Message-ID: <21110497.1075858689531.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: richard.sanders@enron.com
To: bonnie.white@enron.com
Subject: Re: Roger Atkinson v. Cogen, et al.; Roger Atkinson v. JEDI Linden
 and NEPCO.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-From: Richard B Sanders
X-To: Bonnie White <Bonnie White/ENRON@enronXgate@ENRON>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Sanders, Richard B (Non-Privileged)\Sanders, Richard B.\Sent Items
X-Origin: Sanders-R
X-FileName: Sanders, Richard B (Non-Privileged).pst

Disregard my previous messageabout this case. Thanks for your assistance in=
 this matter.




=09Bonnie White/ENRON@enronXgate 06/07/2001 12:19 PM =09   To: Rob Cole/ENR=
ON@enronXgate, Robert Vote/ENRON@enronXgate  cc: Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@=
ECT  Subject: Roger Atkinson v. Cogen, et al.; Roger Atkinson v. JEDI Linde=
n and NEPCO.=09


This morning I received a copy of service of process that was served on Cog=
en Technologies Linden Venture in the Roger Atkinson matter.  Cogen Technol=
ogies Linden Venture had previously been served with a summons and complain=
t in the Atkinson matter in mid April.  I forwarded the matter to El Paso E=
nergy Company, who had purchased ENA's interest in the Cogen companies effe=
ctive late February 2001.  El Paso retained Ed Fanning of McCarter & Englis=
h to represent Cogen's interests.  We have worked with Ed in other Cogen ma=
tters before, and I have found him to be both effective and efficient.  Thi=
s matter relates to personal injuries allegedly suffered by Atkinson while =
working at a construction site at the Linden facility in December 2000.  Da=
vid Waterson of El Paso recently called me concerning potential defense and=
 indemnity obligations that El Paso believes NEPCO may owe Cogen with respe=
ct to this incident.  We will need to review NEPCO's contract with Cogen to=
 determine if any such obligations exist.

The document that I received today is a Notice of Motion to Consolidate and=
 to Compel Inspection.  This motion seeks to consolidate the Atkinson v. Co=
gen case with a case that was apparently also filed in New Jersey state cou=
rt as Roger Atkinson v. JEDI Linden and NEPCO and to compel an inspection o=
f the construction site where the accident allegedly occurred.  I have aske=
d Becky Stephens whether we have received service of process on either JEDI=
 Linden or NEPCO.  To date, we have not.  However, I expect that service of=
 process is in the works, and I have asked Becky to be on the look out for =
it.  As this new suit also apparently concerns personal injury claims, I am=
 forwarding a copy to both Rob and Bob, so that you can begin to process an=
d investigate the claim in your usual manner.=20

Please let me know if there is any other information you need in order to b=
egin our review for potential defense/indemnity to Cogen.  Thanks. =20

Bonnie J. White
Enron Litigation Unit
1400 Smith Street, Suite 4824
Houston, TX  77002
Ph:  713-853-7244
Fax: 713-853-6576
bonnie.white@enron.com

