Free Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01282-JJF Document 108-8 Filed O4/07/2006 Page 1 014
Tab G

Case 1:04-cv-01.282-JJF Document 108-8 Filed 04/07/2006 Page 2 of 4
LAW OFFICES
WILLIAMS 8 CONNOLLY LLP
725 TWELFTH STREET, N.W.
EDWARD BIENNETT WILLIAMS (19204988)
DANIEL D. WILLIAMS PAUL 11. c0w~n~1<;>u.Y oe22-ne7e>
(202) 434-52e3 (202) 434-5000
[email protected] FAX (202) 434_5O29
February 15, 2006
VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
James E. Edwards, Jr., Esquire
Ober, Kaler, Grimes & Shriver
120 East Baltimore Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202-1643
Re: AES Puerto Rico, L.P. v. ALSTOM Power, Ing,
Dear J im:
This letter follows up on various issues we discussed during our
teleconference last Friday.
First, you requested more detailed information concerning the backup
tapes that may contain AES—PR e-mail from the old “First Class" e-mail system that
was replaced in early 2002. I was able to learn the following information from The
AES Corporation. The back-up tapes of First Class e-mail to which I referred were
created for The AES Corporation by an outside vendor in September 2001.
Because the tapes contain e-mail from the obsolete “First Class” e-mail system, it is
both time consuming and exceptionally expensive to restore the information on
them and process them for production. Specifically, it would take one to two
months just to load the tapes onto a computer server that could process them, at a
cost of approximately $5,000 to $10,000. Only after that work is complete could we
determine what the date ranges are of the e—mails on the tapes and ibr which users
the tapes contain data. It would then take several days to a week per individual
user to convert the e-mail boxes into a usable format, thus restoring several e-mail
boxes would take several weeks. The cost for doing so for even half—a—dozen users is
expected to be in the range of $75,000 to $200,000.

Case 1:04-cv-01282-JJF Document 108-8 Filed O4/07/2006 Page 3 of 4
WILLIAMS 8 CONNOLLY LLP _
James E. Edwards, Jr., Esquire
February 15, 2006
Page 2
As you know, in its April 27, 2005 response to ALSTOlVl’s first set of
requests for production, AES-PR objected to the production of documents pre-dating
November 28, 2002. Because the back-up tapes were created in 2001, it is highly
improbable that they would contain anything of significance to this litigation.
Moreover, as explained above, given the difficulties in restoring the data from these
back—up tapes, the information could not be produced until well after the fact-
discovery cut-off, well after the deadline to file dispositive motions in the case, and
quite possibly could not be made available until after trial.
Second, your letter to me of Friday afternoon states inc·orrectly that
Mr. McParland "apparently reported to” me that he “will be coming to the United
States in March 2006.” As I explained in our teleconference, Mr. McFarland, a
former AES-PR employee, indicated to me that he might be in the United States at
some point in March. I have now left Mr. McParland two messages asking for
clarification with respect to his plans but have not heard back. I will let you know if
he responds to me.
Third, this will confirm that we have agreed to the following deposition
dates for ALSTOM witnesses: Mr. Coleman on February 23 in Windsor and
William Jarvis on March 2 in Windsor. In light of your request to take two
depositions in Puerto Rico during the first full week of March, we request that Mr.
Maidenford’s deposition proceed in the Cincinnati area on March 6. We have
noticed a 30(b)(6) deposition on the FBHE handcuffs for February 24 and you have
not yet determined whether that date poses any conflict. As for the depositions
ALSTOM will be taking, we can now confirm that Mr. Tomlin can be available for a
deposition in Pittsburgh on February 28 and Mr. Dyer can be available for a
deposition in Guayama, Puerto Rico on March 10.
Fourth, you requested to continue the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
concerning document collection issues with an employee of The AES Corporation in
Arlington, Virginia concerning “the shared servers maintained in Indianapolis and
then in Arlington" and "the process of identifying, retrieving, and copying electronic
mail for production to ALSTOM, including the cost to do so." While we disagree
that Mr. Hernandez did not testify about these issues, and while we seriously doubt
the utility of such a deposition, The AES Corporation has agreed to make a witness
available for this purpose as it relates to AES-PR documents. We can produce him
for a deposition at my office. The witness, of course, will not testify about the
review and processing of data by Williams & Connolly LLP, including but not

Case 1:04-cv-01282-JJF Document 108-8 Filed 'O4/07/2006 Page 4 of 4
WILLIAMS 8 CONNOLLY LLP
James E. Edwards, Jr., Esquire
February 15, 2006
Page 3
limited to the conversion of data to a Concordance format for review and production
to ALSTOM.
Fifth, later this week I will provide you with additional information
concerning the list of employees and others performing specified job functions.
Shortly we will provide you with a privilege log for Mr. Toher’s documents that
predate the date of his retention as a litigation consultant, as well as our analysis of
how to handle the Rothe, Gabrielli, and Hognefelt documents that were among the
over 36,000 documents ALSTOM produced over a month late. We are still waiting
for the following from ALSTOM: (1) the stipulation you promised weeks ago
concerning the document Mr. Vittoria produced the day after Mr. Gabrielli’s
deposition, (2) the electronic documents for Mr. Bulewich, Mr. Campbell, and Mr.
Francis that you agreed to produce in a letter to me dated January 17, 2006; (3)
confirmation as to whether ALSTOM is able or unable to locate its commissioning
log(s) for September through November 2002, and (4) confirmation as to whether
ALSTCM can locate Mr. Maidenford’s Daily Commissioning Reports for the missing
dates that we identified.
Sincerely, R 4./
//’“ />
A » ·— /7. r'/I f/_
/’//i
Daniel D. Williams