Deposition of Ramiro Fernando Reyes: 5/13/2013. Exhibit Concordance. Key. Plaintiff Designation. Defense Designation. Plaintiff Further Designation

Transcription

1 Deposition of Ramiro Fernando Reyes: 5/13/2013 Note: Included herein are pages with Plaintiffs designations and/or Defendants counter designations. Pages without designated testimony were excluded, but will be made available upon the Court s request. Pursuant to FRE 106, Plaintiffs also designate the Declaration of Ramiro Fernando Reyes, dated December 6, 2012, and filed at Dkt , pp. 2-31, included herein at Tab 2. Exhibit Concordance Depo Exhibit PX Key Plaintiff Designation Defense Designation Plaintiff Further Designation Plaintiff Objection Defendant Objection

2 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ UNITED STTES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 3 4 x 5 : 6 CHEVRON CORPORTION, : 7 Plaintiff, : 8 : 9 v. : Case No. 10 : 11 Civ (LK) 11 STEVEN DONZIGER, et al., : 12 Defendants. : 13 x PRTIL TRNSCRIPT Videotaped deposition of RMIRO FERNNDO REYES 18 CISNEROS, taken at the United States Embassy, 19 venida Encalada Cdra. 17 s/n, Surco, Lima 33, 20 Peru, Monday, May 13, 2013, 8:34 a.m., pursuant to 21 notice, before Robert V. Short, a Certified 22 Shorthand Reporter Page 1 through Page 1 thru page 154, line 8 25 Page 155, line 9 through page 200 Page 1

3 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ MS. NEUMN: ndrea Neuman, Gibson, Dunn 2 for Chevron. 3 MR. LLOYD: Zach Lloyd from Gibson, Dunn 4 also from Chevron. 5 MR. GOMEZ: Julio Gomez, Gomez LLC on 6 behalf of Hugo Camacho and Javier Piaguaje. 7 MR. ORMND: Justin Ormand assistant to 8 Special Master Katz. 9 THE SPECIL MSTER: Theodore Katz, 10 Special Master. 11 THE DEPONENT: Fernando Reyes. 12 THE INTERPRETER: nd Jesus Rivera 13 Spanish Interpreter. 14 THE VIDEOGRPHER: You may swear in the 15 interpreter. 16 THE SPECIL MSTER: Do you affirm that 17 you will truly and accurately interpret the 18 questions posed to the witness in the testimony 19 given today? 20 THE INTERPRETER: I do. 21 THE VIDEOGRPHER: You may swear in the 22 witness, please. 23 THE SPECIL MSTER: Raise your right 24 hand, please. 25 Do you affirm that the testimony you are Page 8

4 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ about to give will be true and accurate? 2 THE DEPONENT: Yes. 3 THE SPECIL MSTER: Thank you. 4 THE INTERPRETER: You may begin. 5 RMIRO FERNNDO REYES CISNEROS, 6 after having been duly sworn by the Special Master, 7 was examined and testified through the 8 interpreter as follows: 9 EXMINTION 10 BY MS. NEUMN: 11 Good morning, Mr. Reyes. 12 Good morning. 13 Have you ever been deposed before? 14 No. 15 I'm going to go over just a few rules. 16 The gentleman sitting to your right is our 17 interpreter. He's going to interpret my questions 18 from English to Spanish, your answers from Spanish 19 to English. 20 Next to the interpreter is the court 21 reporter. He's going to take down everything we 22 say by typing. So it's very important that I let 23 you finish your answer before I start talking, and 24 you let me finish my question and that none of us 25 interrupt each other. Page 9

5 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Next to me is the videographer 2 (indicating), who's recording the testimony. 3 If there's a question that you don't 4 understand or you find confusing, just let me know 5 and I'll rephrase it to make it more clear. 6 If there's any time you need a break, 7 it's not a test of fortitude, so we're happy to 8 take a break whenever you need one. 9 nd if at any time you have any questions 10 about anything, you just let us know. 11 Does that make sense? 12 Yes. 13 Can you state your full name for the 14 record? 15 Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros. 16 Do you go by Mr. Reyes? 17 Yes. 18 Where were you born, Mr. Reyes? 19 In uito, Ecuador, on May 14th, Do you still reside in Ecuador? 21 Yes. 22 Would you describe for me any post high 23 school education that you've had? 24 Between 1971 and 1977, I studied oil 25 engineering. I did a master's program in oil Page 10

6 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ engineering, specializing in production. 2 Between 1981 and 1983, I did a 3 postgraduate degree in environmental oversight of 4 industrial development at the State University of 5 Ghent in Belgium in nd I've had over 40 short courses in oil 7 engineering and environmental oversight. 8 Have you ever worked as a professor? 9 Yes. Starting in 1988 to this current 10 year, I've been a professor for 25 years, the Chair 11 of Enhanced Oil Recovery at the Central University 12 of Ecuador. 13 I've also been a professor of the 14 Environmental Oversight Chair at the National 15 Polytechnic School between 1996 and I've 16 also been the professor of oil -- enhanced oil 17 recovery, administration of oil projects and 18 environmental oversight at the -- at the 19 Equinoccial Technological University. 20 I've also been the -- I've also been a 21 professor in two master programs, one with 22 environmental oversight of oil activities and 23 another one having do with enhanced oil recovery. 24 Have you had any government positions or 25 positions with government agencies in Ecuador? Page 11

7 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Yes. Between 1975 and 1987, I was an oil 2 engineer with the National Directorate of 3 Hydrocarbons for oversight and supervision of 4 hydrocarbon-related activities in Ecuador. 5 Then between 1987 and 1992, I was the 6 general director of environmental regulations of 7 the National Directorate of the Environment. 8 In that position, I had the opportunity 9 to prepare the first draft of what is known as the 10 environmental regulations for hydrocarbon related 11 activities in Ecuador nd for three months I was the general director in charge of the THE INTERPRETER: I need to inquire. (Interpreter and deponent confer in Spanish.) 16 THE DEPONENT: 17 Directorate for the Environment. 18 oil investigator of Ecuador's nti-corruption 19 Commission. 20 BY MS. NEUMN: of the National In 2001, I was an In your career in the oil industry in 22 Ecuador -- the oil and environmental industries, 23 have you worked in the oil fields in El Oriente? Yes. On the oversight of drilling activities, as well as production and Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106. Further Designation: 13:8-13:9 Page 12

8 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ transportation of oil. 2 operated by the Texaco/PetroEcuador Consortium. 3 This was between 1975 and In the fields that were Between between 1987 and 1992, I 5 undertook the environmental oversight of oil 6 related activities in the mazon region and in 7 Ecuador in general lso between 1992 and 1995, I was associated -THE INTERPRETER: I need inquire. (Interpreter and deponent confer in Spanish.) THE DEPONENT: -- to the development of 13 Block 16 at Yasuni National Park in the mazon 14 region of Ecuador. 15 coordinator. 16 dealing with oil spills among other things. 17 I was an environmental nd I had practical experience in I have been and I still am an 18 environmental consultant in preparing environmental 19 impact studies, environmental management plans and 20 environmental audits. 21 This means -- this means I've had to 22 prepare reports, on-field reports and several of 23 the oil and exploration fields in Ecuador I consider that I am a person who knows the oil industry in Ecuador, specifically Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106. Further Designation: 13:8-13:9 Page 13

9 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ exploration and production of oil. 2 BY MS. NEUMN: 3 4 Have you ever done any work for Fugro McClelland, Mr. Reyes? 5 Yes, I did, between 1996 and nd in general, what was the nature of 7 that work? 8 s part of a technical team to do 9 environmental impact studies, and in a remediation 10 program of the oil pits of the PetroEcuador Texaco 11 consortium area. 12 Have you ever written -- written on the 13 petroleum industry or environmental industries in 14 Ecuador? 15 Yes. 16 Have you written any books? 17 I have two books. One is on the 18 perspectives of enhanced oil recovery in Ecuador. 19 nother one in 2005, entitled "Petroleum, The 20 mazon, and Natural Capital," written along with 21 the economist Cesar jamil. 22 I've also written around 40 articles 23 related to the petroleum industry and environmental 24 management. 25 Is it fair to say, Mr. Reyes, that you've Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106. Further Designation: 14:3-5 Page 14

10 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ been working, writing, and teaching in the 2 petroleum and environmental areas in Ecuador for 40 3 years more or less? 4 5 Yes. MS. NEUMN: I'd like to have the court 6 reporter hand you exhibit that we've marked as 7 Exhibit (Exhibit 3500 was marked for identification.) Would you take a moment to look at that for me, please. 12 I've reviewed it. 13 Is Exhibit 3500 the declaration that you 14 provided in the Chevron versus Donziger matter, 15 Mr. Reyes? 16 Yes. 17 In reviewing Exhibit 3500, did you see 18 your signature on the declaration? 19 Yes. 20 nd was the declaration that we've marked 21 as Exhibit 3500 true and accurate when you signed 22 it? 23 Yes. 24 Is it still true and accurate today? 25 Yes. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106. Further Designation: 15:3-12 and 15:17-25 Page 15

11 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Now, in your declaration, you describe 2 some meetings with a Steven Donziger when you were 3 representing an engineering organization that 4 related to a monitoring arrangement. I have a few 5 questions about that. 6 re you a member of a professional 7 organization of engineers in Ecuador? 8 Yes. 9 nd what is the name of that 10 organization? 11 It is the ssociation of Geological, 12 Mining and -- Petroleum and Environmental 13 Engineers. 14 That's very long. 15 Can we call it the engineers' association 16 for short? 17 Yes. 18 Was the engineers' association in any way 19 involved in the publication of your most recent 20 book? 21 Yes. There were one of the parties that 22 provided logistical support. 23 For the book? 24 For the book, yes. 25 nd where did you first meet Steven Defendants' Objection(s): Relevance Page 16

12 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Donziger? 2 On November 15th, during the launching of 3 my book Petroleum, The mazon, and Natural Capital 4 at the House of Ecuadorian Culture. 5 nd who introduced you to Mr. Donziger at 6 the House of Ecuadorian Culture? 7 Engineer Fausto Penafiel. 8 Is Mr. Penafiel also a member of the 9 engineers' association? 10 No. 11 Who is Mr. Penafiel? 12 Is he a colleague of yours or an 13 acquaintance? 14 He's a chemical engineer. He's a member 15 of the ssociation of Chemical Engineers of 16 Ecuador. 17 nd did you know him, Mr. Penafiel, as 18 just a fellow professional in Ecuador? 19 Yes. 20 When Mr. Penafiel introduced you to 21 Mr. Donziger, how did he describe Mr. Donziger? 22 s the attorney representing the mazon 23 Defense Front in the lawsuit against Chevron. 24 fter your initial introduction to 25 Mr. Donziger, did you subsequently have another Defendants' Objection(s): Relevance Page 17

13 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ meeting with him? 2 Yes. 3 When was the next time you met with 4 Mr. Donziger after you were first introduced to 5 him? 6 The day following the launching of the 7 book. 8 Could you turn to Exhibit C in your 9 declaration (indicating)? 10 (Deponent complies.) 11 nd what is Exhibit C? 12 These are my annotations which I did on 13 my everyday work notebook, of Thursday, 14 November 17th of Was it your practice to take notes in 16 your everyday notebook during meetings and 17 otherwise? 18 Yes. 19 nd is Exhibit C to your declaration, 20 your notes from your November 17th, 2005 meeting 21 with Steven Donziger? 22 Yes. 23 nd who else attended that meeting? 24 Engineer Gustavo Pinto as the president 25 of the engineers' association, Mr. Donziger, and Defendants' Objection(s): Relevance Page 18

14 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Mr. Fausto Penafiel. 2 nd what was subject discussed at the 3 November 17th meeting between yourself, 4 Mr. Donziger, Mr. Penafiel, and Mr. Pinto? 5 The idea or the intent that the 6 engineers' association as an independent entity 7 would set up or lead a monitorship to review the 8 reports prepared by the settling experts for the 9 Chevron case. 10 Was it discussed during this meeting that 11 the parties in the Chevron case were performing 12 judicial inspections at the various oil production 13 sites during this time? 14 Yes. There was -- we knew about that. 15 Was it also discussed during the meeting 16 with Mr. Donziger that each party, Chevron and the 17 plaintiffs, had their own judicial inspection 18 expert who would do their own assessments of 19 whether or not or how much contamination was at a 20 given site? 21 Yes. 22 Did Mr. Donziger explain during the 23 meeting that the parties' experts' reports were in 24 conflict as to whether and how much contamination 25 was at a site, and that that conflict was to be Defendants' Objection(s): Leading; Relevance Defendants' Objection(s): Relevance Page 19

15 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ resolved by settling experts the court had 2 appointed? 3 MR. GOMEZ: Objection, form -- I'm sorry, 4 please translate. 5 Objection, form. 6 THE SPECIL MSTER: You can answer. 7 THE DEPONENT: Yes. 8 BY MS. NEUMN: 9 Was it your understanding that the 10 settling experts were to review the findings of 11 both sides and decide which side was correct in 12 terms of whether or not there was contamination or 13 how much contamination there was at a site? 14 MR. GOMEZ: Objection, form. 15 THE DEPONENT: Yes. 16 BY MS. NEUMN: 17 How -- during the meeting you had with 18 Mr. Donziger, what was discussed about how the 19 engineering association would undertake to monitor 20 the settling experts? 21 That it would set up a monitorship, and 22 that the association would appoint two delegates. 23 I would be one of them, and the other one would be 24 Engineer Gustavo Pinto as the association's 25 president. Defendants' Objection(s): Leading; Relevance Page 20

16 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ nd what would you and Mr. Pinto do as 2 the association's delegates in carrying out this 3 monitorship? 4 We had to do the procedures with the 5 settling experts and also the judge in Lago grio; 6 so that we could have access to the expert report, 7 carry out the analysis, and then issue our own 8 conclusions and provide whatever recommendations 9 were necessary. 10 Recommendations to the settling experts? 11 Recommendations directed to the judge or 12 the court. 13 Was it also discussed whether or not, as 14 part of the monitorship, you and Mr. Pinto would 15 interact directly with the settling experts? 16 Yes. 17 Can you turn to Exhibit D to your 18 declaration, Mr. Reyes. 19 (Deponent complies.) 20 nd what is Exhibit D? 21 This is a photocopy of my annotations of 22 my daily work notebook for Wednesday, November 23rd 23 of Did you have a meeting, on Wednesday, November 23rd of 2005, with Steven Donziger? Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106. Further Designation: 21:1-9 Page 21

17 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Yes. 2 Where did that meeting take place? 3 t the engineers' association site. 4 nd who, if anyone, attended the meeting 5 in addition to yourself and Mr. Donziger? 6 Mr. Fausto Penafiel. 7 t the meeting on November 23rd, did you, 8 Mr. Penafiel, and Mr. Donziger continue your 9 discussions regarding the monitorship of the 10 settling experts? 11 Yes. 12 In Exhibit D, your notes, you say, 13 "Meeting with Johnny Zambrano and the other 14 experts," and then you have a list of names. 15 Do you see that? 16 MR. GOMEZ: 17 Objection to counsel reading handwritten notes drafted by the witness. 18 MS. NEUMN: 19 from the certified translation. 20 the witness's handwriting For the record, I'm reading I'm not reading Do you have the name Johnny Zambrano written in your November 23rd notes, Mr. Reyes? 23 Yes. 24 Is that a reference to Johnny Zambrano 25 who was serving as a settling expert in the Chevron Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106. Further Designation: 23:2 Page 22

18 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ case? 2 Yes. 3 The names -- are there names listed under 4 Mr. Zambrano's name in your notes? 5 Yes. 6 nd are those the names of the other 7 settling experts on the Chevron case at the time? 8 Yes. 9 When you state in your notes, "Meeting 10 with Johnny Zambrano and the other experts," what 11 is that a reference to? 12 Other activities we had scheduled to 13 perform in order to inform the experts our 14 appointment as monitors, and to let them know as to 15 the need -- our need to meet with them for the 16 purpose of informing them the scope of the 17 monitorship. 18 THE INTERPRETER: 19 scope." 20 BY MS. NEUMN: 21 "Of the scope," "of the Was the association to be compensated for 22 performing the monitorship on behalf of 23 Mr. Donziger and the plaintiffs? 24 Yes. 25 Was it your understanding that Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106. Further Designation: 23:2 Page 23

19 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Mr. Donziger wanted the association to conduct this 2 monitorship in order to influence the settling 3 experts to be more favorable to the plaintiffs? 4 Yes. 5 Was there any discussion with 6 Mr. Donziger about keeping the agreement, that the 7 association had been hired by him to conduct the 8 monitorship, secret? 9 Yes. 10 nd what did he say in that regard? 11 The monitorship required that the 12 association continue -- be an independent and 13 autonomous organization, because that would 14 guarantee its impartiality. 15 So was it your understanding from 16 Mr. Donziger that he wanted to keep the fact that 17 the plaintiffs had hired the association to do the 18 monitorship secret, so that they would appear to be 19 independent? 20 Yes. 21 MS. NEUMN: I'm going to hand you a 22 document that we're marking as Exhibit 3501, which 23 for the record is an entry from Steven Donziger's 24 diary, bearing the Bates Nos. DONZ , dated 25 November 18th, Defendants' Objection(s): Not Testimony Page 24

20 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ (Exhibit 3501 was marked for 2 identification.) 3 MR. GOMEZ: Excuse me, Judge, may I make 4 an inquiry about the translations? 5 THE SPECIL MSTER: Yes. 6 MR. GOMEZ: Were these translations 7 prepared with the assistance of the witness when 8 they were made of the handwritten notations -- the 9 translations of THE INTERPRETER: Translation of the 11 exhibit? 12 MR. GOMEZ: Yes. 13 MS. NEUMN: No, I believe we sent the 14 entire document out to be translated. 15 MR. GOMEZ: Well, for the record, I'd 16 like to state that these handwritten notes are very 17 difficult for me to read. I don't know if the 18 translation service had any difficulty in reading 19 them as well. 20 In the questioning, it is assumed that 21 the translation accurately interprets the 22 handwriting of the witness. nd it's been 23 represented that the witness was not involved in 24 communicating or interpreting his handwritten notes 25 for the preparation of the translation. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Not Testimony. Page 25

21 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Therefore, I would ask that going forward 2 we ask the witness to read his handwritten notes so 3 that we have an accurate interpretation from the 4 author as to its content. 5 MS. NEUMN: Well, I do -- I do think the 6 copying of handwritten notes lightens them. nd I 7 don't have an objection to you using your time to 8 ask the witness to read whichever of his notes you 9 want him to read. But I intend to conduct my 10 examination as the way I feel it's appropriate to 11 do so. 12 MR. GOMEZ: Your Honor, I would ask you 13 to rule on our objection to that approach. I think 14 that given what's been represented as to how these 15 documents were translated, there is an issue 16 whether the translation is accurate; and that in 17 order for the record to be correct, we should be 18 having the witness interpret his handwriting, as 19 opposed to assuming that the translation is 20 accurate. 21 THE SPECIL MSTER: Well, to the extent 22 that the witness is being asked a question 23 specifically about his notes, I'm going to assume 24 that he's looking at his handwritten notes because 25 he's a Spanish speaker. He's not going to rely on Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Not Testimony. Page 26

22 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ the translation for the substance of his testimony. 2 MS. NEUMN: Yes, he has his handwritten 3 notes to front of him. 4 THE SPECIL MSTER: His -- I think -- I 5 don't know if you -- 6 MR. GOMEZ: I know they're in front of 7 him. I'm not sure that he has been doing that. 8 THE SPECIL MSTER: Well, I'm not sure 9 there have been questions posed to him yet that 10 have asked him to THE INTERPRETER: The witness is asking 12 for a break. 13 MS. NEUMN: Oh, si. 14 THE SPECIL MSTER: Sure. 15 THE INTERPRETER: Restroom break. 16 THE VIDEOGRPHER: We're going off the 17 record. The time is 9:26 a.m. 18 (Brief recess taken.) 19 THE VIDEOGRPHER: We're going back on 20 the record. The time is 9:33 a.m. 21 BY MS. NEUMN: 22 Mr. Reyes, do you still have Exhibit in front of you? 24 Yes. 25 I'm going to direct your attention to the Page 27

23 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ last entry, where Mr. Donziger writes as follows, 2 quote: "Deal with Gustavo Pinto. Feel like I have 3 gone over to the dark side. First meeting like 4 that I was not eaten alive. Made modest offer plus 5 bonus, agreed to keep it between us, no written 6 agreement, independent monitoring." 7 Had Mr. Donziger agreed to pay the 8 association a fee plus a bonus for the monitorship? 9 Yes. 10 nd what was the nature of the bonus? 11 n amount of money for the experts, and a 12 possible bonus in case the plaintiffs were to win 13 the case. 14 The bonus would be payable if and when 15 the plaintiffs won the case? 16 Yes. 17 nd do Mr. Donziger's notes also 18 accurately reflect that the monitorship agreement 19 was to be kept between you all and him, and there 20 was to be no written agreement? 21 Yes. 22 Turn to Exhibit E in your declaration, 23 Mr. Reyes. 24 (Deponent complies.) 25 nd do you have your handwritten notes Defendants' Objection(s): Hearsay Page 28

24 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ there too? 2 Yes. 3 Is Exhibit E your handwritten notes from 4 a November 29th, 2005 meeting? 5 Yes. 6 Who attended that meeting? 7 It was a meeting with Johnny Zambrano in 8 his capacity as the director of the group of 9 settling experts. 10 nd who met with Mr. Zambrano? 11 I and Engineer Gustavo Pinto. 12 nd where did you all meet? 13 t the offices of Engineer Johnny 14 Zambrano on October 12th venue, across the street 15 from the Catholic University of Ecuador. 16 nd what occurred during your 17 November 29th meeting with Mr. Zambrano? 18 It was the first THE INTERPRETER: Strike that. 20 THE DEPONENT: It was our first visit to 21 him. nd we explained to him the purpose of the 22 monitorship, and we dealt with technical issues 23 regarding the judicial inspections. 24 BY MS. NEUMN: 25 Did you discuss with the settling expert, Defendants' Objection(s): Hearsay Page 29

25 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Who is the J. Zambrano being referred to there in your notes? Johnny Zambrano, settling expert, appointed settling expert. nd were you planning to schedule a meeting with him on the following Friday the 20th? 7 Yes. 8 nd what is the next note underneath the 9 10 one you just verified for me? That we also schedule a meeting on Monday 11 the 23rd with a new judge in Lago grio. 12 wrote it down as Efrain Novillo. 13 have a meeting on Tuesday the 24th with Texaco. 14 nd I nd then also to So you discussed having a meeting with 15 the judge on the -- the case, and then you also 16 discussed having a meeting with Texaco; is that 17 right? 18 Yes. 19 Did you subsequently have a meeting with the new judge on the case? Yes, on one occasion. But it was not Mr. Efrain Novillo. nd did you ever have a meeting with Texaco or Chevron? No. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106. Further Designation: 33:8-13 Page 33

26 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ THE DEPONENT: I'm not sure. 2 THE SPECIL MSTER: 3 know if any payment had been made to the 4 association or you or Mr. Pinto by the time you had 5 sent the letter to Judge Yanez? 6 THE DEPONENT: 7 THE SPECIL MSTER: 8 nd do you No. You don't -- you don't know, is that the answer? 9 10 Okay. THE DEPONENT: Yes -- yes, that is the answer "I don't know." 11 The answer is "I don't know." 12 THE SPECIL MSTER: Okay. Do you want 13 to ask any further questions clarifying whether 14 Mr. -- Mr. Reyes' role in the agreement versus the 15 association's? 16 MS. NEUMN: 17 Sure. Mr. Reyes, was the agreement to conduct 18 the monitorship between Mr. Donziger and the 19 engineers' association? 20 Yes. 21 Was the agreement between Mr. Donziger 22 and the engineers' association to conduct the 23 monitorship entered into before Mr. Pinto sent the 24 letter to Judge Yanez that's dated January 20th, ? Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Page 39

27 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Yes. 2 nd what do you have written next to 3 that -- to No. 2? 4 That Mr. Johnny Zambrano has a deadline 5 until February 1st of 2006, to submit the expert 6 report on Sacha 53 to the judge in Lago grio. 7 nd you're referring there to Johnny 8 Zambrano, the settling expert in the Chevron case? 9 Yes. 10 During the course of this February 26th, meeting, were you discussing with Mr. Donziger 12 the meetings that you had had with Mr. Zambrano? 13 Yes. 14 Did you and Mr. Pinto keep Mr. Donziger 15 updated on the meetings with the settling experts 16 and Judge Yanez you had had as part of the 17 monitorship? 18 Yes. 19 MR. GOMEZ: Judge, may I make an inquiry, 20 please? 21 THE SPECIL MSTER: Yeah. 22 MR. GOMEZ: Judge, the witness testified 23 that the February 1st deadline was in reference to 24 Sacha MS. NEUMN: 53. Page 42

28 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ MR. GOMEZ: I'm sorry -- Sacha 53. nd 2 my inquiry is -- I don't see any reference to Sacha 3 53 either in the handwritten notes or in the 4 translation. 5 6 Could the witness identify where he read that? 7 THE DEPONENT: In professional terms, it 8 is my opinion that these annotations are a 9 summary -- a brief summary of the meetings. 10 Professionally I'm not doing a -- a clerk -- a 11 clerical report on a meeting. 12 we are doing here currently, meaning writing down 13 everything. I'm not doing what This reflects general ideas MR. GOMEZ: Your Honor, I object THE DEPONENT: -- and I'm -- and I'm sure 16 that this refers to Well Sacha this way so that you would have even more -- more 18 arguments. 19 MR. GOMEZ: nd I said it Your Honor, I move to strike 20 that answer as nonresponsive to my question. 21 also move to strike his previous answer referencing 22 Sacha 53 to Ms. Neuman's question as to what the 23 notes said, because they are both nonresponsive THE SPECIL MSTER: Okay. I Thank you. Thank you. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106. Further Designation: 43: Page 43

29 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ THE SPECIL MSTER: Okay. So that's -- 2 that's -- reflects an expansion of the annotation 3 as based on your understanding of what -- what was 4 written; is that correct? 5 MR. GOMEZ: Object -- sorry. 6 Objection to your question, Judge, with 7 all due respect. 8 THE DEPONENT: Yes. 9 THE SPECIL MSTER: Okay. gain, if 10 there's a question addressed to you about what's in 11 the notes, then you should respond based on what's 12 on -- in the notes. 13 If there's a question -- you know, you 14 can explain further if there's a question that's 15 more general in terms of what you meant in the 16 notes or what -- what the notes applied to. 17 THE DEPONENT: Understood. 18 THE SPECIL MSTER: Okay. 19 BY MS. NEUMN: 20 What was your understanding of which oil 21 field the settling experts had a report due on on 22 February 1st, 2006? 23 The report related to Well Sacha Is that a well in the Sacha oil field? 25 Yes. Page 45

