Waldron V AT&T HSCJ6 Subpoenas - Change in Venue

Case 4:22-cv-00317 Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
JAMES PHILLIP WALDRON, §

Plaintiff, §
§
v. § CIVIL NO. 4:22-cv-00317
§
AT&T, INC., §
Defendant. §
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, 1441, and 1446,
Defendant AT&T, Inc. removes this action from the 471st Judicial District Court of Collin County,
Texas to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, as
follows:
I. STATE COURT ACTION
1. On February 23, 2022, Plaintiff James Phillip Waldron (“Plaintiff”) filed Plaintiff’s
Original Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (the “Petition”) in the 471st Judicial
District Court of Collin County, Texas. The action is styled: James Phillip Waldron v. AT&T, Inc.,
Cause No. 471-00912-2022 (the “State Court Action” or “Lawsuit”).
2. All of Plaintiff’s claims relate to a Congressional subpoena issued by the Select
Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol (the “Committee”). The
subpoena requests that AT&T produce subscriber information and account records for a select list
telephone numbers, including Plaintiff’s. The subpoena seeks the personal contact, account billing,
and authorized user information, in addition to connection records (i.e. the times, duration, and
recipients of all calls or text messages from November 1, 2020 to January 31, 2021).
NOTICE OF REMOVAL PAGE 1 OF 7

Numerous Courts have rejected this argument

3. Plaintiff disputes both the Committee’s legitimacy and the subpoena’s validity.
Plaintiff argues that the Committee fails to comport with the requirements under its authorizing
resolution, H. Res. 503, H. Res. 503, 117th Cong. (2021). Plaintiff further contends that the
subpoena is unconstitutional and exceeds the scope of the Congress’s power to investigate for a
genuine legislative purpose.
4. Plaintiff asserts that the Congressional subpoena violates federal law, the Stored
Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2702(a)(1), (3), the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47
U.S.C. § 222, as well as his First and Fourth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution and
Article I, §§ 8 and 9 of the Texas Constitution.
5. With this Notice of Removal, AT&T removes the State Court Action to this Court
on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.
II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
6. This action is properly removed to this Court because the Lawsuit is pending within
this district and division. 28 U.S.C. §§ 124(c)(3), 1441(a), 1446(a).
7. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), this Notice of Removal is timely; it is being filed within
thirty days of service on AT&T in the State Court Action.
8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) and Eastern District of Texas Local Rule CV-81,
this Notice is accompanied by the following:
Exhibit A: List of Parties, Status of Removed Case, and Status of Jury Trial
Demand
Exhibit B: A Copy of the State Court Docket Sheet;
Exhibit C: A Copy of the complete State Court file;
Exhibit D List of all Counsel of Record; and

Exhibit E Notice of State Court Information
9. As AT&T files this Notice of Removal, AT&T is both serving Plaintiff with a copy
of the Notice and filing a copy in the 471st Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas. 28
U.S.C. § 1446(d).
III. VENUE
10. Because the State Court Action is pending within this district and division, venue
is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); 28 U.S.C. § 124(c)(3).
IV. FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION
11. The United States district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions
arising under the federal Constitution, laws, and treaties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. These courts have
the power to grant equitable and legal relief for constitutional violations under the same general
statutory grant of authority in Section 1331. Heaney v. U.S. Veterans Admin., 756 F.2d 1215, 1219
(5th Cir. 1985)(citing Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
12. A defendant may remove a case to federal court where a well-pleaded complaint
establishes either: 1) federal law creates the cause of action; or 2) the plaintiff’s right to relief
necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 144;
Singh v. Duane Morris, LLP, 538 F.3d 334, 338 (5th Cir. 2008); see also Empire HealthChoice
Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 690 (2006); Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 391-
92 (1987).
13. When a litigant’s federal constitutional rights are allegedly invaded by federal
officials, a cause of action “may be implied directly” under the Equal Protection component or
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 242-43 (1979); see

Those records do NOT belong to

you…gawd
also, Young v. Pierce, 544 F. Supp. 1010, 1019 (E.D. Tex. 1982). Where a well-pleaded complaint
alleges a cognizable infringement on the First Amendment’s freedom of association or the Fourth
Amendment’s freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, a plaintiff has a private right of
action to vindicate these violations. See Davis, 442 U.S. at 242-43; Natl. Ass'n for Advancement
of Colored People v. State of Ala. ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 460 (1958).
14. Congress expressly provided a private right of action for violations of both the
Stored Communications Act and the Telecommunications Act. 18 U.S.C. § 2707(a); 47 U.S.C. §
207; Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243 (5th Cir. 2017)(recognizing that
“Section 2707(a) creates a cause of action for any person aggrieved by a violation of the SCA [the
Stored Communications Act].”); Stiles v. GTE Sw. Inc., 128 F.3d 904 (5th Cir. 1997)(concluding
that a complainant under the Telecommunications Act may “file a complaint either with the FCC
or in federal district court, but not in both.”). A plaintiff may seek equitable relief or damages for
a SCA violation while the Telecommunications Act provides recovery for damages only. 18 U.S.C.
§ 2707(b); 47 U.S.C. § 207.

