| OCR Text |
Show Mr. Curtis Oberhansly February 5, 1974 Page 3 Itrs impact we wish to emphasize here and then tie it in with the fact that by building Currant Creek, regardless of Secretarial review, etc., you have got to keep building right on through the Ute Indian Unit, and thus your impact statement has to cover everything. While these deponents will presumably be available as witnesses, we better be sure to lay good groundwork of personal knowledge, or business record, reporting to deponents by others in their employ or associated officially with them, etc. Trial could be a ways off, these people could be transferred or go to work for someone else outside the state, or pressure could even be brought on them to make them see the error of their ways. In addition, this given us a good idea of each deponent's value as a witness. And, we can be sure that at trial our opponents will want all i's dotted and t's crossed when it comes to presenting our evidence. Obviously, if deponents don't have personal knowledge and really don't know, say for information gathered from rank hearsay, etc., we can get names and find out who does know, or we can resort to interrogatories, etc. No doubt practically all the above has occurred to you, but I always like to get these things down on paper to refresh my recollection at a later date, to make sure that we are on the same track, and for use in briefing, argument, questioning witnesses, etc., etc. Please respond with any additional thoughts you may have. I am sending a copy of this letter to Dave Raskin so that he can explore his files and help us to explore ours for pertinent documents. Under separate cover I have sent you a copy of Nat Reed's unsigned deposition together with all the exhibits used. You might make it available to Dave for his review and any comments he may have. By the end of the week, I intend to have identified those pages and lines we will need for the preliminary injunction. I think it would be wise that these be set out in a letter to our opponents indicating the use we intend and requesting of them any additional references they wish put into the preliminary injunction record. Any thoughts you have on these lines would be welcome. Finally, I am still looking for some sort of description of the $1000 retainer-bill. As I mentioned on the phone, brief references, such as interrogation of witnesses, work on pleadings, e.g., brief, complaint, etc., depositions, discovery matters, etc., are fine. I am not interested in the total number of hours or the number of hours spent on each of the various categories. Hu\ Anthony Ruckel Denver Office HAR/sk cc: David Raskin |
