Plaintiff Kyle L. Kimmel ("Plaintiff")'s motion for an order to show cause re: contempt and for enforcement of a court order against nonparty T-Mobile USA, Inc. ("T-Mobile") is granted in part. On March 16, 2020, the court approved Plaintiff and Defendant Sonia Thao ("Defendant")'s stipulation and entered an order:
- Authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to issue a deposition subpoena for the production of business records to T-Mobile and to obtain records of any and all calls made from Defendant's cellular telephone number to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number during the months of December 2018, February 2019, September 2019, and February 2020, including calls made as "restricted" or "private"; and - Directing T-Mobile to comply with the court's order and associated deposition subpoena for the production of business records on or before March 31, 2020.
See ROA No. 33 (the "Order"). As an initial matter, it appears the Order is partially overbroad and irrelevant. T-Mobile alleges – and
Hearing Date
October 15, 2020
Category
Civil - Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Plaintiff Kyle L. Kimmel ("Plaintiff")'s motion for an order to show cause re: contempt and for enforcement of a court order against nonparty T-Mobile USA, Inc. ("T-Mobile") is granted in part. On March 16, 2020, the court approved Plaintiff and Defendant Sonia Thao ("Defendant")'s stipulation and entered an order:
- Authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to issue a deposition subpoena for the production of business records to T-Mobile and to obtain records of any and all calls made from Defendant's cellular telephone number to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number during the months of December 2018, February 2019, September 2019, and February 2020, including calls made as "restricted" or "private"; and - Directing T-Mobile to comply with the court's order and associated deposition subpoena for the production of business records on or before March 31, 2020.
See ROA No. 33 (the "Order"). As an initial matter, it appears the Order is partially overbroad and irrelevant. T-Mobile alleges – and