Widevoice Communications Inc. v. Qwest Communications Company, LLC

Filing 18

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 1 Qwest Communications Company, LLC's Motion to Compel Subpoenas to WideVoice Communications, Inc. WideVoice shall serve the requested documents in accordance with this order 10 days from the entry of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 4/26/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
WIDEVOICE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
5
Plaintiff,
6
v.
7
8

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS
COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant.

9

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-00467-GMN -VCF
ORDER

10
Before the court is movant Qwest Communications Company, LLC’s (“Qwest”) Motion To
11
Compel Subpoenas To WideVoice Communications, Inc. (#1). WideVoice Communications, Inc
12
(“WideVoice”) filed an Opposition (#4), and Qwest filed a Reply (#11).
13
Background
14
Qwest filed its second amended complaint in the underlying action in the Southern District of
15
Iowa, Central Division (“Iowa action”)(Case No. 07-cv-00078-JEG-RAW) on December 15, 2010. (#116
1 Exhibit 3). Qwest asserts that it “seeks to recover damages caused by the [d]efendants for engaging
17
in their illegal, unfair and fraudulent practice of billing millions of dollars in purported terminating
18
switched access charges to Qwest, and other long distant carriers, that the local exchange carrier
19
[d]efendants' (“LEC Defendants'') interstate and intrastate tariffs do not authorize or contemplate, and
20
to enjoin the LEC Defendants from issuing invoices to Qwest containing such charges for calls
21
delivered to telephone numbers assigned to Free Calling Service Companies (“FCSCs”) going forward.”
22
Id. Relevant to the issue before this court, Qwest names Great Lakes Communication Corp. (“Great
23
Lakes”) as an LEC defendant, and Free Conferencing Corporation (“Free Conferencing”) as an FCSC
24
defendant. Id.
25
Qwest asserts that the LEC Defendants engage in “traffic pumping,” and that the FCC has
26

1

“issued several decisions holding traffic pumping schemes illegal, in violation of the Communications

2

Act.” (#1). In order to camouflage the illegal nature of these schemes, Qwest asserts, LEC Defendants

3

began rearranging their relationships by creating “intermediate carriers” to “deliver traffic at lower rates

4

than the traffic pumping LEC’s tariff rates.” Id. Qwest alleges that WideVoice was created to serve

5

as an intermediate carrier, and that WideVoice shares management and owners with FCSC defendant

6

Free Conferencing, and now owns Free Conferencing. Id. Qwest asserts that WideVoice is able to

7

deliver calls at lower rates because “it enters into contracts with local carriers in which it does not have

8

to pay the local carrier’s terminating switched access charges at tariff rates; instead WideVoice gets

9

preferential terms in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 202.” Id. Upon information and belief, Qwest asserts that

10

WideVoice has a relationship with LEC defendant Great Lakes, and that on WideVoice’s website, it

11

identifies Great Lakes as one of its LEC relationships. Id.

12

On November 28, 2011, Qwest served WideVoice with a subpoena to produce documents and

13

a subpoena to testify at a deposition in connection with the Iowa action. Id. The deposition was

14

scheduled for February 9, 2012, and was concerning topics related to the subpoenaed documents. Id.

15

Qwest also served WideVoice with a copy of the protective order (#1-4 Exhibit 25) governing

16

confidential discovery in the Iowa action for WideVoice’s signature. Id. On December 14, 2011,

17

WideVoice served Qwest with its responses and objections to the subpoena for documents, wherein

18

WideVoice refused to produce a single document, and asserted two objections: (1) the request violated

19

the amended procedural scheduling order in the Iowa action, and (2) the request is “overbroad, vague,

20

unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id.

21

WideVoice did not object to producing an individual for the deposition (#4), but Qwest cancelled the

22

deposition, asserting that WideVoice’s “refusal to produce documents made the deposition impossible

23

to complete when scheduled.” (#11).

