EXHIBIT 2 - TypePad · Juan Velasco Cabrera; Martha Escobar C. Bonifaz 4/21/05 Email re Ecuador v. Texaco ... 88 Raul Herrera C. Bonifaz 12/4/2005 Fax and Letter CB to Attorney Raul

EXHIBIT 2

1

LOG PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE WHERE CLIENTS

ARE THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR AND PETROECUADOR

Bates No. To From Date Description CH-00002 - 3 Martha Escobar;

Esperanza Martinez; Juan Velasco Cabrera

C. Bonifaz 9/14/05 Email Re 9/13/05 Letter from Kolis Attached

CH-00004 Esperanza Martinez; Martha Escobar; Monica Serrano; M. Villacres; Manuel Pallares

C. Bonifaz 1/11/05 Email re Answer and counterclaims

CH-00005 Martha Escobar; Fernando Castro Salazar

C. Bonifaz 9/20/04 Email re Arbitracion



CH-00007 - 8 Martha Escobar; Fernando Castro Salazar

C. Bonifaz 9/22/04 Email chain re Arbitracion

CH-00009 Fernando Castro Salazar; Martha Escobar






CH-00014 - 15 Fernando Castro Salazar; Martha Escobar



C. Bonifaz 10/14/04 Email re Arbtraje

CH-00017 Fernando Castro Salazar, Martha Escobar



C. Bonifaz 10/18/04 Email re Arbtraje attaching letter to Petroecuador.

2

CH-00020 Fernando Castro Salazar; Martha Escobar




CH-00022 - 25 Martha Escobar; Monica Serrona; Marth Villacres; Esperanza Martinez; Manuel Pallares; Terry Collingsworth; Thom Cmar; Alberto Wray; Joseph Kohn; John Bonifaz; Monica Serrona; Marth Villacres; Esperanza Martinez; Manuel Pallares; Terry Collingsworth; Thom Cmar; Alberto Wray; Joseph Kohn; John Bonifaz



C. Bonifaz 7/23/04 Email re Carta al Arbitro attaching draft letter to International Center for Dispute Resolution


C. Bonifaz 7/23/04 Email re Carta de PetroEcuador attaching draft letter to International Center for Dispute Resolution


C. Bonifaz 7/23/04 Email re Carta de PetroEcuador al Arbitro attaching draft letter to International Center for Dispute Resolution

CH-00035 Jose Maria Borja Gallegos; Martha Escobar

C. Bonifaz 8/17/05 Email re Caso se la Compania Electrica

3

CH-00036 - 39 Martha Escobar C. Bonifaz 8/19/05 Email re Caso de la Compania Electrica attaching affidavit of Henry Saint Dahl


C. Bonifaz 7/28/04 Email re ChevronTexaco

CH-00041 – 43

Martha Escobar; Fernando Castro Salazar; Terry Collingsworth

C. Bonifaz 11/4/04 Email re CHT attaching Declaracion Juramentada De Jorge Pareja Cucalon


C. Bonifaz 9/22/04 Email re Comentarios respecto al proyecto de demanda

CH-00045 - 46 Martha Escobar C. Bonifaz 4/6/05 Email re Ecuador v. Texaco

CH-00047 Jose Maria Borja Gallegos; Juan Velasco Cabrera; Martha Escobar

C. Bonifaz 4/21/05 Email re Ecuador v. Texaco


C. Bonifaz 12/9/04 Email re Ecuador v. Texaco – Papers filed in court

CH-00049 Martha Escobar; Juan Velasco Cabrera; Jose Maria Borja Gallegos

C. Bonifaz 8/8/05 Email re interrogatories and requests for production

CH-00050 Martha Escobar C. Bonifaz 12/1/04 Email re Juramento de Pareja Cucalon

CH-00051 Martha Escobar; Dan Allanoff

C. Bonifaz 4/6/05 Email re Lunes

CH-00052 Jose Maria Borja Gallegos; Juan Velasco Cabrera; Martha Escobar

C. Bonifaz 4/24/05 Email re Petroecuador

CH-00053 Martha Escobar; Juan Velasco Cabrera

C. Bonifaz 7/22/05 Email re Respuestas a las prefguntas de Texaco

CH-00054 Martha Escobar; esperanza Martinez; Juan velasco Cabrera

C. Bonifaz 7/22/05 Email re Respuestas a los pedidos de Texaco

CH-00055 - 58 Martha Escobar C. Bonifaz 8/10/05 Email re Reunion

4

presidente CH-00059 Martha Escobar C. Bonifaz 7/9/04 Email re Texaco CH-00060 Martha Escobar C. Bonifaz 7/9/04 Email re Texaco CH-00063 - 64 Hon. Alfredo

Palacio C. Bonifaz 9/8/05 Correspondence

CH-00065 - 66 Hon. Alfredo Palacio

C. Bonifaz 9/13/05 Correspondence

CH-00067 - 81 C. Bonifaz Manuel25 9/11/05 Email re Texaco attaching Plan General Marco Logico3

CH-01586 - 88 Raul Herrera C. Bonifaz 12/4/2005 Fax and Letter CB to Attorney Raul Herrera concerning the arbitration litigation. Mr. Herrera was representing the Government of Ecuador at the time.

5

LOG PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE BELONGS TO CLIENTS IN AGUINDA AND LAGO AGRIO Bates No. To From Date Description CH-0086 - 147 July 27,

1993 Contracts of Plaintiffs who filed the AGUINDA case with Attorneys Cristobal Bonifaz and Joseph Kohn.

CH-00148-51 Contracts of Plaintiffs included above who re-executed their contracts with Attorney Cristobal Bonifaz to re-file AGUINDA in Ecuador.

6

DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY OPINION WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE CH-00558 – 59 Alberto Wray C. Bonifaz 7/2/03 E-mails re: Possible

Witness. CH-00597 Mauel Pallares;

Martin D’Urso; Joseph Kohn; John Bonifaz; Alberto Wray; Steven Donziger

C. Bonifaz 9/29/03 E-mail re: Legal Strategy.

CH-00602 Alberto Wray; Steven Donziger

C. Bonifaz 10/7/03 E-Mail re: Possible Witnesses

CH-00631 – 38 Joseph Kohn; Alberto Wray; Monica Pareja; Manuel Pallares

C. Bonifaz 11/21/03 E-mail and Memo re: How to Prove Liability of Texaco.

CH-00639 - 46 Joseph Kohn; Alberto Wray; Monica Pareja; Manuel Pallares


CH-00647 - 50 Joseph Kohn; Alberto Wray; Monica Pareja


CH-00751 – 55 Alberto Wray; Monica Pareja; Joseph Kohn; John Bonifaz


CH-00756 Alberto Wray C. Bonifaz 12/2/03 E-mail re: Possible Witness.

CH-00757 Alberto Wray C. Bonifaz 12/2/03 E-mail re: Possible Witness.

CH-00765 - 66 Steven Donziger; Joseph Kohn; Leila Salazar; Manuel Pallares; Alberto Wray

C. Bonifaz 12/19/03 E-mail re: Strategy on How to Proceed.

CH-00767 - 69 Manuel Pallares; Alberto Wray


CH-00770 – 72 Steven Donziger; Joseph Kohn; Alberto Wray


CH-00773 – 75 Steven Donziger; Joseph Kohn;


7

Manuel Pallares; Alberto Wray

CH-01274 – 75 Martin D’Urso; Joseph Kohn; Steven Donziger; John Bonifaz;

C. Bonifaz 10/10/03 E-mail and attachment re Opinion and legal strategy for the litigation.

8

NON PRIVILEGED LOG CH-0082 – 85 Alberto Wray;

C. Bonifaz; Manuel Pallares; Local62; Tegante

Marthea Escobar

8/10/05 E-mails Chain CB to ME.

CH-1578-1579 Doctor Washington Pesántes Ministro Fiscal Distrital

Luis Enrique

6/1/05 Letter

CH-1580 José María Borja Gallegos Procurador General del Estado

Dr. Washington Pesantez Ministro Fiscal Distrital

6/2/05 Letter !

CH-1581 Doctor Washington Pesantes Muños.

Dr. Camilo Mena Mena Director General de Patrocinio

6/14/05 Letter!

CH-201-203 Cristobal Bonifaz

Luis Tobar Sanchez Attorney for the Municipalities of Coca, Joya de Los Sachas, Shushufindi, and Lago Agrio

5/1/95 Letter with translation

9

CH-204 Cristobal Bonifaz

Marco Rondas Bucheli

11/18/96 Letter Re: Waiver of Rights

CH-205 Dr. Leonidas Plaza Verduga, Procurador General de la Republica

C. Bonifaz 11/15/96 Letter RE: News Article

CH-206 Dr. Leonidas Plaza Verduga, Procurador General de la Republica

C. Bonifaz 11/15/96 Letter RE: Waiver if Intervention.

CH-207 Procurador Plaza

C. Bonifaz 11/18/1996 Letter re: News Article.

CH-208-209 Zarate C. Bonifaz 10/04/1996 Letter re: Letter to Court

CH-210-211 Henry Dahl Procurador Plaza

11/18/1996 Letter re: Power of Attorney.

CH-212-213 Procurador Plaza

C. Bonifaz 11/18/96 Letter re: News Article.

CH-214 Henry Dahl Carlos Ortega

12/4/96 Letter re: Power of Attorney.

CH-215-216 Judge Rakoff Isauro Puente

7/10/96 Letter re: Aguinda.

CH-217 Judge Rakoff Gustavo Larrea

Letter re: Aguinda

CH-218 Zarate C. Bonifaz 10/10/96 Letter re: Amicus CH-219-220 Draft Release CH-221 C. Bonifaz Joseph

Kohn 12/4/96 Letter re: Release

CH-222-223 C. Bonifaz; Martin D’Urso; Joseph Kohn

Henry Saint Dahl

12/09/1996 Letter re: Recommendation

CH-224-2225 Henry Saint Dahl

11/27/96 Memorandum re: Intervention

CH-226 Rev. Jesse Jackson

Gustavo Teran

11/28/1996 Letter re: Aguinda

CH-227-228 Gustavo Teran Henry Dahl

12/03/1996 Letter

CH-229 C. Bonifaz Henry Dahl

12/03/1996 Letter re: Trip to Ecuador

10

CH-230 Rev. Jesse Jackson

Gustavo Teran

11/28/1996 Letter re: Aguinda

CH-231-234 Joseph Kohn C. Bonifaz 11/20/96 Letter with Agreement not to sue Ecuador. (Second page of cover letter missing).

CH-235-236 6/1996 Position of Legislative Commissions of Congress RE: Aguinda.

CH-237-238 Judge Rakoff Isauro Puente

6/14/96 Letters transmitting Legislative Commissions position.

CH-239-243 Leonidas Palza Verdugo

Henry Dahl

11/18/96 Letter attaching Letter to Judge Rakoff from Plaza Verdugo

CH-244-252 Judge Rakoff and Luis Moreno Guerra

Procurador Alava Ormaza

04/29/1997 Letters and Translations re: New Procurador Position in Aguinda.

CH-253 Raul Baca Carbo

C. Bonifaz 4/01/97 Letter re: Position of Ecuador in Aguinda.

CH-254-256 Procurador Alava

C. Bonifaz 4/21/97 Letter re: Position of Ecuador in Aguinda

CH-257-258 Alava Ormaza C. Bonifaz 04/01/1997 Letters re: Position of Ecuador in Aguinda..

CH-259-261 Alava Ormaza C. Bonifaz 03/31/1997 Letters re: Position of Ecuador in Aguinda..

CH-262-269 Raul Baca Carbo

C. Bonifaz 4/01/97 Letter re: Position of Ecuador in Aguinda.

CH-270-285 Agreement not to sue Ecuador and letters disclosed prior page.

CH-286-288 Propositions Tres, Uno y Dos RE: Position of Ecuador in Aguinda.

CH-289-297 Judge Rakoff Alava Ormaza

4/25/97 Letter and Translations

CH-298-299 Petroecuador C. Bonifaz 10/2/96 Letter re; Aguinda

CH-300-306 Ramon Jimenez Carbo

C. Bonifaz 12/10/1998 Letter attachments.

CH-307-315 Jamil Mahuad Witt

Kaiser Arevalo

10/23/98 Letters re: Support for Position of prior

11

Barzallo Governments

CH-316-318 Procurador Ramon Jimenez Carbo

C.Bonifaz 12/04/1997 Letter re: Position of Ecuador

CH-319-320 Nina Picari Office of the President

11/24/1998 Letter re: Aguinda.

CH-321-322 Judge Rakoff Ramon Jimenez

December 1998

Letter re: Aguinda.

CH-323-330 Affidavits of Ecuadorian Ambassador Edgar Teran in Aguinda and Aquamar S.A. et al., v. Del Monte. 1994 and 1995 respectively. For 1st page of the Aguinda Affidavit See CH-345

CH-331-353 Duplicate of CH-300-306 with complete attachments.

CH-354-366 Ronald Minkoff C. Bonifaz 03/05/1998 and 04/17 1998.

Letter, Fax and Attachments RE: Law 55.

CH-367 Ronald Minkoff C. Bonifaz 02/12/1998 Letter RE: Admission.

CH-368 George Branch C. Bonifaz 02/14/1999 Letter RE: Judge Rakoff.

CH-369 Judge Rakoff C. Bonifaz 02/04/1999 Letter re Aguinda v. Texaco, Jota v. Texaco

CH-370 Judge Rakoff George Branch

02/08/1998 Letter re Aguinda v. Texaco, Jota v. Texaco

CH-371-453 Tim Miller of Texaco Copied to Ivonne Baki Ambassador of Ecuador and Ramon Jimenez Carbo Procurador General of the Estate

C. Bonifaz 01/06/1999 Letter re: appraisal of damages with Exhibits A-G.

CH-454-457 Ivonne Baki Ambassador

C. Bonifaz 03/10/1999 Letter and Attachment. RE: Aguinda.

12

CH-458-462 Francisco Carrion Foreign Relations

C. Bonifaz 03/10/1999 Letter RE: Aguinda

CH-463-464 Joseph Kohn FCUNAE 06/20/2000 Letter RE: FCUNAE-Aguinda

CH-465-466 Peter Bijour and Deval Patrick

FCUNAE 06/20/2000 Letter RE: Woodward Clyde Report.

CH-467 President Noboa

FCUNAE 06/20/2000 Letter RE: Copy of Letter to Bijour.

CH-468-470 Luis Yanza various 02/10/2000 Letter RE: Judith Kimerling.

CH-471-474 US Attorney Scarvalone

Judge Rakoff

03/09/2000 and 06/08/2000

Letter and Response re: Aguinda v. Texaco, Jota v. Texaco

CH-475 C. Bonifaz Ivonne Baki

12/07/2001 Letter RE: Petroecuador.

CH-476-477 Rodolfo Barriol Petroecuador

C. Bonifaz 01/01/2001 Letter RE: Request for Cost Estimate.

CH-478-545 06/11/2001 Invited Proposal for Settlement. Signed and Executed by all impacted Communities. Copies Delivered to Ivonne Baki and Rodolfo Barriol

CH-1592-1594 Dra. Nina Picari C. Bonifaz 11/02/1998 Letter RE: Aguinda

CH-152-154 Joseph Kohn C. Bonifaz 12/21/94 Contract between firms to litigate Aguinda and Ashanga (Jota) cases in New York.

CH-155-157 C. Bonifaz Alberto Wray

1/22/2003 Contract between Cristobal Bonifaz and Joseph Kohn on one side and attorney Alberto Wray to continue the AGUINDA litigation in Ecuador in the case which is now known as the LAGO AGRIO case.

