LEGAL124677217.5 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

GRANT BIRCHMEIER, STEPHEN 

PARKES, SUSAN VIGUS, and REGINA 

STONE, on behalf of themselves and a Class 

of others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC., 

ECONOMIC STRATEGY GROUP, 

ECONOMIC STRATEGY GROUP, INC., 

ECONOMIC STRATEGY GROUP, LLC, 

THE BERKLEY GROUP, INC., and 

VACATION OWNERSHIP MARKETING 

TOURS, INC., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:12-cv-04069 

Related to: Case No. 1:13-cv-00903 

Case No. 1:13-cv-00908 

Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly 

THIRD PARTY T-MOBILE U.S., INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

ORDER COMPELLING T-MOBILE US INC. TO COMPLY WITH PLAINTIFF’S 

SUBPOENAS FOR CLASS MEMBER INFORMATION AND ALTERNATIVELY TMOBILE’S CROSS MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENAS AND/OR FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

NOW COMES T-Mobile US, Inc. (“T-Mobile”) by its attorneys, Debra R. Bernard and 

Perkins Coie LLP and hereby submits this Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Compelling 

T-Mobile US, Inc. to Comply with Plaintiffs’ Subpoenas for Class Member Information 

(“Plaintiffs’ Motion” or “Pl. Mot.”) and Alternatively, T-Mobile’s Cross Motion to Quash the 

Subpoenas and/or for Protective Order1

 and states as follows: 

 

1

 It is T-Mobile’s view that Plaintiffs’ Motion should be heard in the District Court of New Jersey, the Compliance 

Court. By submitting this Cross-Motion, T-Mobile does not concede that this jurisdiction is proper for such 

motions. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 269 Filed: 01/07/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:5360
LEGAL124677217.5 -2-

I. INTRODUCTION 

T-Mobile is a disinterested nonparty in this case.2 Plaintiffs have issued Subpoenas 

Duces Tecum (“Document Subpoenas”) to T-Mobile as well as a Deposition Subpoena pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 and 30(b)(6) requesting a corporate designee to testify regarding TMobile’s inability to provide the requested information. Plaintiffs’ Subpoenas to T-Mobile and 

this Motion are procedurally improper and substantively impose an undue burden on nonparty TMobile. Further, as T-Mobile advised Plaintiffs’ counsel, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (“Rule 45”), 

any motion seeking compliance with its Subpoenas is required to be filed in the jurisdiction of 

compliance, in this case, the District of New Jersey. Nonetheless, both in-house counsel for TMobile and outside counsel have engaged in the meet and confer process with Plaintiffs’ counsel 

but have been unable to reach agreement given the extensive burden that these subpoenas impose 

on T-Mobile as will be described in detail herein In fact, T-Mobile takes umbrage at Plaintiffs’ 

suggestion that T-Mobile “has essentially refused to engage in a substantive meet and confer 

process.” Pl. Mot. at 9. As indicated by the correspondence attached to Plaintiffs’ Motion and 

the Declaration of Patricia Cauldwell attached hereto as Exhibit A (“Cauldwell Declaration”), TMobile did in fact engage in a “substantive” meet and confer process. The fact that the process 

did not result in an agreement does not detract from the fact that the process was “substantive” 

and conducted in good faith by all participants. 

Given the procedural infirmities and the undue burden the subpoenas impose on TMobile, Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied. 

 

2

 As a nonparty, T-Mobile’s knowledge of the history of this case is based only on what can be gleaned from a 

review of the relevant pleadings on the docket. T-Mobile takes no position on the issues relating to class 

certification or the merits in this case. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 269 Filed: 01/07/15 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:5361
LEGAL124677217.5 -3-

II. ARGUMENT 

A. This Court is Not the Appropriate Forum for the Adjudication of Plaintiffs’ 

Motion 

While the amended Rule 45 allows for issuance of subpoenas to be made in the name of 

the Court where the matter is pending, disputes regarding nonparty subpoenas should be resolved 

in the Court where compliance is required, not the issuing court, absent consent or “exceptional 

circumstances.” Rule 45 (d)(3)(A) and (f). T-Mobile has not consented to the jurisdiction of this 

