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

Filing 66

REPLY to opposition to motion re 63 MOTION to Compel Responses by Sprint Nextel Corp. filed by AT&T INC.. (Benz, Steven)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

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

AT&T INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Discovery Matter: Referred to
Special Master Levie

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SUBPOENA
There is no dispute that AT&T’s subpoena is valid and seeks relevant information.
Sprint nonetheless remains steadfast in its position that it is not required to respond in light of the
production it has made to DOJ, which AT&T now has. While Sprint argues generally that
AT&T’s subpoena is “sweeping,” it has not made any showing of undue burden or any
particularized burden arguments at all.
Sprint’s generalized objection is not sufficient to satisfy its burden. Sprint has not
represented that its production to DOJ fully satisfies AT&T’s subpoena. Indeed, Sprint’s CID
production appears to have been limited to specific custodians and topics helpful to DOJ’s case,
consists in large part of data files, and does not contain entire categories of documents that are
responsive to AT&T’s subpoena requests. AT&T remains willing to meeting and confer
regarding its requests. But AT&T cannot be required to content itself with the production made
to DOJ or to guess what additional documents Sprint might possess that are relevant to AT&T’s
own case.
Sprint is uniquely positioned to know both the parameters of its search for documents to
respond to DOJ’s requests, and more important what additional documents it may have that are
responsive to AT&T’s subpoena.
AT&T remains willing to engage in good faith negotiations to address any particularized

burden arguments Sprint might have. But Sprint’s refusal to begin collecting and producing
documents should no longer be tolerated given the condensed schedule of this case. AT&T
respectfully requests that its motion be granted.

Dated: October 25, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Steven F. Benz
Mark C. Hansen, D.C. Bar # 425930
Michael K. Kellogg, D.C. Bar # 372049
Steven F. Benz, D.C. Bar #428026
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd,
Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C.
1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
[phone]
Wm. Randolph Smith, D.C. Bar # 356402
Kathryn D. Kirmayer, D.C. Bar # 424699
Shari Ross Lahlou, D.C. Bar # 476630
Crowell & Moring, LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
[phone]
Richard L. Rosen, D.C. Bar # 307231
Donna E. Patterson, D.C. Bar # 358701
Arnold & Porter LLP
555 Twelfth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1206
[phone]
Counsel for AT&T Inc.

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 25, 2011, I caused the foregoing Reply in Support of
Motion To Compel Responses to Subpoena to be filed using the Court’s CM/ECF system, which
will send e-mail notification of such filings to counsel of record. This document is available for
viewing and downloading on the CM/ECF system. A copy of the foregoing also shall be served
via electronic mail on:
Special Master

The Honorable Richard A. Levie
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
JAMS
555 13th Street, NW, Suite 400 West
Washington, DC 2004
Tel. [phone]
*With two hard copies by hand-delivery

United States of America

Claude F. Scott, Jr., [e-mail]
Hillary B. Burchuk, [e-mail]
Lawrence M. Frankel, [e-mail]
Matthew C. Hammond, [e-mail]
US Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
450 5th Street, NW, Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20001
Joseph F. Wayland, [e-mail]
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 3121
Washington, DC 20530
Tel. [phone]

State of California

Quyen D. Toland, [e-mail]
Office of the Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102

State of Illinois

Robert W. Pratt, [e-mail]
Illinois Office of the Attorney General
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel. [phone]

1

State of Massachusetts

William T. Matlack, [e-mail]
Michael P. Franck, [e-mail]
Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General
1 Ashburton Place
18th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Tel. [phone]

State of New York

Richard L. Schwartz, [e-mail]
Geralyn J. Trujillo, [e-mail]
Matthew D. Siegel, [e-mail]
New York Attorney General’s Office
Antitrust Bureau
120 Broadway
Suite 2601
New York, NY 10271
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]

State of Ohio

Jennifer L. Pratt, [e-mail]
Office of the Attorney General
Antitrust Division
150 E. Gay St
23rd Floor
Columbus, OH 43215

State of Washington

David M. Kerwin, [e-mail]
Washington State Attorney General
800 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel. [phone]

2

Non-Party Sprint

Steven C. Sunshine, [e-mail]
Gregory B. Craig, [e-mail]
Tara L. Reinhart, [e-mail]
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
1440 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Tel. [phone]
James A. Keyte (PHV), [e-mail]
Matthew P. Hendrickson (PHV),
[e-mail]
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
4 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Tel. [phone]

/s/ Steven F. Benz
Steven F. Benz

3