Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06253/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06253-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order 

to Extend Time for BellSouth Defendants 

to Respond to Consolidated Complaint 

MDL No. 06-1791-VRW 

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

BRUCE A. ERICSON #76342 

DAVID L. ANDERSON #149604 

JACOB R. SORENSEN #209134 

MARC H. AXELBAUM #209855 

DANIEL J. RICHERT #232208 

50 Fremont Street 

Post Office Box 7880 

San Francisco, CA 94120-7880 

Telephone: (415) 983-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 983-1200 

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 

DAVID W. CARPENTER (admitted pro hac vice)

BRADFORD A. BERENSON (admitted pro hac vice) 

EDWARD R. MCNICHOLAS (admitted pro hac vice) 

DAVID LEE LAWSON (admitted pro hac vice) 

ERIC A. SHUMSKY #206124 

1501 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Telephone: (202) 736-8010 

Facsimile: (202) 736-8711 

Attorneys for the BellSouth Defendants 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS RECORDS 

LITIGATION 

MDL Dkt. No. 06-1791-VRW 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR 

BELLSOUTH DEFENDANTS TO 

RESPOND TO CONSOLIDATED 

COMPLAINT 

This Document Relates To: 

06-5343-VRW 

06-5485-VRW 

06-5576-VRW 

06-6253-VRW 

07-0464-VRW 

Mayer v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al., 

No. 06-3650 (S.D.N.Y.) (N.D. Cal. case no. not 

yet assigned) 

[Civil L.R. 6-2, 7-1(a)(5), 7-12] 

Courtroom: 6, 17th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker 

Case 3:06-cv-06253-VRW Document 4 Filed 03/20/07 Page 1 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

- 2 - Stipulation and [Proposed] Order 

to Extend Time for BellSouth Defendants 

to Respond to Consolidated Complaint 

MDL No. 06-1791-VRW

RECITALS 

A. On January 16, 2007, the plaintiffs in Herron, 06-5343-VRW; Joll, 06-5485; 

Conner, 06-5576; Derosier, 06-6253-VRW; Lebow, 07-0464-VRW; and Mayer v. Verizon 

Communications, Inc., et al., No. 06-3650 (S.D.N.Y.) (N.D. Cal. case no. not yet assigned) 

(“BellSouth Plaintiffs”) filed a “Master Consolidated Complaint Against Defendant 

‘BellSouth’ for Damages, Declaratory and Equitable Relief” (“BellSouth Consolidated 

Complaint”). Dkt. 126. 

B. On January 16, 2007, plaintiffs filed consolidated complaints against 

Cingular defendants, Sprint defendants, the Verizon/MCI defendants and several 

miscellaneous defendants. See Dkts. 121, 123, 124, 125. 

C. On February 20, 2007, this Court entered an Order holding, inter alia, “If in 

any case the parties fail to file a stipulation for stay on or before March 8, 2007, defendants 

shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint in such case not later than March 29, 

2007.” Dkt. 172. 

D. The parties to the Sprint and Cingular consolidated complaints have agreed 

to a stay of those cases. See Dkts. 163, 177. All of the miscellaneous defendants have been 

dismissed from this MDL. See Dkts. 162, 164, 184 and 185. 

E. Under the Court’s Order of February 20, 2007 (Dkt. 172), responses to the 

BellSouth Consolidated Complaint and the Verizon/MCI consolidated complaint against 

(Dkt. 125) are currently due on March 29, 2007. 

