Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 148 Filed 02/01/2007 Page 1 of 11

1 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP

BRUCE A. ERICSON #76342
2 DAVID L. ANDERSON #149604
JACOB R. SORENSEN #209134
3 MARC H. AXELBAUM #209855
DANIEL J. RICHERT #232208
4 50 Fremont Street
Post Office Box 7880
5 San Francisco, CA 94120-7880
Telephone: (415) 983-1000
6 Facsimile: (415) 983-1200
Email: [email protected]
7
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
8 DAVID W. CARPENTER (admitted pro hac vice)
BRADFORD A. BERENSON (admitted pro hac vice)
9 DAVID L. LAWSON (admitted pro hac vice)
EDWARD R. MCNICHOLAS (admitted pro hac vice)
10 ERIC A. SHUMSKY #206164
1501 K Street, N.W.
11 Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 736-8010
12 Facsimile: (202) 736-8711
13 Attorneys for the AT&T Defendants
14

15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
18
MDL Dkt. No. 06-1791-VRW
19 In re:
AT&T’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO
20 NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY SHOW CAUSE RE: APPLICATION OF
TELECOMMUNICATIONS RECORDS HEPTING ORDER [DKT. 79]
21 LITIGATION
22 Date: February 9, 2007
This Document Relates To: Time: 2:00 p.m.
23 Courtroom: 6, 17th Floor
ALL ACTIONS Judge: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker
24

25

26

27

28
AT&T Response to Order to Show Cause
700599792v9 MDL No. 06-1791-VRW
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 148 Filed 02/01/2007 Page 2 of 11

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3 I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................1

4 II. ARGUMENT. ............................................................................................................2

5 A. It is premature to apply the Order to other cases............................................2

6 1. The Order should not be extended until appellate review is

complete. ............................................................................................2
7
2. Plaintiffs may file a consolidated complaint against AT&T. .............3
8
3. The Government has not yet asserted the state secrets
9 privilege in other cases. ......................................................................3

10 B. The Order cannot be given collateral estoppel effect. ....................................4

11 1. The Order cannot estop the Government............................................4

12 2. The Order cannot estop AT&T...........................................................4

13 a. The Order is not a final judgment on the merits.....................5

14 b. The issues in Hepting are not identical to the issues in

all the other cases....................................................................5
15
c. The Order cannot be applied to parties not involved in
16 Hepting. ..................................................................................6

17 III. CONCLUSION. .........................................................................................................8

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
700599792-9 -i- AT&T Response to Order to Show Cause
MDL No. 06-1791-VRW
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 148 Filed 02/01/2007 Page 3 of 11

1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page
Cases
3
Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found.,
4 402 U.S. 313 (1971) ................................................................................................... 7

5 Gospel Missions of Am. v. City of Los Angeles,

328 F.3d 548, 554 (9th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................. 6
6
Hepting v. AT&T Corp.,
7 439 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2006).......................................................... 1, 2, 5, 6

8 Kourtis v. Cameron,
419 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005) ...................................................................................... 5
9
Luben Indus., Inc. v. United States,
10 707 F.2d 1037 (9th Cir. 1983) ................................................................................... 5

11 Lumkin v. Envirodyne Indus., Inc.,

159 B.R. 814 (N.D. Ill. 1993)..................................................................................... 7
12
Nat’l Med. Enters., Inc. v. Sullivan,
13 916 F.2d 542 (9th Cir. 1990) ...................................................................................... 7

14 Parklane Hosiery v. Shore,

439 U.S. 322 (1979) ................................................................................................... 5
15
Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs,
16 766 F.2d 404 (9th Cir. 1985) ...................................................................................... 5
17 Starker v. United States,
602 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1973) .................................................................................... 5
18
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,
19 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) ............................................................................................... 6

20 United States v. Mendoza,

464 U.S. 154 (1984) ............................................................................................... 2, 4
21
United States v. Reynolds,
22 345 U.S. 1 (1953) ....................................................................................................... 4

23 Statutes and Codes

24 United States Code
Title 28, section 1292(b)............................................................................................. 2
25

26

27

28
700599792-9 - ii - AT&T Response to Order to Show Cause
MDL No. 06-1791-VRW
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 148 Filed 02/01/2007 Page 4 of 11