30 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ and that we can request her for a copy of the 2 report. 3 Were you or Mr. Pinto ever provided with 4 a draft of the settling experts' report on 5 Sacha 53? 6 No. 7 During this meeting with the settling 8 experts, did you or Mr. Pinto tell them that the 9 association had been hired by Mr. Donziger on 10 behalf of the plaintiffs? 11 No. 12 MS. NEUMN: I'm going to mark as 13 Exhibit 2909, which is excerpts of the settling 14 experts' report on Sacha 53. The initial part of 15 the exhibit is in English and the subsequent 16 portion is in Spanish. 17 (Exhibit 2909 was marked for 18 identification.) 19 Mr. Reyes, did you obtain a copy of the 20 Sacha 53 settling expert report after it was issued 21 by the settling experts? 22 Yes. 23 Did you review their February 1st, Sacha 53 report after you obtained it? 25 Yes. Page 48

31 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ nd was it your understanding that the 2 purpose of the Sacha 53 settling expert report was 3 to resolve disputes between Chevron and the 4 plaintiffs' findings of the conditions at that well 5 site? 6 MR. GOMEZ: Objection -- objection, 7 leading. 8 THE SPECIL MSTER: Did you have an 9 understanding of what this report -- what the 10 purpose of this report was? 11 THE DEPONENT: Yes. 12 THE SPECIL MSTER: What was that 13 understanding? 14 THE DEPONENT: The purpose of the report 15 by the settling experts is to settle the 16 contradictions that were arising as a result of the 17 judicial inspections carried out by each of the 18 parties, Texaco and the plaintiffs. 19 BY MS. NEUMN: 20 fter you reviewed the settling experts' 21 report on Sacha 53, did you discuss it with 22 Mr. Donziger? 23 Yes. 24 What was Mr. Donziger's reaction to the 25 settling experts' report on Sacha 53? Page 49

32 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ MR. GOMEZ: Objection, vague. 2 THE SPECIL MSTER: You can answer. 3 THE DEPONENT: I would like you to please 4 restate your question. If the question regards the 5 expert report or is it the report that I prepared? 6 BY MS. NEUMN: 7 The settling experts' report, the one 8 that they did on Sacha 53, did Mr. Donziger tell 9 you what his reaction to that report was? 10 Yes. 11 What did he tell you? 12 That that report did not contain forceful 13 information that would show the contamination 14 problems of Well Sacha MR. GOMEZ: Objection to the word 16 "forceful" in the translation. 17 THE DEPONENT: Can I use a different 18 word? 19 BY MS. NEUMN: 20 No, he's objecting to the translation. 21 Sorry, sorry (in English). 22 Let's look at page that's numbered 23 page 76 of Exhibit THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry, Counsel. 25 BY MS. NEUMN: Page 50

33 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ BY MS. NEUMN: 2 What was his general opinion? 3 That the conclusions reached by the 4 settling experts on the Sacha 53 well were 5 mistaken, that they lacked objectivity and they 6 were biased toward Chevron; and because of that, 7 this report could not be taken into consideration. 8 Did Mr. Donziger ask you and Mr. Pinto to 9 prepare a report in response to the settling 10 experts' report on Sacha 53? 11 Yes. 12 MS. NEUMN: I'll note that we need to 13 change the tape, so should we go off for a short 14 morning break, Your Honor? 15 THE SPECIL MSTER: Sure. 16 THE VIDEOGRPHER: We're going off the 17 record. The time is 10:32 a.m. 18 (Brief recess taken.) 19 THE VIDEOGRPHER: We're back on the 20 record. The time is 10:47 a.m. 21 This marks the beginning of Video 2 in 22 the deposition of Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros. 23 BY MS. NEUMN: 24 Mr. Reyes, could you turn to Exhibit P to 25 your declaration for me, please. Page 52

34 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ (Deponent complies.) 2 nd what is Exhibit P? 3 The report that we made -- the 4 monitorship report that was made jointly by 5 Engineer Gustavo Pinto and myself, regarding the 6 report by the settling experts on the judicial 7 inspection of Well Sacha Did you -- is this a draft report or a 9 final report? 10 It is the -- it is a draft report. 11 Did you provide your draft monitor report 12 on Sacha 53 to Mr. Donziger? 13 I had it sent to him through the 14 engineers' association. 15 fter you had the draft sent to 16 Mr. Donziger through the engineers' association, 17 did you ever discuss it with him? 18 Yes. 19 nd what did Mr. Donziger say about your 20 draft? 21 He was not very happy to put it that way, 22 because he expected that the monitorship report 23 would reflect his aim regarding -- regarding the 24 need that -- that it should state regarding the 25 need to have the monitorship state that the Defendants' Objection(s): Relevance Page 53

35 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ report -- that the expert analysis of the settling 2 experts contained errors. nd that it did not 3 reflect what had -- 4 THE INTERPRETER: Strike that. 5 THE DEPONENT: -- what was actually 6 occurring with the contamination problem of Well 7 Sacha BY MS. NEUMN: 9 So was Mr. Donziger disappointed in your 10 report because it didn't sufficiently favor the 11 plaintiffs? 12 MR. GOMEZ: Objection, leading, 13 mischaracterizes prior testimony. 14 THE SPECIL MSTER: I'll sustain that. 15 BY MS. NEUMN: 16 Did Mr. Donziger ever tell you that he 17 wanted your -- the monitor's report on Sacha 53 to 18 be more favorable to the plaintiffs? 19 MR. GOMEZ: Objection, leading. 20 THE SPECIL MSTER: You can answer that. 21 THE DEPONENT: Yes, that was the initial 22 intention -- intent. 23 MR. GOMEZ: Objection, move to strike the 24 answer as nonresponsive. 25 THE SPECIL MSTER: Can you explain what Defendants' Objection(s): Leading Defendants' Objection(s): Relevance Page 54

36 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ you mean that was -- by "that was the initial 2 intent"? 3 MR. GOMEZ: Objection to your question, 4 Judge, with all due respect. 5 THE SPECIL MSTER: You can answer. 6 THE DEPONENT: The initial wish was 7 for -- to have the association's monitorship be 8 oriented to show that the results that were being 9 obtained were favorable -- or, yes, they were 10 favorable to the plaintiffs. 11 MR. GOMEZ: Move to strike the prior 12 answer based on that response. 13 THE SPECIL MSTER: So in response to MR. GOMEZ: Ms. Neuman's question, Judge. 15 THE SPECIL MSTER: -- Ms. Neuman's 16 question specifically though MS. NEUMN: May I clarify, Your Honor? 18 THE SPECIL MSTER: Yeah. 19 BY MS. NEUMN: 20 When you say "the initial wish," are you 21 referring to a wish of Mr. Donziger? 22 Yes. 23 So when you said, "The initial wish was 24 for -- to have the association's monitorship be 25 oriented to show that the results that were being Defendants' Objection(s): Leading, Hearsay Defendants' Objection(s): Hearsay Page 55

37 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ obtained were favorable -- that they were favorable 2 to the plaintiffs," you were referring to 3 Mr. Donziger's statements to you? 4 MR. GOMEZ: Objection, Judge, we're 5 leading the witness. 6 THE SPECIL MSTER: Can you answer that 7 question? 8 THE DEPONENT: Yes. 9 THE SPECIL MSTER: Go ahead. 10 Is that your response? 11 THE DEPONENT: Yes. 12 THE SPECIL MSTER: Okay. But to get 13 back to the initial question, Ms. Neuman, you had 14 asked him specifically about what Mr. Donziger was 15 or wasn't -- was unhappy about with the draft 16 report, not with the initial aim of the report. 17 BY MS. NEUMN: 18 Was Mr. Donziger unhappy that the draft 19 report that you and Mr. Pinto drafted did not 20 fulfill his initial aim? 21 MR. GOMEZ: Objection, Judge, leading. 22 nd may we excuse the witness and stop 23 the clock, please? 24 THE SPECIL MSTER: Sure. I'm going to 25 just ask if you could step out for a minute, Defendants' Objection(s): Leading, Hearsay Page 56

38 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ THE SPECIL MSTER: I agree with that. 2 MR. GOMEZ: -- that's all. 3 MS. NEUMN: In the last question, Your 4 Honor, I was literally reading back his answer to 5 make sure it was clarified for the record. This is 6 a third-party witness in a translated deposition, I 7 think I'm entitled to clarify and make sure the 8 record is clear. 9 THE SPECIL MSTER: Well, I think that 10 it was not so clear from the witness' initial 11 testi- -- statement, that Mr. Donziger expressed in 12 response to this report that it didn't fulfill the 13 initial aim that he had had. 14 He did specifically testify to two things 15 that he said Mr. Donziger stated about not being 16 happy with the report. 17 One was it contained -- it didn't state 18 that the settling defendant's report contained 19 errors and didn't reflect what was actually 20 occurring. It's really not clear from the witness' 21 testimony that Mr. Donziger -- if Mr. Donziger went 22 beyond that or not. 23 The business about the original intent 24 is -- you know, I don't know whether that was a 25 concept intro- -- it was initially introduced by Page 58

39 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ the witness, but it's not clear that -- 2 MS. NEUMN: Well, in response to the 3 question of what Mr. Donziger was unhappy about, 4 that's why I clarified whose initial wish it was, 5 and that that was part of the reason he was unhappy 6 with the report, because his initial wish wasn't 7 being fulfilled. 8 THE SPECIL MSTER: Well, I guess the 9 best way to deal with this is to ask him 10 specifically what Mr. Donziger said to him, rather 11 than to characterize more generally his reaction. 12 DEPOSITION OFFICER: re we calling the 13 witness back in? 14 THE SPECIL MSTER: Yeah, we can. 15 MS. NEUMN: re you watching that to 16 make sure we're getting a clean record? 17 MR. LLOYD: Yeah. 18 (Brief recess taken.) 19 (Deponent re-enters room.) 20 THE VIDEOGRPHER: We're back on the 21 record. The time is 11:01 -- back on the video 22 record. The time is 11:01 a.m. 23 BY MS. NEUMN: 24 Mr. Reyes, did you ever provide a draft 25 of the monitor report on Sacha 53 to Chevron? Page 59

40 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ No. 2 Did you personally ever file the monitor 3 report on Sacha 53 with the court? 4 No. 5 fter you provided the draft of the 6 Sacha 53 report to Mr. Donziger, do you recall 7 whether or not he requested you to do any further 8 work on it? 9 No. 10 nd do you know whether Mr. Donziger had 11 other people make any suggested edits or changes to 12 your draft monitoring report? 13 No. 14 nd was the draft report that you and 15 Mr. Pinto did done under the agreement that 16 Mr. Donziger had with the association to conduct 17 the monitorship? 18 Yes. 19 fter drafting your response to the 20 settling experts' report on Sacha 53, do you recall 21 any additional work you did under the monitoring 22 arrangement with Mr. Donziger? 23 No. 24 Were you aware that after the settling 25 experts' report on Sacha 53, the plaintiffs asked Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. Page 60

41 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ the court to cancel a number of their remaining 2 judicial inspections? 3 Yes. 4 nd are you familiar with the Ecuadorian 5 court appointing a single expert to do a global 6 damage assessment for the Chevron case? 7 Yes. 8 Who first discussed with you the idea of 9 having a single expert do a global damage 10 assessment in the Chevron case rather than 11 proceeding with the parties' judicial inspections? 12 MR. GOMEZ: Objection, lack of 13 foundation. There's nothing in the record that one 14 was done in lieu of the other or proposed in lieu 15 of the other. 16 THE SPECIL MSTER: Did -- who first 17 discussed with you the idea of having a single 18 expert doing a global damage assessment in the 19 Chevron case? 20 MR. GOMEZ: Objection to your question, 21 Judge, with all due respect. 22 THE DEPONENT: The first time I talked 23 about that was with Mr. Fajardo and Mr. Yanza. 24 BY MS. NEUMN: 25 Can you turn to Exhibit to your Defendants' Objection(s): Facts Not in Evidence Page 61

42 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ declaration, Mr. Reyes. 2 For the record, Your Honor, there are 3 multiple Donziger s that establish they were 4 simultaneous events, the cancelling and the 5 appointing -- 6 MR. GOMEZ: I object to Ms. Neuman's 7 characterization of Donziger s. 8 BY MS. NEUMN: 9 What is Exhibit, Mr. Reyes? 10 These are the annotations in my notebook 11 of Wednesday, September 20th of Did you have a meeting on that date? 13 Yes, on that day I had a meeting. 14 nd who did you meet with? 15 With Mr. Yanza and Mr. Fajardo. 16 nd where did you meet with Mr. Yanza and 17 Mr. Fajardo? 18 t the offices of the mazon Defense 19 Front. 20 nd what did you discuss with Mr. Yanza 21 and Mr. Fajardo on that occasion? 22 We talked about the possibility that I 23 could be involved in -- in the expert global 24 assessment. They informed me about the judge's 25 decision to -- to do a global assessment. Defendants' Objection(s): Relevance Page 62

43 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ They asked me for my curriculum vitae. 2 nd there was an offer made that the payments for 3 professional services, Chevron would pay 50 percent 4 of that and 50 percent would be paid by the mazon 5 Defense Front. 6 Did you provide your curriculum vitae to 7 Mr. Fajardo or Mr. Yanza? 8 I -- I sent it later on. 9 To whom? 10 Mr. Fajardo. 11 Did you agree in this meeting on 12 September 20th that you would serve as the global 13 expert or was it just an issue that was discussed 14 with them as a possibility? 15 There was an initial proposal that I be 16 the expert. 17 nd that was the proposal being discussed 18 on September 20th? 19 Yes. 20 Can you turn to Exhibit X to your 21 declaration for me? 22 (Deponent complies.) 23 What is Exhibit X, Mr. Reyes? 24 These are the annotations that I made on 25 my work notebook on December 15th of 2006, of my Defendants' Objection(s): Mischaracterization, Relevance, Leading Page 63

44 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ meeting with Mr. Donziger at the offices of mazon 2 For Life. 3 Those offices are located in Ecuador? 4 Yes, in the city of -- at the north in 5 the city of uito. 6 Is that Mr. Donziger's name in your notes 7 towards the top (indicating)? 8 Yes. 9 nd what did you discuss with 10 Mr. Donziger on this occasion? 11 bout the issue of carrying out a global 12 expert assessment. n expert assessment -- a 13 global expert assessments of the so-called Napo 14 concession. The idea was to estimate the cost of 15 the damages, and to generate technical arguments on 16 which to base Chevron's responsibility. 17 Regarding the costs, it was mentioned or 18 it was proposed to me that for every dollar in 19 cost -- or to be more clear, for every unit of 20 cost, that it be multiplied by a factor of nd further down, I made quick calculations on the 22 amount of water that would be formed or produced by 23 a specific well. 24 When you say it was proposed to you that 25 your cost estimate should be multiplied by 3.5, who Defendants' Objection(s): Mischaracterization, Relevance, Leading Page 64

45 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ proposed that? 2 Mr. Donziger. 3 nd when you said earlier that the global 4 expert was to develop technical arguments to prove 5 Chevron was responsible for contamination, was that 6 also something Mr. Donziger said? 7 MR. GOMEZ: 8 the prior testimony Objection, mischaracterizes THE SPECIL MSTER: to you? 11 THE DEPONENT: 12 THE SPECIL MSTER: Is that what he said Yes. Okay. Overruled. BY MS. NEUMN: Did Mr. Donziger or anyone on the 15 plaintiffs' team ever reveal to you that they had 16 an agreement not to sue PetroEcuador? No. MS. NEUMN: I'm going to mark as 19 Exhibit 3502 a December 16th entry from 20 Mr. Donziger's diary bearing the Bates 21 No. DONZ (Exhibit 3502 was marked for identification.) I wanted to direct your attention, Mr. Reyes, to page 30 of 109, and the paragraph Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. Defendants' Objection(s): Mischaracterization, Relevance, Leading Page 65

46 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ this phrase that is in the question is an analysis 2 that he makes of our meeting. It isn't something 3 that he told me. 4 MR. GOMEZ: Objection, Your Honor, the 5 witness is again interpreting a document he didn't 6 write. It should be stricken and limited to the 7 response "No." 8 THE SPECIL MSTER: No, I think it's an 9 explanation of his response, which is that it 10 wasn't actually said to him. 11 BY MS. NEUMN: 12 Did Mr. Donziger convey to you that he 13 wanted the global expert to work with him for the 14 plaintiff? 15 MR. GOMEZ: Objection, form. 16 THE SPECIL MSTER: re you talking 17 about at that meeting? 18 MS. NEUMN: Yes, sir. 19 THE DEPONENT: Yes. 20 BY MS. NEUMN: 21 Would you turn to Exhibit Y for me, 22 Mr. Reyes, to your declaration? 23 (Deponent complies.) 24 What is Exhibit Y? 25 They are the annotations that I made of Defendants' Objection(s):Relevance Defendants' Objection(s):Form Page 69

47 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ my meeting with Mr. Pablo Fajardo on January 5th of What do your -- your annotations say? 4 That he was offering me a monthly payment 5 of $3,000; and that once a report had been 6 submitted, he would pay me an additional $15,000; 7 and that I would do that work with the team here. 8 "Here" means the mazon Defense Front. nd he also 9 gave me his Who is "he"? 11 Pablo Fajardo's nd you were -- just to clarify -- in 13 that answer describing what happened in the 14 meeting, as opposed to literally reading your 15 notes? 16 MR. GOMEZ: Objection, leading, Your 17 Honor. 18 THE SPECIL MSTER: Overruled. 19 THE DEPONENT: This agreement between 20 what I read in my an annotations with my 21 declaration regarding Mr. Fajardo's offer to make 22 the financial payment. 23 MR. GOMEZ: Objection, move to strike as 24 nonresponsive. 25 THE SPECIL MSTER: I guess we ought to Defendants' Objection(s):Relevance Page 70

48 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ strike it. I'm not sure how it does -- I'm unclear 2 what the witness is saying in the answer. 3 BY MS. NEUMN: 4 Okay. In your -- in your January 5th 5 meeting with Mr. Fajardo, the financial terms of 6 $3,000 a month and $15,000 for a report, did those 7 relate to the global inspection? 8 MR. GOMEZ: Objection, leading. 9 THE SPECIL MSTER: Overruled. 10 THE DEPONENT: Yes. 11 BY MS. NEUMN: 12 Did there come a time after your 13 January 5th meeting with Mr. Fajardo, when he and 14 Mr. Donziger asked you for recommendations for 15 someone else to serve as the global expert? 16 Yes. 17 Did you provide them with the 18 recommendation? 19 I did do that, yes. 20 nd who did you recommend? 21 Mr. Richard Cabrera. 22 Did you arrange for any meetings between 23 Mr. Donziger and Mr. Cabrera? 24 Yes. 25 Would you look at Exhibit for me. Defendants' Objection(s):Relevance Defendants' Objection(s):Relevance; Leading Page 71

49 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ (Deponent complies.) 2 nd what is Exhibit? 3 These are my annotations that are made of 4 the meeting that I held with Mr. Donziger and 5 Mr. Cabrera at the uito Hotel. 6 Was that meeting on -- 7 MR. GOMEZ: Objection -- I'm sorry, let 8 the record reflect that when the witness gave the 9 answer, he was not looking at his notes. He was 10 looking at a translation of his notes. 11 THE DEPONENT: Huh-uh. 12 MS. NEUMN: He was not looking at a 13 translation. 14 MR. GOMEZ: He was looking at -- he 15 wasn't looking at his notes. He was looking at the 16 cover sheet, of nnex. 17 THE DEPONENT: (Indicating.) 18 MS. NEUMN: I think we're just wasting 19 time, but THE SPECIL MSTER: We are. 21 MS. NEUMN: -- he looked at his notes 22 and then turned back to a different page. So 23 it's -- Mr. Gomez is not going to watch him the 24 entire time. These objections don't make any 25 sense. Defendants' Objection(s):Relevance Page 72

50 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ THE SPECIL MSTER: Overruled. 2 BY MS. NEUMN: 3 Where in the hotel uito did you and 4 Mr. Donziger and Mr. Cabrera meet? 5 In a mall on the second story of the 6 uito Hotel. 7 Did you all sit down for awhile? 8 The meeting was about 30 minutes long. 9 nd did you sit or stand? 10 Seated at a table (demonstrating). 11 nd what occurred during the meeting on 12 February 9th between yourself, Mr. Donziger, and 13 Mr. Cabrera? 14 I introduced to Mr. Donziger -- I 15 introduced Mr. Cabrera to Mr. Donziger. I talked 16 about Mr. Cabrera's qualifications. nd I told 17 them they could be in touch between the two of 18 them. nd in their own handwriting each one of 19 them wrote down for me their s -- addresses. 20 In your notes? 21 Yes. 22 Was it your understanding that 23 Mr. Donziger wanted to meet Mr. Cabrera to 24 interview him as a potential global expert? 25 MR. GOMEZ: Objection, leading. Defendants' Objection(s):Leading Page 73

51 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ THE SPECIL MSTER: Overruled. 2 THE DEPONENT: Yes. 3 BY MS. NEUMN: 4 nd how did the meeting at the Hotel 5 uito between you and Donziger and Cabrera end? 6 It ended in the best way, in the sense 7 that potentially Cabrera could be the settling 8 expert. 9 MS. NEUMN: I'm going to mark as 10 Exhibit 3503 an excerpt from the Donziger diary 11 from February 12th, 2007, bearing the Bates 12 No. DONZ , pages 17, 18, and 19 of (Exhibit 3503 was marked for 14 identification.) 15 The third paragraph on page 18 of starts with the phrase, "Key legal issue on Friday: 17 Who will be the perito?" 18 Do you see that paragraph, Mr. Reyes? 19 Yes. 20 bout halfway down that paragraph, 21 Mr. Donziger writes, quote, "Reyes thinks we should 22 go with Richard and we can help him" -- oh, I'm 23 sorry, let me withdraw that. 24 Mr. Donziger wrote, quote: "So I met 25 Richard and Reyes on Saturday afternoon in the Defendants' Objection(s):Hearsay Page 74

52 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Hotel uito, one of my endless series of meetings." 2 Do you see that? 3 Yes. 4 Mr. Donziger goes on, "He was a humble 5 man, not very sophisticated, but he seemed smart 6 and understated; maybe the perfect foil for 7 Chevron, but there is no way to know for sure, so 8 there is risk. Reyes thinks we should go with 9 Richard, and that he can help him." 10 Did you discuss, with Mr. Donziger, 11 Cabrera being the global expert, with you helping 12 him? 13 Yes. 14 What did Mr. Donziger say to you about 15 that potential arrangement? 16 That I could be a sort of technician or 17 shadow technician. This means that I would have to 18 review Cabrera's reports so they could be THE INTERPRETER: Strike that. 20 THE DEPONENT: -- so they could have 21 better technical standing. 22 BY MS. NEUMN: 23 nd was the idea that you would review 24 Mr. Cabrera's reports while they were still in a 25 draft form? Defendants' Objection(s):Hearsay Page 75

53 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ MR. GOMEZ: Excuse me, I'm sorry, I'm 2 objecting to the translation of the word 3 "standing." I'm sorry, please continue. 4 THE SPECIL MSTER: 5 THE DEPONENT: 6 7 You can -- Yes. BY MS. NEUMN: nd when you said that you would be a 8 shadow technician to Mr. Cabrera, did that mean 9 that your role in the global assessment would not 10 be publicly known? 11 MR. GOMEZ: 12 THE SPECIL MSTER: 13 Objection, leading. What did you mean by "shadow technician"? 14 THE DEPONENT: That I would review 15 Cabrera's reports before he was to submit them to 16 the plaintiffs. 17 BY MS. NEUMN: 18 nd was it discussed that Mr. Cabrera 19 would submit his reports to the plaintiffs before 20 he submitted them to the court, if he were 21 appointed? I'm not sure MS. NEUMN: I'm going to mark as Exhibit -MR. LLOYD: Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106. Further Designation: 76:12-13 Page 76

54 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ MS. NEUMN: I thought we 2 already had a MR. LLOYD: MS. NEUMN: , another excerpt 5 from the Donziger diary bearing the Bates 6 No. DONZ , pages 11 and 12 of (Exhibit 3504 was marked for 8 identification.) 9 Do you see in the Exhibit 3504, 10 Mr. Reyes, the entry that says, "February 27, 11 Tuesday"? 12 Yes. 13 nd down underneath of that entry, 14 there's a bold heading, "Meeting with Richard." 15 Do you see that? 16 Yes. 17 Mr. Donziger writes, quote: "Met at 18 Mr. Bagel with Fernando, Luis, Pablo, and Richard. 19 Met for one hour, explained everything. I have a 20 lot of confidence in Richard, more than before," 21 closed quote. 22 Did you meet with Mr. Donziger, 23 Mr. Yanza, Mr. Fajardo, and Mr. Cabrera at 24 Mr. Bagel in February of 2007? 25 MR. GOMEZ: Objection. Your Honor, I Page 77

55 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ object to the use of this document in this manner. 2 The question can be asked without presenting the 3 witness with a document that is supposed to 4 insinuate his response to her question. 5 THE SPECIL MSTER: I'll overrule it. 6 THE DEPONENT: Can I get the question 7 once again? 8 THE SPECIL MSTER: Did you -- did you 9 meet with Messrs. Fajardo, Mr. Cabrera -- and who 10 is this, Yanza? 11 MR. ORMND: (Nods head.) 12 THE SPECIL MSTER: -- Mr. Yanza, in 13 February of 2007, at the Mr. Bagel? 14 THE DEPONENT: Yes. With one 15 clarification, Mr. Bagel is a place where we went 16 to eat, I believe. 17 BY MS. NEUMN: 18 It's a restaurant of some kind? 19 Yes (in English). 20 THE INTERPRETER: "Yes," in English. 21 THE DEPONENT: Yes, yes (interpreted). 22 BY MS. NEUMN: 23 Mr. Donziger goes on to say, quote: "I 24 asked Pablo if he was 100 percent sure the Judge 25 would appoint Richard and not Echeverria, and he Defendants' Objection(s):Relevance Page 78

56 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ said 'yes,'" closed quote. 2 Did Mr. Donziger tell Mr. Cabrera that in 3 front of you? 4 MR. GOMEZ: Objection -- same objection, 5 improper use of the document. The questions can be 6 asked without reference to the document. 7 THE SPECIL MSTER: Do you recall that 8 statement being made or question being asked in 9 front of you? 10 THE DEPONENT: Yes. 11 MR. GOMEZ: Objection to your question, 12 Judge, with all due respect. 13 BY MS. NEUMN: 14 fter the Mr. Bagel meeting, did you 15 attend another meeting with the plaintiffs' team 16 and Mr. Cabrera in March of 2007? 17 Yes. (Gesturing.) 18 Do you want to take a break? 19 Yes. 20 MS. NEUMN: Go off the record. 21 THE VIDEOGRPHER: We're going off the 22 record. The time is 11:47 a.m. 23 (Brief recess taken.) 24 THE VIDEOGRPHER: We're back on the 25 record. The time is 11:55 a.m. Defendants' Objection(s):Relevance Page 79

