Xfinity Mobile Refused Bid to Limit Discovery, Says GGT in Phone Trafficking Case
Defendants GlobalguruTech and owner Jakob Zahara filed their third motion to quash Xfinity Mobile’s subpoenas to GGT business contacts and for a protective order, said the plaintiffs’ Tuesday filing (docket 2:22-cv-01950) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix. The “overbroad request would include irrelevant documents relating to any cell phone transaction” and isn't limited to Xfinity phones or Xfinity products, the motion said.
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.
The six subpoenas referenced in the motion seek all documents and communications between the named entity and any of the defendants, including electronic records, emails, text messages, WhatsApp messages, written statements, notes, reports, correspondence, invoices, purchase orders, receipts, sales orders, statements, shipping records, payment records, activation confirmations, tax identification numbers, surveillance footage, customs forms, international mobile equipment identity (IMEI) numbers and serial numbers, said the motion.
In its November complaint, Xfinity alleged GGT and Zahara fraudulently sell Xfinity Mobile phones “in bulk,” the motion noted (see 2211300025). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and the court dismissed Xfinity’s conspiracy and trademark claims, but plaintiffs reasserted the two claims in a July 7 amended complaint; defendants responded with a second motion to dismiss.
Before the court ruled on the second motion to dismiss, Xfinity “issued a barrage of 18 subpoenas in a six-week period which is just the beginning of the number of subpoenas Plaintiffs intend to issue in this case,” said GGT’s motion. Plaintiffs are seeing the “same overbroad and irrelevant information about all transactions instead of limiting their discovery to Xfinity phones,” as alleged in their amended complaint, it said. Xfinity “refused” defendants’ repeated requests to voluntarily narrow the scope of discovery, “but the subpoenas keep coming with the same overly broad requests,” it said.
Xfinity is “rushing to issue subpoenas,” hoping to receive the requested information before the court rules on defendants’ three pending motions to quash or for protective order, the motion said. Eight of the subpoenas are to banks and other financial institutions, four to shipping companies and six to GGT’s business contacts.
Plaintiffs’ counsel, Carlton Fields, has represented “every large cell phone carrier” in the U.S. and filed similar lawsuits on their behalf over the years, said the motion. “It appears Plaintiffs are seeking overbroad and irrelevant discovery that includes all types of cell phones to share with the other carriers who can then use the information to sue these Defendants or other small business owners to try to shut them down,” the motion said. The court “should not allow Plaintiffs to conduct discovery on behalf of the entire cell phone industry," it said, saying discovery should be limited to transactions involving Xfinity phones.
Because Xfinity’s amended complaint is limited to alleged wrongdoing in connection with the purchase and sale of Xfinity phones, the carrier should be required to narrow its discovery requests in the subpoenas to the six GGT business contacts for Xfinity phones, the motion said. The court should also enter an order requiring plaintiffs to seek court approval before issuing additional subpoenas to any more GGT customers, it said.