13

CH-158-160 Monica Pareja C. Bonifaz 1/21/04 Contract between Cristobal Bonifaz and Joseph Kohn on one side and Attorney Monica Pareja to aid Attorney Alberto Wray to continue the AGUINDA litigation in Ecuador in the case which is now known as the LAGO AGRIO case litigation.

CH-161-163 C. Bonifaz Ermel Chavez; Humberto Plaguaje; emergildo Criollo; Venancio Criollo

11/30/2005 Letter from Luis Yanza the head of a group named by Alberto Wray as the recipient of the funds the Court might award in LAGO AGRIO.

CH-164-166 C. Bonifaz Luis Franco

3/9/2006 E-mail Chain From Luis Yanza to Attorney Bonifaz asking for an explanation as to an alleged statement made by TEXACO’s lawyer in Ecuador, a Mr. Callejas, to the effect that bONIFAZ had threatened TEXACO with violent acts.

CH-167-175 Joseph Kohn C. Bonifaz 5/10/2006 Letter and attachments from CB to Joseph Kohn regarding the Law of Gestación Ambiental and a Court ruling with attachments.

CH-176-177 C. Bonifaz Joseph Kohn

6/7/2006 Letter of Joseph Kohn to Cristobal Bonifaz notifying Bonifaz that Mr. Yanza and the Frente no longer wanted Bonifazl as representing the Plaintiffs in the LAGO AGRIO Litigation

CH-178-186 Allejandro Ponce Villacis

C. Bonifaz 6/5/2006 E-mail Chain Attorney Villacis and Cristobal Bonifaz, explaining CH-167-175.

14

CH-187-189 12/12/2006 Alleged discharge of Bonifaz from the AGUIND/LAGO AGRIO litigation filed by Mr. Villacis in the Gonzalez case in California on 10/08/2007.

CH-190-199 Thomas Cullen; C. Bonifaz

Alejandro Ponce-Villacis

10/9/2007 Letter with attachments to attorneys expressing his allegation that C. Bonifaz had been fired by the Aguinda/Lago Agrio plaintiffs

CH-546 Cover Sheet E-mails CB to Alberto Wray and sometimes others. 10/16/2002 to 12/01/2005.

CH-547-557 Alberto Wray and others

C. Bonifaz 03/11/2003 to 06/28/2003

E-mails re: Texaco


C. Bonifaz 07/10/2003 to 09/29/2003

E-mails re: Texaco


C. Bonifaz 10/04/ 2003 to 10/07/2003

E-mails re Texaco

CH-603-610 Alberto Wray C. Bonifaz 10/9/2003 E-mail RE: Report from Russell. Document has been released to Chevron in other 1782 litigations.


C. Bonifaz 10/10/2003 to 11/11/2003

E-Mails re: Texaco


C. Bonifaz 11/25/2003 E-mail and Attachment re six former Texaco directors joined the ChevronTexaco board when the merger closed


C. Bonifaz 12/11-19/2003.

E-mails re: Texaco


C. Bonifaz 12/20/2003 to 06/29/2005

E-mails Chains includes Expert Comments from Jurado, Rusell and Camino released in other Section 1782 Litigation.

15

CH-978-980 Steven Doziger C. Bonifaz 10/16/2002 Email re: Texaco

CH-981-982 Steven Doziger C. Bonifaz 10/16/2002 Email re: Texaco

CH-983 Manuel Pallares C. Bonifaz 10/25/02 Email re: Texaco

CH-984-1043 Joseph Kohn C. Bonifaz 11/1/02 Email re: Sentencia attaching order from the supreme court

CH-1044-1045 Steven Donziger

C. Bonifaz 11/13/02 Email Re: Texaco


C. Bonifaz 11/13/02 Email Re: Texaco

CH-01049 Steven Donziger

C. Bonifaz 1/27/03 Email re: filing of Ecuador lawsuit / confidential


C. Bonifaz 4/21/03 Email re: table of water attaching water production chart


C. Bonifaz 11/13/02 Email re: Texaco



CH-1059-1060 Steven Donziger; Mike Esterl; Andy Morris; Joseph Kohn; John Bonifaz

C. Bonifaz 4/26/03 Email re: Ecuador follow up questions.

CH-1061-1072 Steven Donziger; Andy Morris; Joseph Kohn; John Bonifaz

C. Bonifaz 4/26/03 Email re: Demanda attaching Demanda Texaco aw.doc

CH-1073 Steven Donziger; Andy Morris

C. Bonifaz 4/28/03 Email re: Monday

CH-1074-1075 Steven Donziger; Andy Morris


CH-1076-1077 Steven Donziger; Andy Morris


CH-1078-1080 Andy Morris; Drew Benson;

C. Bonifaz 4/30/03 Email re: Reservation #R459474 Confirmation –

16

Joseph Kohn; Steven Donziger; John Bonifaz; Carol Kusner; Carol Klenfner; Jusitn Kazmark

5/01/2003 9:00

CH-1081 Leila Salazar; John Bonifaz; Steven Donziger; Joseph Kohn

C. Bonifaz 4/30/03 Email re next check in call?

CH-1082 Leila Salazar; Cristina Latorre; Steven Donziger; Mauel Pallares

C. Bonifaz 4/30/03 Email re: Any news of the visas?

CH-1083-1084 Leila Salazar; John Bonifaz; Steven Donziger; Joseph Kohn; K. Wilson; Atossa Soltani;

C. Bonifaz 4/30/03 Email re: Just to Clarify

CH-1085 Leila Salazar; John Bonifaz; Steven Donziger; Joseph Kohn

C. Bonifaz 5/1/03 Email Re: Conference call confirmation.


C. Bonifaz 5/9/2003 Email re: Important regarding delegation


C. Bonifaz 5/12/2003 Email re: press release for sam ramon event


C. Bonifaz 5/12/2003 Email re: Final (?) tip and release

CH-1089-1091 Joseph Kohn; John Bonifaz; Steven Donziger; Andy Morris; Lisa Maloney

C. Bonifaz 5/15/03 Email re: Califocacion demanda attaching court order.


C. Bonifaz 5/19/2003 Email re: Please take care of this.

CH-1093-1095 Joseph Kohn; John Bonifaz; Steven

C. Bonifaz 5/19/2003 Email re: Bowoto c. Chevron Texaco Hearing on May 23

17

Donziger; Manuel Pallares

CH-1096-1099 Steven Donziger; Joseph Kohn; John bonifaz; Mauel Pallares

C. Bonifaz 5/20/2003 Email re: Bowoto c. Chevron Texaco Hearing on May 23


C. Bonifaz 5/23/2003 Eamil re: Ecuador Issues

CH-1101-1102 Steven Donziger; John Bonifaz; Leila Salazar; Atossa Soltani; Mauel Pallares; Joseph Kohn

C. Bonifaz 5/26/2003 Email re: Unique opportunity to meet Native Amazonian leader


C. Bonifaz 5/26/2003 Email re: Ecuador issues


C. Bonifaz 5/27/2003 Email re: Ecuador issues

CH-1105-1183 Joseph Kohn; Steven Donziger; John Bonifaz

C. Bonifaz 5/29/2003 Email re: Traduccion attaching translation of Lago Agrio filing


C. Bonifaz 5/29/2003 Email re: found that woman


C. Bonifaz 5/29/2003 Email re: Judith Kimerling

CH-1186-1187 Joseph Kohn, John Bonifaz; Steven Donziger



C. Bonifaz 5/30/2003 Email re: Noticias Quito



CH-1191 Leila Salazar; John Bonifaz; Steven Donziger; Joseph Kohn; Andy Morris; Atossa Soltani

C. Bonifaz 6/12/2003 Email re: Are you available for a conference call on Friday?

CH-1192-1193 Manuel Pallares; Leila Salazar; Steven

C. Bonifaz 6/12/2003 Carta para Elias

18

Donziger; John Bonifaz;

CH-1194-1196 Luis Yanza; Steven Donziger; Leila Salazar; John Bonifaz; Manuel Pallares

C. Bonifaz 6/12/2006 Eamil re: you have a fax attaching letter of 6/12/2003 to Wilmer piaguaje


C. Bonifaz 6/12/2006 Email re: expenses

CH-1198 Joseph Kohn; Atossa Soltani; Leila Salazar; Andy Morris; John Bonifaz; Steven Donziger

C. Bonifaz 6/12/2003 Email re are you aavailable for a conference call on Friday?


C. Bonifaz 6/16/2003 Email re: Texaco una preocupacion


C. Bonifaz 6/17/2003 Email re Alberto Wray


C. Bonifaz 6/18/2003 Email re: Alberto Wray


C. Bonifaz 6/18/2003 Email re: enviando por correo electronico: noticias

CH-1207-1208 Steven Donziger; Joseph Kohn; John Bonifaz; M. D’Urso;

C. Bonifaz 6/23/2003 Email re; important – help on case.


C. Bonifaz 6/24/2003 Email re: Martin’s receipts.

CH-1210-1212 Terry Collingsworth; Joseph Kohn; John Bonifaz; Steven Donziger

C. Bonifaz 6/30/2003 Email re: Texaco; DynCorp attaching letter to Hon. Suasan Payne.

CH-1213 Joseph Kohn; Steven Donziger; John Bonifaz; Manuel Pallares

C. Bonifaz 6/30/2003 Email re Exorto Texaco



CH-1215 John Bonifaz; C. Bonifaz 7/1/2003 Email re: Texaco

19

Joseph Kohn; CH-1216 Steven

Donziger C. Bonifaz 7/2/2003 Email re: call

CH-1217 Joseph Kohn; Steven Donziger; John Bonifaz;


CH-1218-1220 Steven Donziger, Manuel Pallares, Joseph Kohn


CH-1221 Manuel Pallares, Steven Donziger




CH-1224 Manuel Pallares; Albetto Wray; Steven Donziger; John Bonifaz; Joseph Kohn






CH-1229 Steven Donziger; Manuel Pallares; Joseph Kohn; John Bonifaz;

C. Bonifaz 7/18/2003 Email re: service of lawsuit.

CH-1230-32 Dscott269; Steven Donziger; Manuel Pallares

C. Bonifaz 7/28/2003 Email re: UN

CH-1233 Joseph Kohn; Steven Donziger; John Bonifaz;

C. Bonifaz 7/31/2003 Email re: Texaco ALERT

CH-1234-37 Joseph Kohn; John Bonifaz; Manuel Pallares; Steven

C. Bonifaz 8/4/2003 Email re: UN

20

Bonifaz CH-1238 Joseph Kohn;

John Bonifaz; Steven Donziger

C. Bonifaz 8/4/2003 Email re; Texaco alert

CH-1239 Stven Donziger; John Bonifaz; Joseph Kohn; Manuel Pallares

C. Bonifaz 8/6/2003 Email re: Alberto Wray – Meeting

CH-1240 Steven Donziger; John Bonifaz

C. Bonifaz 8/19/2003 Email re: Manuel



CH-1243 Joseph Kohn; M. D’urso; Diana Liberto; John Bonifaz; Steven Donziger


CH-1244-1245 Steven Donziger; Joseph Kohn; M. D’urso; Diana Liberto; John Bonifaz

C. Bonifaz 9/4/2003 Email re: Technical issues with Ecuador case/important


C. Bonifaz 9/4/2003 Email re: Alberto Segovia

CH-1247-1252 Joseph Kohn; M D’urso; Diana Liberto; Steven Donziger; John Bonifaz; Leila Salazar; Atossa Soltani; Terry Collingsworth; Natacha Thys

C. Bonifaz 9/5/2003 Email re: Texaco Gallup Poll

CH-1253-1254 Joseph Kohn; M D’urso; Diana Liberto; Steven Donziger; John Bonifaz; Leila Salazar; Atossa Soltani; Terry

C. Bonifaz 9/7/2003 Email re: let’s respond immediately to Texaco’s poll

21

Collingsworth; Natacha Thys; Manuel Pallares


C. Bonifaz 9/25/2003 Email re: Read:Texaco


C. Bonifaz 9/29/2003 Email re: Para Manuel/pago poliza


C. Bonifaz 9/29/2003 Email re: Hay que pagar a la aseguradora

CH-1258 M. D’Urso; Steven Donziger; Manuel Pallares

C. Bonifaz 9/29/2003 Email re: document authentication


C. Bonifaz 9/29/2003 Email re: Read: Pregunta largente


C. Bonifaz 9/29/2003 Email re: Read: Thursday meeting/authentication


C. Bonifaz 9/29/2003 Para Manuel


C. Bonifaz 9/29/2003 Email re: Para Manuel

CH-1263 Steven Donziger; Andy Morris; john Bonifaz

C. Bonifaz 10/4/2003 Email re: Bianca Jagger


C. Bonifaz 10/6/2003 Email re: Letter to US State Department

CH-1268-1269 Leila Salazar; John Bonifaz; Steven Donziger; Joseph Kohn; Manuel Pallares; Andy Morris

C. Bonifaz 10/6/2003 Email re: who is ChevronTexaco’s lawyer in Ecuador?

CH-1270-1271 Steven Donziger; John Bonifaz;


CH-1272-1273 Steven Donziger; John Bonifaz


CH-1274-1278 M. D’Urso; Joseph Kohn; Steven Donziger

C. Bonifaz 10/10/2003 Email re: Audiencia attaching memo sobre pruebas

CH-1279 Steven C. Bonifaz 10/13/2003 Email re: Para Manuel

22

Donziger /pago poliza CH-1280 Steven

Donziger C. Bonifaz 10/14/2003 Email re: Pruebas


C. Bonifaz 10/14/2003 Email re: Pruebas


C. Bonifaz 10/14/2003 Email re: Pruebas

CH-1286-1290 Steven Donziger; Leila Salazar

C. Bonifaz 10/16/2003 Email re Urgent – please read asap

CH-1291-1292 Steven Donziger; Manuel Pallares

C. Bonifaz 10/17/2003 Email re: NY Expense and other stuff

CH-1293-1294 Steven Donziger; Manuel Pallares


CH-1295-1297 Alberto Wray; Steven Donziger; Manuel Pallares; John Bonifaz; Joseph Kohn; M. D’Urso


CH-1298 Steven Donziger; Manuel Pallares; Joseph Kohn; John Bonifaz;

C. Bonifaz 10/19/2003 Email re Emergency – please read

CH-1299 Steven Donziger; John Bonifaaz; Joseph Kohn

C. Bonifaz 11/3/2003 Email re: Dave Russell

CH-1300 Luis Yanza; Steven Donziger; Manuel Pallares

C. Bonifaz 11/7/2003 Email re: nececito comunicarme urgente

CH-1301 Steven Donziger; Manuel Pallares

C. Bonifaz 11/8/2003 Email re: Reunion

CH-1302-1304 Steven Donziger; Atossa Soltani; Shannon; Leila Salazar; Carol

C. Bonifaz 11/17/2003 Email re: Oil and gas Journal

23

Klenfner; Joseph Kohn; John Bonifaz; Kevin; Manuel Pallares

CH-1305-1307 Joseph Kohn; Atossa Soltani; Steven Donziger; John Bonifaz

C. Bonifaz 11/18/2003 Email re: Friday’s event in DC


C. Bonifaz 12/18/2003 Email re: presupuesto

CH-1309-1311 Steven Donziger; Joseph Kohn

C. Bonifaz Email re: necesidades del equipo legal

CH-1312-1575 Joseph Kohn; Steven Donziger and others.

