jjR0b

Stratus's work "seems like way too much ofa stretch considering that Cabrera's report, or
substantial annexes to it, are in fact the consultant's work. This is far more than 'circumstantial
evidence'; this is, indeed, a "'hand in glove" showing.'" Co-conspirator Jonathan Abady of
Emery Celli described the relationship between the RICO Defendants and Cabrera as "wholesale
adoption of Stratus work product w/o attribution." Co-conspirator Wilson admitted in an internal
email that "[t]he more we emphasisze [sic] [Cabrera's] neutrality the less sense it makes that we
were talking to him outside of school." And in an April 2010 letter from Donziger to his co­
conspirators, Donziger referred to the "Colorado 1782 action" as a "major contingency" and
warned that "if Chevron succeeds in obtaining discovery from Stratus and deposing the Stratus
principals ... , they will find that Stratus wrote the bulk of the report adopted by Cabrera and
submitted to the court." Donziger also admitted that there was "significant back and forth
collaboration between local counsel and Cabrera, and separately, via local counsel and Stratus,"
and discussed the sorts of emails that would be produced, including "numerous emails between
Stratus and local counsel documenting how this work was done," "some emails between Stratus
and U.S. counsel that show U.S. counsel (relying on guidance of local counsel) approved of this
process, encouraged it, and was involved in it from a supervisory perspective," and emails that
will "show some effort to keep the extent of this ex parte collaboration between our local counsel
and Cabrera from being disclosed."
279. Additionally, in extensive correspondence in June 2010, among Donziger,
Motley Rice, Patton Boggs, Emery Celli, and other co-conspirators, Jason Rockwell at Patton
Boggs acknowledged that, "the Ann Maest notes suggest more coordination with Cabrera than
counsel simply dropping off two sets of documents," and Jonathan Abady of Emery Celli
conceded that, "By refusing to admit this now obvious fact, we look coy at best and silly or
untrustworthy at worst."
280. Because their position in these proceedings has been so divergent from the facts,
the RICO Defendants have had trouble retaining counsel willing to go along with this scheme of
falsehoods and obstruction. Donziger has admitted that when first one and then another of the
I I 1