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

Filing 54

MEMORANDUM re 52 MOTION to Intervene filed by SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, CORR WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C., CELLULAR SOUTH, INC. by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Hill, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 11-01560 (ESH)

AT&T INC., T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
and DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SPRINT’S, CELLULAR SOUTH’S,
AND CORR WIRELESS’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PROTECTIVE ORDER
Plaintiffs support the motion to amend the Amended Stipulated Protective Order
Concerning Confidentiality (“Protective Order”) filed by nonparties Sprint Nextel
Corporation, Cellular South, Inc., and Corr Wireless Communications L.L.C. (collectively
“Petitioners”). Petitioners ask this Court to amend the Protective Order for the limited
purpose of allowing their counsel to access to materials Defendants have provided or will
provide to Plaintiffs. The requested relief will not impose additional burden on Defendants
and will aid Plaintiffs in efficiently and expeditiously preparing this action for trial.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs support Petitioners’ request.
In this action, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the same transaction that Petitioners
independently have challenged in their separate actions pending before this Court. All
three actions share common factual underpinnings and seek the same injunctive relief. In
fact, Defendants have served Petitioners with extensive discovery requests seeking access
to a vast amount of information regarding Petitioners’ plans and capabilities to compete in

the wireless telecommunications market. It is obvious from the nature of actions filed by
Petitioners, that Defendants, on the one hand, and Petitioners, on the other hand, have
strongly opposed views as to the likely competitive effect of the proposed transaction, even
though both have access to what is likely to be substantially similar technological and
business expertise regarding the wireless telecommunications market. Thus, as Plaintiffs
prepare on an expedited basis for trial, it will be much more efficient in developing the
factual record for Plaintiffs to have the ability to discuss with Petitioners’ counsel the same
type of information produced from Defendants that Defendants are seeking from
Petitioners. Petitioners are likely to have the ability and interest to provide informed
technological and business responses to Defendants’ assertions and, given the short time
available for fact and expert discovery in this case, it makes sense to provide an efficient
and expedited process for the review of the parties’ factual claims and expert conclusions.
In addition, with regard to the preparation of written direct testimony, Petitioners’
counsel’s consideration of AT&T and T-Mobile documents would likely prove as useful in
developing a full record for this Court’s consideration as Defendants’ counsel’s
consideration of Petitioners’ documents.
The proposed amendment does not disturb the stay of discovery in Petitioners’
pending actions, and it does not diminish the protections that this Court has established for
confidential business information provided by nonparties. Moreover, the requested relief
would not change Defendants’ discovery obligations since they have already produced or
will be producing the relevant materials to Plaintiffs.

-2-

Because the requested modifications would aid Plaintiffs in the efficient
preparation of their case, Plaintiffs support Petitioners’ motion to amend the Protective
Order.
Dated: October 12, 2011

Richard L. Schwartz
Geralyn J. Trujillo
Mary Ellen Burns
Keith H. Gordon
Matthew D. Siegel
Counsel for the State of New York
David M. Kerwin
Jonathan A. Mark
Counsel for the State of Washington
Quyen D. Toland
Ben Labow
Counsel for the State of California
Robert W. Pratt
Chadwick O. Brooker
Counsel for the State of Illinois

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Joseph F. Wayland
Joseph F. Wayland
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
/s/ Christine A. Hill
Christine A. Hill (D.C. Bar #461048)
Laury E. Bobbish
Claude F. Scott, Jr. (D.C. Bar #414906)
Kenneth M. Dintzer
Matthew C. Hammond
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 7000
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for the United States of America

William T. Matlack
Michael P. Franck
Counsel for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Jessica L. Brown
Counsel for the State of Ohio
James A. Donahue, III
Joseph S. Betsko
Counsel for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
José G. Díaz-Tejera
Nathalia Ramos-Martínez
Counsel for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

-3-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Christine A. Hill, hereby certify that on October 12, 2011, I caused a true and
correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Statement in Support of Sprint’s, Cellular South’s,
and Corr Wireless’s Motion to Amend the Protective Order to be served via electronic mail
as follows:

For Defendant AT&T Inc.:
Steven F. Benz
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans &
Figel, P.L.L.C.
1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

For Nonparty Sprint Nextel Corp.:
Gregory B. Craig
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
1440 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-2111
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]

For Defendants T-Mobile USA, Inc., and
Deutsche Telekom AG:
Patrick Bock
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

For Nonparties Cellular South, Inc. and Corr
Wireless Communications, L.L.C.:
Chong S. Park
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]

/s/ Christine A. Hill
Christine A. Hill
United States Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 7000
Washington, D.C. 20530