Judge Grants Deadline Extension in T-Mobile False Ring Tone Case

U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Gilbert for Northern Illinois in Chicago granted in a Friday docket entry plaintiffs Craigville Telephone and Consolidated Telephone’s Thursday partial consent motion (docket 1:19-cv-07190) to extend the deadline to amend pleadings and join parties in their class action against T-Mobile over false ring tones. T-Mobile had argued that plaintiffs’ interrogatories “did not need to be made” and should be denied (see 2212230004).

The plaintiffs’ renewed motion to compel in the class action seeks information about how T-Mobile determined estimates of the number of calls into which it is alleged to have inserted fake local ring back tones (LRBT) instead of connecting calls to rural areas that have expensive routing fees. The fake tone would make the caller think the recipient didn’t answer, when the call wasn’t delivered, the plaintiffs said.

In the Friday docket notice, Gilbert extended from Dec. 26 to Feb. 24 the date for plaintiffs to amend pleadings and/or add parties without first obtaining court approval, over defendant T-Mobile’s objection for good cause shown. The previous extended deadline was unopposed. The court is “mindful that at some point in the gestation of this case the pleadings must be closed,” said Gilbert. The court did not extend the March 15 fact discovery close date, denying without prejudice plaintiffs’ request. The parties must file a joint status report by March 6 outlining the current status of written discovery and depositions.

In their partial consent motion Thursday, the plaintiffs said numerous discovery circumstances beyond its control, including pending discovery motions, defendants’ “ongoing and incomplete document production,” and outstanding and unwritten discovery disputes, were prejudicing their ability to fairly consider amendments or joinder of parties at this time.

Plaintiffs have been pursuing the class and liability discovery necessary to evaluate whether further amendments to the second amended complaint – including potential joinder of additional parties – may be necessary to represent the interests of the class, they said.

Plaintiffs noted two recent discovery orders that bear on potential amendments. A Dec. 16 order found plaintiffs are entitled to discovery of “who, what, when, where, why and how” of T-Mobile’s direction to Ericsson to implement LRBT and should obtain that information from T-Mobile. That bears on “whether Ericsson is a potential Doe defendant or co-conspirator,” plaintiffs said.

A second order authorized plaintiffs to contact up to 100 of T-Mobile’s customers to seek discovery concerning their reactions to fake ring tones, which plaintiffs say is material to rebutting the defendants’ assertions that fake ring tones did not cause calling parties to prematurely terminate calls.