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

Filing 249

Memorandum in Opposition re 207 MOTION to Intervene PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE AND CONSOLIDATE SIMILAR AND PENDING CASE NUMBER A-05-CA-682-LY IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN filed byGregory Hicks, Erik Knutzen, Tash Hepting, Carolyn Jewel. (Scarlett, Shana) (Filed on 6/19/2006)

Download PDF
Hepting et al v. AT&T Corp. et al Doc. 249 1 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION CINDY A. COHN (145997) 2 cindy@eff.org LEE TIEN (148216) 3 tien@eff.org KURT OPSAHL (191303) 4 kurt@eff.org KEVIN S. BANKSTON (217026) 5 bankston@eff.org CORYNNE MCSHERRY (221504) 6 corynne@eff.org JAMES S. TYRE (083117) 7 jstyre@eff.org 454 Shotwell Street 8 San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: 415/436-9333 9 415/436-9993 (fax) 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 [Additional counsel appear on signature page.] 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. C-06-00672-VRW CLASS ACTION PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE AND CONSOLIDATE SIMILAR AND PENDING CASE NUMBER A-05-CA-682-LY IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 14 TASH HEPTING, GREGORY HICKS, ) CAROLYN JEWEL and ERIK KNUTZEN, on ) 15 Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly ) Situated, ) 16 ) Plaintiffs, ) 17 ) vs. ) 18 ) AT&T CORP., et al. ) 19 ) Defendants. ) 20 ) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 I. 2 INTRODUCTION On June 6, 2006, the Reverend Willie H. Ellis moved to intervene as a party, and moved to 3 consolidate his case, currently pending in the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, with the 4 present case. Plaintiffs hereby oppose both of these motions. 5 II. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ARGUMENT A. Any Transfers Between District Courts Must Be Made by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Because Ellis v. US Chapters of Scottish Rite Freemasonry Brotherhood, et al., Case Number A-05-CA-682-LY ("Ellis"), is pending in the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, consolidation through a motion by the party is inappropriately filed before this Court. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407(a), if Rev. Ellis believes that his action involves common questions of fact, a motion for transfer must be made to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: When civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact are pending in different districts, such actions may be transferred to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Such transfers shall be made by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation . . . . 15 28 U.S.C. §1407(a). Because Hepting and Ellis are pending in different district courts, this motion is 16 inappropriately before this Court. 17 18 19 20 B. Intervention of Right or Permissive Intervention Are Not Appropriate Here 1. Intervention of Right Is Not Available Where There Is No Significant Protectable Interest in the Hepting Action To intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, an application may be made to intervene of right or 21 through permissive intervention. Intervention of right is appropriate: 22 23 24 [W]hen the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties. 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). In particular, the Ninth Circuit requires an applicant for intervention of right 26 to demonstrate that: (1) the applicant has a significant protectable interest relating to the property or 27 transaction that is the subject of the action; (2) the disposition of the action may, as a practical 28 matter, impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect its interest; (3) the application is timely; PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE AND CONSOLIDATE - C-0600672-VRW -1- 1 and (4) the existing parties may not adequately represent the applicant's interest. See United States 2 v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 2004). 3 Here, Rev. Ellis has not demonstrated that he has a significant protectable interest relating to 4 the transaction that is the subject of this action. The Hepting case involves the illegal interception of 5 communications in transit and the illegal disclosure of stored communications data by the corporate 6 AT&T defendants. Rev. Ellis alleges that freemasons and members of Al Qaeda have used a 7 complex code to send non-verbal communications inciting domestic and foreign acts of terror. 8 Motion to Intervene at 2.1 Although Rev. Ellis suggests that "AT&T, Verizon, [and] South Western 9 Bell . . . have made no objections to the complaint filed against them," it is not clear whether Rev. 10 Ellis has included these defendants in his case. Motion to Intervene at 1. Ellis, although originally 11 attempted to be filed as a "criminal" complaint, was apparently converted to a civil complaint by the 12 clerk of the court's staff in the Western District of Texas. Scarlett Decl., Ex. A at 1 (stating that the 13 staff of the Western District of Texas explained criminal complaints are "traditionally brought by the 14 U.S. Attorney's [sic] or F.B.I.").2 The only named defendant seems to be the US Chapters of 15 Scottish Rite Freemasonry Brotherhood, although the Ellis court has issued an order to show cause 16 because there has been no showing that summonses were properly served upon defendant(s). 17 Scarlett Decl., Exs. B-C. Regardless of whether AT&T Corp. or AT&T Inc. are defendants in the 18 Ellis action, however, allegations regarding the existence of a code included in mass media does not 19 create a "significant protectable interest" necessitating intervention in the Hepting action. United 20 States, 370 F.3d at 919. 21 Although it is also unclear whether or not Rev. Ellis may be a class member, this is also 22 irrelevant to the intervention analysis. "If the court determines that the absent class members are 23 adequately represented, intervention as of right under Rule 24(a) should be unavailable." DeJulius v. 24 1 "Motion to Intervene" refers to the Motion to Intervene and Consolidate Similar and Pending 25 Case Number A-05-CA-682-LY in the Western District of Texas at Austin, filed on June 6, 2006. 26 "Scarlett Decl." refers to the Declaration of Shana E. Scarlett in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Intervene and Consolidate Similar and Pending Case Number A-05-CA27 682-LY in the Western District of Texas at Austin. 