In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation

Filing 188

STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Staying Cases Against AT&T Defendants by AT&T Communications, AT&T Teleholdings, Illinois Bell, Indiana Bell, Pac Bell Telephone Co., SBC Communications, SBC Long Distance LLC, AT&T Corp., AT&T Operations, Inc., AT&T Communications of California, AT&T Inc.. (Axelbaum, Marc) (Filed on 3/8/2007)

Download PDF
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: (415) 983-1000 Facsimile: (415) 983-1200 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP DAVID W. CARPENTER (admitted pro hac vice) BRADFORD A. BERENSON (admitted pro hac vice) EDWARD R. MCNICHOLAS (admitted pro hac vice) DAVID LEE LAWSON (admitted pro hac vice) ERIC A. SHUMSKY #206124 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 736-8010 Facsimile: (202) 736-8711 Attorneys for the AT&T Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION MDL Dkt. No. 06-1791-VRW In re: NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY TELECOMMUNICATIONS RECORDS LITIGATION STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING ALL CASES (EXCEPT HEPTING) AGAINST AT&T DEFENDANTS This Document Relates To: 06-0672 06-3467 06-3596 06-5065 06-5067 06-5268 06-5269 06-5340 06-5343 06-5452 06-5485 06-5576 06-6222 06-6924 06-6224 06-7934 06-6294 07-1243 06-6385 06-6387 06-6570 [Civil L.R. 6-2, 7-1(5), 7-12] Courtroom: 6, 17th Floor Judge: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker Mayer v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al., No. 06-3650 (S.D.N.Y.) (N.D. Cal. case no. not yet assigned) 700648072v4 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Staying Cases Against AT&T Defendants MDL No. 06-1791-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 1 RECITALS A. On November 8, 2006, the United States filed a motion to stay all proceedings in this MDL pending the resolution of the appeal of this Court's July 20, 2006 order in Hepting v. AT&T Corp., 439 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("Hepting Order"). Dkt. 67. On December 22, 2006, Defendant AT&T Corp. filed a joinder in the United States' motion to stay. Dkt. 100. On January 17, 2007, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to stay. Dkt. 128. B. Oral argument on the motion to stay was held on February 9, 2007. Dkt. 161. On February 20, 2007, this Court entered an order granting in part, and denying in part, the motion to stay ("Stay Order"). Dkt. 172. C. The Stay Order provides: "With respect to Hepting v. AT&T, 06-672, the court imposes a limited stay. If plaintiffs propound a limited and targeted set of interrogatories . . . , the court will entertain plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay for the purpose of requiring a response. Any such motion shall describe why the discovery will not moot the issues on interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit. After consideration of such motion, the court will determine whether to call for opposition to be filed by defendants." Dkt. 172 at 1. D. The Stay Order further provides: "With respect to all other cases in MDL 1791, the court will enter an order staying proceedings pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal in Hepting if the parties stipulate to a stay." Dkt. 172 at 2. E. In furtherance of judicial economy, Plaintiffs, the AT&T Defendants 1 and the United States agree to stay all cases, except for Hepting, against the AT&T Defendants. STIPULATION Plaintiffs, the AT&T Defendants and the United States hereby stipulate as follows: "AT&T Defendants" refers to all of the AT&T defendants in this MDL, as defined in footnote 3 of the previously filed Joint Case Management Statement. Dkt. 61 at 2. -2Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Staying Cases Against AT&T Defendants MDL No. 06-1791-VRW 700648072v4 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 1. All cases pending against the AT&T Defendants, except for Hepting v. AT&T Corp., No. 06-0672, shall be stayed against the AT&T Defendants until 30 days after entry of the Ninth Circuit's judgment in Hepting (Ninth Cir. App. Case Nos. 06-80109 & 06-80110 ("Hepting Appeals")). Plaintiffs shall promptly notify the AT&T Defendants and the United States whether they intend to file a consolidated complaint against the AT&T Defendants or will stand on the existing individual complaints against them. If the Plaintiffs elect to file a consolidated complaint, the AT&T Defendants shall have 30 days after it is filed to respond to it. If the Plaintiffs elect to stand on the existing individual complaints, then the AT&T Defendants shall have 45 days after the Plaintiffs notify them of that decision to respond to the complaints. This stay may be modified by the Court on good cause shown by any party to the actions affected. 