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

Filing 81

MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Filing Regarding Proposed Orders Governing Trial Witnesses by AT&T INC., DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG, T-MOBILE USA, INC. (Hansen, Mark)

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

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL FILING REGARDING
PROPOSED ORDERS GOVERNING TRIAL WITNESSES
Defendants respectfully seek leave to submit a brief statement to correct a factual
misstatement in Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Statement Respecting Trial Witnesses (ECF No. 77).
The misstatement appears in footnote 2 of Plaintiffs’ statement, in which Plaintiffs assert that
Defendants “already have extended to June” the termination date for the transaction. Pl. Mem. at
3 n.2. As explained in the attached memorandum, that is incorrect. Defendants seek to correct
the record with respect to Plaintiffs’ statement, which involves a material term of the transaction.

Dated: November 11, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Mark C. Hansen
Mark C. Hansen, D.C. Bar # 425930
Michael K. Kellogg, D.C. Bar # 372049
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd,
Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C.
1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
[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]
Wm. Randolph Smith, D.C. Bar # 356402
Kathryn D. Kirmayer, D.C. Bar # 424699
Crowell & Moring, LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
[phone]
Counsel for AT&T Inc.

George S. Cary, D.C. Bar # 285411
Mark W. Nelson, D.C. Bar # 442461
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
[phone]
Richard G. Parker, D.C. Bar # 327544
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
1625 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
[phone]
Counsel for T-Mobile USA, Inc. and
Deutsche Telekom AG

2

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

SUPPLEMENTAL FILING REGARDING
PROPOSED ORDERS GOVERNING TRIAL WITNESSES
Defendants respectfully submit the following brief statement to correct a factual
misstatement in Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Statement Respecting Trial Witnesses (ECF No. 77).
In that filing, Plaintiffs assert (at 3 n.2) that Defendants “already have extended to June”
the termination date for the transaction — that is, the date after which, but prior to the closing
date, either party to the transaction may abandon the transaction.1 That is incorrect. Defendants
have not extended the termination date for the transaction.
In making this claim, Plaintiffs cite to AT&T Inc.’s recent 10-Q filing, in which AT&T
updated its guidance on its anticipated closing date for the transaction, which is different from
the termination date in the Stock Purchase Agreement. In AT&T’s 10-Q filing for the second
quarter of 2011 — the last filing prior to the initiation of this lawsuit — AT&T stated that it
“anticipate[d] closing the transaction by the end of the first quarter of 2012.” AT&T Inc.,
Quarterly Report at 16 (Form 10-Q) (Aug. 5, 2011). In its recent 10-Q filing, AT&T notes the
1

See Stock Purchase Agreement by and between Deutsche Telekom AG and AT&T Inc.
§ 7.2(a) (Mar. 20, 2011). That date is currently March 20, 2012, though the date may be
extended if certain conditions are met.

Plaintiffs’ lawsuit and the fact that a “trial date has been set for February 13, 2012.” AT&T Inc.,
Quarterly Report at 17 (Form 10-Q) (Nov. 3, 2011). AT&T then states that it “anticipate[s]
closing the transaction in the first half of 2012.” Id. That updated guidance to the marketplace
simply reflects the realities with respect to the closing date that AT&T recognizes follow from
that trial date, such as the 4 to 6 week trial, the time required for the Judge to rule following the
trial, and the time needed for remaining regulatory approvals.2 Defendants, however, have not
extended the termination date in the Stock Purchase Agreement.

2

Plaintiffs also cite a Wall Street Journal article. But that article simply reports on the
amended guidance in the 10-Q filing. It does not state that Defendants have extended the
termination date for the transaction; they have not. See Greg Bensinger, AT&T Sees Later
Closing for T-Mobile Deal, Wall St. J. Online (Nov. 4, 2011) (“AT&T said in a regulatory filing
it expects to close the $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile, a unit of Deutsche Telekom AG, by the
end of next year’s first half. It had originally expected the deal to close by the end of March.”).

2

Dated: November 11, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Mark C. Hansen
Mark C. Hansen, D.C. Bar # 425930
Michael K. Kellogg, D.C. Bar # 372049
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd,
Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C.
1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
[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]
Wm. Randolph Smith, D.C. Bar # 356402
Kathryn D. Kirmayer, D.C. Bar # 424699
Crowell & Moring, LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
[phone]
Counsel for AT&T Inc.

George S. Cary, D.C. Bar # 285411
Mark W. Nelson, D.C. Bar # 442461
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
[phone]
Richard G. Parker, D.C. Bar # 327544
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
1625 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
[phone]
Counsel for T-Mobile USA, Inc. and
Deutsche Telekom AG

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 11, 2011, I caused the foregoing document 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]
Elizabeth M. Gerber, [e-mail]
JAMS
555 13th Street, NW, Suite 400 West
Washington, DC 20004
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]
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
450 5th Street, NW, Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20001
Tel. [phone]
Joseph F. Wayland, [e-mail]
U.S. 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
Antitrust Section
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102
Tel. [phone]

State of Illinois

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

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

William T. Matlack, [e-mail]
Michael P. Franck, [e-mail]
Office of the Attorney General
Antitrust Division
One 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]
Office of the Attorney General
Antitrust Bureau
120 Broadway, Suite 2601
New York, NY 10271
Tel. [phone]

State of Ohio

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

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

James A. Donahue , III, [e-mail]
Joseph S. Betsko, [e-mail]
Office of the Attorney General
Antitrust Section
14th Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Tel. [phone]

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

José G. Diaz-Tejera, [e-mail]
Nathalia Ramos-Martínez, [e-mail]
Department of Justice
Office of Monopolistic Affairs
P.O. Box 190192
San Juan, PR 00901-0192
Tel. [phone]

2

State of Washington

David M. Kerwin, [e-mail]
Office of the Attorney General
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel. [phone]

/s/ Mark C. Hansen
Mark C. Hansen

3