Filing 61

Memorandum in opposition to re 60 MOTION for Extension of Time to Certify Class Action filed by LOWELL C. MCADAMS, VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Boynton, Brian)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LARRY E. KLAYMAN, CHARLES STRANGE, and MARY ANNE STRANGE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, No. 1:13-cv-00851-RJL v. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ERIC HIMPTON HOLDER, JR., KEITH B. ALEXANDER, LOWELL C. MCADAM, ROGER VINSON, VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendants. VERIZON DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIFTH MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO CERTIFY CLASS ACTION The Verizon Defendants1 respectfully oppose Plaintiffs’ fifth Motion for Extension of Time To Certify Class Action (Dkt. No. 60) for the same reasons Verizon opposed Plaintiffs’ initial motion for an extension. See Verizon Communications Inc.’s Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Extension of Time To Certify Class Action (Dkt. No. 11). 1 The Verizon Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against them for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 55 at 25-30. The Verizon Defendants do not, by opposing Plaintiffs’ procedural motion, concede personal jurisdiction. 1 Dated: December 18, 2013 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Brian M. Boynton Randolph D. Moss (D.C. Bar No. 417749) Brian M. Boynton (D.C. Bar. No. 483187) WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Tel.: (202) 663-6000 Fax: (202) 663-6363 randolph.moss@wilmerhale.com Counsel for the Verizon Defendants 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 18, 2013, I filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia using the Court’s CM/ECF system, which caused notice of the filing to be served upon all counsel of record. /s/ Brian M. Boynton Brian M. Boynton 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?