MANHATTAN (CN) - Objecting to Chevron's request for additional discovery, documentary movie director Joseph Berlinger claims that all of Chevron new demands are irrelevant or moot. Chevron wants to use outtakes from Berlinger's film, "Crude," in a $27 billion lawsuit in Lago Agrio, Ecuador, to show that its due process rights were violated. But Berlinger claims he already complied with the 2nd Circuit's discovery order.
To comply with the 2nd Circuit's order, Berlinger in July turned over about 80 percent of the footage for his 2009 documentary "Crude."
After reviewing some of the subpoenaed footage, Chevron requested additional discovery not covered in the 2nd Circuit's order: deposition testimony from the "Crude" filmmakers and copies of communications between the crew and other parties to the lawsuit in Ecuador.
In an opposition brief, Berlinger's attorney, Maura Wogan with Frankfurt Klein, says that Berlinger has accounted for 526 tapes, produced 446 full tapes, 16 partially redacted tapes, the original footage log, an annotated footage log and a detailed privilege log.
"The only issue is whether and to what extent the filmmakers must continue to disrupt their work and lives to 'aid' Chevron," Wogan wrote, adding that the evidence Chevron cited in its motion is either irrelevant or moot.
"After having received well over 80 percent of the raw footage, Chevron now asks this court to permit it to conduct 'limited additional discovery' of the filmmakers," Wogan wrote. "However, there is nothing limited about the new subpoenas which, if permitted, would add several broad document requests and significantly expand the scope of the deposition the court previously authorized solely to authenticate the footage. Once again, Chevron is seeking a very broad order that would require the disclosure of confidential and nonconfidential information protected by the journalist's privilege."
Chevron attorney Randy Mastro, with Gibson Dunn, says Berlinger supplied footage that was previously unaccounted for, and is confused about the relevance of what he taped.
"This late production of responsive footage demonstrates that Chevron's initial concerns about the review process were justified, that neither Chevron nor this court can have full confidence in respondents' review and production of the 'Crude' outtakes, and that there are obvious deficiencies in Mr. Berlinger's various privilege logs," according to Chevron's brief.
Wogan disagrees, claiming that the testimony and documents Chevron seeks are "well beyond" the narrow scope of the 2nd Circuit's order, bear little relevance to the legal proceedings and "cannot be characterized as 'unimpeachably objective evidence' that is not available from any other source."
Wogan also accuses Chevron of violating the 2nd Circuit's "unambiguous directive" to use the "Crude" footage only for litigation, arbitration or submission to official bodies.
"Chevron has swiftly exploited the material obtained and abused this forum for its own public relations campaign, just as the filmmakers feared and the 2nd Circuit prohibited," Wogan wrote. "Before counsel for the filmmakers had even received copies of Chevron's papers, Chevron had already released a false and misleading message through Twitter ('"Crude" outtakes reveal director Joe Berlinger followed trial lawyers' bidding to aid suit against Chevron') and linked to a blog post of a writer who appears to have been provided with an advance copy of the filing," Wogan claims.
Chevron's account on Twitter.com shows that the company retweeted ShopFloor_NAM, the blog for the National Association of Manufacturers, which posted a link to an article on Chevron's motion at 8:04 p.m. on Aug. 3 - the same day that Chevron filed its motion for discovery.