Samson v. UnitedHealthCare Services Inc

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 FRANTZ SAMSON, individually and CASE NO. C19-175 on behalf of all others similarly 11 situated, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO 12 Plaintiff, COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO 13 v. SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DIRECTED TO NEW T-MOBILE 14 UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, USA, INC. INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Compel 18 Production of documents responsive to a Subpoena Duces Tecum served on T-Mobile USA, Inc., 19 (“T-Mobile”). (Dkt. No. 298.) The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion, the Declaration of 20 Jennifer Rust Murray in support of Plaintiff’s motion and the other pleadings and papers in this 21 matter and GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed motion as follows: 22 California’s Public Utilities Code permits wireless carriers to produce subscriber information in response to a court order. Cal. Pub. Util. Code §§ 2891(a)(4), 2894(a); see also 23 Lee v. Global Tel*Link Corp., 2017 WL 11272587, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2017); see also 24 1 Hoagland v. Axos Bank, 2021 WL 5326479, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2021) (“California law 2 permits the production of subscriber information pursuant to a court order.”). Pursuant to this 3 authority, the Court ORDERS T-Mobile to produce the California subscriber information 4 Plaintiff seeks in his subpoena. Delaware’s Stored Communications Act permits telephone companies to provide 5 subscriber information pursuant to a court order. 11 Del. Code Ann. § 2427(d)(1); see also Lee, 6 2017 WL 11272587, at *8. Pursuant to this authority, the Court ORDERS T-Mobile to produce 7 the Delaware subscriber information Plaintiff seeks in his subpoena. 8 Pennsylvania law permits disclosure of subscriber information pursuant to a court order 9 only if the subscriber receives notice from the party seeking the record and is given an 10 opportunity to be heard. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5742(c.1)(2); Lee, 2017 WL 11272587, at *6. Notice 11 may be provided to subscribers by a third-party class action administrator before subscriber information may be provided to counsel for a proposed or certified class. See Kelly v. Verizon 12 Penn., LLC, 2017 WL 11549625, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2017); Lee v. Global Tel*Link Corp., 13 2018 WL 11008970, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2018) (Lee II). Therefore, the Court ORDERS T- 14 Mobile to provide Pennsylvania subscriber information to class action administrator, Continental 15 DataLogix, LLC. Continental DataLogix shall provide to Pennsylvania subscribers the notice 16 required under Pennsylvania law that is substantially similar to the notice attached as Exhibit 4 to 17 the Murray Declaration in support of this motion. 18 The Court further ORDERS that in searching and providing the subscriber information described in the subpoena (the “Subpoenaed Information”), T‐Mobile need not provide email 19 addresses or search pre‐paid accounts. T‐Mobile shall provide a data compilation in a *.csv or 20 Excel format spreadsheet format reflecting the name and billing address for each subscriber of T‐ 21 Mobile phone services whose phone number appears on the list provided, for the date ranges 22 associated with each phone number, to T‐Mobile by Plaintiff’s counsel. 23 The Court ORDERS that the Subpoenaed Information shall be maintained as 24 “Confidential” in accordance with the Protective Order entered in the underlying action. The 1 Subpoenaed Information may be used only for purposes of determining class membership and 2 providing notice to the class in the underlying action, and must be destroyed upon written request 3 of T-Mobile, or in any event no later than three years after the date of the final disposition of this 4 case. Upon written request from T-Mobile, Plaintiff shall confirm to T-Mobile and its counsel, in writing, when the destruction of all Subpoenaed Information is completed. 5 Finally, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay T-Mobile’s actual costs associated with 6 production, up to $5,000. If T-Mobile’s actual costs exceed $5,000. T-Mobile will confer with 7 Plaintiff’s counsel and, if necessary, file a motion with the Court for approval of the higher cost 8 amount. 9 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 10 Dated March 22, 2024. A 11 Marsha J. Pechman 12 United States Senior District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24