Curious no fifth amendment invocation
15. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter, because Plaintiff’s claims arise under
federal law and regulations. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff alleges violations of federal statutes and
his rights under the First and Fourth Amendments, and both give rise to federal question
jurisdiction. See Eastland v. U. S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 508-09 (1975) (where the
legitimacy of a congressional act is a question for the federal court to resolve); Verizon Maryland,
Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 535 U.S. 635, 642 (2002) (federal question jurisdiction exists
where a plaintiff’s right to recover “will be sustained if the Constitution and laws of the United
States are given one construction and will be defeated if they are given another.”). Plaintiff alleges
that the Committee’s subpoena will compel disclosure of his political and professional affiliations

in violation of First Amendment protections, as well as constitute an unreasonable invasion of his
privacy and right to be free unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment.
16. Because the Petition alleges claims arising under federal law, this Court has original
jurisdiction over this matter, and removal of the State Court Action is proper. See 28 U.S.C. §§
1331, 1441.
V. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION
17. When state and federal law claims are so closely tied that they “derive from a
common nucleus of operative fact,” the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those
state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Mendoza v. Murphy, 532 F.3d 342, 346 (5th Cir.
2008)(citing United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966)). As long as the
federal district court would have had original jurisdiction, Section 1367(a) gives the court a “broad
grant of supplemental jurisdiction over other claims within the same case or controversy.” see also
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 558 (2005); Griffin v. Lee, 621 F.3d
380, 385 (5th Cir. 2010). This principle applies equally to cases removed to federal court as well
as cases initially filed there. City of Chicago v. Int’l College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 164-65
(1977); Abraham v. Oneok, NO. 1:06-CV-500, 2008 WL 11344768, at *7 (E.D.Tex., May 13,
2008).
18. Plaintiff alleges violations of his rights under Article I Sections 8 and 9 of the Texas
State Constitution. These allegations share the same facts that underpin Plaintiff’s federal claims,
which contest the legitimacy of the Committee and the subpoena issued to AT&T. (Pet. at ¶¶ 6-
21, 43-52.) Plaintiff’s state and federal law claims fall within the same controversy, because
Plaintiff alleges the same nucleus of fact to support them. (Id.) Therefore, removal of this Lawsuit
to this Court is appropriate. Campbell v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, 4:10CV422, 2010 WL

5818647, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2010) (finding that since the Court had federal question
jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s federal claim, it had supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s
state law claims).
VI. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, AT&T removes this action from the 471st Judicial District Court of Collin
County, Texas to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman
Division, so that this Court may assume jurisdiction over the cause as provided by law.

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Thomas G. Yoxall

Thomas G. Yoxall
Texas Bar No. 00785304
tyoxall@lockelord.com
Matthew H. Davis
mdavis@lockelord.com
Tatianna J. Witter
tatianna.witter@lockelord.com
LOCKE LORD LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 740-8000
(214) 740-8800 – Facsimile
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT AT&T
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document
was served upon all counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF system and/or facsimile and/or
certified mail, return receipt requested on this 15th day of April 2022.
/s/ Thomas G. Yoxall _

Counsel for Defendant

JS 44 (Rev. 04/21) Case 4:22-cv-00317 Document 1-1 FiledSHEET
CIVIL COVER 04/15/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 8
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
JAMES PHILLIP WALDRON AT&T, Inc.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Dallas County, TX
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Wm. Charles Bundren, Bundren Law Group PLLC, 2591 Thomas G. Yoxall; Matthew H. Davis; Tatianna J. Witter,
Dallas Parkway, Ste. 300, Frisco, TX 75034 Locke Lord LLP, 2800 Ross Ave,Ste. 2800, Dallas,TX 75201
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ INTELLECTUAL 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR 880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management SOCIAL SECURITY Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence or Defendant) 896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 871 IRS—Third Party 899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 26 USC 7609 Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration 950 Constitutionality of
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
!18 U.S.C. § 2707(a); 47 U.S.C. § 207!
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Disclosures under the Stored Communications and the Telecommunications Acts.!
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. Injunctive/declaratory JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
4/15/2022 /s/ Thomas G. Yoxall
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00317 Document 1-1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 9
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 04/21)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then
the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statute.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

SHERMAN DIVISION

Plaintiff, §
§
v. § CIVIL NO.
§
AT&T, INC., §
Defendant. §
LIST OF PARTIES, STATUS OF REMOVED CASE, AND

STATUS OF JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Pursuant to Local Rules CV-81(c)(1), (4), Defendant AT&T, Inc. (“Defendant”) lists the
following parties, case status, and whether a jury was demanded by any party in the above-captioned
cause:
PARTY JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Philip Waldron None

Plaintiff
Case pending
AT&T, Inc. None

Defendant
Case pending
LIST OF PARTIES, STATUS OF REMOVED CASE, AND STATUS OF JURY TRIAL DEMAND PAGE 1
4/12/22, 10:06 AMCase 4:22-cv-00317 Document 1-3 Filed 04/15/22
Judicial Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 13
Online Search
(http://www.collincountytx.gov)
Back to Case Search Results
Case Details
Case History
Case Number
471-00912-2022
Date Filed
02/23/2022
Case Type
All Other Civil Cases
Status
Pending
Style
James Phillip Waldron, Plaintiff, v. AT&T, Inc., Defendant.
Judicial Officer
Bouressa, Andrea in 471st District Court
Parties
Type
Name
DOB
Attorney
Address
Defendant
AT&T Inc.

