Have you heard about the trial of Chevron vs. Independent Documentary Filmmaker? Crazy case…I wish I owned the movie rights.
Joe Berlinger makes a movie called “Crude” that shines a light on a legal struggle between Ecuadorians and Texaco (since acquired by Chevron). Seems the oil company’s drilling techniques may have contaminated the local water supply, so the Ecuadorians sued.
All good so far, right? The little guy standing up to Big Oil, and we get to live vicariously through the Ecuadorians and vent our own anger a little bit.
Well, Chevron’s ticked, because some of the footage in the movie indicates that the plaintiff was dealing improperly with the expert witnesses–grounds for a dismissal of the suit.
So Chevron/Texaco sues the filmmaker, demanding that he turn over all 600 hours of footage that he shot for the film, in the hopes that there will be footage of other legal improprieties that might help their motion to get the case dismissed. A US federal judge agreed with Chevron, ruling in May that Berlinger has to turn over his footage.
The media was outraged. First Amendment advocates were outraged. Journalists were outraged. Documentary filmmakers were outraged. What happened to shield laws that allow journalists to protect their confidential sources? What about freedom of the press?
Yesterday, an appellate judge narrowed the ruling, but ultimately upheld it, saying Berlinger only has to turn over the film that was pertinent to the case (there were a number of conditions). He’s said he’ll comply with the ruling, and probably won’t appeal.
In this case, as violent as my first reaction was when I first heard the story, I think the judges are right. This is not a free speech case. This is not a ruling about whether or not documentary filmmakers should be protected by journalist shield laws. It’s simply about the need for due process. Even Chevron has the right to a fair trial.
Forget that Big Oil is involved. If YOU are on trial, and TMZ shows footage that indicates your opposing lawyers are fixing the system to get you convicted, you’ll want to see the full tape, right? Do you think you’d have the right to see that footage, to ensure a fair trial?
I’m not a lawyer, but I agree with the judges’ decision that the evidence should be made available.
Is Chevron ultimately guilty of what it’s on trial for? That, too, is immaterial to this case. Whether or not the defendant is guilty, if there is evidence that the defendant wasn’t given a fair trial, that evidence needs to be made available.
It’s a funny story because, in principle, it should be a fairly easy decision; but the details make us want to barf. A big bad oil company, who is probably guilty of what it’s being tried for, is forcing an independent journalist to turn over his own hard work. Only in this case, the big bad oil company is also a defendant who may not be getting a fair trial.
The world’s all topsy-turvy.
The coverage of the case is EXTREMELY varied and polarized, but I think the NYTimes recap is pretty even-handed. You’ll notice that Berlinger himself doesn’t appear to disagree entirely with the ruling, which means Chevron probably got to him and put a chip in his brain. Or bought him his own island in the Carribbean. Or threatened to kill his family.
Or maybe, as he says:
“We have to be intellectually honest about the merits of laws that allow certain footage or certain reporters’ material, under certain conditions, to be turned over,” he said. “I believe there are times when it’s appropriate to turn it over.”
It’ll be interesting to see the reactions in the media tomorrow morning. Here’s hoping Berlinger is shooting all this for the sequel.
