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

Filing 385

Response re 384 Proposed Order, 383 MOTION to Relate Case Administrative Motion by Plaintiffs to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related; Declaration of Kevin S. Bankston; Proof of Service Response of AT&T Corp. to Hepting Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to Relate Jewel to Hepting [Docket Nos. 383-84] byAT&T Corp.. (Ericson, Bruce) (Filed on 10/23/2008)

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

Doc. 385

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 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) BRADFORD A. BERENSON (admitted pro hac vice) DAVID L. LAWSON (admitted pro hac vice) EDWARD R. MCNICHOLAS (admitted pro hac vice) ERIC A. SHUMSKY #206164 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant AT&T CORP. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION MDL Dkt. No. 06-1791-VRW RESPONSE OF AT&T CORP. TO HEPTING PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO RELATE JEWEL TO HEPTING [Docket Nos. 383-84] [Civ. L.R. 3-12(e)] This Document Relates To: TASH HEPTING, et al. v. AT&T CORP., No. C-06-0672-VRW Courtroom: 6, 17th Floor Judge: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker

In re: NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY TELECOMMUNICATIONS RECORDS LITIGATION

500282336v1

AT&T's Response to Administrative Motion to Relate Jewel MDL No. 06-1791-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 By

This is the response of AT&T CORP. ("AT&T") to the "Administrative Motion by Plaintiffs to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related; Declaration of Kevin Bankston," MDL Docket No. 383, filed Oct. 21, 2008. Jewel is a case brought solely against the federal government and various government officials. Hepting is a case brought solely against AT&T and its parent (although the federal government intervened to assert the state secrets defense). Jewel asserts 17 claims, at least nine of which do not appear in Hepting. Hepting asserts seven claims, only three of which appear in Jewel. (The numbers do not add up because some legal theories asserted as one count in Hepting appear in as many as four counts in Jewel.) Despite some "subject matter" overlap, the two cases raise different legal issues and may be met by very different defenses. AT&T does not object to relating Jewel to Hepting so long as relating the two cases does not affect in any way the Court's briefing schedule (MDL Docket No. 381) for dispositive motions pursuant to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-261. The principal purpose of Title II of the FISA Amendments Act is to achieve a prompt dismissal of cases such as Hepting filed against carriers. It would frustrate congressional intent to let a procedural device such as a related-case motion delay the Court's consideration of dispositive motions filed pursuant to the FISA Amendments Act. Dated: October 23, 2008. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP BRUCE A. ERICSON JACOB R. SORENSEN MARC H. AXELBAUM 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* ERIC A. SHUMSKY 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 * admitted pro hac vice By /s/ Bradford A. Berenson Bradford A. Berenson

/s/ Bruce A. Ericson Bruce A. Ericson

Attorneys for Defendant AT&T Corp. -1500282336v1 AT&T's Response to Administrative Motion to Relate Jewel MDL No. 06-1791-VRW