Avid-TransNexus Dispute to Require ‘Extended Discovery': Joint Report
Plaintiff Avid Telecom and defendant TransNexus agree their legal fight (see 2212080050) is “complex” because it involves an “unusually large number of claims or defenses,” and will require “extended discovery” and “multiple use of experts,” said their joint preliminary report…
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.
and discovery plan Friday (docket 1:22-cv-04829) in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta. Avid alleges a Nov. 15 TransNexus blog post that was exposed to 50,000 readers in the telecom industry falsely depicted Avid as an enabler of illicit robocallers. TransNexus contends the blog post was drawn from a petition in which the Indiana attorney general’s office disclosed it was investigating Avid for possible Telemarketing Sales Rules violations and other infractions. It concedes the blog post “inadvertently contained certain errors or insufficiently supported statements,” said the report. After becoming aware of the factual errors and other concerns, TransNexus “promptly removed the inaccurate information from the blog, then removed the blog entirely,” it said. “TransNexus then appropriately retracted the blog,” and issued a notice of retraction and an apology, it said. Avid contends the retraction and apology were insufficient to lure back major customers that abandoned the brand. The parties don’t consent to bring their case before a magistrate judge but agree there’s “a possibility of settlement” before or after discovery, having held settlement discussions Feb. 16, said the report.