57 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ BY MS. NEUMN: 2 Mr. Reyes, the March meeting you attended 3 with Mr. Cabrera, Mr. Donziger, and the plaintiffs' 4 team, was that meeting filmed? 5 I'm not too sure. 6 You don't -- do you remember cameras one 7 way or the other? 8 I did see cameras. 9 How long did that meeting last? 10 It was a day long meeting. 11 I'm going to show you a screen shot from 12 a video, that we've marked as Exhibit 3505 that was 13 taken at a March 3rd, 2007 meeting. For the 14 record, this is a screen shot from Bates 15 CRS clip (Exhibit 3505 was marked for 17 identification.) 18 Do you recognize the people in 19 Exhibit 3505, Mr. Reyes? 20 Yes. 21 Who are they, starting with the person on 22 the left? 23 Mr. Richard Cabrera, myself, and 24 Mr. Pablo Fajardo. 25 nd is this a picture of the meeting that Page 80

58 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ you had with Cabrera Fajardo and others in March of 2 '07? 3 MR. GOMEZ: Objection. 4 THE SPECIL MSTER: If you know. 5 THE DEPONENT: Yes. 6 BY MS. NEUMN: 7 What was the purpose of the March meeting 8 with the plaintiffs' team and Mr. Cabrera? 9 It was a meeting to introduce each one of 10 the individuals present, in which each of us would 11 state our professional experience. nd also the there was an explanation of the strategy and the 13 methodology that was to be followed for the global 14 expert assessment. 15 During the meeting? 16 nd it was also made obvious during the 17 meeting that each of those present already had 18 information, knowledge regarding the global 19 assessment MR. GOMEZ: Objection, move to strike as 21 nonresponsive. The question was: "During the 22 meeting?" 23 MS. NEUMN: I'll object to Mr. Gomez 24 interrupting the witness. This is the third time 25 he's done it today. Defendants' Objection(s):Relevance Page 81

59 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ THE SPECIL MSTER: So are you 2 continuing to describe what was the purpose -- the 3 purpose of the meeting? 4 THE DEPONENT: 5 THE SPECIL MSTER: 6 Yes. Okay. You can go ahead. 7 THE DEPONENT: Each of the individuals 8 present explained the work that he would do in the 9 global assessment, because -- because this expert 10 analysis had to be done with a multi-disciplinary 11 focus. 12 nd also one would notice that those 13 participating had information already in process 14 regarding their specialty. 15 BY MS. NEUMN: Did you make a presentation during the meeting? I introduced myself professionally and as 19 somebody knowledgeable of the area of operations of 20 the Texaco PetroEcuador consortium area. 21 some detailed explanations regarding location of 22 oil wells, some villages, rivers, things like that. 23 I gave nd throughout -- was the focus of the 24 meeting throughout the entire day on the global 25 assessment and planning the global assessment? Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106. Further Designation: 83:6-8. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106. Further Designations: 79:14-17 and 81:7-19 Page 82

60 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Well, we were present at the meeting 2 until 3:00 in the afternoon. 3 I'm talking about Richard Cabrera and myself. 4 central issue of the meeting was the global 5 assessment. 6 7 nd when I mean "we," The nd Mr. Donziger was present at this meeting; correct? 8 Yes. 9 Following the March 2007 meeting, did 10 Mr. Donziger ask you to prepare reports on certain 11 topics? Yes. MS. NEUMN: I'm going to mark as 14 Exhibit 3506 an from Fernando Reyes to 15 Steven Donziger, dated Friday, ugust 10, 2007, 16 "Subject: Natural Gas Study." (Exhibit 3506 was marked for identification.) Is Exhibit 3506 an that you sent to Mr. Donziger on ugust 10th of 2007, Mr. Reyes? 21 Yes. 22 nd what is attached to the that you're sending Mr. Donziger? Excuse me, it is a study related to -- to the use of natural gas that's related to the -- to Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106. Further Designation: 83:6-8. Page 83

61 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Yes. 2 Now, these reports were filed as part of 3 Richard Cabrera's expert report. 4 Did Mr. Cabrera have any involvement in 5 drafting either the natural gas or the water 6 reports that you sent to Mr. Donziger? 7 No. 8 fter Mr. Cabrera's report was filed 9 in -- on pril 1st of 2008, did you have anymore 10 contact with the plaintiffs' team in the Chevron 11 case or Mr. Donziger? 12 No. 13 While you were involved in working with 14 the plaintiffs' team and Mr. Donziger, based on 15 your observations, who was in charge of running the 16 plaintiffs' team? 17 MR. GOMEZ: Objection, form. 18 THE SPECIL MSTER: Well, this is just 19 going to be based on your observations, what was 20 your impression of who was in charge? THE DEPONENT: The mazon Defense Front. BY MS. NEUMN: s between Mr. Donziger and Mr. Fajardo, 24 did Mr. Donziger -- based on your observations work for Mr. Fajardo, or did Mr. Fajardo work for Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. Page 87

62 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Mr. Donziger? 2 MR. GOMEZ: Objection, calls for 3 speculation. 4 THE SPECIL MSTER: Were you able to -- 5 did you form an opinion as to, based on your 6 observation, whether Mr. Donziger appeared to be 7 reporting to Mr. Fajardo or Mr. Fajardo appeared to 8 be reporting to Mr. Donziger when they were at 9 meetings and discussing the litigation? 10 THE DEPONENT: Mr. Fajardo would report 11 to Mr. Donziger -- Donziger. 12 BY MS. NEUMN: 13 Mr. Reyes, after you gave your 14 statement -- the written statement in the Chevron 15 versus Donziger case, did the plaintiffs attack you 16 in the press in Ecuador? 17 Yes. 18 Did they make false claims in their 19 attacks? 20 MR. GOMEZ: Objection, form. 21 THE DEPONENT: Had several -- several several publications and in the media. For 23 example, radio interviews, television interviews, 24 in -- and through the Internet, in which I was 25 accused of being a corrupt person, that I was Defendants' Objection(s):Relevance Page 88

63 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ compensation from Chevron in connection with your 2 declaration? 3 No. 4 Do you continue to stand by the truth of 5 your statements, despite the plaintiffs' attacks on 6 you in Ecuador? 7 Yes. 8 MS. NEUMN: Thank you, Mr. Reyes. 9 I have no further questions at this time. 10 THE VIDEOGRPHER: Off the record? 11 THE SPECIL MSTER: I guess this is a 12 good time to have lunch. 13 THE VIDEOGRPHER: We're going off the 14 record. The time is 12:21 p.m. 15 (Luncheon recess from 12:21 p.m. to 1:33 p.m.) 16 THE VIDEOGRPHER: We're going back on 17 the record. The time is 12: DEPOSITION OFFICER: 1: THE VIDEOGRPHER: Oh, I'm sorry :33 p.m. This marks the beginning of Video 3 in 21 the deposition of Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros. 22 EXMINTION 23 BY MR. GOMEZ: 24 Good afternoon, Mr. Reyes. 25 Good afternoon (in English.) Defendants' Objection(s):Relevance Page 91

64 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ time, please. 2 MS. NEUMN: Sorry. 3 THE SPECIL MSTER: -- he's not an 4 attorney, but I guess to the extent that he's in a 5 position to judge that. 6 MS. NEUMN: 7 THE SPECIL MSTER: 8 MS. NEUMN: 9 12 Yes. I'm going to say objection May I be heard, Your Honor? MR. GOMEZ: I'm going to withdraw the question, Your Honor. Mr. Reyes, are you familiar with the 13 rules regarding the use of experts in court 14 proceedings in Ecuador? 15 Yes. 16 Have you ever served as an expert in a 17 case of any kind in Ecuador? 18 MS. NEUMN: 19 MR. GOMEZ: 20 THE DEPONENT: 21 legal case? Yes, a legal case. Yes. BY MR. GOMEZ: 22 How many -- how many cases have you 23 served in? 24 Three cases at least. 25 Give me the -- your estimate of when Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Page 94

65 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ those -- when you served as an expert in those 2 three cases, time frames, please (Interpreter and deponent confer in Spanish.) When the -- the issue of the -- of the IV tax on oil. 6 There was a legal case that resulted from 7 that issue? 8 Yes. 9 nd you served as an expert in that case? 10 Yes. 11 What year? 12 In nd what about the other two cases that 14 you've served as an expert, in what years did you 15 serve? 16 There were two cases, now these two 17 cases -- okay, the IV cases were with -- with oil 18 companies of operating blocks So which is the second case that you served as an expert in? 21 With another oil company. 22 What is the name of that oil company? 23 Repsol. 24 nd in what year did you serve as an 25 expert for Repsol? Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Page 95

66 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ nd what is the third case in which 3 you've served as an expert in Ecuador? 4 With the Encana Company. 5 Can you spell that, please? 6 E-n-c-a-n-a. 7 nd in what year did you serve as an 8 expert for Encana? re you familiar with the requirement in 11 Ecuador that the party that requests an expert 12 opinion or work performed by an expert must pay for 13 that cost? 14 MS. NEUMN: 15 THE SPECIL MSTER: 16 Objection, lacks foundation. If you can answer it. 17 THE DEPONENT: The requirements as to my 18 services were made by the Internal Revenue Service 19 of Ecuador. 20 services I performed. 21 BY MR. GOMEZ: 22 nd -- and I receive that for the In the first case where you served as an 23 expert in 2004, what party did you serve as an 24 expert for? 25 I was to define if oil or not was a Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Page 96

67 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ produced asset. 2 3 opinion is. 4 5 I didn't ask you what the purpose of your I was asking you: Who were you working for? 6 I worked for the state. 7 The State of Ecuador? 8 (No audible response.) 9 I'm sorry DEPOSITION OFFICER: 11 THE DEPONENT: Is there an answer? Yes. BY MR. GOMEZ: So in that case in 2004, when you worked 14 for the State of Ecuador, the State of Ecuador paid 15 your fee; correct? 16 Yes. 17 nd who was on the opposite side of the 18 State of Ecuador in that case? 19 The operating company. 20 What was the name of that company? 21 Repsol. 22 Did Repsol pay any part of your fee when 23 you served as an expert in that case? 24 No. 25 Would you consider yourself an Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Page 97

68 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ independent expert in that 2004 case when you 2 rendered an opinion for the State of Ecuador? 3 Yes. 4 Explain to me, Mr. Reyes, how you can 5 consider yourself independent in that case if 6 you're only being paid by one party? 7 MS. NEUMN: 8 MR. GOMEZ: Objection, relevance. 9 Your Honor. 10 we excuse the witness. I can address the objection, Your Honor, there has been much -- may 11 THE SPECIL MSTER: 12 THE VIDEOGRPHER: 13 video record. 14 Sure. We're going off the The time is 1:43 p.m. (Deponent departs room.) 15 MR. GOMEZ: Your Honor, one of the most 16 significant issues in this case is the definition 17 of an "independent expert" under Ecuadorian 18 procedure. 19 nd as I understand Chevron's theory, 20 there is some sort of a contradiction that an 21 expert could be independent and yet only be paid by 22 one side, as was the case with Mr. Richard Cabrera. 23 What -- the relevance of my questioning, 24 Your Honor, is that there is a difference in this 25 concept under Ecuadorian law as opposed to our law. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Not Testimony. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Page 98

69 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ In our law in the United States, you hire your 2 experts and you pay your experts and they're not 3 considered independent, because they're beholding 4 to a party and their fee comes from a single party. 5 That concept doesn't translate properly 6 to Ecuador. They have a different system, a 7 different set of assumptions and rules, that they 8 operate on. 9 from this witness to help explain that. nd I would like to elicit testimony 10 MS. NEUMN: May I be heard, Your Honor? 11 THE SPECIL MSTER: 12 MS. NEUMN: Sure. Mr. Gomez has misstated 13 Chevron's position. 14 with who paid the expert. 15 that -- setting aside the payments that were made 16 under the table, that the plaintiffs were paying 17 Mr. Cabrera through the court and that that was a 18 public process. 19 Our position has nothing to do Everyone is aware Our argument that he was not independent 20 and neutral, quote, vis-`-vis the parties, which 21 was a specific order made directly to Mr. Cabrera, 22 not just generally Ecuadorian law -- it's an order 23 in the Lago case -- required him to be independent. 24 He filed pleadings saying he was not 25 working with the plaintiffs, which were false. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Not Testimony. Page 99

70 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Mr. Reyes, when you were an expert for 2 the State of Ecuador in 2004, did you prepare a 3 report and file it in that case? 4 Yes. 5 nd in -- in -- prior to preparing that 6 report, did you meet with representatives or 7 officials from the State of Ecuador, your client? 8 Yes. 9 nd every time that you met with 10 representatives of Ecuador, were there always 11 representatives of Repsol present during those 12 meetings? 13 No. 14 Was there anything wrong with that? MS. NEUMN: Objection, calls for conclusion, relevance, lack of foundation. 17 MR. GOMEZ: 18 Judge. 19 I'll withdraw the question, When you prepared your report in that case, did you receive data or information from 21 the officials -- officials -- Ecuadorian officials? 22 Yes. 23 Did you receive data and information from Repsol for use in your report? No. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Page 102

71 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ When you served as an expert in that 2 case, did you ever have any meetings with 3 representatives or officials of Repsol in anti prior to submitting your report? 5 No. 6 Let's turn to the second case in that for Repsol; is that correct? 9 Now, in that case, you served as an expert 10 order the order? Encana Okay. We can -- we can change the So how would you like to change First, in 2004 you represented the State of Ecuador; correct? 15 Yes. 16 You have to verbalize a response nd in the second case, was in 2005, you were an expert for Encana; is that correct? 19 Yes. 20 nd in the third case, where you worked 21 as an expert, there you represented Repsol; is that 22 correct? 23 Yes. 24 nd that is the chronological order in 25 which you served as an expert for those parties; is Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Page 103

72 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ officials of the Internal Revenue Service? 2 Yes. 3 nd during all of those meetings, were 4 representatives of the oil companies present? 5 MS. NEUMN: 6 THE DEPONENT: Objection, relevance. I've already said no. BY MR. GOMEZ: Were they present in any meetings with officials from the Internal Revenue Service? 10 No. 11 When you prepared the report in that 12 case, did you receive data or information from the 13 officials of the Internal Revenue Service for your 14 report? 15 Once again, yes. 16 Did you receive any data or information 17 for your report from Encana or any of the oil 18 companies in that case? 19 Once again, no. 20 Let's turn to the third case in which you 21 served as an expert, sir That case involved the company called "Repsol"; is that correct? 24 Yes. 25 Repsol asked for your expert opinion in Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Page 105

73 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ nd in the third case, did you receive 2 any data or information from Repsol or other oil 3 companies for use in that report that you prepared? 4 No. 5 Were you an independent expert in the 6 third case? MS. NEUMN: Objection, vague, and opinion. THE SPECIL MSTER: Well, if there -- is 10 there a professional understanding what being an 11 independent expert means, Mr. Reyes? 12 THE DEPONENT: Yes. 13 THE SPECIL MSTER: Okay. So can you within that definition, within your profession in 15 Ecuador, did you consider yourself to be an 16 independent expert in the third case? 17 THE DEPONENT: There's a -- there's a 18 deliberate confusion that the cases are similar and 19 I have acted as an expert -- as an independent 20 expert, which consists that my client uses my 21 service, which are legally -- which is a legal 22 requirement. 23 nd the client uses my services in order 24 to fulfill a set of technical requirements, which 25 in this case had to do with -- which the need of Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Page 107

74 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ the Ecuadorian state, whether to return or not 2 return the value added tax on oil, in case the oil 3 companies were to show that the extracted oil was a 4 produced asset. 5 So therefore, I had to go -- 6 THE INTERPRETER: 7 THE DEPONENT: Strike that. -- so therefore, I had to 8 base myself on physical law, which I deal with as 9 an oil engineer, in order to prove that. 10 nd that was the independence of my 11 knowledge regarding the fact that I was basing 12 myself on laws which are -- in many cases are 13 not -- cannot be compared. 14 BY MR. GOMEZ: 15 Sir, in those three instances, were you 16 the sole and exclusive author of the reports that 17 were filed with your name? I was part of a multi-disciplinary team of experts that was required for that kind of work. 20 In all three cases? 21 Yes. 22 nd did all the names of that 23 multi-disciplinary team appear in the reports that 24 you filed with the court in all three cases? 25 Each member of the multi-disciplinary Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106.Further Designation: 108:22-109:1 Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Page 108

75 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ team submitted his own report. 2 m I understanding your testimony 3 correctly that that multi-disciplinary team helped 4 you draft your own report? 5 MS. NEUMN: Objection, misstates the 6 testimony. 7 THE DEPONENT: You didn't understand me 8 correctly. 9 BY MR. GOMEZ: 10 What I'm trying to find out, sir, is 11 whether in those three instances when you filed the 12 report with your name on it, were you the sole and 13 exclusive author of that work? 14 Please give me a "yes" or a "no" answer? 15 MS. NEUMN: I'm going to object to 16 instructing the witness in that manner, especially 17 with a question that doesn't contain sufficient 18 facts based on what the witness has said so far. 19 THE SPECIL MSTER: You can answer the 20 question. 21 MR. GOMEZ: Can we please read back the 22 question for the witness. 23 MS. NEUMN: Without the instructions. 24 (The deposition officer read the record 25 as follows: "UESTION: What I'm trying to find Page 109

76 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ out, sir, is whether in those three 2 instances when you filed the report with 3 your name on it, were you the sole and 4 exclusive author of that work?") 5 THE DEPONENT: The sole and exclusive 6 author of my work within the multi-disciplinary 7 team. 8 BY MR. GOMEZ: 9 Did all the names of the members of the 10 multiple-dis- -- multi-disciplinary team appear in 11 your reports in those three cases? MS. NEUMN: Objection, vague as to "reports." 14 THE SPECIL MSTER: Well, I think here 15 there may be some confusion, because "reports" is 16 being used possibly in two different ways. 17 understood the expert, he was required -- he was 18 tasked with drafting a report in his field of 19 expertise. 20 s I There were people in other areas of 21 expertise who prepared other reports, and they may 22 have been merged into a single report with these 23 different sections. 24 "report" may be a bit confusing here. 25 BY MR. GOMEZ: So there may be -- the term Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106.Further Designation: 109:24-110:4 Page 110

77 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Sir, was -- were your reports in those three cases a compilation of various reports? 3 No. 4 So your report was written all -- let me 5 with -- strike that. 6 Is it your testimony that you wrote every 7 word in each of the reports that you filed in each 8 of those three cases? 9 I did. 10 Please look at Exhibit 3505 again, sir In that meeting, were you acting as an independent expert? 13 MS. NEUMN: 14 THE SPECIL MSTER: Objection, calls for -Sustained. BY MR. GOMEZ: Sir, you had testified earlier today 17 about your background and your training and your 18 experience With respect to the work you've done, what is encompassed in the area of oil engineering? Exploration for the presence of 22 hydrocarbons in a sedimentary basin, preparation, 23 drilling of one or more exploratory wells to 24 validate if discoveries will be made or not, 25 drilling of development wells, testing of Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Page 111

78 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ The Regional ssociation of Geological 2 Mining Petroleum and Environmental Engineers, also 3 known as CIGMYP; is that correct? 4 Yes. 5 Did that board ever appoint you to be -- 6 or to act as a monitor in the Lago grio case? 7 Yes. 8 When did that vote take place? 9 I think it's written here in the -- in 10 the letter. 11 date I can review it if you want the exact Please review whatever you think you need to review to answer my question. t the expanded meeting of the board on November 22nd of nd was Mr. Pinto also appointed on that same date with you? 18 Yes. 19 Was a written record of that board vote or resolution issued? That should have been on the record in the board -- with the board. 23 Have you ever seen such a record? 24 No. 25 It wouldn't have been given to you when Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. Page 119

79 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ designate you or Mr. Pinto as monitors of the 2 settling experts? They only had to be aware that we had been appointed monitors. Did any judge ever designate you or Mr. Pinto as monitors in this case, sir? In this case, the judges were not appointing monitors -- 9 So is your answer "no," sir and you and Mr. Pinto were never 12 designated as monitors by any judge in the Lago 13 grio case? MS. NEUMN: Interrupting the witness again, Your Honor. 16 THE SPECIL MSTER: 17 THE DEPONENT: 18 nd the question was: We were never designated by any judge? 19 THE SPECIL MSTER: 20 THE DEPONENT: 21 Can you answer that? Right. Yes. BY MR. GOMEZ: 22 You were not? 23 Yes. 24 Did you ever tell any member of the board 25 of the engineer association about your discussions Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Page 124

80 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ with Mr. Donziger, Mr. Fajardo, or Mr. Yanza about 2 serving as monitors? 3 4 MS. NEUMN: Do you mean other than Mr. Pinto? 5 MR. GOMEZ: 6 THE DEPONENT: 7 Other than Mr. Pinto. No. BY MR. GOMEZ: 8 Do you know if Mr. Pinto did? 9 I don't know. 10 Did you ever ask him? 11 No. 12 Sir, earlier today you testified that you 13 drafted a report regarding Sacha 53; is that 14 correct? 15 Correct. 16 nd when you testified about that report, 17 did you testify that that report was the product of 18 you being hired by the Lago grio plaintiffs and 19 their representatives or the engineering 20 association being hired? 21 MS. NEUMN: Objection, asked and 22 answered. 23 testimony from this morning, not a proper question sking the witness to repeat his THE SPECIL MSTER: I'll allow him to answer. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106.Further Designation: 125:12-15 Page 125

81 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ THE DEPONENT: I was hired -- or better 2 said yet -- I rendered professional services to the 3 engineers' association, which in turn -- which in 4 turn agreed -- had an agreement with the plaintiffs 5 in order to -- to conduct the monitorship. 6 BY MR. GOMEZ: 7 8 Who negotiated that agreement on behalf of the engineers' association? 9 Engineer Gustavo Pinto. 10 nd how did the engineers' association 11 enter into that agreement with the Lago grio 12 plaintiffs or their representatives? THE SPECIL MSTER: in writing? MR. GOMEZ: Yes. Was it in writing? MS. NEUMN: Objection, asked and MR. GOMEZ: ctually it wasn't, Your Honor. 21 THE SPECIL MSTER: 22 THE DEPONENT: Did they vote? answered this morning Do you mean was it If you know. No. BY MR. GOMEZ: How were you hired by the engineers' association to do that work? Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106.Further Designation: 125:12-15 Page 126

82 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ By requesting my professional services because of the experience that I have in that area. 3 Who made that request of you? 4 The president of the association. 5 Mr. Pinto? 6 Mr. Pinto -- Mr. Pinto -- we had talked 7 in the morning -- we had talked about this, where 8 the requirements were stated by Mr. Pinto based on 9 the requirements of Mr. Donziger's at that meeting, 10 which I also attended. 11 Do you know if any other board members 12 besides Mr. Pinto were aware that he was making 13 that request of you? 14 I don't know. 15 Do you know whether Mr. Pinto has the 16 exclusive authority to hire you for that purpose 17 without the board's involvement? In his capacity as president of the association, he had the capacity to do so. Do you know if he ever informed any other member of the board that he had done so? He informed -- Engineer Pinto called 23 every other member of the board to an expanded 24 meeting -- meaning every member of the board -- in 25 which he informed them of the dealings that were Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Page 127

83 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ being held. 2 He told them what it was about. nd 3 lastly he asked the board to do as they did. 4 as a result of that, came this letter addressed to 5 Judge German Yanez nd Were you present to observe all of that, sir, that you've just described? I was present on that occasion. But on 9 other times I've also been a member of the board, 10 and when there have been expanded assemblies, all 11 of the members of the board have had to be present So you were present for this November 22nd, 2005 meeting? 14 He didn't understand my -- my answer. 15 You're absolutely right, I didn't. 16 Were you present for the meeting when 17 Mr. Pinto informed the board members of his request 18 that you prepare a report regarding Sacha 53? 19 MS. NEUMN: Objection, lacks foundation, 20 asked and answered. 21 such a request was made to the board. 22 MR. GOMEZ: It's not been established that Your Honor, may we excuse the 23 witness for a moment, please? 24 THE SPECIL MSTER: 25 THE VIDEOGRPHER: Sure. We're going off the Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Page 128

84 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ record -- video record. 2 The time is 2:43 p.m. (Brief recess taken.) 3 (Deponent departs room.) 4 MR. GOMEZ: Your Honor, I don't have 5 Livenote in front of me, but my recollection of his 6 testimony is that he said he wasn't at this 7 November 22, 2005 meeting. 8 nd my recollection of his testimony is 9 that he said Mr. Pinto made a request of him to do 10 the Sacha 53 report, which meant that, as he 11 explained, he was being hired by the engineers' 12 association to do that report. 13 THE SPECIL MSTER: 14 MR. GOMEZ: Yes. Now, he's saying -- and now 15 he went through a whole speech about describing 16 what was -- because then I asked him, Well, do you 17 know whether Mr. Pinto spoke to the board members 18 about hiring you for the Sacha 53 report? 19 MS. NEUMN: 20 MR. GOMEZ: nd he said, No. nd he said, No, he doesn't 21 know. But then later on he said he -- he described 22 everything that happened at that meeting and how 23 Sacha 53 was discussed in that meeting nd then I asked him, Well, were you present? gain he said, No -- I thought he said, Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Not Testimony. Page 129

85 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Yes, at that point, he was. But then he qualified 2 his answer and said he's been present in other such 3 meetings like this. 4 place here. This witness is all over the 5 MS. NEUMN: I think -- 6 THE SPECIL MSTER: Well, are we 7 getting -- is there some confusion between his 8 being asked to work on the Sacha 53 report versus a 9 letter to the judge, where they're saying the 10 association is going to act as an independent 11 monitor? 12 MR. GOMEZ: It sounds to me, based on 13 what he just described, that all of those things 14 were discussed at the November 22, 2005 meeting, 15 but I don't have a clear answer from him whether he 16 was present to witness that or not. 17 MS. NEUMN: It's clear that the witness 18 has testified that he didn't attend that meeting 19 and doesn't know what happened at that meeting. 20 Then Mr. Gomez goes back to the same 21 topic and asks him questions that aren't complete 22 or that -- that imply things that aren't accurate 23 in the record, and then -- not surprisingly -- the 24 record gets confused. 25 So what he -- the witness testified to Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Not Testimony. Page 130

86 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ MR. GOMEZ: Let's bring him back in. 2 (Brief recess taken.) 3 (Deponent re-enters room.) 4 THE VIDEOGRPHER: We're back on the 5 record. The time is 2:51 p.m. 6 BY MR. GOMEZ: 7 Sir, you testified that you were hired by 8 the engineers' association to prepare a Sacha 53 9 report. 10 nd my question to you is: Were you 11 hired with a written contract? 12 No. 13 How was your hiring effective? 14 MS. NEUMN: Objection, asked and 15 answered. 16 THE SPECIL MSTER: Is your response 17 that you were asked to do so by Mr. Pinto? 18 THE DEPONENT: Oral agreements. 19 BY MR. GOMEZ: 20 With whom? 21 With Mr. Pinto and Mr. Donziger. 22 nd how much were you to be paid for this 23 report? 24 I don't recall exactly. 25 Were you ever paid for it? Page 135

87 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Yes. 2 Can you estimate how much you were paid? 3 I don't recall exactly. 4 re there records we could go to to find 5 out how much you were paid? 6 No. 7 Why? 8 It has been eight years. 9 own accounting I don't have my Were you paid by check or were you paid cash? 12 I'm not sure. 13 Can you even estimate whether it was more 14 or less than $10,000? 15 MS. NEUMN: 16 THE DEPONENT: We -I don't recall the amount. BY MR. GOMEZ: You were asked by Ms. Neuman if you ever 19 provided a draft of the monitoring report to 20 Chevron, and you testified "No." nd my question to you, sir, is: Why did you not provide that draft to Chevron? Because I was not the responsible person 24 to provide that report to either Chevron or to 25 anyone else. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Page 136