2. This stay shall encompass any proceedings against AT&T Defendants (except Hepting) in any cases currently pending in this MDL, No. 06-1791-VRW. The following cases that include AT&T Defendants have been transferred to this Court: Hepting, 06-0672; Roe, 06-3467; Campbell, 06-3596; Mahoney, 06-5065; Souder, 06-5067; Trevino, 06-5268; Dolberg, 06-5269; Terkel, 06-5340; Herron, 06-5343; Harrington, 065452; Joll, 06-5485; Conner, 06-5576; Cross, 06-6222; Cross, 06-6224; Waxman, 06-6294; Fortnash, 06-6385; Dubois, 06-6387; Chulsky, 06-6570; Hardy, 06-6924; Mink, 06-7934; Roche, 07-1243; and Mayer v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al., No. 06-3650 (S.D.N.Y.) (N.D. Cal. case no. not yet assigned). This stay does not affect any claims in any of the above-referenced cases against non-AT&T Defendants, nor any cases in which the United States is a plaintiff, nor Clayton v. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc., 07-1187. 3. In the event Plaintiffs are allowed discovery in Hepting through the mechanism set forth in the Stay Order, Plaintiffs may direct such discovery toward any of the AT&T Defendants, regardless of whether they have been named as defendants in Hepting, and such AT&T Defendants shall respond and/or object to such discovery to the 700648072v4 -3- Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Staying Cases Against AT&T Defendants MDL No. 06-1791-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 extent required by law and further order of this Court, and such responses shall be deemed applicable and useable in any of the cases against such AT&T Defendant. 4. By entering into this Stipulation, the AT&T Defendants and the United States do not waive any procedural or substantive defenses, rights or objections with respect to the discovery that plaintiffs may seek in Hepting, or with respect to any non-Hepting case against an AT&T defendant, including, but not limited to, the right to challenge personal jurisdiction over any particular AT&T defendant and the right to appeal any order of this Court granting any discovery to Plaintiffs. AT&T Defendants do, however, waive any objection to such discovery on the basis that any particular defendant was not named as a defendant in Hepting. 700648072v4 -4- Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Staying Cases Against AT&T Defendants MDL No. 06-1791-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 700648072v4 DECLARATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45, X.B I, MARC H. AXELBAUM, hereby declare pursuant to General Order 45, X.B, that I have obtained the concurrence in the filing of this document from each of the other signatories listed below. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing declaration is true and correct. Executed on March 8, 2007, at San Francisco, California. /s/ Marc H. Axelbaum Marc H. Axelbaum Dated: March 8, 2007. PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division CARL J. NICHOLS Deputy Assistant Attorney General DOUGLAS N. LETTER Terrorism Litigation Counsel JOSEPH H. HUNT Director, Federal Programs Branch ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO Special Litigation Counsel ANDREW H. TANNENBAUM Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Room 6102 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 514-4782 Fax: (202) 616-8460 Email: tony.coppolino@usdoj.gov /s/ Anthony J. Coppolino per G.O. 45 Anthony J. Coppolino Attorneys for United States of America, National Security Agency, President George W. Bush PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP BRUCE A. ERICSON DAVID L. ANDERSON JACOB R. SORENSEN MARC H. AXELBAUM DANIEL J. RICHERT 50 Fremont Street Post Office Box 7880 San Francisco, CA 94120-7880 -5Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Staying Cases Against AT&T Defendants MDL No. 06-1791-VRW By 1 2 3 4 5 6 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP DAVID W. CARPENTER DAVID L. LAWSON BRADFORD A. BERENSON EDWARD R. McNICHOLAS 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 By /s/ Marc H. Axelbaum Marc H. Axelbaum Attorneys for the AT&T Defendants 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 By 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 