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

Filing 70

REPLY to opposition to motion re 67 MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Tara S. Emory, # 2 Notice Regarding Filing of Sealed Material)(Reinhart, Tara) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/4/2011: # 3 Exhibit 1 and 2 (SEALED)) (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
Discovery Matter: Referred to
Special Master Levie

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SPRINT’S MOTION TO QUASH
The Special Master should grant Sprint’s motion to quash the subpoena as unduly
burdensome and duplicative, or should defer a decision in light of AT&T’s failure to assess
Sprint’s existing production and modify its subpoena accordingly. AT&T has not complied with
the Special Master’s order to evaluate what “remain[s] unaddressed by the Sprint production”
and to formally modify its subpoena. Special Master Order No. 1 at 6. Instead, AT&T filed a
list of its “current positions” regarding the original subpoena as an attachment to its Opposition
to Sprint’s Motion to Quash. These “current positions,” together with other misstatements,
demonstrate AT&T has not reviewed the Sprint documents it possesses. Declaration of Tara S.
Emory, ¶¶ 7-11, 15-21. In particular, AT&T requests that additional Sprint custodians produce
more documents related to Sprint’s Boost and Virgin business segments, research and
development efforts, and its enterprise business. However, the DOJ production contains
thousands of documents on these subjects. Id. ¶¶ 7-9. Moreover, AT&T erroneously based its
assessment of Sprint’s production on isolated correspondence between the DOJ and Sprint that
does not accurately define the scope of the production. Id. ¶¶ 3-5, 13-21.

AT&T’s requests remain unduly burdensome. They seek extensive “refreshes” of
broad categories of information, and – surprisingly, in light of the Special Master’s order – they
seek productions from additional custodians, thus expanding the scope of the requests.
Compliance would require extensive attorney hours and Sprint man-hours. Id. ¶¶ 30-32. Finally,
AT&T does not rebut Sprint’s assertions that the requests pose unusually burdensome privilege
issues.
Unsurprisingly, AT&T again argues that Sprint’s burden is the same as all the
other subpoena recipients’, but, again, fails to share examples in support.

Dated: November 3, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
/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]
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]
Counsel for Sprint Nextel Corporation

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on November 3, 2011, I caused the foregoing Reply in Support of
Sprint’s Motion to Quash to be filed using the Court’s CM/ECF system. I also caused the
foregoing document to be mailed via electronic mail to:

The Honorable Richard A. Levie
JAMS
555 13th Street, NW, Suite 400 West
Washington, DC 20004
Tel. [phone]
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
*With two hard copies by hand-delivery

Matthew C. Hammond
202-305-8541
[e-mail]
Katherine Celeste
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20001
202-532-4713
202-514-5381 (fax)
[e-mail]
Counsel for the United States

Geralyn J. Trujillo
STATE OF NEW YORK
Office of the Attorney General
Antitrust Bureau
120 Broadway, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10271
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

David M. Kerwin
STATE OF WASHINGTON
Office of Attorney General
Antitrust Division
800 Fifth Avenue, S. 2000
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Representative Counsel for the Plaintiff States

Michael K. Kellogg
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C.
1615 M Street, N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
202-326-7902
[e-mail]
Counsel for Defendant AT&T Inc.

Mark W. Nelson
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20006
202-974-1622
[e-mail]
Counsel for Defendants T-Mobile USA, Inc., and Deutsche Telekom AG

/s/ Tara L. Reinhart
Tara L. Reinhart (D.C. Bar No. 462106)
Counsel for Sprint Nextel Corporation

2