1 I. INTRODUCTION.
2 This Court has asked “[a]ll parties to SHOW CAUSE in writing why the Hepting

3 order should not apply to all cases and claims to which the government asserts the state

4 secrets privilege.” Dkt. 79. For the reasons set forth herein, defendants AT&T CORP.,
5 AT&T OPERATIONS, INC., SBC LONG DISTANCE LLC, PACIFIC BELL
6 TELEPHONE CO., AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA, AT&T
7 TELEHOLDINGS, AT&T COMMUNICATIONS, SBC COMMUNICATIONS,
8 INDIANA BELL, ILLINOIS BELL and specially appearing defendant AT&T INC.
9 (collectively, “AT&T”) respectfully submit that it would be premature and improper to

10 apply the Hepting order, Hepting v. AT&T Corp., 439 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2006)

11 (“Order”), to other cases and claims in this MDL for these reasons:

12 1. The Ninth Circuit is now reviewing the Order. The Government has moved

13 to stay this MDL until the appellate process concludes. Whether or not this Court grants a

14 stay, there is no reason to consider applying the Order until the appeals court tells us

15 whether the Order will be reversed, modified or affirmed.

16 2. Plaintiffs have filed consolidated complaints against other defendants, but

17 not yet against AT&T. Plaintiffs have reserved the right to file a consolidated complaint

18 against AT&T after the Ninth Circuit rules on the Order. There is no occasion to decide

19 now whether the Order might apply to consolidated claims against AT&T that have not yet

20 been drafted. There also is no reason for AT&T to file motions to dismiss complaints that

21 may be superseded after the appeal.

22 3. The Government has not yet invoked the state secrets privilege in most of

23 the other MDL cases. Unless it does, the Order’s application to these cases is purely

24 hypothetical. The Order’s effects should be considered when and if the Government

25 invokes the privilege—and then in the course of deciding actual motions to dismiss.

26 4. While the Order’s effects should be decided in a concrete setting, we can say

27 now that the Order has no collateral estoppel effect. The Order cannot estop the

28 Government because non-mutual collateral estoppel cannot be applied against the

700599792-9 -1- AT&T Response to Order to Show Cause
MDL No. 06-1791-VRW
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 148 Filed 02/01/2007 Page 5 of 11

1 Government. See United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154, 159--62 (1984). The Order

2 cannot estop any party, including AT&T, because the Order does not meet the Ninth

3 Circuit’s test for collateral estoppel: it is not sufficiently firm; the issues are not identical;

4 and it cannot bind parties who were not defendants in Hepting.

5 II. ARGUMENT.
6 A. It is premature to apply the Order to other cases.
7 1. The Order should not be extended until appellate review is complete.
8 The Ninth Circuit is in the midst of considering interlocutory appeals from the

9 Order. Appellants’ opening briefs are due February 23. The Ninth Circuit may reverse or

10 materially modify the Order; only time will tell. Even if it substantially affirms the Order,

11 modifications might affect Hepting and the other MDL cases. The final scope and

12 application of the Order cannot properly be determined until after the Ninth Circuit has

13 decided the pending appeals. For this reason, the United States has moved for a stay of all

14 proceedings in this MDL. See Dkt. 67. AT&T has joined in this motion. See Dkt. 100.

15 This Court noted, in the course of certifying the Order for immediate appeal, that the

16 “state secrets issues resolved [therein] represent controlling questions of law as to which

17 there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion.” Order, 439 F. Supp. 2d at 1011

18 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)). The Court recently reiterated in its order denying the remand

19 motions in Campbell and Riordan that it intends to await the result of the Ninth Circuit

20 appeals until relying upon its state secrets ruling:

21 Plaintiffs contend that the court’s order in Hepting . . . renders the effect of
the state secrets privilege undisputed in the present cases. But this argument
22 belies the court’s certification of the Hepting order for appeal pursuant to
28 USC § 1292(b). The court certified the order because the state secrets
23 privilege is an issue for which “there is a substantial ground for difference of
opinion.” See Doc #308 at 70, 06-672. . . . Therefore, the court’s ruling in
24 Hepting does not determine unequivocally the effect of the state
secrets privilege, particularly with respect to the present cases.
25

26 MDL Dkt. 130, at 13 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court should decline to rule on

27 the Order to Show Cause until the appeals conclude, or at a minimum, until this Court’s

28 determination with respect to the stay.

