Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=0c127391-86af-4762-aa0c-742b44093db2
Timestamp: 2017-05-22 22:15:13
Document Index: 214909679

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1885', '§1885', '§1885', '§1885', '§1885', '§ 1885', '§1885', '§ 2709', '§ 1885', '§2709', '§1885', '§1885', '§1885', '§802', '§1885', '§802', '§1885', 'ARTZ 180', '§1885']

Notice of New Legal And Factual Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition To Motion of the United States Seeking to Apply 50 U.S.C. Section 1885a to Dismiss These Actions | In Re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation | Electronic Frontier Foundation - JDSupra
In Re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records LitigationNotice of New Legal And Factual Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition To Motion of the United States Seeking to Apply 50 U.S.C. Section 1885a to Dismiss These Actions
This is Plaintiffs' NOTICE OF NEW LEGAL AND FACTUAL AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES SEEKING TO APPLY 50 U.S.C. §1885a TO DISMISS THESE ACTIONS.
Download PDF No. M-06-01791-VRW NOTICE OF NEW LEGAL AND FACTUAL AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLTFS OPP TO MTN OF THE US SEEKING TO APPLY 50 U.S.C. §1885a TO DISMISS THESE ACTIONS 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 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION CINDY COHN (145997) cindy@eff.org LEE TIEN (148216) tien@eff.org KURT OPSAHL (191303) kurt@eff.org KEVIN S. BANKSTON (217026) bankston@eff.org CORYNNE MCSHERRY (221504) corynne@eff.org JAMES S. TYRE (083117) jstyre@eff.org 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: 415/436-9333 415/436-9993 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiffs [Additional counsel appear on signature page.] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION IN RE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY TELECOMMUNICATIONS RECORDS LITIGATION, MDL No. 1791 This Document Relates To: ALL CASES Except: Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. v. Bush, No. 07-0109; Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush, No. 07-1115; Guzzi v. Bush, No. 06-06225; Shubert v. Bush, No. 07-0693; Clayton v. AT&T Commc’ns of the Southwest, No. 07-1187; U.S. v. Adams, No. 07-1323; U.S. v. Clayton, No. 07-1242; U.S. v. Palermino, No. 07-1326; U.S. v. Rabner, No. 07-1324; U.S. v. Volz, No. 07-1396 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MDL Docket No 06-1791 VRW CLASS ACTION NOTICE OF NEW LEGAL AND FACTUAL AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES SEEKING TO APPLY 50 U.S.C. §1885a TO DISMISS THESE ACTIONS Courtroom: 6, 17th Floor Judge: The Hon. Vaughn R. Walker Casse M::06--ccvv--01791--VRW D o Dcuomcuemnte 5n3t 5 3F5il e d 1F2il/e1d9 /1220/0189 /P20a0g8e 1 oPf a7ge 1 of 7 COHN (145997) S. (217026) counsel appear DISTRICT CALIFORNIA DIVISION Docket RECORDS MDL No. 1791 AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OPPOSITION TO CASES Haramain OF THE UNITED STATES TO APPLY 50 U.S.C. §1885a Rights v. ))T Commc’ns S. )) NEW LEGAL AND PLTFS OPP TO MTN TO DISMISS Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=0c127391-86af-4762-aa0c-742b44093db2No. M-06-01791-VRW NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL LEGAL AND FACTUAL AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLTFS OPP TO MTN OF THE US SEEKING TO APPLY 50 U.S.C. §1885a TO DISMISS THESE ACTIONS 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 Plaintiffs hereby submit new legal and factual authorities, published after the December 2, 2008 oral argument, to assist the Court in its determination of the above-referenced motion. 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the slip opinion of the recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Doe v. Mukasey, CV 07-4943 (December 15, 2008). 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a declaration filed on December 10, 2008, by Carl J. Nichols in EFF v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, et al.,(3:08-cv-02997-JSW). This is a Freedom of Information Act case that the Electronic Frontier Foundation brought seeking information about the lobbying campaign in favor of telecom immunity. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of two magazine articles published this week revealing further information about the warrantless wiretapping that is the subject of this action. Michael Isikoff, The Fed Who Blew the Whistle, NEWSWEEK, (December 22, 2008) 40-48 and an insert to that article by Daniel Klaidman, Now We Know What the Battle Was About, NEWSWEEK, (December 22, 2008) 46-47. 