T-Mobile Urges Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Over Discovery Misconduct
The U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose should deny plaintiff Bradford Clements’ Jan. 3 motion for monetary sanctions against T-Mobile for its alleged failure to comply with the court’s Aug. 2 discovery order (see 2401040011), said T-Mobile’s…
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.
opposition Wednesday (docket 5:22-cv-07512). Clements contends that T-Mobile has had at least four attorneys on his case since its inception, and the court’s order “clearly established” an Aug. 28 deadline for T-Mobile’s first written discovery responses. He also contends that T-Mobile submitted 38 responses and newly produced records 50 days late, and it has “inexplicably failed to verify all of its interrogatory answers,” it said. But Clements’ motion for sanctions is “procedurally flawed” and “substantively baseless,” said T-Mobile’s opposition. T-Mobile has provided “detailed responses” to Clements’ discovery requests, which relate only to the issue of whether T-Mobile and Clements agreed to arbitrate their dispute, it said. “It remains clear that a valid arbitration agreement exists, and no further discovery is needed on this straightforward issue,” said the opposition. Yet 50 days after failing to timely respond to T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss and compel his claims to arbitration, Clements has elected instead to file a sanctions motion “that demonstrates only that his apparent goal in this case is to needlessly litigate for the sake of it,” it said. Clements hasn’t identified any alleged deficiencies in T-Mobile’s discovery responses, it said. Clements’ motion “at best” reflects a complaint “about the timing of T-Mobile’s supplemental discovery responses,” which Clements had for nearly a month before his response to T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss was due, it said. “Yet he took no action and filed this improper motion instead,” it said. T-Mobile hasn’t “disobeyed any prior discovery order,” and has shown “no bad faith,” said the opposition. Clements’ “last-ditch effort” to stall T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss should be denied, and T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration should be granted, it said. Clements first sued T-Mobile in November 2022 for damages and injunctive relief for being victimized in eight data breaches in the three years he was a T-Mobile customer (see 2306060047).