C. Bonifaz 12/22/2003 to 12/01/2005

E-mail chains

CH1576 document CH-1576 does not exist due to numbering error


C. Bonifaz 01/08/2004 Email RE: Reimbursement Pablo Fajardo

CH-1582-1585 8/2005 Account of the attempted meeting of Chevron Executives with President Palacio

CH-1589-1591 Judith Kimberling and others

C. Bonifaz E-mail chains

CH-1595-1614 Luis Yanza C. Bonifaz 1994-2005 Other communications with Luis Yanza

CH-1615-1628 Alberto Wray C. Bonifaz 12/5/2001-2/16/2004

Communications with Alberto Wray

CH-1629-1650 Joseph Kohn C. Bonifaz Communication RE: Jury Verdict Exxon Valdez

CH-1651-1656 3/12-18/04 Hampshire Life Magazine Article, “David & Goliath”

EXHIBIT 3

From: Sent:

Cristobal Bonlfaz [[email protected]] Monday, September 20,20043:48 PM

To: Leila Salazar; Steven Donziger; Kevin Koenig; [email protected]; [email protected]; laura_miller@condenasLcom; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; meyepez@plus,neLec; coalmbaoher@earthlink,net; monsi 14 @yahoo.com

Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: HUGE victory for us in Ecuador!

Th@ Attorney General has named T@rry Collingsworth as their attorney in N@w York. It is critically important that a) WQ do not b) we do not take credit for this c) we do not (ongr'atulate anyone for this) d) \lie stay out of this.

[See original for text in English]

Original Message -----From: "Leila Salazar" <[email protected]> To: "cbonifaz" <cbonifaz@colllc;ast.net>; "Steven Donziger" <sdonziger'@yahoo. com>; "Kevin Koenig" <kevin@amazom\latch.org>; <shannon@amazonwatch. org>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;

<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]'t.ec>; <[email protected]'t>; <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday) September 23) 2084 2:39 PM Subject: Re: HUGE victory for us in Ecuador!


Hi, everyone!


[CERT.GEOTEXT] DONZ00026785 Page 1 of 5

-----Original Message-----From: cbonifaz <[email protected]> Sent! Sep 18) 2e04 11:27 AM To: Steven Danziger Kevin Koenig < kevin@amazomyatch org>" [email protected].; [email protected] [email protected]"

[email protected] [email protected], [email protected]" limcas2ee2@yahoo,"com; [email protected], [email protected] J [email protected] J [email protected] Subject: Re! HUGE victory for us in Ecuador!

Steven: Can you explain to me what Rour team" did in Ecuador regarding this issue? I 00 NOT AGREE WITH ANY PROPAGANDIZING BY ANY ONE THIS ISSUE. I.,IIE HAVE TO LET THE CREDIT GO IN ITS ENTIRETY TO THEATIORNEYGENERAL PETROECUADOR AND THE GOVERNMENT. IT IS A HUGE MISTAKE FOR ANY ONE OF US TO CLAIM CREDIT FOR ANYTHING HERE + IT WILL COrY1E BACK TO KILLS US WITH THE GOVERNfY1ENT WHO NAY BACKTRACK OF THE ENTIRE THING.


----- Original Message From: steven Danziger To: Kevin Koenig; cbonifaz ; ;

[email protected] ; ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; limcaS2€[email protected] ; [email protected]"ec ; [email protected]"ec ; [email protected] ; [email protected]

Sent: SaturdaYJ September 18.) 2094 10:46 AM Subject! HUGE victory for us 1n Ecuadorl


EI Comercio, Friday, September 17, 2004 (two articles)


12:30) Government to Reject Arbitration with Texaco in USA.

Quito, Ansa

The Ecuadorian government will reject arbitration in the United States tribunals proposed by the American oil company Texaco, in a case it is facing in the country [Ecuador] on charges of having caused environmental damage.

The Ecuadorian Attorney General, Jose Maria Borj a, said today to the foreign press that the arbitration tribunal proposed by Texaco is "without jurisdiction" and rejected the request by the company as "immoral and improper, because it is attacking the sovereignty of the country."

Through arbitration, the American oil company seeks to oblige the state-run company Petroecuador to share liability for environmental damage in the Amazon due to production of crude over 20 years.

Texaco's request is supposedly based on the Bilateral Investment Treaty signed by Ecuador and the United States, in effect since 1997, which provides for dispute resolution through international arbitration.

The case against Texaco began in Ecuadorian courts in October 2003, after the US courts rejected jurisdiction of the case in New York, where the settlers and indigenous communities of the Amazon initially filed suit against the oil company.

Through the case, the indigenous communities seek for the international company to pay compensation of approximately 6 billion dollars to repair the damage caused.

The argument by the Attorney General is that the arbitration is not appropriate because the case is being tried in this country and because Texaco bases its request on a contract that it signed with Gulf and not with the state-run Petro ecuador, and therefore it is not binding on the Government.

Borja reported that the government already agreed to the hiring of an attorney in the United States, Terry Collinsworth, close to environmental cases [or "causes"], to defend the Ecuadorian case in the arbitration.

But in addition, he said that his objective as head of the Office of the Attorney General with regard to the contracts between the Government and foreign oil companies is that "the country's dignity be respected."

The Attorney General surprised the country a month ago when, in an unprecedented decision, he sought a declaration of termination of the contract signed six years ago by Petro ecuador and the US company Occidental for exploration and production of a sector in the Amazon, because he found 34 violations.

The request was approved by the Minister of Energy and the legal process is under way for cancellation of the contract.

14:35) "Texaco's [arbitration] complaint against Petroecuador is Wrongful"

DONZ00026785 Page 3 of 5 [CERT.GEOTEXT]

Quito, AP

Texaco's [arbitration] complaint against the state-run oil company Petro ecuador with the American Arbitration Association (AAA) is wrongful and immoral, Attorney General Jose Maria Borja said Friday.

In June, Texaco filed a complaint against Petroecuador with that tribunal, arguing that both were partners in this country between 1972 and 1990, and are therefore jointly liable in the face of an environmental contamination lawsuit pursued by 30,000 inhabitants of the Ecuadorian forest, who are demanding millions in economic compensation.

It is something which is wrongful and immoral that this company (Texaco) ... would want to take the Ecuadorian government before foreign judges, affecting the country's sovereignty, Borj a said during a meeting with correspondents.

We have said that the Tribunal (AAA) does not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint because the sovereignty of the country takes precedence over all else, he affirmed.

He added that the country demands that AAA accept that it does not have jurisdiction in this case and [demands] that the matter not be heard there.

Texaco has argued that sovereignty has nothing to do with its complaint before AAA because the case is against Petroecuador and not the government.

The US company faces a suit pursued by the Ecuadorian communities in the Amazonian city of Lago Agrio, the oil heart of the country, located 180 kilometers northeast of Quito.

The accusers hold Texaco liable for having left oil residue, contaminated water and other waste, causing diseases such as cancer in the people, killing vegetation, crops and animals in the area.

The plaintiffs assert that recovery for damage caused by Texaco would cost more than 6 billion dollars, a figure considered the amount of the compensation.

Texaco has said that the Ecuadorian government released it from any legal or other type of liability by way of a final agreement signed in 1998.

Kevin Koenig Amazon Watch t. 415.487.960e f. 415.487.9601 1 Haight St. Suite B San Francisco, CA 94182 www.amazonwatch.org

There are men who fight for a day and are good. There are men who fight for a year and are better.


There are men who fight for many years and are very good. But there are those who fight for a lifetime; they are indispensable.

-Bertold Brecht

steven Danziger 212-561-7456 (land) 917=566=2526 (cell)

Steven R. Donziger Law Offices of Steven R. Donziger) p.e. 101 Fifth Avenue J 8th Floor NeltJ York) New York leee3 Email: [email protected]

[CERT .GEOTEXT] DONZ00026785 Page 5 of 5

Translations, Inc.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) EST ADO DE CALIFORNIA )

) COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ) CONDADO DE SAN FRANCISCO ) ss

CERTIFICATIONI CERTIFICACION

This is to certify that the attached translation is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, a true and

accurate translation from Spanish into English of the attached document.

Por la presente certifico que la traducci6n adjunta de espafiol a ingles es, a mi leal saber y entender,

traducci6n fiel y exacta del documento adjunto.

BRANDON CARNEY COMM, # 1755114 z

NOTARY PUBLIC -SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY

My Comm. Expires July 3, 2011 Lindsey Creighton, Project Manager/Gerente de Proyectos Geotext Translations, Inc.

State of California, County of San Francisco

Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me

onthis::f day of ,20'0 ,

by ( "'-\- , proved to me on the of satisfa:tory

evidence to be the person( s) who appeared

before me.

Signamre: ____

Estado de California, Condado de San Francisco

Suscrito y dec1arado bajo juramento (0 afmnado) ante

mi en este dia _7_ de diciembre de120.-liL,

Por ______ Habiendo acreditado en mi presencia, mediante prueba

satisfactoria, que es la persona (personas) que

compareci6 (comparecieron) ante mi.

Firma: ______ __________ __

259 West 30th Street, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10001, U.S.A. tel +1.212.631.7432 fax +1 .212.631.7778 220 Montgomery Street Ste. 438, San Francisco CA 94104 U.S.A tel +1.415.576.9500 fax +1.415.520.0525

11\I",!c:hin(-,-c"n 1 025 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 1 000, Washington, DC 20036, U.S.A. Tel +1.202.828.1267 Fax +1.202.828.1271 8-11 St. John's Lane, London EC1 M 4BF, United Kingdom Tel +44.20.7553.4100 Fax+44.20.7990.9909

75 Boulevard Haussmann, F- 75008 Paris, France tel +33.1.42.68.51.47 fax +33.1 .77.72.90.25 20th Floor, Central Tower, 28 Queen's Road, Central, Hong Kong tel +852.2159.9143 fax +852.3010.0082

From: Sent:

Cristobal Bonifaz [[email protected]] Monday, September 20, 2004 3:48 PM

To: Leila Salazar; Steven Donziger; Kevin Koenig; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; monsi14 @yahoo.com

Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: HUGE victory for us in Ecuador!

The Procurador has named Terry Collingsworth as their attorney in New York. It is critically important that a) we do not gloat, b) we do not take credit for this c) we do not congratulate anyone for this, d) we stay out of this.

The reason is very simple. When this case is won it is going to be a big victory for Ecuador. If we have taken any credit for this then Ecuador looks like it has had to depend on the "environmentalists" and/or "plaintiffs' lawyers" for the win. That is a big mistake. We want Ecuador to learn from this a) that this cases can be won, b) that Ecuador can win then c) that we are here to help Ecuador on the background and we do not want any credit.

This way when we win) Ecuador, the Procurador, The Minister of Energy and Mines etc, owns us something. The payoff will come when there are problems with the appeal of our case.

Terry is on board and Thom Camr and I are preparing all the papers.

Cristobal

----- Original Message -----From: "Leila Salazar" <[email protected]> To: "cbonifaz" <[email protected]>j "Steven Donziger" <[email protected]>j "Kevin Koenig" <[email protected]>j <[email protected]>j <[email protected]>j <[email protected]>j <[email protected]>j <[email protected]>j <[email protected]>j <[email protected]>j <[email protected]>j <[email protected]>j <[email protected]>j <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday) September 20, 2004 2:39 PM Subject: Re: HUGE victory for us in Ecuador!

Steven, Cristobal and all,

Hola a todos! Thank goodness that the Procurador is taking a stand for Ecuador. Should we send thank you letters to the Procurador or just let it be?

Does anyone know if the Procurador is allowing Terry Collingsworth to represent Ecuador under arbitration?

Sincerely, Leila Salazar Amazon Watch

DONZ00026785 Page 1 of 5

-----Original Message-----From: cbonifaz <[email protected]> Sent: Sep 18, 2004 11:27 AM To: Steven Donziger <[email protected]>, Kevin Koenig <[email protected]>J [email protected], [email protected] [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] [email protected] J [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Re: HUGE victory for us in Ecuador!

Steven: Can you explain to me what "our team" did in Ecuador regarding this issue? I DO NOT AGREE WITH ANY PROPAGANDIZING BY ANY ONE ON THIS ISSUE. WE HAVE TO LET THE CREDIT GO IN ITS ENTIRETY TO THE PROCURADOR< PETROECUADOR AND THE GOVERNMENT. IT IS A HUGE MISTAKE FOR ANY ONE OF US TO CLAIM CREDIT FOR ANYTHING HERE. IT WILL COME BACK TO KILLS US WITH THE GOVERNMENT WHO MAY BACKTRACK OF THE ENTIRE THING.

PLEASE LEAVE THIS ALONE.

CRISTOBAL

----- Original Message -----From: Steven Donziger To: Kevin Koenig j cbonifaz j [email protected] j

[email protected] j [email protected] j [email protected] [email protected] j [email protected] j [email protected] j [email protected] j [email protected] j [email protected] j [email protected] j [email protected]

Sent: Saturday, September 18J 2004 10:46 AM Subject: HUGE victory for us in Ecuador!

This is a HUGE victory for us that took a lot of behind the scenes awesome work by our team in Ecuador and Cristobal. We cannot rest, however. The forces of reaction will certainly mobilize to reverse this decision so we must be ever vigilant. In the meantime, we should be damn proud because this was Texaco's latest anti-democratic J back-door, sleazy attempt to undermine the lawsuit and rights of the people to sue for wrongdoing. And we beat them back!

This should be trumpeted on the AW website as a huge victory for indigenous and Amazonian rights. Ecuador's attorney general is standing with his people against a mUltinational in the biggest globalization legal case in the world. This is HUGE. This has never happened before in Latin America in a case of this magnitude.

We still must fight to stop the arbitration. But this is a HUGE first step. Spread the word far and wide.

Yea!! !

srd

Kevin Koenig <[email protected]> wrote: EI ComercioJ viernes 17 de septiembre 2004 (dos articulos)


12:30) Gobierno rechazara arbitraje con Texaco en EE.UU.

Quito J Ansa

El gobierno ecuatoriano rechazara el arbitraje en tribunales de Estados Unidos planteado por la petrolera estadounidense TexacoJ en un juicio que enfrenta en el pais bajo el cargo de haber causado danos ambientales.

El procurador del EstadoJ Jose Maria Borja J dijo hoy a la prensa extranjera que el tribunal arbitral planteado por Texaco es "incompetente" y rechazo el pedido de la empresa por ser "inmoral e indebido J porque esta atentando contra la soberania del pais".

A traves del arbitrajeJ la petrolera estadounidense busca obligar a la estatal Petroecuador a compartir responsabilidades por dan os ambientales en la Amazonia por la explotacion de crudo durante 20 anos.

El pedido de Texaco se basa supuestamente en el Tratado de Promocion y Proteccion Reciproca de Inversiones firmado entre Ecuador y Estados Unidos, vigente desde 1997J en el que se estipula la solucion de controversias en arbitrajes internacionales.

El juicio contra Texaco se inicio en los tribunales ecuatorianos en octubre de 2003 J luego de que las cortes estadounidenses no aprobaron la jurisdiccion del caso en Nueva YorkJ donde inicialmente los colonos e indigenas de la Amazonia presentaron una demanda contra la empresa petrolera.

Con el JUICIO J los indigenas bus can que la multinacional pague una indemnizacion de cerca de 6 000 millones de dolares para reparar el dana causado.

El argumento del procurador es que el arbitraje no corresponde porque el caso esta siendo juzgado en el pais y porque Texaco basa su pedido en un contrato que firma con la empresa Gulf y no con la estatal Petroecuador, por 10 que el Estado no esta vinculado.

Borja informo que el estado ya acordo la contratacion de un abogado en Estados Unidos J Terry Collinsworth J cercano a las causas ambientales J para defender la causa ecuatoriana en el arbitraje.

Pero ademas J dijo que su objetivo al frente de la Procuraduria respecto de los contratos entre el Estado y las empresas petroleras extranjeras es que lise respete la dignidad del pais".

El procurador sorprendio al pais hace un mes cuandoJ en una decision inedita J pidio declarar la caducidad del contrato suscrito hace seis anos entre Petroecuador y la estadounidense Occidental para la exploracion y explotacion de un bloque en la Amazonia J porque encontro 34 incumplimientos.

