Hepting et al v. AT&T Corp. et al

Filing 152

Declaration of Bruce A. Ericson in Support of 151 Memorandum in Opposition, AT&T's Opposition to Motion for Order Shortening Time for Hearing on Motion of Lycos, Inc. and Wired News for Orders Permitting Intervention and Unsealing Documents filed byAT&T Corp., AT&T Inc.. (Related document(s) 151 ) (Ericson, Bruce) (Filed on 5/26/2006)

Hepting et al v. AT&T Corp. et al

Doc. 152

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP BRUCE A. ERICSON #76342 DAVID L. ANDERSON #149604 JACOB R. SORENSEN #209134 MARC H. AXELBAUM #209855 BRIAN J. WONG #226940 50 Fremont Street Post Office Box 7880 San Francisco, CA 94120-7880 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail] SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP DAVID W. CARPENTER (admitted pro hac vice) DAVID L. LAWSON (admitted pro hac vice) BRADFORD A. BERENSON (admitted pro hac vice) EDWARD R. McNICHOLAS (admitted pro hac vice) 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants AT&T CORP. and AT&T INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

TASH HEPTING, GREGORY HICKS, CAROLYN JEWEL and ERIK KNUTZEN on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. AT&T CORP., AT&T INC. and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants.

No. C-06-0672-VRW DECLARATION OF BRUCE A. ERICSON IN SUPPORT OF AT&T'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON MOTION OF LYCOS, INC. AND WIRED NEWS FOR ORDERS PERMITTING INTERVENTION AND UNSEALING DOCUMENTS [CIVIL L.R. 6-3(c), DKT. 140]

700465928v1

-1­

Ericson Decl. ISO AT&T's Opposition to Motion of Wired News & Lycos, Inc. For an Order Shortening Time No. C-06-0672-VRW

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I, BRUCE A. ERICSON, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and

admitted to practice before this Court, and am a partner of the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, counsel for defendant AT&T CORP. ("AT&T") and also for specially appearing defendant AT&T INC. (AT&T and AT&T Inc. are collectively referred to as the "Defendants"). Except for those matters stated on information and belief, which I believe to be true, I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. On May 23, 2006, I was served via electronic filing with a copy of the

Motion of Lycos, Inc. and Wired News (collectively, "Wired") For An Order Shortening Time For Hearing ("OST Motion," Dkt. 140) their Motion For Orders (1) Permitting Intervention, and (2) Unsealing Documents ("Motion to Unseal," Dkt. 139). The Declaration of Timothy L. Alger ("Alger Declaration") follows the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of the OST Motion (also Dkt. 140). 3. In the OST Motion, Wired seeks to have the Motion to Unseal heard on

June 23, 2006. That is six days earlier than the date on which the Motion to Unseal should be heard under Civil Local Rule 7-2(a)--June 29. 4. The Alger Declaration does not articulate why Wired's Motion to Unseal

should be heard on shortened time, or the harm or prejudice that will befall Wired if the Motion is not heard with 35 days' notice, the normal motions schedule provided in Civil Local Rule 7-2(a). 5. If Wired's motion is granted, AT&T's opposition will be due on June 2.

Four days will be chopped off the time to oppose a motion provided by Civil Local Rule 73(a). Wired, on contrast, will have the normal seven days provided by Civil Local Rule 73(c) to draft its reply. The burden of Wired's dilatory conduct will thus fall entirely on AT&T and not on Wired at all. 6. AT&T submits that Wired's OST Motion should summarily be denied. But

if the Court is inclined to hear the Motion to Unseal on June 23 along with the other matters
700465928v1

-1­

Ericson Decl. ISO AT&T's Opposition to Motion of Wired News & Lycos, Inc. For an Order Shortening Time No. C-06-0672-VRW

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

set for hearing that day, then AT&T submits that the Court should schedule the opposition and reply so that AT&T gets the full time provided by the Local Rules, and Wired pays the penalty for filing late. One way to do this would be to have AT&T file its opposition on June 6 and Wired its reply on June 9. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 26, 2006, at San Francisco, California. /s/ Bruce A. Ericson Bruce A. Ericson

700465928v1

-2-

Ericson Decl. ISO AT&T's Opposition to Motion of Wired News & Lycos, Inc. For an Order Shortening Time No. C-06-0672-VRW