New Cablevision Complaint Can Use Old Cablevision Discovery, Sides Agree
The roughly 90,000 pages of documents, 35 interrogatories and seven depositions generated in discovery in Paul Jensen's 2015 lawsuit against Cablevision should be treated as if they were in response to his 2017 purported class-action suit against Cablevision and Altice,…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
counsel for both sides said in a proposed joint discovery plan (in Pacer) filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. According to the plan, discovery from the 2015 suit "sufficiently addressed all merits- and class-certification-based issues ... and that further discovery does not need to be conducted," and counsel asked the court to enter a protective order similar to the one it entered in the 2015 case. Plaintiff's counsel said further discovery might be needed on the business relationship between Altice and Cablevision, while Altice/Cablevision counsel said they're considering limited additional discovery on a claim of violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) , which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed in the 2015 litigation. Jensen, of Brooklyn, alleges Altice's Optimum Online Service -- by making residential broadband routers also work as a public Wi-Fi hot spot without customer authorization -- is violating CFAA and New York state law. Three counts of Jensen's 2015 complaint against Cablevision were dropped voluntarily in December, and a federal court in January dismissed the remaining count -- a violation of New York state law -- saying it no longer had jurisdiction.