Replies to post #8110 on Mesa Offshore Trust (fka MOSH)

[interested_observer_]

Speeding up the DCO situation

"Curious to see how mosh's legal team responds to the newest 37132704 document, especially to the accusation that plaintiffs delayed/waited to collect the seismic data from october 2007 till mid march."

If the defendants are so concerned about the waiting and delay, they could have delivered the seismic data any time. The defendants said that they would deliver in May of 2005 with the Rule 11 agreement. They used the data for their own ends in the hearings last July, and never delivered it to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs asked and that was the basis for the entire re-opening of discovery that was granted in what February. I think that there is the one of the world's largest game of chicken going on - MOSH asking for the data and PXD not delivering the data. It grows even larger with the fact that MOSH essentially paid for the data that PXD was holding. The Trust indentures state that what ever data is available the Trust unitholders are able to see if they sign a non disclosure agreement, which I think is what Rule 11 also contains. So the foot dragging is on PXD. Should they have gone out and paid for the data all over again? So far the trust has paid for JPM's legal defense, and PXD has apparently used all the UD61 and BA39 trust income for their defense legal bills. MOSH has paid their own, as the agreement with JPM in essentially my mind of getting standing. So PXD has never apparently delivered the data, and is now apparently saying that they are the good guys because the Plaintiffs now have the data.

I also think that the Plaintiffs wanted to ensure that they had sufficient time to analyze the data and then sufficient follow up opportunities for what ever additional discovery may be needed based on what the data showed - all things that PXD would like to cut off.

So to me it appears that PXD is complaining to the Judge that the Plaintiffs are not playing fair. If PXD was really interested in a speedy trial, all of this could have been over and done with a year ago. So that is just my reading and view of the filings - nothing more - nothing less.

On the topic of the Judge's election - my view, is the sooner the better. We know that it certainly appears that the current Judge is playing very fair, ensuring that MOSH gets a level playing field in court. Have no idea as to how a new Judge would view any of this. Plus, it would take additional time for a new Judge to get up to speed. How about all of the past history that has transpired up to now? We know that the current Judge has been somewhat unsympathetic with PXD's positions. Its a David vs Goliath battle here. I would like to get this done with the current Judge, as soon as possible, - given that the Trust has all the data and information to be as fully prepared as possible.
________________
... just my thoughts

[GO MOSH]

shisya, you say, "Curious to see how mosh's legal team responds to the newest 37132704 document, especially to the accusation that plaintiffs delayed/waited to collect the seismic data from october 2007 till mid march."

The plaintiffs and Judge knows pxd is lying on that point, because here's what the plaintiffs filed as a result of evidence revealed at the 4-day May fairness hearing:

Document 30327953, by court 334 (13 pages) - Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery, Compel Discovery & Expert Designations 7/20/2007

In reading that filing, pxd had pulled a fast one by having their Midway Geophysicist, Tom "you've probably played with my balls" Spaulding testify using their raw seismic data in exhibits. The plaintiffs realized then that pxd had not turned over all of its seismic interpretations to them, as required in this Rule 11 agreement:

Document 23905286, by court 334 (6 pages) - RULE 11 AGREEMENT 5/2/2005

pxd was quick to fight that 7/20/07 Motion to Reopen Discovery when they filed this document:

Document 30405288, by court 334 (21 pages) - Pioneer's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery, Compel Discovery & Expert Designations 7/26/2007

pxd was still fighting that Motion when they filed this document:

Document 33165380, by court 334 (22 pages) - PIONEERS SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY COMPEL DISCOVERY AND EXPERT DESIGNATIONS 10/22/2007

Notice that the 10/22/2007 date is the same time frame referenced at the bottom of p. 2 of their latest filing on 4/8, when they said "SEI agreed to produce the seismic in October, 2007. To get it, all the plaintiffs had to do was pick up the phone and execute a simple protective order". Also, remember that 10/26/07 was the scheduled hearing date for all four of the then and still currently outstanding Motions (including this, Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Discovery) that got delayed by the settlement agreement between JPM and the plaintiffs that was announced at that hearing, causing the Judge to hold her rulings on those Motions in abeyance pending that settlement and appointment of a new Trustee to replace JPM.

Now, pxd is saying at the top of p. 3 that "despite plaintiffs' lack of diligence, it is Pioneer's understanding that plaintiffs should have seismic in hand no later that April 18, 2008 (with a footnote, 3, saying that they had helped the plaintiffs by "circulating a draft protective order on April 4, 2008".

To answer your question, I would expect the plaintiffs to respond at or before the hearing scheduled for this Friday, by reminding the Court, that pxd's 4/8 filing of a proposed DCO, and their stated motives, ARE SIMPLY PXD'S CONTINUATION OF THE SHAM GAME OF "KEEPAWAY" AND THEIR DESPARATE ATTEMPT TO CAUSE THE COURT TO LEAVE AN OPENING FOR APPEAL.

I expect the Judge to preside over the litigants this Friday in a manner expediting the shortening the trial date to early October, in order to get this case resolved, while allowing her to accommodate her election demands.