Message-ID: <16495449.1075842451778.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 02:37:00 -0800 (PST) From: drew.fossum@enron.com To: staci.holtzman@enron.com Subject: Re: Status Conference before Judge Downes Cc: michael.moran@enron.com, dorothy.mccoppin@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: michael.moran@enron.com, dorothy.mccoppin@enron.com X-From: Drew Fossum X-To: Staci Holtzman X-cc: Michael Moran, Dorothy McCoppin X-bcc: X-Folder: \Drew_Fossum_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\All documents X-Origin: FOSSUM-D X-FileName: dfossum.nsf What a mess. Keeping discovery at bay should, obviously, continue to be a very high priority for us. Let me know if these strange events signal an increased likelihood that Gynberg will be able to pursue discovery. Thanks. df STACI HOLTZMAN 12/11/2000 09:06 AM To: Michael Moran/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Dorothy McCoppin/FGT/Enron@Enron, Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Status Conference before Judge Downes FYI. (I have not yet had an opportunity to talk to Charlie about any of this.) ---------------------- Forwarded by Staci Holtzman/FGT/Enron on 12/11/2000 09:07 AM --------------------------- "Tetrault, Charles D." on 12/07/2000 04:31:10 PM To: "Richard B. Sanders (E-mail)" , "Staci Holtzman (E-mail)" cc: "Barrett H. Reasoner (E-mail)" Subject: Status Conference before Judge Downes There was a lengthy status conference this afternoon, lasting about an hour and a quarter. It was marred by extremely poor telephone connections. The technical difficulties frustrated the parties and the judge and made the conference a mess. Without trying to summarize the conference, I note a few things that the Court decided to do based on the discussions. 1. Quinque. Judge Downes agreed to have oral argument on the motion to remand in Quinque on January 3, 2001 at 1:15 p.m. in Casper. One hour was set aside for argument. He declined Mike Beatty's suggestion of an additional executive summary of the briefing. The judge was the first one to suggest the oral argument. The plaintiffs suggested that the Court rule on the papers, but quickly acquiesced to the Court's suggestion when the defendants said that they wanted argument. 2. Osterhoudt. Osterhoudt appeared pro se. Motion to disqualify Wright's counsel (Phillips & Cohen) and estopping Mr. Wright on some claims. Both Osterhoudt and Wright want oral argument. Wright defendants and DOJ didn't object. Osterhoudt was appearing pro se, and so there was a long rambling discussion of the matter. The judge was reluctant to cut off a pro se party, but ultimately did. Regrettably, the rambling discussion set the tone for the rest of the call. 3. Osterhoudt. Government's motion to dismiss Ousterhoudt's case. Government wants its motion to dismiss Grynberg's valuation claims to be heard at the same time. The government claims these relator status issues are holding up the Shell $56 million settlement and any future settlements. Grynberg objected to having the motion in Grynberg heard at the same time. Grynberg wants discovery from Wright and the government. 4. Pending Motions. The Court, of out frustration at the inability to hear the parties and at the attempts by some to argue the merits of things that the Court was not prepared to address, set down two hours for oral argument on February 22, 2001, at 10:00 a.m. on all pending motions in Wright and Grynberg that address the jurisdictional issues discussed on the call and the motions to dismiss. This obviously will create some problems. It was far from clear precisely which motions that the Court had in mind. While there are not that many motions pending, some of the pending government motions likely could affect public disclosure / original source motions that the defendants could, but have not yet, filed. The defendants have not filed those motions yet because of a desire to first test the complaints on Rule 9(b) grounds. 5. Discovery. Parties who want discovery on those issues (Grynberg and probably the Wright defendants) were given one day to present their position by letter to the Court. Other parties then will have two days to respond. 6. Liaison Counsel. The Court designated Tom Nicholas as Liaison Counsel for the defendants in the Wright case and Don Schultz as Liaison Counsel for the defendants in the Quinque case. 7. February 22 hearing. Phil Figa, one of Grynberg's lawyers, was given the task of leading the consultation among counsel concerning how the pending motions should be addressed at the hearing and how the time should be divided. Charles D. Tetrault Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. 1455 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004-1008 ctetrault@velaw.com 202.639.6551 [voice] 202.639.6604 [fax] ++++++CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE+++++ The information in this email may be confidential and/or privileged. This email is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email from your system. Thank You