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

121. On May 7, 2003, the Outside Directors moved for a protective order (Docket No.
1374). The Outside Directors argued their personal financial information was private, privileged,
irrelevant and not discoverable. The Outside Directors further argued disclosing some of the
personal information, such as phone numbers, individual account information and personally
identifying information, would endanger the personal safety of Enron executives, some of whom
purportedly had been threatened via email. The Outside Directors’ motion was joined by several
other Enron executives on May 15, 2003, and on May 27, 2003 (Docket Nos. 1390, 1426-1433,
1435).
122. On May 27, 2003, Lead Counsel opposed the Board’s and executives’ motion for
protective order (Docket No. 1434). Lead Counsel proffered evidence demonstrating Enron’s Board
and high-level executives were tainted by financial conflicts and insider trading. Lead Counsel
submitted evidence from investigators and congressional hearings highlighting the conflicts, and the
resultant need for the discovery. Lead Counsel persuasively argued the discovery protections
already in place would protect defendants from improper disclosure of their personal information,
and Lead Counsel reiterated its agreement to treat defendants’ information in accord with the Court’s
standing orders governing confidentiality. Finally, Lead Counsel showed by category why the
requested information should be produced, and even showed some of the information was already in
the public domain, contrary to the representations in defendants’ protective order motion.
123. Lead Counsel’s discovery efforts were successful. Lead Counsel already had an
initial discovery victory on March 27, 2003, when the Court ordered that Enron’s personnel files be
produced to the document depository. The Court reasoned the information was relevant and held the
Court’s general procedures for the safeguarding of confidential information, coupled with the
procedures governing the Enron document depository, were sufficient protection. The Court further
- 71 -