Pro Se
Registered Agent -
CT Corporation
System, 1999
Bryan St.., Suite
900, Dallas, TX
75201-3136
Plaintiff
Waldron, James

Wm. Charles
Bundren Law
Phillip Bundren Group, PLLC, Wm.
Charles Bundren,
Esq., 2591 Dallas
Parkway, Suite 300,
Frisco, TX 75034
Case Events
https://apps.collincountytx.gov/JudicialRecords/Case/CaseDetail?caseid=65bdd3d0-7c79-4294-bedc-63c6f3c52b56&nodeid=215&referrer=Case%7C… 1/3
Online Search
Date
Event
02/23/2022 Plaintiff's Original Petition (OCA) $371.00 Less
Comments: Plaintiff's Original Petition For Declaratory And Injunctive Relief
02/25/2022 Request for Citation $8.00

02/25/2022 Citation
03/24/2022 Request for Citation $8.00
03/24/2022 Citation
04/04/2022 Service Return Less
Comments: Affidavit of Service - AT&T, Inc.
Financial Summary
Party Type
Charges
Payments
Balance
Plaintiff
$387.00
$387.00
$0.00
Transactions
Date
Amount
02/25/2022 $379.00 Less
Description: Transaction Assessment
02/25/2022 ($242.00) Less

Payor: Waldron, James Phillip
Receipt: Receipt # DC-04206-2022
Description: Payment
02/25/2022 ($137.00) Less

Description: State Credit
03/24/2022 $8.00 Less

Description: Transaction Assessment
03/24/2022 ($8.00) Less

Payor: Waldron, James Phillip
Receipt: Receipt # DC-06516-2022
Description: Payment
Back to Case Search Results
Copyright © 2022 Collin County Texas * All Rights Reserved * 972.548.4100 (McKinney) * 972.424.1460(Metro)
Privacy & Accessibility (http://www.collincountytx.gov/Pages/privacy.aspx)
Online Search
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy (https://policies.google.com/privacy) and Terms of
Service (https://policies.google.com/terms) apply.
Case 4:22-cv-00317 Document 1-4 Filed 04/15/22 Page 2 of 23 PageID
Filed: 2/23/2022#:
9:2517
AM
Lynne Finley
District Clerk
Collin County, Texas
By Stacy Cochran Deputy
Envelope ID: 61994670
CAUSE NO. 471-00912-2022
JAMES PHILLIP WALDRON, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
V. COLLIN COUNTY,TEXAS
AT&T,INC.,
Defendant. JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY AND

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
Plaintiff James Phillip Waldron, through undersigned counsel, files his
Original Petition and shows unto the Court as follows:
I.PARTIES
1. Plaintiff James Phillip Waldron (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff')
is an adult resident of the State of Texas. Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Texas
and the United States.
2. Defendant AT&T,Inc.("Defendant") is a foreign corporation with its
principal place ofbusiness in Dallas, Texas. CT Corporation System,doing business
at 1999 Bryan St., Suite 900, Dallas, TX 75201-3136 is the agent for service of
process on Defendant. Defendant does business in Collin County, Texas.
Original Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 1

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction because this action involves
a dispute over the validity and enforceability of a subpoena demanding the release
of private phone records by Defendant, the release of which will infringe upon the
attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the privacy rights of Plaintiff,
the rights of Plaintiff and others under the Texas Constitution and the United States
Constitution, and cause a breach of contract enforceable in Collin County, Texas.
Defendant has substantial contacts and does business in Collin County, Texas.
4. Venue is proper in Collin County pursuant to Civ.PRAc.& REM.CODE
§ 1502(a)(1) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to these claims
occurred in Collin County, Texas, including, inter alia, the enforceability of a
nondisclosure and confidentiality agreement enforceable by courts of competent
jurisdiction in Collin County, Texas, and communications that are the subject ofthe
subpoena at issue.
III. DISCOVERY-CONTROL PLAN
5. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 3 of Texas Rule of
Civil Procedure190.4 and affirmatively pleads that this suit is not governed by the
expedited actions process inTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 169.
IV.STATEMENT OF FACTS
6. Plaintiff is a consultant retained by attorneys and a law firm (the

"Attorneys") with their principal place ofbusiness in Collin County,Texas,to assist
in investigating matters for clients regarding the November 2020 Presidential
election (the "Election"). Plaintiff has been retained by contract with the Attorneys
to conduct consulting services in Collin County, Texas, and elsewhere and to assist
in the investigation of matters related to the Election for clients of Attorneys.
7. Plaintiff entered into agreements with the Attorneys in Collin County,
Texas, to not disclose and to keep confidential all information regarding the
investigation being conducted by the Attorneys for their clients concerning the
Election, which Plaintiff assisted and investigated for the Attorneys (the
"Confidential and Proprietary NDA"). The Attorneys residing in Collin County,
Texas, selected Plaintiff to assist them, on behalf of their clients, in investigating
the Election with the understanding that Plaintiff would not disclose any
information regarding the Attorneys, the law firms, or the clients of the Attorneys,
and that the communications among and between Plaintiff, and the Attorneys, and
the work product prepared by the Plaintiff pursuant to these engagements would be
confidential.
8. The Confidential and Proprietary NDA requires Plaintiff to keep
confidential and to not disclose any information regarding any investigation of the
Election and to take actions to protect the confidential and proprietary information
investigated for the Attorneys regarding the Election for and on behalf of the