El pedido fue aceptado por el ministro de Energia y ahora se encuentra en tramite el proceso legal para anular el contrato.

14:35) "Demanda de Texaco a Petroecuador es indebida"


Quito J AP

La demanda de Texaco a la petrolera estatal Petroecuador ante la Asociaci6n Americana de Arbitraje (AAA) es indebida e inmoral J sostuvo el viernes el Procurador Jose Maria Borja.

Texaco demand6 en junio a Petroecuador ante ese tribunal argumentando que ambos fueron socios en este pais entre 1972 y 1990 Y por tanto son corresponsables ante una demanda por contaminaci6n ambiental que mantienen 30 000 haqitantes de la selva ecuatoriana, que exigen una millonaria indemnizaci6n econ6mica.

Es algo indebido e inmoral J que esta empresa (Texaco) ... quiera llevar al estado ecuatoriano ante unos jueces extranos, afectando a la soberania del pais J dijo Borja en una reuni6n con corresponsales.

Hemos manifestado que el Tribunal (AAA) es incompetente para conocer esta demanda porque sobre todo esta la soberania del pais J afirm6.

Anadi6 que el pais exige que la AAA acepte que no tiene competencia en este caso y que el asunto no se 10 tramite ahi.

Texaco ha argumentado que la soberania no tiene nada que ver en su demanda en la AAA porque el proceso es en contra de Petroecuador y no del estado.

La empresa estadounidense enfrenta una demanda de pobladores ecuatorianos en la ciudad amaz6nica de Lago Agrio J coraz6n petrolero del pais J 180 ki16metros al noreste de Quito.

Los acusadores responsabilizan a Texaco de haber dejado residuos petroleros, agua contaminada J y otros desechos provocando enfermedades como cancer en la gente J matando la vegetaci6n J cultivos y animales de la zona.

Los demandantes aseguran que recuperar los danos provocados por Texaco costaria mas de 6 000 millones de d61ares J cifra considerada como monto de indemnizaci6n.

Texaco ha dicho que el estado ecuatoriano la exoner6 de cualquier responsabilidad legal 0 de cualquier indole a traves de un acuerdo final suscrito en 1998.

Kevin Koenig Amazon Watch t. 415.487.9600 f. 415.487.9601 1 Haight St. Suite B San Francisco, CA 94102 www.amazonwatch.org

Hay hombres que luchan un dia y son buenos.

Hay hombres que luchan un ana y son mejores.


Hay hombres quienes luchan muchos aAos y son muy buenos.

Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida} esos son los imprescindibles.

-- Bertolt Brecht

> ATTACHMENT part 2 image/gif name=shim.gif

Steven Donziger 212-561-7456 (land) 917-566-2526 (cell)

Steven R. Donziger Law Offices of Steven R. Donziger J P.C. 101 Fifth Avenue J 8th Floor New York} New York 10003 Email: [email protected]


EXHIBIT 4

From: Sent: To:

Cristobal Bonifaz [[email protected] Wednesday, May 11, 2005 5:08 PM

Subject: Steven Donziger; A. Wray; [email protected]; [email protected] Re: sked conference call monday at 10 a.m.

Great. Let me have a copy unbound as soon as you have it or through the internet so that I can prepare an argument for the Procurador if we decide to push for what I mentioned before.

Cristobal

Original Message -----From: Steven Donziger <mailto:[email protected]> To: cbonifaz <mailto:[email protected]> ; A. Wray <mailto:[email protected]>

[email protected] ; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 4:24 PM Subject: Re: sked conference call monday at 10 a.m.

the document is being prepared in spanish.

cbonifaz <[email protected]> wrote:

Is the document you are preparing going to be in Spanish? Also it should emphasize that these are sites that were allegedly remediate under the 1998 agreement. I could go to the Procurador and Petroecuador with this document if everyone agrees that is what we are going to do.

Monday at 10:00 AM is fine with me.

Cristobal

Original Message -----From: Steven Donziger <mailto:[email protected]> To: A. Wray <mailto:[email protected]> ; Cristobal Bonifaz

<mailto:[email protected]> ; [email protected] ; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 11:36 AM Subject: sked conference call monday at 10 a.m.

i propose we have a conference call Monday at 10 a.m. to talk about this and do a case update. joe, can you please set up at this time or another time if people agree? my monday is open if there is a better time.

with regard to the questions, my feeling is that if the downside manifests itself, i think our side has shown enough agility to deal with that at that time in a way that favors us. remember that the reports presented to the court are public so he could get them anyway although who knows if he would go to the trouble. if this penal case is brought, this will be on the wires allover the world and it will really raise the cost to CVX. however, i agree that the more the government feels invested in fighting CVX, it could be problematic for us down the road but my gut tells me it is worth the risk.

the tech team is now preparing a document that i think could be a bombshell in terms of explaining how texaco is getting creamed at trial. the procurador could use it for what you are talking about.


the document is a well by well review of every sample taken by three separate teams: 1) their samples during the trial; 2) their samples via Woodward Clyde post remediation; and 3) our samples during the trial. almost every single sample in these three categories shows illegal levels of toxins. there are now dozens of documented samples that demonstrate illegality at sites where there is no petroecuador presence. this is powerful stuff. it should be ready within a few days.

case.

"A. Wray" <[email protected]> wrote:

I agree. It will put preasure on Texaco side and will help in our

AW

----- Original Message -----From: Cristobal Bonifaz <mailto:[email protected]> To: Steven Donziger <mailto:[email protected]>

[email protected] [email protected] ; [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 4:43 PM Subject: Re: latest technical report

The Procurador is ready to file some kind of legal action against all who signed the 1998 clean-up agreement and that would include Perez Pallares and even possibly even Reiss Vega.

He has asked me to summarize for him all we know so far about all the sites that were part of the 1998 remediation agreement good and bad.

1. Do we want him to file what he is proposing to file?

the data he has requested.? of the full reports.

2. Do we want to cooperate with him by providing him with Presumably if we provide him with a summary he would want copies

I want to know how does everyone feels about this before we push the Government into this stance. The down side for us is that if the Government files criminal action for fraud or something to that effect the next step for the Government would be to file some kind of claim for remediation that is not prescribed because the Government only recently won knowledge (through our reports) of the lack of clean-up. If the Government enters the litigation seeking remediation of the Government sites it will probably assure us winning the case but it will also entitle the Government to the value or the remediation of the Government sites. I am not going to do any thing about this until everyone has reached a consensus of how to proceed.

One of the forces driving the Procurador is his realization that the Government has been had with the arbitration claim and that even if we win the issue will be appealed by Texaco. He has concluded that the best defense is a good offense.

[email protected]

Cristobal

Original Message -----From: Steven Donziger <mailto:[email protected]> To: [email protected] ; [email protected]

[email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 3:44 PM Subject: latest technical report

our latest report just submitted to the court shows levels of TPHs 22,799 over max allowable norms in Ecuador from a pit that was part of


Texaco's clean-up responsibility but for which they determined no action was needed. this report, on the well SA-51, also shows PAHs in same pit at 6199 over max allowable norms. this pit was approved as remediated by the ecuadorian government.

FYI, based on analysis of aerial photographs, it appears Texaco "remediated" at most five to ten percent of its pits, not the 33% that it claims.

i am bringing up a copy of the latest report to send to cristobal.

steven

Steven Donziger 212-570-4499 (land) 212-570-9944 (Fax) 917-566-2526 (cell)

Steven R. Donziger Law Offices of Steven R. Donziger, P.C. 111 E. 79th St., #5 New York, New York 10021 Email: [email protected]






EXHIBIT 5

From: Sent: To:

cbonifaz [[email protected]] Monday, May 30, 2005 10:25 AM Yahoo

Subject: Re: sked conference call monday at 10 a.m.

Great. You have no idea how important this is going to be for the case.

Cristobal

Original Message -----From: Yahoo <mailto:[email protected]> To: cbonifaz <mailto:[email protected]> A. Wray <mailto:[email protected]>

[email protected] ; [email protected] Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 9:38 AM Subject: Re: sked conference call monday at 10 a.m.

Cristobal: I just talked to Olga Lucia Gomez, the person doing this. She said she will sent it up electronically tomorrow (Tuesday). I don't know what kind of shape it will be in, but she is generally very good at this so I expect it will be usable pretty quickly. Several additional technical reports have been turned in to the court over the last few days that are not yet incorporated but she will send what she has and I will pass it on immediately.

----- Original Message -----From: cbonifaz <mailto:[email protected]> To: Steven Donziger <mailto:[email protected]> ; A. Wray

<mailto:[email protected]> ; [email protected] ; [email protected] Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 8:20 PM Subject: Re: sked conference call monday at 10 a.m.

Steven: When I am getting a copy of the document you promised in this e-mail so that I can try to get the Procurador to file the criminal charges for fraud. I want to emphasize that time is of the essence here as we do not know what Judge Sand is going to do. If Judge Sand ruling favors us it is going to relieve the pressure from the Procurador to do anything. I rate our chances of getting a favorable ruling at least 80% thus I have to act quickly to get the Procurador to take action for fraud.

Cristobal

Original Message -----From: Steven Donziger <mailto:[email protected]> To: A. Wray <mailto:[email protected]> ; Cristobal Bonifaz

<mailto:[email protected]> ; [email protected] ; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 11:36 AM Subject: sked conference call monday at 10 a.m.

i propose we have a conference call Monday at 10 a.m. to talk about this and do a case update. joe, can you please set up at this time or another time if people agree? my monday is open if there is a better time.

with regard to the questions, my feeling is that if the downside manifests itself, i think our side has shown enough agility to deal with that at that time in a way that favors us. remember that the reports presented to the court are public so he could get them anyway although who knows if he would go to the trouble. if this penal case is brought, this will be on the wires allover the world and it will really raise the cost to CVX.


however. i agree that the more the government feels invested in fighting CVX, it could be problematic for us down the road but my gut tells me it is worth the risk.

the tech team is now preparing a document that i think could be a bombshell in terms of explaining how texaco is getting creamed at trial. the procurador could use it for what you are talking about.

the document is a well by well review of every sample taken by three separate teams: 1) their samples during the trial; 2) their samples via Woodward Clyde post remediation; and 3) our samples during the trial. almost every single sample in these three categories shows illegal levels of toxins. there are now dozens of documented samples that demonstrate illegality at sites where there is no petroecuador presence. this is powerful stuff. it should be ready within a few days.

case.

[email protected]

"A. Wray" <[email protected]> wrote:

I agree. It will put preasure on Texaco side and will help in our

AW

----- Original Message -----From: Cristobal Bonifaz <mailto:[email protected]> To: Steven Donziger <mailto:[email protected]>

[email protected] ; [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 4:43 PM Subject: Re: latest technical report

The Procurador is ready to file some kind of legal action against all who signed the 1998 clean-up agreement and that would include Perez Pallares and even possibly even Reiss Vega.

He has asked me to summarize for him all we know so far about all the sites that were part of the 1998 remediation agreement good and bad.

the data he has requested.? of the full reports.

1. Do we want him to file what he is proposing to file? 2. Do we want to cooperate with him by providing him with

Presumably if we provide him with a summary he would want copies

I want to know how does everyone feels about this before we push the Government into this stance. The down side for us is that if the Government files criminal action for fraud or something to that effect the next step for the Government would be to file some kind of claim for remediation that is not prescribed because the Government only recently won knowledge (through our reports) of the lack of clean-up. If the Government enters the litigation seeking remediation of the Government sites it will probably assure us winning the case but it will also entitle the Government to the value or the remediation of the Government sites. I am not going to do any thing about this until everyone has reached a consensus of how to proceed.

One of the forces driving the Procurador is his realization that the Government has been had with the arbitration claim and that even if we win the issue will be appealed by Texaco. He has concluded that the best defense is a good offense.

Cristobal

Original Message -----From: Steven Donziger <mailto:[email protected]>


To: [email protected] ; [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 3:44 PM Subject: latest technical report

our latest report just submitted to the court shows levels of TPHs 22,799 over max allowable norms in Ecuador from a pit that was part of Texaco's clean-up responsibility but for which they determined no action was needed. this report, on the well SA-51, also shows PAHs in same pit at 6199 over max allowable norms. this pit was approved as remediated by the ecuadorian government.

FYI, based on analysis of aerial photographs, it appears Texaco "remediated" at most five to ten percent of its pits, not the 33% that it claims.

cristobal.


Steven R. Donziger

i am bringing up a copy of the latest report to send to

steven



Law Offices of Steven R. Donziger, P.C. 111 E. 79th St., #5 New York, New York 10021 Email: [email protected]


EXHIBIT 6

From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Steven Donziger [[email protected] Monday, October 03,20058:12 AM jkohn Lehane's first press plan Lehane Plan.doc

Joe -- Check out the attached and let me know what you think. I know I am sending you a lot of stuff; don't worry if you can't get to it all. Things are good down here. In Quito until end of week. Will try to call today or tomorrow. Best, Steven

Steven Danziger 212-570-4499 (land) 212-570-9944 (Fax) 917-566-2526 (cell)



Attorney-Client Privilege Privileged and Confidential Attorney Work Product

MEMORANDUM October 1, 2005

ROLL-OUT PLAN

Please find specific steps we should consider in order to fully leverage the criminal investigation of the Chevron executives (this document assumes we have independent confirmation that the matter is indeed accurate). We should view this development as the opportunity to build on the success of this case to date and launch the second phase of the campaign.

"Y Foundation Story Reporting on the Criminal Investigation: Our immediate objective is to make public the government's criminal investigation of the Chevron executives. Here are the options to generate this story (the choice will be dictated by the actual facts and what information we have access to - we may need to do something that jump-starts the story):

o Exclusive Print Story - Give the story to a major print outlet such as the NYT or WSJ. To make this happen, we will need to have some information to provide. Name(s) of the Chevron personnel being investigated; who is conducting the investigation; status of the investigation; any documentation as to the subj ect.

o Letter to the Board that is Released Publicly - Letter from either A W or some other entity to the individual Board members that asks Chevron to come clean on the status of the investigation. The letter is then conveyed to a wire service to stimulate coverage and get the ball rolling.

o Letter to the SEC - Letter to the SEC pointing out the issue and calling for an investigation as to Chevron's failure to make public such a material matter. Letter would be cc'd to a variety of entities. The letter is then conveyed to a wire service to stimulate coverage and get the ball rolling.

o Print Ad in a Paper or Internet Ad - The ad would accuse Chevron of being the subject of a criminal investigation.



'" Immediate Follow-Up Steps After StOry is Published: The day the story appears, we will want to pursue a number of follow-up steps designed to apply shareholder pressure on Chevron, including:

o Issue a Press Release - Issue a press release providing details and advancing the story by taking a specific step. Specific follow-up steps could be:

• SEC letter calling for an investigation • Letter to the Board Members reminding them that under Sarbanes-

Oxley they bear personal responsibility for corporate malfeasance • Letter to elected officials who head major pension funds asking them

to investigate the matter (California's Angelides and Westly; NY's Hevesi

o One on One Call to Chevron Beat Reporters -- We (combination of A Wand the lawyers) will want to do individual one-on-one calls with Chevron's beat reporters walking them through the criminal matter and setting up an individual in-person meeting (which we will do as part of a road show).

o Analyst Communication - We (combination of A Wand the lawyers) will want to do individual one-on-one calls with Chevron's analysts walking them through the criminal matter and setting up an individual in-person meeting (which we will do as part of a road show).

o Major Shareholder Communication - We will want to reach out to major investors with a call and set up a future meeting (again, part of a road show). We should focus on major public and university funds, but also engage other funds.