Court to adjudicate subpoena-related disputes and Plaintiffs do not even attempt to demonstrate 

“exceptional circumstances.” Thus, Plaintiffs have not set forth any basis on which this Court 

can hear this dispute. It is well recognized that “[t]he new rule is focused on sparing nonparty 

witness needless burden and expense. That is reflected in its presumption that the court where 

compliance is required (colloquially, the ‘compliance court’) should hear and decide any motion 

to quash or modify a subpoena and not the issuing court.” Gregory P. Joseph, Major Changes in 

Federal Subpoena Practice, 82 U.S.L.W. 584, Oct. 22, 2013. Indeed, the Advisory Committee 

Comments to the amended Rule 45 provide that “the prime concern should be avoiding burdens 

on local nonparties subject to subpoenas, and it should not be assumed that the issuing court is in 

a superior position to resolve subpoena-related motions.” Advisory Comm. Notes to subdivision 

(f) (2013). Plaintiffs cannot improperly provide for the deposition to occur in Illinois as a means 

to avoid the compliance court requirement of Rule 45. Where a motion is filed in a court other 

than the court where compliance is required, “the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear 

the motion.” AngioScore, Inc. v. TriReme Medical, Inc., No. 12-cv-3393 (YGR)(JSC), 2014 WL 

6706873, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2014). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion should be dismissed 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 269 Filed: 01/07/15 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:5362
LEGAL124677217.5 -4-

B. The Subpoena to T-Mobile Seeking Information for 42,000 Subscribers 

Imposes an Undue Burden on T-Mobile 

As noted by the Court in Pac. Century Int’l Ltd., v. Does 1-37, 282 F.R.D. 189, 193 (N.D. 

Ill. 2012), cited by Plaintiffs, “[u]nder rule 45(c)(3), the court must quash or modify a subpoena 

to a non-party witness that ‘subjects a person to undue burden’” In assessing the burden, the 

court applies a balancing test to determine whether the burden of compliance exceeds the benefit 

of production. Id. It is axiomatic that “non-party status is a significant factor a court must 

consider when assessing undue burden for the purpose of a Rule 45 motion.” Robinson Steel Co., 

Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-438-JTM-PRC, 2012 WL 5903769, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 

21, 2012). The Document Subpoenas request T-Mobile to provide “documents sufficient to 

identify” the name and last known addresses and email addresses on a particular date in 2011 

and/or 2012 of each subscriber from a list of over 42,000 phone numbers. ECF 266-4. As will be 

demonstrated herein, production of the requested information would impose an undue burden on 

T-Mobile. Where a subpoena subjects the nonparty recipients to undue burden, Rule 45 

“mandates” that courts quash such subpoenas. Suture Express, Inc. v. Cardinal Health 200, LLC,

No. 14-cv-04737, 2014 WL 6478077, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2014). 

1. T-Mobile does not have the technical capability to provide the 

requested information 

As T-Mobile advised Plaintiffs’ counsel and as set forth in the Cauldwell Declaration, TMobile simply does not have the technical capability to provide the information requested in the 

Document Subpoenas in any type of automated fashion. Accordingly, the search, collection and 

necessary redaction of the information requested by Plaintiffs would impose a substantial burden 

on T-Mobile. Plaintiffs’ assertion that it was able to reach agreement with other carriers on the 

collection of information and that other carriers are able to provide the information is simply 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 269 Filed: 01/07/15 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:5363
LEGAL124677217.5 -5-

irrelevant. (Pl. Mot. at 9). 3 That such other carriers may have different technical capabilities and 

resources has nothing to do with the existing capabilities at T-Mobile. Significantly, in the 

approximately six years that Ms. Cauldwell has been in her position at T-Mobile, to her 

knowledge, T-Mobile has never been required to provide subscriber information for thousands 

of subscribers in a bulk search, let alone for unique dates over a two year period as requested in 

this case. Cauldwell Decl. ¶ 9. While T-Mobile has been served with subpoenas in one or two 

other TCPA cases, those subpoenas were subsequently abandoned prior to any judicial resolution 

of T-Mobile’s similar objections. Id. at ¶ 18. Indeed, in connection with those other matters, TMobile had previously investigated whether it could conduct automated bulk searches and 

concluded that it did not have the capability to do so. Id.

