Chiquita Response To Motion To File Under Seal

Case: 19-13926 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 1 of 19
Case No. 19-13926-C
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
___________________________________________
IN RE: CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATONAL, INC.,

ALIEN TORT STATUTE LITIGATION
___________________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Florida
No. 08-md-01916
(Nos. 08-80465, 11-80404)
(The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra)
____________________________________________
APPELLANTS DOE 378 AND DOE 840'S

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
____________________________________________
Paul Wolf, DC Bar #480285

P.O. Box 21840
Washington, D.C. 20009
Telephone (202) 431-6986
paulwolf@yahoo.com
Fax: n/a
Attorney for Plaintiff-
Appellants-Cross-Appellees
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
Counsel certifies that the following is a complete list of the trial judge(s), all
attorneys, persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, or corporations
(noted with its stock symbol if publicly listed) that have an interest in the outcome
of the particular case on appeal, including subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates,
and parent corporations, and other identifiable legal entities related to a party,
known to Appellants, are as follows:
1. Doe 378, whose identity remains confidential under a Protective Order of
the District Court, and the daughter of deceased plaintiff Doe 840, whose identity
also remains confidential under the Order. In addition, the plaintiffs bring their
cases as personal representatives of the estates of the deceased. They represent
other legal heirs with interests, whose identities are known to the Appellees, but
remain confidential under the Protective Order.
2. The other plaintiffs in the complaints filed by undersigned counsel in the
Southern District of Florida, in Case Nos. 08-80465, 10-80652, 11-80404, 11-
80405 and 17-cv-80475. Undersigned counsel represents the legal heirs of
approximately 2,319 wrongful death cases. In addition, there are six other plaintiff
groups with a total of about 7500 "claims" in the MDL, all of whom have an
interest in this appeal.
3. Additional interested parties are:
i
Agrícola Longaví Limitada
Agrícola Santa Marta Limitada
Agroindustria Santa Rosa de Lima, S.A.
Aguirre, Fernando
Alamo Land Company
Alsama, Ltd.
American Produce Company
Americana de Exportación S.A.
Anacar LDC
Arnold & Porter
Arvelo, José E.
Associated Santa Maria Minerals
B C Systems, Inc.
Baird, Bruce
Bandy, Kevin
Barbush Development Corp.
Bienes Del Rio, S.A.
Blank Rome LLP
BlackRock, Inc. (NYSE: BLK)
Blue Fish Holdings Establishment
ii
Bocas Fruit Co. L.L.C.
In Re: Chiquita Brands Int’l., Inc.
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Fort Lauderdale
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Miami
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, New York
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Orlando
Bronson, Ardith
Brundicorpi S.A.
Cadavid Londoño, Paula
Carrillo, Arturo J.
C.C.A. Fruit Service Company Limited
CB Containers, Inc.
Centro Global de Procesamiento Chiquita, S.R.L.
Charagres, Inc., S.A.
Childs, Robert
Chiquita (Canada) Inc.
Chiquita (Shanghai) Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd.
Chiquita Banana Company B.V.
Chiquita Brands International Foundation
Chiquita Brands International Sàrl
iii
Chiquita Brands International, Inc. (NYSE: CQB)
Chiquita Brands L.L.C.
Chiquita Central Europe, s.r.o.
Chiquita Compagnie des Bananes
Chiquita Deutschland GmbH
Chiquita Food Innovation B.V.
Chiquita for Charities
Chiquita Fresh B.V.B.A.
Chiquita Fresh España, S.A.
Chiquita Fresh North America L.L.C.
Chiquita Fruit Bar (Belgium) BVBA
Chiquita Fruit Bar (Germany) GmbH
Chiquita Fruit Bar GmbH
Chiquita Frupac B.V.
Chiquita Hellas Anonimi Eteria Tropikon Ke Allon Frouton
Chiquita Hong Kong Limited
Chiquita International Services Group N.V.
Chiquita Italia, S.p.A.
Chiquita Logistic Services El Salvador Ltda.
Chiquita Logistic Services Guatemala, Limitada
iv
Chiquita Logistic Services Honduras, S.de RL
Chiquita Melon Packers, Inc.
Chiquita Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V.
Chiquita Nature and Community Foundation
Chiquita Nordic Oy
Chiquita Norway As
Chiquita Poland Spolka Z ograniczona odpowiedzialnoscia
Chiquita Portugal Venda E Comercializaçao De Fruta,

