Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Local Access, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division

November 21, 2017




         This case comes before the Court without oral argument on Peerless Network, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Local Access for Discovery and for Sanctions (Doc. 55), and Local Access' response in opposition to the motion (Doc. 60).


         Local Access and Peerless are parties to a contract (“Contract”) which provides, among other things, that Peerless will furnish “Homing Tandem Service” for Local Access (Doc. 1-1). In an amendment to the Contract that was effective August 5, 2015, Peerless agreed to share (exclusive of certain charges), 75% of collected tandem access revenue it received for the delivery of tandem access InterMTA and InterLATA traffic with Local Access (Doc. 1-2).

         The Contract includes a provision stating that if Local Access “provides written proof of a competitive offer from another carrier for the specific service being provided under this agreement; and (2) Peerless does not match the competitive price being offered for this specific service, [Local Access] will then be entitled to reroute traffic pursuant to the alternative proposal (this right constitutes the “Peerless Price Guarantee”) (Doc. 1-1 at § 3.3). On August 24, 2015, Local Access received a competitive offer from Inteliquent, Inc. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 24-25). When Peerless did not match the offer, Local Access began rerouting its traffic to Inteliquent (Id.). Although Local Access now does business with Inteliquent, it alleges that some of its traffic remains on the Peerless' network (Id. at ¶ 26).

         Local Access complains that Peerless breached the Contract and has been unjustly enriched because, from August 5, 2015 to the present, it has failed to provide reports, an accounting, or compensation for traffic routed to Peerless under the Contract (Id. at ¶ 27). Peerless has filed a motion to dismiss Local Access' complaint (Doc. 14).

         Peerless alleges that Local Access failed to disclose all of the terms of the Inteliquent offer, and that if it had, Peerless might have decided to match the offer (Doc. 41 at 10-11). Peerless also claims that once it ceased to be Local Access' exclusive provider of Homing Tandem Services, it was no longer obligated to share 75% of the collected tandem access revenue with Local Access (Doc. 55 at 4). But, Peerless asserts that under § 7.2 of the Contract, it retains the right to be the exclusive provider of transit services to Local Access within its footprint (Id.).

         The instant dispute concerns requests for production and an interrogatory Peerless propounded to Local Access. Some of this discovery concerns “Call Detail Records” (Id. at 10). Peerless explains that Call Detail Records

[A]re computerized records that provide information on calls transferred between carriers. Among other things, [Call Detail Records] contain telephone numbers from which the call originated, telephone numbers to which the call terminated, the type of traffic (jurisdiction) involved for those calls, the volume of traffic, and which carriers transferred, carried, or delivered the traffic.

(Id. at 12). Peerless has asked Local Access to produce its Call Detail Records so that Peerless can determine when, and what types of traffic Local Access rerouted to Inteliquent or some other third party, and also determine whether Local Access complied with the Peerless Price Guarantee and (Xxxxx) Contract (Id.).

         Peerless is also attempting to discover Local Access' contracts with any Homing Tandem Provider, communications relating to the negotiation and execution of those contracts, and communications between Local Access and Inteliquent concerning the provision of Tandem Services by Inteliquent to Local Access (Id. at 13-15). Peerless argues that this information is relevant to determine whether Local Access provided written proof of all the material terms of every competitive offer it received to Peerless (Id. at 14).

         In addition, Peerless seeks information concerning payments made to and from Inteliquent and other third parties for traffic routed away from Peerless (Id. at 15-18). Peerless contends that this information is relevant to Local Access' compliance with the Contract and the calculation of Local Access' damages (Id. at 17).

         Lastly, Peerless alleges that Local Access has not complied with the parties' ESI Agreement because the documents it has produced do not contain certain metadata fields (Id. at 18-19).

         Legal ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.