Level 3 Communications, LLC et al v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company et al

Filing 186

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' motion to vacate the Court's April 10, 2017 order interpreting the parties' interconnection agreements and granting in part and denying in part the parties' respective motion for summary judgment as to liability is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 110 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties' motion to vacate the Courts July 24, 2017 order addressing AT&T's motion for reconsideration and/or clarification of the Court's April 10, 2017 order is GRANTED. (Doc No. 117 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties motion to vacate the Court's January 24, 2019 order denying Level 3's motion for reconsideration and granting in part AT&T's motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED. (Doc No. 168 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties' motion to vacate the Courts September 26, 2019 order denying certain motions in limine, denying Level 3's motion for summary judgment on da mages, and granting in part and denying in part AT&T's motion for partial summary judgment on damages is GRANTED. (Doc No. 177 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action, including all claims and counterclaims, is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 3/4/2020. (CLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, AND
BROADWING COMMUNICATIONS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13-cv-01080-JAR

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ joint motion to vacate interlocutory orders
and dismiss the action with prejudice. (Doc. No. 185). The parties state that they have reached a full
settlement of this matter and that, as part of the settlement, that they have agreed to request that the
Court vacate Doc. Nos. 110, 117, 168, and 177. The parties believe that vacating these interlocutory
orders is appropriate, given that both parties have foregone their right to further litigate or appeal
these issues. The parties also argue that there is no significant benefit to the public interest to maintain
these orders as they are interlocutory and concern the interpretation of specific provisions in the
parties’ contracts.
Upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances, the Court finds good cause to vacate
these orders, as well as to dismiss this action, including all claims and counterclaims, with prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ motion to vacate the Court’s April 10, 2017
order interpreting the parties’ interconnection agreements and granting in part and denying in part the
parties’ respective motion for summary judgment as to liability is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 110).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ motion to vacate the Court’s July 24, 2017

order addressing AT&T’s motion for reconsideration and/or clarification of the Court’s April 10,
2017 order is GRANTED. (Doc No. 117).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ motion to vacate the Court’s January 24, 2019
order denying Level 3’s motion for reconsideration and granting in part AT&T’s motion for partial
summary judgment is GRANTED. (Doc No. 168).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ motion to vacate the Court’s September 26,
2019 order denying certain motions in limine, denying Level 3’s motion for summary judgment on
damages, and granting in part and denying in part AT&T’s motion for partial summary judgment on
damages is GRANTED. (Doc No. 177).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action, including all claims and counterclaims, is
DISMISSED with prejudice.

Dated this 4th day of March, 2020.

JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-