Responses to subpoenas and other lawful process or requests, are handled by T-Mobile’s 

Law Enforcement Relations Group (“LER Group”). Cauldwell Decl. ¶ 2. T-Mobile maintains a 

team of approximately fifty subpoena compliance professionals in its LER Group which 

maintains offices in Parsippany, New Jersey and Allentown, Pennsylvania. Id. The LER Group 

is tasked with responding to lawful requests for information regarding T-Mobile telephone 

subscribers. Id. The LER Group assists law enforcement, criminal defense attorneys and private 

attorneys from all fifty states and the federal jurisdictions and responds to over 700 written 

requests for information and handles over 400 telephone inquiries each and every day of the 

year. Id. The average request received by the LER Group seeks subscriber information (as 

defined by 18 USC 2703(c)(2)) on a single telephone number and 51 days of call 

 

3

 Plaintiffs’ Motion also claims that it was able to reach agreement with other carriers “including by finding 

automated ways of collecting the information that at least some carriers initially suggested they did not have the 

capability to do.” (Pl. Mot. at 9). As set forth in the Cauldwell Declaration, T-Mobile simply is not able to do so 

absent extraordinary burden and expense and had previously investigated this issue. Cauldwell Decl. at ¶ 18. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 269 Filed: 01/07/15 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:5364
LEGAL124677217.5 -6-

detail/connectivity records. Id. at ¶ 3. The LER Group operates 24 hours a day, seven days a 

week to fulfill its obligations. Id. 

Of the hundreds of thousands of lawful requests received each year in the LER Group, 

less than 4% are issued by civil and/or criminal defense attorneys. Id. at ¶ 4. Based on these 

numbers, the LER Group is primarily designed to respond to demands from federal, state and 

local law enforcement, including life threatening exigencies and emergency calls for assistance. 

Id. The subpoena response system currently used by the LER Group is adequate for its intended 

purpose and for T-Mobile’s business needs. Id. at ¶ 14. There is no need to develop an 

automated solution capable of a bulk search for the subscriber records on different historical 

dates. Id. With its existing capabilities, the LER Group is able to satisfactorily meet its 

obligations to respond to all lawful process it receives. Id. T-Mobile responds to thousands of 

demands each and every week without incident, complication or delay. Id. The government, 

which is the largest requestor by far, has not ever sought delivery of the scope of information 

now sought by Plaintiffs. Id. In fact, the government has not ever requested or demanded that 

T-Mobile create a solution with the capabilities Plaintiffs now demand. Id. 

 If T-Mobile were compelled to produce the information sought on 42,000 subscribers, the 

LER Group would be crippled. All searches are done manually—T-Mobile does not have the 

capability to input target telephone numbers via .csv file or other type of data file to locate 

subscriber information in an automated manner. Id. at ¶ 15. Using the system currently in 

place, it would take 4,200 work hours to search, redact and compile the subscriber information 

sought. Id. at ¶ 15. A single search can accept up to ten target telephone numbers. Id. The 

search results would have to be analyzed by hand to ensure that only the subscriber information 

for the unique date is collected. Id. Thereafter the subscriber information would need to be hand 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 269 Filed: 01/07/15 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:5365
LEGAL124677217.5 -7-

redacted, to remove all but the name and address of the subscriber. Id. The responsive 

subscriber information would have to be compiled and readied in some organized fashion for 

delivery to Plaintiffs. Id. It is estimated that each ten target search would take one work hour to 

complete, redact and compile. Id. at ¶ 15. This process would have to be repeated 4200 times 

resulting in 4200 person hours of effort. Id. It would shut down the LER for over 2 weeks at the 

risk of the number of law enforcement and emergency requests that are handled each day. Id. at 

¶ 16. 

 Further complicating matters, as of Q3 2014, nearly 30% of T-Mobile customers were 

“prepaid” customers. Id. at ¶ 5. T-Mobile does not require personal identification information 

upon activation of a prepaid account. Id. at ¶ 5. If personal information happens to be 

provided upon activation of a prepaid account, T-Mobile does not take any steps to verify the 

completeness or accuracy of such information. Id. at ¶ 5. 

