Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-md-01791/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-md-01791-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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 700648072v4 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order 

Staying Cases Against 

AT&T Defendants 

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 AT&T 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 STAYING ALL CASES 

(EXCEPT HEPTING) AGAINST AT&T 

DEFENDANTS 

This Document Relates To: 

06-0672 06-5269 06-6222 06-6924 

06-3467 06-5340 06-6224 06-7934 

06-3596 06-5343 06-6294 07-1243 

06-5065 06-5452 06-6385 

06-5067 06-5485 06-6387 

06-5268 06-5576 06-6570 

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(5), 7-12] 

Courtroom: 6, 17th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker 

Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 188 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 1 of 8
 Case 3:06-md-01791-VRW Document 199 Filed 03/14/07 Page 1 of 8
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 

700648072v4 - 2 - Stipulation and [Proposed] Order 

Staying Cases Against 

AT&T Defendants 

MDL No. 06-1791-VRW

RECITALS 

A. On November 8, 2006, the United States filed a motion to stay all 

proceedings in this MDL pending the resolution of the appeal of this Court’s July 20, 2006 

order in Hepting v. AT&T Corp., 439 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (“Hepting Order”). 

Dkt. 67. On December 22, 2006, Defendant AT&T Corp. filed a joinder in the United 

States’ motion to stay. Dkt. 100. On January 17, 2007, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to 

the motion to stay. Dkt. 128. 

B. Oral argument on the motion to stay was held on February 9, 2007. Dkt. 

161. On February 20, 2007, this Court entered an order granting in part, and denying in 

part, the motion to stay (“Stay Order”). Dkt. 172. 

C. The Stay Order provides: “With respect to Hepting v. AT&T, 06-672, the 

court imposes a limited stay. If plaintiffs propound a limited and targeted set of 

interrogatories . . . , the court will entertain plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay for the purpose 

of requiring a response. Any such motion shall describe why the discovery will not moot 

the issues on interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit. After consideration of such motion, 

the court will determine whether to call for opposition to be filed by defendants.” Dkt. 172 

at 1. 

D. The Stay Order further provides: “With respect to all other cases in MDL 

1791, the court will enter an order staying proceedings pending resolution of the 

interlocutory appeal in Hepting if the parties stipulate to a stay.” Dkt. 172 at 2. 

E. In furtherance of judicial economy, Plaintiffs, the AT&T Defendants1 and 

the United States agree to stay all cases, except for Hepting, against the AT&T Defendants. 

STIPULATION 

Plaintiffs, the AT&T Defendants and the United States hereby stipulate as follows: 

 

1

 “AT&T Defendants” refers to all of the AT&T defendants in this MDL, as defined in 

footnote 3 of the previously filed Joint Case Management Statement. Dkt. 61 at 2. 

Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 188 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 2 of 8
 Case 3:06-md-01791-VRW Document 199 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 of 8
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 

700648072v4 - 3 - Stipulation and [Proposed] Order 

Staying Cases Against 

AT&T Defendants 

MDL No. 06-1791-VRW

1. All cases pending against the AT&T Defendants, except for Hepting v. 

AT&T Corp., No. 06-0672, shall be stayed against the AT&T Defendants until 30 days after 

entry of the Ninth Circuit’s judgment in Hepting (Ninth Cir. App. Case Nos. 06-80109 & 

06-80110 (“Hepting Appeals”)). Plaintiffs shall promptly notify the AT&T Defendants and 

the United States whether they intend to file a consolidated complaint against the AT&T 

Defendants or will stand on the existing individual complaints against them. If the 

Plaintiffs elect to file a consolidated complaint, the AT&T Defendants shall have 30 days 

after it is filed to respond to it. If the Plaintiffs elect to stand on the existing individual 

complaints, then the AT&T Defendants shall have 45 days after the Plaintiffs notify them 

of that decision to respond to the complaints. This stay may be modified by the Court on 

good cause shown by any party to the actions affected. 

