[UPDATE: I’ve changed the title of the post to reflect uncertainty about what exactly the judge did. See Max Kennerly’s comment to the post].
I am told that at this morning’s hearing on Chevron’s motion for a temporary restraining order, Judge Kaplan took the matter under advisement and did not make a decision from the bench. I’ll keep you posted!
As a civil procedure nerd, the situation makes me want to cry. A TRO is plainly inappropriate here, and a judge taking a TRO “under advisement” effectively concedes that a TRO is inappropriate.
The issue here is whether Chevron should have a preliminary injunction. I find it revealing that they keep filing for a TRO rather than a preliminary injunction: it seems an essential component of their strategy is to deny the Lago Agrio parties adequate time to respond. That speaks for itself.
Max, thanks for the comment. I think you’re exactly right.
I suspect that when Judge Kaplan ultimately rules, he will simply rule on the motion for an attachment and not the motion for a TRO. Perhaps when we see the transcript of today’s hearing, we’ll see that the judge indicated that he was denying the TRO, though that is not what my source reported to me.
Leave a Reply