2. The extraordinary and undue burden to T-Mobile in order to provide 

the requested information is not justified in this case. 

 Relying on the decision in Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does 1-1062, 770 F.Supp.2d 

332,358 (D.D.C. 2011), Plaintiff effectively asserts that the expense or hardship to T-Mobile is 

diminished “given the size of T-Mobile and the resources it has.” (Pl. Mot. at 8). However, not 

only is this statement wholly unsupported and expressly addressed (and contradicted) by the 

Cauldwell Declaration, but the factual context is quite different. In Call of the Wild, Plaintiffs 

were seeking the IP addresses for copyright infringers and the total number of subscribers for 

which information was being sought was 1,028. By contrast, here, Plaintiffs are seeking 

subscriber information for 42,000 potential class members for purposes of providing notice that 

they may be class member entitled to a monetary award under the TCPA. Significantly, direct 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 269 Filed: 01/07/15 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:5366
LEGAL124677217.5 -8-

mail to individual potential class members is only one of several different means of notice 

proposed by the class administrator. See Rosenthal Declaration¶¶ 15-27, ECF 247-1. 

Additionally, Plaintiffs argue herein that “the benefits of compliance far outweigh the 

costs” and that “there can be no dispute that the information sought from T-Mobile is necessary 

and relevant to Plaintiffs’ case.” Pl. Mot. at 7. Plaintiffs claim that since the T-Mobile numbers 

were called by Defendants, “T-Mobile’s compliance is the most reliable means to ensure the best 

notice practicable is provided to those class members, and thus necessary to Plaintiffs’ case.” Pl. 

Mot at 8. However, Plaintiffs’ own prior arguments regarding class notice belie these claims 

and the assertion that T-Mobile should undertake debilitating effort to provide the requested 

subscriber information. . First, in its class notice filings, Plaintiffs argued that “Rule 23 does not 

require direct notice to every Class member.” Rather, only “the best notice practicable under the 

circumstances” is required to those “members who can be identified throughout reasonable 

effort.” ECF 258 at p. 7.4

 Second, Plaintiffs cited Burns v. Elrod, 757 F.2d 151, 153 (7th Cir. 

1985) for the proposition that the parties “were not required to exhaust every conceivable method 

of identifying potential class members so long as the best notice practicable was given to the 

class through the diligent efforts of counsel.” ECF 258 at p.7 n.5 (internal quotations omitted). 

The “diligent efforts of counsel” does not require burdening a nonparty with discovery to obtain 

information regarding a small percentage of potential class members. 

Third, contrary to the instant claim that T-Mobile’s information is “necessary” to its case, 

Plaintiffs previously relied on a number of TCPA cases where the courts approved notice plans 

where the class administrator would perform a “reverse lookup process’ on cellular numbers “to 

obtain names and addresses for direct notice.” ECF 258 at p. 8. (and cases cited therein 

including Kristensen v. Credit Payment Servs. Inc. et. al., No. 2:12-cv-00528-APG (PAL) 

 

4

 Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Approval of Class Notice Plan. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 269 Filed: 01/07/15 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:5367
LEGAL124677217.5 -9-

(D.Nev.), Dkt. 188 and Lozano v. Twentieth Century Fox, No. 1:09-cv-06344, Dkts 55, 57 (N.D. 

Ill.)). Finally, Plaintiffs relied on this Court’s comment that “[g]iven that the number of class 

members approaches and possibly exceeds one million persons, it is likely that there will not be a 

practicable way to reach each person individually, making broad-based forms of notice 

appropriate.” ECF 258 at p. 9 (citing ECF 241 at 28) (emphasis in Plaintiffs’ pleading). Based 

on the above, the governing rules, the relevant case law and this Court all clearly agree that it is 

not possible to reach all potential class members individually. Accordingly, it is similarly clear 

that the extensive burden imposed on T-Mobile far outweighs the possibility that individual 

notice might be achieved with regard to the very small percentage of potential T-Mobile class 

members. 

