|
|
Enron Mail |
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Drew Fossum X-To: Britt Davis, Michael Moran X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Drew_Fossum_Dec2000_June2001_2\Notes Folders\All documents X-Origin: FOSSUM-D X-FileName: dfossum.nsf Have we been subpoenaed? If not, can we ignore this problem? DF Michael Moran 01/24/2001 11:58 AM To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: New Matter/KN Transcolorado, Inc. v. Questar Corporation, et al/Third-party subpoenas FYI ---------------------- Forwarded by Michael Moran/GPGFIN/Enron on 01/24/2001 11:59 AM --------------------------- From: Britt Davis on 01/24/2001 08:33 AM To: Michael Moran/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Andrew Edison/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Becky Zikes/Corp/Enron@ENRON Subject: New Matter/KN Transcolorado, Inc. v. Questar Corporation, et al/Third-party subpoenas Mike and Andy, Andy, I tried to send this message to Richard as well, but the computer directory is fouled up and won't let me do it. I hope sending it to you is sufficient, but if not, let me know. I received a call from Mike Noone of Mike Beatty & Associates about the above-referenced lawsuit, which is filed in state court in Garfield County, Colorado. For Andy's reference, Beatty & Associates is representing the Enron entities and a number of other defendants in the Grynberg MDL case. This case is not a gas measurement case, which is the gist of the Grynberg action. Noone's firm represents the plaintiff; I did not ask who represents the defendants, all of whom are Questar entities. The lawsuit arises out of a partnerhip agreement to build the Transcolorado Pipeline. The Transcolorado Pipeline takes gas from Colorado producers at its northern end to an interconnect (or interconnects) at its southern end to either El Paso or TW, who deliver the gas to California markets. After it was built, Questar allegedly began building a competing pipeline, called the Main Line 104 Project (the designation used in the FERC filings), which will connect Questar's gathering system at the northern end of the pipeline to the Kern River Pipeline. Kern River will apparently ultimately deliver the gas to California markets. KN contends that the Main Line 104 Project will take gas from exactly the same basins as the Transcolorado Pipeline (the Picence and Ulenta Basins, if I have that spelled correctly) and is in direct competition. I did not ask Mike what relief KN is requesting. KN is interested in documentation from TW and ENA that discusses what their competitive options are in getting gas from the area served by the Transcolorado Pipeline to California markets. It appears that KN is hoping to see some discussion of the Main Line 104 Project as an alternative to the Transcolorado Pipeline. It strikes me that such information may be highly sensitive. I asked Mike why he thought ENA would have any such information, and Mike said that he thought ENA might own or have an interest in some producing properties in the relevant area. I told Mike that that would be a surprise to me, and that EOG, which is the Enron entity that typically owns such interests, was spun off last year. Mike said he would take another look to see why they thought ENA would have such information. The trial date is one year out, and this is apparently the first round of discovery. Mike would not be surprised if we got a call from Questar's attorneys, requesting the same information. Noone faxed to me the proposed subpoenas, with the understanding that I was not authorized to accept service for them. I will send copies to each of you. Let me know if you would like the Unit to handle or assist in the handling of this. Britt
|