University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation NS-CA-0011
Docket / Court 3:06-md-01791-VRW ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) National Security
Special Collection Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- All Matters
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- Internet Metadata
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- Telephony Metadata
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
Center for Constitutional Rights
Case Summary
The Consolidation of Cases into 06-MD-1791

On August 9, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation (MDL Panel) created MDL No. 06-1791 in the Northern District of California. Ultimately, the case consolidated approximately 40 total cases, including consumer class ... read more >
The Consolidation of Cases into 06-MD-1791

On August 9, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation (MDL Panel) created MDL No. 06-1791 in the Northern District of California. Ultimately, the case consolidated approximately 40 total cases, including consumer class actions against telecom companies, cases against the U.S. government, and cases by the government against state officials. First, the MDL Panel consolidated the consumer class actions against telecom companies because centralization under Section 1407 was necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery and prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (particularly with respect to matters involving national security). At that time, the MDL Panel assigned Judge Vaughn R. Walker to handle the consolidated litigation. In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litig., 444 F. Supp. 2d 1332, 1334 (Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 2006).

On May 26, 2006, California customers brought two state-law privacy suits in state court against telephone companies to enjoin the alleged disclosure to the National Security Agency (NSA) of telephone calling records (Riordan v. Verizon, 06-3574, and Campbell v. AT&T, 06-3596). The defendants removed the actions to the Northern District of California, and the cases were consolidated with the MDL. The customers moved to remand to state court. The government filed "statement of interest" in opposition to customers' motions to remand.

On January 18, 2007, Judge Walker denied the motions to remand. Judge Walker held that: (1) Stored Communications Act (SCA) did not completely preempt state-law privacy claim; (2) Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) did not completely preempt state-law claims; (3) federal common law did not completely preempt claims; (4) suits gave rise to federal jurisdiction under "embedded federal issue" doctrine; (5) suits gave rise to federal jurisdiction under federal officer removal statute; and (6) any remand would have been futile because of government's ability to intervene under California law and remove action. In re Nat'l Sec. Agency Telecommunications Records Litig., 483 F. Supp. 2d 934, 937 (N.D. Cal. 2007)

In February 2007, the MDL Panel transferred seven additional cases to the MDL. These included a class action suit by consumers against a telecom provider and suits by the U.S. as the plaintiff against defendant state officials in Missouri, Maine, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Vermont, seeking to enjoin them from investigating various telecom carriers concerning their alleged disclosure of customer telephone records for the NSA. The plaintiff in the suit against the telecom provider and the defendant state officials in the cases by the U.S. opposed the transfer, and the rest of the plaintiffs in the initially centralized actions joined in the motion. The MDL Panel denied the motion, reaffirming that these seven cases involved common questions of fact with the class actions previously centralized in the Northern District of California. In re NSA Telecommunications, 474 F.Supp.2d 1355.

In 2008, in the case Jewel v. National Security Agency, AT&T customers filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the United States. The plaintiffs, represented by public interest and private counsel, claimed that the defendants' electronic surveillance program violated the Fourth Amendment, First Amendment, separation of powers, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA"), the Wiretap Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act or the Stored Communications Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. On October 28, 2008, Judge Walker related the case with Hepting v. AT&T, NS-CA-0004, in this Clearinghouse. The MDL Panel then consolidated the case as part of the multi-district litigation consolidation.

The Litigation

On July 20, 2006, Judge Walker denied motions by the government and telecom providers to dismiss the litigation on the grounds that it would reveal state secrets. Judge Walker held that the government could not rely on the state secrets privilege and that a telecom defendant could not assert immunity. The Court, however, certified the case for immediate appeal and the defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Hepting v. AT&T, 439 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2006).

On February 20, 2007, Judge Walker granted media entities' motions to intervene in Hepting v. AT & T for the purpose of seeking to unseal judicial records in the MDL but denied their motions to unseal documents. In re Nat'l Sec. Agency Telecommunications Records Litig., MDL 06-1791 VRW, 2007 WL 549854 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2007).

On April 26, 2007, the Ninth Circuit consolidated the defendants' appeal in Hepting with a pending appeal in Al-Haramain v. Bush. However, on November 16, 2007, the Ninth Circuit severed the two cases from each other and ordered that the cases would no longer be consolidated for any purpose. Hepting v. AT&T, 508 F.3d 898, 899 (9th Cir. 2007). For more information on Al-Haramain, see NS-CA-0008, in this Clearinghouse. For the Hepting appeal, oral argument before the Ninth Circuit was heard in August 2007.