24

Motion To Compel (#1)

25
26

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(2)(B) and (C), a subpoena for attendance at
2

1

a deposition or for production or inspection must issue from the court where the deposition is to be

2

taken or where the production or inspection is to be made. Rule 45(c)(2)(B) states that “[a] person

3

commanded to produce documents or tangible things or permit inspection may serve on the party or

4

attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection...,” and that the objection must “be served before

5

the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served.” Fed. R. Civ.

6

P. 45(c)(2)(B). If an objection is served, the party that issued the subpoena “may move the issuing court

7

for an order compelling production or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B)(I).

8

As WideVoice is a Nevada corporation and this court issued the subpoenas (#1-2) pursuant to

9

Rule 45(a)(2)(B) and (C), Qwest filed the present motion to compel in this court. (#1). Qwest asserts

10

in its motion that WideVoice’s objections are untimely and baseless, and asks this court to compel

11

WideVoice to produce the documents requested and to deem its objections waived. Id. Qwest also

12

asserts that the subpoenas were timely served pursuant to the Iowa action’s procedural schedule, and

13

that the documents sought are relevant and discoverable. Id.

14

A.

15

On November 10, 2011, the court in the Iowa action issued a text order granting the unopposed

16

motion to amend the procedural schedule, and stating that the fact discovery deadline was extended to

17

February 28, 2012, “except no new interrogatories or document requests shall be served.” (#1-3 Exhibit

18

9). The motion that sought the discovery extension did not mention the issuing of subpoenas or

19

discovery related to third parties. (#1-3 Exhibit 10). On January 16, 2012, the parties in the Iowa action

20

filed an unopposed motion to amend the procedural schedule, seeking to extend discovery until May

21

29, 2012, and stating that “[u]nder the extension, the parties are allowed to take depositions of parties,

22

serve requests for admissions on parties under Rule 36(a)(1)(B) only, and conduct third-party discovery

23

(including subpoenas and depositions).” (#1-3 Exhibit 11). The court granted this motion on January

24

17, 2012. (#1-3 Exhibit 12).

25
26

Timeliness Of Qwest’s Subpoenas

Qwest argues that based on the latest amendment to the scheduling order and the fact that the
3

1

“one published case that addresses a similar scheduling order found the deadline for requests for

2

production under Rule 34 did not apply to subpoenas,” there “can be no question...that third-party

3

subpoenas, such as those issued to WideVoice, are fully appropriate under the current scheduling order.”

4

(#1); See Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 683, 686 (D. Kan. 1995). WideVoice opposes the

5

motion to compel, and asserts that Qwest improperly served the Rule 45 subpoenas 18 days after the

6

discovery deadline in the Iowa action. (#4). Despite the fact that the January 17, 2012, amended

7

scheduling order (#1-3 Exhibit 12) permitted serving subpoenas on third-parties, WideVoice argues that

8

“[a]t the time of service, nowhere in the [c]ourt’s procedural schedules does it state that the discovery

9

deadlines were limited only to “party discovery.”” Id.

10

The court finds that the subpoenas were timely and were not in violation of the scheduling order,

11

as the November 10, 2011, order (#1-3 Exhibit 9) was silent as to third-party discovery, and the most

12

recent order expressly permitted serving subpoenas on third-parties (#1-3 Exhibit 12). WideVoice’s

13

objection is overruled.

14
15

B.

Timeliness Of WideVoice’s Objections
1.

Relevant Law

16

Absent unusual circumstances, “[a] nonparty’s failure to timely make objections to a Rule 45

17

subpoena duces tecum generally requires the court to find that any objections have been waived.” Moon

18

v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633,636 (C.D. Cal. 2005)(citing In re DG Acquisition Corp., 151 F.3d

19

75, 81 (2nd Cir. 1998). A responding party must establish unusual circumstances and good cause in

20

order for a court to consider the untimely objections. Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 169

21

F.R.D. 44, 48 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Courts have found unusual circumstances where: (1) the subpoena is

22

overbroad on its face and exceeds the bounds of fair discovery; (2) the subpoenaed witness is a

23

non-party acting in good faith; and (3) counsel for the witness and counsel for the subpoenaing party

24

were in contact concerning the witness’ compliance prior to the time the witness challenged the legal

25

basis for the subpoena. Id.

