International Petroleum Transactions: Injuries to Residents Court Jurisdiction, Procedure and Review; Alien Tort Statute Court Jurisdiction, Procedure and Review: Motion to Seal

摘要

The following four cases all deal with the same fact pattern, albeit with different legal issues being decided relating to the multiple claims made by the plaintiffs. These cases are preceded by Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 393 F.Supp.2d 20, 161 0.&G.R. 1004 (D.D.C. 2005) (Doe I) which granted some, but not all of, Exxon's motions. Doe I was followed by Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25860 (D.D.C. May 3,2006) (Doe II) and Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 473 F.3d 345 (D.C.Cir. 2007) (Doe HI). Doe III rejects Exxon Mobil's request for mandamus relief from Doe I and II. The cases all involve the following fact pattern. Eleven Indonesian citizens file an action against Exxon Mobil and PT Aran LNG Co. under the Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. § 1350) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (28 U.S.C. § 1350 note § 2(a)(l)-(2)) and various common law claims for injuries suffered in connection with the defendants' liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility in Indonesia. The allegations include the defendants' hiring of the Indonesian army to provide security for the LNG facility and pipeline. Members of the army are alleged to have committed acts of torture and other acts of misconduct while they were protecting the facilities.