Significantly, as set forth in the Rosenthal Declaration ¶14, ECF 247-1, Neustar 

identified approximately 530,000 of the 930,000 numbers as landlines—presumably the 

remaining 400,000 are assigned to cellular numbers. Thus, the 42,000 alleged T-Mobile 

numbers are only 10% of the Wireless Class numbers and less than 5% of the total numbers 

overall. Notwithstanding these arguments, Plaintiffs are now asserting that T-Mobile, a nonparty 

to this case must engage in extraordinary efforts at great burden, inconvenience and expense to 

provide a list of at most 5% of the total potential class members. 

Interestingly, according to representations made in an unrelated case also handled by 

Plaintiffs’ counsel, the claims rates in TCPA cases generally range between .5 and 8 percent.” 

Pimental v. Google, Case No. 11-2585 YGR, ECF 92-1 (N.D. Cal.).5

 Given that nearly 30% of 

T-Mobile customers are for prepaid phones and for whom T-Mobile will have limited or no 

information, the actual number of potential class members that could be located from T-Mobile 

 

5

 A copy of the Declaration submitted by a representative of Epiq Systems, the Class Administrator in that case is 

attached hereto as Exhibit B. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 269 Filed: 01/07/15 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:5368
LEGAL124677217.5 -10-

is substantially less than the 10% of the Wireless Class. Coupled with the high side of 8% as the 

claims rate, it is likely that, at most, only 32,000 of the 400,000 Wireless Class will file a valid 

claim—substantially less than the potential class members for whom Plaintiffs seek information 

from T-Mobile. Under the circumstances in this case, the unreasonable and extraordinary efforts 

which would be required for T-Mobile to provide the information requested by Plaintiffs are 

beyond what is required pursuant to the “reasonable effort” standard to identify members under 

Rule 23. The costs and burden of compliance clearly outweigh the benefits. 

C. The Deposition Subpoena to T-Mobile is Procedurally and Substantively 

Improper 

Plaintiffs have also issued a Rule 30(b)(6) and Rule 45 Subpoena for the deposition of a 

corporate representative of T-Mobile to appear in Chicago to provide a deposition on the 

following topic:6

 T-Mobile’s ability to provide the subscriber information requested 

in Plaintiffs’ October 20, 2014 and/or November 14, 2014 

Subpoenas to T-Mobile (the “Subpoenas”) in the above captioned 

case...including, but not limited to the structure of the system, 

software, database(s), etc. used by and available to T-Mobile to 

store and/or access subscriber information, the queries/stored 

procedures/views and any other methods used by T-Mobile and/or 

necessary to obtain subscriber information, the amount of time and 

cost it would take to perform, and if necessary, develop such 

methods, and whether such methods can be performed 

automatically against a list of provided telephone numbers. 

ECF 266-9. 

This Subpoena should be quashed for the same reasons highlighted above in relation to 

the Document Subpoenas. However, there are several additional problems with this Subpoena 

and topic as well. First, Plaintiffs’ position is that since T-Mobile transacts business in Illinois, it 

can compel a nonparty Rule 30(b)(6)/Rule 45 deponent to come and testify in Illinois. Plaintiffs’ 

 

6

 The Subpoena also contained a second topic which is largely duplicative of the first topic: “The relevant policies 

and procedures, if any, effecting T-Mobile’s ability to comply with the Subpoenas. ECF 266-9. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 269 Filed: 01/07/15 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:5369
LEGAL124677217.5 -11-

argument in this regard is plainly wrong. The recent amendments to Rule 45 “were intended to 

circumscribe the Court’s authority to compel parties and officers to travel to faraway trials.” 

Havens v. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, No. 11-993 (KSH)(CLW), 2014 WL 

2094035,at *2 (D.N.J. May 20, 2014). The same holds true for nonparties—the argument 

enforcing the geographic limitation is “even more compelling” to a nonparty Rule 30(b)(6) 

designee—a nonparty cannot be subject to a greater burden than a party simply because the 

nonparty [an individual] was designated as the Rule 30(b)(6) designee). Id. Under Rule 

45(c)(1)(A), a nonparty witness can be compelled to travel only where he or she resides, is 

employed or regularly transacts business in person.” There is no authority and Plaintiffs cite to 

none, which interprets this provision to mean that a nonparty Rule 45/Rule 30(b)(6) designee can 

be compelled to appear for a deposition anywhere that the corporation transacts business. Indeed, 

Havens stands for the exact contrary proposition. Thus, the Deposition Subpoena improperly 

requires the corporate designee to appear in Chicago for a deposition and should be quashed on 

this basis. 

