Subject: RE: Cal PUC Subpoenas
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:18:00 -0700 (PDT)

Does that mean we are satisfied with the PO as it stands now--that we are 
willing to live with it with no changes?  Should we consider going for a 
stronger PO to be effective when we produce the second wave (recognizing that 
we are not all that concerned with the info we produce on the first wave on 
the 13th)?  That way we can still appear reasonable in what we produce, keep 
the PUC engaged on our terms, and still go for the strongest PO possible.

MBD <[email-masked]> on 10/05/2000 03:21:47 PM
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>, "'Gary Fergus, Brobeck'" 
<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]'" 
<[email-masked]>
cc:  
Subject: RE: Cal PUC Subpoenas

Williams, Southern, Reliant and AES have filed motions to make the
protective order significantly stricter, and to stay the production of
documents until the protective order issues are resolved.  These generators
are taking a much harder line.  Counsel for Southern has advised me that
some of the generators may challenge a large part of the data request on
grounds of jurisdictional, burden, and trade secret intrusion.  It seems to
me that it may be best to let the generators fight for a stronger protective
order, and not take their side at this time.  We might well want to consider
proposing a "most favored nations clause" in our letter to the CPUC tomorrow
in order to take advantage of what ever tighter protective order is
eventually agreed to.  Generally, I feel the generators' stance will allow
us to be right where we want to be, not out front leading the charge, not
turning over everything right away, but instead making "just enough" of a
production to avoid being the center of attention.

I will forward the generators' pleadings to you as attachments to this
e-mail.  Gary, I believe, already has them.

Mike Day

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 12:58 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Cal PUC Subpoenas

Brings up another question--what is our current conventional wisdom about
the protective order and do we plan to seek a stronger one?  Thanks.

MBD <[email-masked]> on 10/05/2000 10:55:44 AM

To:   "'Mike D Smith'" <[email-masked]>, MBD <[email-masked]>, Richard B
      Sanders <[email-masked]>, Mary Hain
      <[email-masked]>
cc:   James E Keller <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]'"
      <[email-masked]>
Subject:  RE: Cal PUC Subpoenas

We know that some generators, such as Reliant, are planning to turn over to
the CPUC most of the data being requested, after trying to obtain a more
restrictive protective order.  Many other parties are just beginning to
deal
with the process and are only at the stage of asking for two week
extensions.  We are trying to gather additional data about other retail
marketers.  Mike Day

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike D Smith [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 8:24 AM
To: [email-masked]; Richard B Sanders; Mary Hain
Cc: James E Keller
Subject: Cal PUC Subpoenas

Do we have any information about what our competitors are doing in response
to
these subpoenas?  I recall that the generators had been getting together to
discuss response strategies and I wonder if anything like that is being
done
on
the marketer side.  Thanks.

 - mo2mod.pdf
 - SpecApp.pdf