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

Filing 63

MOTION to Compel Responses by Sprint Nextel Corp. by AT&T INC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Benz, Steven)

Exhibit B, Case No. 1:11-cv-01560
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Lahlou, Shari
Reinhart, Tara L
Benz, Steven F.
RE: AT&T Subpoena
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 8:50:39 PM

Tara - As an example, see Heat and Control, Inc. v. Hester Indus., Inc., 785 F.2d 1017, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1986).  You
might also consider Rendon Group, Inc. v. Rigsby, 268 F.R.D. 124, 127-28 (D.D.C. 2010) (“TRG claims that the
subpoena is overly burdensome. Like every other judge who has been confronted by such a claim, I refuse to
consider it without a detailed showing by affidavit specifying the actual burdens that it will incur if it has to
comply.”) 
To briefly summarize our discussion this afternoon, we understand that Sprint is not raising a relevance
objection to the subpoena generally, or to any particular request.  Instead, it is Sprint’s position that the
subpoena is duplicative in light of Sprint’s production to the DOJ, which AT&T now has.  In Sprint’s view, it
is AT&T’s burden to identify what is missing from the DOJ production that is responsive to its subpoena. 
Until AT&T undertakes that effort, Sprint will not endeavor to collect or produce any further responsive
documents. 
As we did in our prior calls including the one we had on Friday afternoon, we explained why we disagree with
Sprint’s view.  We believe that we have served a valid Rule 45 non-party subpoena that calls for information
relevant to the claims and defenses in the government’s suit against AT&T and T-Mobile.  While we are willing
to address any specific objections or burden arguments that Sprint might have (which you have yet to raise), we
do not agree that Sprint’s generalized “duplicative” objection relieves it of its burden to comply. 
In light of these disparate positions and our meet and confers on them, we indicated that we believe the parties
are at an impasse and that it would be best to have SM Judge Levie resolve the dispute.  You indicated that you
did not have the authorization to agree that the parties are at an impasse.  You agreed to attempt to seek that
authorization by tomorrow mid-day. 
We continue to be concerned about the amount of time that is passing with Sprint taking no action in response
to our subpoena.  Please advise us of Sprint’s position as soon as possible.  If we cannot get a firm
commitment from Sprint to comply in good faith by producing documents in the near term, we will be forced
to file the motion as we indicated on our call.
Thanks and regards,
Shari

Shari Ross Lahlou
Crowell & Moring LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC  20004
202.624.2679
[e-mail]

From: Reinhart, Tara L [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 6:19 PM
To: Lahlou, Shari
Cc: Benz, Steven F.
Subject: AT&T Subpoena

Shari:
You said that you have authority for the proposition that it is not AT&T's burden to determine whether it already has
Sprint documents that satisfy AT&T's requests.  It would be helpful for us to see that.  Please pass it along.
Regards,
Tara L. Reinhart
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
1440 New York Avenue, N.W. | Washington | D.C. | 20005-2111
T: 202.371.7630 | F: 202.661.0540 | M: 202.439.3545
[e-mail]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------****************************************************
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise
expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this message was not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue
Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
****************************************************
****************************************************
This email (and any attachments thereto) is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and
may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this
email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (and any
attachments thereto) is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify me at
[phone] and permanently delete the original email (and any copy of any email) and any printout
thereof.
Further information about the firm, a list of the Partners and their professional qualifications will be
provided upon request.
****************************************************
==============================================================================