From: dschultz@hollandhart.com
To: andrew.edison@enron.com
Date: 2001-10-23 17:56:40+00:00
Subject: Good Stuff on Tap This Week


Privileged and Confidential Joint Defense Communication
To:       Kansasjdt
From:   Don Schultz
Re:       10/25 call
            Please  try to participate in this week's JDT-wide  conference call. We will  have a lot on the agenda.   So far, I have identified the following  items you should be thinking about.
           1.   Reply Brief to Motion to Dismiss.  We hope to  stimulate/provide argument suggestions to the authors who are starting  on the reply brief, on the front end.  Time will be short for review and  comments later, since the brief is due Nov. 2.  Please read the  plaintiff's opposition brief and be prepared to provide the drafters with  your suggestions about reply arguments up front.  If you send those to ddavis@hollandhart.com   by  email, we'll circulate them before the call to help the discussion proceed more  efficiently.
           2.   Discovery Responses on Personal Jurisdiction.
              a.  The Discovery Committee will discuss whether the provision of Judge  Smith's written order, reminding Sharp that he has to confer before any motion  to compel is intended to substitute for the oral request the judge made that all  objections be filed in advance.
           b.  Please  reconsider how completely your clients have responded to the "Kansas  contacts" discovery.  Defendants who qualified or limited their  "Kansas contacts" answers to provide information only as to contacts  related to gas measurement in Kansas, may want to reconsider those limitations  and work to supplement the answers in order to provide a more complete picture  of a defendant's Kansas contacts, to avoid having the personal jurisdiction  motions bogged down in discovery disputes or delays - at least we should try to  come to a consensus about that strategically.
         c.  Please reconsider  what objections you have made to the "Kansas contacts" discovery requests the  Judge has ordered us to respond to.   We'll have to decide whether to  present objections to the judge up-front and should consider what we should  or should not do to narrow those potential disputes.
           3.   Personal Jurisdiction Motion to Dismiss.   Larry Tanenbaum reminds me  we are only about six weeks away from having to file the affidavits and brief(s)  on personal jurisdiction, with a Thanksgiving holiday in the  interim.   Yikes!   Obviously the work to answer the  discovery will dovetail a lot with the work needed to revise or prepare  affidavits to support p.jd. dismissal.  We'll try to come up with a game  plan to get affidavits in to Gerry Pecht for coordinated review before they are  finalized, and to make sure we are proceeding with a good time line to  finalize the p.jd. papers.
         4.   Case  Management Order.   It seems clear, I think, that we should hold to  the current p.jd. filing and hearing schedule, in order to dissuade a bunch of  follow up discovery on Kansas contacts or risk having class cert decided ahead  of p.jd.    Should we also seek to resist Plaintiff's preliminary  suggestions that the class cert briefing and argument should be delayed -  Moore/QUinque problems notwithstanding - on the premise that we are better  prepared to oppose class cert than the plaintiffs are to support it?  Or  should we negotiate with Sharp to slide the class cert back and how much?
        Please let me know if you think  there are other issues we should discuss.