Natto Iyela Gbarabe v. Chevron Corp.
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
2016 WL 4154849 (2016)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Natto Iyela Gbarabe (Gbarabe) (plaintiff), a Nigerian fisherman, sought class-action certification in his case against Chevron Corporation (Chevron) (defendant) for its alleged negligent drilling operations that caused an explosion and a 46-day fire off the coast of Nigeria. Gbarabe alleged that the explosion caused a total loss of yield in the waters where he fished and that the fire damaged his fishing equipment and caused him to suffer diarrhea and vomiting. During pre-certification discovery, Chevron requested Gbarabe to produce documents relating to the funding of the action. Chevron contended that the information was relevant to determine the adequacy of representation for the putative class. Gbarabe did not dispute the necessity for outside funding to prosecute that case and produced a redacted copy of its litigation-funding agreement, claiming a contractual obligation prevented disclosure of the funder’s identity, short of a court order. As a compromise, Gbarabe offered an in-camera review of the financing agreement unredacted. In response, Chevron filed a motion to compel Gbarabe to produce the financing agreement and other documents related to the financing of the case.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Illston, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
