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

Filing 190

RESPONSE in Support Response of AT&T Corp. to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages [Dkts. 172-73, 175] filed byAT&T Corp.. (Ericson, Bruce) (Filed on 6/10/2006)

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 BRIAN J. WONG #226940 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) BRADFORD A. BERENSON (admitted pro hac vice) DAVID L. LAWSON (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 RESPONSE OF AT&T CORP. TO PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXCESS PAGES [DKTS. 172-73, 175] Courtroom: Judge: Hearing: Time: 6, 17th Floor Hon. Vaughn R. Walker June 23, 2006 9:30 a.m.

700475686v1

AT&T's Response to Dkts. 172-73, 175 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

AT&T worked hard to keep its motion to dismiss (Dkt. 86) within the limit of 25 pages set by Civil Local Rule 7-2(b). Therefore, when Plaintiffs asked for 35 pages, AT&T said "no," seeing no reason why Plaintiffs could not play by the same rules. Plaintiffs have now filed a 29-page brief. Dkt. 176. What's done is done, and little would be accomplished at this point by asking Plaintiffs to lop off four pages. Therefore, AT&T does not oppose Plaintiff's administrative motion (Dkt. 172-73, 175) seeking retrospective blessing for its 29 pages. AT&T would ask, however, that it be granted three pages extra for its reply (18 pages rather than 15 pages). This should not be taken as a concession that Plaintiffs had any business filing a 59page brief (see Dkt. 181) in opposition to the government's motion, but that's the government's fight. Dated: June 10, 2006. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP BRUCE A. ERICSON DAVID L. ANDERSON JACOB R. SORENSEN MARC H. AXELBAUM BRIAN J. WONG DANIEL J. RICHERT 50 Fremont Street Post Office Box 7880 San Francisco, CA 94120-7880 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP DAVID W. CARPENTER BRADFORD A. BERENSON DAVID L. LAWSON EDWARD R. McNICHOLAS 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 By /s/ Bruce A. Ericson Bruce A. Ericson Attorneys for Defendants AT&T CORP. and AT&T INC.

700475686v1

-1-

AT&T's Response to Dkts. 172-73, 175 No. C-06-0672-VRW