88 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Who do you understand to have been the responsible person to do that? The agreement was between the engineers' association and Mr. Donziger. nd under that agreement, whose 6 responsibility was it to provide a copy of the 7 monitoring report to Chevron, Mr. Donziger or the 8 engineers' association? 9 10 The intent was to meet with Texaco, and it was never done Who -- I'm sorry inform them regarding the monitorship, 13 and if they had requested it, possibly provide them 14 a copy of the report. 15 provided a copy. I don't know if Texaco was 16 Whose intention was it to do that? 17 The monitorship's. 18 What do you mean by "the monitorship's"? 19 "The monitorship" meaning the engineers' 20 association through the monitors Gustavo Pinto and 21 Fernando Reyes. 22 nd did that happen? 23 MS. NEUMN: 24 Did what happen? 25 Objection, vague. BY MR. GOMEZ: Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Defendants' Objection(s):Personal Knowledge Page 137

89 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ What you just described. 3 You described an intention, you described who the intention was of. 4 5 nd I'm asking you, was the intention fulfilled? 6 7 MS. NEUMN: answered Objection, asked and THE DEPONENT: I don't know. BY MR. GOMEZ: You were also asked by Ms. Neuman whether 11 you ever personally filed the monitoring report 12 with the court. 13 nd you testified "No." Please tell me why you didn't do that. 14 Because it was not my responsibility. 15 Why do you have an understanding that it wasn't your responsibility? Because I was subjected to the organization of an association. Do you mean the engineers' association that you've talked about? 21 Yes. 22 Was it that engineers' association's responsibility to file your report with the court? MS. NEUMN: Objection, misstates the testimony and the evidence that it was his report Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106. Further Designation: 137:5-17 Page 138

90 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ solely. 2 3 THE SPECIL MSTER: answer? 4 5 MR. GOMEZ: Can we please read back the question. 6 7 Can you -- can you (The deposition officer read the record as follows: "UESTION: Was it that engineers' 8 association's responsibility to file your 9 report with the court?") 10 THE DEPONENT: The engineers' association 11 exhibited its willingness to make that report 12 available for a court, and regarding the comments 13 that were made, about the report on the Sacha well. 15 BY MR. GOMEZ: 16 So is it your understanding that it was 17 the engineers' association responsibility to submit 18 that report to the judge? MS. NEUMN: Objection, asked and answered, misstates prior testimony. 21 MR. GOMEZ: It's not been answered, Your 22 Honor. I would ask that the witness be instructed 23 to give a direct answer to the question THE SPECIL MSTER: Can you answer that question? Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Page 139

91 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ THE DEPONENT: The association had the 2 discretion to submit or not submit the report to 3 the court. 4 BY MR. GOMEZ: 5 Please look at Exhibit from your 6 affidavit, sir. Exhibit, Mr. Reyes. 7 may be looking at the wrong exhibit. 8 (Demonstrating). 9 Okay. Okay. I think you. nyways, in responses to 10 questions regarding Exhibit in your declaration, 11 you testified that an offer had been made that half 12 of your fees would be paid by Chevron and half 13 would be paid by mazonia; is that correct? 14 Correct. 15 nd when we say "mazonia," we're talking 16 about the mazon Defense Front; correct? 17 Correct. 18 Did Chevron ever pay you 50 percent of 19 your fees? 20 MS. NEUMN: Objection, lacks THE SPECIL MSTER: Well, first of all, 22 let's make sure that Exhibit talks about the 23 proposal for a global assessment, which this 24 witness was never hired to do. 25 MR. GOMEZ: I withdraw the question, Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Page 140

92 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Judge. 2 Sir, do you know if Chevron ever paid 3 50 percent of the fee to the global damages expert 4 in the Lago grio case? 5 6 MS. NEUMN: the scope of this witness. 7 8 THE SPECIL MSTER: 11 If you know, you can answer it Objection, relevance, beyond THE DEPONENT: I don't know. BY MR. GOMEZ: 12 Exhibit X in your declaration, sir. re you at Exhibit X, sir? 13 Yes (in English.) 14 Okay. Sir, you testified that during 15 this meeting you made certain calculations and 16 utilized a 3.5 factor multiplier. 17 nd my question is: factor multiplier represent in your 19 calculation? 20 MS. NEUMN: What does that Objection, misstates the 21 testimony, that the one calculation is related to 22 the others. 23 THE SPECIL MSTER: 24 testified that he made the calculation. 25 The witness I think the witness testified that he was Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106. Further Designations: 141:23-24 and 142:6-12 Page 141

93 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ asked to take a factor into account when he was 2 making his damages assessment. 3 Isn't that correct? 4 THE DEPONENT: Yes. BY MR. GOMEZ: When you were asked to do that, what was the 3.5 factor multiplier supposed to represent? Was to increase by three and a half times the amount of the calculated amount of the damages. Is that a regular practice in calculating environmental damages? 12 No. 13 Why not? 14 MS. NEUMN: 15 THE DEPONENT: 16 THE SPECIL MSTER: 17 THE DEPONENT: Objection, argumentative. Because -Overruled. Because at least I haven't used those kinds of factors when I have made -(Interpreter and deponent confer in Spanish.) 20 THE DEPONENT: 21 calculations. 22 BY MR. GOMEZ: -- that type of financial 23 Do other experts in your field do so? 24 I don't know. 25 Do you know why anyone in this meeting Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106. Further Designations: 141:23-24 and 142:6-12 Defendants' Objection(s):Relevance Page 142

94 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ was suggesting that you use a 3.5 factor 2 multiplier? 3 Steven Donziger suggested that. 4 Do you know why he suggested it? 5 He must have the answer. 6 So you don't know why? 7 Judge, this will go a lot faster if he 8 just answers my question. 9 THE SPECIL MSTER: Can you answer it? 10 BY MR. GOMEZ: 11 Do you know why Mr. Donziger asked you to 12 use a 3.5 multiplier? 13 His intent was to increase by -- by that 14 many times the estimated costs. 15 Do you know why? 16 So that the environmental cost would be 17 higher. 18 Is there a scientific reason for using a 19 factor multiplier for that? 20 Not that I'm aware of. 21 Why don't you use factor multipliers in 22 your analyses? 23 MS. NEUMN: Objection, vague and 24 abstract and relevance. 25 THE SPECIL MSTER: Well, the witness Defendants' Objection(s):Speculation Page 143

95 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ testified it is not his practice to first assess 2 damages and then multiply them by any degree. 3 Can you explain why you don't do that? 4 THE DEPONENT: 5 practice. 6 could be more or less percent more or less. 8 range. Because it is not a common 9 cost estimate is a percentage that It could be 15 or That's just as a security It is common in engineering practices to 10 under- or to overestimate costs, but not to make 11 those costs two, three, or four times larger. 12 is over-overestimating costs. 13 BY MR. GOMEZ: 14 Do you know whether any environmental 15 damage experts use multipliers to account for 16 environmental or scientific conditions? 17 That MS. NEUMN: Objection, relevance, 18 opinion. 19 into expert or pseudo expert opinion at this point. 20 This is a fact witness. THE SPECIL MSTER: Clearly getting Particularly when 21 the recommendation was made by a nonexpert, a 22 lawyer MR. GOMEZ: I withdraw the question. Mr. Reyes, please turn to the signature page of your declaration, Exhibit Tell me Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Not Testimony. Page 144

96 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Myself. 2 Sir, this declaration purports to have 3 been signed in Bogota, Colombia. 4 Was it signed by you in Bogota, Colombia? 5 Yes. 6 Why was it signed in Bogota, Colombia? 7 Because from my point of view, in Ecuador 8 there are not guarantees on an individual's rights 9 in order to have done this in Ecuador. 10 Guarantees of what, sir? 11 What are you talking about? 12 I have -- I have no confidence as to what 13 occurs legally in the justice system in Ecuador. 14 What is the nature of your concern? 15 We are going to a different kind of 16 analysis, and I won't do so. 17 MR. GOMEZ: Your Honor, I would ask you 18 to instruct the witness to answer the question. 19 MS. NEUMN: May the witness be excused, 20 Your Honor? 21 THE VIDEOGRPHER: We're going off the 22 video record. The time is 3:19 p.m. 23 (Brief recess taken.) 24 (Deponent departs the room.) 25 MS. NEUMN: I don't know what the Defendants' Objection(s):Relevance Page 147

97 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ (Deponent re-enters room.) THE VIDEOGRPHER: record. We're back on the The time is 3:47 p.m. THE SPECIL MSTER: The next several 5 questions and answers will be -- I'm going to ask 6 that the transcript be sealed. 7 we can begin the unsealing of the proceeding. I'll indicate when 8 / / / 9 (Page 154, line 8 through page 155 line 8 have been 10 bound in a sealed transcript. The unbound portion 11 of the transcript continues on page 155, line 9) 12 / / / Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Not Testimony. Page 154

98 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ MR. GOMEZ: I think we can unseal now, Judge. 11 THE SPECIL MSTER: 12 the proceeding can be unsealed. 13 BY MR. GOMEZ: Okay The rest of Mr. Reyes, who helped you prepare Exhibit 3500, your declaration, sir? 16 Chevron representatives. 17 Name them, please. 18 Yohir kerman, Sam nson, ndres Rivero. 19 ny others, sir? 20 Those three. 21 Does Mr. kerman work for Chevron? 22 With a professional company that provides 23 services to Chevron. 24 What's the name of that company, sir? 25 Kroll -- Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Further Designation: Pursuant to FRE 106, Plaintiffs also designate the Declaration of Ramiro Fernando Reyes, dated December 6, 2012, and filed at Dkt , pp. 2-31, included herein at Tab 2. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Not Testimony. Page 155

99 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ (Interpreter and deponent confer in Spanish.) 2 t that time Kroll. 3 t the time of the signing of your 4 declaration? 5 Yes. 6 What about Mr. Sam nson, does he work 7 for Chevron? 8 The same as kerman. 9 Mr. nson works for Kroll? 10 (No audible response.) 11 nd what about Mr. Rivero? DEPOSITION OFFICER: to the question? Was there an answer THE INTERPRETER: Yes, he as well. BY MR. GOMEZ: 16 So Mr. ndres Rivero works for Kroll? 17 Yes. 18 nd what sort of services does Kroll 19 provide to Chevron? MS. NEUMN: work product Objection, lacks foundation, THE SPECIL MSTER: Sustained. BY MR. GOMEZ: What assistance did Mr. kerman provide to you in preparing this declaration, sir? Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Further Designation: Pursuant to FRE 106, Plaintiffs also designate the Declaration of Ramiro Fernando Reyes, dated December 6, 2012, and filed at Dkt , pp. 2-31, included herein at Tab 2. Page 156

100 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ The three of them in their specific 2 moment pro- -- help with this work. 3 teamwork Did all three gentlemen draft portions of your declaration? 6 7 It was a it. I was not present when they were drafting That was their work. Do you know how they divided that work amongst each other? If I was not present, I wouldn't be able to know. So Messrs. kerman, nson, and Rivero 13 collectively drafted fully your declaration, sir, 14 and then you were presented with it for signature? 15 They wrote the draft to my declaration. 16 We reviewed it together. We made corrections that 17 I requested be made. 18 the drafting of the affidavit was to my 19 satisfaction, then I signed it. nd once the corrections and 20 How long did that take? 21 round -- well, with the reconstruction 22 of the facts, because it was information that I 23 already had in files, and then the process of me 24 deciding to give the affidavit, that took 25 approximately two years. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Further Designation: Pursuant to FRE 106, Plaintiffs also designate the Declaration of Ramiro Fernando Reyes, dated December 6, 2012, and filed at Dkt , pp. 2-31, included herein at Tab 2. Page 157

101 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ So you made a decision to give an 2 affidavit in this case two years before the date of 3 its execution? 4 MS. NEUMN: 5 witness' testimony. 6 BY MR. GOMEZ: 7 Objection, misstates the Did you make the decision to give an 8 affidavit in this case two years before the date of 9 its execution? 10 No. 11 So how long -- how much time passed from 12 the day you decided to provide a declaration in 13 this case and the date of its execution? 14 The reconstruct -- well, the drafting of 15 the affidavit includes a methodology that I -- that 16 I call successive approximations or estimates. 17 it was done according to the needs. 18 nd Because, given my occupation with my 19 current employment regarding field work, I couldn't 20 be present the whole time that was required of me; 21 because this is a process of where you convince 22 yourself. 23 have to deal with that you have to reduce to 24 acceptable levels There are many uncertainties that you THE INTERPRETER: Strike that. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Further Designation: Pursuant to FRE 106, Plaintiffs also designate the Declaration of Ramiro Fernando Reyes, dated December 6, 2012, and filed at Dkt , pp. 2-31, included herein at Tab 2. Page 158

102 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ THE DEPONENT: -- tolerable levels. nd 2 that led me to be aware of this, and that's -- and 3 then that led me to making the decision. 4 BY MR. GOMEZ: 5 So how much time passed from the moment 6 you made the decision until the moment you signed 7 the declaration? 8 There wasn't one moment when I made the 9 decision, but a process of convincing myself 10 related to the time and related to the 11 uncertainties they were coming -- that were coming 12 along. 13 Sir, when did you first start convincing 14 yourself and deal with the uncertainties that you 15 have described in relation to this declaration? I've not made any annotations of specific dates in order to be able to answer your question. 18 Can you approximate? 19 No. 20 You testified that you reviewed the 21 draft. 22 In Ecuador. 23 When did you first review a draft of your Where did you review it? declaration in Ecuador? It was not just one, but several reviews, Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Further Designation: Pursuant to FRE 106, Plaintiffs also designate the Declaration of Ramiro Fernando Reyes, dated December 6, 2012, and filed at Dkt , pp. 2-31, included herein at Tab 2. Page 159

103 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ and I don't have the dates. When did you first review the first draft of your declaration in Ecuador? 4 I don't have the date. 5 Can you estimate? 6 No. 7 Were you provided with a hard copy draft 8 or an electronic draft on the computer, the first 9 time you saw a draft? 10 It was a hard copy in paper. 11 Who gave you that hard copy? 12 The investigators. 13 ll three at the same time? 14 Not necessarily One of them. I believe it was kerman. Where did Mr. kerman give you that first hard copy of your declaration? 18 In uito. 19 Where in uito? 20 Well, he wouldn't deliver any copy to me, 21 we reviewed one jointly. 22 Where? 23 In uito. 24 Where in uito? 25 In a location in uito. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Further Designation: Pursuant to FRE 106, Plaintiffs also designate the Declaration of Ramiro Fernando Reyes, dated December 6, 2012, and filed at Dkt , pp. 2-31, included herein at Tab 2. Page 160

104 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ MR. GOMEZ: Judge, I would ask for an instruction to the witness to answer the question. 3 THE SPECIL MSTER: Can you say whether 4 it was in your office or his office or at a 5 particular location? 6 THE DEPONENT: In a location -- in one of 7 the locations, because there were different 8 locations. 9 locations at one point was the Marriott Hotel. t 10 some point another location was another hotel. nd 11 we met in the hotel rooms. 12 right now. 13 BY MR. GOMEZ: They would come to uito and one of the But I don't recall You only reviewed drafts of your declaration in hotel rooms, sir? 16 t the times when we would meet in those 17 locations. 18 Only in hotels? 19 Only in the hotels. 20 When you signed your declaration in 21 Bogota, Colombia, did you sign it in a hotel as 22 well? 23 Yes. 24 Would you spend the night in these hotels 25 when you reviewed drafts or signed the declaration? Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Further Designation: Pursuant to FRE 106, Plaintiffs also designate the Declaration of Ramiro Fernando Reyes, dated December 6, 2012, and filed at Dkt , pp. 2-31, included herein at Tab 2. Page 161

105 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ No, sir. My time was very brief. Once 2 again, at that time I spent a lot of time in the 3 mazon, and my time was -- was very complex. 4 5 So how would you meet these gentlemen in a hotel room? 6 Would they call you? 7 Would they schedule an appointment in 8 advance with you? 9 How would that happen? 10 They would call me, and we'd agree one 11 hour. 12 schedule. 13 They -- they always acted according to my Who was your primary contact Mr. kerman, Mr. nson, or Mr. Rivero -- for these 15 meetings? 16 kerman. 17 Were you contacted by telephone or 18 ? 19 Telephone. 20 Besides the Marriott in uito, what other 21 hotels in uito did you meet these gentlemen for 22 this purpose? MS. NEUMN: answered. Objection, asked and The witness said he didn't remember. THE SPECIL MSTER: Yeah, let's just Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Further Designation: Pursuant to FRE 106, Plaintiffs also designate the Declaration of Ramiro Fernando Reyes, dated December 6, 2012, and filed at Dkt , pp. 2-31, included herein at Tab 2. Page 162

106 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ move on THE DEPONENT: I'm trying to remember. BY MR. GOMEZ: Were you ever provided an electronic copy of your declaration, sir? 6 No. 7 What would happen to the drafts during 8 these meetings? 9 Would they get marked up by hand? 10 It's the only way to correct texts. 11 nd who would keep the marked up draft? 12 They would. 13 Do you know what they would do with the 14 marked up draft? 15 No. 16 nd would they then incorporate the 17 markups into a new draft, and then schedule a new 18 meeting with you to review the new draft? 19 Not necessarily. 20 But that did happen? 21 It did occur. 22 What else happened? 23 MS. NEUMN: Objection, vague. 24 THE DEPONENT: 25 MR. GOMEZ: We would say good-bye. We need to change the audio. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Further Designation: Pursuant to FRE 106, Plaintiffs also designate the Declaration of Ramiro Fernando Reyes, dated December 6, 2012, and filed at Dkt , pp. 2-31, included herein at Tab 2. Page 163

107 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ THE VIDEOGRPHER: record. The time is 4:08 p.m. 3 (Brief recess taken.) 4 5 We're going off the THE VIDEOGRPHER: record. 6 We're back on the The time is 4:16 p.m. This marks the beginning of Video 4 in 7 the deposition of Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros. 8 BY MR. GOMEZ: 9 Mr. Reyes, did you ever receive s 10 from Mr. kerman, Mr. nson, or Mr. Rivero 11 regarding scheduling of these meetings to review 12 your drafts? 13 Yes. 14 Did you ever receive s from 15 Mr. kerman, Mr. nson, or Mr. Rivero discussing 16 the substance of your deposition? 17 No. 18 Mr. Reyes, were you paid to appear at 19 these meetings? 20 No. 21 Were your expenses to travel to these 22 hotels paid or reimbursed? 23 They paid me. 24 What were you paid? 25 The cost of the trip and the hotel. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Further Designation: Pursuant to FRE 106, Plaintiffs also designate the Declaration of Ramiro Fernando Reyes, dated December 6, 2012, and filed at Dkt , pp. 2-31, included herein at Tab 2. Page 164

108 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ What trip are you referring to? 2 The trip to sign my affidavit. 3 Where were you traveling to and from? 4 From uito to Bogota to uito. uito, 5 Bogota to Cartagena; and then Cartagena to Bogota 6 to uito. 7 8 reimbursed? 9 They paid for me -- they paid. 10 So do you mean they paid -- they -- they 11 nd who paid -- were you paid or were you booked the ticket -- they booked the airline? 12 Is that what you mean? 13 Yes. 14 They never paid you money for you to go 15 purchase a ticket? 16 No. 17 nd you were never paid for your time on 18 these trips or for meeting with these gentlemen? 19 No. 20 Were you ever paid in any other way in 21 relation to your declaration? 22 No. 23 Were you paid -- were you paid for 24 securing documents that would appear as exhibits to 25 your declaration? Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Further Designation: Pursuant to FRE 106, Plaintiffs also designate the Declaration of Ramiro Fernando Reyes, dated December 6, 2012, and filed at Dkt , pp. 2-31, included herein at Tab 2. Page 165

109 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ No. 2 Who approached you with the idea of 3 executing a declaration for this case the first 4 time? 5 Sam nson and Yohir kerman. 6 When did they do that? 7 The contacts with them began around two years ago approximately. Why did it take two years from the first contact to the execution of the declaration? s I stated earlier, handling the 12 uncertainties, my professional assignments, and the 13 successive approximations in order to take -- to 14 make the decision. 15 How many meetings in hotel rooms did you 16 participate in between the first contact and 17 execution of the declaration? 18 round six, eight times. 19 Who collected and assembled the exhibits 20 to your declaration? 21 The gentlemen I have mentioned. 22 Did any of the three have primary 23 responsibility for that? 24 Mr. Sam nson and Mr. Yohir kerman. 25 Did both of those gentlemen collect all Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Further Designation: Pursuant to FRE 106, Plaintiffs also designate the Declaration of Ramiro Fernando Reyes, dated December 6, 2012, and filed at Dkt , pp. 2-31, included herein at Tab 2. Page 166

110 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ of the exhibits in your declaration? 2 That's what they did. 3 Your declaration describes contacts with 4 attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Lago grio 5 litigation from the year 2003 to During that time period, sir, did you 7 speak with anyone working on behalf of Chevron? 8 No. 9 During that time period, did you speak to 10 anyone who was a contractor of Chevron? 11 MS. NEUMN: 12 MR. GOMEZ: Objection, lacks foundation. Kroll is a contractor. 13 like to know if he's had other contacts with 14 contractors, Judge MS. NEUMN: Lacks foundation. I'd He might not know if someone was a contractor. 17 MR. GOMEZ: If he knows. 18 THE SPECIL MSTER: He may know. To your knowledge 19 during that period, did you speak with people who 20 you understood to be other -- individuals working 21 for or on behalf of Chevron? THE DEPONENT: No. BY MR. GOMEZ: How many times has a lawyer representing Chevron contacted you in the last 24 hours, sir? Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Page 167

111 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ MS. NEUMN: You mean since 4:00 yesterday? 3 MR. GOMEZ: 4 THE DEPONENT: 5 has contacted me. 6 BY MR. GOMEZ: 7 Yes. No attorney from Chevron How about this past weekend, has any 8 attorney working on behalf of Chevron contacted you 9 this past weekend? 10 Yes. 11 Who? 12 The attorney. 13 Is the attorney in the room, sir? 14 Yes, yes. 15 Would you kindly point the attorney out? 16 She is seated over there MR. GOMEZ: Let the record reflect he's referring to Ms. Neuman. 19 THE DEPONENT: 20 MS. NEUMN: Neuman, excuse me. So forgettable. BY MR. GOMEZ: How many contacts did you have with Ms. Neuman this weekend, sir? 24 We were preparing for this deposition. 25 How long did you prepare? Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Page 168

112 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ For three days. 2 Which three days? 3 Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and 4 yesterday, Sunday morning. 5 6 those days with Ms. Neuman, sir? 7 8 Six hours approximately, and two hours the last day How many hours did you prepare on each of So six hours on Thursday, six hours on Friday, and six hours on Saturday, sir? 11 Yes. 12 nd then two hours yesterday? 13 Yes. 14 Was an interpreter present? 15 Yes. 16 For the entirety of the time you prepared 17 with Ms. Neuman, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, 18 sir? 19 Yes. 20 The interpreter who is here today? 21 No. 22 Do you know who the interpreter was who He was present starting yesterday. was present on the other days? I don't recall the name, but if you can tell me. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Page 169

113 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ that Chevron's paying the witness' expenses for 2 coming to and testifying in Lima. 3 4 THE SPECIL MSTER: through That'll cut MR. GOMEZ: I'll accept that stipulation. Mr. Reyes, is Chevron paying for your 7 time while you have prepared and participated in 8 this deposition? 9 No. 10 re you married, sir? 11 Yes. 12 nd do you have children? 13 Yes. 14 re they adults? 15 Yes. 16 Is your wife still alive? 17 Yes. 18 Is Chevron paying anyone in your family 19 for your participation in this deposition or for 20 giving a declaration, sir? 21 No. 22 Has Chevron provided your family any 23 services for giving this declaration or 24 participating in this deposition? 25 No. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Further Designation: Pursuant to FRE 106, Plaintiffs also designate the Declaration of Ramiro Fernando Reyes, dated December 6, 2012, and filed at Dkt , pp. 2-31, included herein at Tab 2. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Page 171

114 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Has Chevron provided you with any 2 services -- for example, an attorney or an 3 accountant or any other type of service -- for 4 participating in the drafting of your declaration 5 or giving this deposition? 6 No. 7 Has Chevron given you anything in 8 9 exchange for signing your declaration, sir? I will clarify something before 10 answering. 11 done the work for this affidavit through a company 12 that provides services for Chevron. 13 direct relationship with Chevron The work for this affidavit -- I've I've not had a Has Mr. kerman or Kroll provided you anything in exchange for signing your declaration? 16 No. 17 Has Mr. kerman, Kroll, or Chevron 18 provided you anything in exchange for participating 19 in this deposition? 20 No. 21 Have you ever spoken with David DiMeglio 22 about your declaration? 23 It's the first time I've heard that name. 24 Did you ever speak with an attorney from 25 Gibson, Dunn about your declaration -- let me Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Further Designation: Pursuant to FRE 106, Plaintiffs also designate the Declaration of Ramiro Fernando Reyes, dated December 6, 2012, and filed at Dkt , pp. 2-31, included herein at Tab 2. Page 172

115 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ a legal conclusion. 2 THE DEPONENT: 3 McClelland. 4 BY MR. GOMEZ: I worked for Fugro nd why do you think that entity has a relationship with Chevron? That was the company that was contracted 8 by Texaco at that time to perform the environmental 9 remediation of the consortium area. 10 Other than your work for that entity, 11 have you worked for any other entity that you 12 believe has some relationship to Chevron? 13 MS. NEUMN: 14 THE SPECIL MSTER: 15 Same objection. relationship? 16 MR. GOMEZ: 17 THE DEPONENT: You mean a corporate Yes. No. BY MR. GOMEZ: Sir, how long have you worked for Ivanhoe Energy Ecuador? 21 I worked there since October of nd what is your position? 23 Oil engineer. 24 nd what are your responsibilities? 25 I've had several. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Page 175

116 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ If you -- if you check Ivanhoe's website page, maybe you won't find that item. 3 MR. GOMEZ: 4 response. 5 wouldn't. 6 The witness just changed his First he said I would and now he said I THE DEPONENT: You will not find that 7 item in Ivanhoe's website page. 8 BY MR. GOMEZ: 9 10 Sir, are you aware of a joint venture between Ivanhoe and Unocal, a Chevron subsidiary? 11 "Yes" or "no"? 12 MS. NEUMN: 13 lacks foundation Objection, vague as to time, THE SPECIL MSTER: t any time. BY MR. GOMEZ: 16 Please answer. 17 No. 18 Mr. Reyes, isn't it true that you 19 expressed to Mr. Donziger and Mr. Fajardo, when you 20 met with them, that you were concerned that working 21 for the Lago grio plaintiffs could hurt your 22 chances of getting work in the oil industry in 23 Ecuador? 24 Yes. 25 When did you say that to them? Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Testimony is inadmissible Hearsay (FRE 801/802/805). Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106. Further Designation: 180:1-2 Page 179

