Local Access, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc.

Filing 988

ORDER denying 978, S-982 Local Access LLC's Renewed Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories 20 and 22. Signed by Magistrate Judge Embry J. Kidd on 5/31/2023. (RMN)

Case 6:17-cv-00236-WWB-EJK Document 988 Filed 05/31/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 22137

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
LOCAL ACCESS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:17-cv-236-WWB-EJK

PEERLESS NETWORK, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court without oral argument on Local Access
LLC’s Renewed Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories 20 and 22 (the
“Motion”) (Docs. 978, S-982), filed May 15, 2023. Peerless Network, Inc. responded
in opposition (Doc. 980), to which the Court allowed Local Access a reply (Docs. 983,
987). Upon consideration, the Motion is due to be denied.
The issue presented by the pending Motion is related to the calculation of Local
Access’s claimed damages. Specifically, Local Access “seek[s] information about the
number of calls, minutes of use, amounts Peerless billed, amounts Peerless collected,
and amounts not billed for Plaintiff’s traffic.” (Doc. 978 at 1.) Local Access says its
damages are comprised of 75% of Collected Tandem Access revenue, which includes
not just (1) revenue from LERG routed traffic via carriers, otherwise referred to as
third-party billing, but also (2) revenue received from Peerless’s delivery of interMTA
or interLATA traffic. (Doc. 987 at 1–2.) Peerless has stipulated to a weighted average
rate billed for LERG-routed traffic (Doc. 980 at 2), but Local Access objects to

Case 6:17-cv-00236-WWB-EJK Document 988 Filed 05/31/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 22138

applying that rate to the second category of traffic (see Docs. 978 at 2; 987).
In order to calculate Peerless’s revenue associated with its delivery of interMTA
or interLATA traffic, Local Access says it needs Peerless’s contracts for these services,
or alternatively, it proposed a stipulation to the rate of $0.35 per minute (derived from
Peerless’s website). (Doc. 978 at 2.) Peerless has refused both options, instead telling
Local Access that it can calculate the revenue using Peerless’s publicly available tariff
rates, or the tariff rates identified in the previously produced rate decks, in conjunction
with Peerless’s CDRs. (Doc. 980 at 2.) Local Access claims that this method will
inevitably lead Peerless to contend that Local Access used the wrong rates. (Doc. 978
at 2.) 1 Notably, though, Local Access does not claim that it cannot make a revenue
calculation using what Peerless has produced.
Because it appears that Peerless has provided sufficient information to allow
Local Access to make a revenue calculation, the Court finds Peerless’s response to be
satisfactory, and Local Access LLC’s Renewed Motion to Compel Responses to
Interrogatories 20 and 22 (Docs. 978, S-982) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 31, 2023.

1

This is not an argument that the Court can or should address now. Presumably, if
Peerless contends that Local Access used the wrong rates, it will have to show what,
in its estimation, are the correct rates. Local Access has certainly preserved its
argument that it sought such information for its damages calculation.
-2-