|
|
Enron Mail |
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: msmith1@enron.com [mailto:msmith1@enron.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 2:19 PM To: MDay@GMSSR.com Cc: gfergus@brobeck.com; Richard.B.Sanders@enron.com 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 <MDay@GMSSR.com< on 10/05/2000 03:21:47 PM To: "'msmith1@enron.com'" <msmith1@enron.com<, "'Gary Fergus, Brobeck'" <gfergus@brobeck.com<, "'Richard.B.Sanders@enron.com'" <Richard.B.Sanders@enron.com< 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: msmith1@enron.com [mailto:msmith1@enron.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 12:58 PM To: MDay@GMSSR.com Cc: MDay@GMSSR.com 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 <MDay@GMSSR.com< on 10/05/2000 10:55:44 AM To: "'Mike D Smith'" <msmith1@enron.com<, MBD <MDay@GMSSR.com<, Richard B Sanders <Richard_B_Sanders@enron.com<, Mary Hain <Mary_Hain@enron.com< cc: James E Keller <jkeller@enron.com<, "'gfergus@brobeck.com'" <gfergus@brobeck.com< 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:msmith1@enron.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 8:24 AM To: mday@gmssr.com; 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)
|