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

Filing 235

Proposed Order re 234 Memorandum in Opposition, Denying Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related by Tom Campbell. (Pulgram, Laurence) (Filed on 6/16/2006)

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

Doc. 235

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

ANN BRICK (State Bar No. 65296) MARK SCHLOSBERG (State Bar No. 209144) NICOLE A. OZER (State Bar No. 228643) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiffs

(additional counsel listed on following page)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

TASH HEPTING, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AT&T CORP., et al. Defendants. TOM CAMPBELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA, et al, Defendants.

Case No. C-06-0672-VRW [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

Case No. 06-3596 VRW

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED Case No. C-06-0672-VRW

1
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

PETER ELIASBERG (State Bar No. 189110) CLARE PASTORE (State Bar No. 135933) ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1616 Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90026 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] DAVID BLAIR-LOY (State Bar No. 229235) ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO/IMPERIAL COUNTIES P.O. Box 87131 San Diego, California 92138 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] LAURENCE F. PULGRAM (State Bar No. 115163) JENNIFER L. KELLY (State Bar No. 193416) SAINA SHAMILOV (State Bar No. 215636) FENWICK & WEST LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

Defendant AT&T has moved that the above-captioned cases be related pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-11. The Court having considered the motion and the memorandum in opposition thereto submitted by plaintiffs in Campbell, et al. v. AT&T Communications of California, et al., case no. C-06-3596 VRW and Riordan et al. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., case no. C-06-3574 JSW, and good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that defendant AT&T's motion is DENIED.

Dated: June __, 2006

_________________________________ United States District Judge

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED Case No. C-06-0672-VRW

2