F. The BellSouth Plaintiffs and Defendants have consulted regarding a 

stipulation with respect to the dates on which the BellSouth Defendants should file an 

answer or otherwise respond to the BellSouth Consolidated Complaint. Because resolution 

of motions to dismiss the Verizon/MCI Consolidated Complaint could materially impact 

briefing of the BellSouth Consolidated Complaint, and because the BellSouth Consolidated 

Complaint also may present different factual and legal issues, the BellSouth Plaintiffs and 

Defendants believe that it would be most efficient and economical of party and judicial 

Case 3:06-cv-06253-VRW Document 4 Filed 03/20/07 Page 2 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

- 3 - Stipulation and [Proposed] Order 

to Extend Time for BellSouth Defendants 

to Respond to Consolidated Complaint 

MDL No. 06-1791-VRW

resources for the BellSouth Defendants’ motion to dismiss to be briefed and heard on a 

different, later schedule than the motion to dismiss the Verizon/MCI Consolidated 

Complaint that the Verizon/MCI Defendants intend to file. 

G. To avoid simultaneous briefing, and in furtherance of judicial economy, the 

Bellsouth Plaintiffs and Defendants therefore agree to extend the time to answer or 

otherwise respond to the BellSouth Consolidated Complaint as set forth below. 

STIPULATION 

The BellSouth Plaintiffs and Defendants hereby stipulate that the BellSouth 

Defendants may have until the latter of the following dates to answer or otherwise respond 

to the BellSouth Consolidated Complaint: 

1. May 29, 2007. 

2. Twenty-eight days after the Court decides any motion to dismiss the Master 

Consolidated Complaint Against MCI Defendants and Verizon Defendants (Dkt. 125) 

brought by any defendant named by Dkt. 125. 

Dated: March 12, 2007. 

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

BRUCE A. ERICSON 

DAVID L. ANDERSON 

JACOB R. SORENSEN 

MARC H. AXELBAUM 

DANIEL J. RICHERT 

50 Fremont Street 

Post Office Box 7880 

San Francisco, CA 94120-7880 

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 

DAVID W. CARPENTER 

DAVID L. LAWSON 

BRADFORD A. BERENSON 

EDWARD R. McNICHOLAS 

1501 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

By /s/ Bruce A. Ericson Bruce A. Ericson 

Attorneys for the BellSouth Defendants 

Case 3:06-cv-06253-VRW Document 4 Filed 03/20/07 Page 3 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

- 4 - Stipulation and [Proposed] Order 

to Extend Time for BellSouth Defendants 

to Respond to Consolidated Complaint 

MDL No. 06-1791-VRW

DECLARATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45, § X.B

 I, BRUCE A. ERICSON, hereby declare pursuant to General Order 45, § X.B, that I 

have obtained the concurrence in the filing of this document from each of the other 

signatories listed below. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing declaration is true and correct. 

Executed on March 12, 2007, at San Francisco, California. 

/s/ Bruce A. Ericson 

 Bruce A. Ericson 

 

Dated: March 12, 2007 

LISKA, EXNICIOS & NUNGESSER 

ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW 

VAL PATRICK EXNICIOS 

One Canal Place, Suite 2290 

365 Canal Street 

New Orleans, LA 70130 

Telephone: (504) 410-9611 

Fax: (504) 410-9937 

By /s/ Val Patrick Exnicios per G.O. 45 

Val Patrick Exnicios 

Attorneys for BellSouth Plaintiffs

Case 3:06-cv-06253-VRW Document 4 Filed 03/20/07 Page 4 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

- 5 - Stipulation and [Proposed] Order 

to Extend Time for BellSouth Defendants 

to Respond to Consolidated Complaint 

MDL No. 06-1791-VRW

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the foregoing Stipulation, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the BellSouth Defendants shall have until the latter 

of the following dates to answer or otherwise respond to the BellSouth Consolidated 

Complaint: 

1. May 29, 2007. 

2. Twenty-eight days after the Court decides any motion to dismiss the Master 

Consolidated Complaint Against MCI Defendants and Verizon Defendants (Dkt. 125) 

brought by any defendant named by Dkt. 125. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March __, 2007. 

 

 Hon. Vaughn R. Walker 

 United States District Chief Judge 

20

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRANTED

Judge Vaughn R Walker

Case 3:06-cv-06253-VRW Document 4 Filed 03/20/07 Page 5 of 5