Florida Telephone Solicitation Act plaintiff Ruby Gamez seeks better discovery responses from Redbox, said her motion to compel Thursday (docket 8:23-cv-01497) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa. Gamez alleges that Redbox phones consumers to promote its goods and services “without having secured prior express written consent as required by the FTSA” (see 2307060003). In its discovery responses, Redbox “asserts boilerplate objections, fails to provide substantive answers and responses, refuses to reasonably and naturally interpret the requests” and fails to respond to Gamez’s discovery requests “in good faith,” said the motion. Redbox’s conduct has “imposed unnecessary burden and expense” on Gamez and her counsel, it said. Its conduct also violates four standards as outlined in the Middle District of Florida’s “discovery handbook,” it said.

The seven media organization plaintiffs seeking to block Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) from enforcing HB-1186, the state’s “buffer law,” oppose his Feb. 21 motion to stay their case pending the outcome of a YouTuber’s appeal in a separate case before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (see 2402220005), said their opposition Friday (docket 1:23-cv-01805) in U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana in Indianapolis. The buffer law, which took effect July 1, makes it a misdemeanor for the news media to come within 25 feet of police officers on active duty. Rokita's motion for a stay cites “no hardship of any kind” in a case in which he faces “no pending obligations,” said the opposition. He seeks an “indefinite delay” of the court’s “imminent decision on a fully briefed motion for a preliminary injunction,” it said. His request is “meritless,” it said. There’s no dispute that the YouTuber’s appeal “raises only an issue that is not necessary to the disposition” of the case that Rokita wants to have stayed, said the opposition. Even setting that “threshold problem aside,” the AG hasn’t attempted to demonstrate “any hardship” he would suffer absent a stay, it said. Rokita’s motion doesn’t even mention the “governing standard” in seeking a stay because it’s clear he can’t meet that standard, said the opposition. The plaintiffs, which include Nexstar, Scripps, Tegna and the Indianapolis Star, would be “badly prejudiced” by a delay “that would amount in substance to a denial of their motion for preliminary relief,” it said. The motion should be “promptly denied,” it said.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals calendared oral argument for April 3 at 9 a.m. CDT in New Orleans in Prewitt Management’s appeal against Charter Communications, said a clerk’s notice Wednesday (docket 23-50419). Prewitt seeks the reversal of the district court’s declaratory judgment absolving Charter of any further monetary obligations under a 1964 revenue-sharing cable-permit agreement in Texas between their predecessor companies (see 2309060033).

DoorDash agreed to pay $375,000 to the office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) to settle allegations that it violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and the California Online Privacy Protection Act (CalOPPA) by selling consumers’ personal information without notice or an opportunity to opt-out of the sale, said a proposed final judgment Wednesday in San Francisco County Superior Court. DoorDash, beginning in 2018, belonged to two marketing cooperatives where unrelated businesses contribute the personal information of their customers for the purpose of advertising their own products to customers from the other participating businesses. The marketing co-op then combines, analyzes and uses the information to target mailed advertisements to potential new customers on behalf of participating businesses. The AG alleged that DoorDash sent the personal information of its California customers to a marketing co-op in exchange for the opportunity to send mailed advertisements to customers of the other participating businesses. The AG alleged that DoorDash failed to comply with CCPA’s requirements for businesses that sell personal information, and that it also violated CalOPPA by failing to state in its posted privacy policy that it disclosed personally identifiable information to the marketing co-ops.

Businesses sought California Supreme Court review of a state appeals court’s Feb. 9 decision that the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) may start enforcing California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) regulations. The California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) on Tuesday filed a petition for review (case S283856). California’s 3rd District Court of Appeal had vacated the June decision of the California Superior Court in Sacramento, which had granted a CalChamber petition and stayed any CPPA rules for 12 months after they become final (see 2402090078). At the California Supreme Court, CalChamber argued that the appeals court ruling means businesses will have only one month to prepare for enforcement. “The Agency failed to adopt regulations necessary to implement the initiative by the statutory deadline, and it continues to repudiate the linked requirement … to abstain from commencing regulatory and civil enforcement until one year after issuance of those regulations,” the CalChamber petition said. “The Agency’s conduct threatens substantial harm to thousands of California businesses and the consumers they serve.” CalChamber CEO Jennifer Barrera said she sees “no way the voters envisioned a scenario where enforcement of regulations would begin without those regulations being in place for a reasonable period of time that affords both businesses and consumers with adequate time to prepare and comply.” The state privacy agency declined to comment Wednesday.

