Plaintiff George Miller and 16 defendants in his case, including the current and former AT&T CEOs and chief financial officers, plus 12 current and former board members, agreed to seek a stay in Miller’s lead cables case until 30 days after the entry of a final order on AT&T’s forthcoming motion to dismiss plaintiff John Brazinsky’s complaint in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Newark (see 2307300002), said their stipulation Friday (docket 1:24-cv-00032) in U.S. District Court for Delaware in Wilmington. Miller’s complaint was filed Thursday (see 2401120002), and it’s based “on the same core underlying factual allegations as those alleged” in Brazinsky’s complaint, said the stipulation. Both complaints allege the defendants covered up AT&T’s ownership of toxic lead cables. The parties agree that all proceedings and deadlines in Miller’s action should be stayed to conserve resources, said the stipulation.

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty for Western Louisiana in Monroe denied social media personality Jason Goodman's Jan. 3 motion to intervene in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s social media censorship case against officials from the Biden administration, said Doughty’s signed order Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-00381). Goodman alleges that he, like Kennedy and his co-plaintiffs, Children’s Health Defense and Connie Sampognaro, is a victim of First Amendment speech suppression. He had asked to intervene by intervention of right or by permissive intervention because he brings specific facts that the current parties in Kennedy v. Biden are unaware of. But there are no allegations or evidence “to show that Goodman’s interest would be inadequately represented by the existing parties in the suit,” said Doughty’s order. Goodman’s allegations “align” with those of Kennedy and his co-plaintiffs, and Goodman hasn’t “overcome the presumption of adequate representation,” it said. District courts “have broad discretion in allowing intervention,” said the order. But if the court were to allow Goodman to intervene, “it would open the door for other alleged victims to intervene, which would likely slow down the expedited discovery schedule previously set,” it said.

In an "innovation-led economy," innovation must “flourish,” but with AI "the protection of people” is critical, Microsoft Vice Chairman-President Brad Smith told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce State of American Business 2024 webinar Thursday. “We need to ensure that humans remain in control of this technology,” Smith said during a Q&A with Harold Kim, the Chamber’s executive vice president-chief legal officer. “We need to have safety and security standards,” he said. Smith found “fascinating” that the Chamber’s report on AI said that unless the government enacts regulation, “we’re likely to have market failure,” he said. “That is not a sentence that most people would expect to see in the executive summary” of a Chamber report, “and yet it is precisely right.” He added, “Most healthy markets for everyday products that can impact people’s safety do have a degree of safety regulation in place,” he said. “The key is to strike the right balance.” At Microsoft, “we’re very much focused on doing this on a global basis,” he said. “We’re interacting with governments in, easily, a few dozen countries at this point as each country is considering this.” Smith didn't mention the New York Times’ AI copyright infringement lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI, announced Dec. 27 (see 2312270044), and Kim didn’t ask him about it.

A day after plaintiff Wade Sarver voluntarily dismissed without prejudice his claims that Verizon CEO Hans Vestberg and 15 current and former board members covered up what they knew about Verizon’s toxic lead cables -- doing so only four days after filing his lawsuit (see 2401090045) -- his attorney, Laurence Rosen, refiled the identical complaint Tuesday (docket 3:24-cv-00132) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Newark. In the new complaint, Gerry Gabel, like Sarver a Verizon shareholder, “seeks to recover substantial damages for violations of securities laws attributable to these buried, toxic wires and their nondisclosure.” Rosen didn’t respond to emails seeking comment.

NetChoice responded obliquely to comments Tuesday by Ohio Lt. Gov. Jon Husted (R) criticizing the court’s decision granting NetChoice’s motion for a temporary restraining order to block enforcement of the state’s social media law when it takes effect Monday (see 2401090062). Husted said the Big Tech companies behind the NetChoice lawsuit were "disingenuous participants" in the legislative process during the run-up to the statute’s enactment and have "no interest in protecting children." Chris Marchese, director of NetChoice’s Litigation Center, emailed in reply: “Protecting Americans’ constitutional rights requires courage. We will continue to do that.”

A parent who sued 15 video game companies last month on behalf of her 9-year-old son (see 2312070020) dismissed her claims against one of them, said her notice of dismissal Friday (docket 1:23-cv-16566) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. Plaintiff Jaclyn Angelilli, a Kane County, Illinois, resident, alleged the defendants manufactured, published, marketed and sold gaming products “specifically developed and designed to cause the addiction" experienced by minors and other users. Angelilli voluntarily dismissed Grove Street Games without prejudice, said the notice.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar for Northern California in San Francisco granted the request of X and nine of its former employees to lift the stay in their arbitration dispute that was imposed Sept. 21 while they pursued mediation (see 2401040033), said Tigar’s signed order Thursday (docket 4:23-cv-03301). With the Dec. 1 mediation having failed to resolve the dispute, the judge also adopted the parties’ proposed briefing schedule, said the order. The employees’ motion to compel arbitration and for preliminary injunction was due Friday, and X’s response in opposition is due Feb. 2, both as the parties requested, it said. Tigar also scheduled a March 14 hearing on the motion to compel and for an injunction, said the order. The parties had asked for the hearing to be set for Feb. 20. The former employees contend that X refuses to engage them in arbitration, despite having compelled those employees in previous lawsuits to arbitrate their claims (see 2307060033).

A “scheduling conflict” prompted the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to tentatively revise calendaring of oral argument for the week of April 1 in Prewitt Management’s appeal against Charter Communications, not the week of March 4 as previously announced (see 2401040025), said a revised clerk’s notice Thursday (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 (see 2309060033).

Lawyers for Twitter, now X, and for the nine former employees, on behalf of thousands of others, who are petitioning to compel their claims against the company to arbitration (see 2309010040) met for mediation Dec. 1 but were unable to resolve their dispute, said their joint status report Tuesday (docket 4:23-cv-03301) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. They ask that the stay that was ordered Sept. 21 pending the outcome of that mediation be lifted immediately, and that the court enter a briefing and hearing schedule for the petitioners’ motion to compel arbitration and for a preliminary injunction, said the report. Under that proposed schedule, the petitioners’ motion would be due Friday, and X’s response in opposition would be due Feb. 2, said the report. The parties are also asking the court to schedule a hearing on the motion for Feb. 29 at 2 p.m. PST, it said. The former employees contend that X refuses to engage them in arbitration, despite having compelled those employees in previous lawsuits to arbitrate their claims (see 2307060033).

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tentatively calendared oral argument for the week of March 4 in Prewitt Management’s appeal against Charter Communications, said its 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 (see 2309060033). Under the 1964 agreement, Charter’s predecessor company acquired permits from Prewitt’s predecessor to provide cable service to the central Texas cities of Waco, Temple and McGregor. In return, Charter made quarterly royalty payments to Prewitt based on its gross revenue derived from cable services in those cities. The 2005 Texas Cable Act changed the regulatory landscape such that the state, not the cities, began issuing cable-service permits. Charter contends that Prewitt wrongly argues that Charter’s payment obligation is “perpetual” under the statute’s “savings clause” to account for existing contractual arrangements (see 2310200025).