117 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ When they were proposing that I be the settling expert, the global expert. 3 4 that time? nd why did you possess that belief at Because of what this case specifically means to the oil industry in general. What does this case mean to the oil industry in general, sir? 9 10 MS. NEUMN: Objection, opinion, relevance. 11 THE SPECIL MSTER: 12 THE DEPONENT: In your opinion. I think this is a case 13 that's unique in the world, where there is a trial 14 of a -- of an merican operator in the mazon, in 15 the Ecuadorian mazon. 16 nd which professionally, and from the 17 point of view of my own family responsibilities, I 18 could see the fact that if I were to be the global 19 expert, would generate a lot of uncertainty. 20 BY MR. GOMEZ: 21 What -- I MS. NEUMN: 23 THE DEPONENT: Let the witness answer. lso, at that time I was 24 working for the state owned company and a 25 affiliate, PetroProduccion. nd I was in charge of Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Page 180

118 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ the project for enhanced oil recovery. 2 was my main professional objective that I had at 3 that moment. 4 BY MR. GOMEZ: 5 nd that Did you think you would lose that post if 6 you became the expert for the Lago grio 7 plaintiffs? 8 That was that high uncertainty. 9 ny other uncertainty, sir? 10 The fact that I had sustained and still 11 maintain that the issue of the environmental damage 12 in the mazon is an issue of co-responsibility 13 between the Ecuadorian state, its administrations, 14 and the operating company. 15 Did you ever think that if you worked as 16 an expert against an oil company, that that work 17 would hurt your chances of working for an oil 18 company in the future? 19 That was the most likely. 20 Do you have a desire to work for oil 21 companies in the future? 22 I'm currently working for an oil company. 23 Sir, did you ever have any concern that 24 if you did not give this declaration, that that 25 would hurt your chances of gaining employment in Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Page 181

119 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ the oil industry? 2 My declaration has nothing to do with the 3 fact that I am acknowledged professionally and that 4 I currently have the job that I have. 5 6 If you didn't give a declaration in this case, do you think you'd still have that job? 7 8 MS. NEUMN: Objection, lack of foundation. 9 THE SPECIL MSTER: 10 THE DEPONENT: 11 Sir, you mentioned PetroKem -- strike that Yes. BY MR. GOMEZ: You can answer that. Did you mention PetroKem in your list of companies that you've worked for, sir? 16 Yes. 17 re you doing work for PetroKem 18 currently? 19 No. 20 When did you do work for PetroKem? 21 In Ecuador a company called Fugro 22 PetroKem was established. It's a subsidiary of 23 Fugro McClelland. 24 company, Enser, bought the environmental part of 25 Fugro McClelland, and that company was called Enser Later on an merican consulting Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Further Designation: Pursuant to FRE 106, Plaintiffs also designate the Declaration of Ramiro Fernando Reyes, dated December 6, 2012, and filed at Dkt , pp. 2-31, included herein at Tab 2. Page 182

120 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ PetroKem. 2 3 Stahl? 4 5 performer Do you know another person, who works in S-t-a-h-l It's a singer and artist, yes, a the oil industry, with the last name Stahl? 8 9 Do you know anyone by the name of Stalin No. MS. NEUMN: I didn't know the singer. BY MR. GOMEZ: Do you remember fielding jobs with a 13 fellow of a name similar to Stahl for an oil 14 company? THE INTERPRETER: 19 I don't understand the word "fielding jobs." I'm sorry, Counsel. MR. GOMEZ: I'll withdraw the question. Oh, have you heard of the Dyn- -- the DynCorp study? D-y-n-C-o-r-p study. 20 Yes. 21 Did Richard Cabrera work on the DynCorp 22 study? 23 Yes. 24 Did you refer Richard Cabrera for the 25 DynCorp study? Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Page 183

121 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ In my affidavit, I state that Richard 2 Cabrera had been working with me, along with me, 3 and that I would hire him as a consultant in the 4 area of geology. 5 include him in the work team. 6 7 nd whenever I could, I would Was -- in your opinion was Richard Cabrera an honest man? 8 MS. NEUMN: 9 THE SPECIL MSTER: 10 Objection, opinion. I'll allow him to answer it. 11 MR. GOMEZ: Judge? 12 THE SPECIL MSTER: 13 THE DEPONENT: You can answer it. I've not had a contrary 14 opinion or a contrary referral. 15 BY MR. GOMEZ: Do you find Richard Cabrera to be hard working? 18 Yes. 19 Is he competent in his field of 20 expertise? 21 MS. NEUMN: 22 THE DEPONENT: 23 Geology? In geology. BY MR. GOMEZ: 24 ny other fields? 25 He has been getting experience in Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Further Designation: Pursuant to FRE 106, Plaintiffs also designate the Declaration of Ramiro Fernando Reyes, dated December 6, 2012, and filed at Dkt , pp. 2-31, included herein at Tab 2. Page 184

122 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ environmental issues. 2 oil operations. nd he has some knowledge of 3 Give me some examples. 4 Examples, he has learned to -- to conduct 5 environmental impact studies. I suppose by now he 6 has already some experience in conducting audits of 7 environmental impacts of oil operations. 8 nything -- anything else? 9 nd also what he loved to do a lot was to 10 do analysis of contamination in oil pits. 11 nything else? 12 No. 13 You described the work of the global 14 damages assessment expert that was to serve in the 15 Lago grio litigation as a multi-facetted technical 16 assessment; is that correct? 17 Yes. holistic vision in which the 18 sum -- in which -- in which the -- the whole is 19 greater than the sum of the parts. 20 to environmental studies. 21 That is the key nd in order to do that right, wouldn't 22 you need a team of specialists in a variety of 23 fields, sir? MS. NEUMN: Objection, opinion and relevance. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Page 185

123 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ MR. GOMEZ: He gave the opinion in the -- 2 THE SPECIL MSTER: 3 MR. GOMEZ: 4 THE DEPONENT: Overruled. -- morning. When I -- when I began to 5 do -- when I began to do environmental impact 6 studies, one of the -- one of my areas of knowledge 7 was in oil pressures, the business (Interpreter and deponent confer in Spanish.) THE DEPONENT: -- of -- of oil 10 operations. 11 myself as an oil engineer. 12 had somebody who knew about weather, somebody who 13 knew about hydrology, somebody who knew about 14 soils, about geology, about the biotic component, 15 the division between insects and birds, et cetera. 16 What I was saying that one of them was nd then there was -- There are the issue of microorganisms. 17 The energy functions of micro -- of eco ecosystems. 19 water cycle, the nitrogen cycle, et cetera. 20 it's been very important in order to find out (Interpreter and deponent confer in Spanish.) 22 For example, the carbon cycle, the THE DEPONENT: nd -- and it's very important 23 in order to get to know the ecosystem of the 24 tropical jungles, all this work that has been done 25 by the different experts. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Page 186

124 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ BY MR. GOMEZ: So you would need all those various 3 expertise in order to do a global damage assessment 4 properly; right? 5 Yes, sir. 6 When you were meeting with Mr. Donziger 7 and Mr. Fajardo, as described in your testimony 8 today and as described in your declaration, did 9 anyone from Chevron ever pressure you to quit? No. MS. NEUMN: Objection, lacks foundation. BY MR. GOMEZ: Sir, do you believe that if you do not 14 testify for Chevron in this case, it will hurt your 15 employer? 16 They don't have a direct relationship. 17 Do they have any relationship? MS. NEUMN: speculation Objection, calls for It's become harassing. THE SPECIL MSTER: Yeah. BY MR. GOMEZ: Sir, I want you to look at Exhibits and They're not in the binder purported to be an from you to Mr. Donziger, 25 attaching -- attaching a report; and also Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case based on this Court's prior rulings concerning the underlying Merits of the Lago grio Litigation. See DI 720, 721, 901, 902, 1130, This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Page 187

125 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ Exhibit 3507, another attaching another 2 report. 3 Do you have drafts of these reports, sir? 4 Yes. 5 Where? 6 Electronically, and possibly hard copies 7 in Ecuador. 8 Where are the electronic copies? 9 They're in my flash drive, in my flash 10 drive. 11 nd where is that flash drive? 12 t home. 13 Where in your house? 14 MS. NEUMN: 15 THE SPECIL MSTER: Objection, relevance. Sustained. BY MR. GOMEZ: Hard copies, do you believe you also have hard copies of drafts? 19 I think, but I'm not sure. 20 Would you provide the parties in this 21 case access to your electronic copies of electronic drafts of these documents? 23 I didn't understand the question. 24 You testified you may have drafts of 25 these documents in electronic form on a flash drive Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Waste of Time, Unfair Delay, Cumulative (FRE 403). Page 188

126 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ in your home. 2 nd my question to you is: Would you 3 agree to give the parties in this case access to 4 those drafts? 5 I've -- I've submitted them. 6 Submitted them to who, sir? 7 To both parties. 8 When you say submitted them "to both 9 parties," did you provide electronic drafts to the 10 attorneys of the Lago grio plaintiffs who are 11 defendants in this case? 12 I withdraw the question. 13 Exactly who did you provide electronic 14 copies of those drafts to, sir? 15 Mr. Steven Donziger. 16 When? 17 Well, here are the dates on these hard copies of those s (indicating). Other than these transmissions, 20 have you provided anyone access to that flash 21 drive, and the electronic files in it, of these 22 documents? 23 Yes. 24 Who? 25 Mr. kerman and Mr. nson, the Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Rule of Completeness requires further designation under FRCP 32(a)(6) and FRE 106. Further Designations: 190:1 Page 189

127 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ investigators. 2 MR. GOMEZ: 3 MS. NEUMN: Have those been produced? Yes. He produced a hard 4 drive that we produced to you a long time ago. 5 BY MR. GOMEZ: 6 7 Has Steven Donziger ever paid you any money, sir, for anything? 8 Yes. 9 When? 10 ccording to what we have agreed to, 11 which is described in my affidavit. 12 for an exact date, I don't have one right now If you ask me Did you have a specific recollection of Mr. Donziger handing you cash, sir? 15 No. 16 Do you have a recollection of 17 Mr. Donziger handing you a check? 18 No. 19 Do you have a specific recollection of 20 Mr. Donziger wiring money to your personal or 21 business accounts? I did give him the account number for -- of my account in Produbank of Ecuador. 24 nd was money wired to that account, sir? 25 Yes. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Further Designation: Pursuant to FRE 106, Plaintiffs also designate the Declaration of Ramiro Fernando Reyes, dated December 6, 2012, and filed at Dkt , pp. 2-31, included herein at Tab 2. Page 190

128 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ How much was wired to that account? 2 I don't recall exactly. 3 More or less than $10,000? 4 Less than 10, When was that money wired to that 6 account? 7 I don't recall the exact date. 8 Do you know the bank that wired that 9 money into your account, sir? 10 I don't recall at this moment. 11 Do you have a record of that wire 12 transfer? 13 Possibly, yes. 14 Have you provided that to Messrs. 15 kerman, nson, Rivero? 16 Possibly, yes. 17 Do you know whether those funds were 18 transferred from an account that Mr. Donziger 19 controlled? 20 I'm not sure. 21 Do you have any knowledge whether 22 Mr. Donziger controls the budget that is used to 23 pay for the expenses and fees related to the 24 Lago grio litigation in Ecuador? 25 MS. NEUMN: Objection, vague as to time. Page 191

129 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ BY MR. GOMEZ: During the time period that you were meeting with them, as per your declaration. No. 5 THE SPECIL MSTER: I -- if we're going 6 to go past 5:30, we're going to have to notify 7 people at the Embassy. 8 9 MR. GOMEZ: I'm told that I'm on two minutes and two hours and 46 minutes THE VIDEOGRPHER: 11 MR. GOMEZ: minutes. 46 minutes, so that means I have about 13 minutes left -- No THE VIDEOGRPHER: 14 MR. GOMEZ: No, I don't have that much more, 15 Judge. I have a few more questions and I think 16 I'll be done. 17 Ms. Neuman's redirect. 18 nd I don't know the length of MS. NEUMN: I'm going to have to clarify 19 something, because I -- time with me apparently 20 seemed longer than it really is. 21 couple questions. 22 MR. GOMEZ: 23 mark these -- okay. 24 3, Reyes. 25 So I'll have a I'm going to mark -- we could Mark these Exhibits 1, 2 and (Exhibits Reyes 1, 2 and 3 were marked Plaintiffs' Objection(s): The testimony is beyond the scope of counter-designation allowed under FRCP 32(a) (6) and FRE 106. This testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case. See FRE 401 and 402. Further Designation: Pursuant to FRE 106, Plaintiffs also designate the Declaration of Ramiro Fernando Reyes, dated December 6, 2012, and filed at Dkt , pp. 2-31, included herein at Tab 2. Page 192

130 Reyes, Ramiro - 05/13/ THE SPECIL MSTER: 2 MR. GOMEZ: 3 Exhibit 1. 4 Spanish. 5 6 Well, that's -- Well, let's look at Reyes Exhibit 1, Your Honor, is in Yes, there are no certified translations. Nevertheless, sir -THE SPECIL MSTER: Well, the procedure 7 that was established is all exhibits that were 8 going to be used at deposition had to be 9 accompanied by a certified translation MR. GOMEZ: Can you excuse the witness for a moment, please, sir? 12 THE SPECIL MSTER: 13 THE VIDEOGRPHER: 14 video record. Okay. We're going off the The time is 5:14 p.m. 15 (Brief recess taken.) 16 (Deponent departs room.) 17 MR. GOMEZ: Your Honor, simply an offer 18 of proof that I would have used these documents to 19 ask Mr. Reyes whether these are 20 communications between him and either of the three 21 gentlemen he identified, Mr. kerman, nson, or 22 Rivero. 23 I cannot use the documents. 24 proof and we'll move on. 25 I understand I don't have translations, so THE SPECIL MSTER: That's my offer of Okay. Thank you. Plaintiffs' Objection(s): Not Testimony. Page 194

131 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 1 of 125 EXHIBIT 3014

132 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 2 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 1 of 16 DECLRTION OF RMIRO FERNNDO REYES CISNEROS I, RMIRO FERNNDO REYES CISNEROS, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am a citizen of Ecuador, born in uito, Ecuador, on REDCTED. I reside at REDCTED, and my national identification number is REDCTED. I affirm I am over the age of 18 and do not suffer any physical or mental disabilities. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if called upon to testify, I would and could testify thereto. 2. I have not asked for, received, nor been offered any money or other compensation, nor have I received any promises or commitments of future compensation of any kind, in exchange for signing this sworn statement. 3. I am a petroleum and environmental engineer. I received a degree in petroleum engineering from the School of Geological, Mining, Petroleum and Environmental Engineering of the Central University ( School of Geological Mining, Petroleum and Environmental Engineering ) in uito, Ecuador, in I received a master s degree in petroleum engineering from the School of Geological, Mining, Petroleum and Environmental Engineering, in I also received a postgraduate degree in environmental control and industrial development from the State University of Ghent, Belgium, in I have worked in the hydrocarbons field in the state sector, in private industry, and as an independent consultant. Here is an overview of my employment history: From 1975 to 1987, I worked as a petroleum engineer at the Ministry of Natural and Energy Resources, today called the Ministry of Non-Renewable Natural Resources. fterwards, from 1987 to 1992, I served as Director of Environmental Rules and Regulations at the National Directorate of Environmental Protection (DINP), in the same Ministry. In 1992, I worked as National Director of Environmental Protection at the same Ministry. From 1992 to 1995, I worked as Environmental Coordinator at Maxus Ecuador, Inc. From 1996 to 2000, I was Environmental Manager at Fugro- Petrokem and at ENSR, both environmental consulting companies. Later, for a short time in 2000, I worked as Executive President of PENSERTEC. From 2000 to 2004, I was the Director of the Enhanced Oil Recovery Center (CERMEP) at the Central University of Ecuador. From 2004 to 2007, I worked as an independent consultant for a variety of clients, and in 2007, I worked in R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel jrivera62@yahoo.com

133 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 3 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 2 of 16 Petroproducción as Coordinator of the Enhanced Oil Recovery Project. From 1988 until the present, I have been an adjunct professor of the Enhanced Oil Recovery course at the Petroleum School of the Faculty of Geology, Mines, Petroleum and Environment at the Central University of Ecuador. 5. I am currently employed as a petroleum engineer by Ivanhoe Energy Ecuador, which is developing an extra-heavy crude oil production block known as the Pungarayacu Project in Ecuador. 6. I have published two books. The first one, in 1999, was titled Prospects of Enhanced Recovery in Ecuador. In November 2005, I published my most recent book titled Oil, the mazon and Natural Capital. I have published more than 30 articles related to the oil industry and environmental control. 7. My first involvement regarding Texaco s activities in Ecuador was in 1987, when I met Judith Kimerling. t the time, I was the Director of Environmental Rules and Regulations at the National Directorate of Environmental Protection (DINP) of the Ministry of Natural and Energy Resources, and Ms. Kimerling visited me in my office to discuss research she was doing on the social and environmental impact of crude oil production in Ecuador. t the time, I was concerned with the issue of environmental remediation, as I am today, and I saw Ms. Kimerling s project as an opportunity to break the Government s official silence on the subject. I advised Ms. Kimerling on the analysis of technical data on oil production activities in the Oriente region [of Ecuador,] which Ms. Kimerling later used in her book titled mazon Crude, published in Some years later, in 1996, I became involved in the matter of Texaco s activities in Ecuador when I worked as a technical expert for a geotechnical consulting company called Fugro McClelland. Fugro was involved in supervising the environmental remediation in the area of the concession of the Petroecuador-Texaco Consortium, which was being done as part of the agreement between Texaco and the Ecuadoran government at that time. Since then, I kept myself abreast of the various environmental lawsuits brought against Texaco. 9. round 2003 or 2004, I do not remember the exact year, I met the attorney for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Chevron, named lberto Wray. In the meeting, he asked me to serve as a R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel jrivera62@yahoo.com

134 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 4 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 3 of 16 sort of expert witness regarding Texaco s activities in Oriente. I did not want to become involved in the lawsuit, so I asked that they pay me a fee of $30,000 for my professional services, a sum of money I knew the plaintiffs attorney would not agree to, which is indeed what happened. 10. Later, at the end of 2005, I met Fausto Peñafiel, who worked as a consultant for plaintiffs counsel in the case against Chevron in Lago grio, Ecuador. On Nov. 16, 2005, I held my book launch of Oil, mazon and Natural Capital at the Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriana, in uito. Many people attended the event, among them Mr. Peñafiel, who was accompanied by Steven Donziger. Pictures of Mr. Donziger and Mr. Peñafiel are attached to this declaration as Exhibits and B, both of which I have signed. fterwards, at the cocktail party for the book launch, Mr. Peñafiel introduced me to Mr. Donziger and explained that Mr. Donziger was an merican attorney for the plaintiffs in the case against Chevron. We shook hands and spoke briefly. The publication of my book was an important event in my career because it brought me public notice and established me as a recognized expert on the subject of the development of the oil industry in Ecuador and its environmental impacts. That same night, the President of the ssociation of Geological, Mining, Petroleum and Environmental Engineers (CIGMYP), Gustavo Pinto, who also attended the event, told me that Mr. Donziger and Mr. Peñafiel had asked him to arrange a meeting for the following day, with Mr. Pinto and myself, to discuss the Chevron matter. I agreed to the meeting. 11. The day after the book launch, Nov. 17, 2005, Mr. Peñafiel, Mr. Donziger, Mr. Pinto and I met at CIGMYP s old headquarters, on the second floor of the Rio mazonas building, located at mazonas venue N and Roca. photocopy of my notes from that meeting is attached to this sworn statement as Exhibit C, which I have signed. t the meeting, Mr. Donziger and Mr. Peñafiel explained that there were contradictions among the various expert reports submitted by plaintiffs counsel and the attorneys for Chevron in the case, and that the Court had appointed a third group of experts, the so-called settling experts, who were independent of the parties. The settling experts were going to issue a report on the judicial inspection of Sacha 53, and Mr. Donziger proposed the idea of bringing in an independent institution to monitor the work of the settling experts. That is why in my planner for that date I wrote: Looking to form a group of independent monitors. Given its expertise in environmental engineering, CIGMYP would submit an impartial and qualified evaluation of the judicial inspection of Sacha 53. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel jrivera62@yahoo.com

135 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 5 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 4 of On the morning of Nov. 23, 2005, we had a second meeting for about an hour with Mr. Donziger, Mr. Peñafiel, Mr. Pinto and I. We met in the same location as before, CIGMYP s old headquarters, in Gustavo Pinto s office. photocopy of my notes from that meeting is attached to this sworn statement as Exhibit D, which I have signed. In this meeting, we agreed that Gustavo Pinto and I would lead the independent monitorship of the settling experts under the auspices of CIGMYP. We also agreed that in order to perform this work, the plaintiffs would pay Mr. Pinto and me a fee for our professional services, plus an offer to pay a bonus in case the plaintiffs won the lawsuit. Gustavo Pinto handled the financial arrangements directly with Mr. Donziger; I am sure that I received a payment from Mr. Pinto for this work, but I don t recall the amount. There never existed a formal contract between CIGMYP, Mr. Pinto, myself, Mr. Donziger or Mr. Peñafiel, and all the participants in the meeting agreed that payment by plaintiffs to CIGMYP, to Mr. Pinto and to me for this monitorship would remain secret. In the meeting, Mr. Donziger and Mr. Peñafiel asked Mr. Pinto and me to meet with the group of Court-appointed settling experts, headed by Engineer Johnny Zambrano. We were supposed to inform them about CIGMYP s monitorship, and that we would be supervising their analysis as settling experts. fter reviewing the notes in my planner, I recall that at the meeting we agreed to write a letter to Engineer Johnny Zambrano establishing that CIGMYP had begun the monitorship of the report on Sacha 53 as of Nov. 17, The purpose of the letter was to provide an official basis for the monitorship. The annotation in my planner for this date states: Letter stating Thursday 17 CIGMYP Board resolved to set up a scientific-technical monitorship (of) remediation process of Texaco case. Invite them to a work meeting. cknowledging his appointment as settling expert, we express support of developments within bounds of professional ethics and technical results. 13. s had been agreed, on Nov. 29, 2005, Mr. Pinto and I held a meeting with the settling experts at Mr. Zambrano s office. I don t recall the exact location of his office, but I believe it was on 12 de Octubre venue across from the Catholic University. photocopy of my notes from that meeting is attached to this sworn statement as Exhibit E, which I have signed. The meeting took place in the morning and was brief, lasting no more than half an hour. We discussed the report on the inspection of Sacha 53, which they had been working on, and we asked when they could provide the monitors a draft of the report. They never did, at least not to me. The meeting R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel jrivera62@yahoo.com

136 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 6 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 5 of 16 centered on reviewing technical issues regarding the mobility of oil and was basically to review the technical aspects of the report the settling experts were preparing on Sacha In January 2006, Mr. Pinto and I continued our monitoring work. The entry in my planner for the date of Jan. 9, 2006, states: Texaco case letters 1 and 2. This notation in my planner refers to a conversation with Mr. Pinto on the need to write letters certifying our appointment as monitors in the Chevron case. photocopy of my notes from this conversation is attached to this sworn statement as Exhibit F, which I have signed. One of these letters was sent to Doctor Germán Yánez, the Presiding Judge of the Sucumbíos Court, on Jan. 20, The letter submitted to the Court detailed our credentials and what our role would be in the process, citing CIGMYP s purpose and various Ecuadoran laws regarding transparency and public participation. In this letter we informed Judge Yánez that CIGMYP s Board of Directors had decided in its expanded session of Nov. 22, 2005, that as a professional association, CIGMYP had standing under Ecuadoran law to be a monitor in the case. The letter delegated to Gustavo Pinto, as leader of the organization, and me, as his collaborator, the responsibility of leading this monitorship, describing us as acknowledged professionals with vast and extensive experience in issues relating to oil and environmental engineering. The letter also asked the Court to grant us access to materials relevant to the case. The letter was written on CIGMYP letterhead and signed by Mr. Pinto in his capacity as President of the association. copy of this letter is attached to this sworn statement as Exhibit G, which I have signed. 15. t this point it is important to clarify that neither Mr. Pinto nor I informed the Judge or the respondent, Chevron, that CIGMYP, and therefore we, were being paid by the plaintiffs to perform this monitorship. Mr. Pinto and I had agreed with Mr. Donziger to keep secret the nature of our arrangement with him, given that we had all discussed that revealing the arrangement would harm CIGMYP s image as an independent and impartial organization. Mr. Donziger told us his goal was to create the image that the monitorship was independent of the parties, so that it would be received with deference and respect by the Court. 16. On Jan. 18, 2006, there was a meeting with Mr. Pinto, Mr. Peñafiel, Bill Powers and me regarding the same issue of monitorship in the case. photocopy of my notes from that meeting is attached to this sworn statement as Exhibit H, which I have signed. The meeting was in the morning and lasted an hour, in CIGMYP s board room. It was the first time I met Mr. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel jrivera62@yahoo.com

137 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 7 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 6 of 16 Powers, an engineer from California hired by the plaintiffs. In that meeting we discussed a number of technical issues related to the case. We also discussed the need for Mr. Pinto and me to have a series of meetings to introduce ourselves as monitors of the site inspection done by the experts in Sacha 53: with court-appointed settling expert Johnny Zambrano, with the Judge in the Chevron case, and with representatives from Chevron. The annotation in my planner for this date mentions plans for these meetings. 17. t some point after the meeting of Jan. 18, 2006, I don t recall the exact date, Mr. Pinto and I met with Judge Efraín Novillo [handwritten] Germán Yánez, who was the new judge in the Chevron case. We met with Judge Novillo [handwritten] Yánez at the National Council on Psychotropic Substances in uito. The Judge saw us for only a few minutes, during which Mr. Pinto and I explained to him CIGMYP s monitorship and told him we wanted to become involved in the case. The Judge did not express any interest in what we were telling him about the case. 18. On Jan. 31, 2006, Mr. Pinto and I met again with the settling experts. Present at the meeting were Mr. Zambrano, Jorge Jurado, Mr. Pinto and I. photocopy of my notes from that meeting is attached to this sworn statement as Exhibit I, which I have signed. The meeting took place at Johnny Zambrano s office. We discussed various technical issues related to the case, but at some point Mr. Jurado asked us to identify the exact provisions of the laws that authorized CIGMYP to conduct this monitorship. They also refused to provide us with a copy of their report on Sacha 53, and told us to contact the clerk of the Sucumbíos Court, Liliana Suárez, to obtain a copy of the report. That is the reason why Liliana Suárez s name and her telephone number are annotated in my planner, even though she was not in the meeting. 19. The following day, on Feb. 1, 2006, the settling experts report on Sacha 53 was submitted to the Court. In February and March of 2006, I had several meetings with the plaintiffs and Mr. Donziger on the issue of Sacha 53. ccording to my planner, these meetings took place on Feb. 23 and March 6, photocopy of my notes from each of these meetings is attached to this sworn statement as Exhibits J and K, each of which I have signed. lso during this time period, I spent two days doing field work, on March 8 and March 9, 2006, at the judicial inspection of Sacha Sur. Photocopies of my notes on these meetings are attached to this sworn statement as Exhibits L and M, each of which I have signed. The meetings in this time period addressed technical issues related to CIGMYP s monitorship and the Sacha 53 report. In these meetings Mr. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel jrivera62@yahoo.com

