Court Should Order Inteliquent to 'De-designate' Confidential Documents: Plaintiffs

Inteliquent hasn't shown its confidentiality designations are meritorious because it failed to provide the court with sufficient facts or any evidence that documents at issue warrant protection under Rule 26(c) and governing case law, said Craigville Telephone and Consolidated Telephone Tuesday in a reply (docket 1:19-cv-07190) in support of their motion to challenge a confidentiality designation by non-party Inteliquent in a fake ring tones case. Inteliquent, no longer a party in the case alleging T-Mobile inserted instead of connecting calls to rural areas in the U.S. that have expensive routing fees, said there’s no “crisis or urgency” in producing documents about call completion statistics and customer routing that could relate only to a “conspiracy claim that has been permanently dismissed.” Craigville and Consolidated Telephone said Tuesday Inteliquent’s opposition to their motion “fails to justify the overbroad confidentiality designations” the company or former CEO Fritz Hendricks attached to each of 237 documents marked confidential in response to a subpoena. This dispute started with plaintiffs noticing the deposition of Hendricks, “a material fact witness,” but it isn’t limited to that deposition, said the reply. Hendricks gave testimony, and many of his documents or Inteliquent documents bearing his name “were marked as exhibits." That testimony confirmed that documents with his name “are material to a number of issues in the case,” and plaintiffs plan to use them in future filings, “and when they do so, expect to file them publicly,” it said. The court should grant their motion and order Inteliquent to de-designate all Hendricks documents and produce new images “without confidentiality stamps.”