|
|
Enron Mail |
Privileged and Confidential Joint Defense Communication
? From:? Don Schultz To:????? Grynberg JDT Re:??????Grynberg's Motion for Scheduling Conference ?????????? I propose a short Reply to Grynberg's request for a scheduling conference.? Proposed?rough text is set out below for discussion purposes.?? I will?seek your views on this in this afternoon's conference call. ????????????" The Coordinated Defendants agree that a scheduling conference would assist the Court.?? They reply to?specific?concerns raised by?Relator's Motion." ??????????? 1.? Relator asserts that Rule 26 self-executing discovery?obligations were triggered by issuance of?the Court's?Order Denying Motions to Dismiss. ?Motion,?__.?? To the contrary, by operation of the Court's November 16, 1999 Practice and Procedure Order (paragraph 13) and January 13, 2000 Order on First Pretrial Conference (paragraph 11), discovery remains stayed and all obligations under Rules 26 through 37 remain tolled, pending a separate?order of the Court to establish a discovery schedule.?? ?????????2.???Similarly, deadlines for filing answers or other responsive pleadings were stayed in all cases by?this Court's October 18, 2000 order.?? ?????????3.???After the Order Denying Motions to Dismiss was posted, Mr. Beatty contacted Mr. Figa at the request of the Coordinated Defendants and advised Mr. Figa of defendants' belief that under the Court's prior orders, there are no deadlines currently running?on discovery obligations or to file answers or motions.??Mr. Figa then expressed agreement and indicated that a scheduling conference would be needed to set such deadlines.?? ???????? 4.? The Coordinated Defendants agree with Relator that a scheduling conference is appropriate.? They believe such a conference should occur after the Court has issued?orders anticipated on motions argued in the later-transferred actions, and, particularly the United States' motions to dismiss allegations or proceedings in the Grynberg, Perry, Dutton and Ousterhoudt actions.? The Court indicated its desire to issue?such orders, or announce rulings on those motions, by?about June 27, 2001.? ?Coordinated Defendants respectfully request that an overall scheduling conference be set for a date which allows for the parties several days to study?the anticipated orders once they are issued,?to determine the results and effects?on case management and planning, and?to make their respective scheduling proposals to the Court."
|