Thanks for this wide-ranging and balanced update.

In response to your questions about the relevance of Jeffrey Shinder’s testimony, what struck me is that Shinder is basically testifying that Donziger lied to and attempted to deceive even his own co-counsel (Shinder) and that, when caught by Shinder, Donziger had nothing meaningful to say in his own defense. In a trial where Donziger continues to profess to this day that he did not countenance fraud on the court or on the public, and where he claims even now that plaintiffs engaged in no misconduct, the fact that he attempted to hide the truth—even from his own co-counsel—is evidence that he knew at the time that what he was doing was wrong.

Shinder’s testimony thus tends to impeach two of Donziger’s defenses—both that the Cabrera report was not ghost written, and that there was nothing wrong in the way plaintiffs conducted themselves with regard to the report. It also undermines Donziger’s credibility. (Normally impeachment of credibility follows the direct testimony, but in this case, the parties were ordered to file their written testimony in advance, and judicial efficiency, especially in a bench trial, argues against having to call Shinder to the stand twice (once to impeach Donziger’s defenses, and then again to impeach his credibility).