UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARTHA WRIGHT, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al. I

Civil Action No. 00-293 (GK)

FILED

Defendants.

o R D ER

AUG 2 2 2001
NANCY MAYER WHITIINGTON, CLERK US DISTRICT COURT

This matter is before the Court on the Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint by Defendant telephone companies and Defendant Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA"). Upon

consideration of the motions, oppositions, replies, the Motions

Hearing held on August 9, 2001, and the entire record herein, for

the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is

hereby

ORDERED, that the Motions to Dismiss the Complaint under the

doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction are granted; it is further

ORDERED, that this case is dismissed without prejudice; it is

further

ORDERED, that parties are directed to file the appropriate

pleadings with the FCC to ensure that the issues raised in this lawsuit are presented to the FCC.

a~,-to7; 6:')D1})

6)~U~

Date

Gladys Kess! r United States District Judge

COPIES TO:

Marie-Ann Sennett D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project 1400 20 th Street, NW Suite 117 Washington, D.C. 20036

Frank R. Volpe Sidley & Austin 1722 Eye Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006

17

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARTHA WRIGHT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al.,

Civil Action
No. 00-293 (GK)
FILED

Defendants.

OCT .. 8 2003

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NANcyMU.ASY. EDRISWTHRIITcTrlNcQoTuOJ{· Cl.91fC

Plaintiffs in this action are inmates incarcerated at prison

facilities operated by Corrections Corporation of America, Inc.

("CCA"), as well as family members, legal counsel, and other

recipients of telephone calls from inmates at CCA facilities.

Plaintiffs bring this putative class-action against Defendants, CCA and various telephone companies, 1 seeking to challenge the rates

and terms arising from the long distance telephone service

arrangements between telephone companies and prison facilities

operated by CCA.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Pioneer Telephone

Cooperative's ("Pioneer") Renewed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'

CCA is a private for-profit corporation which operates eighty prisons and jails in twenty-six states pursuant to agreements with state and local governments, four of which house prisoners from the District of Columbia. Defendant telephone companies are Evercom Inc., American Telephone and Telegraph Company, MCI Worldcom Communications Inc., Pioneer Telephone Cooperative, and Global Telecommunications Link.

Complaint. Upon consideration of the Motion, Opposition, Reply, and the entire record herein, for the reasons stated below, Pioneer's Motion to Dismiss is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs brought this action to challenge the ~exclusive dealing contracts" between CCA facilities and Defendant telephone companies. Under these contracts, each CCA facility grants to one telephone company the exclusive right to provide telephone services to that facility's inmates; in return, CCA receives a commission ranging from 25-50% of the revenues generated by the telephone companies from inmate calls. The exclusive dealing contracts further provide that the only way inmates may communicate by telephone is through collect calls only--which Plaintiffs allege charges the highest operator assisted rate. Inmates cannot receive calls from outside the facility, and neither inmates nor recipients of inmate calls are permitted to use other long-distance carriers or take advantage of less-expensive calling options for inmateinitiated calls. 2
Plaintiffs allege that these exclusive dealing contracts have resul ted In exorbitant and unconscionable long distance rates, which severely burden communication between inmates and their
For example, Plaintiffs allege that they are prohibited from using calling features such as direct-dial, dial around, and 1-800-COLLECT, all of which would result in rates considerably cheaper than the collect call-only rates mandated by the exclusive dealing contracts. See Compl. at ~~ 9-15, ~~ 42-45, ~~ 51-72.
2

family members and counsel.

They also claim that the terms of

these contracts are not set to further any security purpose or

cover the costs involved in providing phone service to inmates, but

rather are primarily designed to enrich Defendants (through the

inflated rates and high commission fees) at the expense of the

recipients of inmate calls. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and

an inj unction against the exclusive dealing contracts, alleging

that they violate the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment,

Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., Communications Act,

47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., and District of Columbia law.

In May 2000, Pioneer moved to dismiss the Complaint as to it,

in part, on jurisdictional grounds. On August 22, 2001, the Court

granted the Motions to Dismiss of Pioneer and other Defendants,

finding that primary jurisdiction of the matter rested with the

Federal Communications Commission (" FCC"). The Court dismissed the

case without prejudice and directed the parties to file appropriate

pleadings before the FCC regarding the issues in this case.