'" Sustained Pressure: In the days and weeks following this development, we will want to keep imposing tremendous pressure on Chevron. Here are a list of activities that we can pursue:

o Meetings with State Pension Fund Elected Officials - We should seek meetings with Westly, Angelides and Hevesi. Our goal will be to get one of these elected officials to publicly demand a meeting with Chevron to discuss the matter.

o Op Ed - Op ed from an Ecuadoran Indian on the subject.

o Analyst Road Show - Series of meetings with Chevron's top analysts to walk them through the case and most recent developments.



o Chevron Reporter Road Show - Series of meetings with Chevron's beat reporters (business, trade, etc.) - to walk them through the case and the most recent developments.

o Investor Road Show - Series of meetings with Chevron's top investors - with a special focus on public pension funds and university investors -- to walk them through the case and most recent developments.

o Protest in Front of Chevron -- Protest in front of Chevron to generate tv coverage off of the developments.

o Google Ad - Have a Google ad that puts out some provocative information for anyone who types in a search for Chevron. Put out a release announcing the Google ad.

o SEC Letters - SEC letters calling for an investigation of Chevron (depending on what we have filed to date).

• SEC letter on Chevron's failure to disclose the criminal investigation. • SEC letter on Chevron's failure to disclose the suit in Ecuador.

"Y Long-Term Initiatives: Building off of the initial activity, we will want to consider several targeted specific mini-campaigns all designed to create pressure points on Chevron's economics.

o Securities Suit Filedfor Failure to Disclose Material Information -Shareholder lawsuit for failure to disclose information.

o New Legal Filing/Information - Dress up some new developments in the case and use it as an opportunity to generate significant coverage.

o NY Attorney General- Ifwe get traction on the disclosure issue, we should look to see whether we can get Spitzer into the game.

o Development of a Specific University Effort - Target a major university that is invested in Chevron for a divestment campaign. Student groups; pressure on the President and Board; etc.

o Development of a Specific Pension Fund Effort - Target a major public pension fund for a divestment campaign.

o Venezuela Effort - Specific outreach, which is made public, to interact with the Chavez government to "expose" what happened in Ecuador and get Venezuela to take steps against Chevron.


EXHIBIT 7

Sent: To; Subject: Attachments:

Sleven Donzlger [[email protected]] Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10;58 AM Julio Prieto Re: Remediation Agreement Nullification!! Fraud_Memo Eng Jan 9.doc

Use this copy and make sure that the Spanish copy is the same. I changed some words and things. I(eep a master copy so we change both the English and Spanish. thanks, srd

Julio Prieto

Dear colleagues, this is to inform you that at a meeting yesterday with the Attorney General we agreed on criteria regarding the fraudulent Remediation Agreement signed by Texaco in '95. The Attorney General perceives this as a collusive pact and wants to file the pertinent actions for its annulment.

I will meet again on Monday of next week to coordinate actions, since he told me that he wants us to work together on this matter. He also told me that he does not want our meetings to be made public until the appropriate time.

With respect to preliminary injunctions, we did not reach an agreement but will follow up on the matter.

That is all for now.

take care

julio

Steven Oonziger (land)

212-570-9944 (Fax) (cell)

Steven R. Donzig'ep Law Offices of steven R. Donzigep) P.c, 111 E. 79th st., #5 New Yot'k j New York 10021 Email: sdQ.rlzi££?.r.;@yjlho..9..!...'-9l!!

[CERT.GEOTEXT]


Translations, Inc.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ESTADO DE CALIFORNIA )





Por la presente certifico que la traducci6n adjunta de espanol a ingles es, a mi leal saber y entender,


•• , MELISSA PIERONI i. _, . ' COMM. # 1755133 -z· ...,. '" . Z - -;; NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA s:

r""o •• " SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY .....

... Expires July 3,2011

Lindsey Manager/Gerente de Proyectos Geotext Translations, Inc.


Subscribed and sworn to before me


Suscrito y declarado bajo juramento (0 afmnado) ante

mi en este dia _6__ de diciembre

Por __________ __________ _

Habiendo acreditado en mi presencia, mediante prueba



FITrrm: ______ __________ _


\/lh,,,,hinritnr 1 025 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 1 000, Washington, DC 20036, U.S.A. Tel +1.202.828.1267 Fax +1.202.828.1271 8-11 St. John's Lane, London EC1 M 4BF, United Kingdom Tel +44.20.7553.4100 Fax+44.20.7990.9909

75 Boulevard Haussmann, F- 75008 Paris, France tel +33.1.42.68.51.47 fax +33.1.77.72.90.25 20th Floor, Central Tower, 28 Queen's Road, Central, Hong Kong tel +852.2159.9143 fax +852.3010.0082


steven Donziger [[email protected]] Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:58 AM Julio Prieto Re: Nulidad del Contrato de Remediaci6n!! Fraud_Memo Eng Jan 9.doc

Utiliza este copia) y este segura que la copia en espanol es igual. Cambie algunas palabras y cositas. Mantenga una copia maestra para que cambiamos ingles y espanol igual. gracias) srd

Julio Prieto <[email protected]> wrote:

Estimados colegas) tengo a bien informarles que en una reunIon ayer con el Procurador hemos coincidido en criterios acerca del fraudulento Acuerdo de Remediaci6n que firm6 Texaco en el 95. El Procurador 10 ve como un pacto colusorio y desea iniciar las acciones correspondientes para anularlo.

Me reunire nuevamente el lunes de la pr6xima semana para coordinar acciones J

pues me ha manifest ado que quisiera que trabajemos paralelamente en este tema. Me dijo tambien que no qUIsIera que nuestras reuniones se hagan publicas hasta el momenta oportuno.

Con respecto a las medidas cautela res no llegamos a ningun acuerdo pero seguiremos sobre el tema.

Es todo por el momento.

saludos

julio


Steven R. Donziger Law Offices of Steven R. Donziger) P.C. 111 E. 79th St., #5 New York, New York 10021 Email: [email protected]


EXHIBIT 8


Steven Donziger [[email protected] Tuesday, August 22,20069:13 PM Joseph C. Kohn latest -- important doc requests. pdf

Joe -- Attached is Winston's latest doc request regarding the fraud issue. A few things pending: 1) Can u please send the 25k down to Ecuador ASAP 2) I am going to Quito on Sunday -- primarily to organize the fraud evidence for Winston, and to plan the next round of inspections. 3) The judge today granted our motion to withdraw inspections -- a huge victory for us.

Stay well. SRD

Steven Danziger 212-570-4499 (land) 212-570-9944 (fax) 917-566-2526 (cell)

Steven R. Donziger Law Offices of Steven R. Donziger, P.C. 111 E. 79th St. #5 New York, New York 10021 Email: [email protected]


WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

35 WEST WACKER DRIVE CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60601-9703

43 RUE DU RHONE 1204 GENEVA. SWITZERLAND

BUCKLERSBURY HOUSE 3 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET

LONDON EC4N 6NH

VIA FACSIMILE Thomas E. Lynch, Esq. Jones Day 222 East 41 st Street New York, NY 10017-6702

BY HAND Thomas F. Cullen, Jr., Esq. Michael Kolis, Esq. Jones Day 51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001

1700 K STREET. N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006-3817

(202) 282-5000

FACSIMILE (202) 262-5100

www.winston.com

August 15, 2006

333 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90071-1543

200 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10166-4193

21 AVENUE VICTOR HUGO 75116 PARIS. FRANCE

101 CALIFORNIA STREET SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94111-5694

Re: Republic of Ecuador and Petroecuador v. Chevron Texaco and TexPet

Dear Counsel:

Please find enclosed Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents and Second Set of Interrogatories.

Eric W. Bloom


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR and PETROECUADOR,

Plaintiffs, Counterclaim Defendants, :

-against-

CHEVRONTEXACO CORPORATION and TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY,

Defendants, Counterclaim Plaintiffs. : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

04 Civ. 8378 (LBS)

ECF CASE

THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR'S AND PETROECUADOR'S SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANTS' CHEVRONTEXACO

CORPORATION AND TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, Plaintiffs the Republic of Ecuador

and Petroecuador, hereby serve the following requests for the production of documents upon

Defendants ChevronTexaco Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company ("TexPet").

Definitions and Instructions

A. In addition to the definitions set forth in Local Civil Rule 26.3, which are

incorporated herein by reference, the following terms shall have the following meanings for

purposes of these requests:

1. "The Republic" means Plaintiff the Republic of Ecuador.

2. "Petroecuador" means Plaintiff Petro ecuador and its predecessors and

successors, including "Corporacion Estatal Petrol era Ecuatoriana" or "CEPE", and any of its

agents, employees, former employees, advisors, consultants, representatives, attorneys and any

other persons acting or purporting to act for or on its behalf.

DC:478831.J - 1 -


3. "ChevronTexaco" and "TexPet" hereinafter collectively "Texaco" means

Defendants ChevronTexaco and Texpet as well as all affiliated, associated, parent companies,

partially or fully owned subsidiaries or in any way related companies that at any time between

1963 and the present time had any relation, however remote, to oil production in "the Republic"

including but not limited to, ChevronTexaco, Texaco, Inc., Keepep, Inc., Texaco International

Finance Corporation, Texaco Overseas Holdings, Inc., TRMI Holdings Inc., Texas Pipeline

Company, TexPet, Texas Petroleum Company, Compania Texaco de Petroleos del Ecuador,

c.A., and any of their agents, employees, former employees, advisors, consultants,

representatives, attorneys and other persons acting or purporting to act for or on their behalf.

4. "You" and "your" means Defendants as defined in preceding Item 3 above

and/or their agents, officers, servants, employees or attorneys.

5. "Regarding" means referring to, related to, about, describing, evidencing,

constituting, concerning, discussing, contradicting, or mentioning.

6. "Complaint" means the Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs in this

matter.

7. "Amended Reply" means the Plaintiffs' Amended Reply and Affirmative

Defenses to ChevronTexaco Corporation's and Texaco Petroleum Company's Counterclaims,

submitted with Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion to Amend Reply, dated June 20, 2006.

8. "Napo JOA" means the Napo Joint Operating Agreement originally

entered into by TexPet and Ecuadorian Gulf Oil Company on or about October 22, 1965.

9. "Napo Concession" means the concession for oil exploration and

exploitation in areas of the Napo and Pastaza provinces located in the Ecuadorian rainforest

known as the Oriente, which was originally granted by the Republic of Ecuador in 1964 to Texas

DC:478831.2 - 2 -


Petroleum Company, which then in the same concession, was authorized to assign its interest to

the Texaco and Gulf Ecuadorian subsidiaries.

10. "The 1973 Concession Contract" means the contract entered into on

August 6, 1973, by Texaco Petroleum Company, Ecuadorian Gulf Oil Company and the

Republic of Ecuador referred to in Paragraphs 7 and 28 of the Complaint.

11. "The 1994 MOU" means the December 14, 1994 "Memorandum of

Agreement among the Government of Ecuador, Petroecuador and Texaco Petroleum Company."

12. "The 1995 Settlement Agreement" means the May 4, 1995 "Contract for

Implementing of Erivironmental Remedial Work and Release from Obligations, Liability and

Claims" among the Government of Ecuador, Petroecuador and TexPet.

13. "The 1998 Release" means the September 30, 1998 "Final Document" or

"Acta Final" among the Government of Ecuador, Petroecuador and TexPet.

14. "The Lago Agrio Litigation" means the litigation in Lago Agrio, Ecuador

in which Chevron is a defendant (referred to on pages 1-2 of Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law In

Support of Motion to Amend Reply, dated June 20, 2006).

IS. "Communication" means the transmittal of information (in the form of

facts, ideas, inquiries or otherwise).' [Local Civil Rule 26.3(c)(I).]

16. "Document" is defined to be synonymous in meaning and equal in scope

to the usage of this term in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a), including, without limitation,

electronic or computerized data compilations. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate

document within the meaning of this term. [Local Civil Rule 26.3(c)(2).]

17. The terms "plaintiff' and "defendant", as well as a party's full or

abbreviated name or a pronoun referring to a party, mean the party and, where applicable, its

DC:478831.1 - 3 -


officers, directors, employees, partners, corporate parent, subsidiaries or affiliates. This

definition is not intended to impose a discovery obligation on any person who is not a party to

the litigation. [Local Civil Rule 26.3(c)(5).]

18. When referring to a person, "to identify" means to give, to the extent

known, the person's full name, present or last known address, and when referring to a natural

person, additionally, the present or last known place of employment. Once a person has been

identified in accordance with this subparagraph, only the name of that person needs to be listed

in response to subsequent discovery requesting the identification of that person. [Local Civil

Rule 26.39(c)(3).]

19. When referring to documents, "to identify" means to give, to the extent

known, the (i) type of document, (ii) general subject matter; (iii) date of document; and (iv)

author(s), addressee(s) and recipient(s). [Local Civil Rule 26.3(c)(4).]

20. The term "defendant" as well as party's full or abbreviated name or

pronoun referring to party means the party and its officers, directors, employees, partners,

corporate parent, subsidiaries or affiliates at any time between 1963 and the present. [Local Civil

Rule 26.3(c)(5).]

21. "Person" is defined as any natural person or any business, legal or

governmental entity or association. [Local Civil Rule 26.3(c)(6).]

22. "Concerning" means relating to, referring to, describing, evidencing or

constituting. [Local Civil Rule 26.3(c)(7).]

23. The conjunctions "and" and "or" shall be construed either disjunctively or

conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all responses that

might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope. [Local Civil Rule 26.3(d)(2).]

DC:478831.1 - 4 -


24. The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural and vice

versa. [Local Civil Rule 26.3(d)(3).]

25. Unless words or terms have been given a specific definition, each word or

term shall have its usual and customary dictionary definition.

B. All requests directed to "Texaco" (as per definition 3 above) are to include

documents in the possession, custody, or control of "Texaco's" (as per definition 3 above)

officials, employees, representatives, agents, officers, employers, or servants, including but not

limited to its attorneys.

c. Each of these requests shall be construed independently and shall not be limited

by any other request.

D. The present and past tense of verbs shall be interpreted to describe or call for

documents relating to both the past and present.

E. If any document or information sought by this discovery request was at one time

in existence but is no longer in existence, or has become unavailable in any manner, identify the

nature of the information and state the date on which it ceased to exist or became unavailable, the

circumstances under which it ceased to exist or became unavailable, the identity of all persons

having knowledge of the circumstances under which it ceased to exist or became unavailable,

and the identity of all persons having knowledge of the contents thereof.

F. The documents produced in response to these requests shall be produced as they

are maintained in the normal course of business, with copies of the labels or other identifying

information from the file folders in which they were maintained and any other indication of their

organization, and with indication of the person in whose files the documents were located.

DC:478831.1 - 5 -


G. To the extent that any of the infonnation sought by these document requests is

maintained in an electronic format, please so indicate in your response. Defendants reserve the

right to request production of any and all such information in that electronic format.

H. Unless otherwise specified, please produce all documents responsive to these

requests dated from January 1, 1964 to the date of your response.

I. This Request for Production of Documents shall be deemed continuing so as to

require supplemental answers and supplemental productions of documents subsequent to

responding to these requests.

REQUESTS

A. Subject to the foregoing Definitions and Instructions and to the extent not

previously produced, produce all documents or communications constituting, regarding,

concerning, referring or relating to:

1. The 1994 MOU, the 1995 Settlement, the 1998 Release, including but not

limited to drafts of the same, and any correspondence and/or communications analyzing their

advisability, meaning, compliance or noncompliance.

2. Any breach by Texaco of the provisions of the 1994 MOU, the 1995

Settlement, the 1998 Release, and all attachments thereto (including the Scope of Work and the

Remedial Action Plan) including without limitation all documents relating to the effects of such

breach or the remedies available to the non-breaching party.