4. As to Exhibit A, the Doe v. Mukasey decision bolsters Plaintiffs’ contention that the non-disclosure provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008, (FISAAA), codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1885a, violate the First Amendment. See MDL Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss under 50 U.S.C. §1885a (Docket 483) at pages 31-36; MDL Plaintiffs’ Reply (Docket 524) at 22-25. Doe concerned a First Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2709 and 3511, which respectively bar the recipient from disclosing that he has received a National Security Letter (NSL) and establish a mechanism for the recipient to challenge that non-disclosure order in court. 5. Section 3511(b) allows the NSL recipient to challenge the executive’s non-disclosure order, but provides that if a government official designated in the statute certifies that the disclosure “may endanger the national security of the United States, or interfere with diplomatic relations” “such certification shall be treated as conclusive unless the court finds the certification Casse M::06--ccvv--01791--VRW D o Dcuomcuemnte 5n3t 5 3F5il e d 1F2il/e1d9 /1220/0189 /P20a0g8e 2 oPf a7ge 2 of 7 hereby submit new legal and factual authorities, published after the December Court as Exhibit the recent Court Circuit as Exhibit a true and correct copy of a declaration filed on 10, 2008, by Carl J. Nichols in EFF Director is a Freedom Act case lobbying campaign in favor of telecom as Exhibit a true and correct copy of two magazine articles about warrantless Michael Isikoff, The Fed Who Blew the Whistle, NEWSWEEK, Now We (December 22, 2008) Exhibit A, the Doe v. Mukasey decision bolsters contention that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1885a, MDL Memorandum Points Opposition to the Government’s Dismiss 31-36; MDL Plaintiffs’ Doe concerned a First Amendment challenge S.§2709 and disclosing that he and establish recipient to challenge the executive’s non-disclosure provides if a government official designated in the statute certifies that the the national security of or interfere with such shall be treated the court OF ADDITIONAL IN SUPPORT TO 50 U.S.C. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=0c127391-86af-4762-aa0c-742b44093db2No. M-06-01791-VRW NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL LEGAL AND FACTUAL AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLTFS OPP TO MTN OF THE US SEEKING TO APPLY 50 U.S.C. §1885a TO DISMISS THESE ACTIONS 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 was made in bad faith.” Id. (emphasis added). The Second Circuit held that the statute violated the First Amendment by compelling the courts to defer to the executive’s determination of harm, thereby eliminating “meaningful judicial review of the Executive Branch decision” and making it impossible for a court to apply “either traditional strict scrutiny or a less exacting application of Slip op. at 47.1 “To accept deference to that extraordinary degree would be to reduce strict scrutiny to no scrutiny, save only in the rarest of situations where bad faith could be shown.” Id. In the words of the Second Circuit: “The fiat of a governmental official, though senior in rank and doubtless honorable in the execution of official duties, cannot displace the judicial obligation to enforce constitutional requirements.” Id. at 47-48. 6. The nondisclosure requirements of FISAAA’a section 802 similarly violate the First Amendment by eliminating judicial review and compelling the Court to defer to the Executive’s unreviewable determination that disclosure would harm national security and that there is no less restrictive alternative to nondisclosure. The nondisclosure requirements of section 802 of FISAAA are even more clearly unconstitutional than section 3511(b) because section 802 requires even greater deference to the executive than does section 3511(b) in two key areas. First, unlike section 3511, section 802 provides no mechanism whatsoever for an affected person to challenge the validity of the non-disclosure requirement. Second, section 3511 permits the court to override the government’s certification in limited circumstances, i.e., if it finds that the certification was in bad faith. By contrast, under section 802(c), once the Attorney General certifies that disclosure will harm the national security, the court is powerless to permit any disclosure, even if it concludes the Attorney General made his certification in bad faith. Section 802(d) goes even further than section 802(c), in that section 802(d) mandates permanent non-disclosure without any declaration asserting harm by the government. Thus, unlike section 3511(b), to which the Second Circuit gave an extensive a saving construction, the unambiguous language of sections 802(c) and 802(d) does not permit any finding other than facial unconstitutionality. 