This is an email
=09This will update you on the matters discussed during the joint defense c= onference call held this afternoon: =091. One defendant group has approached the plaintiff's lead attorney reg= arding a non-suit prior to the December 5 deadline for moving, answering or= otherwise pleading, but has heard nothing. Others intend to do so before = December 5 as well. I am trying to quickly wrap up my due diligence on Int= ratex, and once that is done, plan to approach the plaintiffs for a non-sui= t of at least Enron Corp. and, depending on the results of the due diligenc= e, on Intratex as well. EGM has still not been served to our knowledge. =092. After discussion, counsel for the defendant holding companies have a= greed to file on December 5 bare-bones motions to transfer venue to Harris = County, with the intention of waiving them if plaintiffs appear disposed to= push back on them. This is because of the problem I mentioned in my earli= er e-mail today with a venue challenge opening the defendants up to discove= ry on the merits of the "in concert" allegations. I will be drafting a pro= posed motion to transfer venue for at least Enron Corp., and will circulate= it among the defendants for them to use as a guide. I may also draft a mo= tion to sever (one is arguably necessary for a motion to transfer venue to = be effective in a case like this), although it too would be bare-bones. On= e of the three required grounds for a motion to sever is that the severed a= nd the remaining causes must not be so intertwined as to involve the same f= acts and issues. Accordingly, I see pursuing a motion to sever on behalf o= f Enron Corp. to be highly problematic as well. =20 =093. All agreed to join in a motion to require Grynberg to show authorit= y. I have previously e-mailed you a draft prepared by F&J. We see no down= side to filing it and considerable upside, such as using it at least to blo= ck discovery by Grynberg until it is resolved. Please let me know if I hav= e your authority to sign the motion. It will be filed no earlier than Dece= mber 6, and expressly subject to earlier-filed motions to transfer venue. =094. I will be working on a plea to the jurisdiction, answer, and affirma= tive defenses to file on behalf of Enron Corp and Intratex, subject to any = motion to transfer venue, and will circulate them to you for your review an= d approval. During the conference call, I raised the issue of adding a spe= cial exception to the effect that the petition fails to state a claim, whic= h is the proper procedural vehicle for what is essentially a Rule 12(b)(6) = motion under the Texas Rules. One attorney expressed concern that filing a= special exception could be viewed as somehow prejudicing a motion to trans= fer venue. As you can clearly raise a special exception later, we decided = not to include a special exception in the pleadings we were filing on Decem= ber 5. We can always file it later. =095. On Friday, November 30, at 1:30 p.m ., there will be another joint = defense conference call. The discussion will be centered around whether La= zaro was able to find any retainer agreement between the Zapata County Inde= pendent School District and RSM (we only have a contract between Zapata Cou= nty and RSM). If Lazaro is unable to find a properly-filed contract, that = may in itself be a breach of the Texas Open Meetings Act, and an additional= ground for our motion to challenge authority. =09I will keep you advised. =09Britt =09

What is the subject of this email?
RSM v. El Paso