700648072v4 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION CINDY COHN (145997) LEE TIEN (148216) KURT OPSAHL (191303) KEVIN S. BANKSTON (217026) CORYNNE MCSHERRY (221504) JAMES S. TYRE (083117) 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 Fax: (415) 436-9993 /s/ Cindy Cohn per G.O. 45 Cindy Cohn Attorneys for AT&T Class Plaintiffs and Co-Chair of Plaintiffs' Executive Committee AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ANN BRICK (65296) MARK SCHLOSBERG (209144) NICOLE A. OZER (228643) 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 621-2493 Fax: (415) 255-8437 By /s/ Ann Brick per G.O. 45 Ann Brick Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Campbell v. AT&T Communications of California, et al., No. 06-3596 -6- Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Staying Cases Against AT&T Defendants MDL No. 06-1791-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 700648072v4 [PROPOSED] ORDER Pursuant to the foregoing Stipulation, and good cause appearing, the Court orders the following: 1. All cases pending against the AT&T Defendants, except for Hepting v. AT&T Corp., No. 06-0672, shall be stayed against the AT&T Defendants until 30 days after entry of the Ninth Circuit's judgment in Hepting (Ninth Cir. App. Case Nos. 06-80109 & 06-80110 ("Hepting Appeals")). Plaintiffs shall promptly notify the AT&T Defendants and the United States whether they intend to file a consolidated complaint against the AT&T Defendants or will stand on the existing individual complaints against them. If the Plaintiffs elect to file a consolidated complaint, the AT&T Defendants shall have 30 days after it is filed to respond to it. If the Plaintiffs elect to stand on the existing individual complaints, then the AT&T Defendants shall have 45 days after the Plaintiffs notify them of that decision to respond to the complaints. This stay may be modified by the Court on good cause shown by any party to the actions affected. 2. This stay shall encompass any proceedings against AT&T Defendants (except Hepting) in any cases currently pending in this MDL, No. 06-1791-VRW. The following cases that include AT&T Defendants have been transferred to this Court: Hepting, 06-0672; Roe, 06-3467; Campbell, 06-3596; Mahoney, 06-5065; Souder, 06-5067; Trevino, 06-5268; Dolberg, 06-5269; Terkel, 06-5340; Herron, 06-5343; Harrington, 065452; Joll, 06-5485; Conner, 06-5576; Cross, 06-6222; Cross, 06-6224; Waxman, 06-6294; Fortnash, 06-6385; Dubois, 06-6387; Chulsky, 06-6570; Hardy, 06-6924; Mink, 06-7934; Roche, 07-1243; and Mayer v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al., No. 06-3650 (S.D.N.Y.) (N.D. Cal. case no. not yet assigned). This stay does not affect any claims in any of the above-referenced cases against non-AT&T Defendants, nor any cases in which the United States is a plaintiff, nor Clayton v. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc., 07-1187. -7- Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Staying Cases Against AT&T Defendants MDL No. 06-1791-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 3. In the event Plaintiffs are allowed discovery in Hepting through the mechanism set forth in the Stay Order, Plaintiffs may direct such discovery toward any of the AT&T Defendants, regardless of whether they have been named as defendants in Hepting, and such AT&T Defendants shall respond and/or object to such discovery to the extent required by law and further order of this Court, and such responses shall be deemed applicable and useable in any of the cases against such AT&T Defendant. 4. By entering into this Stipulation, the AT&T Defendants and the United States have not waived any procedural or substantive defenses, rights or objections with respect to the discovery that plaintiffs may seek in Hepting, or with respect to any nonHepting case against an AT&T defendant, including, but not limited to, the right to challenge personal jurisdiction over any particular AT&T defendant and the right to appeal any order of this Court granting any discovery to Plaintiffs. The AT&T Defendants have, however, waived any objection to such discovery on the basis that any particular defendant was not named as a defendant in Hepting. PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March __, 2007. Hon. Vaughn R. Walker United States District Chief Judge 700648072v4 -8- Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Staying Cases Against AT&T Defendants MDL No. 06-1791-VRW

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?