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

Filing 162

DECLARATION of Bruce A. Ericson in Opposition to 160 Memorandum in Opposition DECLARATION OF BRUCE A. ERICSON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AT&T CORP.'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND MOTION TO UNSEAL DOCUMENTS filed byAT&T Corp.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit Exhibit H)(Related document(s) 160 ) (Ericson, Bruce) (Filed on 6/2/2006)

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 DANIEL J. RICHERT #232208 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 DEFENDANT AT&T CORP.'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND MOTION TO UNSEAL DOCUMENTS Courtroom: Judge: Hearing: Time: 6, 17th Floor Hon. Vaughn R. Walker June 23, 2006 9:30 a.m.

700470524v1

Ericson Decl. ISO AT&T's Opposition to Motion for Leave to Intervene and Motion to Unseal 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

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 22, 2006, USA Today published on its website an article entitled

"Documents on Website Purport to Show AT&T Role in Net Spying." This article contains a link that directs readers to a 29-page document that includes a purported statement from former AT&T employee Mark Klein and several AT&T confidential and proprietary documents. A true and correct copy of the article is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. On its website, the Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF") notes that its

goals include "defending free speech, privacy . . . on behalf of consumers and the general public." A true and correct copy of a print-out from the EFF website is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 4. On April 29, 2006, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article entitled

"U.S. Moves to Quash Privacy Suit Against AT&T." A true and correct copy of the article is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 5. On May 16, 2006, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article entitled

"U.S. Opens Assault on Wiretap Suit - AT&T Is Accused of Aiding Surveillance." A true and correct copy of the article is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 6. On May 17, 2006, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article entitled

"AT&T Loses Bid for a Closed Court - At Issue Are Papers the Company Calls Trade Secrets." A true and correct copy of the article is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 7. On May 17, 2006, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article entitled

"AT&T Documents to Stay Sealed." A true and correct copy of the article is attached
700470524v1

-1-

Ericson Decl. ISO AT&T's Opposition to Motion for Leave to Intervene and Motion to Unseal 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

hereto as Exhibit F. 8. On May 17, 2006, USA Today published an article entitled "Judge Issues

Split Decision in AT&T Privacy Lawsuit." A true and correct copy of the article is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9. On May 17, 2006, USA Today published an article from the Associated Press

entitled "Judge Seals Documents in NSA Spying Suit." A true and correct copy of the article is attached hereto as Exhibit H. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 2, 2006, at San Francisco, California. /s/ Bruce A. Ericson Bruce A. Ericson

700470524v1

-2-

Ericson Decl. ISO AT&T's Opposition to Motion for Leave to Intervene and Motion to Unsea No. C-06-0672-VRW