On July 24, 2007, Judge Walker denied the government's motion for summary judgment in the six cases where the government sought to enjoin state officials from investigating telecom companies concerning their alleged disclosure of customer telephone records to the NSA. Judge Walker held that (1) the government had the authority, despite lack of statutory authorization, to seek injunctive relief; (2) abstention under the Younger doctrine was not warranted; (3) investigations did not violate the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity; (4) federal law did not preempt state investigations; and (5) investigation did not infringe on foreign affairs power of the federal government. In re Nat'l Sec. Agency Telecommunications Records Litig., 633 F. Supp. 2d 892 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

On November 6, 2007, Judge Walker granted the plaintiffs' motion for an order prohibiting the alteration or destruction of evidence during the pendency of the MDL. In re Nat'l Sec. Agency Telecommunications Records Litig., MDL. 06-1791VRW, 2007 WL 3306579 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2007).

Prior to any Ninth Circuit decision, in July 2008, Congress enacted the FISA Amendments Act, which granted retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies for past violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA") provided that the Attorney General of the United States certified to the relevant U.S. District Court that the surveillance either did not occur, it was legal, or it was authorized by the president. The Ninth Circuit returned the case to the District Court in light of the new statute. Hepting v. AT&T, 539 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008).

The MDL on Remand to the District Court: Introduction

After the Ninth Circuit returned the consolidated case to the District Court, Attorney General Michael Mukasey filed the requisite statutory certification in September 2008, and the Government moved to dismiss all claims against telecom company defendants.

On June 3, 2009, Judge Walker issued two orders. In the first order, Judge Walker granted the Government's motion to dismiss all of the claims in the MDL against the telecom providers. The first order covered most of the consolidated cases, but excluded eleven of them, brought not against the telecom providers but by or against the federal government. In the second order, Judge Walker addressed six of the remaining cases, granting the U.S.'s motion for summary judgment. These were cases the U.S. had filed as the plaintiff against defendant state officials, seeking to enjoin them from investigating various telecommunications carriers concerning their alleged disclosure of customer telephone records for the NSA. After these dismissals, five cases remained, all brought against the federal government.

First June 3, 2009, Order Dismissing Many of the Cases against Telecom Companies

In the first order dated June 3, 2009, summarized above, Judge Walker granted the Government's motion to dismiss all claims in the MDL against the telecom providers based upon the retroactive immunity provision of the FISA Amendments Act. Judge Walker held that the amendments to FISA were constitutional, did not violate the separation of powers doctrine, did not violate due process, and did not violate the First Amendment. Judge Walker dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, but without prejudice, saying that the plaintiffs could re-file if there were evidence of improper surveillance that fell outside the telecoms' immunity period found in the FISA amendments, which extended from Sept. 11, 2001 to Jan. 7, 2007. In re Nat. Sec. Agency Telecommunications Records Litig., 633 F. Supp. 2d 949 (N.D. Cal. 2009). These plaintiffs appealed.

The plaintiffs in four of the dismissed cases filed a motion for reconsideration, by the same June 3 order, of the Bellsouth Master Consolidated Complaint. The movants asserted that there was "a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts which were presented to the Court before the June 3 Order and which show that the above-captioned Complaints contain allegations outside the limited coverage of Section 802. Specifically, the movants cite allegations in the complaints at issue that actionable activities commenced in February of 2001. On July 20, 2009, Judge Walker denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the June 3, 2009, order. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. In re Nat'l Sec. Agency Telecommunications Records Litig., MDL 06-1791 VRW, 2009 WL 2171061 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2009).

On December 29, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the cases against the telecom companies finding Section 802 constitutional. Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote the opinion, and Judges Harry Pregerson and Michael Daly Hawkins joined. Judge McKeown held that the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which granted retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies who assisted the NSA in monitoring telephone and internet traffic, violated neither the due process rights of litigants nor the separation of powers. Although Judge McKeown's opinion affirmed most of the district court's rulings, the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court's conclusion that the immunity provisions of Section 802 were temporally limited. In re Nat'l Sec. Agency Telecommunications Records Litig., 671 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2011). On October 9, 2012, the Supreme denied certiorari review.