3. Texaco's alleged compliance with the 1995 Settlement.

4. Any alleged breach by Plaintiffs of the provisions of the 1994 MOU, the

1995 Settlement, the 1998 Release, and all attachments thereto (including the Scope of Work and

the Remedial Action Plan) including without limitation all documents relating to the effects of

such breach or the remedies available to the non-breaching party.

DC:478831.1 - 6 -


5. Any and all remediation, whether performed, contemplated, discussed,

proposed, or analyzed, within the Napo Concession Area.

6. Any and all communications between Texaco and either or both of the

Plaintiffs regarding remediation within the Napo Concession Area.

7. Any records of or communications regarding the inspections and/or testing

of the remedial work conducted by Texaco or any of its contractors, subcontractors, employees

or agents pursuant to the 1995 Settlement Agreement and the 1998 Release, including the Scope

of Work and the Remedial Action Plan contemplated thereunder.

8. Texaco's assessment of the environmental impact caused by the petroleum

exploration and/or development in the Napo Concession Area from 1964 through 1992,

including any environmental audits, and in particular, the audits performed in or around 1992

and 1993 by Fugro-McClelland and HBT Agra Limited.

9. Texaco's involvement and relationship with Fugro-McClelland and HBT

Agra, including all reports generated and all records of any interactions between Texaco and the

auditing entities, including any records of negotiation of the service contracts, as well as the

service contracts themselves, and any material respecting the Republic's and Petroecuador's

demands that Texaco cooperate in the audit and remediation process.

10. Any documents or communications given to the Republic or Petroecuador

by Texaco for the purpose of helping the parties agree to and enter into the 1994 MOU, the 1995

Settlement Agreement and the 1998 Release, including any environmental audits conducted.

11. Any environmental audits conducted by or at the request of Texaco and/or

Petroecuador or the Republic in the Napo Concession area between 1990 and 1999.

DC:478831.1 - 7 -


12. Texaco's remedial efforts and testing procedures within the Napo

Concession Area.

13. The Remedial Action Plan proposed by Texaco, and in particular, any

documents or communications concerning which sites should and/or should not be remediated

under the 1995 Settlement Agreement (and the Scope of Work or Remedial Action Plan).

14. Texaco's selection of which sites should be remediated under the 1995

Settlement Agreement and pursuant to the Scope of Work and Remedial Action Plan, including

any documents or communications regarding which waste oil pits did not need to be cleaned-up

or included within the Scope of Work or Remedial action Plan.

15. Texaco's understanding of "all existing pits" as defined in the 1995

Settlement Agreement (and the Scope of Work and Remedial Action Plan).

16. Any "pits" or former "pits," whether closed, covered or still open, (a) not

considered by Texaco as candidates for remediation or (b) not disclosed to HBT Agra Limited or

Woodward-Clyde prior to 1994 (with respect to HBT Agra Limited) or prior to 1998 (with

respect to Woodward-Clyde).

17. Texaco's relationship with Woodward-Clyde or any of its subcontractors,

agents, employees or assigns as it pertains to the preparation ofthe Remedial Action Plan and the

remediation performed pursuant to the 1995 Settlement Agreement and/or the 1998 Release,

including in particular, the inclusion/omission of certain waste pits at any of the Consortium's

wells or production stations or other areas within the Napo Concession area.

18. The construction or "filling-in" or "covering-up" with soil or fill any

waste pits or "pools" at any of the Consortium's wells or production stations or other areas

within the Napo Concession Area, particularly during the 1980s.

()C:478831.1 - 8 -


19. Texaco's awareness of the impact of its operations on the indigenous

population and land within Napo Concession area.

20. Texaco's awareness of the impact on the environment of its practice of

"filling-in" or "covering-up" waste pits or "pools" with soil or fill.

21. Texaco's selection of the TCLP test to determine the success of its

remediation.

22. All documents that support or contradict any of the allegations In the

Amended Reply.

23. Communications between Texaco and any representatives of the Republic

of Ecuador or Petroecuador and its related entities regarding Plaintiffs' alleged obligation to

indemnify Texaco in any way.

24. Communications between Texaco and any representatives of the Republic

of Ecuador or Petroecuador and its related entities regarding Texaco's obligation for, or

performance of, any environmental remediation arising out of the operations of the Consortium

during the time Texaco was Operator, including, but not limited to, communications between

Texaco and any of the individuals identified below regarding the scope, performance, or effect of

environmental remediation work performed in accordance with the 1994 MOU, 1995 Settlement

Agreement, or 1998 Release:

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

DC:47883J.2

Alberto Dahik G., constitutional Vice President of the Republic of Ecuador;

Sixto Duran-Ballen, constitutional President of the Republic of Ecuador;

Francisco Acosta Coloma, Minister of Energy and Mining;

Gustavo Galindo Velasco, Minister of Energy and Mining;

Galo Abril Ojeda, Minister of Energy and Mining;

Jorge Pareja Cucalon, Minister of Energy and Mining;

- 9 -

DONZ00023325 Page 10 of 25

g) Patricio Ribadeneira G., Minister of Energy and Mining;

h) Giovanni Rosania Schiavone, Undersecretary for Environmental Protection, Ministry of Energy and Mining;

i) Jorge Alban Gomez, Undersecretary for Environmental Protection, Ministry of Energy and Mining;

j) Manuel Munoz Neira, Undersecretary for Environmental Protection, Ministry of Energy and Mining;

k) Hugo Jara Roman, Undersecretary for Environmental Protection, Ministry of Energy and Mining;

I) Patricio'Izurieta Granja, National Director for Environmental Protection;

m) Estuardo Hidalgo Bifarini, Representative for Napo Province, National Congress;

n) Heinz Moeller, President, National Congress;

0) Eduardo Yillaquiran Lebed, President, Special Commission for the Environment;

p) Federico Yintimilla Salcedo, Executive President, Petroecuador;

q) Ramiro Gordillo, Executive President, Petroecuador;

r) Patricio Maldonado Y., Head of Environmental Protection, Petroecuador;

s) Luis Alban Granizo, Manager, Petroproduccion;

t) Jose Paez c., Manager, Petroproduccion;

u) Martha Romero, Field Inspection Team Member;

v) Luis Aruz, CEPE in-House Counsel;

w) Rodrigo Cabezas, Engineer, Petroecuador;

x) Wilson Guerrero, Ministry of Energy and Mining;

y) Magdalena Barreiro, Ministry of Energy and Mining, Technical Commission;

z) Raul Jaramillo, CEPE, General Manager;

aa) Eduardo Puente, CEPE in-House Counsel;

bb) Raul Baca Carbo, Minster of Energy and Mining;

cc) Jorge Dutan, Ministry of Energy and Mining;

DC:478831.1 - 10 -

DONZ00023325 Page 11 of 25

dd) Esperanza Martinez, Oil Watch;

ee) Gustavo Palacios Martinez, Petro ecuador, Technical Commission;

ff) Marcos Trejo, Petroproduccion, Environmental Sector.

Dated August 15, 2006

DC:478831.2 - 11 -

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166-4193 (212) 294-6700 (212) 294-4700 (facsimile) [email protected]

Eric W. Bloom* WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 1700 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006-3817 (202) 282-5000 (202) 282-5100 (facsimile) *admission pro hac vice pending

Counsel for Plaintiffs

DONZ00023325 Page 12 of 25

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

I, Nicole Y. Silver, declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1746 that on August 15,2006, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the attached, THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR'S AND PETROECUADOR'S SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANTS CHEVRONTEXACO CORPORATION AND TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY, by transmitting copies to the following attorneys:

Dated: August 15,2006 Washington, D.C.

BY FACSIMILE Thomas E. Lynch, Esq. Jones Day 222 East 41 st Street New York, NY 10017-6702

BY HAND Thomas F. Cullen, Jr., Esq. Michael Kolis, Esq. Jones Day 51 Louisiana Avenue, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20001

(Counsel for the Republic of Ecuador and Petroecuador)

Nicole Y. Silver

DONZ00023325 Page 13 of 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR and PETROECUADOR,

Plaintiffs, Counterclaim Defendants, :

-against-

CHEVRONTEXACO CORPORATION and TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY,

Defendants, Counterclaim Plaintiffs. : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

04 Civ. 8378 (LBS)

ECF CASE

THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR'S AND PETROECUADOR'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS CHEVRONTEXACO CORPORATION

AND TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 and Local Rule 33.3(b)(1),

Plaintiffs the Republic of Ecuador and Petroecuador, hereby serve the following interrogatories

upon Defendants ChevronTexaco Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company ("TexPet").

Definitions and Instructions

A. In addition to the definitions set forth in Local Civil Rule 26.3, which are

incorporated herein by reference, the following tenns shall have the following meanings for

purposes of these interrogatories:

1. "The Republic" means Plaintiff the Republic of Ecuador.

2. "Petroecuador" means Plaintiff Petroecuador and its predecessors and

successors, including "Corporacion Estatal Petrolera Ecuatoriana" or "CEPE", and any of its

agents, employees, fonner employees, advisors, consultants, representatives, attorneys and any

other persons acting or purporting to act for or on its behalf.

DC :479231.3 - 1 -

DONZ00023325 Page 14 of 25

3. "ChevronTexaco" and "TexPet" hereinafter collectively "Texaco" means

Defendants ChevronTexaco and Texpet as well as all affiliated, associated, parent companies,

partially or fully owned subsidiaries or in any way related companies that at any time between

1963 and the present time had any relation, however remote, to oil production in "the Republic"

including but not limited to, ChevronTexaco, Texaco, Inc., Keepep, Inc., Texaco International

Finance Corporation, Texaco Overseas Holdings, Inc., TRMI Holdings Inc., Texas Pipeline

Company, TexPet, Texas Petroleum Company, Compania Texaco de Petroleos del Ecuador,

C.A., and any of their agents, employees, former employees, advisors, consultants,

representatives, attorneys and other persons acting or purporting to act for or on their behalf.

4. "You" and "your" means Defendants as defined in preceding Item 3 above

and/or their agents, officers, servants, employees or attorneys.

5. "Regarding" means referring to, related to, about, describing, evidencing,

constituting, concerning, discussing, contradicting, or mentioning.

6. "Complaint" means the Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs In this

matter.

7. "Amended Reply" means the Plaintiffs' Amended Reply and Affirmative

Defenses to ChevronTexaco Corporation's and Texaco Petroleum Company's Counterclaims,

submitted with Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion to Amend Reply, dated June 20,2006.

8. "Napo JOA" means the Napo Joint Operating Agreement originally

entered into by TexPet and Ecuadorian Gulf Oil Company on or about October 22, 1965.

9. "Napo Concession" means the concession for oil exploration and

exploitation in areas of the Napo and Pastaza provinces located in the Ecuadorian rainforest

known as the Oriente, which was originally granted by the Republic of Ecuador in 1964 to Texas

DC:479231.3 - 2-

DONZ00023325 Page 15 of 25

Petroleum Company, which then in the same concession, was authorized to assign its interest to

the Texaco and Gulf Ecuadorian subsidiaries.

10. "Consortium" means, collectively, all the economic participants in the

Napo Concession from time to time, whether as the operator thereof or as a non-operator

participant therein. "Consortium Member" means a member of the Consortium.

1 1. "Pit" or "Pool" means any pit, pool, hole, trench or other man made

excavation located at or near any well site within the Napo Concession and used for purposes of

crude oil exploration or production, whether "closed" (covered) or "open" as of 1994, including

without limitation all pools or pits used to store or dispose of waste oil and other solvents,

drilling muds, condensate, crude oil, crude oil fractions, water of production and other chemicals

(including heavy metals) used, produced or associated with the production of oil.

12. "The 1973 Concession Contract" means the contract entered into on

August 6, 1973, by Texaco Petroleum Company, Ecuadorian Gulf Oil Company and the

Republic of Ecuador referred to in Paragraphs 7 and 28 of the Comptaint.

13. "The 1994 MOU" means the December 14, 1994 "Memorandum of

Agreement among the Government of Ecuador, Petroecuador and Texaco Petroleum Company."

14. "The 1995 Settlement Agreement" means the May 4, 1995 "Contract for

Implementing of Environmental Remedial Work and Release from Obligations, Liability and

Claims" among the Government of Ecuador, Petroecuador and TexPet.

15. "The 1998 Release" means the September 30, 1998 "Final Document" or

"Acta Final" among the Government of Ecuador, Petroecuador and TexPet.

DC:479231.3 - 3-

DONZ00023325 Page 16 of 25

16. "The Lago Agrio Litigation" means the litigation in Lago Agrio, Ecuador

in which Chevron is a defendant (referred to on pages 1-2 of Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law In

Support of Motion to Amend Reply, dated June 20, 2006).

17. "Communication" means the transmittal of information (in the form of

facts, ideas, inquiries or otherwise). [Local Civil Rule 26.3(c)(1).]

18. "Document" is defined to be synonymous in meaning and equal in scope

to the usage of this term in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a), including, without limitation,

electronic or computerized data compilations. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate

document within the meaning of this term. [Local civil Rule 26.3(c)(2).]

19. The terms "plaintiff' and "defendant", as well as a party's full or

abbreviated name or a pronoun referring to a party, mean the party and, where applicable, its

officers, directors, employees, partners, corporate parent, subsidiaries or affiliates. This

definition is not intended to impose a discovery obligation on any person who is not a party to

the litigation. [Local Civil Rule 26.3(c)(5).]

20. When referring to a person, "to identify" means to give, to the extent

known, the person's full name, present or last known address, and when referring to a natural

person, additionally, the present or last known place of employment. Once a person has been

identified in accordance with this subparagraph, only the name of that person needs to be listed

in response to subsequent discovery requesting the identification of that person. [Local Civil

Rule 26.39(c)(3).]

21. When referring to documents, "to identify" means to give, to the extent

known, the (i) type of document; (ii) general subject matter; (iii) date of document; and (iv)

author(s), addressee(s) and recipient(s). [Local Civil Rule 26.3(c)(4).]

DC:479231.3 -4-

DONZ00023325 Page 17 of 25

22. "Person" is defined as any natural person or any business, legal or

governmental entity or association. [Local Civil Rule 26.3(c)(6).]

23. "Concerning" means relating to, referring to, describing, evidencing or

constituting. [Local Civil Rule 26.3(c)(7).]

24. The connectives "and" and "or" shall be construed either disjunctively or

conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the interrogatories all responses that

might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope. [Local Civil Rule 26.3(d)(2).]

25. The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural and vice

versa. [Local Civil Rule 26.3(d)(3).]

26. Unless words or terms have been given a specific definition, each word or

term shall have its usual and customary dictionary definition.

A. In your responses, include all information known to you or any and all of

Texaco's (as defined in item 3) current and former officials, employees, representatives, agents,

officers, employers, consultants, experts, advisors, or servants, and, unless claimed to be

privileged, your current and former attorneys and their agents, employees and representatives.

B. In the event you contend that any information called for by an

interrogatory is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other

claimed privilege or protection, identify the interrogatory or portion thereof that calls for such

information and state: (a) the nature of the privilege or protection claimed; and (b) the basis for

that claim, including a summary of the information withheld in sufficient detail to allow

Plaintiffs to make an assessment of the claim of privilege and, if necessary, to permit the Court

to rule on the contention.

D(,:479231.3 -5-

DONZ00023325 Page 18 of 25

C. If you object to any of the following interrogatories or cannot answer them

in full, answer to the extent possible and state specifically any and all reasons for your inability

to answer the remainder, setting out whatever infonnation and knowledge you have with respect

to the unanswered portion.

D. Unless otherwise specified, the interrogatories are limited to the time

period from January 1, 1964 to the date of your response.