However, on November 5, 2001, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion

to Reconsider and ordered that this action be stayed, instead of

dismissed, pending the proceedings before the FCC. While the

proceedings before the FCC continue, Pioneer now moves to renew its

3

Motion to Dismiss the Complaint as to it for lack of personal jurisdiction. 3
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule l2(b) (2) states that a claim against a defendant may be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). Personal jurisdiction is an essential element of the jurisdiction of district courts, without which the Court is
powerless to adjudicate. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 u.s.
574, 584 (1999). In the District of Columbia (lithe District" or "D.C."), a court may establish personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in two ways: 1 ) through a specific jurisdictional provision under the D.C. long-arm statute, D.C. Code § 13-423 (a), for claims arising from a non-resident defendant's actions in the District, or 2) through the District's general jurisdiction statute, D.C. Code § 13-334 (a), if the corporation is doing business in the District and the claims arise from the defendant's conduct outside the District. Gorman v. Ameritrade Holding Corp., 293 F.3d 506, 509 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-73 & n. 15 (1985), and

3

Pioneer also argues that dismissal is appropriate under

Rule 12 (b) (7) because II Plainti ffs have failed to join the Watonga

Economic Development Authority, an indispensable party." Def. 's

Motion at 3. However, as the Court is granting this Motion on

jurisdictional grounds, there is no need to examine whether

dismissal is appropriate under Pioneer's indispensable party claim.

4

Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 u.s. 408,

415 n. 9(1984), respectively).

The plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating the factual

bases for personal jurisdiction, and must allege specific facts

that connect the defendant with the forum state without relying on

bare allegations or conclusory statements. First Chicago Int'l v.

United Exchange Co., 836 F.2d 1375, 1378 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

Accordingly, courts should resolve factual discrepancies in favor

of the plaintiff. Crane v. N.Y. Zoological Society, 894 F.2d 454,

456 (D.C. Cir. 1990). However, courts need not treat all of the

plaintiff's allegations as true, and courts may instead "receive

and weigh affidavits and any other relevant matter to assist it in

determining the jurisdictional facts. " United States v. Philip

Morris, Inc., 116 F.Supp.2d 116, 120 n. 4 (D.D.C. 2000).

III. ANALYSIS

Pioneer claims that Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient

facts to support a finding of personal jurisdiction.

In

opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Pioneer is subject to the

personal jurisdiction of this Court under the D.C. long-arm statute

because Pioneer had significant business transactions in the

District and caused tortious injury by its acts or omissions in the

District. Plaintiffs also argue that even if personal jurisdiction

is not established under the District's long-arm statute, Pioneer

5

has received substantial revenue from the District sufficient to establish general jurisdiction."
A. Personal Jurisdiction over Defendant Pioneer Has Not Been Established under the District of Columbia Long-Arm Statute.
In determining whether it has specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident, a court must engage in a two-part inquiry: first, it must determine whether the applicable long-arm statute authorizes jurisdiction, and if so, it must then decide whether the exercise of jurisdiction is constitutionally permissible. Burger
King Corp., 471 u.s. at 471-76; Steinberg v. Int'l Criminal Police
Org., 672 F.2d 927, 930 (D.C. Cir. 1981). In this case, Plaintiffs argue that personal jurisdiction over Pioneer can be established under the long-arm jurisdiction provision of the D.C. Code. See D.C. Code § 13-423(a).5 However, Plaintiffs have not shown that

4

Plaintiffs also argue that they can establish peronal

jurisdiction over Pioneer under the Sherman Anti trust Act, 15

U.S.C. § 1, et~. However, Plaintiffs themselves note that our

Court of Appeals has held that "for personal jurisdiction to lie

[under the Sherman Antitrust Act], the defendant must be an

inhabitant of, found in, or transacted business in the District."

Pis.' Sept. 2000 Opp'n at 12 (citing G.T.E. New Media Services,

Inc. v. Bellsouth Corporation, 199 F.3d 1343, 1351 (D.C. Cir.