Attorneys and their clients.
9. Plaintiff understood the confidential, proprietary and privileged nature
of the investigation in which Plaintiff was retained to assist for clients of the
Attorneys, and Plaintiff agreed to keep all information regarding the investigation
confidential, proprietary and privileged. The Attorneys are bound by the attorney-
client privilege with their clients for whom Plaintiff agreed to consult on a
confidential, proprietary and privileged manner.
10. Allegedly, on January 6, 2021, a group of protestors in Washington,
D.C., entered the United States Capitol, allegedly breached security, and allegedly
disrupted the counting of the Electoral College votes until order was restored. The
United States Department of Justice has reportedly arrested and charged more than
725 individuals in connection with the events of January 6th. Plaintiff had no
involvement in the events of January 6th. Nevertheless, a committee of the House
of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America is seeking
records from Defendant that contain or would reveal confidential and proprietary
information, and infringe upon the attorney-client privileges and attorney work
product privileges held by numerous clients of Plaintiff and the attorneys and law
firms described above.
1 1. On June 28, 2021, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced House
Resolution 503 ("H. Res. 503"), "Establishing the Select Committee to Investigate

the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol." Two days later, the House
passed H. Res. 503. H. RES. 503, 117th Cong.(2021).
12. H.Res. 503 instructs the Speaker ofthe House to "appoint 13 Members
to the Select Committee, 5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the
minority leader," and to designate one Member to serve as chair of the Select
Committee. But the Speaker only appointed nine members to the Select
Committee—seven Democrats and two Republicans. Thus, the Select Committee is
not an authorized congressional committee because its very composition fails to
comport with its own authorizing resolution. See H. Res. 503, Section 2. Speaker
Pelosi appointed and designated Rep. Bennie Thompson(D-MS 2nd Dis.) to serve
as Chairman ofthe Select Committee.
13. H. Res 503 Section 3 establishes the Select Committee for three
purposes:
(i) To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and

causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon
the United States Capitol Complex (hereafter referred to as the
"domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol") and relating to the
interference with the peaceful transfer of power, including facts and
causes relating to the preparedness and response of the United States
Capitol Police and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies in the National Capital Region and other instrumentalities of
government, as well as the influencing factors that fomented such an
attack on American representative democracy while engaged in a
constitutional process.
(ii) To examine and evaluate evidence developed by relevant

Federal, State, and local governmental agencies regarding the facts and
circumstances surrounding the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol

and targeted violence and domestic terrorism relevant to such terrorist

attack.
(iii) To build upon the investigations of other entities and avoid

unnecessary duplication of efforts by reviewing the investigations,
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of other executivebranch,
congressional, or independent bipartisan or nonpartisan commission
investigations into the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol,
including investigations into influencing factors related to such attack.
14. H. Res. 503 Section 4 establishes three "functions" of the Select
Committee: (1) to "investigate the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the
domestic terror attack on the Capitol"; (2) to "identify, review, and evaluate the
causes of and the lessons learned from the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol";
and (3) to "issue a final report to the House containing such findings, conclusions,
and recommendations for corrective measures described in subsection(c)as it may
deem necessary."
15. Subsection (c) of Section 4 describes three categories of "corrective
measures": "changes in law, policy procedure, rules, or regulations that could be
taken"(1)"to prevent future acts of violence, domestic terrorism, and domestic
violent extremism, including acts targeted at American democratic institutions";
(2)"to improve the security posture of the United States Capitol Complex while
preserving accessibility of the Capitol Complex for all Americans"; and (3)"to
strengthen the security and resilience of the United States American democratic
institutions against violence, domestic terrorism, and domestic violent extremism."

16. H. Res. 503 Section 5(c)(4) authorizes the Chair of the Select
Committee to "issue subpoenas pursuant to clause 2(m) of Rule XI [subpoena
power] in the investigation and study conducted pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of this
resolution," but Res. 503 Subsections (A) & (B) of Section 5(c)(6) limit that
authority by requiring consultation with, and notice to, the ranking minority member
ofthe Select Committee prior to issuing a subpoena. The Chair did not consult with
the ranking member prior to issuing the Subpoena on Defendant, because the Select
Committee does not have a ranking member. On November 2, 2021, the General
Counsel of the House of Representatives admitted that "there were no majority or
ranking members" ofthe Select Committee.
17. On February 1, 2022, Chairman Thompson, on behalf of the Select
Committee, and without the required consultation and notice to a ranking member,
issued a subpoena to Defendant seeking records concerning phone numbers
purportedly listed in "Section B,below."(A copy ofthe Subpoena is attached hereto
as Exhibit 1 and incorporated and adopted herein by reference for all purposes).
18. On February 9, 2022, Defendant wrote Plaintiff to advise that it "ha[d]
received a subpoena requiring the production of certain records associated with the
phone number referenced above"(identifying the number assigned to Plaintiff) and
attaching "[a] copy ofthe subpoena," but excluding "Section B,which identifies the
phone number referenced above."

19. In other words, nowhere within the copy of the Subpoena provided to
Plaintiff is Plaintiff's identity, or any other customer whose records are sought,
disclosed.
20. The Subpoena instructs Defendant to produce subscriber information
and cell phone data associated with Plaintiff's personal cell phone. The subscriber
information demanded by the Subpoena includes subscriber names and contact
information, authorized users,time ofservice provided, account changes, associated
IP addresses, and other metadata. The cell phone data requested could include all
calls, text messages,and other records ofcommunications associated with the phone
number including communications with the Attorneys. These data can be used for
historic cell site analysis. The Subpoena seeks all such data from November 1, 2020,
through January 31, 2021,including communications with the Attorneys.
21. As previously described herein, Plaintiffis a consultant working for the
Attorneys doing business in Collin County, Texas who were conducting an
investigation of the Election during the time period covered by the Subpoena.
Plaintiff used the account associated with the phone number for which the
information is sought to communicate with the Attorneys and about the Attorneys'
clients, and those communications are protected by, inter alia, the attorney-client
privilege, the work product doctrine and the Confidential and Proprietary NDA.

