federal criminal proceedings.
The case over George Floyd's death is being tried in state court, where varying policies give judges more leeway to determine whether to allow cameras at criminal trials. Even so, Minnesota Judge Peter A. Cahill's November decision to broadcast the Chauvin trial was historic and established the first televised criminal trial in the state's history.
But Donziger's attorney told Law360 on Friday that the racial issues supposedly at play in his client's case make it worthy of public access, just like the Chauvin trial. He said the public deserves a chance to consider the racial implications of the 2014 ruling at the core of the dispute, in which U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan blocked the enforcement of a $9.5 billion Ecuadorian court award Donziger won for Indigenous communities over Chevron predecessor Texaco Inc.'s decadeslong oil-dumping practices. Judge Kaplan found that Donziger had manipulated the Ecuadorian judicial system through bribery and fraud.
"Judge Kaplan rejected the views of a third-world court. He would not have rejected the views of a German, French or English court," Garbus said. "The people who were hurt in this case were third-world people. If these were people who lived in Germany, France or the United States, their rights would not have been so totally disregarded. So I think that the racial issues in this case are significant, and that's one of the reasons why the cameras should be there."
Donziger's earlier request to have the trial streamed live via Zoom was rejected on April 7, with Judge Preska saying the CARES Act's authorization of remote video teleconferencing for some criminal proceedings does not extend to trials.
Donziger, who has been under house arrest since August 2019 and recently lost a Second Circuit bid to be freed, faces misdemeanor charges for disobeying Judge Kaplan's 2019 contempt order to provide access to electronic devices and internet accounts in his ongoing fight with Chevron over the award's enforcement.
Judge Kaplan asked the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to prosecute Donziger after the attorney ignored the device collection order. The case was referred to private prosecutors after the federal government declined to prosecute, court records show.
Donziger recently railed against the contempt case in an April 12 dismissal bid, claiming that the criminal charges are rooted in judicial bias and that Judge Kaplan had displayed animosity toward him throughout the underlying civil case.
Prosecutor Rita Glavin of Glavin PLLC declined to comment Friday on Donziger's broadcast request.
Donziger is represented by Martin Garbus of Offit Kurman PA.
The prosecution is represented by Rita Glavin and Sareen Armani of Glavin PLLC and Brian Maloney of Seward & Kissel LLP.
The case is U.S. v. Donziger, case number 1:19-cr-00561, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
--Additional reporting by Khorri Atkinson and Cara Salvatore. Editing by Nicole Bleier.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