2000) ). In this case, Pioneer is an Oklahoma corporation that is

neither an inhabitant of nor found in the District, and the Court

concludes that Pioneer has not transacted business in D.C., see

discussion at § III.A.2., infra. Thus, personal jurisdiction over

Pioneer cannot be established under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

5

D.C. Code § 13-423(a) provides, in pertinent part:

A District of Columbia court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a claim for relief arising from the

6

Pioneer's conduct has caused a tortious injury in the District or
that Pioneer transacted business in the District of Columbia
sufficient to satisfy both the long-arm statute and constitutional
due process concerns.
1. Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Pioneer has caused a tortious injury in the District of Columbia.
Plaintiffs contend that Pioneer has caused a tortious injury
in the District. Although Plaintiffs have not specified whether
such injury was caused by Pioneer's act or omission in D.C., see §
13-423 (a) (3), or by an act or omission outside D.C. that is
accompanied by Pioneer's regular business activities in D.C., see
§ 13-423(a) (4), the distinction is irrelevant because Plaintiffs'
Complaint fails to show that any conduct by Pioneer caused tortious
injury in ~he District.
person's-(1) transacting any business in the District of Columbia ... ; (3) causing tortious injury in the District of Columbia by an act or omission in the District of Columbia; (4) causing tortious injury in the District of Columbia by an act or omission outside the District of Columbia if he regularly does or solicits business, engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed, or services rendered, in the District of Columbia; (5) having an interest in, using, or possessing real property in the District of Columbia ....
7

First, none of the named prisoner Plaintiffs are presently, or

were ever, incarcerated at CCA's Diamondback Correctional Facility

in Watonga, Oklahoma ("Diamondback"). See Compl. ':lI 27 (stating

that prisoner Plaintiffs "are presently, or have been at relevant

times" incarcerated at CCA facilities in Ohio, Arizona, and New

Mexico) Diamondback is the only CCA facility to which Pioneer

ever provided inmate calling services.

See Ex. 3 (Second

Declaration of Jim Eaton, Assistant Manager of Pioneer) at ':lI 2,

attached to Def.'s May 2000 Mot. ("Eaton Decl.").6 Thus,

Plaintiffs have failed to allege that Pioneer caused a tortious

injury when a named prisoner Plaintiff placed calls to the District

using Pioneer's inmate calling system at Diamondback.

Second, none of the named Plaintiffs who received inmate calls

using Pioneer's inmate calling services at the Diamondback are

residents of the District of Columbia. See Compl. at ':lI 20 (Clara

Clark is a resident of Evansville, Indiana), ':lI 21 (Shonte Sargent

is a resident of Indianapolis, Indiana), ':lI 22 (Rosemary Croom is a

resident of Indianapolis, Indiana), and ':lI 23 (John Brown is a

resident of Columbus, Indiana). Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to

establish that Pioneer caused a tortious injury in the District

when non-inmate named Plaintiffs received calls from Pioneer's

inmate calling system at Diamondback.

6

As Pioneer's Motion seeks to renew its previous Motion to

Dismiss, the present briefs reference papers filed in 2000

regarding the original Motion to Dismiss.

8

Plaintiffs argue that personal jurisdiction over Pioneer for allegedly causing tortious injury is established because Pioneer's "revenue extracted from District resident [s ] is substantial." PIs.' Sept. 2000 Opp'n at 11. However, this argument fails because in analyzing whether a company has gained substantial revenue in the District, courts have considered both the absolute revenue amount and percentage of gross revenue derived from a defendant's business in D.C. See Founding Church of Scientology v. Verlag, 536 F.2d 429, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (finding revenue in excess of $26,000 for a ten-month period and constituting approximately 1% of the company's total gross revenue to be "substantial").
In this case, neither the $7.25 in absolute revenue nor the 0.00049% of gross revenue that Pioneer received from prisoner collect calls to the District are sufficient to allege that Pioneer "deri ves substantial revenue" in the District. D.C. Code § 13-423 (a) (4); see also Delahanty v. Hinckley, 686 F. Supp. 920, 925 (D. C. 1986) (defining substantial revenue as "enough revenue to indicate a commercial impact in the forum" and finding that $3,000 from the sale of 600 firearms was substantial revenue); Gatewood v. Fiat, 617 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (defining $3 million of automobile sales to D.C. residents, or 1.5% of corporation's total national revenue, as substantial revenue).
Overall, Plaintiffs offer no facts in their Complaint to support their allegation that pioneer's provision of inmate calling
9