700599792-9 -2- AT&T Response to Order to Show Cause
MDL No. 06-1791-VRW
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 148 Filed 02/01/2007 Page 6 of 11

1 2. Plaintiffs may file a consolidated complaint against AT&T.

2 Applying the Hepting Order to other cases against AT&T would be premature now.

3 Those complaints will likely be superseded by a consolidated complaint against AT&T

4 filed after the appeals (assuming something of this case survives the appeals).

5 Plaintiffs have filed consolidated complaints against all major defendants except

6 AT&T. MDL Dkt. 121, 123-26. Plaintiffs did not file a superseding consolidated

7 complaint against AT&T at this time precisely because of the pending appeals. In the Joint

8 Case Management Statement, plaintiffs stated that they “do not … intend to file a

9 consolidated complaint against defendant AT&T at this time” and propose that the Court

10 “treat the Hepting amended complaint as the controlling complaint with regard to AT&T, at

11 least until the appeal is complete . . . .” Dkt. 61, at 28 (emphases added). Plaintiffs have

12 thus left open the possibility—indeed, the probability—that they will file a consolidated

13 complaint against AT&T after the appellate process concludes if the state secrets privilege

14 does not effectively end this litigation.

15 Neither the Court nor AT&T knows what a future consolidated complaint might

16 allege (indeed, plaintiffs probably will not finally know until they read the Ninth Circuit’s

17 opinion). Thus, it would be premature and pointless to apply the Order to other cases

18 against AT&T at this time. It also would be pointless to start litigating motions to dismiss

19 those other AT&T cases based on existing complaints that probably will be superseded.

20 Once the appellate process is over, we will know if any part of the MDL cases

21 survives. If nothing survives, the Order’s application will be moot. If some aspect of these

22 cases survives, plaintiffs will doubtlessly seek to amend. Once they do so, the Order’s

23 application can be considered in light of the appellate ruling and the amended pleadings,

24 and as part of the process of deciding actual motions directed at actual complaints.

25 3. The Government has not yet asserted the state secrets privilege in other cases.
26 This Court would be rendering an advisory opinion if it applied its state secrets

27 determinations in Hepting to other cases in the MDL now. The Government has not yet

28 asserted the state secrets privilege in the other MDL cases. There is no cause to address the
700599792-9 -3- AT&T Response to Order to Show Cause
MDL No. 06-1791-VRW
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 148 Filed 02/01/2007 Page 7 of 11

1 state secrets privilege hypothetically before the Government actually invokes it in a

2 particular case and makes whatever sort of in camera showing it chooses to make.

3 B. The Order cannot be given collateral estoppel effect.

4 Nonmutual collateral estoppel is not applicable here: first, because it cannot ever

5 bind the Government; and second, because it does not apply to anyone else in these

6 circumstances.

7 1. The Order cannot estop the Government.

8 The Court cannot apply the state secrets determination in Hepting to other cases for

9 the fundamental reason that “nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel is not to be extended

10 to the United States.” United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154, 158 (1984). Nonmutual

11 collateral estoppel is an exception to the general requirement that preclusion be mutual; in

12 Mendoza, a unanimous Supreme Court unequivocally held that nonmutual estoppel does

13 not apply to the United States. Id. at 158-59, 162.

14 An application of nonmutual estoppel to a ruling on the state secrets privilege would

15 be an application of nonmutual estoppel against the United States. The state secrets

16 privilege belongs exclusively to the United States and can only be raised by the United

17 States. See United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7 (1953). There is no dispute that the

18 United States properly invoked its privilege in Hepting. Using the Hepting state secrets

19 determination to estop the United States from litigating the validity of a state secrets

20 invocation in suits brought by other plaintiffs would violate Mendoza. Thus, factual and

21 legal conclusions underlying this Court’s prior state secrets ruling—including any factual

22 findings regarding AT&T—cannot have preclusive effect in other litigation.

