Subject: RE: Cal PUC Subpoenas - confidential attorney client communicatio n
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 07:29:00 -0700 (PDT)

Mike, Richard, and Gary:

What I was suggesting was that we would produce the limited items that we
are proposing under the terms of the existing protective order (which are
inadequate, but we are not giving up any of the crown jewels at this point)
while conditioning our production on two points, first, that we reserve the
right to seek stronger protection in the order (a la Williams' motion) for
any subsequent materials we do agree to produce or which are compelled to be
produced, and two, that the materials we are currently producing which are
entitled to confidentiality (the trading data at a minimum) shall be subject
to the most stringent protective order which the Commission issues in this
proceeding, i.e., we get the benefit of any additional protections Williams
can secure.  I only suggest this so we can stay out of the limelight by not
being one of the "bad guy" generators who are actively taking on the
protective order, when we know that at least four generators are producing
nothing until their motion is resolved, and one marketer (Coral/Shell
Energy) has refused to produce transactional data and has objected to most
of the document request.  I have also recently learned that Calpine has
gotten an extension until Oct. 13 and will try to delay and hold off
producing much data.  I will get getting a copy of Coral's objections to the
commission shortly.

Mike Day

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 2:19 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Cal PUC Subpoenas

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.

(See attached file: mo2mod.pdf)
(See attached file: SpecApp.pdf)