Unipessoal Lda
Chiquita Relief Fund - We Care
Chiquita Shared Services
Chiquita Singapore Pte. Ltd.
Chiquita Slovakia, S.r.o.
Chiquita Sweden AB
Chiquita Tropical Fruit Company B.V.
Chiquita UK Limited
ChiquitaStore.com L.L.C.
Chiriqui Land Company
CILPAC Establishment
Cioffi, Michael
Coast Citrus Distributors Holding Company

v
Cohen, Millstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC
Collingsworth, Terrence P.
Compañía Agrícola de Nipe, S.A.
Compañía Agrícola de Rio Tinto
Compañía Agrícola del Guayas
Compañía Agrícola e Industrial Ecuaplantation, S.A.
Compañía Agrícola Sancti-Spiritus, S.A.
Compañía Bananera Atlántica Limitada
Compañía Bananera Guatemateca Independinte, S.A.
Compañía Bananera La Estrella, S.A.
Compañía Bananera Los Laureles, S.A.
Compañía Bananera Monte Blanco, S.A.
Compañía Caronas, S.A.
Compañía Cubana de Navegación Costanera
Compañía Frutera América S.A.
Compañía La Cruz, S.A.
Compañía Mundimar, S.A.
Compañía Productos Agrícolas de Chiapas, S.A. de C.V.
Compañía Tropical de Seguros, S.A.
Conrad & Scherer LLP
vi
Costa Frut S.A.C.
Covington & Burling LLP
Danone Chiquita Fruits SAS
Dante, Frank
Davies, Patrick
De La Calle Restrepo, José Miguel
De La Calle Londoño y Posada Abogados
DeLeon, John
Dimensional Fund Advisors LP
DLA Piper
Duraiswamy, Shankar
Dyer, Karen C.
Earthrights, International, Inc.
Exportadora Chiquita - Chile Ltda.
Exportadora de Frutas Frescas Ltda.
Financiera Agro-Exportaciones Limitada
Financiera Bananera Limitada
FMR LLC
Fresh Express Incorporated
Fresh Holding C.V.
vii
Fresh International Corp.
Friedheim, Cyrus
Frutas Elegantes, S. de R.L. de C.V.
Fundación Para El Desarrollo de Comunidades Sostenibles en el

Valle de Sula
G & V Farms, LLC
G W F Management Services Ltd.
Garland, James
Girardi, Thomas V.
Gould, Kimberly
Gravante, Jr., Nicholas A.
Great White Fleet Liner Services Ltd.
Great White Fleet Ltd.
Green, James K.
Guralnick, Ronald S.
Hall, John
Heaton Holdings Ltd.
Heli Abel Torrado y Asociados
Hemisphere XII Investors Limited
Hills, Roderick, the Estate of
Hospital La Lima, S.A. de C.V.

