Re: AT&T Subpoenas - BidenLaptopEmails

SUBJECT:

Re: AT&T Subpoenas

PRI: NORMAL

FROM:

H

hbiden@rosemontseneca.com

DATE:

2017-01-29 23:23:58

MSG_ID:

<D12572C8-59D8-4E9F-A9E9-9171D1C6D6AC@rosemontseneca.com>

RECIPIENTS:

TO:

E

Eric Schwerin <eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com>

CC:

S

Sarah E. Mancinelli <smancinelli@ainbanklaw.com>

CONTENT: TEXT: YES | HTML: YES

PROCESSED

I don't care but wha is the possible reason for needing my phone records in no fault jurisdiction? And hey are e not doing the same?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 29, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Eric Schwerin <eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com> wrote:
>
> FYI, we received notices at the office from AT&T that they had been subpoenaed to provide phone records for 202-552-9396 (Hunter’s cell issued by work) and 202-333-5198 (Hunter’s direct office land line - which isn’t an account with AT&T). AT&T said they will respond on 2/5/17 unless they hear from Hunter that there is any reason they shouldn’t.
>
>
>
>
> Eric D. Schwerin
> Rosemont Seneca Advisors, LLC
> 1010 Wisconsin Ave., NW
> Suite 705
> Washington, DC 20007
> (202) 333-1880
> eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com
> P Consider the environment before printing this email.
>=2

METADATA:

THREAD:

INDEX: AdhhnZCWwpbTRCizToqYrIFtLDJhOg==

REFERENCES:

REPLY_TO:

<9E0E3DF8-7BB6-4556-971A-3058EF4137EB@rosemontseneca.com>

REFS:

<9E0E3DF8-7BB6-4556-971A-3058EF4137EB@rosemontseneca.com>

EMAIL DETAILS