AT&T Urges Denial of Village’s Motion to Stay Discovery in Tower Case
AT&T opposes the Feb. 27 letter motion from Muttontown, New York, requesting a stay of discovery in AT&T’s cell tower lawsuit against the village, pending the outcome of Muttontown’s motion to dismiss AT&T’s complaint, the carrier told U.S. Magistrate Judge…
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.
Lee Dunst for Eastern New York in a letter brief Monday (docket 2:22-cv-05524). AT&T alleges the village violated the Telecommunications Act when it denied its application to build a 165-foot-high cell tower to remedy a significant coverage gap, and Muttontown moved to dismiss the complaint for AT&T’s alleged failure to properly make “a legally justiciable claim” (see 2303130040). The motion for a stay should be denied because Muttontown and its component boards can’t meet their burden of making a strong showing that their motion to dismiss “will result in the dismissal of all claims against all parties,” AT&T told the judge. “As a result, a stay would merely delay inevitable discovery, and prejudice not only AT&T, but also the public, which over recent years has come to depend primarily on reliable wireless telecommunications,” it said. A stay also would prejudice first responders, “who are being denied reliable access to FirstNet,” it said: “The right of all these persons and entities to an expeditious resolution of AT&T’s TCA claims would be frustrated by grant of a stay.” The defendants have “no rational basis to argue that dismissal of the highly fact sensitive TCA substantial evidence and prohibition of services claims” against Muttontown’s zoning board of appeals “is plausible, let alone likely,” said AT&T. Their stay brief doesn’t even address these claims, “as clear precedent establishes that stays of discovery are inappropriate when a motion to dismiss turns on fact-intensive issues that are not amenable to resolution on motion,” it said.