Second June 3, 2009, Order Dismissing Six Other Cases

In the second June 3, 2009, order, Judge Walker granted the U.S.'s motion for summary judgment regarding six of the other cases--Clayton v, AT & T, U.S. v. Clayton, U.S. v. Reishus, U.S. v. Farber, U.S. v. Palermino, and U.S. v. Volz) Except for the first case, these were cases where the U.S. had filed as the plaintiff against defendant state officials, seeking to enjoin them from investigating various telecommunications carriers concerning their alleged disclosure of customer telephone records for the NSA. Judge Walker held that the amendments to FISA preempting state investigations did not violate the Tenth Amendment. In re Nat'l Sec. Agency Telecommunications Records Litig., 630 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2009).

At this point, five cases remained:

The Remaining Five Cases: Guzzi v. Bush, Center for Constitutional Rights v. Obama, Jewel v. NSA, McMurray v. Verizon, and Shubert v. Obama

McMurray v. Verizon
On January 13, 2009, the MDL Panel consolidated another case with the MDL as a tagalong action. This was a class action suit against telecom providers and the U.S. This case was not included in either of the June 3, 2009, orders. Instead, on July 27, 2009, Judge Walker granted the defendants' separate motions to dismiss this case. In re Nat'l Sec. Agency Telecommunications Records Litig., 2009 WL 2245693 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2009). The plaintiffs appealed. The plaintiffs challenged Section 802 as an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs rested their takings claim on the theory that application of Section 802 required dismissal of their case and thereby negates their cause of action under various federal statutes.

On December 29, 2011, Judge McKeown against wrote for the Ninth Circuit and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' takings clause claim for lack of jurisdiction. Judge McKeown held that there was no valid takings claim associated with the activity of the telecoms. In re Nat'l Sec. Agency Telecommunications Records Litig., 669 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2011).

Guzzi v. Bush
On March 5, 2010, Judge Walker dismissed Guzzi v. Bush after the parties agreed to a stipulation of dismissal.

CCR v. Obama
On January 31, 2011, Judge Walker dismissed Center for Constitutional Rights v. Obama, NS-CA-0005, in this Clearinghouse. The Court granted the government's motion for summary judgment because the plaintiffs failed to establish standing for any of their claims. The plaintiff appealed. On June 12, 2013, Judge McKeown again wrote for the Ninth Circuit and affirmed the district court's dismissal. In re Nat'l Sec. Agency Telecommunications Records Litig., 522 F. App'x 383 (9th Cir. 2013). The Court of Appeals relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International, (133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013)), NS-NY-0006, in this Clearinghouse. On November 1, 2013, The Ninth Circuit denied rehearing, and on March 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari review.

Continuing Litigation in Jewel v. NSA and Shubert v. Obama
As of the date of this summary, only two parts of the MDL continue - and they are no longer consolidated, though both remain in the Northern District of California, in front of the same district judge (no longer Judge Walker, because of his retirement from the bench). The two cases are Jewel v. NSA and Shubert v. Obama. For continued covered of Jewel v. NSA, see NS-CA-0002, in this Clearinghouse, and for continued coverage of Shubert v. Obama, see NS-CA-0006, in this Clearinghouse.

