Dish, DOJ/FTC Assail Each Other's Filings in TCPA Case

"Additional briefs will change nothing," the DOJ and FTC said in a response (in Pacer) filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Springfield, Illinois, to Dish Network's motion for leave to file and its motion to strike. The government plaintiffs in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act suit against Dish said in Dish's motion to strike filed last week (see 1612220007) that the company gave no procedural or legal support for why the court should strike proposed findings of fact that the government is suggesting the court consider when rendering a decision. DOJ/FTC also said Dish's response to their offer of proof on consumer testimony "function[s] as admissions" the company has substantial undisclosed, relevant evidence it has kept from the court and plaintiffs. If the court opts to consider additional Dish filings, DOJ/FTC said, "the Court will discover that, like the rest of Dish's case, these filings do not stand up to any reasonable scrutiny nor do they provide any defense to Dish's liability." Dish, meanwhile, in its replies (in Pacer) filed Friday to the DOJ/FTC proposed conclusions of law and state plaintiffs' closing statement for the second phase of trial (see 1612140021), said it isn't trying to offer direct evidence of monetary damages and specifically quantifying a future harm but is trying to describe the general impact a telemarketing ban would have. That type of testimony "isn't reserved for experts," Dish said. It also argued the court should disregard state plaintiff arguments lacking any evidentiary support in the trial record and in separate filing (in Pacer) responding to the plaintiffs' offer of proof, Dish synopsized what its witnesses would have said in response to eight excluded consumer witnesses. Infinity Sales Group said in its reply (in Pacer) Friday supporting its opposition to the government's cross-motion to strike (see 1612120033) government arguments ignore Infinity's showing a court can't enter an injunction that destroys a nonparty's business in violation of its due process rights.