viii
Ilara Holdings, Inc.
Inversiones Huemul Limitada
James K. Green, P.A.
Jimenez Train, Magda M.
Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A.
Jones, Stanton
Keiser, Charles
King, William B.
Kistinger, Robert
Lack, Walter J.
Law Firm of Jonathan C. Reiter
Law Offices of Chavez-DeLeon
Leon, The Honorable Richard J.
Markman, Ligia
Marra, The Honorable Kenneth A.
Martin, David
Martinez Resly, Jaclyn
McCawley, Sigrid S.
Mosier, Mark
Mozabanana, Lda.
ix
Olson, Robert
O'Melveny & Meyers
Ordman, John
Parker Waichman LLP
Philips, Layn
Prías Cadavid Abogados
Prías, Juan Carlos
Priedheim, Alissa
Procesados IQF, S.A. de C.V.
Processed Fruit Ingredients, BVBA
Promotion et Developpement de la Culture Bananiere
Puerto Armuelles Fruit Co., Ltd.
Rapp, Cristopher
Reiter, Jonathan C.
Ronald Guralnick, P.A.
Scarola, Jack
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
Seguridad Colosal, S.A.
Servicios Chiquita Chile Limitada
Servicios de Logística Chiquita, S.A.
x
Servicios Logísticos Chiquita, S.R.L
Servicios Proem Limitada
Silbert, Earl
Skinner, William
Sperling, Jonathan
Spiers N.V.
Sprague, Ashley M.
St. James Investments, Inc.
Stewart, Thomas
Stubbs, Sidney
Tela Railroad Company Ltd.
The Vanguard Group
TransFRESH Corporation
Tsacalis, William
UNIPO G.V., S.A.
V.F. Transportation, L.L.C.
Verdelli Farms, Inc.
Western Commercial International Ltd.
Wichmann, William J.
Wiesner & Asociados Ltda. Abogados
xi
Wiesner, Eduardo A.
Wilkins, Robert
Willkie Farr & Gallagher
Wolf, Paul
Wolosky, Lee S.
Zack, Stephen N
Zhejiang Chiquita-Haitong Food Company Limited
Zuleta, Alberto
Certification
I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, the above is a complete