E. These interrogatories shall be deemed continuing in accordance with Rule

26( e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, you are required to supplement your

answers in the event that you or your attorneys or representatives become aware of further or

different infonnation between the time your answers are served and the time of trial of this

matter.

F. Each of these interrogatories shall be C0nstrued independently and shall

not be limited by any other interrogatory.

INTERROGA TORIES

INTERROGATORY 17

Identify each Pit or Pool within the Napo Concession area, by location and number, that the

Consortium or any Consortium Member was aware of, created or used at any time during the

period that Texaco was a Consortium Member, whether or not it had been closed, covered or

otherwise discontinued in use prior to the commencement of Texaco's remediation during the

1995-1998 period, which was not included within the Scope of Work and/or the Remedial

Action Plan, and in each instance explain why it was not included.

DC;479231.3 -6-

DONZ00023325 Page 19 of 25

INTERROGATORY 18

Identify each and every person associated with or employed at the time by the Concession or a

Concession Member, or any successor, predecessor or affiliate company of a Concession

Member (including without limitation Texaco, Gulf Ecuadorian Oil Company, the Republic or

Petroecuador), that you contend had knowledge of Texaco's practice, as Concession Operator, of

covering or filling in with soil or dirt Pits or Pools located within the Napo Concession area, and

explain in each instance the factual basis for your conclusion that such person or persons were

aware of Texaco's practice.

INTERROGATORY 19

Identify in order of responsibility the three employees, representatives of or consultants to

Texaco who had the greatest responsibility for and/or oversight of drafting, negotiating,

approving, executing and/or entering into all the following: (i) the service agreement for the

environmental audit, inspection, remediation and testing/sampling performed by Woodward-

Clyde (or any subcontractor, affiliated company, agent, subsidiary or employee of Woodward-

Clyde) in accordance with the terms and conditions of the 1994 MOU, the 1995 Settlement

Agreement or the 1998 Release (including the Scope of Work and the Remedial Action Plan);

(ii) the environmental audit conducted by Fugro-McClelland in or around 1992; and (iii) the

environmental audit conducted by HBT Agra Limited in or around 1993. Explain in each

instance in (i)-(iii) above each such individual's precise role therein, including in particular, if

such precise role involved the oversight of and testing (including the selection of the testing

method) of the "remediated" areas, including any Pits or Pools in the Napo Concession area.

DC:479231.3 -7-

DONZ00023325 Page 20 of 25

INTERROGATORY 20

If you contend that any representative of the Republic or of Petroecuador promised or

acknowledged to Texaco, in writing or orally, that the Republic and/or Petroecuador agreed or

would for any reason agree to indemnify, or was legally obligated under and according to the

terms of the 1965 lOA to indemnify Texaco for fees, costs, expenses or for claims or judgments

of third parties against Texaco arising from Texaco's role as Operator of the Napo Concession,

please identify: (i) the representative(s) of the Republic or of Petroecuador who allegedly made

the promise or statement; Oi) any and all witnesses to the promise or statement; (iii) the date the

promise or statement was made; (iv) means of communication (whether by telephone,

correspondence, in-person discussion), if incorporated in one or more documents, those

documents; and (v) if oral, the precise contents of the promise or statement.

INTERROGATORY 21

Please describe in detail any and all communications between representatives of the Republic

and/or Petroecuador and Texaco regarding the following provisions of the 1965 lOA: the

indemnification of operator provision, the arbitration provision, the New York forum selection

provision, and/or the choice of law provision. Include in your answer the participants in any

such communications, the substance of such communications and the precise (or, ifnot available,

approximate) date of such communications.

INTERROGATOR Y 22

In your response to Interrogatory 1 of the Republic's and Petroecuador's First Set of

Interrogatories, you listed numerous persons from Texaco who allegedly communicated to the

Republic of Ecuador, CEPE and/or Petroecuador, that the Republic and/or CEPE and/or

DC:479231.3 -8-

DONZ00023325 Page 21 of 25

Petroecuador were bound by the tenns of the NAPO lOA. From those,persons: (i) list whom

you intend to offer as witnesses at trial; (ii) list the top ten people (in descending rank order) who

have the most knowledge of the subject matter to which your response referred; (iii) give a

detailed summary of their involvement on that matter; and (iv) identify from (ii) which persons

are still alive and which persons are still employed with ChevronTexaco.

INTERROGATORY 23


Interrogatories, you listed numerous persons from Texaco whom you alleged had primary

responsibility for and/or oversight of drafting, negotiating, approving, executing and/or entering

into the 1973 Contract. From those persons: (i) list whom you intend to offer as witnesses at

trial; (ii) rank in descending order those persons with the most overall knowledge of the subject

matter to which the interrogatory response referred; (iii) give a detailed summary of their

involvement on that matter; and (iv) list which persons are still alive and which persons are still

employed with ChevronTexaco.

INTERROGATORY 24


Interrogatories, you listed numerous persons at Texaco whom you alleged had primary


into the June 1974 Contract. From those persons: (i) list whom you intend to offer as witnesses

at trial; (ii) rank in descending order those persons with the most overall knowledge of the

subject matter to which the interrogatory response referred; (iii) give a detailed summary of their

DC:479231.3 - 9-

DONZ00023325 Page 22 of 25

involvement on that matter; and (iv) list which persons are still alive and which persons are still

employed with ChevronTexaco.

INTERROGATOR Y 25


Interrogatories, you listed numerous persons from Texaco whom you alleged had primary


into the 1994 Memorandum of Understanding, the 1995 Settlement Agreement and the 1998

Release. From those persons: (i) list whom you intend to offer as witnesses at trial; (ii) rank in

descending order those persons with the most overall knowledge of the subject matter to which

the interrogatory response referred; (iii) give a detailed summary of their involvement on that

matter; and (iv) list which persons are still alive and which persons are still employed with

ChevronTexaco.

DC:479231.3 - 10-

DONZ00023325 Page 23 of 25

Dated August 15, 2006

DC:479231.3 - 11 -

c. C. MacNeil Mitchell (CM-46 5) WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 Park A venue New York, New York 10166-4193 (212) 294-6700 (212) 294-4700 (facsimile) [email protected]

Eric W. Bloom* WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 1700 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006-3817 (202) 282-5000 (202) 282-5100 ( facsimile) *admission pro hac vice pending

Counsel for Plaintiffs

DONZ00023325 Page 24 of 25

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

I, Nicole Y. Silver, declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that on August 15, 2006, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the attached, THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR'S AND PETROECUADOR'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS CHEVRONTEXACO CORPORATION AND TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY, by transmitting copies to the following attorneys:

Dated: August 15, 2006 Washington, D.C.

DC:479400.1

BY FACSIMILE Thomas E. Lynch, Esq. Jones Day 222 East 41 st Street New York, NY 10017-6702

BY HAND Thomas F. Cullen, Jr., Esq. Michael Kolis, Esq. Jones Day 51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001

(Counsel for the Republic of Ecuador and Petroecuador)

DONZ00023325 Page 25 of 25

EXHIBIT 9

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Steven Donziger [[email protected] Wednesday, August 23,20068:45 AM [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected] fraud proof from ecuador

ERIC AND NEIL: I AM ASKING LAUREN (THE BRIGHT-EYED LAW CLERK FROM MICHIGAN WHO IS WORKING WITH US UNTIL DECEMBER AND WHO JUST RETURNED TO QUITO) TO START ORGANIZING THE HIDDEN PITS INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED FOR THE FRAUD DEFENSE, PER AN EXCERPT FROM THE EMAIL BELOW THAT I SENT TO HER. IF YOU ARE COOL WITH IT, I AM GOING TO OCCASIONALLY COPY OR BLIND COPY YOU GUYS ON SOME INTERNAL EMAILS THAT CONCERN WORK WE ARE GOING TO DO TO HELP YOU GET THE FRAUD INFORMATION TOGETHER. THIS WILL ALLOW U THE OPPTY TO HELP INFLUENCE OUR WORK SO WE CAN BOTH HAVE THE ASSURANCE THAT WE ARE MAXIMIZING EFFICIENCIES AND NOT WASTING TIME AS THIS FLUID SITUATION EVOLVES. THANKS, STEVEN

Lauren -- I am going to start working u into the decisionmaking on the legal team. In that vein, please read the latest news below which is real good for us. Confidentiality is extremely important. If u don't understand any of this, I will explain on Monday or ask Julio.

In the meantime, one of the main tasks we have that you can get going on is to get proof of all the hidden pits that prove Texaco's fraud, which needs to be prepared for the Winston lawyers as they develop the fraud issue in the U.S. part of the litigation. We have some of this information, but not even close to all of the information that Winston needs. The steps are:

1) Inventory a list of all the sites with hidden pits and divide into categories of sites that are part of the RAP and sites that are outside of the RAP (Aaron and Daria have done this already,and you might have it). 2) Find out which sites we have the photos for and which we don't. Also, find out which sites have photos already submitted to the court that are part of the record. 3) Make a work plan to get the aerial photos for each site that we don't have yet. Talk to Julio, Maria Bellen, Manuel, Olga -- not sure who is most up to date on this. 4) Tell Joseph to send you the power point on the hidden pits issue that I sent him -- we showed this to Winston, and it provides a good example of how to present the information for each site once we get the info and it also shows you some of the sites we already have.

This is a critical chunk of work we have to prepare for the Winston lawyers. Get your head in it, try to get it organized, and then on Monday we can discuss how to execute it.

Best, Steven


Steven R. Donziger Law Offices of Steven R. Donziger, P.C. 111 E. 79th St. #5


New York, New York 10021 Email: [email protected]


EXHIBIT 10

MERRlLLde.'I BRINK INTERNATIONAL Merrill Brink International Corporation

State of New York Estado de Nueva York

County of New York Condado de Nueva York

)

) ) )

ss: a saber:

225 Varick Street New York, NY 10014 • (212) 620-5600

Certificate of Accuracy Certificado de Exactitud

This is to certify that the attached translation is, to the best of our knowledge and belief, a true and accurate translation from Spanish into English of the attached document. Por el presente certifico que la traducci6n ad junta es, seglin mi leal saber y entender, traducci6n fiel y completa del idioma espanol al idioma ingles del documento adjunto.

Dated: December 9, 2010 Fecha: 9 de diciembre de 2010

Audrey Dotso Senior Project Manager - Legal Translations Merrill Brink InternationallMerrill Corporation

[frrmadol Audrey Dotson Gerente Senior de Proyecto - Traducciones Legales Merrill Brink InternationallMerrill Corporation

Sworn to and signed before Jurado y firmado ante Me, this of mi, a los del

December 2010 d' de 2010

N t ryPublic o ario Publico ENT

NeW '{!ffmado J Notary [sello 1

Newyor 5 ZOlq OFFICES IN MAJOR CITIES THROUGHOUT EXPires 1 , (.OffJJfllSS

!

CERT.!MERRILL!VER:!GDC!

[see!original!for!English]!Subject:! !Re:!more!!!!!!!!!![see!original!for!English]!!Subject:!more!!!!!!!!!![see!original!for!English]!!Subject:!more!!!!

THIS!CAME!FROM!JULIO!YESTERDAY:!!

I!don’t!know!if!you!are!still!interested,!but!I!want!to!tell!you!that!today!I!met!with!Attorney!General!Borja!and!we!talked!about!Winston’s!money.!He!told!me!that!he!himself!had!asked!President!Palacio!to!order!entering!into!an!agreement!and!the!President!gave!the!order!to!Chiriboga!(supposedly!the!agreement!was!being!signed!while!we!were!talking!this!morning).!!!!!!!

DONZ00023570!Page!1!of!3!

!


This!is!an!agreement!between!Attorney!General’s!Office!and!Petroecuador!and!the!agreement!stipulates!that!Attorney!General’s!Office!will!pay!33%.!!Greetings,!Julio!![see!original!for!English]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


!


[see!original!for!English]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


From: Sent: To: Subject:

Steven Donziger [[email protected] Tuesday, October 17,20068:11 PM Herrera, Raul Re: mas

agree ... let's see what we can do. tks, srd

On 10/17/06, Herrera, Raul <[email protected]> wrote:

I think it would be best because at the end of the day Min of Fin must approve the disbursement to W&S even though PEc has instructed payment, as it all flows via Min of Fin to the Central Bank to W&S. Thus, if Min of Fin objects to signing the agreement (to pay the AG's portion of the bill), then it will probably be the basis for an impediment in paying us regardless if PEc has said it agreed to pay us. No?

-----Original Message-----From: Steven Donziger [mailto: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:21 PM To: Herrera, Raul Subject: Re: mas

Our team is meeting with Rodas at 3 p.m. tomorrow ... should we insist he sign the agreement?

On 10/17/06, Herrera, Raul <[email protected] > wrote:

I spoke to Raul Moscoso today who told me that PEc agreed to sign the agreement with the AG (but sans Min of Finance) to pay our bills and that the Board of Directors of PEc had today approved the same. He thought that by Friday they would have the agreement in hand and payment forthcoming. I told him I was traveling to Quito on Sun Oct 22 through Wed Oct 25 and wanted to meet him on Mon, Oct 23. He said to call him to do so. I was told by the AG's office that the Min of Economy Rodas refuses to sign the agreement because of some issue raised by his lawyers. Who the hell knows what is going on but this is the latest. I will travel to Quito on dates noted above, will you?

-----Original Message-----From: Steven Donziger [mailto: [email protected]

<mailto:[email protected]> ] Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 2:40 PM To: Herrera, Raul Subject: mas

THIS CAME FROM JULIO AYER:

No se si les interese todavia, pero les cuento que hoy dia me reuni con el Procurador Borja y conversamos de 10 de la plata de Winston. Me dijo que el mismo Ie habia pedido al Presidente Palacio que ordene que se firme un convenio y el Presidente se 10 orden6 a Chiriboga (supuestamente el convenio se estaba firmando mientras hablabamos esta


manana). Este es un convenio entre procuraduria y petroecuador y en el se estipula que procuraduria pagara el 33%.

saludos,

julio

Steven Donziger 212-570-4499 (land) 212-570-9944 (fax) 917-566-2526 (cell)


The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. ****************************************************************************** Any tax advice contained in this email wasnotintendedtobeused.andcannotbeused.by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.



The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. ****************************************************************************** Any tax advice contained in this email wasnotintendedtobeused.andcannotbeused.by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.





EXHIBIT 11


This is the latest:

Steven Donziger [[email protected] Tuesday, October 24,200612:10 PM Joseph C. Kohn update from Quito

1) Met extensively with Raul yesterday in Quito to go over the settlement plan. He liked it. He also said he did not see it happening without the government participating at a significant level. As for the Bonifaz-Kimerling issue, I told him if it came up to just table it until later. We will try to work out a solution, and then deal with them if necessary and only if necessary. He seemed confident that Chevron will want to talk. We are going to sked a call with him, Neil and Eric to talk it through before proceeding further.

2) The depositions in the Sand matter are going well. Thus far, Chevron has deposed three gov officials -- the current AG, the Minister of Mines in 1995 when they signed the settlement, and another ministry official at that time. All have steadfastly maintained that the settlement did not apply to third party claims. There are six depositions skedded in the next month, including Reis Veiga and Perez Pallares.

3) PetroEcuador's new lawyer, Raul Moscoso, is an ally. He is willing to consider filing a civil suit against Chevron in Ecuador to rescind the settlement contract, using the fraud claims that Winston withdrew in the Sand matter. This could be an extraordinary oppty for us, although the Winston lawyers are sort of cool to it for reasons I am trying to fathom. I think this could be major leverage in settlement discussions and it would provide a huge boost in credibility to us in the Lago litigation. Do u see a downside?

4) Our final three inspections are going to take place Nov. 14-16. We need funds for those.