Crown Castle filed suit against Santa Clara County to contest the county’s denial of Crown Castle’s administrative property tax refund claim for the 2018-2019 tax year, said its complaint (docket 24CV430967), filed Feb 12 and posted Feb. 13 in Santa Clara County Superior Court. It seeks a “declaration of rights” that the county’s use of “disparate” tax rates under two sections of the California code violated Article XIII, Section 19 of the state Constitution. It also seeks recovery of the tax refund it was denied in the amount of $113,367, plus interest, attorneys’ fees and court costs.

A U.S. District judge approved the stipulation of X and California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) to stay discovery until the 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court resolves X’s pending appeal to reverse the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction to block Bonta from enforcing AB-587, California’s social media transparency law (see 2402120003), said a signed order Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-01939). Briefing in X’s 9th Circuit appeal is scheduled to be completed by early April. The pretrial scheduling conference currently scheduled for Feb. 26 is reset for July 1 at 1:30 p.m. PDT, said the order by Judge William Shubb for Eastern California in Sacramento. Shubb ordered the parties to file a joint status report by June 17.

The U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus scheduled a telephonic preliminary pretrial conference for March 14 at 10 a.m. EDT before U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on NetChoice’s challenge to Ohio’s Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act, said a clerk’s hearing notice Tuesday (docket 2:24-cv-00047). The parties are required to file a Rule 26(f) report at least a week before the conference, said the notice. Monday’s opinion and order by U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley granted NetChoice’s motion for a preliminary injunction that, on constitutional grounds, blocks Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) from enforcing the statute (see 2402130041). The judge granted NetChoice a temporary restraining order against the statute a week before it was to take effect Jan. 15 (see 2401090062).

X and California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) agree that discovery and the issuance of a scheduling order in the district court should be postponed until the 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court resolves X’s pending appeal to reverse the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction to block Bonta from enforcing AB-587, California’s social media transparency law (see 2401160031), said their joint status report Friday (docket 2:23-cv-01939) in U.S. District Court for Eastern California in Sacramento. Briefing on X’s appeal is scheduled to be completed in April, said the report. The resolution of the appeal “will likely inform the subjects of any discovery” and the timing for discovery deadlines and pretrial and trial proceedings, it said. The parties also agree that no other issues require resolution at the Feb. 26 pretrial scheduling conference, it said. They propose that the court take the conference off calendar and order the parties to file another joint status report within 21 days after the 9th Circuit issues its mandate on X’s appeal, it said. The parties have entered into a stipulation to stay discovery and continue the Feb. 26 conference and have filed a proposed order reflecting their agreement, it said. They ask the court to adopt the proposed order, it said.

The California Chamber of Commerce “is considering its options,” said a CalChamber spokesperson after a state appeals court on Friday reversed a lower court’s decision to delay a state agency’s enforcement of California Privacy Rights Act regulations (see 2402090078). In June, the California Superior Court in Sacramento had granted a CalChamber petition and stayed any California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) rules for 12 months after they become final (see 2307030025). The privacy agency could have started enforcing CPRA rules July 1, but the lower court’s decision meant rules adopted March 29, wouldn’t take effect for one year. “Because there is no ‘explicit and forceful language’ mandating that the Agency is prohibited from enforcing the Act until (at least) one year after the Agency approves final regulations, the trial court erred in concluding otherwise,” wrote 3rd District Justice Elena Duarte wrote. CalChamber praised the court for noting that the agency “failed to comply with the express terms of the statutory provision regarding the adoption of final regulations,” said the business group’s spokesperson: But CalChamber is disappointed that the appeals court didn’t “agree on a remedy for the Agency’s failure to comply.” The CPPA applauded the decision. “The California voters didn’t intend for businesses to pick and choose which privacy rights to honor,” said CPPA Enforcement Deputy Director Michael Macko: Agency enforcers stand “ready to take it from here.”