28 PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE AND CONSOLIDATE - C-0600672-VRW 2 -2- 1 New Eng. Health Care Emples. Pension Fund, 429 F.3d 935, 943 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing 7B Charles 2 Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure §1799, at 246 (3d 3 ed. 2005)). 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 PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE AND CONSOLIDATE - C-0600672-VRW 2. Permissive Intervention Is Not Available Where There Are No Common Questions of Law or Fact An applicant is permitted to intervene in an action "when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Again, the factual predicates underlying Rev. Ellis' claims and those of the Hepting class action are much different. Rev. Ellis brings a complaint against the US Chapters of Scottish Rite Freemasonry Brotherhood for participating in a scheme to incite acts of domestic and foreign terror. The Hepting plaintiffs seek to stop the illegal interception and disclosure of the communications of a nationwide class of AT&T subscribers. No common questions of law or fact exist. Although it is not clear whether Rev. Ellis might be seeking intervention because he is a member of the class, his rights here will be adequately protected by the existing parties. Even if Rev. Ellis had satisfied the necessary prerequisites for permissive intervention, his intervention is unnecessary where his interests are adequately represented by the existing parties. California v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 792 F.2d 775, 779 (9th Cir. 1986). III. CONCLUSION For all the reasons above, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny Rev. Ellis' motion to intervene and consolidate. DATED: June 19, 2006 Respectfully submitted, LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP REED R. KATHREIN JEFF D. FRIEDMAN SHANA E. SCARLETT MARIA V. MORRIS SHANA E. SCARLETT -3- 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 W:\AT&T Privacy\omd00032033.doc 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415/288-4545 415/288-4534 (fax) TRABER & VOORHEES BERT VOORHEES THERESA M. TRABER 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: 626/585-9611 626/577-7079 (fax) ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION CINDY A. COHN LEE TIEN KURT OPSAHL KEVIN S. BANKSTON CORYNNE MCSHERRY JAMES S. TYRE 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: 415/436-9333 415/436-9993 (fax) LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP ERIC ALAN ISAACSON 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/231-1058 619/231-7423 (fax) LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. WIEBE RICHARD R. WIEBE 425 California Street, Suite 2025 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415/433-3200 415/433-6382 (fax) HELLER EHRMAN LLP ROBERT D. FRAM MICHAEL M. MARKMAN 333 Bush Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94104-2878 Telephone: 415/772-6000 415/772-6268 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiffs PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE AND CONSOLIDATE - C-0600672-VRW -4- 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 19, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 3 the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail 4 addresses denoted on the attached Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby certify that I have 5 mailed the foregoing document or paper via the United States Postal Service to the non-CM/ECF 6 participants indicated on the attached Manual Notice List. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /s/ SHANA E. SCARLETT LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 100 Pine Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415/288-4545 415/288-4534 (fax) E-mail: shanas@lerachlaw.com CAND-ECF Page 1 of 3 Mailing Information for a Case 3:06-cv-00672-VRW Electronic Mail Notice List The following are those who are currently on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case. L. Alger timalger@quinnemanuel.com albertvillamil@quinnemanuel.com Timothy Stuart Bankston bankston@eff.org Kevin Allan Berenson bberenson@sidley.com vshort@sidley.com Bradford J. Brosnahan jbrosnahan@mofo.com bkeaton@mofo.com James Ann Cohn cindy@eff.org wendy@eff.org;barak@eff.org Cindy Joseph Coppolino tony.coppolino@usdoj.gov Anthony A. Ericson bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com Bruce D. Fram rfram@hewm.com mawilliams@hewm.com;kim.sydorak@hellerehrman.com Robert D Friedman JFriedman@lerachlaw.com RebeccaG@lerachlaw.com Jeff Stisa Granick JENNIFER@LAW.STANFORD.EDU Jennifer Gross terry@grossbelsky.com Terry R. Himmelstein bhimmelstein@lchb.com Barry A. Isaacson erici@lerachlaw.com Eric R. Kathrein reedk@lerachlaw.com e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com;e_file_sf@lerachlaw.com Reed M. Markman mmarkman@hewm.com Michael Martinez brianmartinez@mofo.com Brian Robert McNicholas emcnicholas@sidley.com vshort@sidley.com Edward Corynne McSherry https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?642733982855308-L_701_0-1 6/19/2006 CAND-ECF corynne@eff.org V. Morris mariam@lerachlaw.com e_file_sf@lerachlaw.com Maria Page 2 of 3 Olson ko@lrolaw.com amw@lrolaw.com,slighthill@gmail.com Karl Opsahl kurt@eff.org Kurt Sharon Orleans renee.orleans@usdoj.gov Renee F. Pulgram lpulgram@fenwick.com mburt@fenwick.com Laurence Eve Scarlett shanas@lerachlaw.com e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com;e_file_sf@lerachlaw.com Shana R. Sorensen jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com Jacob H Tannenbaum andrew.tannenbaum@usdoj.gov Andrew Lee Tien tien@eff.org aram@eff.org;vkhall@aol.com Tze M. Traber, Esq tmt@tvlegal.com Theresa Samuel Tyre jstyre@jstyre.com jstyre@eff.org James Van Der Hout ndca@vblaw.com Marc Voorhees bv@tvlegal.com Bert Roy Wiebe wiebe@pacbell.net Richard Manual Notice List The following is the list of attorneys who are not on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case (who therefore require manual noticing). You may wish to use your mouse to select and copy this list into your word processing program in order to create notices or labels for these recipients. David W. Carpenter Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP Bank One Plaza 10 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60600 Susan Freiwald University of San Francisco School of Law 2130 Fulton Street San Francisco, CA 94117 https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?642733982855308-L_701_0-1 6/19/2006 CAND-ECF Page 3 of 3 David L. Lawson Sidley Austin Brown & Wood 172 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?642733982855308-L_701_0-1 6/19/2006

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?