Second, the topic identified in the Deposition Subpoena is overbroad, seeks confidential 

and proprietary information and in any event, much of the information requested is contained in 

the Cauldwell Declaration. As set forth above in Section II, A, the Cauldwell Declaration sets 

forth in detail the capabilities of T-Mobile’s Subpoena Compliance Group and demonstrates the 

unreasonable burden imposed by Plaintiffs’ Document Subpoenas. There is nothing further to be 

gained by a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of T-Mobile wherein the substance of the Cauldwell 

Declaration will just be reiterated. Thus, it would merely be cumulative and inappropriate. 

Accordingly, the Deposition Subpoena should be quashed on this basis as well. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 269 Filed: 01/07/15 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:5370
LEGAL124677217.5 -12-

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel should be dismissed and/or 

denied and T-Mobile’s Cross Motion to Quash should be granted. 

WHEREFORE T-MOBILE US, INC. respectfully requests that this Court deny 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, grant T-Mobile’s Motion to Quash and/or for Protective Order and 

for such other relief the Court deems necessary and appropriate in the interests of justice. 

 Respectfully, submitted, 

 T-MOBILE US, INC.

By: /s/ Debra R. Bernard 

One of its Attorneys 

Debra R. Bernard, ARDC No. 6191217

Perkins Coie LLP

131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 1700 

Chicago, IL 60603-5559 

312.324.8400 

Dated: January 7, 2015 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 269 Filed: 01/07/15 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:5371
LEGAL124677217.5 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Debra R. Bernard, certify that on January 7, 2015, I caused the foregoing Third Party 

T-Mobile U.S., Inc.’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Compelling T-mobile US 

INC. to Comply with Plaintiff’s Subpoenas for Class Member Information and 

Alternatively T-Mobile’s Cross Motion to Quash the Subpoenas and/or for Protective 

Order to be filed and served via the Court’s CM/ECF system upon the following parties: 

Scott R. Rauscher 

scott@loevy.com

Jonathan I. Loevy 

jon@loevy.com

Michael I. Kanovitz 

mike@loevy.com

LOEVY & LOEVY 

312 N. May Street, Suite 100 

Chicago, Illinois 60607 

T: 312-243-5900 

F: 312-243-5902 

Richard W. Epstein (Florida Bar No. 229091 

Richard.Epstein@gmlaw.com

Rebecca F. Bratter (Florida Bar No. 685100) 

Rebecca.Bratter@gmlaw.com

Jeffrey A. Backman (Florida Bar No. 662501) 

Jeffrey.Backman@gmlaw.com

GREENSPOON MARDER, P.A. 

200 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1500 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

T: 954-491-1120 

F: 954-343-6958 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

Jay Edelson 

jedelson@edelson.com

Rafey S. Balabanian 

rbalabanian@edelson.com

Eve-Lynn J. Rapp 

erapp@edelson.com

EDELSON PC 

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 

Chicago, Illinois 60654 

T: 312-589-6370 

F: 312-589-6378 

Timothy Hudson 

TABET DIVITO & ROTHSTEIN LLC 

209 South LaSalle Street, 7th Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

T: 312-762-9476 

F: 312-762-9451 

thudson@tdrlawfirm.com

M. Peebles Harrison (Pro Hac Vice) 

Rose, Harrison & Gilreath, P.C. 

700 Blue Jay Street, Suite 1 

Post Office Box 405 

Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 27948 

T: 252-480-1414 

F: 252-480-1765 

Peebles@outerbankslaw.com

Brian P. O’Meara 

Forde Law Offices LLP 

111 West Washington Street, Suite 1100 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

T: 312-465-4780 

F: 312-641-1288 

bomeara@fordellp.com

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 269 Filed: 01/07/15 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:5372
LEGAL124677217.5 -2-

/s/ Debra R. Bernard One of the attorneys for T-Mobile US Inc. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 269 Filed: 01/07/15 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:5373