UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. AT&T INC. et al

Filing 52

MOTION to Intervene by SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, CELLULAR SOUTH, INC., CORR WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order to Motion to Intervene, # 2 Exhibit Joint Motion to Amend Protective Order, # 3 Text of Proposed Order to Joint Motion to Amend Protective Order, # 4 Exhibit to Joint Motion to Expedite, # 5 Text of Proposed Order to Joint Motion to Expedite, # 6 Declaration of Tara L. Reinhart, # 7 Exhibit 1-4 to Declaration of Tara L. Reinhart)(jf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AT&T INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:11-cv-01560-ESH

JOINT MOTION TO EXPEDITE
AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
Sprint Nextel Corporation, Cellular South, Inc., and Corr Wireless
Communications, L.L.C. (together, “Petitioners”), hereby respectfully move to expedite the
briefing schedule and consideration of their Joint Motion to Intervene and Joint Motion to
Amend the Protective Order Pursuant to Rule 26(c), which Petitioners have filed with this
Motion. Pursuant to LCvR 7(b), this Court has the power and authority to order expedited
briefing as deemed necessary by the Court.
As asserted in the motion to amend the protective order, Petitioners, who are
Plaintiffs in Sprint Nextel Corporation v. AT&T Inc., et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-01600-ESH
(“Sprint Case”), and Cellular South, Inc., et al. v. AT&T Inc., et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-01690ESH (“Cellular South Case”), face immediate prejudice. While AT&T has served sweeping
discovery requests that are currently pending in United States v. AT&T Inc., et al. (the “DOJ
Case”), and is able to prepare fully for trial in all three cases, Petitioners are not able to prepare

at all in their own cases. Any delay in remedying this position will cause them to suffer
irreparable harm.
No harm will result to any party as a result of an expedited schedule. The Joint
Motion to Intervene and Joint Motion to Amend the Protective Order Pursuant to Rule 26(c)
present a narrow issue, which the parties would be able to brief on an expedited schedule.
Petitioners hereby represent to the Court that they have satisfied their obligation
under LCvR 7(m) to confer with opposing counsel on this motion as it pertains to the entry of an
order giving Petitioners access to the discovery record in the DOJ Case, and the defendants
oppose this motion. Declaration of Tara L. Reinhart ¶¶ 8, 10 (noting that the “defendants object
to Petitioners’ proposed expedited schedule on these motions because the defendants believe
Petitioners’ motions present a discovery dispute that should be decided by the Hon. Richard A.
Levie (Ret.), the Special Master appointed by this Court”).
WHEREFORE, Petitioners move for an Order expediting the briefing schedule on
Petitioners’ Joint Motion to Intervene and Joint Motion to Amend the Protective Order Pursuant
to Rule 26(c). The Petitioners further move the Court for an Order requiring opposition briefs to
Petitioners’ Joint Motion to Intervene and Joint Motion to Amend the Protective Order Pursuant
to Rule 26(c) to be filed by October 17, 2011, and reply briefs to be filed by October 20, 2011.
If convenient for the Court, Petitioners request oral argument on October 24, 2011, which
coincides with the oral argument currently scheduled on the defendants’ pending Motions to

2

Dismiss the complaints of Sprint and Cellular South in the Sprint Case and Cellular South Case,
respectively.

Dated: October 11, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Chong S. Park
Chong S. Park (D.C. Bar No. 463050)
Kenneth P. Ewing (D.C. Bar No. 439685)
Matthew Kepniss (D.C. Bar No. 490856)
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-1795
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]

/s/ Tara L. Reinhart
Steven C. Sunshine (D.C. Bar No. 450078)
Gregory B. Craig (D.C. Bar No. 164640)
Tara L. Reinhart (D.C. Bar No. 462106)
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
1440 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-2111
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Alan W. Perry (pro hac vice)
Daniel J. Mulholland (pro hac vice)
Walter H. Boone (pro hac vice)
FORMAN PERRY WATKINS KRUTZ &
TARDY LLP
City Centre, Suite 100
200 South Lamar Street
Jackson, Mississippi 39201-4099
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]

James A. Keyte (pro hac vice)
Matthew P. Hendrickson (pro hac vice)
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
4 Times Square
New York, NY 10036-6522
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Charles L. McBride, Jr. (pro hac vice)
Joseph A. Sclafani (pro hac vice)
Brian C. Kimball (pro hac vice)
BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER &
HEWES, PLLC
The Pinnacle Building, Suite 100
190 East Capitol Street
Jackson, Mississippi 39201
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]

Counsel for Sprint Nextel Corporation

Counsel for Plaintiffs Cellular South, Inc. and
Corr Wireless Communications, L.L.C.

3