Fake Ring Tone Plaintiffs Seek Special Master to ‘Ride Herd’ on Discovery
Defendant T-Mobile’s alleged stonewalling in the false-ring tone class action against the carrier and its alleged co-conspirator Intelliquent (see 2301240023) sparked plaintiffs Craigville Telephone and Consolidated to ask U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman for Northern Illinois in Chicago to appoint a special pretrial master to “assist the parties to manage discovery for the remainder of this case,” said their memorandum of law Thursday (docket 1:19-cv-07190) in support of their motion.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
During a Jan. 9 telephonic status conference, Coleman “tacitly acknowledged” what the plaintiffs have known for nearly two years: “[T]his action needs heightened oversight,” said the memorandum. “The clear need for heightened judicial involvement is the result of a multitude of discovery disputes, unproductive meet and confer conferences, and a multiplying number of docket entries,” it said.
The fraud class action alleges T-Mobile inserted fake local ringback tones instead of connecting calls to rural areas of the U.S. that have expensive routing fees. The fake tone would make the caller think the recipient didn’t answer, when the call wasn’t actually delivered, the plaintiffs allege.
The plaintiffs allege T-Mobile’s scheme injured them and other class members in multiple ways, including through lost opportunities to seek intercarrier compensation for calls the scheme blocked from connecting to their switches. They also allege the scheme masked failures by co-defendant Inteliquent, a cloud communications company, to complete billions of calls placed to rural and high-cost destinations, in an unlawful conspiracy under the 1964 Telecommunications Act.
Resolution of the ongoing discovery disputes “is made even more complicated” by T-Mobile’s designation of 99.5% of the nearly 35,000 pages produced in this case as confidential, said the memorandum. T-Mobile’s “blanket” confidentiality designations have forced the plaintiffs to present even more motions to “address the impropriety” of T-Mobile’s efforts to “avoid disclosure of damaging facts to the public,” it said.
Contrary to T-Mobile statements during the Jan. 8 conference that “boldly asserted” that discovery in the case was coming to a close, “nothing could be farther from the truth,” said the memorandum. Despite “repetitive orders” confirming the scope of discovery in the plaintiffs’ favor, Inteliquent “has largely refused to produce discovery in the case and just recently proposed a production schedule for call detail records,” it said.
If the court agrees to adopt Inteliquent’s proposed schedule, that “would extend discovery through much of 2023,” said the memorandum. The appointment of a special master “is needed in this action for the benefit of all parties,” it said. It would “effectively and timely address” the matters that will allow the court and the parties “to advance this lawsuit through class certification and trial,” it said.
A pretrial master is urgently needed in the case “because its complexities and the level of disagreement between the parties result in a clear need for enhanced oversight and dispute resolution,” said the memorandum. In the 15 months during which T-Mobile produced documents, there have been 12 “substantive” discovery motions, seven extensions of the amendment of pleadings and joinder of additional parties and nine motions to seal documents, it said. The motions to seal are “particularly onerous,” it said.
The plaintiffs have identified no fewer than 12 possible future discovery disputes “that may require judicial involvement and resolution,” said the memorandum. “These discovery motions have all been before the parties have sought to commence substantive deposition practice, since document and written discovery remains too incomplete for commencement of deposition discovery to be efficient,” it said. “It is clear that substantial efficiencies could be gained, and costs could be saved if there were a pretrial master to ‘ride herd’ on discovery.”