26

4

1

2.

Arguments

2

Qwest asserts that since WideVoice’s objections were received on December 14, 2011, two days

3

late, WideVoice waived its objections and has a “heightened burden to substantiate the legitimacy of

4

its objections. (#1); See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B)(I). WideVoice “acknowledges that it did not serve

5

its written objections until December 14, 2011,” but argues that its failure should not bar consideration

6

of its objections. (#4). WideVoice argues that several circumstances support the court considering its

7

objections: (1) it is a non-party acting in good faith, (2) no prejudice resulted from the two day delay,

8

(3) the subpoena was in violation of the scheduling order, (4) the subpoena is overbroad, objectionable

9

on its face, vague and ambiguous, and seeks production of confidential and proprietary information, and

10

(5) the subpoena was served in the District of Nevada, and neither WideVoice nor this court has any

11

involvement in the “complex and long-standing” Iowa action. Id.

12

Qwest counters WideVoice’s last argument by stating that the fact that “the underlying action

13

is pending in another district is not one of the factors considered by courts for excusing lateness in

14

subpoena objections,” and pointing out that Rule 45 expressly contemplates subpoenas being issued in

15

districts where the subpoenaed person is subject to service. (#11). Qwest also asserts that WideVoice’s

16

statement that it was acting in good faith is belied by the fact that WideVoice was not in contact with

17

Qwest’s counsel before the 14 days expired, and that Qwest’s counsel had to contact defendant Free

18

Conferencing to ascertain whether WideVoice would be responding and/or producing a deponent. Id.

19

Qwest contends that WideVoice had notice that the subpoenas were forthcoming, as Qwest’s counsel

20

informed Free Conferencing’s then counsel that Qwest intended to subpoena WideVoice, notices of the

21

subpoenas were served on all counsel of record, and, although Free Conferencing and WideVoice are

22

formally organized as separate corporate entities, Qwest understands that WideVoice now owns Free

23

Conferencing and the entities now share counsel, Mr Swier. Id. Qwest also asserts that WideVoice

24

does not contend that it was unaware of the forthcoming subpoenas. Id.

25
26

With regard to WideVoice “disclaiming involvement in the underlying action,” Qwest argues
5

1

that WideVoice does not claim ignorance to the underlying action, it does not dispute that its affiliate

2

Free Conferencing is a party to that action, and it does not dispute that it has a relationship with at least

3

defendant Great Lakes. Id. Qwest asserts that since WideVoice has failed to demonstrate any “unusual

4

circumstances to avoid a waiver of its objections due to lateness,” the court should deem WideVoice’s

5

objections waived. Id.
3.

6

Discussion

7

The court finds that WideVoice’s two day delay in serving its objections is excusable. Despite

8

the fact that the court is not persuaded by many of the arguments WideVoice advances1, the court finds

9

that WideVoice acted in good faith and that the late objections did not impact the Iowa action in such

10

a way that considering the objections would be unjust. Concord Boat Corp., 169 F.R.D. at 48.

11

C.

Documents Requested/Objections Thereto

12

“A Rule 45 subpoena must fall within the scope of proper discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P.

13

26(b)(1), which limits discovery to ‘any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense

14

of any party in the pending action...’” Olde Towne Dev. Group, LLC v. Matthews, 2009 WL 2021723,

15

*1 (M.D. La. July 9, 2009). Relevance within the meaning of Rule 26(b)(1) is considerably broader

16

than relevance for trial purposes. See Oppenheimer Fund v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (citation

17

omitted). For discovery purposes, relevance means only that the materials sought are reasonably

18

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. “If a subpoena falls outside the scope

19

of permissible discovery, the Court has authority to quash or modify it upon a timely motion by the party

20

served . . .” Olde Towne Dev. Group, LLC, 2009 WL 2021723, *1.