list of persons having an interest in this case.
/s/ Paul Wolf

________________________
Paul Wolf, D.C. Bar #480285
Attorney for Appellants
Doe 378 and 840
January 1, 2019
xii
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Does 378 and 840 can't read half of the Movant's Reply.1 How can the
Court even rule on the motion to supplement the record when legal arguments in
the Reply are redacted? Undersigned counsel hasn't argued whether the record on
appeal should be supplemented or not, but only opposed filing more documents
under seal. A vast amount of information has already been filed under seal without
leave. We cannot read it, but Chiquita can read it. Does 1-976 have a legal
interest in preventing the Court from ruling on the basis of tainted evidence and
fraud, which has done immense harm to all of the plaintiffs in the MDL already.
In their Reply/Motion, the Movants argue that undersigned counsel has no
standing to file a response to their motion to file under seal, because it is a different
case. The same Movants filed two motions to prevent us from filing any brief in
this appeal at all. Undersigned counsel can represent Does 378 and 840, who have
standing and are not represented by any other attorney. However, the Movants
cannot represent any parties in this Court by themselves.
Earthrights' filings are normally co-signed by attorneys at Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, but this one is not. The Reply/Motion is signed only by
1
The Reply is combined in the same document with a Motion to File Under Seal.
Under FRAP 27(a)(3), a Response to a Motion may contain an independent request
for relief. However, there is no such provision for Replies, which may not present
matters that do not relate to the Response. FRAP 27(a)(4) It should have been
filed separately. Undersigned counsel's arguments apply only to the Motion to File
Under Seal.
1
Marco Simons and Rick Hertz of Earthrights International, Inc. No one who is
allowed to practice law has joined in the motion. As shown on July 6, 2020,
Earthrights International isn't a law firm, isn't owned or controlled by any
attorneys, and can't represent Appellants in this case without engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law, which is a crime. According to Earthrights' 990 tax
filing from 2018, the corporation is run by Executive Director Ka HsawWa[n],2
who isn't described as an attorney, either in this filing or on Earthrights' website.
None of the directors describe themselves at attorneys, other than Katie Redford,
who is no longer associated with them. The reason this organization can't practice
law is that neither Mr. Wan nor Earthrights International, Inc. are subject to the
disciplinary authority of any state bar.
In the District of Columbia, where Earthrights International, Inc. has its U.S.
office,3 "[n]o person shall engage in the practice of law in the District of Columbia
2
Although nothing on Earthrights' website suggests that Mr. Wan isn't using his
real name, the tax filing refers to him as "Ka Hsaw Wa (pseudonym)." Id. at 7,
online at https://earthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/ERI-2018-Form-990.pdf. The
misspelling of Mr. Wan's name doesn't appear to be a typographical error.
Undersigned counsel has worked as an Anti Money Laundering (AML) analyst,
and reviewed hundreds of corporate documents kept by banks, but has never seen
any corporation incorporated by a person using a pseudonym. Had I ever seen
something like this, I would have escalated it for consideration of whether a
Suspicious Incident Report should be filed with a law enforcement agency. Banks
are required to know their customers. (KYC) Undersigned counsel hasn't
researched whether the use of pseudonyms in IRS filings is fraudulent.
3
The Earthrights website lists an office in Chaing Mai, Thailand first, then
Washington DC, then others. The offices aren't listed alphabetically, suggesting
2
or in any manner hold out as authorized or competent to practice law in the District
of Columbia unless enrolled as an active member of the District of Columbia Bar,
except as otherwise permitted by these Rules." Rules of the D.C. Ct. App. Rule
49(a) (1998). Rule 49(b)(1) defines "person" to include corporations. The practice
of law includes furnishing an attorney who practices law. Rule 49(b)(2)(F) The
commentary to Rule 49 states that the rule doesn't apply to referral services, but
doesn't otherwise exempt non-profit organizations, except in limited circumstances
not relevant here. cf. Rule 49(c)(6) (exempting internal counsel, who only advise
his or her employer). A non-profit corporation run by non-lawyers that furnishes
attorneys who practice law is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law because
the corporation isn't a member of the D.C. Bar.
The rule is more than 100 years old. In Matter of Co-Operative Law Co., 92
N.E. 15, 198 N.Y. 479 (NY 1910), the New York Court of Appeals held that a
corporation that employed attorneys who represented members of the public was
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law unless specifically exempted by rule or
statute. Id. at 16. The court reasoned that attorneys have professional and ethical
duties to clients, and that the corporation's interests may be in conflict with the
clients' interests. In another early case, In re Otterness, 232 N.W. 318 (Minn.
1930), a bank had employed an attorney to foreclose mortgages on behalf of
that Earthrights may be a Thai entity with its principal place of business in
Thailand.
3
customers of the bank, which amounted to the unauthorized practice of law. Id. at
319-320.
Half a century ago, numerous fee-shifting statutes were enacted to protect
individuals who wouldn't normally be wealthy enough to hire lawyers, and the
field of public interest law was born. There is case law supporting the proposition
that non-profit organizations such as legal aid societies may keep attorneys fees
awarded on the basis of fee-shifting statutes. These cases often involve arguments
about public policy and congressional intent in passing the statutes. The instant
case, described as "human rights" litigation, falls into the category of personal
injury law. Some of the largest personal injury firms in the country are involved in
this case. It is a matter of private, rather than public law.4 Various complaints
filed in the MDL have asserted damages of over a billion dollars.
4
The application of the common law to cases like this was explained in Hilton v
Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895). How the case is characterized depends on the crucial
distinction between public and private law. "International law, in its widest and
most comprehensive sense - including not only questions of right between nations,
governed by what has been appropriately called the 'law of nations,' but also
questions arising under what is usually called 'private international law,' or the
'conflict of laws,' and concerning the rights of persons within the territory and
dominion of one nation by reason of acts, private or public, done within the
dominions of another nation - is part of our law, and must be ascertained and
administered by the courts of justice as often as such questions are presented in
litigation between man and man, duly submitted to their determination." 159 U.S.
at 163. The Appellants' negligence claims present conflict of law problems, rather
than falling under the "law of nations," or public law of the Alien Tort Statute. 28
USC § 1350. The Movants have always advocated for a failed legal theory.
4
Ethical rules also prohibit Earthrights from holding itself out as practising
law, or sharing fees between lawyers and non-lawyers. See Model Rules, DC
Rules of Professional Conduct, Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.8 and 5.4;
Disciplinary Rule 3-102 (prohibiting sharing a fee with a non-lawyer).
In Carter v. Berberian, 434 A.2d 255, 256 (R.I. 1981) the court found that a
purported non-business corporation that "offered to perform legal services" should
have been incorporated as a professional-service corporation. Earthrights should
as well. They are practicing personal injury, rather than public interest law, and
acting as the alter ego of one of the best-known class action law firms in the United
States, who still won't recognize that this case can't be certified as a class action.
Cohen Milstein have known this all along, and have done nothing but harm to the
plaintiffs in this case.
Conclusion
The movants are part of a RICO conspiracy involving some of the most
outrageous witness bribery ever seen in the federal courts. They can't deny that the
enterprise offered $3-5 million dollars to paramilitary witness Raul Hasbun to
testify, or explain why the controversy over witness bribery wasn't disclosed in
their Opening Brief. The District Court ordered that the plaintffs may not proceed
under pseudonyms, although this is stayed on appeal. Nevertheless, the only
information that can be kept from the public record are the plaintiffs' names or
5
other information that would identify them. Therefore, the Court should deny the
Motion to File Under Seal.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Paul Wolf

