Further Discovery 'Not Relevant' in False Ringtones Case, Says T-Mobile

A motion to compel further discovery in a fake ringtones case brought by Craigville Telephone and Consolidated Telephone should be denied because further discovery sought “is not relevant” and “not proportionate to the needs of the case,” said defendant T-Mobile’s Wednesday memorandum of law (1:19-cv-7190) in U.S. District Court for Northern in Illinois in Chicago opposing plaintiffs’ second motion to compel production of certain documents.

Plaintiffs’ second motion to compel more discovery relates to T-Mobile's use of the local ring back tone (LRBT) parameter in 2015 and service credits provided by T-Mobile by Inteliquent regarding a master services agreement.

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. T-Mobile’s alleged stonewalling in the case sparked Craigville and Consolidated to ask for the special master to “ride herd” on discovery (see 2302140002).

Plaintiffs’ motion for further discovery about local ringback tone expansion and service credits has no relevance in the absence of a cognizable conspiracy claim, said T-Mobile. Plaintiffs justified their requests for further documents and information concerning service credits by asserting they're “relevant to the co-conspirator’s agreement to engage in and tolerate poor routing practices by Inteliquent.” The court recently dismissed the conspiracy claim in granting a Rule 12(c) motion filed by Inteliquent, finding “plaintiffs have failed to state a civil conspiracy claim under the appropriate state law. The court’s analysis “should apply equally” to T-Mobile, the memorandum said.

Plaintiffs’ claim to identify additional T-Mobile employees who knew about an expansion of LRBT and had notice of a 2013 call completion order “will undermine [T-Mobile’s] assertion it acted in good faith,” it said. Whether anyone else at T-Mobile was aware of the LRBT expansion “will not rebut testimony of the decision-makers who did not act in bad faith,” it said. If there are more employees who knew about the LRBT expansion, “they were not the decision makers,” it said.

Plaintiffs asserted T-Mobile’s request for service credits “with respect to rural or high cost codes” would provide evidence of Inteliquent’s poor call completion performance and that T-Mobile failed to correct problems with Inteliquent’s call delivery. Plaintiffs already have a “wealth of direct evidence” concerning Inteliquent’s call completion performance, T-Mobile’s oversight of Inteliquent as its intermediate carrier, and what steps T-Mobile took to correct rural call completion issues, T-Mobile said.

If T-Mobile had waived service credits, “there are any number of reasons why it might have done so,” it said, and plaintiffs “do not reasonably explain why a waiver, if it occurred,” is relevant to its claims. Plaintiffs' arguments "are unsupported by anything other than rank speculation” and reflect continued attempts to seek “unnecessary discovery on any issue no matter how far flung.”