V. COUNT I (Declaratory Relief)
22. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates all previous paragraphs
herein as if set forth herein.
23. Congress's broad "power ofinquiry—with process to enforce it—is an
essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function." McGrain v.
Daugherty,273 U.S. 135, 174(1927). Accordingly, Congress and its duly authorized
committees may issue a subpoena where the information sought "is related to, and
in furtherance of, a legitimate task of Congress," Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S.
178, 187 (1957), and the subpoena serves a "valid legislative purpose." Quinn v.
United States, 349 U.S. 155, 161 (1955). At the same time, because Congress's
subpoena power "is justified as an adjunct to the legislative process, it is subject to
several limitations," Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 2031 (2020),
limitations which stem directly from the Constitution. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103
U.S. 168, 182-89(1880).
24. Specifically, the Constitution permits Congress to enact only certain
kinds oflegislation, see, e.g., U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, and while Congress's power to
investigate "is justified as an adjunct to the legislative process,it is subject to several
limitations." Mazars, 140 S. Ct. at 2031. These limitations include that Congress
may not issue a subpoena for the purposes of"law enforcement" because "those
powers are assigned under our Constitution to the Executive and the Judiciary,"

Quinn, 349 U.S. at 161, or to "try" someone "of any crime or wrongdoing,"
McGrain, 273 U.S. at 179; nor does Congress have any "general power to inquire
into private affairs and compel disclosure," McGrain, 273 U.S. at 173-74, or the
"power to expose for the sake of exposure," Watkins, 354 U.S. at 200. Also
importantly, Congressional investigations "conducted solely for the personal
aggrandizement of the investigators or to 'punish' those investigated are
indefensible." Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187, Mazars, 140 S. Ct. at 2032. Additionally,
as the Supreme Court has recognized: "[t]he Bill of Rights s applicable to
[congressional] investigations as to all forms of government action," and the Select
Committee may not "abridge[]. .. the First Amendment freedoms of speech, press,
religion, or political belief and association" in the name of advancing its
investigation. Watkins, 354 U.S. at 188. See also United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S.
41, 46-47(1953).
25. Thus, to ensure that a Congressional inquiry meets a "valid legislative
purpose," an inquiring committee must define "with the same degree ofexplicitness
and clarity that the Due Process Clause requires in the expression of any element of
a criminal offense" its "jurisdictionalpertinency" to avoid the "vice for vagueness."
Watkins, 354 U.S. at 206-09. See also id. at 206 ("When the definition of
jurisdictional pertinency is as uncertain and wavering as in the case of the Un-
American Activities Committee, it becomes extremely difficult for the Committee

to limit its inquiries to statutory pertinency.").
26. The Select Committee has not, and cannot, demonstrate a "valid
legislative purpose" justifying its need for a subpoena of private citizen data—the
subscriber information as well as connection records and records of session times
and durations—especially for a citizen who was not involved with and did not in any
way participate in the "attack on the Capitol" on January 6. Consequently,the Select
Committee cannot establish sufficient jurisdictional pertinence justifying the
breadth of the Subpoena's demand for private citizen data pertaining to Plaintiff.
27. The Select Committee has attempted to expand its jurisdiction and the
scope of its investigation far beyond the specific confines of H. Res. 503. In fact,
House General Counsel Douglas Letter admitted this in a hearing,indicating that the
Select Committee was instead going to investigate the investigators ofelection fraud,
apparently on the unsupported theory that legal work to uncover fraud and
expressions of concern that the 2020 Election was affected by fraud—expressions
fully protected by the First Amendment—somehow "brought about" the riotous
activity of a subset of demonstrators on January 6:
[W]e need to figure out what was the atmosphere that brought... about
[the events of January 6, including] the many attempts that were made
before the election to try to build the nature of mistrust about the
election itself, which goes to undermine our democracy, so that if
President Trump did lose he would be able to say that his is unfair and
to generate lots of anger and rage that led to January 6.
See Hrg. T., Trump v. Thompson, No. 21-cv-002769(Nov. 4, 2021).

28. The Select Committee itself has disavowed any intention to confine
itselfto the specific limitations ofH. Res. 503. In one recent press release the Select
Committee stated directly its view that "attempts to promote unsupported claims of
election fraud" were among the "causes that contributed to the violence on January
6." The Chairman has gone so far as to label as criminal the mere recommendation
of"a process by which elections could be manipulated in various states," apparently
referring to any proposals to invalidate electors chosen from questioned voting
results. The Chairman claimed that a witness simply advancing a"recommendation
that led states to believe they could overturn" the 2020 election results would have
thereby "contributed to the January 6 insurrection."
29. Further, through its Members,the House Committee has embraced the
role of an inquisitorial tribunal seeking evidence of criminal activity. By way of
example,on December 23,2021, Chairman Thompson told The Washington Post the
Select Committee was investigating whether President Trump's actions on January
6,2021,"warrant a [criminal] referral."' Similarly, Rep. Elaine Luria(D-VA 2nd
Dist.) told CNN: "[T]hat's exactly why we're conducting this investigation, to find
Tom Hamburger,Jacqueline Alemany,Josh Dawsey,and MattZapotosky, Thompson Says Jan. 6