services at the Diamondback Correctional Facility in Watonga, Oklahoma, has caused a specific tortious injury in the District. 7 Nor have Plaintiffs established that Pioneer derives substantial revenue from its business activities in the District. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to establish personal jurisdiction over Pioneer pursuant to the tortious injury provisions of the District's long-arm statute.
2. Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Pioneer has transacted business in the District of Columbia.
Under the D.C. long-arm statute, a court may also exercise jurisdiction over a defendant based on a claim for relief arising from "transacting any business in the District of Columbia." D.C. Code § 13 - 423 (a) (1) . For this "transacting any business" section of the long-arm statute to apply, the defendant's contacts with the District must relate to the factual circumstances giving rise to the suit. Koteen v. Bermuda Cablevision, Ltd., 913 F.2d 973, 974-75 (D.C. Cir. 1990). In addition, courts have concluded that the scope of this provision "covers any transaction of business in the District of Columbia that can be reached jurisdictionally

7

While Plaintiffs may allege that they will be able to

establish personal jurisdiction pursuant the tortious injury

provisions of the D. C. long-arm statute once class members are

added to this action, the Plaintiff class has not been certified

and Plaintiffs have not filed any Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 motion.

Because Plaintiffs bear the burden of providing specific claims,

and not bare allegations, to support the exercise of jurisdiction,

First Chicago Int'l, 836 F.2d at 1378, personal jurisdiction over

Pioneer cannot be established on these speculative grounds.

10

without offending the due process clause." Mouzavires v. Baxter, 434 A.2d 988, 993 (D.C. 1981); see also Crane v. Carr, 814 F.2d 758, 762 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Thus, to determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Pioneer satisfies the "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" identified in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 u.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotation marks omitted), the Court must determine whether Pioneer has "minimum contacts" with D.C. by which it could "reasonably anticipate being haled into court there." World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 u.S. 286, 297 (1980).
In determining whether Pioneer has minimum contacts with the District necessary to satisfy the requirements of both the long-arm statute and the due process clause, the Court must determine whether Pioneer has "purposefully directed [its] activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities." Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-73 (1985) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under this rubric, courts have generally found that to establish jurisdiction under the transacting business provision of the D.C. long-arm statute, a defendant must enter into contracts within the District, Mouzavires, 434 A.2d at 996-97, perform various business acts in the District, Clements Distributing Co. of Virginia, Inc. v. Celebrity Products, Inc., 699 F.Supp. 322, 322-23 (D.D.C. 1988), or actively solicit business
11

within the District, Schwartz v. CDl Japan, Ltd., 938 F.Supp. 1, 6 (D. D.C. 1996)
In this case, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate any of these activities. Instead, Plaintiffs make the general allegation that Pioneer is "in the business of providing telephone services to persons in the District of Columbia. II Compl. err 30. However, Plaintiffs offer no specific facts in their complaint that support a prima facie showing that Pioneer has minimum contacts with the District of Columbia.
Pioneer exhibits none of the fundamental indicators of a company with activities in the District of Columbia--it is not registered to transact business in the District, Eaton Decl. at err 5; it has no service tariffs on file with the District's Public Service Commission, id. at err 9; and it does not maintain an office, personnel, or real estate in the District, id. at err 4. Furthermore, Pioneer does not provide telecommunications services to any callers located in the District, id. at 'J[ 9, and the contract that established Pioneer as the provider of inmate phone calls at Diamondback was not signed in the District, id. err 14.
Plaintiffs further allege that establishing jurisdiction over Pioneer is constitutionally proper because it transacted business in the District by receiving revenues from D.C. residents. However, the small amount of both the absolute revenue ($7.25) and the percentage revenue (0.00049%) Pioneer has generated in the
12

