San Diego Data Breach Plaintiffs vs. T-Mobile Alone in Opposing Stay

Having compromised the highly personal sensitive information of millions of individuals, T-Mobile now wrongfully seeks to delay “the prosecution of claims related to their misconduct” by “piggybacking” on a transfer motion filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Ligation to completely and indefinitely stay all proceedings against them, pending the JPML’s decision. So said the plaintiffs’ opposition brief Monday (docket 3:23-cv-00427) in Shoemaker v. T-Mobile in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego.

The San Diego class action is unusual because it’s the only known of the 16 lawsuits arising from T-Mobile’s most recent data breach in which the plaintiffs didn’t jointly move with T-Mobile for a stay or at least a deadline extension in the proceedings, pending the JPML’s decision on transfer and consolidation. The case also is noteworthy for its unusually high count of named plaintiffs, 46.

T-Mobile acknowledged it opposes transfer, and said it plans to move to compel arbitration for each named plaintiff’s claims, said the opposition brief. There’s no reason to prejudice the plaintiffs in this case “by imposing an unnecessary and artificial delay,” it said.

The stay that T-Mobile requests should be rejected, “as it is unlimited in time and scope,” pegged only to “whenever the JPML may decide to rule,” said the opposition brief. Only last Friday did the JPML schedule oral argument on the motion to transfer and consolidate, and that hearing won’t be until May 25 (see 2304170007), it said. A stay pending JPML resolution “will all but guarantee weeks, months, or longer of prejudicial delay,” and “weighs strongly” against T-Mobile’s request, it said.

The test that courts in California apply when determining whether to issue a stay pending transfer proceedings before the JPML was articulated in the 1997 U.S. District Court for the Central District of California decision in Rivers v. Disney, said the opposition. There the court said the district court should consider the potential prejudice to the non-moving party when considering a motion to stay and the hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action isn't stayed, it said. A third factor is to consider the judicial resources that would be saved “by avoiding duplicative litigation” if the cases ultimately are consolidated, it said.

Even where one of the three factors favors a stay, which it doesn’t in T-Mobile’s motion, “courts will still deny that request if there is a possibility that a plaintiff may be harmed if a stay were ordered,” said the opposition brief. Each of the three factors in Rivers weighs against granting T-Mobile the stay, it said.

Courts are reluctant to stay cases pending resolution of a transfer and consolidation motion before the JPML because stays run counter to courts’ interest in promoting the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding, said the opposition brief. The 46 plaintiffs in the class action against T-Mobile “rightfully seek to advance” the case “as quickly as possible,” in light of the highly sensitive data that T-Mobile disclosed about them and T-Mobile’s “insistence on individually arbitrating their claims,” it said.

The plaintiffs’ and the court’s interest in seeking a just and speedy resolution to the case “is entirely consistent with the JPML’s own procedures,” said the opposition brief. JPML rules “make clear” that the filing of a JPML transfer motion doesn’t “automatically stay the underlying district court proceedings, or otherwise impact the jurisdiction or pretrial orders,” it said. Staying the Shoemaker case would “severely prejudice” the non-moving plaintiffs, preventing them from defending T-Mobile’s expected motions to compel arbitration or to dismiss, it said.

A stay also would prevent the plaintiffs from engaging in discovery and “obtaining clarity on the scope of the claims at issue,” said the opposition brief. The plaintiffs “may even be deprived of the ability to resolve their case” with T-Mobile “through early settlement discussions if the parties so choose,” it said.

There are “uncontroversial and necessary” early case activities that need to be completed, “regardless of whether the case is consolidated” with the other data breach class actions against T-Mobile, said the opposition brief. Those activities include confirming the scope of the data breach, plus the scope of T-Mobile’s “document preservation efforts,” it said. The parties also need to negotiate a protective order and begin discussions about the “appropriate parameters” in discovery for the production of electronically stored information, it said.

Amid T-Mobile’s “stated strategy” of moving to compel arbitration against each individual plaintiff, the plaintiffs “will require discovery regarding each individual plaintiff’s purported arbitration agreement,” said the opposition brief. There’s “no good reason” for T-Mobile “to be permitted to sit on these documents that will form the heart of its defense,” it said.