7. Mukasey also supports Plaintiffs’ First Amendment argument that the non-disclosure 1 As Plaintiffs explained on pages 32-33 of their opposition and pages 24, 25-26 n.29 of their reply, strict scrutiny applies to the non-disclosure provisions of section 802. Casse M::06--ccvv--01791--VRW D o Dcuomcuemnte 5n3t 5 3F5il e d 1F2il/e1d9 /1220/0189 /P20a0g8e 3 oPf a7ge 3 of 7 in faith.” Id. (emphasis The Second held that the defer to the executive’s determination harm, the Executive either traditional strict scrutiny or a less exacting that standard.” Slip op. at 47.1 accept the Id. In the words of the Second Circuit: of a governmental though and doubtless in duties, cannot displace to enforce at requirements of FISAAA’a 802 similarly and the Executive’s less of section 802 of FISAAA unconstitutional than section 3511(b) because requires even to the executive than does section 3511(b) in two key areas. mechanism affected challenge of the non-disclosure requirement. Second, section circumstances, that was bad By contrast, under section 802(once will concludes Section 802(d) goes even than mandates the government. section which the Second Circuit gave an Plaintiffs’ Amendment argument that the non-disclosure 1As explained on pages and OF ADDITIONAL IN SUPPORT TO 50 U.S.C. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=0c127391-86af-4762-aa0c-742b44093db2No. M-06-01791-VRW NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL LEGAL AND FACTUAL AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLTFS OPP TO MTN OF THE US SEEKING TO APPLY 50 U.S.C. §1885a TO DISMISS THESE ACTIONS 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 provisions of section 802 violate the First Amendment because they require nondisclosure for all time, without any mechanism for an affected party to seek disclosure on the ground that the government’s justifications for disclosure are no longer valid. The Second Circuit noted the potential validity of such an argument, but rejected it only because Section 3511 allowed an affected party annually to petition the court to set aside the non-disclosure requirement. Slip op. at 50 n.16. Section 802 provides no such mechanism. 8. Exhibit B, the Nichols Declaration, was executed after the date of the hearing on this matter and supports Plaintiffs' assertion that the Attorney General is a biased decisionmaker who has not acted impartially in submitting his certification to this Court. Of particular note is paragraph 22, in which Mr. Nichols, counsel to party-intervenor the United States who argued this motion on behalf of the government on December 2, 2008, describes a meeting that took place in February 2006 in which the United States and Defendant AT&T determined that they had a sufficient “common interest” so that they might assert a common interest privilege against production of documents that they shared. "The United States has always understood that it shares common interests with the telecommunications carriers in the various [MDL] cases described above and has acted accordingly." Id. at paragraph 21. Mr. Nichols also states that the telecommunications carrier defendants and the Government share a common interest in "legislation that would protect telecommunications carriers from litigation alleging they had provided assistance to the Government following the attacks of September 11, 2001," i.e., a common interest in using section 802 to protect the telecommunication carrier defendants from liability. Id. at paragraph 23." 9. Exhibit C, the Newsweek articles, provide the identity of a previously unidentified whistleblower, Thomas M. Tamm, who provided information to the New York Times about the warrantless surveillance of communications and their records. Newsweek also provides a more detailed description of the surveillance that supports Plaintiffs’ claims in this action and should be considered as part of this Court’s evaluation of whether the government has met its burden under either the motion to dismiss or the motion for summary judgment standards. For instance, the article by Mr. Klaidman explains: Casse M::06--ccvv--01791--VRW D o Dcuomcuemnte 5n3t 5 3F5il e d 1F2il/e1d9 /1220/0189 /P20a0g8e 4 oPf a7ge 4 of 7 the First Amendment because for any mechanism affected to seek disclosure justifications for are no longer valid. The Second noted the of such an argument, but