23 2. The Order cannot estop AT&T.

24 Even if one could overcome the decision of a unanimous Supreme Court in

25 Mendoza, the basic test for collateral estoppel still cannot be satisfied here. Any application

26 of the Order to other cases would involve the doctrine of non-mutual offensive collateral

27 estoppel. That doctrine may apply when “a plaintiff is seeking to estop a defendant from

28 relitigating the issues which the defendant previously litigated and lost against another
700599792-9 -4- AT&T Response to Order to Show Cause
MDL No. 06-1791-VRW
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 148 Filed 02/01/2007 Page 8 of 11

1 plaintiff.” Parklane Hosiery v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 329 (1979). It can only be applied if:

2 (1) the first proceeding ended with a final judgment on the merits; (2) the issue necessarily

3 decided at the previous proceeding is identical to the one that is sought to be relitigated; and

4 (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a

5 party at the first proceeding. Kourtis v. Cameron, 419 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2005). As

6 set forth below, these requirements are not met here.

7 a. The Order is not a final judgment on the merits.

8 To constitute a final judgment on the merits for collateral estoppel purposes, the

9 order must have been “sufficiently firm” to have preclusive effect. Luben Indus., Inc. v.

10 United States, 707 F.2d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir. 1983) (affirming a trial court’s decision not to

11 apply non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel where the earlier ruling was not sufficiently

12 firm). Here, the Order does not meet the “sufficiently firm” standard because, with respect

13 to several issues, this Court declined to rule definitively for purposes of present district

14 court litigation and until the Ninth Circuit has ruled. These issues include: whether the

15 government’s state secrets assertion will preclude evidence necessary for plaintiffs to

16 establish a prima facie case; whether the existence or non-existence of a communications

17 records program is a state secret; and whether Congress has limited the state secrets

18 privilege. See Order, 439 F. Supp. 2d at 994, 997-98; see also supra at 2-3.

19 b. The issues in Hepting are not identical to the issues in all the other cases.
20 For collateral estoppel to apply, the issue decided in the earlier litigation must be the

21 same issue that is sought to be relitigated. Starker v. United States, 602 F.2d 1341, 1344

22 (9th Cir. 1973). “Similarity between issues is not sufficient; collateral estoppel is applied

23 only when the issues are identical.” Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs,

24 766 F.2d 404, 408 (9th Cir. 1985).

25 First, as discussed above, state secrets assertions and determinations are context-

26 specific. Therefore, until the United States invokes the privilege, this Court cannot

27 determine whether the state secrets issue is sufficiently identical to warrant preclusion.

28 Second, this Court’s standing determination is not an issue that can be deemed
700599792-9 -5- AT&T Response to Order to Show Cause
MDL No. 06-1791-VRW
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 148 Filed 02/01/2007 Page 9 of 11

1 “identical” for purposes of collateral estoppel; each person (or named representative

2 plaintiff) must establish in each case that he or she suffered an injury-in-fact in order to

3 establish Article III jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83,

4 94 (1998); see also Gospel Missions of Am. v. City of Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 548, 554 (9th

5 Cir. 2003) (“A court must always decide for itself its own jurisdiction.”). Therefore, a

6 finding of standing for one party could not preclude the relitigation of standing in a future

7 case by another party raising similar claims.

8 Third, the reasons underlying the Court’s standing ruling (which AT&T is arguing

9 in the Ninth Circuit was in error) cannot be applied to other cases that may present

10 materially different allegations. For instance, the Hepting plaintiffs allege that they were

11 customers of AT&T who placed international calls, Hepting FAC ¶¶ 11-16, but the

12 plaintiffs in most of the other complaints against AT&T do not so allege. 1 Whatever the

13 sufficiency of the Hepting plaintiffs’ allegations, complaints failing to allege international

14 calls therefore present very different state secrets issues than the ones presented in Hepting,
15 where the Government’s public pronouncements concerning an international
16 communications surveillance program played a substantial role in the Court’s analysis of
17 whether the subject of a particular claim is a state secret. Order, 439 F. Supp. 2d at 995-97.
18 c. The Order cannot be applied to parties not involved in Hepting.
19 The final requirement for the application of offensive collateral estoppel is that the

20 party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party to the prior proceeding.

