The outcome of the lawsuit filed by Servicios Ojeda against Chevron in a Texas court will be determined by the specifications outlined in the OFAC licenses that allow the American oil company to operate in Venezuela amidst sanctions imposed by the U.S. government.
Servicios Ojeda C.A., a Venezuelan firm suing Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. in the Southern District Court of Texas, is claiming over USD 24 million for essential services provided between 2016 and 2020. The company is demanding documentation related to the OFAC licenses that allowed these operations in Venezuela.
The request includes everything from communications with OFAC to detailed accounts of joint operations with Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), debt recovery plans, and production projections.
Meanwhile, the defendants have asked the Court to stay discovery until the motion to dismiss they filed is resolved, arguing they have solid reasons for this request.
Citing that the demand from Servicios Ojeda is excessive, Chevron contends that a stay would not delay the litigation should the claims survive.
What Servicios Ojeda Wants from Chevron
On July 3, 2025, Servicios Ojeda C.A. submitted a set of document production requests to Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc., seeking detailed information about Chevron’s operations in Venezuela, specifically regarding general licenses issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and its interactions with PDVSA in the context of U.S. sanctions.
The requests cover a timeframe from January 1, 2016, to the present, concerning the application, compliance, and authorized activities under General Licenses 8 and 41, as well as communications and agreements with PDVSA.
Servicios Ojeda is after all data related to Chevron’s operations in Venezuela under the sanctions regime. The requested documents could unveil details about:
- Scope and limitations of OFAC licenses: how Chevron interprets and operates within the confines of these licenses, and whether there have been activities that Servicios Ojeda believes exceed or violate these terms.
- Financial and operational relationship with PDVSA: the nature and extent of Chevron’s collaboration with PDVSA, particularly regarding debt recovery, production goals, and management of joint ventures.
- Impact of sanctions and exceptions: how the licenses have enabled Chevron to maintain a presence and operate in Venezuela despite extensive U.S. sanctions.
- Compliance and transparency: Chevron’s ability to demonstrate compliance with OFAC regulations and transparency in its communications with the U.S. government.
Chevron Requests Stay of Discovery
On July 15, 2025, Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. filed a request with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, regarding the lawsuit filed against them by Servicios Ojeda C.A., seeking a stay of discovery.
The defendants are asking for this stay due to the pending motion to dismiss. The plaintiff, Servicios Ojeda C.A., is opposing this request, thus the disagreement is set for consideration by the Court during the Initial Pre-Trial Conference.
In communications sent to Judge Lee H. Rosenthal, the defendants noted that the court has “broad discretion and inherent power to stay discovery until preliminary issues that may dispose of the case are determined.”
They argue there is “good cause” for a stay when additional discovery places an undue burden or expense without aiding the resolution of dispositive motions.
Among the factors Chevron cites regarding the Court’s discretion are:
- the breadth of the discovery requested;
- the burden of responding to such discovery; and
- the strength of the dispositive motion filed by the party requesting a stay.
Chevron’s Arguments for Dismissal of the Case
Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. claim that all of the claims made by plaintiff Servicios Ojeda C.A. are barred under Texas statute of limitations.
They assert that the substance of all quasi-contractual claims by the plaintiff is governed by a contract and, therefore, are prohibited both by Texas law and Venezuelan law. They add that contract-based claims are subject to a mandatory forum selection clause that establishes exclusive jurisdiction in a Venezuelan court.
Chevron believes there is an inapplicability of discovery and specifies that no amount of it would overcome these legal barriers to Servicios Ojeda’s claims, and no amendment can evade dismissal based on these grounds.
They maintain that the motion to dismiss “is likely to avoid or reduce the need for discovery,” justifying a stay.
Furthermore, Chevron warns that if the plaintiff were to refile the lawsuit and any claim survives, “the amended complaint would necessarily be substantially different from the Original Complaint.”
“Staying discovery promotes efficiency and reduces duplication of efforts that would arise from engaging in discovery on a complaint that is likely to change substantially, if not dismissed in its entirety,” Chevron stated to the court.
Scope and Burden of Discovery Requested by Servicios Ojeda
Servicios Ojeda C.A. submitted 19 document requests that the defendants were due to respond to before August 4, 2025, barring a stay.
Chevron warns that the plaintiff’s request “will not assist the Court in deciding the motion to dismiss” and adds that they seek no specific information regarding the conduct of the defendants.
Rather, the documents requested by the plaintiff concern any individual associated with Chevron regarding the licenses issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control allowing Chevron’s subsidiaries to operate in Venezuela.
Chevron points out that these are “commercially and politically sensitive documents related to the operational implementation of the licenses received, entirely divorced from any alleged improper conduct directed at the plaintiff.”
The parties jointly proposed a Scheduling Order with a discovery deadline of October 5, 2026, allowing “ample time for discovery after a ruling on the motion to dismiss.”