21

WideVoice asserts that the documents requested are beyond the scope of Rule 26, but that “in

22

an attempt to narrow the issues in this matter, WideVoice would agree to produce some of the requested

23
1

24
25
26

WideVoice argues that the objections should be considered, among other reasons, because the subpoena is
overbroad, objectionable on its face, vague and ambiguous, and seeks production of confidential and proprietary
information. (#4). However, a few pages after making this argument, WideVoice agrees to produce a large portion of
the discovery sought. Id.

6

1

information...” “to the extent that these materials do not constitute confidential financial information

2

or proprietary information.” (#4). The court hereby orders WideVoice to produce such documents

3

within ten (10) days from the entry of this order. With regard to WideVoice’s concern relating to the

4

confidential or proprietary nature of the information sought, WideVoice shall sign the protective order

5

attached to the subpoenas (#1-4 Exhibit 25) and shall produce all documents as agreed to, including

6

those deemed confidential or proprietary, and designate them either “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes

7

Only” as applicable. Bible v. Rio Properties, Inc., 246 F.R.D. 614, 619-20 (C.D.Cal. 2007)(holding that

8

“if defendant truly believes it has “confidential” or “proprietary information” that should be protected

9

by a protective order, it should have entered into a stipulated protective order with plaintiff or filed a

10

motion for a protective order before the date by which it was to respond to plaintiff's requests.”). The

11

court will address the remaining document requests below.

12

1. Request No. 1: Provide all documents evidencing communications (including but

13

not limited to correspondence or other documentation exchanged) between you and: a. Any Defendant

14

LEC (local exchange carrier); b. Any long distance carrier about delivery of calls to a LEC Defendant;

15

c. Any centralized equal access provider in Iowa (such as Iowa Network Services, INS) for ultimate

16

delivery to a LEC Defendant; d. Any LEC in Iowa; and e. Any FCSC. Id. WideVoice agrees to provide

17

documents responsive to 1(a)-(c), but objects to 1(d) and (e). Id. WideVoice asserts that it should only

18

be required to produce information relating to any defendant LEC in the state of Iowa, and that any

19

information relating to non-defendant LECs is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the

20

discovery of admissible evidence. Id. WideVoice also asserts that it should not be required to provide

21

information that relates to any FCSC that is “unrelated to the state of Iowa as this information is beyond

22

the scope of the [Iowa action] and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

23

evidence.” Id.

24

With regard to request 1(d), Qwest asserts that information relating communications between

25

WideVoice and “any LEC in Iowa” is relevant, because (1) “traffic pumping carriers routinely modify

26

7

1

their corporate structure in an attempt to evade the import of their schemes,” and that a new entity could

2

exist that is nothing more than a reframed Free Conferencing, (2) Qwest wants to obtain evidence that

3

shows WideVoice targets only carriers involved in traffic pumping and does not serve the broader

4

telecommunications marketplace, (3) prior counsel admitted that material related to all of Iowa is

5

relevant, and (4) WideVoice does not dispute its alleged role in the traffic pumping scheme. (#11). As

6

Qwest intends on demonstrating that WideVoice serves only those carriers involved in the illegal traffic

7

pumping, i.e. the defendant LECs, evidence of communications, or the lack thereof, between WideVoice

8

and any LEC in Iowa is relevant. Oppenheimer Fund, 437 U.S. at 351; Olde Towne Dev. Group, LLC,

9

2009 WL 2021723, *1. Ordering WideVoice to produce such documents demonstrating their

10

communications would provide WideVoice and Free Conferencing the opportunity to negate any

11

allegation of discrimination. WideVoice is hereby ordered to produce documents responsive to request

12

1(d) within ten (10) days from the entry of this order.

