Re: Status Conference before Judge Downes

What a mess. Keeping discovery at bay should, obviously, continue to be a
very high priority for us. Let me know if these strange events signal an
increased likelihood that Gynberg will be able to pursue discovery. Thanks.
df

STACI
HOLTZMAN
12/11/2000 09:06 AM

To: Michael Moran/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Dorothy McCoppin/FGT/Enron@Enron, Drew
Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Status Conference before Judge Downes

FYI. (I have not yet had an opportunity to talk to Charlie about any of
this.)
---------------------- Forwarded by Staci Holtzman/FGT/Enron on 12/11/2000
09:07 AM ---------------------------

"Tetrault, Charles D." <ctetrault@velaw.com< on 12/07/2000 04:31:10 PM
To: "Richard B. Sanders (E-mail)" <Richard.B.Sanders@enron.com<, "Staci
Holtzman (E-mail)" <sholtzm@enron.com<
cc: "Barrett H. Reasoner (E-mail)" <breasoner@Gibbs-Bruns.com<

Subject: Status Conference before Judge Downes

There was a lengthy status conference this afternoon, lasting about an hour
and a quarter. It was marred by extremely poor telephone connections. The
technical difficulties frustrated the parties and the judge and made the
conference a mess.

Without trying to summarize the conference, I note a few things that the
Court decided to do based on the discussions.

1. Quinque. Judge Downes agreed to have oral argument on the motion to
remand in Quinque on January 3, 2001 at 1:15 p.m. in Casper. One hour was
set aside for argument. He declined Mike Beatty's suggestion of an
additional executive summary of the briefing. The judge was the first one
to suggest the oral argument. The plaintiffs suggested that the Court rule
on the papers, but quickly acquiesced to the Court's suggestion when the
defendants said that they wanted argument.

2. Osterhoudt. Osterhoudt appeared pro se. Motion to disqualify
Wright's counsel (Phillips & Cohen) and estopping Mr. Wright on some claims.
Both Osterhoudt and Wright want oral argument. Wright defendants and DOJ
didn't object. Osterhoudt was appearing pro se, and so there was a long
rambling discussion of the matter. The judge was reluctant to cut off a pro
se party, but ultimately did. Regrettably, the rambling discussion set the
tone for the rest of the call.

3. Osterhoudt. Government's motion to dismiss Ousterhoudt's case.
Government wants its motion to dismiss Grynberg's valuation claims to be
heard at the same time. The government claims these relator status issues
are holding up the Shell $56 million settlement and any future settlements.
Grynberg objected to having the motion in Grynberg heard at the same time.
Grynberg wants discovery from Wright and the government.

4. Pending Motions. The Court, of out frustration at the inability to
hear the parties and at the attempts by some to argue the merits of things
that the Court was not prepared to address, set down two hours for oral
argument on February 22, 2001, at 10:00 a.m. on all pending motions in
Wright and Grynberg that address the jurisdictional issues discussed on the
call and the motions to dismiss. This obviously will create some problems.
It was far from clear precisely which motions that the Court had in mind.
While there are not that many motions pending, some of the pending
government motions likely could affect public disclosure / original source
motions that the defendants could, but have not yet, filed. The defendants
have not filed those motions yet because of a desire to first test the
complaints on Rule 9(b) grounds.

5. Discovery. Parties who want discovery on those issues (Grynberg and
probably the Wright defendants) were given one day to present their position
by letter to the Court. Other parties then will have two days to respond.

6. Liaison Counsel. The Court designated Tom Nicholas as Liaison
Counsel for the defendants in the Wright case and Don Schultz as Liaison
Counsel for the defendants in the Quinque case.

7. February 22 hearing. Phil Figa, one of Grynberg's lawyers, was given
the task of leading the consultation among counsel concerning how the
pending motions should be addressed at the hearing and how the time should
be divided.

Charles D. Tetrault
Vinson & Elkins L.L.P.
1455 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004-1008
ctetrault@velaw.com
202.639.6551 [voice]
202.639.6604 [fax]

++++++CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE+++++
The information in this email may be confidential and/or privileged. This
email is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or organization
named above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized
representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
review, dissemination or copying of this email and its attachments, if any,
or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received
this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email
and delete this email from your system. Thank You