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

Filing 74

RESPONSE re 73 Surreply filed by SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Tara L. Reinhart, # 2 Notice Regarding Filing of Sealed Material)(Reinhart, Tara) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/7/2011: # 3 Sealed Response, # 4 Declaration of Tara L. Reinhart (SEALED), # 5 Exhibit 1 (SEALED), # 6 Exhibit 2 (SEALED), # 7 Exhibit 3 (SEALED), # 8 Exhibit 4 (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

SPRINT’S RESPONSE TO AT&T’S SUR-REPLY REGARDING MOTION TO QUASH
Sprint submits this response to AT&T’s sur-reply pursuant to the Special Master’s
request dated November 3, 2011. Section 1 responds to the Special Master’s questions 1 and 3;
Section 2 responds to the Special Master’s question 2.
1.

AT&T’s Requests Remain Unduly Burdensome.
AT&T’s claim that it has tailored its requests to seek “only those categories of

documents” that Sprint has not produced is wrong. It is difficult to understand what sort of
review of Sprint’s production AT&T performed, because AT&T’s “current positions” seek
categories of materials that are well within the scope of the production to the U.S. Department of
Justice (“DOJ”). For example, AT&T seeks supplemental documents from “key custodians” of
Sprint’s “Business and Government group.” Declaration of Steven F. Benz ¶ 2. AT&T ignores
the fact that two of Sprint’s document custodians are executives in Sprint’s Business Markets
Group, which includes corporate and government accounts. AT&T has not attempted to explain
what it needs on this topic that it does not already have. AT&T simply claims it needs more.
Moreover, AT&T’s “current positions” seek documents from additional new custodians
responsive to several other requests that are widely covered by the DOJ production. See
Declaration of Tara L. Reinhart (“Reinhart Decl.”) ¶ 4-18.

AT&T’s insistence on a “refresh” of the DOJ production – across 28 diverse,
broad topics and 15 custodians – is also unduly burdensome, especially given the fact that AT&T
has made no attempt to tailor any of the excessively broad topics to specific needs or to lower the
number of custodians to make a “refresh” less burdensome. If a “refresh” is so “critical” to its
defense, surely AT&T can articulate more specifically what it needs. Sprint stands on its
assertions of burden for a “refresh,” as well as burdens associated with additional data
collections, included in its Motion to Quash, Declaration of Tara L. Reinhart, and Reply to
Motion to Quash, Declaration of Tara S. Emory.
2.

Sprint’s DOJ Production Sufficiently Addresses AT&T’s Requests for Documents
Regarding Boost Mobile and Virgin Mobile.
AT&T’s request for documents from the files of Andre Smith and David Trimble

disregards the fact that Sprint produced files from Sprint’s Senior Vice President of Consumer
Marketing, to whom both Mr. Smith and Mr. Trimble report directly. Those files contain key
strategic and business planning documents from Mr. Smith’s and Mr. Trimble’s respective units,
as evidenced by the exemplar documents attached to the accompanying declaration. Declaration
of Tara L. Reinhart ¶ 4, Exhibits 1 and 2. Sprint’s existing production also contains the files of
the executives responsible for Corporate Strategy and Business Planning, all of which include the
types of documents AT&T seeks. Further, a simple search of Sprint’s DOJ production reveals
more than 2,000 emails sent by or sent to Mr. Smith or Mr. Trimble. Id. ¶ 6.

2

Dated: November 5, 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

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on November 5, 2011, I caused the foregoing Sprint’s Response to
AT&T’s Sur-Reply Regarding 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