IN RE: NOS COMMUNICATIONS MDL NO. 1357

Filing 218

ORDER that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Further Discovery Responses is GRANTED (## 199, 207). Defendant is ORDERED to provide further, complete answers to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories, Interrogatory No.s 1 through 22, inclusive, and to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, Request No.s 4 through 6, inclusive, and produce all non-privileged documents requested not later than thirty days from the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on 3/29/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CTA RESEARCH CORP., 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Plaintiff CTA Research Corporation's motion to compel responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Affinity Network, Inc. d/b/a QuantumLink Communications came on for hearing before the Honorable Lloyd D. George on November 22, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, located at 333 S. Las Vegas Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada. AFFINITY NETWORK, INC. D/B/A QUANTUMLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ORDER Case No. 2:01-cv-00861-LDG (PAL) Case No. 2:00-cv-01465-LDG (LRL) In Re: NOS COMMUNICATIONS MDL No. 1357

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to provide full and complete responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No.'s 1 through 22, inclusive, and Requests for Production No.'s 4 through 6, inclusive. Plaintiff contends that the information it seeks is relevant to its Truth-in-Billing claim, 47 C.F.R. §64.2401, in that it seeks information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relating to damages that do not run afoul of the filed-rate doctrine. Specifically, Plaintiff requests that Defendant state with specificity each of the provisions of its filed tariff that are implicated by telephone calls of differing durations made at different times to different locations as reflected in its Interrogatories. Plaintiff further contends that as presently consituted, Defendant's responses are incomplete, evasive, and otherwise insufficient. Defendant counters that Plaintiff's motion should be denied because Plaintiff seeks discovery for a claim that is not asserted in its Complaint. Alternatively, Defendant contends that its responses are nevertheless sufficient because they refer Plaintiff to the filed tariff, which speaks for itself. Specifically, Defendant contends that the tariff contains all of the information that Plaintiff seeks and Defendant is legally barred from providing any additional, different or alternative terms or interpretations. The matter having been argued orally, Plaintiff having submitted a Proposed Order, Defendant having filed an objection and a Proposed Order, THE COURT ORDERS that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Further Discovery Responses is GRANTED (## 199, 207). Defendant is ORDERED to provide further, complete answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, Interrogatory No.'s 1 through 22, inclusive, and to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production of

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Documents, Request No.'s 4 through 6, inclusive, and produce all non-privileged documents requested not later than thirty days from the date of this Order.

DATED this ______ day of March, 2011.

Lloyd D. George United States District Judge

3