________________________
Paul Wolf, DC Bar #480285
Attorney for Does 1-976
July 7, 2020
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify, that on this 7th of July, 2020, I filed the foregoing response
with the Clerk of the Court using the Court's Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system,
which will send notices to all counsel receiving electronic notices in this case.
/s/ Paul Wolf

_______________
Paul Wolf
Certificate of Compliance
Pursuant to FRAP 27 and 32(g)(1), I hereby certify that this response

complies with the type-limitation of 5,200 words, and contains 1,426 words,
excluding the caption and certifications.
/s/ Paul Wolf

_______________
Paul Wolf

Chiquita Response To Motion To File Under Seal

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Chiquita Response To Motion To File Under Seal

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case: 19-13926 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 1 of 19

Case No. 19-13926-C

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

IN RE: CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATONAL, INC.,

On Appeal from the United States District Court

APPELLANTS DOE 378 AND DOE 840'S

Paul Wolf, DC Bar #480285

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

attorneys, persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, or corporations

of the particular case on appeal, including subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates,

known to Appellants, are as follows:

1. Doe 378, whose identity remains confidential under a Protective Order of

cases as personal representatives of the estates of the deceased. They represent

remain confidential under the Protective Order.

2. The other plaintiffs in the complaints filed by undersigned counsel in the

Southern District of Florida, in Case Nos. 08-80465, 10-80652, 11-80404, 11-

80405 and 17-cv-80475. Undersigned counsel represents the legal heirs of

interest in this appeal.

3. Additional interested parties are:

Agrícola Longaví Limitada

Agrícola Santa Marta Limitada

Agroindustria Santa Rosa de Lima, S.A.

Alamo Land Company

American Produce Company

Americana de Exportación S.A.

Arnold & Porter

Associated Santa Maria Minerals

Barbush Development Corp.

Bienes Del Rio, S.A.

Blank Rome LLP

BlackRock, Inc. (NYSE: BLK)

Blue Fish Holdings Establishment

Bocas Fruit Co. L.L.C.

In Re: Chiquita Brands Int’l., Inc.

Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Fort Lauderdale

Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Miami

Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, New York

Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Orlando

Cadavid Londoño, Paula

C.C.A. Fruit Service Company Limited

Centro Global de Procesamiento Chiquita, S.R.L.

Charagres, Inc., S.A.

Chiquita (Canada) Inc.

Chiquita (Shanghai) Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd.

Chiquita Banana Company B.V.

Chiquita Brands International Foundation

Chiquita Brands International Sàrl

Chiquita Brands International, Inc. (NYSE: CQB)

Chiquita Brands L.L.C.

Chiquita Central Europe, s.r.o.

Chiquita Compagnie des Bananes

Chiquita Deutschland GmbH

Chiquita Food Innovation B.V.

Chiquita for Charities

Chiquita Fresh B.V.B.A.

Chiquita Fresh España, S.A.

Chiquita Fresh North America L.L.C.

Chiquita Fruit Bar (Belgium) BVBA

Chiquita Fruit Bar (Germany) GmbH

Chiquita Fruit Bar GmbH

Chiquita Frupac B.V.

Chiquita Hellas Anonimi Eteria Tropikon Ke Allon Frouton

Chiquita Hong Kong Limited