rejected it only because Section allowed an the court to set aside B, the Nichols Declaration, was executed General a biased submitting his certification to this Court. Of particular note is 22, in counsel party-intervenor the United States of the government on December 2008, the United States determined that they might assert a common interest privilege against documents that they shared. The United States has shares telecommunications in MDL] cases described Id. at paragraph Mr. Nichols also states that the a common interest in "would protect telecommunications carriers from litigation alleging they had provided to the Government following using carrier defendants from liability. C, the Newsweek provide the a previously unidentified to the New York Times about surveillance of Newsweek Plaintiffs’ this action and should part of whether the government has burden dismiss or the motion for summary judgment standards. For instance, the OF ADDITIONAL IN SUPPORT TO 50 U.S.C. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=0c127391-86af-4762-aa0c-742b44093db2No. M-06-01791-VRW NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL LEGAL AND FACTUAL AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLTFS OPP TO MTN OF THE US SEEKING TO APPLY 50 U.S.C. §1885a TO DISMISS THESE ACTIONS 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 . . . the clash [in Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital room] erupted over a part of Bush’s espionage program that had nothing to do with the wiretapping of individual suspects. Rather, Comey and others threatened to resign because of the vast and indiscriminate collection of communications data. . . . the National Security Agency, with cooperation from some of the country’s largest telecommunications companies, was able to vacuum up the records of calls and e-mails of tens of millions of average Americans between September 2001 and March 2004. Plaintiffs request that these articles be considered along with the evidence submitted in support of its Plaintiffs Evidence Rule 1006 Summary of Voluminous Evidence Filed In Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion of the United States Seeking to Apply FISAAA §802 (50 U.S. C. §1885a) to Dismiss These Actions (Docket 479). Plaintiffs note that while the information provided by the whistleblower only extends to the resolution of the specific dispute in 2004, the magazine adds: “It’s unclear whether the administration has since found new legal justification to return to at least some of these activities.” Thus the discovery could address both past and current actions. 10. Additionally, these articles provide further support for plaintiffs’ request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) (Docket 478) for the opportunity to conduct discovery to obtain facts essential to justify plaintiffs’ opposition to the governments’ motion to terminate these cases. The articles reference documents that plaintiffs would seek in discovery and also identify additional individuals who could be deposed. 11. While some of the information sought here and in Plaintiffs earlier filing may be classified, Executive Order 13292 issued by President Bush expressly bars the government from designating materials as classified in order to, inter alia, “conceal violations of law,” or to “prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency.” Exec. Order No. 13292 (2003) (amending Exec. Order No. 12958). DATED: December 19, 2008 Respectfully submitted, /s/Cindy A. Cohn Cindy A. Cohn ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION Casse M::06--ccvv--01791--VRW D o Dcuomcuemnte 5n3t 5 3F5il e d 1F2il/e1d9 /1220/0189 /P20a0g8e 5 oPf a7ge 5 of 7 [hospital room] erupted program that had nothing to do with the wiretapping of individual of communications data. the cooperation some largest of average Americans between request along with of Voluminous Filed In Support of Plaintiffs’ the States to Apply §802 (50 U.S. C. Actions (Docket 479). the extends the specific dispute in 2004, the magazine adds: unclear whether the return to at least activities.” Thus the discovery could address both past these plaintiffs’ request under Federal Procedure Docket the opportunity to conduct to justify opposition to the governments’ motion to terminate these documents that plaintiffs would in who could be deposed. and in Plaintiffs may 13292 issued as classified in order to, inter alia, “violations of law,” to a person, organization, or agency.” December 19, Cindy A. Cohn OF ADDITIONAL IN SUPPORT TO 50 U.S.C. