|
|
Enron Mail |
CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY/ATTORNEY AND ATTORNEY/CLIENT
COMMUNICATION 1. First, I have set up a meeting with Tom Shelton for this Friday, 3/31, at 1:45 p.m. here at B&P, 29th floor. I will see Knox and Neal here then. 2. To reiterate what Knox told me, today Ronnie (speaking generally about the Beeson case, but not yet aware that Knox is involved) told Knox at a social luncheon that he does not plan to move for rehearing, but plans to go back to the trial court and seek a Dow Waiver class. Thus, we are on a short time frame to prepare, since Ronnie will undoubtedly do that fairly soon and seek a quick hearing. In that regard, we need to, in short order: (i) decide whether we want to approach Dow now -- -- and then figure out the best approach -- about releasing Don Ray from any constraints about testifying about the first purchaser issue. The best way to do this may be through Don Ray; he has offered to try. Having DRG testify about the first purchaser issue is not essential at the certification stage, but could be helpful, particularly on cross. There IS a potential downside to exploring this issue prior to certification, however, which is that it will entail dealing with the Glidden firm. I will discuss the downside more in person. (ii) interview not only Shelton, but Hazzlerigg (in Austin), Walzel, and Gerald Bennett. 3. I have already been doing quite a bit of work for a recertification hearing. On Friday, I will have a full to do list for all of us to add to/discuss/divide up, after we've met with Shelton. 4. Upon recently rereading HECI v. Neel, I don't understand how this claim can survive limitations. In that case, royalty owners sued the lessee for failing to notify them of overproduction from other wells in their reservoir that damaged their interests. The Supreme Court held that because RRC records would have shown the overproduction, the claim was not inherently undiscoverable, and thus the discovery rule could not toll limitations. This seems pretty closely on point. We don't have the facts to support fraudulent concealment here. Knox has suggested we may want to move for summary judgment on limitations as soon as the case is returned to the trial court, both to educate Link and to educate Ronnie, who was full of bravado about his case at lunch. 5. Knox suggested at lunch that we might have a certification "expert" on Rule 42, how criteria aren't met here, etc. Neither of us wants to use Jack Ratliff for that purpose, for multiple reasons. Does anyone have any other ideas? Talk to you soon!
|