Subject: RE: CEO apex depositions
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 08:10:44 -0700 (PDT)

Agree with appellant's position and would be pleased to draft and file and amicus brief should you or any of the operating companies find it appropriate.

	I am out of the office today, but will be available tomorrow.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Derrick Jr., James  
Sent:	Sunday, October 21, 2001 2:27 PM
To:	Cheek, Charles; Sanders, Richard B.; Williams, Robert C.
Subject:	FW: CEO apex depositions

Should we participate? If so, who would write it?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	[email-masked]@ENRON  
Sent:	Saturday, October 20, 2001 8:22 PM
To:	[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Derrick Jr., James; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject:	Fwd: CEO apex depositions

I am forwarding an E-mail from former Supreme Court Justice Raul Gonzalez
which may be of interest to you. If so, his phone no. and those of his
colleagues are contained in the E-mail.
Freeman E. Smith

From: "Gonzalez, Raul A." <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Castaneda, Kirsten M." <[email-masked]>,        "Powell, Gary R." <[email-masked]>
Subject: CEO apex depositions
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:10:53 -0500

Freeman, we represent Jani-King.  Their CEO was ordered to give a deposition in a case where he does not have unique or superior  knowledge of discoverable information. Our attempts to get it quash or obtain relief from the court of appeals and the Supreme Court have been unsuccessful.
This issue is of importance to the jurisprudence of the state because more and more CEO's are being requested to give depositions and there is confusion in the law as to what an apex deponent is required to state in the affidavit in order to trigger the apex deposition doctrine. Must the affidavit state that he/she does not have ANY knowledge of relevant facts, rather than saying that he/she does not have any UNIQUE OR SUPERIOR knowledge of relevant facts as the Supreme Court said in Alcatel USA ? 
At this point, our best chance in getting the court's attention is for the court to be flooded with amicus briefs requesting that the court take this case to resolve the conflict that exists among various courts of appeal. If the Supreme Court does not resolve the confusion that exist is the law at this time, litigants will continue to waste of time and money in fighting apex depositions. 
Can you please forward this email to your membership to see if anyone is interested enough to file a quick amicus brief?  If anyone is interested, they can contact me or Kirsten Castaneda (214-740-8533) or Gary Powell (214-740-8470) in our Dallas office. 
Time is of the essence as the motion for rehearing is due next Friday. 
If this is not the proper protocol, I would appreciate hearing from you.     
Raul A. Gonzalez 
Locke Liddell & Sapp LLP 
(512) 305-4746 
(512) 391-4746 fax 
IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: This message from the law firm of Locke Liddell Sapp, LLP is intended only for the use of the addressees shown above. It contains information that may be privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that the copying, use or distribution of any information or materials transmitted in or with this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message by mistake, please immediately call us collect at (214) 740-8000 and destroy the original message. Thank you.