Judge Partially Grants Plaintiffs' Motions to Compel in T-Mobile Robocall Case
U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Gilbert granted in part, denied in part and in part held under advisement motions by plaintiffs Craigville Telephone and Consolidated Telephone to compel production of documents and to compel with related interrogatories in their class action…
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.
against T-Mobile over false ringtones, said a Monday order (docket 1:19-cv-07190) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago (2212270012). Gilbert denied requests for production (RFPs) involving internal discussions between T-Mobile and Inteliquent, saying the RFPs were “overbroad” and sought documents not relevant to the needs of the case. Documents about calls placed by T-Mobile customers in rural areas in the same manner as local ring back tone (LRBT) issues cited in plaintiffs’ complaint “may or may not” contain relevant information; the court needs more information to make that determination, it said. Gilbert granted plaintiffs’ motion for RFP No. 58, saying plaintiffs are entitled to discover more about the economics of the T-Mobile-Inteliquent relationship than simply the end result of master service agreement negotiations. An RFP seeking all instant messages that mention the letter of intent or the FCC during a one-month period isn’t relevant or proportional to the needs of the case, Gilbert said. T-Mobile already produced a “substantial volume of responsive discovery," but plaintiffs did establish at least the relevance and proportionality of discovering any communications that occurred between T-Mobile and Inteliquent about the letter of inquiry or FCC investigation, “notwithstanding TMUS’s protestations that no such communications exist,” he said. Gilbert ordered the parties to meet within 30 days to confer about a narrow list of search terms on the alleged conspiracy between T-Mobile and Inteliquent, and T-Mobile “shall produce responsive documents, if any” within a reasonable time. Gilbert denied the motion to produce Form 480 requirements of the 2013 rural call completion order, saying information already provided by T-Mobile is adequate. The defendant agreed to produce a written description of the methodology it used to arrive at LRBT call estimates, and the data used to calculate them, but only if plaintiffs would agree production of the information doesn’t constitute a subject matter waiver of T-Mobile’s claims that the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine cover information and documents on call estimates, Gilbert said. Plaintiffs don’t have to accept the terms. If the parties can’t agree on TMUS’ response to plaintiffs’ interrogatories within 21 days, the court will consider whether to appoint a special master to help work through claims, the order said.