138 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 8 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 7 of 16 Donziger was very upset by the findings of the settling experts report, and he complained that the report supported Chevron s position and did not support the plaintiffs position. I also recall that at some point during these meetings I met Pablo Fajardo and Luis Yanza, both of them members of the plaintiffs team. t least one of these meetings took place at the plaintiffs office in uito, which was located in a house on José de bascal E y Portete. I have attached to this sworn statement photographs of Pablo Fajardo and Luis Yanza, which I have signed, as Exhibits N and O, respectively. 20. t one of the meetings with Mr. Donziger and the plaintiffs, Mr. Pinto and I showed them a copy of our comments on the settling experts report on Sacha 53, and which Mr. Donziger had asked us to prepare. That is the report that Mr. Donziger wanted us to submit to the Court on paper bearing CIGMYP s letterhead. During our discussions, Mr. Dozinger told us that our report should establish that the findings of the settling experts report on Sacha 53 were wrong, that they lacked objectivity and were biased toward Chevron, and therefore the report should be discounted. However, in my professional opinion the evidence did not support Mr. Donziger s position and I could not twist my professional assessments to make them fit the plaintiffs interests. In the monitorship report, Mr. Pinto and I pointed out that the settling experts had failed to strictly follow their judicial mandate, but we concluded their report contained enough information for the Court to make its own ruling. In the report we also established that the information submitted by both the plaintiffs and the defendants contained correct elements, but that both also had deficiencies regarding their sampling data. Mr. Donziger expressed disappointment with our report and never asked us to submit it to the Court. copy of the draft report we wrote is attached to this sworn statement as Exhibit P, which I have signed. I also recall that in this meeting Mr. Donziger suggested that Mr. Pinto and I meet with the Judge again to offer our services as settling experts. Mr. Donziger told us the Judge would be coming to uito the following week. Nonetheless, this meeting with the Judge never took place. 21. fter this, I didn t have any contact with Mr. Donziger or the other plaintiffs attorneys for several months, until one afternoon when I was driving from uito back to my house in Valle de los Chillos. I received a call on my cell phone from Mr. Yanza, who asked me if I could come right away to meet with him at their office in uito, which I knew as the offices of mazonía por la Vida. I told him I was just arriving home and didn t want to go back to uito, but he was very insistent and so I turned around and drove to the plaintiffs office, where Mr. Yanza and Mr. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel jrivera62@yahoo.com

139 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 9 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 8 of 16 Fajardo were waiting for me. This was the first meeting with plaintiffs representatives that had nothing to do with Sacha 53. ccording to the notes on my planner, this meeting took place on Sept. 20, photocopy of my notes from that meeting is attached to this sworn statement as Exhibit, which I have signed. 22. Mr. Yanza and Mr. Fajardo began the meeting by telling me that the Judge in the Chevron case had decided to halt the process of judicial inspections and settling experts, and instead was going to appoint a single expert responsible for undertaking a global damages assessment for the case. The idea of a single expert performing a global assessment was one that Donziger had first discussed with me several months earlier, on Jan. 26, photocopy of my notes from the Jan. 26, 2006, meeting with Mr. Donziger is attached to this sworn statement as Exhibit R, which I have signed. Between these two meetings, Mr. Donziger, Mr. Fajardo and Mr. Yanza together had explained to me that having a single expert to carry out a global assessment was important to the plaintiffs because they acknowledged that the judicial inspection process had not yielded data to support their claims of contamination. They also said they believed it would be easier to manage one single expert than many. In the meeting of Sept. 20, 2006, Fajardo and Yanza told me they were delivering a proposal from Mr. Donziger for me to take the position of single expert for the global assessment. We discussed the overall concept of the global assessment, the timing, and payment for such work, including the fact that my expert fees, according to them, would be paid 50 percent by Chevron and 50 percent by the plaintiffs. This was the first time I had discussed the global assessment with the plaintiffs in detail. The meeting didn t last more than 30 minutes. 23. Over the following months, between Oct and March 2007, I had several meetings and telephone calls with Mr. Donziger, Mr. Fajardo, Mr. Yanza and other members of the plaintiffs team regarding the global assessment. Throughout these discussions, I remember that Mr. Donziger, Mr. Yanza and Mr. Fajardo always stated with certainty that the Court was going to name a single expert to assess the costs of remediation and, above all, that the Court would appoint a single expert of their choosing. Mr. Donziger, Mr. Fajardo and Mr. Yanza told me not to worry about this. I assumed that this was because they had very good connections with the incoming dministration of President Correa. For example, Esperanza Martínez, of cción Ecológica, a very important organization that supported the plaintiffs case against Chevron, was very close to lberto costa, who was one of the leaders of Mr. Correa s campaign and became R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel jrivera62@yahoo.com

140 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 10 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 9 of 16 Minister of Energy and Mines. I have attached to this sworn statement photographs of Ms. Martínez and Mr. costa as Exhibits S and T, respectively, both of which I have signed. 24. I do not have notes in my planner from meetings with the plaintiffs representatives during October or November 2006, but I remember during this period having one or two telephone conversations with Mr. Donziger in which we discussed the global assessment. I don t know the exact dates, but I am certain they took place. round that time I was busy working on other projects and because of that I did not spend much time on the Chevron case. I also remember that during this time I was invited by the plaintiffs to a meeting in Oriente. The person who invited me was Esperanza Martínez, of cción Ecológica, whom I had known for some time through my work. The meeting was held at a religious mission called Los Capuchinos near Lago grio, Ecuador. I recall that the people attending were Esperanza Martínez, dolfo Maldonado, also of cción Ecológica, Mr. Yanza, Julio Prieto, and a Spanish doctor named Carlos Martín Beristain, and I. I never saw Mr. Beristain again after this meeting. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the methodology to be used in the global assessment. Because I was the only person at the meeting who had served as an expert on environmental impact cases, I gave the attendees an explanation of technical issues. I don t recall the exact date of this meeting, but I believe it was in October I have attached to this sworn statement photographs of Mr. Maldonado, Mr. Prieto and Mr. Beristain as Exhibits U, V and W, respectively, all of which I have signed. 25. On the morning of Friday, Dec. 15, 2006, I had an hour-long meeting with Mr. Donziger at the mazonía por la Vida office, and which I remember very well. photocopy of my notes from that meeting is attached to this sworn statement as Exhibit X, which I have signed. Mr. Donziger was dressed in his customary attire of white shirt with the sleeves rolled up, blue blazer and jeans. This is the way he almost always dressed for our meetings, varying the color of his shirts and sometimes wearing slacks instead of jeans. But I don t recall ever seeing him wear a tie or a suit. s usual, he was very friendly and sociable. In this meeting, Mr. Donziger made me a direct and detailed offer that I should be the expert for the global assessment. He explained that the Court had halted the judicial inspections at the plaintiffs request and that as soon as the following week a single expert would be appointed to begin the global assessment. Mr. Donziger told me in the meeting what would be expected of me in the role of expert. Mr. Donziger emphasized the need for the expert to state that Chevron was the only party responsible for the R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel jrivera62@yahoo.com

141 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 11 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 10 of 16 environmental damages and the harm to the local community. We also talked about the valuation of damages and Mr. Donziger explained that, as the expert, I would be the person to submit an estimate of costs to the Court. He asked me directly if I would be willing to estimate damages at more than a billion dollars. I remember replying that it could be possible. Mr. Donziger also told me that the estimated amount of damages had to be multiplied by 3.5 so that we could then talk about billions, but I never understood why and he never explained it to me. Later, I had doubts about these requirements, but at the time I was interested in the notion of playing an important role in what was the most significant case in the world involving oil and the environment, because this is precisely my area of specialization. 26. t that same meeting of Dec. 15, 2006, I remember that when Mr. Donziger and I were by ourselves, I made it known to him that there were issues that could keep me from serving as single expert or that Chevron would use to attack me. The most important were: 1) In my book I had already advocated for joint responsibility between the Ecuadoran government and Texaco for environmental impacts, which could be used against me if I, as the expert, were to do as the plaintiffs wanted and found Chevron to be the sole responsible party, and 2) that in 1996 I had worked as a technical expert for a company, Fugro, involved in the remediation of the Shushufindi oil field formerly operated by Texaco. Mr. Donziger dismissed these concerns and said none of them would prevent me from serving as the expert, that I shouldn t worry and that I couldn t stop helping them, the plaintiffs. Mr. Donziger s reaction was typical of him, given that he was always very persistent and impulsive, the kind of person who never takes no for an answer. In any case, the issue was not decided at this meeting and I was left with many questions about how real the plaintiffs proposal was. Shortly after the meeting, Mr. Donziger returned to the United States and we didn t broach the subject until the following month. 27. On Jan. 5, 2007, I had a conversation with Mr. Fajardo. photocopy of my notes from that meeting is attached to this sworn statement as Exhibit Y, which I have signed. I don t recall whether this was a telephone conversation or a meeting in person. In the discussion Mr. Fajardo explained to me in more detail the proposal for me to be the global assessment expert, specifically regarding the financial terms for my professional services. ccording to my notes from the meeting, the proposal from Mr. Fajardo was that I would be paid monthly fees of $3,000, plus a bonus of $15,000 for writing the report. My notes include Mr. Fajardo s R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel jrivera62@yahoo.com

142 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 12 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 11 of 16 address, pafam@ecuanex.net.ec. I also recall that in January I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Donziger on the issue of the global assessment. We did not meet in person in January because for a good deal of the month I was working on a different project in Peru that required my full attention. 28. On Feb. 1, 2007, I met with several members of the plaintiffs legal team. I do not recall precisely where this was, but I believe the meeting was in the mazonía por la Vida office. My notes from the meeting indicate that this was a detailed working meeting with in-depth discussion of technical issues on the methodology for the global assessment. photocopy of my notes from that meeting is attached to this sworn statement as Exhibit Z, which I have signed. This was one of a number of discussions I had with the plaintiffs legal and technical team in preparation for the global assessment. The notes on my planner indicate there was extensive discussion in this meeting on the cost of reparations that would be included in the global assessment report. It was clear from this discussion during the meeting that the plaintiffs team was preparing a technical and legal strategy of having the global assessment presuppose from the start that Chevron was the only party responsible for paying for reparations. The plaintiffs main idea regarding the global assessment was to do an ex-post facto environmental impact assessment that would justify a large monetary judgment against Chevron for remediation and reparations. 29. Shortly after that meeting, I don t remember the exact date but sometime in early February, I had a conversation with Mr. Donziger in which he told me that the judge in the Lago grio case was putting up hurdles to my appointment as expert. Mr. Donziger told me that there was a requirement, of which I was not aware, that the expert for the global assessment had to be chosen from a list of experts who had already performed expert work in the case. My involvement in the CIGMYP monitorship did not meet this requirement and I was not on the list. When Mr. Donziger told me about this, he told me not to worry, that he would succeed in getting me appointed as expert. Personally, I had mixed feelings. Initially, the notion of being the single expert interested me, because I have always been passionate about the issue of environmental protection and remediation in the mazon. But as time passed, I had grown increasingly uncomfortable, especially with the plaintiffs insistence that Chevron be held as the sole responsible party, while in my book, which had been the most important professional achievement in my career to that moment, I put forth the thesis of joint responsibility between the State and the former operator Texaco for the environmental and social damages done in the R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel jrivera62@yahoo.com

143 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 13 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 12 of 16 mazon. lso, in our discussions on global assessment, plaintiffs counsel continued increasing the amount of damages they wanted the expert to establish against Chevron, mentioning even as much as $10 billion, which I considered to be completely ludicrous. That is why I was relieved when Mr. Donziger told me the Judge was putting hurdles to my appointment as expert, but Mr. Donziger kept telling me that I couldn t quit and had to continue helping the plaintiffs. 30. I remember that in early February 2007, there were several calls to discuss how to respond to the crisis, and it was obvious from these conversations that the issue of the appointment of the expert seemed to take the plaintiffs by surprise. t some point around that time, Mr. Donziger telephoned and asked me to recommend someone as a possible Plan B [expert,] someone who would be able to handle the matter and replace me if matters with the Judge didn t turn out as Mr. Donziger wanted. During this call, and I don t recall the exact date, Mr. Donziger and I discussed the possibility that Richard Cabrera could be appointed as expert in case the Court did not accept me. I had originally provided the name of Mr. Cabrera to the plaintiffs in 2006, but I had serious doubts about suggesting Mr. Cabrera for the position of single expert, and I submitted his name to Mr. Donziger, as we say in Ecuador, a la cansada [ as a last resort, ] in other words, with serious doubts. I had known Mr. Cabrera since college and I knew he had certain technical limitations regarding the oil industry, and at that time he did not possess the professional skills and experience required to handle a project such as the global assessment in the Chevron case. However, on the other hand, I suggested Mr. Cabrera for the field work in Oriente because he is reserved, hard working, and responsible. lso, because I believed that for Mr. Cabrera, issues such as independence and professional standards were not that important, and therefore he would have no problem doing what the plaintiffs were proposing. In that sense, I believed Mr. Cabrera could be the right person for the job. But I also did not have another name to give to Mr. Donziger, and he was pressuring me very much because he was desperate. In any case, Mr. Donziger thanked me and told me that I would continue being Plan and that he was going to fix things with the Judge. However, I was relieved to be able to give him another name and to distance myself even more from that process. 31. Mr. Donziger asked me to introduce him to Mr. Cabrera, and I arranged a meeting which took place on Feb. 9 or 10, 2007, at the Hotel uito, where Mr. Donziger always stayed while in Ecuador. We didn t have lunch, only a drink. I ordered whiskey, the same as Mr. Cabrera. Mr. Donziger didn t order anything. t this meeting, Mr. Cabrera and Mr. Donziger each wrote down R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel jrivera62@yahoo.com

144 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 14 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 13 of 16 their addresses in my planner, in their own hand. photocopy of my notes from that meeting is attached to this sworn statement as Exhibit, which I have signed. The purpose of this meeting was purely social, to give Mr. Donziger a chance to get to know Mr. Cabrera, but several aspects of the global assessment were also discussed. t that time it was discussed that I, through Richard Cabrera, would continue supporting and advising behind the scenes on the technical issues of the global assessment. In general, Mr. Donziger said that I would continue working in the shadows, with the idea of reviewing Mr. Cabrera s reports. 32. In this same time period and as a follow-up to that introductory meeting, I remember we had several telephone conversations with Mr. Cabrera and Mr. Donziger regarding the global assessment and especially regarding my and Mr. Cabrera s role in it. The annotations in my calendar for Feb. 24, 2007, reflect the concept of the global assessment and that I would be a sort of technical shadow of Cabrera s work. photocopy of my notes from that meeting is attached to this sworn statement as Exhibit BB, which I have signed. If I remember correctly, on this date we had a telephone call with Mr. Donziger, since he wasn t in Ecuador. Mr. Donziger said that Mr. Cabrera, referred to in the planner as our friend, would receive my advice and supervision with his reports, which in my notes I referred to as my help. To be in the shadows meant reviewing everything Mr. Cabrera did on the technical part of the project. I was supposed to receive periodic reports, and supposedly I would be paid $1,500 per month for my professional services. That is what Mr. Donziger told me and I believe I received two monthly payments. s these discussions continued, Mr. Donziger became more comfortable with the idea of Mr. Cabrera acting as the single expert. 33. I also remember another meeting during this time period with Mr. Donziger, Mr. Cabrera, Mr. Yanza and Mr. Fajardo. This meeting took place in a restaurant called Mister Bagel, on Portugal venue, where the four of us had breakfast. I don t recall the date of this meeting and I do not believe I made any annotations about it in my planner. I remember that Richard called and told me they were waiting for me at that location. Then I went and met with them to talk about the global assessment, but I do not recall exact details of the conversation. 34. On March 3, 2007, I participated in a very important meeting on the global assessment at the mazonía por la Vida office in uito. photocopy of my notes from that meeting is attached to this sworn statement as Exhibit CC, which I have signed. The meeting started in the morning and R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel jrivera62@yahoo.com

145 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 15 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 14 of 16 lasted all day, with lunch ordered in. There were at least a dozen people at the meeting, including Mr. Donziger, Mr. Fajardo, Mr. Yanza, Mr. Prieto and other members of the plaintiffs legal and technical team. There were also several merican technical experts who were helping the plaintiffs, including Charlie Champ, nn Maest, and Dick Kamp. I went to this meeting with Mr. Cabrera. I have attached to this sworn statement pictures, signed by me, of Mr. Champ, Ms. Maest and Mr. Kamp, as Exhibits DD, EE and FF, respectively. 35. This meeting was the moment when I truly recognized the full extent of the plaintiffs counsel s intentions regarding the global assessment. t the meeting, Mr. Fajardo, Mr. Yanza and Mr. Donziger dropped any pretense that Mr. Cabrera would act independently in writing an expert report that would be technically sound and executed according to professional standards. On the contrary, it was obvious that the plaintiffs had already predetermined the findings of the global assessment, that they themselves would write a report that would support their claim for billions of dollars against Chevron and would simply put Mr. Cabrera s name on it. The purpose of the meeting was to establish all the conditions for controlling and managing the expert s work, in secret, in accordance to the plaintiffs interests. Based on what they said in the meeting, I have no doubt that everyone there understood this. In 2011, I watched approximately one hour of a video of this meeting that was shot by merican filmmakers for the movie Crude, and this video refreshed my recollection regarding what took place at the meeting. One scene in particular impressed me, because that scene is the moment when it became obvious that the team was in place and ready to control and manage the global assessment. In the scene, Mr. Fajardo talked about how everyone there had the responsibility to help write the expert s report, and the merican technical expert, nne Maest, asked, But not Chevron? nd everyone at the meeting laughed. 36. Something else I remember that struck me from the meeting was the merican expert Charlie Champ, whose name I wrote phonetically in my calendar as Charlie Chang. He was introduced to me as an oilman from Texas. Mr. Champ spoke with a strong accent and wore very peculiar attire that included a Texan bolo tie, instead of a tie, and big cowboy boots. Mr. Champ gave a presentation about a remediation plan, which was very interesting to me as a petroleum engineer with knowledge and experience in environmental remediation issues, which is why I took several notes during his presentation. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel jrivera62@yahoo.com

146 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 16 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 15 of The meeting of March 3, 2007, was the last meeting I remember having with the plaintiffs. Mr. Donziger went on with the idea of keeping me close to the plaintiffs team, offering me a position as advisor and the role as Mr. Cabrera s shadow, but I actually never played that role. Mr. Cabrera did not give me the partial reports so that I could review them and our relationship gradually cooled. I recall that during one of my last conversations with Mr. Cabrera, I told him he should not turn over any reports to the plaintiffs until they had paid for our professional services. fter that, I lost contact with Mr. Cabrera. 38. I had contact once more with Mr. Donziger and the plaintiffs, when they asked me to write two technical analyses, one on the cost of produced waters reinjection and the other on natural gas. I wrote these analyses during the summer of 2007 and was paid around $10,000 by Mr. Donziger for this professional service. Long after the report was filed with the Court, I learned that these two analyses were submitted as nnex S to the Cabrera Report, which I was not aware of previously. 39. In pril or May 2007, I don t recall exactly, while I was working for Petroproducción, I ran into Mr. Yanza and Mr. Fajardo as they were leaving the office of the Vice President of Petroproducción, Oscar Garzón. Mr. Fajardo and Mr. Yanza told me they were there to ask Mr. Garzón to have Petroproducción suspend all remediation activity in the area run by the Petroecuador-Texaco consortium, because the remediation was depriving the plaintiffs of clear evidence on which to base their claims for damages in the case. 40. Finally, on Feb. 22, 2008, I attended a meeting in Lago grio, on the invitation by Natalie Weemaels of cción Ecológica, to discuss environmental issues and the changes to the Ecuadoran Constitution. Mr. Fajardo attended this meeting. The Chevron matter was not discussed. 41. I have not had further contact with the representatives of the Lago grio plaintiffs since that time, except on one occasion in 2012, when I happened to run into Mr. Fajardo at the intersection of mazonas and Gaspar de Villaroel venues in uito, and we exchanged friendly greetings. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of Ecuador and the United States of merica and under the laws of the States of California, labama, laska, rizona, rkansas, Colorado, R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel jrivera62@yahoo.com

147 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 17 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 16 of 16 Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, and under the laws of the District of Columbia, and under the laws of any other applicable jurisdiction, that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this Sworn Statement was executed on Oct. 12, 2012, in Bogota, Colombia. [Signature] RMIRO FERNNDO REYES CISNEROS Citizenship ID NumberREDCTED [Handwritten:] On Page 5, Numeral 17, I replaced, in my handwriting, the name of Judge Efraín Novillo with that of Germán Yánez. [Page 6, Numeral 17 in the English translation.] EXHIBITS -- [Signature] Dec :35 p.m. [Fingerprint] [This stamp of the Third Notary Public s Office of Cartagena, Colombia, appears on all 13 pages of the original Spanish document, on the lower right corner.] R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel jrivera62@yahoo.com

148 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 18 of 125

149 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 19 of 125 REDCTED REDCTED REDCTED

150 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 20 of 125

151 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 21 of 125

152 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 22 of 125

153 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 23 of 125

154 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 24 of 125

155 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 25 of 125

156 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 26 of 125

157 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 27 of 125

158 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 28 of 125

159 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 29 of 125

160 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 30 of 125

161 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 31 of 125 REDCTED

162 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 32 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit [PHOTO] Steven Donziger [Stamp of the 3rd Notary Public of Cartagena, Republic of Colombia] [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

163 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 33 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit B [PHOTO] Fausto Peñafiel [Stamp of the 3rd Notary Public of Cartagena, Republic of Colombia] [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

164 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 34 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N 1 Exhibit C nnotations by Mr. Reyes Cisneros regarding the meeting of November 17, 2005, with Mr. Peñafiel, Mr. Donziger and Mr. Pinto in CIGMYP s former headquarters. [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

165 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 35 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N 2 [Exhibit C] Thursday November 17 Texaco Case: * Looking to form a group of independent overseers R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

166 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 36 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit D 1 nnotations by Mr. Reyes Cisneros regarding the meeting of November 23, 2005, with Mr. Donziger, Mr. Peñafiel and Mr. Pinto in CIGMYP s former headquarters. [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

167 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 37 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N 2 [Exhibit D] Wednesday November 23 Texaco Case: Steeve Dozinger [sic] Fausto Peñafiel Meeting with Johnny Zambrano and the other experts Marielo Echeverría Eng. Gerardo Barros Dr. Luis lbuja Jorge Jurado Galo lbán Vinicio Melo Letter stating Thursday 17 CIGMYP Board resolved to set up a scientific-technical oversight [of] remediation process of Texaco case. Invite them to a work meeting. cknowledging his appointment as settling expert, we support, at the same time the development [illegible] [of] professional ethics and technical results Life has its own rules, at times it seems unfair. ccept it. nonymous R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

168 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 38 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N P a g e 1 o f 1 Exhibit E nnotations by Mr. Reyes Cisneros regarding the meeting of November 29, 2005, with Mr. Pinto and the settling experts, in Mr. Zambrano s office. [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

169 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 39 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N P a g e 1 o f 1 [Exhibit E] Tuesday November 29 Texaco Case: Johnny Zambrano The settling experts are not consistent. Discretionality. Expert for inspection. 20 done, 10 remain 2 per inspection They just recently got the report first 0 # 1 of well Sa 53 Only Technical Responsibility The report is [drafted] jointly by the five of them, under the responsibility of the expert in charge. Plaintiffs = Suing party Texaco = Defendant The issue of social-environmental risk is included 2:45 p.m. Gamavisión. Petroleum Forum R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

170 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 40 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit F 1 nnotations by Mr. Reyes Cisneros regarding the meeting of January 9, 2006, with Mr. Pinto. [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

171 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 41 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N 2 January 9 Monday [Exhibit F] [illegible]@petroprodeuccion.com.ec ( [illegible ) --Letters Texaco case Proposals on studies: GN for the mazon --MEOR analyzed [illegible] Board s resolution ---- [illegible] Supported [by] organic law [illegible] [illegible] to facilitate the [illegible] PERSONL BOOKS TO BE BILLED Rolando Moya Former student (made [illegible] the borrowed disc) Jaime [Illegible] Jácome of UIDT Friend [illegible/illegible] Jaramillo [illegible] Fellow [illegible] UTE 2006 Envy and anger shorten one s life. Ecclesiastes The Bible R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

172 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 42 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 1 Exhibit G Letter sent to Judge German Yañez, President of the Sucumbíos Court, on January 20, [This stamp also appears on Page 2, bottom right margin.] [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T

173 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 43 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 2 MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY 97,414 OF ENGINEERS OF ECUDOR REGIONL SSOCITION OF GEOLOGICL, MINING, PETROLEUM ND ENVIRONMENTL ENGINEERS, CIGMYP Ninety-seven thousand four hundred fourteen Letter No. 043-CIGMYP-2006 uito, Jan. 20, 2006 The Honorable Germán Yáñez CRIMINL JUDGE SUPERIOR COURT OF SUCUMBIOS By hand delivery Honorable Judge: The ssociation of Geological, Mining, Petroleum and Environmental Engineers, CIGMYP, Northern Region, which includes more than 1,500 professionals, has among its purposes: to continuously analyze the country s geological, mining and petroleum problems; advise the State and Public or Private Law institutions on the implementation of studies, presentation of projects, research, contracting, execution, supervision and control of works and projects related to geological, mining and petroleum engineering, while safeguarding the country s comprehensive development; and to contribute in defending and strengthening principles aimed at protecting and caring for the country s natural resources. The Organic Law on Transparency and ccess to Public Information, Law No , establishes among other things, in rticle 2, Purpose of the Law, letter c) llow the oversight of public administration and public resources, giving effect to true social control, and in rticle 4, Principles on the pplication of the Law, letter e) Guarantee the transparent handling of public information in a way that makes possible citizen participation in decisions of general interest and accountability by the various authorities holding governmental powers. Based on the foregoing, it is my duty to inform you that in an expanded session of CIGMYP s Board of Directors, on Nov. 22, 2005, it was decided that our professional association establish an Oversight [process] to monitor the Texaco case being heard in the Court under your able guidance. To ensure the utmost performance and transparency of the proceedings surrounding the Oversight, in the abovementioned session the Board of Directors appointed Engineers Fernando Reyes Cisneros and Gustavo Pinto rteaga, both acknowledged professionals in Petroleum Engineering, with vast and extensive experience in Environmental Management of hydrocarbon-related activities. Therefore, I respectfully request that both professionals be accorded all relevant considerations so they may satisfactorily fulfill the responsibility entrusted to them. I take this opportunity to reiterate to you my utmost high esteem and consideration. Sincerely, [signature] GUSTVO PINTO RTEG PRESIDENT [stamp:] SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE OF NUEV LOJ, PRESIDING JUDGE [stamp:] HON. SUPERIOR COURT OFJUSTICE NUEV LOJ Edificio Río mazonas v. mazonas 447 y Roca Oficinas 212/214 Teléfono: / Fax: cigmyp@ulo.satnet.net UITO, ECUDOR, SUDMERIC R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T

