Multiple Flaws Doomed DirecTV Motion for Expedited Discovery: Judge
U.S. Magistrate Judge John Love for Eastern Texas in Tyler signed a memorandum opinion and order Tuesday (docket 6:22-CV-00423) denying DirecTV’s Nov. 1 motion for expedited discovery in its complaint to thwart what it alleges is a global imposter fraud scheme (see 2211020017). Love also denied as moot DirecTV’s request to serve subpoenas on foreign entities via courier instead of through diplomatic channels.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
DirecTV’s complaint names 10 defendants, plus 10 John Does and 10 “XYZ” companies, as perpetrators of “an unlawful scheme to enrich themselves” by impersonating DirecTV telemarketers. The alleged culprits, working with global co-conspirators, typically contact existing or potential DirecTV customers “to offer them nonexistent free or significantly discounted” services or products, and then they take the consumer’s money, usually in the form of prepaid gift cards that are subsequently laundered, it said.
The court granted DirecTV’s request for an entry of default against four of the defendants for failing to plead or otherwise defend against DirecTV’s allegations (see 2212200007). Named in the signed default entry were defendants Amna Jilani, Rana Rehman, FDI Telecom and Compliance Whiz.
Love cited multiple flaws in denying DirecTV’s motion for expedited discovery, which DirecTV said was warranted to serve third-party subpoenas on entities possessing relevant information on the fraud scheme to prevent destruction of evidence. DirecTV also sought expedited discovery to learn the alleged co-conspirators and actual legitimate DirecTV customers who were harmed. DirecTV suggested LinkedIn, eBay, PayPal, Zelle, Authorize.Net, Evalon, Tango and Facebook were among the entities that likely possess information pertinent to the fraud scheme but aren't required to preserve or provide DirecTV with this information.
DirecTV’s claim it needs expedited discovery to prevent the destruction of crucial evidence “is belied by the record,” said Love’s denial. DirecTV hasn't sought a temporary restraining order or injunctive relief, “which would be expected” if it had legitimate concerns of “ongoing irreparable harm necessitating expedited discovery,” he said.
The list of the third parties that DirecTV listed as potentially having evidence about the case and are under no obligation to preserve the information “was not exhaustive,” said Love. DirecTV also failed to “specifically identify what information it intends to seek from these third parties and how it intends to discover this information, such as account names, or IP addresses,” he said.
DirecTV also failed to attach the proposed subpoenas to its motion, which would have enabled the court “to discern the requested scope of the discovery and whether the proposed subpoenas were appropriately balanced between the scope of discovery and the privacy interests” of the defendants, said Love’s denial. “At best,” he said, DirecTV provided only “cursory arguments” that expedited discovery will shed light on additional defendants and targeted customers, unearth more evidence of the defendants’ wrongdoing and preclude destruction of evidence potentially held by a “non-exhaustive list of third parties,” he said. DirecTV therefore “failed to narrowly tailor the scope of the request to allow the court to protect the privacy interests” of the defendants, he said.
Though DirecTV’s motion for expedited discovery seeks information from third parties, “all defendants have not been served in this case, and ex parte motions for expedited discovery are generally disfavored by the court,” said Love’s denial. Service should be completed within six weeks, at which point the court will hold a scheduling conference, “and discovery will commence,” it said.
DirecTV “will have the opportunity to seek the requested discovery at that time,” said Love. All the parties then “will have the opportunity to propose a protective order to govern third-party discovery in this case,” it said. DirecTV’s motion “has not proposed any protections for the broad third-party discovery it seeks,” it said.