Declaration Of Helen J. Hodges In Support Of Lead Counsel's ...

179. Lead Plaintiff’s and Lead Counsel’s efforts to meet and confer with defendants were
not always successful. On May 24, 2004, officer defendants Pai, Frevert, Kean and Mark-Jusbasche
moved for an order compelling Lead Plaintiff to answer interrogatories concerning the identities of
alleged speakers and statements contained in the complaint. A similar motion to compel was filed
by CSFB shortly thereafter.
180. Lead Plaintiff opposed defendants’ motion, primarily because defendants had been
provided a list of witnesses from whom the allegations were generated. Lead Plaintiff further argued
several sources were confidential whistleblowers protected from disclosure due to privilege. On
September 30, 2005, the Court granted defendants’ motion to compel, ruling the identity of
witnesses was not protected work product. The Court further held defendants were entitled to the
identity of the alleged speakers. Lead Plaintiff was ordered to supplement its interrogatory responses
within 20 days. Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel promptly complied with the Court’s order.
e. Lead Counsel Defends Numerous Class Certification
Depositions
181. As previously discussed, on August 13, 2002 Lead Counsel successfully moved for a
protective order curtailing an excessive number of plaintiff depositions. At the same time Lead
Plaintiff and Lead Counsel moved for a protective order, Lead Plaintiff also committed to providing
defendants with a large number of deponents, including a person most knowledgeable on behalf of
each institutional plaintiff, and depositions from individual named plaintiffs and class
representatives, thereby agreeing to scores of plaintiff depositions.
182. Lead Counsel assisted witnesses in preparing for their depositions and defended the
depositions. Starting in August 2003 and continuing through September 2003, 23 institutional and
class representative depositions were taken by defendants. Twenty-one of the depositions were
defended by Lead Counsel in states across the country. The plaintiff deponents responded to
detailed questions concerning the Enron fraud, Enron’s complex facts, investment in Enron
- 104 -