|
|
Enron Mail |
-----Original Message----- From: =09"Michael Kirby" <mlk@pkns.com<@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Michael= +20Kirby+22+20+3Cmlk+40pkns+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]=20 Sent:=09Saturday, August 25, 2001 7:33 PM To:=09Sanders, Richard B.; Williams, Robert C. Cc:=09sbishop@gibbs-bruns.com Subject:=09AG v. Enron I have revised and am emailing to you and Robin a copy of the revised Molla= nd Declaration that I have sent back to Michael this afternoon wherein he e= xplains what happened yesterday regarding the tentative ruling and asks for= oral argument. When I spoke to Michael late this afternoon about the decla= ration I learned some additional information which is contrary to one of ou= r assumptions, and suggests it will be harder to expect the court to go for= ward with argument on Monday. Through this afternoon(when I had discussed t= his separately with Richard and Robin today), we have been operating on the= assumption that only telephonic notice to opposing counsel of the intent t= o argue was required to have oral argument in SFO court and that notice to = the court itself was not required. If so, the court would have this one on = its Monday calendar. I asked Michael again how the Court would know what ma= tters would actually be on the oral argument calendar and was told today th= at the telephonic instructions from the court which accompany the tentative= ruling tell you before listening to the recorded ruling that apparently Y= OU HAVE TO PUSH A CERTAIN TELEPHONE NUMBER BUTTON AT THE END OF THE ORAL RU= LING IF THE MATTER IS TO REMAIN ON CALENDAR FOR ORAL ARGUMENT. That was not= done by the person who first called and listened to the ruling for Michael= . When someone called back and attempted to do so the response was "invalid= " or something to that effect. Presumably that was because it was sometime = after the 4:30 deadline. This would suggest that we are not even on the cal= endar (without a request for oral argument)as we had hoped. I still will be= there to argue, or at least argue for a hearing date. I wanted Bob to know= of this new info in case it affects his decision on coming out here. Call = me on my cell 619-985-9792 any time if anyone has questions. I will be emai= ling the draft replies for Sacramento tomorrow. The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying docum= ents is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work p= roduct rule and is confidential business information intended only for the = use of the individual or entity named above. The information herein may al= so be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?? = 2510-2521. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or = representative of the recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemina= tion of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received th= is communication in error, please notify the Systems Administrator at admin= @pkns.com and immediately delete this message from your system.
|