Bob: California law would permits a party to litigation to make a
motion asking the court to shift the cost of restoring the tapes, if unduly
burdensome, to a party requesting the information.  Greyhound Corporation v.
Superior Court (1961), 56 Cal.2d 355, 379.  In Greyhound, the California
Supreme Court held, where a valid objection "to disclosure is that it
entails an undue burden on the other party, the trial court should give
consideration to various alternatives provided in the statute.  Requiring
such party to pay the costs of disclosure is not the only such method."  The
balancing factors suggested by the Greyhound court include the purpose of
the information sought, the effect that disclosure would have on the parties
and the trial, the nature of the objections urged, the hardship of
production, the relative ability of the parties to retrieve the information
sought, and the court's authority to make another order using another form
of disclosure or denying the requests completely.
	Despite this case, I suspect we will have a difficult convincing a
California Superior Court that the state's AG should pay Enron's cost of
editing information from its backup tapes, especially if the AG can concoct
an argument that he needs them because Enron has not followed some document
retention policy or protocol.


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert.C.Williams@enron.com [mailto:Robert.C.Williams@enron.com]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 7:47 PM
To: MMolland@brobeck.com; Richard.B.Sanders@enron.com;
sbishop@gibbs-bruns.com; mlk@pkns.com; mtuohey@velaw.com
Cc: GFergus@brobeck.com; ADSmith@brobeck.com; PMeringolo@brobeck.com;
Jan.Cooley@enron.com
Subject: RE: Status report regarding subpenas


Michael, call me on Monday.  I want to contact any Enron employees before
they get a call.  With respect to Enron Wind, I need to determine if we
still have a majority shareholder in that company.  Jan can get you a list
of Enron lawyers.  Looks like we are heading for a standoff with the AG.
On the directive, Andy has submitted our draft memo to Mark Haedicke for
his approval.  Please have someone research whether we would have to pay
the cost of restoring the tapes to usable form for the AG.  Thanks.

    -----Original Message-----
   From:   "Molland, Michael E." <MMolland@brobeck.com>@ENRON

[mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Molland+2C+20Michael+20E+2E+22+20+3CMMolland+40brobeck
+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]


   Sent:   Friday, June 29, 2001 9:22 PM
   To:     Williams, Robert C.; Sanders, Richard B.;
             'sbishop@gibbs-bruns.com'; 'mlk@pkns.com'; 'mtuohey@velaw.com'
   Cc:     Fergus, Gary S.; Smith, Amanda D.; Meringolo, Peter
   Subject:  Status report regarding subpenas

   This summarizes the status of our work in response to the subpoenas
   served
   on Enron Corp by Dunn's committee and on EES by the AG.

      Today's meeting with Dave Parquet: Amanda Smith and I met with Dave
   Parquet at the Enron Corp offices in San Francisco late this afternoon
   and
   then talked with him this evening. He generally described the documents
   in
   the office. He describes most as confidential or proprietary. He will
   assemble the team leaders in the office and meet with Amanda and me and
   two
   other associates Monday morning. We should be able to complete a
   snapshot of
   the documents in the office by mid Tuesday. Our discussions raised the
   following issues:

      . Dave said Enron has a small generating subsidiary located near
   Palm Springs, Enron Wind Energy. It generates and sells power to
   utilities.
   The Enron subpoena asks for generation data. We will contact them Monday
   by
   phone.

      .EES has a small office in Long Beach. Amanda will talk to their
   employees Monday.

      . A Master Limited Partnership, EOTT Energy, also has an office in
   Long Beach. They may be a subsidiary of Enron Corp. Please let us know
   if we
   should contact him.

      . Many documents in San Francisco are covered by confidentiality
   agreements with Enron's clients. Dave said the confidentiality of these
   documents are not clear on their face and we should involve an Enron
   attorney in Portland -he suggested Karen Jones- to work on this issue
   with
   us.


      Document Retention: David said he is concerned that there is no
   clear corporate guideline for e-mail retention in his office. We should
   send
   him and the directors in that office (as well as all EES directors)  a
   clear
   directive as soon as possible. For the time being he is following oral
   instructions not to delete e-mail or other documents. Earlier, Amanda
   talked
   the EES IT manager, who said that it is not possible to automatically
   save
   e-mail from most EES personnel in California (those who are on the
   legacy
   e-mail system). Until we solve this problem I suggest we retain the
   daily
   back-up tapes made  for the legacy system (just as we are doing for our
   Portland office).

      Telephone call with AG's office  regarding the EES subpoena: This
   afternoon I talked to Hirem Pattel, a deputy AG who is temporarily in
   charge
   of the EES investigation. I told him we would produce some documents
   without
   waiving our objections, but needed to discuss any production with him
   beforehand. I repeated Bob's offer to meet next Friday. He said they
   would
   not meet with us until we again responded to the subpoena and said in
   writing we would produce documents. I told him we had no obligation to
   do
   that and wanted to meet with them first. He then said he would have his
   supervisor call me early next week.

      Directives to California officers: All the EES and Enron people we
   have talked with in the past two weeks have been cooperative. Given the
   time
   crunch, however, it would be helpful if an Enron lawyer could contact
   California officers and ask them to make special efforts to help us with
   the
   document review. The people to contact are Messrs. Reilly,
   Parquet;McDonald,
   Mara,Wright, van Ulden, and the head of the Enron Wind Energy Office.

      Review of EES documents at San Ramon: Amanda Smith spent the morning
   today there and gathered documents underlying the UC litigation. Lockyer
   knows this litigation and will probably use our positions in it to gauge
   our
   compliance with any production agreement. We will complete an assessment
   of
   these documents early next week.  We also found and took custody of the
   backup tape made in San Ramon May 25. Apparently no similar tape exists
   for
   Costa Mesa. We will identify and obtain earliest back-up tape that
   exists at
   that office.

      As we review documents for privilege we should know the identity of
   all Enron lawyers. Bob, could someone in your office act as a contact
   person
   to supply us with this and similar information?











   =======================================================
   This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
   may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
   review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
   the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and
   destroy all copies of the original message.

   To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to
   postmaster@brobeck.com
   BROBECK PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
   http://www.brobeck.com





=======================================================
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to postmaster@brobeck.com
BROBECK PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
http://www.brobeck.com