2. This stay shall encompass any proceedings against AT&T Defendants 

(except Hepting) in any cases currently pending in this MDL, No. 06-1791-VRW. The 

following cases that include AT&T Defendants have been transferred to this Court: 

Hepting, 06-0672; Roe, 06-3467; Campbell, 06-3596; Mahoney, 06-5065; Souder, 06-5067; 

Trevino, 06-5268; Dolberg, 06-5269; Terkel, 06-5340; Herron, 06-5343; Harrington, 06-

5452; Joll, 06-5485; Conner, 06-5576; Cross, 06-6222; Cross, 06-6224; Waxman, 06-6294; 

Fortnash, 06-6385; Dubois, 06-6387; Chulsky, 06-6570; Hardy, 06-6924; Mink, 06-7934; 

Roche, 07-1243; and Mayer v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al., No. 06-3650 

(S.D.N.Y.) (N.D. Cal. case no. not yet assigned). This stay does not affect any claims in 

any of the above-referenced cases against non-AT&T Defendants, nor any cases in which 

the United States is a plaintiff, nor Clayton v. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, 

Inc., 07-1187. 

3. In the event Plaintiffs are allowed discovery in Hepting through the 

mechanism set forth in the Stay Order, Plaintiffs may direct such discovery toward any of 

the AT&T Defendants, regardless of whether they have been named as defendants in 

Hepting, and such AT&T Defendants shall respond and/or object to such discovery to the 

Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 188 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 3 of 8
 Case 3:06-md-01791-VRW Document 199 Filed 03/14/07 Page 3 of 8
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 

700648072v4 - 4 - Stipulation and [Proposed] Order 

Staying Cases Against 

AT&T Defendants 

MDL No. 06-1791-VRW

extent required by law and further order of this Court, and such responses shall be deemed 

applicable and useable in any of the cases against such AT&T Defendant. 

4. By entering into this Stipulation, the AT&T Defendants and the United 

States do not waive any procedural or substantive defenses, rights or objections with respect 

to the discovery that plaintiffs may seek in Hepting, or with respect to any non-Hepting

case against an AT&T defendant, including, but not limited to, the right to challenge 

personal jurisdiction over any particular AT&T defendant and the right to appeal any order 

of this Court granting any discovery to Plaintiffs. AT&T Defendants do, however, waive 

any objection to such discovery on the basis that any particular defendant was not named as 

a defendant in Hepting. 

Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 188 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 4 of 8
 Case 3:06-md-01791-VRW Document 199 Filed 03/14/07 Page 4 of 8
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 

700648072v4 - 5 - Stipulation and [Proposed] Order 

Staying Cases Against 

AT&T Defendants 

MDL No. 06-1791-VRW

DECLARATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45, § X.B 

I, MARC H. AXELBAUM, 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 8, 2007, at San Francisco, California. 

/s/ Marc H. Axelbaum 

 Marc H. Axelbaum 

Dated: March 8, 2007. 

PETER D. KEISLER 

Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division 

CARL J. NICHOLS 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

DOUGLAS N. LETTER 

Terrorism Litigation Counsel 

JOSEPH H. HUNT 

Director, Federal Programs Branch 

ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO 

Special Litigation Counsel 

ANDREW H. TANNENBAUM 

Trial Attorney 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 

20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 

Room 6102 

Washington, DC 20001 

Telephone: (202) 514-4782 

Fax: (202) 616-8460 

Email: tony.coppolino@usdoj.gov 

By /s/ Anthony J. Coppolino per G.O. 45 

Anthony J. Coppolino 

Attorneys for United States of America, National 

Security Agency, President George W. Bush 

 

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 

Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 188 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 5 of 8
 Case 3:06-md-01791-VRW Document 199 Filed 03/14/07 Page 5 of 8
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 

700648072v4 - 6 - Stipulation and [Proposed] Order 

Staying Cases Against 

AT&T Defendants 

MDL No. 06-1791-VRW

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/ Marc H. Axelbaum 

Marc H. Axelbaum 

Attorneys for the AT&T Defendants 

ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 

CINDY COHN (145997) 

LEE TIEN (148216) 

KURT OPSAHL (191303) 

KEVIN S. BANKSTON (217026) 

CORYNNE MCSHERRY (221504) 

JAMES S. TYRE (083117) 

454 Shotwell Street 

San Francisco, CA 94110 

Telephone: (415) 436-9333 

Fax: (415) 436-9993 

By /s/ Cindy Cohn per G.O. 45 

Cindy Cohn 

Attorneys for AT&T Class Plaintiffs and Co-Chair of 

Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 

ANN BRICK (65296) 