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=0c127391-86af-4762-aa0c-742b44093db2No. M-06-01791-VRW NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL LEGAL AND FACTUAL AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLTFS OPP TO MTN OF THE US SEEKING TO APPLY 50 U.S.C. §1885a TO DISMISS THESE ACTIONS 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 ROGER BALDWIN FOUNDATION OF ACLU HARVEY GROSSMAN ADAM SCHWARTZ 180 North Michigan Avenue Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 201-9740 Facsimile: (312) 201-9760 COUNSEL FOR AT&T CLASS PLAINTIFFS AND CO-CHAIR OF PLAINTIFFS’ EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ANN BRICK AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 621-2493 Facsimile: (415) 255-8437 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS IN CAMPBELL v. AT&T AND RIORDAN v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PETER J. ELIASBERG 1313 West Eighth St. Los Angeles, CA 90026 Telephone: (213) 977-9500 Facsimile: (213) 977-5299 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS IN CAMPBELL v. AT&T AND RIORDAN v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. FENWICK & WEST LLP LAURENCE F. PULGRAM JENNIFER KELLY CANDACE MOREY 555 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-2300 Facsimile: (415) 281-1350 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS IN CAMPBELL v. AT&T AND RIORDAN v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION CINDY A. COHN, ESQ. LEE TIEN, ESQ. KURT OPSAHL, ESQ. KEVIN S. BANKSTON, ESQ. CORYNNE MCSHERRY, ESQ. JAMES S. TYRE, ESQ. 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993 COUNSEL FOR AT&T CLASS PLAINTIFFS AND CO-CHAIR OF PLAINTIFFS’ EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. WIEBE RICHARD R. WIEBE 425 California Street Suite 2025 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382 COUNSEL FOR AT&T CLASS PLAINTIFFS LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP ELIZABETH J. CABRASER BARRY R. HIMMELSTEIN ERIC B. FASTIFF 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FOR MCI SUBSCRIBER CLASS 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 Facsimile: (504) 410-9937 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FOR BELLSOUTH SUBSCRIBER CLASS Casse M::06--ccvv--01791--VRW D o Dcuomcuemnte 5n3t 5 3F5il e d 1F2il/e1d9 /1220/0189 /P20a0g8e 6 oPf a7ge 6 of 7 BALDWIN COHN, ESQ. S. ESQ. AT&LIBERTIES OFFICE AT&HEIMANN LIBERTIES OF J. ELIASBERG CA EXNICIOS & NUNGESSER KELLY COUNSEL OF ADDITIONAL IN SUPPORT TO 50 U.S.C. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=0c127391-86af-4762-aa0c-742b44093db2No. M-06-01791-VRW NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL LEGAL AND FACTUAL AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLTFS OPP TO MTN OF THE US SEEKING TO APPLY 50 U.S.C. §1885a TO DISMISS THESE ACTIONS 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 MOTLEY RICE LLC RONALD MOTLEY DONALD MIGLIORI JODI WESTBROOK FLOWERS VINCENT I. PARRETT 28 Bridgeside Boulevard P.O. Box 1792 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Facsimile: (843) 216-9450 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FOR VERIZON SUBSCRIBER CLASS THE MASON LAW FIRM, PC GARY E. MASON NICHOLAS A. MIGLIACCIO 1225 19th St., NW, Ste. 500 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FOR SPRINT SUBSCRIBER CLASS BRUCE I AFRAN, ESQ. 10 Braeburn Drive Princeton, NJ 08540 609-924-2075 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FOR BELLSOUTH SUBSCRIBER CLASS MAYER LAW GROUP LLC CARL J. MAYER 66 Witherspoon Street, Suite 414 Princeton, New Jersey 08542 Telephone: (609) 921-8025 Facsimile: (609) 921-6964 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FOR BELLSOUTH SUBSCRIBER CLASS THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN E. SCHWARZ, ESQ. STEVEN E. SCHWARZ 2461 W. Foster Ave., #1W Chicago, IL 60625 Telephone: (773) 837-6134 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FOR BELLSOUTH SUBSCRIBER CLASS KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD. CLINTON A. KRISLOV 20 North Wacker Drive Suite 1350 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 606-0500 Facsimile: (312) 606-0207 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FOR BELLSOUTH SUBSCRIBER CLASS Casse M::06--ccvv--01791--VRW D o Dcuomcuemnte 5n3t 5 3F5il e d 1F2il/e1d9 /1220/0189 /P20a0g8e 7 oPf a7ge 7 of 7 GROUP COUNSEL Pleasant, OFFICES COUNSEL COUNSEL ASSOCIATES, COUNSEL FOR IL 60606 COUNSEL COUNSEL OF ADDITIONAL IN SUPPORT TO 50 U.S.C. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=0c127391-86af-4762-aa0c-742b44093db2
Order Requesting Supplemental Briefing United States' Response to Plaintiffs' Notice of New Legal and Factual Authority