-i- TO THE SUBROGATE PRESIDENT OF THE ... - Chevron

The plaintiffs first tried, in January 2006, to “withdraw” from twenty-six judicial
inspections because, in their opinion, the judicial inspections had gone on for too long
and were unnecessary, particularly because, during the expert examination of all fields
operated by TexPet as operator of the former Consortium, an exhaustive investigation
of these sites would be conducted during the global assessment. 342 This request was
effectively denied by this Court on June 8, 2006. 343
On February 1, 2006, at 5:00 p.m., the settling experts issued their report on
Sacha-53, refuting plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the insufficiency of TexPet's
remediation work and the existence of alleged massive contamination and risks to
human health. Then, in June 2006, a consulting attorney for the plaintiffs publicly stated
regarding funding that “we’ve been sort of living on a shoestring for the last couple of
inspections.” 344 That same month, plaintiffs successfully delayed further judicial
inspections based upon a lack of resources. 345 In July 2006, now citing Article 11 of the
Civil Code, 346 the plaintiffs moved to “relinquish” sixty-four of the ninety-seven judicial
inspections they had originally requested. 347 The Court accepted the relinquishment, 348
thereby altering the ruling issued on October 29, 2003, at 5:55 p.m., 349 which, in turn,
violated the provisions of Article 292 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 350
The relinquishment of the judicial inspections by the plaintiffs’ violated, among
other things, the legal concept of “unity of the act,” 351 which makes clear that the judicial
inspections requested by the plaintiffs were not ninety-seven individual procedures but
rather an evidentiary unit. Under the principle of community or acquisition, the
production of evidence requested by one of the parties and ordered by the Court does
not belong to or benefit only the one who provides or requests it, since once evidence is
342 Plaintiffs’ Motion regarding Waiver of Judicial Inspections, filed Jan. 27, 2006 at 5:10 p.m.,
Record at 92442-44, 92443.
343 See Order of June 8, 2006, filed at 8:30 a.m., Record at 112062-66v, 112065v-112066.
344 See Crude Documentary (Joe Berlinger, First Run Features) (publicly available).
345 Order of June 19, 2006, filed at 3:00 p.m., Record at 112208-09, 112208v.
346 Article 11 of the Civil Code provides: “The rights conferred by law can be relinquished,
provided that they only concern the individual interest of the one relinquishing, and that their
relinquishment is not prohibited.”
347 Plaintiffs’ Motion regarding Relinquishment of Judicial Inspections, filed July 21, 2006 at 9:10
a.m., Record at 116431-34, 116434.
348 Order of Aug. 22, 2006, filed at 11:00 a.m., Record at 117589-90, 117589.
349 Order of Oct. 29, 2003 at 5:55 p.m., Record at 4681-84v, 4683v.
350 Article 292 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: “Motions that violate the provisions of the
previous article, or whose purpose is to the change the sense of judgments, collateral orders or
procedural orders, or to delay the progress of the case, or to intentionally harm the other party, shall be
dismissed and penalized in accordance with the following article.”
351 This concept is defined as the “commission of an act with legal consequences without
interruption, from the commencement to the conclusion thereof.” SANCHEZ ZURATY, Manuel, Basic
Legal Dictionary, Editorial Jurídica del Ecuador, 2d ed., vol. 2, 1993, p. 783.
CERT. INTERMARK VER: JD
- 86 -