13

Qwest asserts that documents responsive to request 1(e) are relevant, because (1) prior counsel

14

admitted the documents were material, (2) WideVoice has an ownership relationship with the largest

15

known FCSC, Free Conferencing, and “[c]ommunications between those two related companies relating

16

to Iowa are clearly relevant,” and (3) to the extent WideVoice is interacting with other FCSCs and

17

encouraging them to utilize long distant carriers, such information would be highly germane in

18

demonstrating that Qwest’s revenue stream is being directly impacted and that the discrimination is

19

causing damages. (#11). In Qwest’s complaint in the Iowa action, it asserts that Free Conferencing,

20

who allegedly created WideVoice as an “intermediate carrier,” is a corporation that provides, among

21

other things, “free” conference call services, “free” webinars, “free” international calling, and “free”

22

pre-recorded playback through connections with, or through Iowa telephone numbers assigned to it, by

23

at least the following LEC Defendant[s]: Farmers-Riceville, Great Lakes, Farmers-Riceville (sic),

24

Dixon, and 135. (#1-1). According to the complaint, each of these LEC Defendants provide local

25

exchange carrier services in Iowa. Id.

26

8

1

The court finds that communications between WideVoice and any FCSC relating to the state

2

of Iowa only are relevant to the underlying Iowa action. Oppenheimer Fund, 437 U.S. at 351; Olde

3

Towne Dev. Group, LLC, 2009 WL 2021723, *1. WideVoice is hereby ordered to produce documents

4

evidencing communications (including but not limited to correspondence or other documentation

5

exchanged) between WideVoice and any FCSC relating to the state of Iowa within ten (10) days from

6

the entry of this order.

7

2. Request No. 2: Provide all contracts, agreements or other documentation or

8

understandings or arrangements between you and: a. Any Defendant LEC; b. Any long distance carrier

9

about delivery of calls to a LEC Defendant; c. Any centralized equal access provider in Iowa (such as

10

Iowa Network Services, INS) for ultimate delivery to a LEC Defendant; d. Any LEC in Iowa; and e.

11

Any FCSC. (#4). WideVoice agrees to produce documents responsive to 2(a)-(c), but objects to 2(d)

12

and (e). Id. WideVoice asserts the same objections as it did with respect to requests 1(d) and (e). Id.

13

For the same reasons as outlined above, the court finds that contracts, agreements, or other

14

documentation or understandings or arrangements between WideVoice and any LEC in Iowa and any

15

FCSC relating to Iowa are relevant to the Iowa action. Oppenheimer Fund, 437 U.S. at 351; Olde

16

Towne Dev. Group, LLC, 2009 WL 2021723, *1.

17

documents within ten (10) days from the entry of this order.

WideVoice is hereby ordered to produce such

18

3. Requests Nos. 3-5: Provide your interstate access tariffs, rate and service schedule

19

(RSSs) or price lists, Iowa access tariffs, RSSs or price lists, and local exchange tariffs, catalogs or price

20

lists. (#4). WideVoice states that it would agree to produce limited responsive materials, such as its

21

interstate access tariffs, Iowa access tariffs, and local exchange tariffs, if any, but objects to the

22

production of its RSSs, price lists, or catalogs. Id. WideVoice asserts that since Qwest and WideVoice

23

are “direct competitors,” such documents constitute confidential financial information and proprietary

24

information. Id. As previously stated, Qwest provided WideVoice with a copy of the protective order

25

which gives WideVoice the ability to designate documents “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.”

