Randy / Richard:
Here is the text of the letter I forwarded in WordPerfect yesterday. Since
Randy couldn't open it, I assume Richard could not either.
Thank you for your letter of December 6, 2000. As previously indicated, we
are very willing to work with you to schedule our mutual discovery efforts
efficiently and with a minimum of disruption to everyone's schedules.
Unfortunately, we are unable to conduct a deposition during either of the
weeks you propose. I would suggest that we attempt to schedule the
deposition you seek after the holidays. I have a two or three-day trial
setting on the two-week docket beginning January 8, 2001. However, I will be
happy to schedule a deposition around that conflict.
With respect to the lengthy "Outline of Documents Requested and Relevant
Witnesses," please let me know whether you intend that list as a formal
request for production under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196. Of course,
we reserve our rights under the applicable discovery rules to raise any and
all appropriate objections to the documents requested and to the topics
listed on your "preliminary witness list."
I have also received a copy of your e-mail to Steve Hamilton dated December
6, 2000, at 12:46 a.m., rejecting Ecogas's offer of settlement. As the
majority of the comments in your e-mail are not relevant to the claims in
your lawsuit, I will not respond to the statements made there except to say
that Ecogas does not agree with those statements or your characterization of
I previously had indicated no objection to your communicating with Steve
Hamilton directly, as we felt it would facilitate settlement efforts. In
light of your rejection of Ecogas's offer, I would ask that you direct all
future communications on this matter to me rather than to my client.
Very truly yours,
Bracewell & Patterson, L.L.P.
Douglas A. Daniels
<<< <Randal.Maffett@enron.com< 12/07/00 08:39AM <<<
Can't open the file.