AT&T Pushes to Keep Antitrust Fight Public as Opening Arguments Near
Lawyers for the Department of Justice say some witnesses will need to testify in a closed court, because they will present confidential information about AT&T competitors.
March 20, 2018 at 02:41 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Lawyers defending AT&T's merger with Time Warner are fighting to make sure their antitrust showdown against the Justice Department stays as public as possible.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon of the District of Columbia, who is overseeing the DOJ's antitrust case against the merger, said Tuesday that both AT&T and the government's third-party witnesses were “probably” designating too many evidentiary documents and material as confidential. AT&T's lawyer, O'Melveny & Myers partner Daniel Petrocelli, argued the trial should be held in an open courtroom as much as possible.
“It's important that this trial occurs in the light of day,” Petrocelli said.
Opening arguments in the trial, originally set for Wednesday, were pushed to Thursday due to an impending snow storm in Washington, D.C.
Craig Conrath, the government's lead lawyer, said some third-party witnesses need to testify in private but that he planned to make motions a day in advance on behalf of those parties to request the courtroom be sealed.
There had also been some disagreement as to how much of its own material AT&T should be allowed to claim as confidential. Petrocelli said his team agreed prior to Tuesday's hearing to accept the government's position with respect to any confidentiality asserted by AT&T, on the condition that AT&T can raise objections when needed.
“We wanted to clear the path to make it as easy as possible,” he said.
He added, however, that he believed it is unlikely the government's third-party witnesses, many of whom may be employees at AT&T's competitors, really needed to be questioned about confidential information. He said some of the witnesses have an obvious interest in testifying in a closed courtroom, since they would likely want to say how much the merger would hurt them but wouldn't want the public or shareholders to hear that testimony.
He also argued that third-party testimony likely won't rely on financial analysis, but on intuition and experience instead, which can be discussed in public.
The judge agreed that “we know what [third-party witnesses] are going to say,” but stressed that he needed to know how much of what they would say is based on “refined business judgment,” which could likely be discussed in public, versus “mathematical wizardry,” which may involve confidential information.
Conrath said that, for third-party witnesses who will testify about confidential information, it will only make up a small portion of the testimony. He also said that, while it might be in AT&T's interest to keep some of the government witnesses from testifying, it was important that the judge be presented with all the facts.
The judge also said he has a “logistical concern” about repeatedly opening and closing the courtroom and forcing people to leave during the trial, which is expected to last six weeks. He said it's likely that, when witnesses need to be examined in a sealed courtroom, he will have them take the stand at the end of a trial day.
Leon also stressed the burden is on the government's to prove that certain testimony needs to be presented in a sealed courtroom and that he may deny some of the requests, which could potentially hinder the government's argument.
“You can not go into it at all, or you can go into it in public,” the judge said.
The government sued AT&T to block the merger with Time Warner late last year.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTravis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readLegal Speak's 'Sidebar with Saul' Part IV: Deliberations Begin in First Trump Criminal Trial
1 minute readJosh Partington of Snell & Wilmer Is in Fact a Rock Star in the Office (and Out of It)
1 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250