174 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 44 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit H 1 nnotations by Mr. Reyes Cisneros regarding the meeting of January 18, 2006, with Mr. Pinto, Mr. Peñafiel and Bill Powers. [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

175 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 45 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N 2 January 18 [Exhibit H] Wednesday [in English:] Meet with Texaco Case - G. Pinto, F. Reyes, F. Peñafiel, Bill Powers Environmental Mechanical Eng. - Texaco s [illegible] Reports The Chevron [people] apply a different methodology from the one by the mazon Defense Front. - Texaco Strategy: rely on renowned academics. HC s cannot migrate - TPH analyze by ranges of TPH, such as gasoline, diesel. If it is high in TCLP (leachates) - Cr +6 is not being analyzed. Cr +3 can become Cr +6 with the help of acids. - See if we have a meeting with J. Zambrano this Friday 20 th Efraín Novillo - Monday 23 rd with the new judge on the case - Tuesday 24 th with Texaco - uestions that they may ask us give us for the Settling Expert. Bill Powers. P. E. Bpowers@powersengineering.com office 2006 There are few things more destructive than an unsound idea persuasively expressed. Hill Bernbach R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

176 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 46 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit I 1 nnotations by Mr. Reyes Cisneros regarding the meeting of January 31, 2006, with Mr. Pinto, Mr. Zambrano and Jorge Jurado. [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

177 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 47 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N 2 GD: Gabriel [Exhibit I] JNURY María guinda vs Texaco lawsuit 31 Meet with Settling Experts Johnny Zambrano Dr. Liliana Suárez Jorge Jurado (06) Report on Sa-53 to be submitted morning of October 1 The experts establish the sampling methodology Chevron [illegible] allows the other party to take samples. Settling experts have the discretion of accepting or not the sampling methodologies and even the results. Jorge asks that we deliver to them the text of the law that authorizes the oversight of the Texaco case quifers, underground water, water wells TPH C6 C35 Cr+6 Sampling BTEX TPH DRO% GRO there should be 110 reports, of which 1 is being delivered tomorrow Judicial Inspections 2006 Tuesday R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

178 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 48 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit J 1 nnotations by Mr. Reyes Cisneros regarding the meeting of February 23, [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

179 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 49 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N [Exhibit J] 2 FEBRURY 23 Thursday Texaco Meet - Wednesday, March 8 in San Carlos is the [illegible] inspection. It is also the possible date of national work stoppage. - Pressures labs for don t receipt the samples of pits. - Judge Yánez is coming to uito next Thursday or Friday Enrique Ramón R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

180 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 50 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit K 1 nnotations by Mr. Reyes Cisneros regarding the meeting of March 6, [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

181 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 51 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N 2 MRCH 6 Monday [Exhibit K] Meet with Texaco Case Scientific critique indicating which should be the methodology used. That in the 3.5 m of water that fall on the platform and Oriente, if the water did not filter in the pits it overflowed. bout the new soil that should not have been contaminated, now it is contaminated 2006 We must constantly build dikes of courage to hold back the flood of fear. Martin Luther King Jr. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

182 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 52 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit L 1 nnotations by Mr. Reyes Cisneros regarding two days of field work, on March 8, 2006, at the judicial inspection of Sacha Sur. [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

183 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 53 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N [Exhibit L] Sacha Sur Station Germán Yánez Texaco case: - Explanation by the Judge - Explanation by Texaco - He says that responsibilities are held jointly [illegible] was PETECU who did the water injection [illegible] lfredo Guerrero: He explains what is [illegible] [illegible] of production. [Illegible] past [illegible] - [Illegible] photographic, 2004 is where [illegible] [illegible] --- [illegible] --- areas of industrial use - [illegible] is not oil-related - Dr. Callejas did not say that the station already [illegible] in 1972 Reply from [illegible] Dr. Pablo Fajardo - lejandro Ponce THE SETTLING EXPERTS RE NOT PRESENT CONTINUED... R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

184 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 54 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit M 1 nnotations by Mr. Reyes Cisneros regarding two days of field work, on March 9, 2006, at the judicial inspection of Sacha Sur. [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

185 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 55 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N [Exhibit M] Taking of samples 3 pits 2 test drillings [illegible] [illegible] [illegible] oh Texaco Taking of samples between today and tomorrow Texaco will not drill the pits, but rather on the perimeter Texaco drills by [illegible] Manual [illegible] Why does Texaco decide to drill or to take soil samples in a perimetral area and no inspection of statation [sic] drainage. Fausto Peñafiel (093) R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

186 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 56 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit N [PHOTO] Pablo Fajardo [Stamp of the 3rd Notary Public of Cartagena, Republic of Colombia] [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

187 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 57 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit O [PHOTO] Luis Yanza [Stamp of the 3rd Notary Public of Cartagena, Republic of Colombia] [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

188 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 58 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 1 of 30 Exhibit P Draft of the report prepared by Mr. Reyes Cisneros and Mr. Pinto commenting on the report by the settling experts on Sacha 53 [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros [The Notary Public s stamp appears on all 30 pages of Exhibit P on the bottom right corner.] R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

189 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 59 of 125 uito, DM, Jan. 17, 2006 OF. Honorable Judge Germán Yánez PRESIDING JUDGE SUPERIOR COURT OF NUEV LOJ By hand delivery cc. María guinda et al. cc. Callejas Chevron-Texaco Honorable Presiding Judge: C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 2 of 30 In our capacity as Monitors appointed by the Geological, Mining, Petroleum and Environmental ssociation to oversee the Texaco case being heard in the Court you so ably preside, I hereby attach and please find the Monitors Report on the Settling Experts Report regarding the Judicial Inspection of Well Sacha-53. The Report at issue was prepared by the Settling Experts Mr. Galo lbán, Eng., Dr. Luis lbuja, Mr. Gerardo Barros, Eng., Mr. Jorge Jurado, Eng., Mr. Johnny Zambrano, Eng., and is dated Feb. 1, Warm regards, Mr. Gustavo Pinto rteaga, Eng. Mr. Fernando Reyes Cisneros, Eng. Monitor Monitor ID: REDCTED ID: REDCTED R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

190 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 60 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 3 of 30 SSOCITION OF GEOLOGICL, MINING, PETROLEUM ND ENVIRONMENTL ENGINEERS CIGMYP MONITORSHIP REPORT MRI GUIND ET L. VS CHEVRON TEXCO CORPORTION SETTLING EXPERTS REPORT ON THE JUDICIL SITE INSPECTION OF WELL SCH-53 February 1, 2006 Mr. Gustavo Pinto rteaga, Eng. Mr. Fernando Reyes Cisneros, Eng. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

191 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 61 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 4 of 30 MONITORS REPORT ON THE REPORT BY THE SETTLING EXPERTS ON THE JUDICIL INSPECTION OF WELL SCH INTRODUCTION On Feb. 1, 2006, Mr. Galo lban, Eng.; Dr. Luis lbuja;, Mr. Gerardo Barros, Eng.; Mr. Jorge Jurado, Eng., and Mr. Johnny Zambrano, Eng., issue their Report in their capacity as Settling Experts for the Judicial Inspection of Well Sacha-53, addressed to the Presiding Judge of the Court of Nueva Loja, Case No CONTENT NLYSIS The report is based on the transcription of portions of each of the Parties Expert Reports, which serve as foundations for the Settling Experts to issue their respective commentary. 2.1 Regarding the Background (I) The report s structure does not include a chapter regarding the expert analysis resulting conclusions. They barely include a chapter in which the Settling Experts make related commentary. Two tables are included: Table Dir. 1, which shows the information analyzed by the settling experts, and Table Dir. 2, which relates to the topics and correspondence between the questions by the Defendant (Chevron) and Plaintiffs (María guinda.) Mr. Ernesto Baca, Eng., is the expert for the Defendant, while Mr. Edison Camino, Eng., is the expert for Plaintiffs. 2.2 Regarding the analysis of the Parties Reports and Commentary by the Settling Experts (II) Item 1 Location, Description of the rea of Well Sacha-53 No comments. Item 2 Remediation of Pits at Well Sacha-53 It should be noted that this Item deals with the Remediation of Pits at Well Sacha-53, therefore, sampling and laboratory results should have been performed in the area around the pits. Sampling and laboratory analysis that are unrelated to the area of the pits should not be accepted as valid for remediation. 2.1 Sampling Sites R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

192 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 62 of 125 Expert Baca C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 5 of 30 Darcy s law and its modifications is what is most commonly used to study the flow of fluids such as oil and water in a porous environment, such as an oilfield, and is also applicable to the ground and subsoil in which both fluids may be present. Thus, maintaining that environmental remediation does not entail the complete removal of a pit or the subsoil from a site given crude oil s characteristics of no mobility and nontoxicity is an unfounded statement and a contradiction in terms regarding what actually happens in a porous environment, because this refers not only to the mobility of crude oil, but also to the mobility of water and mainly the mobility correspondence between both fluids. It is for this reason that in most cases, water, in addition to having greater mobility in a porous environment, tends to displace the oil in the path flow of least resistance. lso, when it is stated that the applicable criterion for approving the remediation of these pits was a maximum limit of TPH in TCLP of 1000 mg/l, it makes no difference that the TPH (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon) is not part of the TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure), as the latter one is applicable when measuring the toxicity of leachate substances, which does not necessarily include TPH. The depths at which ground soil samples were taken (maximum of 1.15 m.) can be described as superficial, because at best they represent no more than 50% of the depth of the remediated pits. Expert Baca makes no comments regarding the depth of the pits. 2.1: Sampling Sites Expert Camino The depths of pit 1 (6.8 m.) and pit 2 (3.4 m.) are included, where a total of six in-depth samples were taken. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE SMPLING The Settling Experts initially refer to the location of the samples and pits (Table Dir. 3), the codes for the soil and water samples from both parties (Table Dir. 4), in order to then state that In the case of the Defendant, the samples have been taken in a timely fashion at a determined depth, while the Plaintiffs have taken the sample at different depths. For this reason it cannot be stated that these are like samples with equal characteristics, and therefore their values will differ. Regarding this, in the first place we point out that the results obtained in the laboratory have different values, but this is because sampling by the Plaintiffs entailed taking samples at various depths between 0.60 and 5.65 meters, while Defendant did so at between 1.10 and 1.15 meters. We also underscore the fact that the sampling was carried out with new soils brought from other sites and that were used to cover the pits. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

193 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 63 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 6 of 30 In our opinion, the Settling Experts must establish which of the two samplings is valid; it cannot be both. It is either the one they consider to be sufficient when surface samples were taken, or the one where samples were taken from almost at the surface to the bottom of the pits. Once this has been defined, the Settling Experts, based on the laboratory results, must establish which samples and at what depth violate Ecuadoran regulations, specifically the Environmental Rules for Hydrocarbon Operations in Ecuador, and based on that they must determine if the remediation carried out by the Defendant is acceptable. Regarding the Pits, they only submitted one Table showing the differences between the Parties respective codes. Regarding the site of Prior Spillage, they submit one Table with the corresponding codes and one column of commentary, which states that the samples were taken from different depths, but without differentiating between them. For Water Wells for Household Use, likewise, there is a Table which states the sample was taken by the Defendant and not the Plaintiffs. For Water Samples from the Water Table Level, it is noted that the sample was taken by the Plaintiffs and not the Defendant. In conclusion, the Settling Experts are not settling, because they have not adjusted, concluded or solved the controversies that arose between Plaintiffs and Defendant. 2.2 Sampling Methodology Expert Baca It is stated that two samples were taken at different depths at each borehole, but only one of the depths is stated (1.1 m.) One of the sampling boreholes was outside pits 1 and 2. It is not stated if the samples, once at the surface, were subjected to lithologic and contamination prevention controls, and if the appropriate chain of custody was available to ship them to the laboratory for analysis. Expert Camino The samples that were obtained, once they were at the surface, were subjected to lithologic and contamination prevention controls. The appropriate chain of custody was in place in order to ship them to the laboratory for analysis. The depths at which the corresponding samples were taken were not included. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

194 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 64 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 7 of 30 THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE SMPLING METHODOLOGY Emphasis is placed on Expert Camino s mistake in confusing Pit 1 with a spill site and his subsequent rectification. But there is no commentary or conclusions on the depths at which samples were taken, how that was done, the lithologic analyses and the chain of custody to the laboratory. uestions 3.2.1, L. 27, 28, 29 and 33 Expert Baca Regarding the use of a detergent or a surfactant such as PCS, it is worth mentioning that, indeed, when there is a change in the interfacial tension between water and oil and the surface tension between oil and the soil, in fact oil will be released. Oil, being less dense than water, will reach the surface, but some of the released oil can migrate into the ground or subsoil through the pit s walls or bottom, which is reasonable given the high-pressure pumping used when applying PECS. It is not reasonable to consider a depth of 1.15 meters as deep ground, when the pits were more than 3 meters deep. If Ecuadoran rules establish a finding of TPH in order to establish hydrocarbon contamination, what is sought by reporting the analyses not as TPH, but as TPH-DRO? Expert Camino He does not answer the questions. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS They establish that well Sacha 53 was included in the Scope of Remediation Work. But they do not comment nor draw conclusions regarding the questions answered by Expert Baca. uestions and L.7 Expert Baca He limits himself to establishing that according to the Remedial ction Plan, pits 1 and 2 required remediation, closing and revegetation and that pits 3 and 4, because of their characteristics, were designated as No dditional ction. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

195 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 65 of 125 Expert Camino C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 8 of 30 He emphasizes this is a legal issue and refers to the work reported by CVX, which states that pit 1 has 5,929 ppm of TPHs and that cubic meters of crude have been extracted to be delivered to Station 1, collection pit. He also questions PECS-based treatment, stating that it cannot indeed be considered as having no toxic chemicals (heavy metals, HPs, etc.), and that given its manufacture origin based on alkyl monophenols, one can expect an increase in toxic compounds such as phenolic compounds. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS They highlight that the Contract for the Execution of Environmental Remedial Work and Release of Obligations, Responsibilities and Claims establishes the criteria and guidelines for remediation activities. They underscore that TPH content expressed as percent or ppm establishes the criteria for determining what pits have to be remediated. This is in relation to Expert Baca s reply, but they omit commentary regarding Expert Camino s reply. Later they do a DETILED NLYSIS of the laboratory results obtained for the sludge and water from pits 1, 2, 3 and 4 according to chart No. 2 of the Environmental Rules for Hydrocarbon Operations in Ecuador, greement No On the tables included in their commentary columns, it is noted that the great majority of parameters are under the limits allowed by chart No. 2, but inexplicably TCLP values for water treatment are included, even though this parameter is not part of that chart. Regarding PECS, they make reference to the Technical Data Sheet on Specifications and Safety, stating that it is biodegradable in 45 days, used as a surfactant for the removal of crude oil. However, they do not establish its components and chemical composition in order to determine if it contains or not phenolic compounds, as maintained by Expert Camino. uestions and L.8 Expert Baca He states that between June and September of 1996, Texpet performed all remedial action work required for well Sacha 53. He states that it is proved in a large number of documents. He includes a table that shows that the oil-remediation methods used in pits 1 and 2 was soil washing by the contractor PECS-DESMI, which applied the PECS surfactant. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

196 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 66 of 125 Expert Camino C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 9 of 30 He states he has not found remediation procedures in the documents registered and submitted by CVX at the Judicial Inspection. Later on he states that the mechanical work of mixing soil, crude, produced water and surfactants with additives cannot be considered as remediation work. He goes on to say that some surfactants could increase phenols in the polluted matrix, emphasizing that detergents are manufactured based on alkyl (C8-C9-C12) monophenolic compounds. He asks if the toxic mixture can be stabilized, because several tons of dirt brought from nearby sited are placed over it. In his judgment this is a serious error, as he states, because it is well known that due to the effects of the rain and water table movements, toxic waste will reach surface water systems. He concludes by pointing out that page 9085 does not state the TPH content at the beginning of the PECS physical process, nor at its ending. nd he concludes by saying that the field work document should not have been admitted toward the delivery of the remediated pit, as it lacked the key indicators. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS They state that from the analyses submitted in 1996 by TexPet, it is noted that the concentration levels of the analyzed elements are inferior to the permissible limits established in the Contract for Execution of Environmental Remedial Work. But, oddly, they no longer refer to chart No. 2 of the Environmental Rules for Hydrocarbon Operations in Ecuador, greement No They also mention that Defendant, in ppendix D, Page , submitted the methodology employed on the remediation work of pits 1 and 2, which corresponds to the soil washing that uses surfactants to release the crude oil retained on the ground, and which consists of leveling, debris removal, removal of crude, water treatment (filtration and flocculation,) water treatment (filtration, flocculation and ventilation,) ground treatment by means of surfactant agents, refilling and revegetation. nd they conclude by commenting that Plaintiffs submit no evidence of the existence of surfactant-generated phenols used in the process of remediating the pits. They do not comment regarding the role that both rain water and water table dynamics could have played regarding the quality of the remediation process, which does not necessarily conclude when the pit is covered, because the pit is part of surface and subsurface water dynamics. uestions and L.8 Expert Baca R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

197 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 67 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 10 of 30 He restates his answer provided to questions and L.8, adding that the procedures on pit closures established in Decree 2982, article 30, and the requirements on water discharge of Ministerial greement 621, chart 2, were followed. On the Verification of Remediation Criterion chart, the analytical method that was established is the one known as TCLP-TPH, which is defined as TPH analysis of a sample of leached soils, where leachate is understood to be a liquid that includes any type of component suspended in it, that has percolated or has been drained from dangerous waste, or it is also the solution resulting from the transport of water through the porosity or fissures of the ground or another solid porous environment and resulting from the physicochemical interactions of this water with the ground s mineral and organic components, as defined in the Superseding Rules to the Environmental Rules for Hydrocarbon Operations in Ecuador. From these two definitions, or from the latter, if so desired, it can be clearly established that such leached soil does not exist, but rather that the leachate is a water-based liquid and for that reason there is no such TCLP-TPH analytical method. Expert Camino Replies that the question is a legal issue, but points out that Ministerial greements 2144 and were not taken into account, nor the international rules that the operator Texaco was required to follow. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS They do not reply since they deem it as legal in nature, while the questions also are of a technical and scientific nature, particularly when related to the TCLP-TPH analytical method. uestions and L.10 Expert Baca nswers these questions in the affirmative. Expert Camino Replies that the question is a legal issue, but clarifies that according to the previous answers, technically, pits 1 and 2 could not have been remediated by a mixture of sludge and produced water with detergents. He points out there are in Petroproducción several technical reports (Letter 3733-MB-96) that report the violations and deficiencies in the Environmental Remediation Plan carried out by Texaco before the signing of the Certificates of delivery of the pits. On this matter it is worth clarifying that if the pits did R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

198 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 68 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 11 of 30 contain produced water, its presence was isolated and could have come from the reconditioning of wells. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS They point out that having reviewed the documents, the aforementioned Letter MB-96 was not found, and state that Expert Baca has submitted the documents on the acceptance of the remediation work on well Sacha 53. uestions and L.12 Expert Baca Replies that the remediated pits are not causing any impact, stating that: the surface grounds are clean, the local water wells have not been impacted by the operations of the oil fields, there is no potential for impact on surface water from the remediated pits and there is no potential for impact to the air because of the remediated pits. To that end he states his grounds. Expert Camino Points out that this is a legal issue, later stating that the expert report shows that all toxic waste is limited to the ground and water of the so-called pits 1 and 2, and that the laboratory reports (Table 5, 6 and 9) show very high levels of chemicals that are considered dangerous to human health under Ecuadoran environmental law. He adds that CVX affirms that the so-called pit 3 contains drilling sludge, whose characteristics Petroproducción has in the final drilling report and in its Technical Files. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS They emphasize that these are strictly legal issues. They point out that the Defendant has submitted the analyses for pits 1, 2 and 3, and these include the parameters that have been determined, with permissible limits established in various national regulations and in Mexico, Canada and the Netherlands, as well as the methods employed. Then they analyze each of the pits, stating that for Pit 1 the analyzed parameters show lower values than the constant permissible limits in TULS and the ROH Regarding Pit 2, they determine the presence of crude with a value of 520 mg/kg. It should be noted that here they refer to crude and not to TPH or TCLP. For Pit 3 they point out that the TPH-DRO is above the permissible limit for soils in sensitive ecosystems and below that for agricultural soils (ROH 1215, table 6,) and that barium exceeds the limit established by TULS. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

199 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 69 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 12 of 30 Regarding the Plaintiffs, they point out that their report of November 29, 2004, does not relate to pits 1 and 2, but to the so-called rea of prior spillage, and that they lack the results for the testing done on samples coded as: S53P1, S53P2, and S53P3. They conclude by stating that the analysis of the samples taken for pits 1, 2 and 3 fulfill the permissible limits agreed to in 1996, but that they bear limitations regarding current Ecuadoran rules (TULS and ROH.) uestions and L.25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 31 Expert Baca He includes a lengthy explanation regarding the impossibility that degraded crude may have the characteristics of mobile petroleum, because if this were the case, the hydrocarbon would have the capability to migrate. However, we point out that the explanation is very limited, given that the samples that were taken are from the surface, from a depth of less than 1.20 meters, from new clay, which are not sufficient to adequately establish the saturation with crude in the pits entire volume. The presence of a concentration of 520 mg/kg of TPH in the sample of new clay, which was supposed to be clean, without even traces of petroleum hydrocarbon suggest that locally there could be a migratory phenomenon. Expert Camino He states that the geology analysis proves there is displacement of toxic waste from oil in the water table of pit 1. To that end said analysis would have to establish that the porous environment which constitutes the water table layer is connected to the stream located to the east. It is reasonable to expect that the use of the PECS detergent, because of its effect on interfacial and surface tensions, when it washed the sludge and soils, may have made it possible for crude reached [sic] to have reached the water table and even migrated. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS They begin by replying to the questions asked to other experts, emphasizing the fact that in the area of the pits and their surroundings they did not observe crude on the surface, and that the premise on the migration of possible contaminants via hydro-geological phenomena lacks scientific evidence. They do not comment at all regarding the presence or absence of mobile oil in the soil of the pits covered with new soil, not the original soil. uestions and L.11 Expert Baca R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

200 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 70 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 13 of 30 He explains why pits 3 and 4 were not remediated. His basis is that those pits with oil concentrations below 5,000 mg/kg were classified in the category of No ction Required. Expert Camino He indicates that the questions are legal issues, but states that in the pit, TEXCO did not determine the presence of Barium, Chrome VI, and HPs, so as to, according to the results, proceed to remediate the contamination from these heavy metals and hydrocarbons. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS They contradict the statement by Expert Camino when, based on the greement 621, they suggest that the testing was done for Barium, Chrome VI and HPS, indicating there are no limits established for the first one, the second is below the permissible limit, and the third is not included in the greement. 3. RES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE REMEDITION PLN uestions and L32.L33 Expert Baca He begins by stating that no other area impacted by oil was ever found that was different from the ones included in the remediation plan, and that any area impacted by oil, was a consequence of operation or maintenance activities carried out subsequently to the time of the remediation (1996), is Petroecuador s sole responsibility. Then he mentions that during the Judicial Inspection, a 60m-by-80m area with degraded oil residue was found west of pit 1, an area which in his opinion the Plaintiffs erroneously called pits 1 and 2 and that they requested that samples be taken from three points in that area. He calls the results that were obtained altered because, in his opinion, of the inappropriate sampling method [used] by the Plaintiffs and because they are not representative of the soil at the sampling level, but rather a mix of all the soils from the drilling, and reaches conclusions that are obviously different from the Plaintiffs. Regarding the Flow of Underground Water, he questions what in his understanding are changing criteria by the Plaintiffs, and then emphasizes that establishing the directions of the flow of underground water in Oriente is an extremely complex task given that the land is extremely clayish, even though he admits there are some silty or sandy hanging R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

201 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 71 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 14 of 30 lenses of different sizes but short expanse. He gives a definition of a hanging lens, tells what happens when drilling is done at different depths, and concludes by stating that the aquifer is not present at that level. On this matter it is worth clarifying that the so-called Orient region does not exist, but rather the Oriente Basin or mazon Basin, which is a predominantly sedimentary basin. For that purpose it is recommended that the most accredited sources of geological studies be consulted. In the former area of Texaco s operations, what he calls extremely clayish land is found mainly on the hills, but it disappears gradually as it nears big and medium-sized rivers such as the Napo, the Coca, or the Jivino. The big dispersal plains that resulted from the water system s dynamics are not made up mostly of clays. Much of the Sacha field, its facilities and wells, have been located in these plains. If the platform for well Sacha 53 had been built on a hill, because of the movement of surface soils, the surface clay was removed totally or partially, and along with it the hanging lenses, if they ever existed. This statement is supported by the SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY to questions and L.25, 26, 27, 28, 29 on page 38, third paragraph, which literally says: The lithological record shows alternating levels of silt, clays, sandclays, clay-silt; beginning at a depth of 4.10 meters at borehole NW4, and 5.99 meters at borehole NW6, there is a pocket of sand ranging from gray to brown in color. That is to say, nowhere is there any extremely clayish land. One of the questions that deserves an answer has to do with the infiltration of run-off water and its ending point in the subsoil. If the argument that the land is extremely clayish were true, pits 1 and 2 of well Sacha 53 possibly were open on this land, and for that reason the rainwater, which falls at an annual average of more than 3 meters in height per square meter of surface, would have filled the pits every year and even caused them to overflow. However, it is reasonable to think that the land on which the pits were built is not completely impermeable, that is to say it has certain porosity or empty pockets, which in addition to contributing to retaining fluids like water and oil, allow these fluids to move from areas of higher pressure to areas of lower pressure; because of the low pressure at the surface, gravity plays an important role in the movement of these fluids. The flow s direction can be studied with the use of tracers and monitoring. Expert Camino He makes no comments regarding the Flow of Underground Water and states that pit 3 should not have been excluded from the remediation given its contents of toxic wastes from drilling and those used in maintaining well Sacha 53, and to that end he quotes page 36, Table 1 and Table 2, page 10, as the basis for his statement. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

202 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 72 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 15 of 30 They submit Table Dir 8 to which they attach the conclusion that in eleven of the samples analyzed by both parties, the TPH values exceed 5,000 mg/kg, agreed to in the Remediation Plan between the Government of Ecuador and Texaco. Then they point out that Mr. Edison Camino, Eng., in his reports mixes up pits 1 and 2 with the area of the prior spill. Regarding the underground water, [the settling experts] consider that it has not been defined with certainty, and thus close the possibility that contaminants may have migrated through the dynamics of that water. They issue no opinion related to the statements by Expert Baca when he discussed the issue of underground water, nor do they provide their professional commentary on the matter. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

