• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Memorandum in Support of Verizon’s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Master Consolidated Complaint MDL NO. 06-1791-VRW
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALEAND DORR LLPJohn A. Rogovin (pro hac vice)Randolph D. Moss (pro hac vice)Samir C. Jain # 181572Brian M. Boynton # 222193Catherine M.A. Carroll (pro hac vice pending)Benjamin C. Mizer (pro hac vice)1875 Pennsylvania Ave, NWWashington, DC 20006Tel.: 202-663-6000Fax: 202-663-6363Email: john.rogovin@wilmerhale.comMUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLPHenry Weissmann # 132418Susan R. Szabo # 155315Aimee A. Feinberg # 223309355 South Grand Avenue35th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90071-1560Tel.: 213-683-9100Fax: 213-683-5150Email: Henry.Weissmann@mto.comRandal S. Milch (pro hac vice)Verizon Communications Inc.One Verizon WayVC43E043Basking Ridge, NJ 07920Tel.: 908-559-1752Fax: 908-696-2136Attorneys for Verizon Communications Inc.,Verizon Northwest Inc., Verizon Florida Inc.,and MCI Communications Services, Inc.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO DIVISIONIN RE:NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCYTELECOMMUNICATIONSRECORDS LITIGATIONThis Document Relates To:All Actions Against the MCI andVerizon Defendants in the Master MCIand Verizon Consolidated Complaint,Dkt. 125))))))))))))))))MDL NO. 06-1791 VRW
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
VERIZON’S MOTION TO DISMISSPLAINTIFFS’ MASTER CONSOLIDATEDCOMPLAINT
Hearing Date: June 21, 2007Time: 2:00 p.m.Courtroom: 6 (17th floor)Judge: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 274 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 1 of 61
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Memorandum in Support of Verizon’s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Master Consolidated Complaint MDL NO. 06-1791-VRW
 - i -
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................iiiISSUES TO BE D
ECIDED………………………………………………………...………….xARGUMENT.............................................................................................................................3I. THE STATE-SECRETS DOCTRINE MANDATES DISMISSAL OF ALL CLAIMS………………………………………………………………………………………....3II. THE CALL CONTENT CLAIMS MUST BE DISMISSED (CLAIMS 3 AND 5)......7A. Title III Does Not Apply To National Security Intelligence.............................7B. The Complaint Fails to State a Claim for Interception or Surveillance……….9C. The FISA Claim Must Be Dismissed ………………………………………..10III. THE RECORDS CLAIM FAILS BECAUSE ECPA DOES NOT APPLY TO THEFACTS ALLEGED (CLAIM 2)..................................................................................11A. ECPA Does Not and Cannot Be Construed To Restrict the Collection of Intelligence for National Defense Purposes....................................................11B. The AUMF Is Statutory Authority to Obtain Access to Call Record Information.....…………………………………………………………………………………..…19C. The Emergency Exception Applies.................................................................20D. The State-Secrets Privilege Requires Dismissal Of The Records Claim........22IV. IF ECPA’S RECORDS PROVISIONS WERE APPLICABLE, THE SECOND CLAIMNEVERTHELESS FAILS AS A MATTER OF LAW...............................................22A. Defendants’ Alleged Provision Of Call Records For Inclusion In A DatabaseDoes Not Constitute The “Divulgence” Of Records.......................................23B. Plaintiffs’ Records Claim Under ECPA Must Be Dismissed Because It Seeks toHold Defendants Liable For Activity Protected by the First Amendment......261. Defendants’ Alleged Communications Are “Speech” Protected by theFirst Amendment.................................................................................272. Defendants Cannot Be Held Liable for Their Alleged PetitioningActivity................................................................................................293. Defendants Cannot Be Held Liable for Their Alleged Speech...........32a. Strict Scrutiny Applies............................................................32b. Prohibiting the Speech Alleged Fails Strict Scrutiny..............35(1) No Compelling Interest Exists That Would JustifyProhibiting The Speech Alleged..................................35
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 274 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 2 of 61
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Memorandum in Support of Verizon’s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Master Consolidated Complaint MDL NO. 06-1791-VRW
 - ii -(2) Prohibiting The Speech Alleged Is Not The Least RestrictiveMeans..........................................................................34c. Prohibiting Speech As Alleged In The Complaint Fails IntermediateScrutiny...................................................................................39d. The Complaint Must Be Dismissed Because It Seeks To ImposeLiability On Protected Speech.................................................414. Under
 Ashwander 
, ECPA Must Be Construed To Permit Defendants’Alleged Speech and Petitioning Activity............................................42V. THE REMAINING CLAIMS MUST BE DISMISSED.............................................46A. Claim 4, Under 47 U.S.C. § 605, Must Be Dismissed....................................46B. Claim 1, Under 18 U.S.C. § 2702(a)(1) and (a)(2), Must Be Dismissed........46C. The State-Law Claims Must Be Dismissed.....................................................46VI. CLAIMS AGAINST MCI ARE BARRED BY THE BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE.....................................................................................................................................48CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................50
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 274 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 3 of 61
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...