Committee Focused on Trump's Hours of Silence During Attack, Weighing Criminal
Referrals, The Washington Post (Dec. 23, 2021, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/
politics/january-6-thompson-trump/2021/12/23/36318a92-6384-11ec-a7e8-3a8455b71fad_story
.html.

out all the facts,... and... hold people accountable who are responsible."2 And
Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY At-Large) told Rolling Stone: "We must know what
happened here at the Capitol. We must also know what happened every minute of
that day in the White House—every phone call, every conversation, every meeting
leading up to, during, and after the attack."3
30. The Select Committee has slipped free from the moorings ofits original
charter. Thus, lacking any "valid legislative purpose" to seek the subscriber
information as well as connection records and records ofsession times and durations
sought by its December 16, 2021, subpoena to Defendant, the Subpoena is
unenforceable. The unlawful composition of the Select Committee and its lack of a
ranking member likewise render the Subpoena unenforceable. This Court should
therefore issue a Declaratory Judgment that the Subpoena is ultra vires, unlawful,
and unenforceable.
VI. COUNT II(Declaratory Relief)
2 Zachary Cohen and Annie Grayer, January 6 Committee Says it Would Make Criminal Referrals
if 'Appropriate,' but that Could be a Long Way Off, CNN (Dec. 21, 2021), available at
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/21/politics/january-6-committee-criminal-referrals/index.html.
3 PeterWade, Cheney: Investigate Trump's 'Every Call, Every Conversation, Every Meeting'
on Jan. 6, Rolling Stone (July 27, 2021), available at https://www.rollingstone.com/
politics/politics-news/cheney-investigate-trump-capitol-attack-communications-1203084/

32. Subject to specifically enumerated exceptions not applicable here, the
federal Stored Communications Act provides that "a person or entity providing
electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any
person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage to that
service." 18 U.S.C. § 2702(a)(1).
33. The Stored Communications Act further provides that an electronic
service provider—such as Defendant— "shall not knowingly divulge a record or
other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not
including the contents of communications ...) to any governmental entity." 18
U.S.C. § 2702(a)(3).
34. The exceptions for disclosures found in 18 U.S.C. § 2702(c) do not
apply to the Congressional subpoena at issue in this case.
35. Similarly, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 protects the
confidentiality of"customer proprietary network information," which includes, inter
alia, phone logs and location information, "[e]xcept as provided by law or with
approval of a customer." 47 U.S.C. § 222.
36. The subscriber information as well as connection records and records
of session times and durations sought by the Subpoena served upon Defendant
necessarily seek the "contents of a communication while in electronic storage," or,
in the alternative, because neither Plaintiff nor any law authorize the disclosure of

these records, the Subpoena is unenforceable and this Court should issue a
Declaratory Judgment holding that the Subpoena is ultra vires, unlawful, and
unenforceable.
VII. COUNT III(Preservation ofPrivileges)
38. As a consultant to the Attorneys doing business in Collin County,
Texas, and elsewhere, Plaintiff has an ethical duty and right to protect
communications rendered in Plaintiffs role as a confidential consultant to the
Attorneys and which may reveal attorney-client privileged information, work
product, proprietary information, confidential information or information that may
contain or reveal any other applicable privilege.
39. Plaintiff has a contractual obligation to protect and to not disclose, or
permit others to disclose, confidential and proprietary information during the time
that Plaintiff was conducting an investigation of the Election for the Attorneys.
40. Plaintiff uses and has used the phone number that is subject to the
Subpoena to communicate with the Attorneys, other consultants retained by the
Attorneys, and with witnesses and others in connection with Plaintiff's consulting
having nothing to do with the Select Committee's investigation as defmed by H.Res.
503.

41. The February 1, 2022 Subpoena would force Defendant to reveal
Plaintiff's attorney-client and work product protected information which would
breach Plaintiff's Confidential and Proprietary NDA with the Attorneys without
providing the Attorneys or their clients with the opportunity to object.
42. Compliance with the Subpoena while precluding Plaintiff from any
opportunity to review the proposed disclosure and assert applicable privileges,
violates FED.R.EVID. 501 and TEX.R.EVID. 503.
VIII. COUNT IV (First Amendment)
44. The Supreme Court has long recognized the First Amendment right of
the people to associate freely for expressive purposes, and that the compelled
disclosure of affiliation with advocacy groups may chill or refrain that associative
conduct. See, e.g., NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449,462(1958).
45. The government's effort to compel disclosure of associative conduct
must be reviewed with exacting scrutiny, meaning the government must show that
its action is narrowly tailored to meet a sufficiently important government interest
to justify compelling the disclosure. Americansfor Prosperity Found. V. Bonta, 141
S. Ct. 2373(2021).
46. The Subpoena is neither narrowly tailored nor does it advance a

sufficiently important governmental interest to permit compliance by Defendant.
47. Simply put, no governmental interest could be sufficiently important
to permit it to delve through the data connected with every phone call, text message
or email communication placed or received by Plaintiff over a three-month period.
48. The Subpoena is an invalid attempt to infringe Plaintiff's First
Amendment rights and the First Amendment rights ofthe Attorneys and their clients,
and the rights guaranteed by TEX. CONST. art I, § 8, and it should not be enforced.
IX.COUNT V (Fourth Amendment)
50. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right ofthe people to free from
unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as guaranteeing a person's reasonable
expectation of privacy from governmental intrusion. See, e.g., Katz v. United States,
389 U.S. 347(1967). The same rights are guaranteed by TEX. CONST. art I, § 9.
51. Congress has no general or inherent authority to issue subpoenas to pry
into private affairs or to seek information untethered to any valid legislative purpose.
McGrain, 273 U.S. at 173-74.
52. The Subpoena has no valid legislative purpose is an unreasonable and
unlawful invasion of Plaintiff's right to be free from unreasonable searches and
seizures and Plaintiff's right to privacy and the right ofprivacy ofthe Attorneys and