5) Please do your best to take care of my expenses and at least one invoice. These is getting increasingly difficult for me to carry these expenses and invoices for so long.

Will call later.

SRD


Steven R. Donziger Law Offices of Steven R. Donziger, P.C. 245 W. 104th St., #5 New York, New York 10025 Email: [email protected]


EXHIBIT 12


Steven Donziger [[email protected] Friday, November 03, 2006 7:01 PM Aaron Marr Page Re: Reis Veiga deposition/ideas

It is clear they don't want to give us their outlines ... I have asked. Either they don't have any, or the person doing the depositoin does not want to share it. Did u see my email to Neil today?

I think sending a list of top ten questions is great idea-- focus on Guanta, we need to use this to elicit info for the FCPA complaint. Tks, SRD

On 11/3/06, Aaron Marr Page <[email protected]> wrote:

Any luck on getting a draft outline from them? If not, would it be useful for me to come up with a Top Ten list of specific questions / areas of questioning that we can send to them? If nec we can get them this first thing Monday, let me know. I still think getting an outline from them would be very useful as far as really helping them -- we have no idea how much they know at this point, and don't want to just send in repetitive suggestions ...

Later

AMP

----- Original Message -----From: Steven Donziger <mailto:[email protected]> To: Mitchell, C. MacNeil <mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Herrera, Raul <mailto:[email protected]> ; Bloom, Eric

<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 4:02 PM Subject: Reis Veiga deposition/ideas

CONFIDENTIAL/SUBJECT TO JOINT DEFENSE

Neil --

I have attached two documents that you might find useful for the RV dep (I assume u are doing it). The first is a memo that Aaron put together on lines of questioning --unfortunately, related mostly to the withdrawn fraud claim, but still useful. The second document is a draft ltr to the DOJ about the Guanta incident and possible FCPA violation --an issue that I think goes directly to RV's credibility, and implicates him in a possible violation of U.S. law. Much of this material will also be useful for the Perez Pallares dep. While these areas of questioning are not central to the JOA issue, I am urging you to try to get into them to the extent you can as I still think they are relevant as I state below.

These are my thoughts, from our perspective:

1) It would help us for you to keep RV on the hot seat for as long as possible and press him in a number of areas that will make him uncomfortable. We have wanted to depose him for years, so this is an important moment in the overall panorama of the case and a great oppty to up the pressure and elicit some good info. Remember, the info on the fraud


issue is still useful for us in Lago and in the ongoing criminal investigation in Ecuador --thus, if you could put on the "investigatory" hat in this regard that would be helpful. The way to justify it is that this all goes to his credibility. Perhaps there are ways to tie it to the JOA issue more directly, but I can't think of any.

2) RV is a man who plays the geopolitical power game, and will do anything to "win" in Ecuador up to and including over the line advocacy. He represents the company's hardest-line faction. He is highly emotional and personally invested in this, which will give you opportunities. To the extent you can hurt his credibility for later, all the better. The Guanta incident provides a great oppty to do that -- particularly, questions about his exact role in the events that transpired that day, whether he was in touch with San Ramon, what he had to do with the false military report, was he directing his local counsel, what role did his local counsel play, even his exact whereabouts in Ecuador and Lago when this went down -- basically, the questions at the end of the draft letter. The letter has NOT been sent, so obviously don't mention the letter but you can use it for factual purposes and ideas. I can send you the back-up materials to the draft letter if u need them.

I really hope you are willing to pursue the Guanta thing -- but obviously this will mean some additional work, as it is fact-intensive. If you want me to draw up a list of questions I am happy to do so but I am also tight on time.

Thanks much for the consideration and let's try to talk later today. We also need to resolve the documents issue.

SRD






EXHIBIT 13


Subject: Re: Fw: Please have Diego confirm tomorrow the receipt of funds to WS and their

amount. Take care, Raul [See original for text in English]

Subject: Re: Please have Diego confirm tomorrow the receipt of funds to WS and their amount. Take care, Raul [See original for text in English]

Subject: RE: Please have Diego confirm tomorrow the receipt of funds to WS and their amount. Take care, Raul Diego is doing all he possibly can so that everything will be ready on the specified date, I’ll keep you updated.



Translations, Inc.








BRANDON CARNEY COMM. # 1755114 -

o Z • NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA s:

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY ..... Y Comm. Expires July 3, 2011

Lindsey Creighton, Project Manager/Gerente de Proyectos Geotext Translations, Inc.


Subscribed and sworn to (or affIrmed) before me

on this ,20{t:l ,

by Od"-3 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory

before me.

Signature: __ __ +-____ ______ ____ __


Suscrito y declarado bajo juramento (0 afmnado) ante

mi en este dia _7_ de __ !:!:.dl!:.!::·c:!;!ie:::.!;m:!;!b::..!...r..::::e __ del

Por ______ ______ ___

Habiendo acreditado en mi presencia, mediante prueba



Firma: ______ ____________ __


1025 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036, U.S.A. Tel +1.202.828.1267 Fax +1.202.828.1271 8-11 St. John's Lane, London EC1 M 4BF, United Kingdom Tel +44.20.7553.4100 Fax+44.20.7990.9909


From: Sent: To:

Steven Donziger [[email protected] Thursday, November 09,200612:25 AM Herrera, Raul

Subject: Re: Fw: Porfavor q confirme Diego recepcion manana de fondos a WS y monto del mismo. Saludos, Raul

I am heading down Sunday. If u come try to come to the inspection on Tuesday. U can get there and back the same day, we will make all arrangements and make it easy for u (pick u up at airport, take u back, etc.). Let's talk tomorrow when u get back. SRD


I am told only 2.Smm will be paid, altho. PEc funded the full amount and Fin authorized it. I am concerned as I conveyed to expect at least 3mm as I was told. I may have to go down yet again. The threat to pull the trigger is greater now as I know the background to this payment and question their integrity. Particularly with election looming!

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

-----Original Message-----From: Steven Donziger <[email protected]> To: Herrera, Raul Sent: Wed Nov 08 19:13:27 2006 Subject: Re: Fw: Porfavor q confirme Diego recepcion manana de fondos a WS y monto del

mismo. Saludos, Raul

What the hell should we do? I am still in NYC. This is insane!!


These guys just don't get it. I conveyed that the funds wouldarrive tomorrow. Now they're still checking at the end of the day just bec I inquired! And PEc has funded as the Min has authorized!

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

-----Original Message-----From: Sra. Cristina Burbano <[email protected] > To: Herrera, Raul Sent: Wed Nov 08 17:24:22 2006 Subject: RE: Porfavor q confirme Diego recepcion manana de fondos a WS y monto

del mismo. Saludos, Raul

Diego esta haciendo todo 10 posible para que todo este listo en la fecha indicada, 10 tendre al tanto.


The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.

****************************************************************************** Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot

be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.



The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.

****************************************************************************** Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used,

by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.




EXHIBIT 14

From: Sent:

Steven Donziger [[email protected] Wednesday, September 19, 2007 8:07 PM

To: Cc:

Doug Beltman; Ann Maest; Josh Lipton; Preston Sowell Joseph c. Kohn

Subject: Important idea

This is what we want to do and we need your help:

As part of the clean-up effort, we need to define the norms of clean-up -- using TPH and whatever else. We need help in defining the "whatever else" and the proper level of clean-up for whatever chemical elements that includes. 'We then want to propose these norms to the Ministry of Energy which governs these norms and whose Minister is a good friend of ours, so that the Ministry issues them as an official decree before the trial ends.

Who can help us on this? We need very fast turnaround. Ann?

SRd


Steven R. Donziger Law Offices of Steven R. Donziger, P.C. 245 W. 104th St., #7D New York, New York 10025 Email: [email protected]


EXHIBIT 15

Re: Prosecutor’s Office Issue

Thank you, Julio, for that good news. I’ll be in Quito this afternoon, if the meeting is late I can also go PFM On 10/1/07, Julio Prieto <[email protected]> wrote: Guys, Today I went to the Supreme Court to look for the file on the issue regarding the prosecutor’s office and I found surprises. The surprise is good! It turns out that in the Supreme Court they DID follow the procedure provided for under the Law prior to the closing of the complaint, and they requested the appearance of the Comptroller as a complainant. The Comptroller’s Office has stated its opinion by issuing a new Report in which it RATIFIES what they previously stated. This means that there is a second Comptroller’s Office report that we are not familiar with, and that it is favorable to our interests (we’re so efficient). Now the file is being reviewed by one of the assistants to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Tomorrow we will meet with the Chief Justice of the Supreme [Court] to move this issue forward. regards, julio

!

DONZ00025204 Page 1 of 1 [CERT.GEOTEXT]

Translations, Inc.








BRANDON CARNEY "'0',.,,,.. COMM. # 1755114 Z

; NOTARY PUBLIC -SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY

My Comm. Expires July 3, 2011 V

Lindsey Creightdn, Project Manager/Gerente de Proyectos Geotext Translations, Inc.


Subscribed and to (or affIrmed) before me

on this day of, ,20 \.C ,

' ,

evidence to be the person

before me.


Suscrito y dec1arado bajo juramento (0 afIrmado) ante

mi en este dia _7_ de diciembre Por ______ ______ ___ Habiendo acreditado en mi presencia, mediante prueba


compareci6 (comparecieron) ante mi. Firma: ______ ____________ __

259 West 30th Street, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10001, U.S.A. tel +1.212.631.7432 fax +1.212.631.7778 220 Montgomery Street Ste. 438, San Francisco CA 94104 U.S.A tel +1.415.576.9500 fax +1.415.520.0525

\f\f,,",eonl,nnTnn 1025 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036, U.S.A. Tel +1.202.828.1267 Fax +1.202.828.1271 8-11 St. John's Lane, London EC1 M 4BF, United Kingdom Tel +44.20.7553.4100 Fax+44.20.7990.9909


From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Pablo Fajardo Mendoza [[email protected] Monday, October 01, 2007 5:09 PM Julio Prieto Steven Donziger; luis yanza; [email protected]; Alejandro Ponce Villacfs Re: Tema Fiscalia

Gracias Julio por esa buena noticia.

Yo estare en Quito en la tarde, si la reuni6n es tarde tambien yo puedo ir

PFM

El dia 1/10/07, Julio Prieto <[email protected]> escribi6:

Compas,

Hoy fui a la Corte Suprema a buscar el expediente del tema de la fiscalia y encontre sorpresas.

La sorpresa es buena! Resulta que en la Corte Suprema SI siguieron el tramite previsto en la Ley previo al archivo de la denuncia, y pidieron la comparecencia del Contralor como denunciante. Contraloria se ha pronunciado emitiendo un nuevo Informe en el que RATIFICA 10 dicho antes por ellos. Esto quiere decir que existe un segundo informe de Contraloria que no conocemos, y que es favorable a nuestros intereses (q eficientes somos).

Ahora el expediente se encuentra bajo estudio de uno de los ayudantes del Presidente de la Corte Suprema.

Manana nos reuniremos con el Presidente de la Suprema para impulsar este asunto.

saludos,

julio

Discover the new Windows Vista Learn more! <http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE>


EXHIBIT 16

From: Sent: To: Cc:

Mitchell, C. MacNeil [[email protected]] Thursday, October 25, 2007 11 :43 AM Steven Donziger; Bloom, Eric Leonard, Tomas

Subject: RE: Procurador meeting

Steve,

Here are my "unfiltered" thoughts. (See below). I know you want to speed up the home stretch timetable for many good reasons, not the least of which being you have fought this for 15 years. My viewpoint is essentially cautious conservative, because I think the seeds we have planted are taking root and, when the right time comes and with support and direction from both above (Correa) and below (Winston), the PGE will sign off on a settlement. BUT my fear is that this could all be jeapordized if somebody unwittingly pushes the wrong buttons too early. I'm not going to say to any of your suggestions "don't do it." That would be presumptuous and implies that I have better insight into the PGE's thoughts than you or your people do -- which I wholly disavow. But while you should do what you feel is best, you should act only after weighing the concerns that I have spotlighted below.

Neil

From: Steven Donziger [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:03 PM To: Bloom, Eric; Mitchell, C. MacNeil Cc: Leonard, Tomas Subject: Procurador meeting

Eric and Neil:

This is what we are thinking we want out of the meeting with the PGE:

1) That he continue the Borja request to DO] for a fraud investigation by sending another letter insisting it go forward. [This will get a lot of publicity in Ecuador --which is of course one of the things you want. Fast forward to the time when we will all be trying to enlist the AG to support a settlement with Texaco. Will his currently requested agitation against the fraud perpetrators make it politically difficult -- if not impossible -- to do a public about face and embrace the settlement? That is my fear -- that the monster we breed may someday devour us.]

2) That he use the Winston team in the Lago mediation talks and for anything related to Chevron and the Lago case.

3) That [(A)] he adopt your advice to not be a third party in the mediation talks themselves, but that [(B)] he agree to be available to back the primary agreement between the parties to the litigation if they arrive at one. [I don't think you have to tell him (A) because I don't think anyone has yet suggested to him that Texaco wants him to attend -- we certainly have not. As to (B), we have very tentatively suggested this to him in a "heads up" memo, but have only said that "there may come a time when the Lago Agrio plaintiffs come to you asking that ... " We have heard indirectly through Carlos that our thoughts were "well received" by the PGE. I think this is a safe request for you, but is has to be couched as


something that will help the Ecuadorian people, not bail Texaco out of its legal nightmare. More a question of emphasis.]

4) That he set no preconditions to anything (such as insisting Chevron drop is second arbitration for the gov to take part in the mediation). [But so far he has never been asked to participate in the mediation -- except has been warned of a possible future "gap filling" role if he is later approached by the Lago Agrio plaintiffs. I wouldn't get into a discussion of preconditions to his entry into negotiations because this might draw the response that is more like "never" than "let's see what happens," where we have tried nudge him. If it looks like the parties are close and the Lago Agrio plaintiffs entreat the government's help, at that time he will be most likely to heed our advice and give a favorable response. I don't think he should be pushed too far at this moment. Also, it will obviously help if President Correa (at the behest of the LA plaintiffs) suggests that he help fins a way to "make it happen." I know you want to move a long way in a short period of time, but I think sequence is important here -- timing will fiollow sequence, not lead it.]

5) That he understand the national and global significance of the Lago case and the benefits it can bring to the country, and how Ecuador is on the world stage because of this case. [Again, be careful. He may totally agree and tell you that you shouldn't stop short of a complete victory because the whole world is watching the Lago Agrio case. He has undoubtedly already concluded that the case is significant, but he might draw different lessons from that conclusion. We will probably be telling him some day to support a compromise which the Texaco spinmeisters will be shouting to the world is a complete admission by Ecuador of its culpability. #1: Texaco must be told not to do this, but can the leopard change its stripes? #2: The PGE may think that if this case is center stage in world opinion he can't have a "quiet settlement" but needs a well publicized court victory.]

6) That he understand the government will not control any recovery of funds, should there be one, but could with the client group and their technical advistors participate in the decisionmaking about how to use. [I have no problem, but is this a premature discussion of details?]

7) That he read the Vanity Fair story (we have it translated).

The larger context is that we don't fully trust this guy's judgment. Our goal is to meet with Correa and get his sign off on the gov's approach, and have that communicated down the line to those who would be involved in the meeting. Obviously the PGE or someone from his office needs to be involved, but our earnest hope is that you guys can be the ones actively representing the gov and that we deal directly with you and the President's office as needed.

How does this sound? Thoughts?

SRD

SRD


Steven R. Donziger Law Offices of Steven R. Donziger, P.C. 245 W. 104th St., #7D New York, New York 10025 Email: [email protected]

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message


is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. ****************************************************************************** Any tax advice contained in this email wasnotintendedtobeused.andcannotbeused.by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
