There’s “no evidence” that any of the discovery information that Xfinity Mobile seeks from defendants SellLocked, Guru Holdings and their owner Jakob Zahara in its complaint to thwart allegedly illegal trafficking in stolen phones “is at risk of being destroyed,” said the defendants’ response to XM’s motion for expedited discovery Friday (docket 2:22-cv-01950) in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in Phoenix.
Google is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from claims by Prager University that the platform restricted ads and access to Prager’s YouTube videos over the university’s political and religious views, said a ruling from California’s Court of Appeal for the 6th Appellate District Monday. The ruling upheld a similar decision from a lower court. The appeals court rejected Prager arguments that Google is an information provider, that it was liable due to language in its terms of service, and that Section 230 is unconstitutional. “To the extent Prager’s claims principally rest on allegations that defendants violated a duty under state law to exercise their editorial control in a particular manner, defendants are immune under section 230 from the claims Prager brings in this suit,” said the court. “Social media platforms are generally permitted to decide for themselves what content to publish.”
Here are Communications Litigation Today's top stories from last week, in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Comcast’s Xfinity Mobile (XM) seeks expedited discovery in its complaint to thwart illegal trafficking in stolen phones (see 2211170061), said its motion Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-01950]) in U.S. District Court for Arizona. XM especially seeks permission to serve nonparty subpoenas because certain nonparties “have significant evidence relevant to this case that they are otherwise under no duty to preserve and may destroy pursuant to their corporate document retention policies,” said the motion.
Masimo and its Cercacor Labs subsidiary went too far in their proposed final judgment and permanent injunction against former Chief Technology Officer Marcelo Lamego when they sought to prevent Lamego and his company, True Wearables, from keeping certain confidential documents, said their objections Monday (docket 8:18-cv-02001) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana.
Fourteen cellular partnerships filed breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty suits against AT&T and several subsidiaries in Delaware Chancery Court in relation to a decade-long court case over cellular partnerships, said multiple filings Monday.
Masimo and its Cercacor Labs subsidiary moved Monday for a final judgment against former Chief Technology Officer Marcelo Lamego and a permanent injunction barring him from further misappropriating Masimo’s pulse oximetry trade secrets, said their proposed order (docket 8:18-cv-02001) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana. U.S. District Judge James Selna’s “finding of facts” ruling Nov. 7 also said Lamego breached his fiduciary duty of loyalty to Cercacor and he violated his employment agreements by keeping confidential information and documents (see 2211170034).
An AT&T petition Monday in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa seeks to compel the production of documents from Voxon under a Sept. 19 subpoena issued by the U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia in a case (docket 2:21-cv-02771) in which AT&T is a defendant. Core Communications sued AT&T there in June 2021, seeking the recovery of $11.4 million in unpaid access services charges, and AT&T said in the petition (docket 8:22-mc-00043) that the Voxon documents are “directly relevant” to its defense in the case.
The Nov. 7 ruling by U.S. District Judge James Selna for Central California in Santa Ana that former Masimo engineer Marcelo Lamego misappropriated the company’s pulse oximetry trade secrets “will give comfort to companies that invest in innovation,” said Masimo’s General Counsel Tom McClenahan in a statement Thursday. The "finding of facts" ruling (docket 8:18-cv-02001) confirmed “that California’s trade secrets laws will help protect their investments from employees who seek to unlawfully use those innovations for their own benefit,” he said.
The U.S. District Court for Colorado, per a Nov. 2 order (see 2211030043), instructed plaintiffs Qwest, Level 3 and Global Crossing to confer with defendant Peerless Network and “make a showing in writing as to why private mediation is not feasible under the circumstances of this case,” said a joint mediation notice Thursday (docket 1:21-cv-03004). “Private mediation is acceptable to the Parties,” they told the court. Plaintiffs and defendants “will work together to identify a mediator and conduct private mediation,” they said. The case involves negotiated interconnect agreements and the access tariffs associated with them. Qwest, Level 3 and Global Crossing sued Peerless affiliates in eight states in November alleging that they engaged in a scheme of avoiding mandatory switched access charges, thereby giving them an unfair competitive advantage in the toll-free marketplace. The defendants countersued in March alleging the companies used unfair and unsupported billing methods, to the detriment of the Peerless affiliates.