Jessica Kincaid - 07/01/2014


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Freedom of speech/association
Unreasonable search and seizure
General
Confidentiality
Search policies
Terrorism/Post 9-11 issues
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Causes of Action FISA Title V order (PATRIOT Act § 215, business records or other tangible things), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1861-1862
FISA Title IV order (pen register/trap-and-trace), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1841-1846
FISA Title I Warrant (Electronic Surveillance), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1812
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Bivens
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Defendant(s) AT&T Corp.
Attorney General of New Jersey
BellSouth Communications Systems, LLC
Bright House Networks, LLC
Comcast Telecommunications, Inc.
CT Department of Public Utility Control
Defense Intelligence Agency
Department of Homeland Security
Deputy Attorney General of the State of New Jersey
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Illinois Bell Telephone Company
Maine Public Utilities Commission
MCI, LLC
National Security Agency
New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc.
Nextel West Corp.
Office of Foreign Assets and Control
Pacific Bell Telephone Company
SBC Long Distance, LLC
Sprint Communications Company L.P.
Steve Gaw
TDS Communications Solutions, Inc.
Transworld Network Corp.
United States of America
Verizon Communications, Inc.
Verizon Global Networks, Inc.
Verizon Northwest, Inc.
Vermont Public Service Board
Plaintiff Description The plaintiffs in this consolidated multi district litigation include: telecom consumers who filed class actions against telecom companies, telecom consumers and organization who filed against the U.S. government, and the U.S. government who filed against state officials investigating the telecom companies.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
Center for Constitutional Rights
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Mixed
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief Litigation
Settlement
Form of Settlement Voluntary Dismissal
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing No
Case Listing NS-CA-0008 : Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Bush (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0006 : Shubert v. Obama (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0005 : Center for Constitutional Rights v. Obama (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0004 : Hepting v. AT&T (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0002 : Jewel v. National Security Agency (N.D. Cal.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Links Guest Post: New Resource — Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse FISA Archives
Just Security
Posted: Jun. 26, 2014
By: Margo Schlanger
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
3:06-md-01791-VRW (N.D. Cal.) 06/05/2014
NS-CA-0011-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Order 07/20/2006 (439 F.Supp.2d 974) (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0011-0001.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Transfer Order 08/09/2006 (444 F.Supp.2d 1332) (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0011-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Order 01/18/2007 (483 F.Supp.2d 934) (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0011-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Transfer Order 02/15/2007 (474 F.Supp.2d 1355) (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0011-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Order 02/20/2007 (2007 WL 549854) (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0011-0005.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Declassified Declaration of J. Michael McConnell, Director of National Intelligence 04/20/2007
NS-CA-0011-0015.pdf | Detail
Document Source: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Declassified Declaration of Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, Director, National Security Agency 04/20/2007
NS-CA-0011-0016.pdf | Detail
Document Source: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
In Camera, Ex Parte Declaration of J. Michael McConnell, Director of National Intelligence 05/24/2007
NS-CA-0011-0018.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 07/24/2007 (633 F.Supp.2d 892) (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0011-0006.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Order 11/06/2007 (2007 WL 3306579) (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0011-0007.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Declassified Declaration of Attorney General Michael Mukasey 09/19/2008
NS-CA-0011-0014.pdf | Detail
Document Source: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Order 06/03/2009 (630 F.Supp.2d 1092) (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0011-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Order 06/03/2009 (633 F.Supp.2d 949) (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0011-0009.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Order 07/20/2009 (2009 WL 2171061) (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0011-0010.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Order 07/27/2009 (2009 WL 2245693) (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0011-0011.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Memorandum of Decision and Order 03/31/2010 (700 F.Supp.2d 1182) (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0011-0017.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Opinion 12/29/2011 (669 F.Supp.2d 928) (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0011-0012.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion 12/29/2011 (671 F.Supp.2d 881) (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0011-0013.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Judges Hansen, David Rasmussen (N.D. Iowa, Eighth Circuit)
NS-CA-0011-0002 | NS-CA-0011-0004
Hawkins, Michael Daly (Ninth Circuit)
NS-CA-0011-0012 | NS-CA-0011-0013
Jensen, Delwen Lowell (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0011-0002 | NS-CA-0011-0004
McKeown, M. Margaret (Ninth Circuit)
NS-CA-0011-0012 | NS-CA-0011-0013
Miller, Robert Lowell Jr. (N.D. Ind.)
NS-CA-0011-0002 | NS-CA-0011-0004
Motz, J. Frederick (D. Md.)
NS-CA-0011-0002 | NS-CA-0011-0004
Pregerson, Harry (C.D. Cal., Ninth Circuit)
NS-CA-0011-0012 | NS-CA-0011-0013
Scirica, Anthony Joseph (E.D. Pa., Third Circuit)
NS-CA-0011-0002 | NS-CA-0011-0004
Vratil, Kathryn Hoefer (D. Kan.)
NS-CA-0011-0002 | NS-CA-0011-0004
Walker, Vaughn R. (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0011-0001 | NS-CA-0011-0003 | NS-CA-0011-0005 | NS-CA-0011-0006 | NS-CA-0011-0007 | NS-CA-0011-0008 | NS-CA-0011-0009 | NS-CA-0011-0010 | NS-CA-0011-0011 | NS-CA-0011-0017 | NS-CA-0011-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Afran, Bruce I. (New Jersey)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Albies, Jessica Ashlee (Oregon)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Alger, Timothy L. (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Alton, Sam Jonathan (Missouri)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Bach, Sydney M (North Carolina)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Baden, Kimberly B (South Carolina)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Bankston, Kevin (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Barger, Darrell Lee (Texas)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Barnes, Todd C (Indiana)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Barnett, Alexander E. (New York)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Bechtold, Timothy M (Montana)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Becka, Daniel J (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Beem, Marc Oliver (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Bergman, Matthew Phineas (Washington)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Brick, Ann (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Brosnahan, James J. (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Brothers, D. Douglas (Texas)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Brown, Ari Y (Washington)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Carlson, James M (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Carstarphen, Edward Morgan (Texas)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Cherry, Myron Milton (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Cohn, Cindy A. (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
DeLuca, Amato A. (Rhode Island)
NS-CA-0011-9000
