Did Baxter dismiss U.S. v. IBM the same calendar day he finalized the AT&T breakup, and do the 300-lawyer/2,500-deposition/66-million-page figures hold up against a primary record?

The note claim-baxter-dismissed-ibm-case-same-day-att-breakup-finalized rests on two secondary retellings — Reason magazine (Oct. 1982) and Wikipedia's William Baxter entry (citing former FTC Commissioner Thomas B. Leary's 2002 prepared remarks) — for a claim that is both surprising and load-bearing: that Assistant AG William Baxter dismissed United States v. IBM as "without merit" the exact same day in January 1982 that he finalized the AT&T consent decree. Per the vault's sourcing floor (00-meta/specs/sources.md), a specific date claim and specific counts (300+ lawyers, 2,500 depositions, 66 million pages) both require Tier 1-2 sourcing; neither is on hand yet.

What would answer it:

• The DOJ's own January 1982 press release or case docket entry for United States v. IBM, Civil Action No. 69 Civ. 200 (S.D.N.Y.), giving the exact dismissal date.
• The AT&T consent decree filing date (Modification of Final Judgment, entered Jan. 8, 1982 per common secondary accounts) from a primary court record, to check against the IBM dismissal date.
• Thomas B. Leary's full 2002 prepared remarks (the underlying source Wikipedia cites) for the case-size figures and any first-hand framing of the coincidence.
• Contemporary January 1982 wire/newspaper coverage (NYT, WSJ) reporting both events, which would settle the same-day sequencing independently of Reason's later retrospective framing.

Until one of these is read, the note stays seedling and the [unverified-quant] flag stands.

Progress, 2026-07-24 (partial — question stays open): A follow-up session read TIME's contemporaneous account ("Windup for Two Supersuits," Jan. 18, 1982), which independently corroborates the same-day sequencing and gives a direct Baxter quote, but still falls short of a primary court/DOJ record — see the updated claim-baxter-dismissed-ibm-case-same-day-att-breakup-finalized. It also surfaced a real discrepancy in the case-size figures rather than resolving them: TIME attributes the 66-million-page figure to private IBM spin-off suits, not the DOJ's own case (see claim-time-1982-attributes-66-million-pages-to-ibm-spinoff-suits-not-doj-case), and separately established that the AT&T case was not itself judicially dismissed until August 24, 1982 (see claim-att-case-dismissed-august-1982-not-january-complicates-same-day-narrative), which complicates rather than confirms the "same day" framing. Leary's full 2002 remarks, the Justia/CourtListener opinion, and the Washington Post/UPI contemporaneous pieces all returned HTTP 403 again this session — the access blockers, not the sources' non-existence, remain the open item. Not answered; still open.