their clients. The subpoena is invalid and thus unenforceable.
X.COUNT VI(Injunctive Relief)
54. Because the Subpoena to Defendant is ultra vires, unlawful, and
unenforceable, for the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the
merits of this action.
55. Should this Court not prevent the disclosure of Plaintiff's subscriber
information as well as connection records and records ofsession times and durations,
Plaintiff, the Attorneys and their clients are likely to suffer irreparable harm.
56. The balance of the equities weighs in Plaintiff's favor and the public
interest favors against disclosure to prevent the unwarranted intrusion into the affairs
of citizens absent the requisite authorization and "valid legislative purpose" of any
Congressional subpoena.
57. Accordingly, this Court should issue an Order enjoining Defendant
from complying with the Subpoena and from producing Plaintiffs records pursuant
to the Subpoena.
WHEREFORE,Plaintiff requests that the Court provide relief as follows:
(i) A declaratory judgment holding that the Subpoena is null and void,
ultra vires, unlawful, and unenforceable; and,

(ii) An injunction prohibiting Defendant from complying with the
subpoena and from producing or providing Plaintiffsrecords to pursuant to
the Subpoena; and
(iii) Such further relief as this court deems just and proper.
Dated: February 22,2022.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Charles Bundren

BUNDREN LAW GROUP,PLLC
Wm. Charles Bundren, Esq.
Lead Attorney and Attorney-in-Charge
State Bar No.03343200
2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300
Frisco, Texas 75034
(214)808-3555 Telephone
(972)624-5340 Facsimile
e-mail: charles@bundrenlaw.net
S.MICHAEL MCCOLLOCH,PLLC
S. Michael McColloch
State Bar No. 13431950
6060 N. Central Expressway, Suite 500
Dallas, Texas 75206
(214)643-6055 Telephone
e-mail: smm@mccolloch-law.com
KAREN COOK,PLLC
Karen L. Cook
Dallas, Texas 75206
(214)643-6054 Telephone
e-mail: karen@karencooklaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 4:22-cv-00317 Document 1-4 Filed 04/15/22 Page 21 of Filed:
23 PageID #: AM
4/4/2022 10:42 36
471-00912-2022 Lynne Finley
District Clerk
By Kathy Richardson Deputy
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
State of Texas County of Collin 471st Judicial District Court

Case Number: 471-00912—2022
Plaintiff:
James Phillip Waldron
VS.
Defendant:
ATS-T, lnc.
For:
Wm Charles Bundren
Wm Charles Bundren 8. Associates. PLLC
2591 Dallas Parkway
Suite 300
Frisco, TX 75034
Received by On Time Process Service on the 24th day of March. 2022 at 12:43
pm to be sewed on Registered
Agent for AT&T, Inc. CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Dallas County. TX
75201 -31 36.
I, Anthony Collins, being duly sworn. depose and say that on the 24th day of March, 2022 at 2:55 pm, I:
Executed service by hand delivering a true copy of the Citation, Copy of Plaintiff‘s
Original Petition for
Declaratory and lnjunctive Relief to: George Martinez , an authorized acceptance agent employed by Registered
Agent CT Corporation System, lnc., who is authorized to accept service of process for AT&T, Inc. , at the address
of: 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Dallas
County, TX 75201-3136, and informed said person of the contents
therein, in compliance with state statutes.
"l certify that I am over the

age of 18, have no interest in the above action. and am a Certied Process Server in
good standing in the judicial circuit in which the process was served. l have personal knowledge of the facts set forth
in this afdavit. and they are true and correct."
CHARLES P GOODSON
Notary ID #130419821
My Commission Expires
October 27, 2023
Anthony Collins
, PSC-357 Expires 12/31/2023
Subscr d nd Sworn to before me on the 25th day of
by the afant who is personally known to 0n Time process service
1700 Pacific Ave
Suite 1040
Dallas, TX 75201
(214) 740-9999
Our Job Serial Number: ONT-2022001598

Ref: Waldron/AT&T
Copyright 0 1992-2022 Database Services, Inc. - Process Servers Toolbox V8:2i

Electronically Served
2/25/2022 11:40 AM
THE STATE OF TEXAS

CIVIL CITATION
CASE NO.471-00912-2022
James Phillip Waldron, Plaintiff, v. AT&T, Inc., In the 471st District Court
Defendant.
Of Collin County, Texas
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: “You have been sued. You may employ an attorney. If you or your attorney do not file
a written answer with the clerk who issued this citation by 10:00 a.m. on the Monday next following the expiration of
twenty days after you were served this citation and petition, a default judgment may be taken against you. In addition
to filing a written answer with the clerk, you may be required to make initial disclosures to the other parties of this suit.
These disclosures generally must be made no later than 30 days after you file your answer with the clerk. Find out
more at TexasLawHelp.org.”
TO: AT&T Inc.