DiMuzio, Elena Maria (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Donovan, Michael D (Pennsylvania)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Dulle, Joseph Richard (Missouri)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Eisenberg, Jon B. (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Eliasberg, Peter J. (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Emge, Derrick John (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Exnicios, Val Patrick (Louisiana)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Fastiff, Eric B (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Feeney, Daniel Martin (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Finberg, James M. (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Flowers, Jodi W (South Carolina)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Fontenot, Amy Thomas (Louisiana)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Freeman, Zachary J (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Friedman, Jeff D. (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
George, R. James (Texas)
NS-CA-0011-9000
George, Linda S (Indiana)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Gillespie, John Richard (Florida)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Goldberg, Cary Neal (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Griffin, Edward Nelson (Maryland)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Grossman, Harvey (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Hecht, F. Thomas (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Hilliard, Robert C (Texas)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Himmelstein, Barry R. (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Irpino, Anthony D (Louisiana)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Isaacson, Eric Alan (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Jevic, Joseph G (Louisiana)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Johnson, Kelly Overstreet (Florida)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Kadidal, Shayana (New York)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Karsh, Joshua (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Kathrein, Reed R. (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Kelly, Jennifer Lloyd (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Kierstead, Andrew S (Oregon)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Krislov, Clinton A. (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Lagarde, Melanie G (Louisiana)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Laudig, Stephen (Indiana)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Loy, John David (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Maazel, Ilann M. (New York)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Mandel, Roger L (Texas)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Mason, Gary E. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Mass, Julia Harumi (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
McSherry, Corynne (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Meunier, Gerald E (Louisiana)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Migliaccio, Nicholas A. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Migliori, Donald A (Rhode Island)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Moore, Thomas Edward III (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Morey, Candice J (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Morris, Maria V (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Mukasey, Michael B. (New York)
NS-CA-0011-0014
O'Malley, Michael C (New York)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Olson, Karl (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Opsahl, Kurt Bradford (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Ozer, Nicole A (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Park, Wendy Sangbee (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Parrett, Vincent Ian (South Carolina)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Pastore, Claire Iris (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Patterson, Robert J. (Texas)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Perkinson, Jacob B (Vermont)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Philippi, Michael James (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Pulgram, Laurence F. (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Pulver, Adam R. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Ross, Michael J (Oregon)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Rossbach, William A (Montana)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Scarlett, Shana E. (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Schwartz, Adam D. (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Schwarz, Steven Edward (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Sipes, W. Russell (Indiana)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Slater, Christopher (Oregon)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Sobol, Michael W. (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
St. Pierre, Michael Alan (Rhode Island)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Statland, Donald A (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Sternlieb, David H (New Jersey)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Tien, Lee (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Traber, Theresa M. (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Turner, M. Steven (Florida)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Tyre, James Samuel (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Vander Vliet, William Joel (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
VanDerHout, Marc (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Voorhees, Bert (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Wagner, Nicholas JP (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Wasylyk, Peter (Rhode Island)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Watts, Mikal C (Texas)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Whitaker, Joshua G. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Whitfield, John C (Kentucky)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Wiebe, Richard R. (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Woods, Justin Israel (Louisiana)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Woodward, Martin Darren (Texas)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Zevin, Matthew Joseph (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Zolna, Jacie C. (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Ahern, Paul Edward (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Axelbaum, Marc H. (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Barr, William P. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Beisner, John (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Berenson, Bradford Allan (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Berman, Marcia (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Boynton, Brian M (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Brannen, Elizabeth Rogers (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Carroll, Catherine M.A (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Casey, Catherine J (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Coppolino, Anthony J. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Ericson, Bruce A. (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Fahner, Tyrone C. (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Feinberg, Aimee Athena (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Finnegan, Sheila Marie (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Flanagan, Mark D (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Freeborne, Paul Gerald (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Jain, Samir Chandra (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Kenny, Michael P. (Georgia)
NS-CA-0011-9000
King, Jonathan D (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Kruger, Leondra R. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0011-9000
McNicholas, Edward Robert (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Milch, Randal S (New Jersey)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Mizer, Benjamin C. (Ohio)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Moss, Randolph Daniel (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Odorizzi, Michelle L. (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Orleans, Renee S. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Richert, Daniel John (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Salpeter, Alan Norris (Illinois)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Shumsky, Eric A. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Szabo, Susan Rochelle (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Tumlin−Bhattacharyya, Tracy Rupa (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Weissmann, Henry (California)
NS-CA-0011-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -