U.S. District Judge James Selna for Central California in Santa Ana ordered Masimo to respond by Tuesday to the objections by its former chief technology officer that the company stretched the truth in its proposed final judgment in the case that found the ex-CTO guilty of misappropriating Masimo trade secrets, said a text-only entry Tuesday (docket 8:18-cv-02001). Masimo and its Cercacor Labs subsidiary went too far in their proposed judgment when they sought to prevent ex-CTO Marcelo Lamego and his company, True Wearables, from keeping certain confidential documents, argued lawyers for Lamego (see 2211290018). The proposed judgment seeks “to expand on the definition of confidential information” by insisting that Lamego surrender documents that are “neither identified in the proposed judgment nor supported” by Selna’s finding of fact in the case, they said.

AT&T served notification on the U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Pennsylvania that it petitioned the Middle District of Florida in Tampa for an order compelling Voxon to produce documents under a Sept. 19 subpoena (see 2211230053), said the notification Monday (docket 2:21-cv-02771). AT&T also moved concurrently in Tampa for an order to transfer the subpoena petition to Philadelphia “in the hope that this Court will adjudicate the nonparty discovery issues that are highly relevant to claims and defenses in the present litigation,” it said. Counsel for plaintiff Core Communications doesn't oppose the motion to compel or the motion to transfer, it said. Like Voxon, other nonparties to the Philadelphia case have failed to comply with AT&T’s subpoenas, “and AT&T expects that it may have to file additional motions to compel (and motions to transfer) in various jurisdictions around the country,” it said. Core sued AT&T in June 2021, seeking the recovery of $11.4 million in unpaid access services charges, and AT&T said in its petition that the Voxon documents are “directly relevant” to its defense in the case. AT&T said it learned through discovery in the Philadelphia litigation that Voxon is one of the upstream providers that Core buys 8YY toll-free traffic from. Core then charges AT&T and other interexchange carriers “certain access charges for routing that traffic to them,” it said. Voxon’s 8YY traffic therefore “serves as the basis for a significant portion of the charges that Core seeks to recover” from AT&T in the Philadelphia litigation, it said.

Defendant Family Entertainment Group seeks a deadline extension to Dec. 6 to answer a complaint that its website is inaccessible to the blind and visually impaired, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, said its unopposed motion Monday (docket 9:22-cv-81651) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale. Its response to the complaint was due Monday. Due to the pending settlement in the case and to avoid unnecessary litigation costs, FEG seeks the extension in the event the settlement isn't completed by the Dec. 5 deadline to file the stipulation of dismissal with the court (see 2211280004).

Oral argument in SES' appeal of U.S. Bankruptcy Court rejecting its lawsuit against Intelsat for the demise of the C-Band Alliance (see 2210140063 and 2211290056) will be March 20, per an order Tuesday by U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (docket 3:22-cv-00668).

The Communications Workers of America asked to intervene in support of the National Labor Relations Board in T-Mobile’s challenge of the agency’s decision involving union emails sent and received on company time, in its motion Monday (docket 22-1275) at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. CWA “was the successful charging party before the NLRB in this case and is, therefore, entitled to intervene as of right in this proceeding to review the Board’s decision,” said the union. The NLRB didn't object to the motion, it said and T-Mobile “did not respond with its position.” T-Mobile’s opening documents are due Wednesday in its petition for review of the NLRB's Sept. 20 finding that the carrier violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act when it reprimanded a customer service representative in its Wichita call center for sending union-related emails to her co-workers while on the job (see 2211010038).

U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks for Southern Florida in West Palm Beach, in a paperless order Friday (docket 9:22-cv-81651), gave lawyers for plaintiff Nelson Fernandez and Family Entertainment Group a Dec. 5 deadline to file a joint stipulation of dismissal in Fernandez’s complaint that FEG's website is inaccessible to the blind and visually impaired (see 2211250009). Until the joint stipulation is filed, Middlebrooks “will expect compliance with all pretrial deadlines,” his order said. But in view of the pending settlement, and to avoid unnecessary litigation costs, he extended by a week to Dec. 5 the deadline for Fernandez's lawyers to furnish FEG’s counsel with a written report documenting any claimed ADA violations, it said. Court papers did not disclose the settlement terms.

Though development of the metaverse remains at an early stage, “established and emerging companies are spending millions developing metaverse technologies,” said a Blake Cassels analysis Friday. “No matter what form the metaverse ultimately takes, the law will develop in response,” it said. If the metaverse develops as anticipated, “it will involve the collection of an unprecedented amount of data about users,” it said. Because a user’s access to the metaverse would be through a headset, much more data could be collected “that will give platforms a deeper understanding” of their users’ “thought patterns” and behaviors, it said. “While existing privacy causes of action could be applied in the metaverse, courts or legislatures may seek to create new causes of action,” said the analysis. Could a metaverse operator be liable for negligently failing to prevent a cyberattack that resulted in the compromise of user data? If a metaverse user breaches the privacy of another user, could the platform be liable for failing to prevent the breach? “Time will tell how the law develops in response to these challenges,” said the law firm. “The metaverse, no matter how it develops, will undoubtedly give rise to novel legal questions and issues.”

AT&T reached out to Voxon four times via FedEx and email since its Nov. 21 motion to compel the production of Voxon documents under a Sept. 19 subpoena from the U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia in a case in which AT&T is a defendant (see 2211230053), said AT&T in a Local Rule 3.01(g) certification Friday (docket 8:22-mc-00043) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa. Despite AT&T’s “diligent efforts” to invite Voxon to meet and confer telephonically about the subpoena and the motion to compel, “Voxon has failed to respond,” said the certification. Core Communications sued AT&T in June 2021, seeking the recovery of $11.4 million in unpaid but disputed access services charges, and AT&T said in the petition that the Voxon documents are “directly relevant” to its defense in the case. AT&T designated Angela Zambrano of Sidley Austin as its lead counsel in the case, said a notice Friday.

Plaintiff Nelson Fernandez reached an agreement with Family Entertainment Group to settle his Oct. 28 Americans With Disabilities Act complaint that FEG’s website is inaccessible to the blind and visually impaired (see 2211010068), said a notice Wednesday (docket 9:22-cv-81651) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale. Lawyers for Fernandez and FEG asked the court for 10 days to finalize the settlement agreement and file a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice. The notice didn’t disclose the settlement terms.

Parties in the Walker RF radiation case in U.S. District Court in the Western District of Louisiana have been granted an extension until Jan. 13 to file briefs on a request from the plaintiffs -- the surviving family of Frank Walker -- to conduct discovery, said an order Monday in docket 2:21-cv-00923. The discovery request concerns motions to dismiss the case at its outset for a lack of jurisdiction, filed by defendants ZTE, TIA, CTIA, Motorola, Microsoft and AT&T (see 2211210004). All the parties in the case jointly requested the extension. The briefs had been due Dec. 5.