21 Here, most of the MDL cases have been brought against entities that are not parties to

22 Hepting. Indeed, the only party against which the Order could even theoretically be used is

23
1
See, e.g., Campbell, et al. v. AT&T Commc’ns of Cal., et al., C-06-3596-VRW;
24 Conner, et al. v. AT&T, et al., Case No. C-06-5576-VRW; Fortnash v. AT&T Corp., et al.,
C-06-6385-VRW; Hardy v. AT&T Corp., et al., C-06-6924-VRW; Herron, et al. v. Verizon
25 Global Networks, Inc., et al., C-06-5343-VRW; Mahoney v. AT&T Commc’ns, C-06-5065-
26 VRW; Mink v. AT&T Corp., et al., C-06-7934-VRW; Roe, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., C-
06-3467-VRW; Souder v. AT&T Corp., C-06-5067-VRW; Terkel, et al. v. AT&T Inc., et
27 al., C-06-5340-VRW; Trevino, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., C-06-5268-VRW; and Waxman
v. AT&T Corp., C-06-6294-VRW.
28
700599792-9 -6- AT&T Response to Order to Show Cause
MDL No. 06-1791-VRW
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 148 Filed 02/01/2007 Page 10 of 11

1 AT&T Corp. 2 Applying the Order to other AT&T defendants at this point in the

2 proceedings—without affording them the opportunity to show why the Order does not

3 apply to them—would deny these separate entities the basic due process of being able to

4 present their evidence and arguments for different treatment. See Blonder-Tongue Labs.,

5 Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313, 329 (1971) (due process prohibits application of

6 collateral estoppel against litigants who never appeared in prior action); Nat’l Med. Enters.,

7 Inc. v. Sullivan, 916 F.2d 542, 545 (9th Cir. 1990) (declining to apply collateral estoppel

8 against subsidiaries, noting that “whatever relationship exists between NME and its

9 offspring is not sufficient to override the important values limiting the use of collateral

10 estoppel”); Lumkin v. Envirodyne Indus., Inc., 159 B.R. 814, 818 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (declining

11 to apply collateral estoppel against parent despite previous judgment against subsidiary).

12 The plaintiffs have made no allegations of a lack of corporate separateness among

13 the AT&T entities and have no basis for the veil-piercing or reverse veil-piercing that
14 would be required to treat all of them as the same entity. Similarly, they have made no
15 demonstration sufficient to establish privity in this context. The various operating entities
16 that are defendants operate businesses and networks that are materially different than those
17 of AT&T Corp. Moreover, AT&T is currently in the process of conferring with the
18 plaintiffs regarding their need to dismiss several of the AT&T entities that are solely
19 holding companies, or, in one case, merely a trademark and not a company at all. It would,

20 of course, be inappropriate for the Court to apply the Order to entities that either do not

21 exist or that were not properly named as defendants.

22 //

23 //

24 //

25 //

26
2
27 The Court has not ruled on AT&T Inc.’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction.
28
700599792-9 -7- AT&T Response to Order to Show Cause
MDL No. 06-1791-VRW
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 148 Filed 02/01/2007 Page 11 of 11

1 III. CONCLUSION.
2 The Order should not be applied to other cases and claims in the MDL against

3 AT&T over which the Government asserts the state secrets privilege.

4 Dated: February 1, 2007.

5 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

BRUCE A. ERICSON DAVID W. CARPENTER*
6 DAVID L. ANDERSON BRADFORD A. BERENSON*
JACOB R. SORENSEN DAVID L. LAWSON*
7 MARC H. AXELBAUM EDWARD R. MCNICHOLAS*
DANIEL J. RICHERT ERIC A. SHUMSKY
8 50 Fremont Street 1501 K Street, N.W.
Post Office Box 7880 Washington, DC 20005
9 San Francisco, CA 94120-7880 * admitted pro hac vice

10 By /s/ Bruce A. Ericson By /s/ Bradford A. Berenson

Bruce A. Ericson Bradford A. Berenson
11
Attorneys for the AT&T Defendants
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
700599792-9 -8- AT&T Response to Order to Show Cause
MDL No. 06-1791-VRW