Registered Agent - CT Corporation System
1999 Bryan St., Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75201-3136, Defendant
GREETINGS: You are commanded to appear by filing a written answer to Plaintiff's Original Petition For
Declaratory And Injunctive Relief at or before ten o’clock A.M. on the Monday next after the expiration of twenty
days after the date of service of this citation before the Honorable 471st District Court of Collin County, Texas at the
Courthouse of said County in McKinney, Texas.
Said Plaintiff’s Petition was filed in said court, by Wm Charles Bundren Bundren Law Group PLLC Wm Charles
Bundren Esq 2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300 Frisco, TX 75034 (Attorney for Plaintiff or Plaintiffs), on February 23,
2022, in this case, numbered 471-00912-2022 on the docket of said court.
The natures of Plaintiff’s demand is fully shown by a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Original Petition For
Declaratory And Injunctive Relief accompanying this citation and made a part hereof.
Issued and given under my hand and seal of said Court at McKinney, Texas, on this the 25th day of February, 2022.
ATTEST: Lynne Finley, District Clerk

Collin County Courthouse
2100 Bloomdale Road
McKinney, Texas 75071
972-548-4320, Metro 972-424-1460 ext. 4320
By: ______________________, Deputy

Stacy Cochran
The law prohibits the Judge and the clerks from giving legal advice, so please do not seek legal advice. Any
questions you have should be directed to an attorney.
Automated Certificate of eService

This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Status as of 4/5/2022 8:45 AM CST
Associated Case Party: JamesPhillipWaldron
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Wm. CharlesBundren charles@bundrenlaw.net 4/4/2022 10:42:28 AM SENT

Counsel for Plaintiff James Philip Waldron

Wm. Charles Bundren, Esq. S. Michael McColloch
Lead Attorney and Attorney-in-Charge State Bar No. 13431950
State Bar No. 03343200 S. MICHAEL MCCOLLOCH, PLLC
BUNDREN LAW GROUP, PLLC 6060 N. Central Expressway, Ste 500
2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300 Dallas, Texas 75206
Frisco, Texas 75034 (214) 643-6055 – Telephone
( 214) 808-3555 – Telephone smm@mccolloch-law.com
(972) 624-5340 – Facsimile
charles@bundrenlaw.net
Karen L. Cook
KAREN COOK, PLLC
Dallas, Texas 75206
(214) 643-6054 – Telephone
karen@karencooklaw.com
Counsel for Defendant AT&T, Inc.

Thomas G. Yoxall
tyoxall@lockelord.com
Matthew H. Davis
mdavis@lockelord.com
Tatianna J. Witter
tatianna.witter@lockelord.com
LOCKE LORD LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 740-8000 – Telephone
(214) 740-8800 – Facsimile

SHERMAN DIVISION

Plaintiff, §
§
v. § CIVIL NO.
§
AT&T, INC., §
Defendant. §
NOTICE OF STATE COURT INFORMATION
Pursuant to Local Rule CV-81(c)(5), Defendant AT&T, Inc. (“Defendant”) states that this
case is being removed from the 471st Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas. The address of
the court is: 2100 Bloomdale Road, Suite 30276, McKinney, TX 75071, and the telephone number
is: (972) 548-4320.
NOTICE OF STATE COURT INFORMATION PAGE 1

Waldron V AT&T HSCJ6 Subpoenas - Change in Venue

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Waldron V AT&T HSCJ6 Subpoenas - Change in Venue

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Waldron V AT&T HSCJ6 Subpoenas - Change in Venue

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 4:22-cv-00317 Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JAMES PHILLIP WALDRON, §

I. STATE COURT ACTION

Cause No. 471-00912-2022 (the “State Court Action” or “Lawsuit”).

2. All of Plaintiff’s claims relate to a Congressional subpoena issued by the Select

NOTICE OF REMOVAL PAGE 1 OF 7

Numerous Courts have rejected this argument

genuine legislative purpose.

Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2702(a)(1), (3), the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47

Article I, §§ 8 and 9 of the Texas Constitution.

on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.

II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

this district and division. 28 U.S.C. §§ 124(c)(3), 1441(a), 1446(a).

thirty days of service on AT&T in the State Court Action.

this Notice is accompanied by the following:

Exhibit B: A Copy of the State Court Docket Sheet;

Exhibit C: A Copy of the complete State Court file;

Exhibit D List of all Counsel of Record; and

NOTICE OF REMOVAL PAGE 2 OF 7

Exhibit E Notice of State Court Information

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); 28 U.S.C. § 124(c)(3).

IV. FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION

NOTICE OF REMOVAL PAGE 3 OF 7

Those records do NOT belong to

§ 2707(b); 47 U.S.C. § 207.

NOTICE OF REMOVAL PAGE 4 OF 7

in violation of First Amendment protections, as well as constitute an unreasonable invasion of his

NOTICE OF REMOVAL PAGE 5 OF 7

state law claims).

NOTICE OF REMOVAL PAGE 6 OF 7

/s/ Thomas G. Yoxall

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT AT&T

/s/ Thomas G. Yoxall _

NOTICE OF REMOVAL PAGE 7 OF 7

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JAMES PHILLIP WALDRON, §

LIST OF PARTIES, STATUS OF REMOVED CASE, AND

PARTY JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Philip Waldron None

AT&T, Inc. None

Back to Case Search Results

02/25/2022 Request for Citation $8.00

02/25/2022 ($242.00) Less

02/25/2022 ($137.00) Less

03/24/2022 $8.00 Less

03/24/2022 ($8.00) Less

Back to Case Search Results

Privacy & Accessibility (http://www.collincountytx.gov/Pages/privacy.aspx)

JAMES PHILLIP WALDRON, IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Defendant. JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY AND

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Plaintiff James Phillip Waldron, through undersigned counsel, files his