26

9

1

(#1-4 Exhibit 25). As signing the protective order will adequately address WideVoice’s concerns and

2

negate its objections, the court hereby orders WideVoice to sign the protective order and to produce the

3

documents requested in Nos. 3-5, designating such documents accordingly, within ten (10) days from

4

the entry of this order. See Bible, 246 F.R.D. at 619-20

5

4. Requests Nos. 6-7: Provide all documents relating to the volume of traffic that has

6

been routed to or through you for delivery to or from, and the revenues you have billed and/or received

7

from any of the following: a. Any Defendant LEC; b. Any long distance carrier about delivery of calls

8

to a LEC Defendant; c. Any centralized equal access provider in Iowa (such as Iowa Network Services,

9

INS) for ultimate delivery to a LEC Defendant; d. Any LEC in Iowa; and e. Any FCSC. (#4). Wide

10

Voice states that it will produce documents responsive to requests 6(a)-(c) and 7(a)-(c), but objects to

11

producing 6(d) and (e) and 7(d) and (e). Id. WideVoice objects on the same grounds as it did with

12

respect to requests 1(d) and (e) and 2(d) and (e). Id. For the same reasons as outlined in the sections

13

above, the court finds that documents relating to the volume of traffic that has been routed to or through

14

WideVoice for delivery to or from, or relating to revenues WideVoice has billed and/or received from

15

any LEC in Iowa and any FCSC relating to Iowa are relevant to the Iowa action. Oppenheimer Fund,

16

437 U.S. at 351; Olde Towne Dev. Group, LLC, 2009 WL 2021723, *1. WideVoice is hereby ordered

17

to produce such documents within ten (10) days from the entry of this order.

18

5. Request No. 8: Provide all documents relating to the monies you have been billed

19

and/or paid to any of the following: a. Any Defendant LEC; b. Any centralized equal access provider

20

in Iowa (such as Iowa Network Services, INS) for ultimate delivery to a LEC Defendant; c. Any LEC

21

in Iowa; and d. Any FCSC. (#4). WideVoice agrees to produce documents responsive to 8(a) and (b),

22

but objects to 8(c) and (d) on the same grounds as requests 1, 2, 6, and 7. Id. For the same reasons as

23

outlined in the sections above, the court finds that documents relating to the monies WideVoice has

24

been billed and/or paid to any LEC in Iowa and any FCSC relating to Iowa are relevant to the Iowa

25

action. Oppenheimer Fund, 437 U.S. at 351; Olde Towne Dev. Group, LLC, 2009 WL 2021723, *1.

26

10

1

WideVoice is hereby ordered to produce such documents within ten (10) days from the entry of this

2

order.

3

6.

Request No. 10: Provide all documents relating to any ownership interest,

4

partnership, membership, profit participation, compensation arrangement, or other financial holdings

5

in your entity, including how the ownership has changed over time. (#4). WideVoice objects to this

6

request, and asserts that the request seeks documents beyond the scope of the Iowa action and is not

7

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Qwest argues that such

8

information is directly relevant to its allegations of “traffic pumping,” as some of the entities allegedly

9

participating in this scheme have “created other companies sharing common or related ownership or

10

financial interests to further their participation in traffic pumping.” (#11). Qwest also asserts that the

11

information would be directly relevant to the conduct of at least defendants Free Consulting and Great

12

Lakes, “both of which have known connections to WideVoice, Inc.” Id.

13

As Qwest alleges that defendants in the Iowa action have created entities, such as WideVoice,

14

to act as “intermediate carriers” in an attempt to cover up the illegal nature of the “traffic pumping”

15

scheme, the court finds that information relating to ownership interest, partnership, membership, profit

16

participation, compensation arrangement, or other financial holdings in WideVoice, including how the

17

ownership of WideVoice has changed over time, is relevant. Oppenheimer Fund, 437 U.S. at 351; Olde

18

Towne Dev. Group, LLC, 2009 WL 2021723, *1. WideVoice is hereby ordered to produce such

19

documents within ten (10) days from the entry of this order.

20

7. Request No. 11: Provide all documents relating to sharing of revenues, marketing

21

fees or commissions (or the contemplation of sharing of revenues, marketing fees or commissions) with

22

providers of telecommunication services in Iowa, including but not limited to: a. Any Defendant LEC;

23

b. Any long distance carrier about delivery of calls to a LEC Defendant; c. Any centralized equal access

24

provider in Iowa (such as Iowa Network Services, INS) for ultimate delivery to a LEC Defendant; d.

