Privileged and Confidential Joint Defense Communication
?
From:? Don Schultz
To:????? Grynberg JDT
Re:??????Grynberg's Motion for Scheduling  Conference
?????????? I propose a  short Reply to Grynberg's request for a scheduling 
conference.?  Proposed?rough text is set out below for discussion purposes.?? 
I  will?seek your views on this in this afternoon's conference call.
????????????"  The Coordinated Defendants agree that a scheduling conference 
would assist the  Court.?? They reply to?specific?concerns raised  
by?Relator's Motion."
??????????? 1.?  Relator asserts that Rule 26 self-executing 
discovery?obligations were  triggered by issuance of?the Court's?Order 
Denying Motions to Dismiss.  ?Motion,?__.?? To the contrary, by operation of 
the Court's  November 16, 1999 Practice and Procedure Order (paragraph 13) 
and January 13,  2000 Order on First Pretrial Conference (paragraph 11), 
discovery remains stayed  and all obligations under Rules 26 through 37 
remain tolled, pending a  separate?order of the Court to establish a 
discovery  schedule.??
?????????2.???Similarly,  deadlines for filing answers or other responsive 
pleadings were stayed in all  cases by?this Court's October 18, 2000 order.??
?????????3.???After  the Order Denying Motions to Dismiss was posted, Mr. 
Beatty contacted Mr. Figa  at the request of the Coordinated Defendants and 
advised Mr. Figa of defendants'  belief that under the Court's prior orders, 
there are no deadlines currently  running?on discovery obligations or to file 
answers or  motions.??Mr. Figa then expressed agreement and indicated that a  
scheduling conference would be needed to set such deadlines.?? 
???????? 4.? The Coordinated  Defendants agree with Relator that a scheduling 
conference is appropriate.?  They believe such a conference should occur 
after the Court has  issued?orders anticipated on motions argued in the 
later-transferred  actions, and, particularly the United States' motions to 
dismiss allegations or  proceedings in the Grynberg, Perry, Dutton and 
Ousterhoudt actions.? The  Court indicated its desire to issue?such orders, 
or announce rulings on  those motions, by?about June 27, 2001.? ?Coordinated 
Defendants  respectfully request that an overall scheduling conference be set 
for a date  which allows for the parties several days to study?the 
anticipated orders  once they are issued,?to determine the results and 
effects?on case  management and planning, and?to make their respective 
scheduling proposals  to the Court."