Grynberg v. Ivanhoe Energy, Inc.

Jack Grynberg (plaintiff) and Ivanhoe Energy, Inc. (Ivanhoe) (defendant) both sought a concession (i.e., official permission) from the Ecuadoran government to explore an oil field. Ivanhoe won the concession. Grynberg sued Ivanhoe and its president, Robert Friedland (defendant), in a United States district court. The complaint alleged that Friedland had traveled to Ecuador and bribed Ecuador’s president to give the oil concession to Ivanhoe. Grynberg and his attorney, Roger Jatko, both signed the complaint, and Jatko filed it with the federal court. On January 9, 2009, Friedland served a proposed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 motion on Grynberg and Jatko, seeking sanctions. The motion claimed that the two men did not have a sound factual basis for the complaint’s allegations. As evidence, Friedland submitted an affidavit that he had never traveled to Ecuador or met with any Ecuadoran government official. Grynberg and Jatko did not amend or withdraw the complaint. On February 9, 2009, Friedland filed the Rule 11 motion with the district court. Four hours later, Grynberg and Jatko filed an amended complaint that removed the allegations about Friedland and replaced them with allegations that unidentified Ivanhoe representatives had bribed unidentified Ecuadoran government officials. Grynberg and Jatko opposed the Rule 11 motion, claiming that they had relied on confidential witnesses for the original complaint’s allegations but that those witnesses were too afraid to come forward. Grynberg and Jatko provided no information explaining why statements provided by their supposed confidential witnesses were anything more than unfounded rumors. The district court considered the Rule 11 motion.