Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.

Chevron questions
witness’s testimony

By Rob Perez
Star-Bulletin

The confidential testimony of a key witness in the state's gasoline price-fixing lawsuit was so inconsistent that even the government's own expert couldn't determine what parts were true, Chevron Corp. says in a court filing.

In commenting on David Young's testimony, the unidentified expert is quoted by Chevron in federal court documents as saying, "I can't tell which time you're supposed to believe him. Take your pick."

Young for 14 years was Chevron's public relations manager in Hawaii, a job he held until August 1998. In response to a state subpoena, Young has testified that he lied to or misled state legislators looking into Hawaii's high gas prices and did so at the behest of company attorneys.

His testimony is considered important in the state's $2 billion antitrust lawsuit against Chevron and several other major oil companies, all of which have been accused of conspiring to keep Hawaii gas prices artificially high. The companies have denied the charges.

Young's testimony was instrumental in persuading a federal judge earlier this month to take the unusual step of ordering Chevron to turn over 108 confidential attorney-client documents for the court's review.

Magistrate Francis Yamashita ruled that the review was warranted, essentially because the state provided enough credible evidence to indicate Chevron and the attorneys may have committed fraud or another crime.

But in court papers filed late Tuesday, Chevron said Young was a disgruntled former company lobbyist who now works for the state and whose testimony was so inconsistent that "cross-examination is essential."

Chevron said Yamashita erred by ruling on the state's request for the court review without first allowing the company to question Young. It seeks to have the ruling reversed.

Young declined comment, saying he was prevented by a court order from discussing his testimony. But he has said previously that he told the truth in his deposition.

Spencer Hosie, a San Francisco attorney who is heading the state's case, also said he couldn't comment because of the court order.

In its latest filing, Chevron said Young wasn't an unbiased witness and noted that he became upset when the company tried to transfer him to California. Young refused the transfer and accused the company of wrongful termination, Chevron said. A month after he left the company, Young unsuccessfully tried to negotiate a consulting contract to help in the state's antitrust lawsuit and eventually was hired by the agency responsible for funding the litigation, according to Chevron.

The state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, where Young works, has said his hiring was done according to proper civil service procedures and was not connected to the lawsuit.

One of the state's expert witnesses agreed that Young's "credibility depends on matters to be tested on cross-examination, including whether he tried to sell his story to the state," Chevron said.

The company said the state, having "obtained the sound bites it wanted," postponed Young's unfinished deposition indefinitely to deprive Chevron of the right to cross examine him. What's more, Yamashita improperly relied on Young's incomplete testimony for his ruling, the company said.