25

Any LEC in Iowa; and e. Any FCSC. (#4). WideVoice objects to this request, and asserts that it is

26

11

1

vague and ambiguous regarding the term “contemplation of sharing of revenues, marketing fees or

2

commissions,” and that it “simply does not understand this [r]equest.” Id. Qwest argues in its reply that

3

the request is self-explanatory, that revenue sharing has become a well recognized term in the traffic

4

pumping industry, and that WideVoice could have raised concerns regarding the inability to understand

5

the language of the request during pre-motion conferring, but failed to. (#11).

6

The court finds that the request is clear, and orders that if the term “contemplation of sharing

7

of revenues, marketing fees or commission” is ambiguous to WideVoice in any way, WideVoice must

8

confer with Qwest’s counsel within five (5) days from the entry of this order in a good faith attempt to

9

clarify the language. WideVoice shall produce documents responsive to this request within ten (10)

10

days from the entry of this order.

11

8. Request No. 12: Provide all documents relating to any plan to share revenues,

12

marketing fees or commissions with: a. Any Defendant LEC; b. Any long distance carrier about delivery

13

of calls to a LEC Defendant; c. Any centralized equal access provider in Iowa (such as Iowa Network

14

Services, INS) for ultimate delivery to a LEC Defendant; d. Any LEC in Iowa; and e. Any FCSC. (#4).

15

WideVoice objects to this request as vague and ambiguous, and asserts that it simply does not

16

understand the term “plan to share revenues, marketing fees or commissions.” Id. As with the previous

17

request, Qwest argues that the request is self-explanatory, that revenue sharing is a well recognized

18

term, and that WideVoice could have addressed this concern during pre-motion conferring, but failed

19

to. (#11).

20

The court finds that this request is clear, and orders WideVoice to confer regarding any

21

ambiguity within five (5) days from the entry of this order. WideVoice shall produce documents

22

responsive to this request within ten (10) days from the entry of this order. Request No. 12(e) seeking

23

documents relating to “any FCSC” is limited for the same reasons articulated above by the court, and

24

in response to 12(e), WideVoice is ordered to produce only documents relating to any plan to share

25

revenues, marketing fees or commissions with any FCSC relating to Iowa. Oppenheimer Fund, 437

26

12

1

U.S. at 351; Olde Towne Dev. Group, LLC, 2009 WL 2021723, *1.

2

9. Request No. 13: Provide all documents relating to the rates, terms, conditions under

3

which you obtain collocation from any party including but not limited to: a. Any Defendant LEC; b. Any

4

long distance carrier about delivery of calls to a LEC Defendant; c. Any centralized equal access

5

provider in Iowa (such as Iowa Network Services, INS) for ultimate delivery to a LEC Defendant; d.

6

Any LEC in Iowa; and e. Any FCSC. (#4). WideVoice objects to this request as vague and ambiguous

7

regarding the term “[p]rovide all documents...from any party.” Id. WideVoice is hereby ordered to

8

produce documents responsive to this request within ten (10) days from the entry of this order, and, to

9

clarify the request, the language “from any party including but not limited to,” is modified to read “from

10

the following.” Request No. 13(e) seeking documents relating to “any FCSC” is limited for the same

11

reasons articulated above by the court, and in response to 13(e), WideVoice is ordered to produce only

12

documents relating to the rates, terms, conditions under which WideVoice obtains collocation from any

13

FCSC relating to Iowa. Oppenheimer Fund, 437 U.S. at 351; Olde Towne Dev. Group, LLC, 2009 WL

14

2021723, *1.

15

Accordingly, and for good cause shown,

16

IT IS ORDERED that Qwest Communications Company, LLC’s Motion To Compel Subpoenas

17

To WideVoice Communications, Inc. (#1) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as discussed

18

above.

19
20
21

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that WideVoice shall serve the requested documents in
accordance with this order within ten (10) days from the entry of this order.
DATED this 26th day of April, 2012.

22
23
24

CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26

13