T-Mobile Says it May Want to Depose Rivals in Fake Ring Tone Case

Plaintiffs Craigville Telephone and Consolidated Telephone worry that defendant T-Mobile may want to depose competing wireless carriers in its defense of allegations it inserted fake local ring-back tones instead of connecting calls to rural areas in the U.S. that have expensive routing fees (see 2212230004), said a joint status report Monday (docket 1:19-cv-07190) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. The fake tone would make the caller think the recipient didn’t answer, although the call hadn't been delivered.

T-Mobile didn’t identify any witnesses from competing wireless carriers it may want to depose in its Rule 26 initial disclosures or in any amendments that followed, said the plaintiffs in the report. “Depositions of unnamed telecommunications carriers are irrelevant and disproportional to the needs of the case,” they said.

It’s “highly likely” that AT&T or Verizon “will resist participating in depositions in this case,” especially since none of T-Mobile’s competitors has been “subpoenaed for documents or involved in this litigation to date,” said the plaintiffs. The “belated disclosure” of T-Mobile’s intent to depose other telecommunications carriers contradicts its previous assertions that the parties were coming to the end of fact discovery, and that may “impact all depositions,” they said.

T-Mobile “at a minimum” should be required “to identify these other telecommunications carriers immediately,” said the plaintiffs. T-Mobile said in the report it hasn’t determined whether it will depose “non-party witnesses” such as competing wireless carriers. It thus called “premature” the plaintiffs’ concerns about that “potential discovery.”

T-Mobile thinks there should be a “presumption” that depositions of party witnesses, and non-party witnesses, if they prefer, should be taken remotely, said the report. “Particularly given the far-ranging locations of many of the witnesses, remote depositions will be far more efficient and economical than in-person depositions and generally just as effective,” it said. T-Mobile disputes the plaintiffs’ characterization of this case as involving complex evidence, it said. It doesn’t agree technical and complex evidence “counsels in favor of live depositions,” it said.

The plaintiffs disagree with T-Mobile’s proposal “that there should be a presumption for depositions to be taken remotely,” said the report. “This case involves very technical and complex evidence and subject matter,” it said. The plaintiffs reserve their rights to take live depositions of witnesses “to the extent they deem it in the best interests of preparing this matter for trial for the putative class,” it said.