203 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 73 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 16 of STNDRDS, LLOWBLE LIMITS ND DEFINITIONS uestions and L.40 Expert Baca He does not clearly establish a reasonable concept of Environmental Remediation, because what he calls [actions taken]. the threat of emission of a substance that is dangerous to the environment, to avoid or minimize present or future or the well-being or the environment., taken from the U.S. National Contingency Plan (40 CFR 330.5), has nothing to do with the most accepted concepts and large-scale practices regarding the subject of environmental remediation that are in place in the United States. Rather, it seems as if the aforementioned Expert seeks to impose the notion that environmental remediation does not involve the chemical s complete removal. Just as he suggests occurs in well Sacha 53. Expert Camino Transcribes the definition of environmental restoration from Decree 1215, and also includes the definition issued by Flores and coll. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS They do not establish the clear differences that without a doubt exist between the clear definitions by Expert Camino and the jumble of ideas submitted by Expert Baca. uestions and L.36 Expert Baca He limits himself to explaining that the standards and permissible limits that were applied to the remediation work are the ones specified in the Remedial ction Plan agreed to by Texaco and the Government. Expert Camino He indicates this is a legal issue. He claims that chart 2 of Rule 621 does not provide the determination of major toxic chemicals such as Chrome VI, Barium, HPs and BTEX. He clarifies that Texaco did not use some environmental rules even though it had mentioned them in its environmental evaluations. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

204 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 74 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 17 of 30 THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS They limit themselves to providing the list of documents from the Environmental Regulations in force in They neither conclude nor settle. uestions and L.37 Expert Baca In addition to restating when he non-technically assumes that TPH and TCLP are similar and can be used without distinction, again he points out that the maximum limit set by the parties for establishing the criterion of No dditional ction is a TPH concentration of 5,000 mg/kg, and based on alleged subsequent tests he maintains that concentrations of ground oil lesser than 10,000 mg/kg are harmless to plants and cause no effects in stock (hogs, cattle, fowl, etc.) on soils with TPH levels below the range of 19,000 and 50,000 mg/kg. Expert Camino He states that Decree 1215 includes a definition of TPH, and without specifying the rule, states that the Ecuadoran law required that the ground in the pit has to have less than a thousand parts per million of total oil hydrocarbons, and thus pit 1 should not have been declared as remediated. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS In addition to limiting themselves to defining the TCLP, they state that the ROH includes it as one of its analytical methods. They neither conclude nor settle, especially when it comes to the statements of Expert Baca regarding the concentrations of TPH that are harmless to plants and have no effect on stock. ccording to the book Pipeline Risk Management Manual, by W. Kent Muhlbauer, the dangerousness of a hydrocarbon is measured in relation to the rate of absorption of a substance by a living organism and its chronic danger. The rate depends on the toxicity, flammability and reactivity. The substance s toxicity in turn is divided in aquatic toxicity, toxicity in mammals, flammability, chronic toxicity and potential carcinogen. Regarding toxicity in mammals he makes reference to the type of ingestion that could take place, be it oral, through the skin or by inhalation, measured in ranges of LD50 and LC50, for the first two and third, respectively. re the studies referenced by Expert Baca the product of field research or mere references? R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

205 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 75 of 125 uestions and L.38 Expert Baca C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 18 of 30 He does not adequately answer the question. Rather, he takes the opportunity to justify the use of the criterion called TCLP. He does not make the distinction that the TPH (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon or Hidrocarburos Totales de Petróleo) is not part of the TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure or Procedimiento para establecer Características Tóxicas de Lixiviados), because the latter is applied to measuring the toxicity of leachates, which does not necessarily include TPH. Expert Camino He answers the question fluently. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS It can be inferred that they tacitly agree with the answers provided by Expert Camino. But they issue no comment regarding the answers from Expert Baca. uestions and L.24 Expert Baca He establishes that Texpet s remediation standards are documented in several documents such as the Remedial ction Plan and the Final Report of the Remedial ction Project. He also included in his arguments the rules on Remediation of Oil Fields in Ecuador , greement 621 of 1992, Decree 2982 of 1995 and the Regulation Requirements in Countries from Central and South merica, especially those of Colombia and Venezuela, as well as those of the National and International Organizations, such as those published by the PI. nd he concludes by stating that the remediated pits pose no potential impact to surface water or the air. Expert Camino He states that the registered documents do not include the international rules referred to by Expert Camino, that Rule 621 does not require that concentrations of Chrome VI, BTEX and HPs be determined, and he indicates that the ction Plan did not take into account Ministerial greements Nos pertaining to the Regulation for the Prevention and Control of Environmental Contamination on Water Resources, and to the Regulation for the Prevention and Control of Environmental Contamination on Soil Resources. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

206 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 76 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 19 of 30 THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS They limit themselves to saying that the question was answered in numeral and L.36. They insist in not concluding or settling. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

207 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 77 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 20 of IMPCT ON RES DJCENT TO WELL SCH 53 uestions and L.44, L15 and L.23 Expert Baca Risk does not occur, as it is the measure of occurrence of an event. Risk is also not an event, in the way contamination is an event or the quality of human health is. The measurement of risk, if one does not have a considerable number of observations, tends to be subjective and intuitive. For the case of well Sacha 53, it is evident that during several years, the pits and their toxic contents were open and went un-remediated. There were always potential receptors, starting from microorganisms up to the people who inhabit their area of influence, and species that were introduced, such as livestock or fowl, and obviously it was established through the air (BTEX cases), through run-off and even through the dynamics of aquifers. The impact on human health and animal life does not come about in the short term, but it depends on the time of exposure and the means of ingestion of the contaminant (skin, airways and digestive tract.) Therefore to assume based on this that because now we have the presence of highly degraded oil west of pit 1 there is no risk to health, this means rejecting the contaminating activity that existed before remediation and its relation to living beings. Or when it is stated that there is a shortage of receptors, what is being done is to ignore that despite what it appears, one is in the presence of a reconstituted and dynamic food chain that begins with microorganisms, fungi, insects, batrachians, etc., up to the final consumers. When he states that for ruminants (cows,) ingestion of more than 4,400 mg/kg of crude oil does not harm them, in the first place it is worth noting that these ruminants have not been described as a bioindicator species for the study of the effects of oil in a tropical rainforest, and on the other hand, if an adult cow were to ingest 10 kg of grass per day, it would also be ingesting 440 grams of crude oil a day, and in one year it would add kg of crude oil to its metabolism and it would be eating its own weight in crude oil in less than 4 years. Expert Camino He is not mentioned in the report. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS They do not comment on the statements by Expert Camino. They persist in not concluding and not settling. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

208 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 78 of 125 uestion and L.13, L.15 Expert Baca C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 21 of 30 When he states there are no environmental impacts in well Sacha 53 that may be attributable to the former Petroecuador-Texpet Consortium, he does so according to the results and analyses obtained during the remediation and the subsequent analyses of water and soil samples previously mentioned. He mentions that sites were found whose subsoil contains degraded oil in places outside the pits that were remediated by Texaco, and that are not having any impact, he forgets that these impacts are not only attributable to contamination, but that for the quality and maintenance of the tropical rainforest s ecosystem, the main impact is the deforestation, which includes the stump of trees and the movement of soil for the preparation of the platform. Obviously, this impact was enlarged several times by the colonization. Expert Camino He clarifies a few points regarding that there is subsoil contamination at a depth of 6.80 meters and that CVX reports high levels of contamination at 6.28 meters, inferring that this contamination resulted from Texaco s operations. He later emphasizes that the environmental impacts are attributable to the drilling operations and reconditioning of wells, and to chemical products such as the chrome found in the soil samples. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS They begin by commenting that the Plaintiffs confuse the location of pits 1 and 2 with the area of prior spillage. Regarding this, they do not establish if responsibility lies with Petroproducción or Texaco, but its designation as prior suggests that the spill could be a result of Texaco s operations, something that has to be cleared up by the settling process. They mention having identified two areas that potentially could be considered sources of contamination. We consider that the term sources is not appropriate, because operationally the sources of contamination were the drilling of the well, its completion, the reconditioning and the transportation of the fluids (gas, oil and water) produced by the flow line. It is also incorrect to state that the two mentioned areas were identified, because once identified the contamination was characterized by taking and analyzing the samples they mention. uestion and L.34 Expert Baca R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

209 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 79 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 22 of 30 He answers the questions in the negative, basing his reply on the results that were obtained. He includes a chart of the maintenance activities performed by Petroecuador, subsequent to the remediation tasks, emphasizing that the wellhead does not have a retention bund, and for that reason he implies that in case of an overflow the fluids possibly reached surfaces beyond the platform. Expert Camino He underscores that after the so-called remediation, Texaco reported the presence of several toxic chemicals that exceeded the concentrations allowed by rule 3516 and even those allowed by the EP. He concluded by stating that the toxic chemicals constitute a great risk (a subjective and intuitive evaluation?) for human health, because they have great means of transportation such as the water table, surface streams, livestock, agriculture, etc. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS Based on Table Dir. 10, which compares parameters for water samples with Ecuadoran Environmental Law starting in 1989, they conclude that the analytical results from water on pits 1, 2 and 3 satisfy the permissible limits established in the Environmental Regulations for Hydrocarbon ctivities of 1992 and 2001, but not so with the limits established by the TULS and RO 204. If that is so, why do they not settle this? What is acceptable and what is not? 6. IMPCTS TO HUMN HELTH FROM SOLID, LIUID ND GSEOUS SUBSTNCES uestions 4.6.1, and L.22, L.32, L.16 Expert Baca He begins by presenting the elements contained in a risk evaluation process, among which he emphasizes: description of the source of hazard, evaluation of toxicity, evaluation of exposure, description of the risks and their respective conclusions. Regarding the source of danger, it is not correct that he classifies as heavy those hydrocarbons included between C16 and C35, because those from C16 are still within the range of solvents or light ones, and the ones from C35 are media that correspond to linear alkanes and paraffins. Regarding the evaluation of toxicity, the most accepted way of doing it is a function of the indices known as LC50 and LD50. nd this is not what was done. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

210 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 80 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 23 of 30 Regarding the lixiviation toward underground water, it is worth emphasizing that the results obtained are from the ground samples, whose maximum sampling depth did not exceed 1.30 meters. The conclusion arrived at is closely related to the statements that support it. But it is not enough to maintain that it is not required for characterizing the site s specific risks, since at least the risks should have been characterized subjectively and even intuitively. lso, the conclusion avoids addressing the risk assessment asked for in question L.22. Expert Camino From a non-technical point of view, he indicates that the geological tests (?) indicate there is the presence of oil on the researched sites. He states that the risk to human health is very high, given that the toxic chemicals are deposited amid a very dynamic water table. It is noted that his statements tend to be subjective, because the testing done by the parties in this area are not satisfactorily conclusive. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS It is worth emphasizing that one of the Settling Experts obligations has to do with the quality of the questions content. Thus question has been conceptually poorly conceived, because as we stated previously, risks are not caused, but rather evaluated, because what takes place are events, for example impacts to human health. s a conclusion it is evident that the commentary by the Settling Experts tends to coincide with the arguments submitted by Expert Baca. However, the Settling Experts do not indicate that the parties have not abundantly replied to the requirements of questions and L.22. lso, in our opinion, they lapse into inaccuracies, since they state that the texture of soils made up of clay to clay-silt is a barrier that prevents the free vertical mobilization of contaminants. If [sic] this were so, the rainfall in the mazon region would translate only into runoff water, because it would not easily migrate in the subsoil until becoming meteoric water. uestions 4.6.2, L.32, L.16 Expert Baca Based on the field and laboratory testing previously discussed, he concludes that no health impact would be anticipated, even if human contact were to occur. Expert Camino On the contrary, he states that when dangerous wastes (high potential) that are found as solutions and in an immiscible stage reach the flow of the Sur, they will be a deadly R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

211 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 81 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 24 of 30 danger for livestock and human beings. He states that in the water well there is a relationship between the source, transportation and the transmission of toxic chemicals. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS Regarding the area of the prior spill, they conclude that this area has probabilities (high, medium, low?) of becoming a source of contamination in case that the current conditions change due to any anthropic activity, mainly, or because of some aggressive natural phenomenon. Thence it follows that the presence of contaminants in the area is evident. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

212 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 82 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 25 of IMPCT TO VEGETTION ND LIVESTOCK uestions 4.7.1, L.17 and L.18 Expert Baca The arguments he submits to try to show that there is no impact on vegetation and livestock are naive, to say the least. How is it possible to state that hogs can be exposed to soil containing over 19,000 mg/kg of fresh crude oil without suffering any effects? It s possible that could be so, but for a very brief period of exposure. But, what happens if that period lasts one day and then it is every day? Do his statements correspond to the LC50 and LD50 toxicity indices for hogs, in this case? We assume they do not. similar interpretation can be made in the case of cows and vegetation. The bottom line is that he does not answer the questions satisfactorily. Expert Camino He bases his arguments on the statement by Mr. níbal Baño and on a bibliographic description of hydrocarbons effects on abiotic and biotic environments and on humans, but does not submit concrete results that these effects are manifesting. He also refers to geological research, as the basis for expecting that toxic chemicals may have been incorporated into the surface water consumed by livestock and in agriculture. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS They conclude that the evidence submitted by the parties are not enough to be able to confirm or reject the impact on vegetation and livestock in the area surrounding the well. We agree with this opinion. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

213 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 83 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 26 of RECONDITIONING WORK ON WELL SCH 53 BY PETROECUDOR uestions 4.3.1, L.21 Expert Baca In addition to submitting a chart of the three reconditioning works performed by Petroecuador on well Sacha 53, he suggests that because the wellhead does not have a fluid retention bund, if the bund overflowed the fluids possibly reached surfaces beyond the platform. Expert Camino Submits similar details regarding the reconditioning, but refers to the toxicity from hydrochloric acid, used in stimulating the well, and at the same time declares that the contractor for the well s maintenance has the obligation to take the toxic waste to the plant of a company specializing in the final disposal. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS They agree with Expert Camino, nonetheless it is worth noting that the operator had and has the obligation of applying the relevant Environmental Management Plan (EMP), and if it complied with the Environmental Rules, you need to have the relevant reports on the application of the aforementioned EMP. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

214 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 84 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 27 of THE COMPOSITION OF OIL uestions 4.5.2, F (Eng. Baca) and L.2, F (Eng. Camino) Expert Baca He does not submit the physical and chemical composition of the oil from the Sacha field; he barely states general opinions on the presence of metals, BTEX and PHs in the composition of crude oil. In summary, he does not answer the questions. Expert Camino He submits the undated description of the crude from Sacha Norte Station, carried out at the laboratory at the School of Chemical Engineering of the Central University. significant presence of metals can be observed. This description is incomplete, because it does not include the chromatographic details, which are important in establishing the molar fraction of each component or groups of components of hydrocarbons in oil. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS Because there was not a complete description of the crude oil from the Sacha field, it is not reasonable that the potential danger from the presence of this crude in the environment be understood solely based on the presence of some heavy metals. uestions 4.5.2, F (Eng. Baca) and L.2, F (Eng. Camino) R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

215 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 85 of NTURL BIODEGRDTION C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 28 of 30 uestions 4.5.1, F (Eng. Baca) and L.1, F , L.3, F (Eng. Camino) Expert Baca The opinions and analyses submitted regarding crude oil s natural biodegradation, especially in its first stages of occurrence in the Oriente Region, are in accordance with the testing and observations available on the subject. However, it is not correct to state that as a result of biodegradation the hydrocarbon changes to an immobile and less toxic state. Obviously, a clear distinction between the occurrence of natural biodegradation into aerobic conditions (presence of oxygen) and the natural biodegradation into anaerobic conditions (absence of oxygen) has to be established. He is correct when he states that as a product of natural aerobic biodegradation, plus the action of other surface factors such as temperature, precipitation, relative humidity, available nutrients and others, the total mass of the oil will decrease in variable proportions that depend on the aforementioned factors and the composition of the oil. This implies that the remaining crude, because it no longer has the light components, will be composed of long-chain and complex compounds, in addition to heavy metals. If we compare the viscosity of the original oil with that of degraded and biodegraded oil, the latter s viscosity will be greater than that of the former s. Viscosity is understood to be the property of a substance to resist the flow when it is subjected to a force that seeks to give it movement. The greater the viscosity of a substance is, the greater its resistance to flow. But this does not mean it cannot move, that it remains immobile. In conditions of surface drainage, given by the velocity of runoff water, the slope of the ground and any prevailing creeping vegetation, the oil, in addition to moving because of gravity, will move more dynamically because of the dragging strength of water. In the subsoil, due to the covered pits, the oil will enter into competition with water to continue occupying the porous environment. Because the mazon region gets more than three meters of rainfall per square meter per year, part of that volume will be introduced into the pits and will shift any oil that may have mobility, that is to say, that is not wetting primarily the porous medium and that is not subjected to the effects of capillary pressures, which decrease as the capillary s diameter increases. Then the volume of mobile oil will be displaced toward a site or sites of lesser resistance or with better flow conditions, and for this reason it is likely that it will remain in the pit, reach the surface and even migrate to the aquifers. Expert Camino Possibly from a geochemical point of view, the natural degradation of oil in anaerobic conditions may occur between one million and ten million years, which is partially R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

216 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 86 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 29 of 30 corroborated by G. Montenegro and M. García (Geochemical nalysis of Crude of Oriente in Ecuador, p. 99, Report from the 7 th Congress on Geology, Oil and the Environment,) when they state that the relationship between the depth of the reservoirs and the PI gravity is impacted by the biodegradation that occurs at higher levels than the occurrence of the sterilization temperature of the reservoirs; for example, in the Libertador field we have found the occurrence of biodegraded oils only for U sandstone, never for T sandstone. In addition, it is known that in several oilfields around the world specialized strains of bacteria have been inoculated in order to extract more oil than was anticipated through the metabolism of chain n-alkanes and paraffin, which entails the partial biodegradation of oil in very short periods of time. THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS They are in accordance with the statements by Expert Baca, emphasizing that the testing of the research of biodegradation on oil from Central Sacha is for laboratory conditions. They conclude that the processes of biodegradation are complex and that the time in which crude degrades varies and depends on the oil s characteristics, the environment and diversity of the organisms degrading fractions of hydrocarbons. But when referring to the case of well Sacha 53, when referring [sic] to the oil contamination, they stress the in the first years, these contaminants must have caused serious harm to organisms of the tropical ecosystem, which gradually, over more than 30 years, degraded some of the hydrocarbon compounds. fter this period we can then state that there still exist in the area fractions of recalcitrant crude. Meaning that, in this case, the degradation and biodegradation did take place, but were not enough to make all the oil disappear. They do not comment on the supposed immobility of the remaining degraded oil. 11. BENEFITS OF THE MITIGTION uestions 4.7.2, F (Eng. Baca) and L.19, F (Eng. Camino) Expert Baca Reiterates his opinion that the degraded oil that is present in the subsoil nor [sic] the asphalt represent a threat to livestock and plants, and does not merit corrective actions. Expert Camino He estimates that the surface of an area of 6,522 m 2 is about to be remediated, that the presence of oil must be at a minimum depth of 8 meters, and therefore the volume of soil to be remediated would be 521,776 m 3. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

217 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 87 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 30 of 30 THE SETTLING EXPERTS COMMENTRY ON THE UESTIONS They partially agree with Expert Camino when they mention that the area of the Prior Spill, by the way, not acknowledged by the Defendant, must be remediated, despite not knowing the origin of the contamination (due to the lack of scientific evidence.) MONITORSHP S CONCLUSION It is evident that the Experts from both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant have answered the questions by the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Justice of Nueva Loja, with the aim of having their scientific, technical, environmental and social arguments prevail. That is why their focus, opinions and conclusions almost did not coincide. In these circumstances, the role to be played by the Settling Experts is key, because theoretically their function is to reach precise conclusions and recommendations that may allow the Judge hearing the case to fairly rule in favor or against Plaintiffs or Defendant, in favor or against both. But this has not happened, given that the Settling Experts, having avoided their capacity and obligation to settle, have limited themselves only to making comments on the questions answered by the Experts from each of the parties. Nevertheless, this Monitorship considers that the contents of the answers to the questions, even though some contain inaccuracies and even a lack of knowledge of the basic laws of Earth Sciences, make it possible to settle [issues] fairly, and consequently, allow the Judge in this case to issue his verdict. R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, T Tel

218 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 88 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit 1 nnotations by Mr. Reyes Cisneros regarding the meeting of September 20, 2006, with the Plaintiffs. [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

219 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 89 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N 2 SEPTEMBER 20 Wednesday [Exhibit ] The Court wants it to be decided by one expert only, which could be inadmissible It was proposed to me that I go to this address. GLOBL SSESSMENT: Diagnosis of the operations area that can begin in October November C.V.: Payments: 50% Chevron 50% mazonía Vida CIGMYP - Dr. Barriga International Law Books 1 bout inspected crude Perform an assessment 2 Inspection Block 15 Property Plant or Equipment UR: Property Plant and Equipment M. Baquero 2006 What is goodness? It is simply love. Leo Tolstoy R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

220 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 90 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N P a g e 1 o f 1 Exhibit R nnotations by Mr. Reyes Cisneros regarding the meeting of January 26, 2006, with Mr. Donziger [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

221 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 91 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N P a g e 1 o f 1 [Exhibit R] JNURY 26 Thursday Meet S. Dozzinger [sic] / F. Peñafiel 1. Chevron arbitration, sues the Ecuadoran State Ecuador has hired law firm % state, has to do with the arbitration. Needs witnesses Copy of documents 2. Johnny has deadline of February 1 Submitted to judge of Lago grio dolfo Callejas 3. a) Texaco seeks [illegible] evidence and b) Delay the trial Pablo Fajardo, plaintiffs attorney Texaco 30 inspections Plaintiffs 122 inspections, and proceed to a specialized global assessment 35 inspections performed, need 10 from Texaco 2006 R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

222 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 92 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit S [PHOTO] Esperanza Martínez [Stamp of the 3rd Notary Public of Cartagena, Republic of Colombia] [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

223 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 93 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit T [PHOTO] lberto costa [Stamp of the 3rd Notary Public of Cartagena, Republic of Colombia] [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

224 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 94 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit U [PHOTO] dolfo Maldonado [Stamp of the 3rd Notary Public of Cartagena, Republic of Colombia] [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

225 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 95 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit V [PHOTO] Julio Prieto [Stamp of the 3rd Notary Public of Cartagena, Republic of Colombia] [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

226 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 96 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit W [PHOTO] Carlos Martín Beristain [Stamp of the 3rd Notary Public of Cartagena, Republic of Colombia] [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

227 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 97 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit X 1 nnotations by Mr. Reyes Cisneros regarding the meeting of December 15, 2006, with Mr. Donziger at the mazonía por la Vida office. [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

228 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 98 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N 2 DECEMBER 15 Friday [Exhibit X] STEEVE [sic] DOZINGER [sic] Possible appointment expert next week Global assessment * costs damages NPO Concession * Responsibility Technical rguments I would establish the costs X hours production + power oil hours 2352 X hrs = bfpd 14 Well production = 500 bppd 7056 bppd 941 Power oil = 900 bppd 4704 bapd 1 foot = [illegible] X Y Work to prevent crime in order to avoid punishment. Confucius R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

229 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 99 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit Y 1 nnotations by Mr. Reyes Cisneros regarding the discussion of January 5, 2007, with Pablo Fajardo. [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

230 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 100 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N [Exhibit Y] Friday 5 January 2 TEXCO CSE Financial issue Monthly $3,000 Report $15,000 Work [that] was done by the team from here pafam@ecuanex.net.ec Refusing to do unimportant things is a decisive precondition for success. lexander Mackenzie 2007 R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

231 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 101 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit Z 1 nnotations by Mr. Reyes Cisneros regarding the meeting of February 1, 2007, with several members of the Plaintiffs legal team. [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros [Exhibit Z] R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

232 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 102 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Thursday 1 February Roads take you there and back Mayas TEXCO CSE - Possible application of methodology Impact evaluation. Differences in practices between TX-PETECU Mechanisms used Exploration areas ccumulation and Synergies IT IS BOUT N EX POST EI [Environmental Impact ssessment] THT RESULTS IN THE REPRTION Restitution [illegible] IMPCTS Compensation TYPE Rehabilitation Satisfaction Guarantees No Repetition REPRTION Individual/Group Beneficiaries 2 Expectations and Process Info Include the + Formation [illegible] process Explore lternatives [Illegible] Posterior Expert assessment Post. [illegible] [illegible] 2007 R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

233 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 103 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N 1 Exhibit nnotations by Mr. Reyes Cisneros regarding the meeting of February 9 or 10 of 2007, at the uito Hotel, with Mr. Donziger and Mr. Cabrera. [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

234 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 104 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N 2 [Exhibit ] Friday 9 February Ivonne - Daimi Services Ticket: 7129 Steve Steven Donziger sdonziger@gmail.com Richard Cabrera ingrcabrerav@hotmail.com DIMIPERU: (511) (511) Cherish your visions and your dreams as they are the children of your soul; the blueprints of your ultimate achievements. Napoleon Hill 2007 R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

235 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 105 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit BB 1 nnotations by Mr. Reyes Cisneros of February 24 or 10 of 2007, regarding the telephone call with Messrs. Donziger, about the expert assessment. [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

236 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 106 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N 2 [Exhibit BB] Saturday 24 February COUSINS 6 x 12 = $72 30 $102 JORGE REYES CHECKING CCT STEVE nd Others GLOBL SSESSMENT - It is not possible two experts 1. Our friend In the Term of 90 days 2. My help Sunday 25 February 2007 R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

237 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 107 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 1 of 3 Exhibit CC nnotations by Mr. Reyes Cisneros regarding the meeting of March 3, 2007, regarding the global assessment, at the office of mazonía por la Vida, in uito. [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

238 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 108 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 2 of 3 [Exhibit CC] Friday 2 March EXPERT S GLOBL SSESSMENT PLN (The remainder of the page consists of handwritten notes in English.) The saddest part of life lies not in the act of dying, but in failing to truly live while we are alive. Robin S. Sharma 2007 R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

239 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 109 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Page 3 of 3 Saturday 3 March HOUSE L ECHEV. [The remainder of the page includes mostly handwritten notes in English.] Sunday 4 March 1 x 10 9 feet 3 of [illegible] to disperse the water no rivers, streams containment barrier absorbent material years 1000 [illegible] 200 [illegible] 80 [illegible] the first 3 years T S K S Definition Work Plan Dates Work Costs 2007 R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

240 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 110 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit DD [PHOTO] Charlie Champ [Stamp of the 3rd Notary Public of Cartagena, Republic of Colombia] [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

241 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 111 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit EE [PHOTO] nn Maest [Stamp of the 3rd Notary Public of Cartagena, Republic of Colombia] [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

242 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 112 of 125 C E R T I F I E D T R N S L T I O N Exhibit FF [PHOTO] Dick Kamp [Stamp of the 3rd Notary Public of Cartagena, Republic of Colombia] [Signature] Ramiro Fernando Reyes Cisneros R I V E R I N T E R P R E T I N G, I N C. Certified by: U.S. & California Courts, merican Translators ssn. Tel

243 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 113 of 125

244 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 114 of 125

245 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 115 of 125

246 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 116 of 125

247 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 117 of 125

248 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 118 of 125

249 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 119 of 125

250 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 120 of 125

251 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 121 of 125

252 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 122 of 125

253 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 123 of 125

254 Case 1:11-cv LK Document Filed 12/12/12 Page 124 of 125