MARK SCHLOSBERG (209144) 

NICOLE A. OZER (228643) 

39 Drumm Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 621-2493 

Fax: (415) 255-8437 

By /s/ Ann Brick per G.O. 45 

Ann Brick 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Campbell v. AT&T 

Communications of California, et al., No. 06-3596

Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 188 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 6 of 8
 Case 3:06-md-01791-VRW Document 199 Filed 03/14/07 Page 6 of 8
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 

700648072v4 - 7 - Stipulation and [Proposed] Order 

Staying Cases Against 

AT&T Defendants 

MDL No. 06-1791-VRW

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the foregoing Stipulation, and good cause appearing, the Court orders 

the following: 

1. All cases pending against the AT&T Defendants, except for Hepting v. 

AT&T Corp., No. 06-0672, shall be stayed against the AT&T Defendants until 30 days after 

entry of the Ninth Circuit’s judgment in Hepting (Ninth Cir. App. Case Nos. 06-80109 & 

06-80110 (“Hepting Appeals”)). Plaintiffs shall promptly notify the AT&T Defendants and 

the United States whether they intend to file a consolidated complaint against the AT&T 

Defendants or will stand on the existing individual complaints against them. If the 

Plaintiffs elect to file a consolidated complaint, the AT&T Defendants shall have 30 days 

after it is filed to respond to it. If the Plaintiffs elect to stand on the existing individual 

complaints, then the AT&T Defendants shall have 45 days after the Plaintiffs notify them 

of that decision to respond to the complaints. This stay may be modified by the Court on 

good cause shown by any party to the actions affected. 

2. This stay shall encompass any proceedings against AT&T Defendants 

(except Hepting) in any cases currently pending in this MDL, No. 06-1791-VRW. The 

following cases that include AT&T Defendants have been transferred to this Court: 

Hepting, 06-0672; Roe, 06-3467; Campbell, 06-3596; Mahoney, 06-5065; Souder, 06-5067; 

Trevino, 06-5268; Dolberg, 06-5269; Terkel, 06-5340; Herron, 06-5343; Harrington, 06-

5452; Joll, 06-5485; Conner, 06-5576; Cross, 06-6222; Cross, 06-6224; Waxman, 06-6294; 

Fortnash, 06-6385; Dubois, 06-6387; Chulsky, 06-6570; Hardy, 06-6924; Mink, 06-7934; 

Roche, 07-1243; and Mayer v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al., No. 06-3650 

(S.D.N.Y.) (N.D. Cal. case no. not yet assigned). This stay does not affect any claims in 

any of the above-referenced cases against non-AT&T Defendants, nor any cases in which 

the United States is a plaintiff, nor Clayton v. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, 

Inc., 07-1187. 

Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 188 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 7 of 8
 Case 3:06-md-01791-VRW Document 199 Filed 03/14/07 Page 7 of 8
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 

700648072v4 - 8 - Stipulation and [Proposed] Order 

Staying Cases Against 

AT&T Defendants 

MDL No. 06-1791-VRW

3. In the event Plaintiffs are allowed discovery in Hepting through the 

mechanism set forth in the Stay Order, Plaintiffs may direct such discovery toward any of 

the AT&T Defendants, regardless of whether they have been named as defendants in 

Hepting, and such AT&T Defendants shall respond and/or object to such discovery to the 

extent required by law and further order of this Court, and such responses shall be deemed 

applicable and useable in any of the cases against such AT&T Defendant. 

4. By entering into this Stipulation, the AT&T Defendants and the United 

States have not waived any procedural or substantive defenses, rights or objections with 

respect to the discovery that plaintiffs may seek in Hepting, or with respect to any nonHepting case against an AT&T defendant, including, but not limited to, the right to 

challenge personal jurisdiction over any particular AT&T defendant and the right to appeal 

any order of this Court granting any discovery to Plaintiffs. The AT&T Defendants have, 

however, waived any objection to such discovery on the basis that any particular defendant 

was not named as a defendant in Hepting. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March __, 2007. 

 

 Hon. Vaughn R. Walker 

 United States District Chief Judge 

Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 188 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 8 of 8

14

Case 3:06-md-01791-VRW Document 199 Filed 03/14/07 Page 8 of 8