District makes it foolish to conclude that Pioneer has "projected its corporate presence into the District of Columbia." First American Bank, N.A. v. United Equity Corp. 89 F.R.D. 81, 86 (D.C. 1981) (supporting jurisdiction when defendant defaulted on a $140,000 loan that was partially contracted in the District)
In short, there is no evidence that Pioneer purposefully targeted its activities at residents of the District of Columbia in such a way as to satisfy the minimum contacts due process requirement for asserting personal jurisdiction. Pioneer has received $7.25 for phone calls placed by inmates in Oklahoma to residents of the District. Allowing this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Pioneer based on a few collect phone calls placed by prisoners in Oklahoma to the District neither establishes that Pioneer has transacted business here nor satisfies the due process requirement that Pioneer have minimum contacts with the District. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp, 444 U. S. at 298 (emphasizing that "the mere unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the [due process] requirement of contact with the forum State") (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to establish personal jurisdiction over Pioneer under the transacting business provision of the District's long-arm statute.
13

B. General Jurisdiction over Defendant Pioneer Has Not Been Established under District of Columbia Law.
Plaintiffs also argue that Pioneer is subject to the general
jurisdiction of this Court because it is "doing business" in the
District. See D.C. Code § 13-334(a)." A court may exercise
general personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant "only
[] if the defendant's business contacts with the forum district are
'continuous and systematic. '" Gorman, 293 F.3d at 509-10 (quoting
Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 415). Under D.C. law, the limits of
jurisdiction under the "doing business" provision of the District's
general jurisdiction statute have been held to be coextensive with
the reach of constitutional due process. Gorman, 293 F.3d at 510
(citing Hughes v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 490 A.2d 1140, 1148 (D.C.
1985)) .
D.C. Code § 13-334(a) provides:
In an action against a foreign corporation doing business in the District, process may be served on the agent of the corporation or person conducting its business, or, where he is absent and can not be found, by leaving a copy at the principal place of business in the District, or, where there is no such place of business, by leaving a copy at the place of business or residence of the agent in the District, and that service is effectual to bring the corporation before the court.
Although § 13-334 (a) appears only to specify proper methods of service, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has held that compliance with the statute also gives rise to personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation doing business in the District. AMAF Intern. Corp. v. Ralston Purina Co., 428 A.2d 849, 850 (D.C. 1981); see also El-Fadl v. Central Bank of Jordan, 75 F.3d 668, 673 n. 7 (D.C. Cir. 1996)
14

Pioneer argues that Plaintiffs cannot establish general jurisdiction over it because it provides products and services only to residents and businesses in 45 Oklahoma counties and "does not conduct business in the District of Columbia." Eaton Decl. at crrcrr 23. In opposition, Plaintiffs allege that they can establish general jurisdiction through Pioneer's "continuous and systematic contact with the [District] since at least 1996 when it received revenues from its [Rural Telephone Bank] stock and ... since August 1999 when it began the collection of revenue from District residents [for collect phone calls]." PIs.' Sept. 2000 Opp'n at 12. However, neither of these acti vi ties can establish general jurisdiction over Pioneer in the District.
First, the Court has already determined that the collection of $7.25 in collect call revenues is insufficient to satisfy the due process requirements for asserting personal jurisdiction over Pioneer. See discussion at § III.A.2, supra. Second, even if Pioneer is still receiving revenue from the stock it holds in the Rural Telephone Bank, those revenues cannot be used as the basis of jurisdiction. Pioneer was required to buy Rural Telephone Bank stock in order to obtain a loan from the Department of Agriculture and "[t] he government contacts principle establishes that entry into the District by nonresidents for the purpose of contacting federal governmental agencies cannot serve as a basis for personal jurisdiction." Freiman v. Lazur, 925 F.Supp. 14, 24 (D. D.C. 1996)
15

(citing Environmental Research Int'l, Inc. v. Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc., 355 A.2d 808 (D.C. 1976)).
In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to prove that Pioneer has carried out "a consistent pattern of regular business acti vi ty within the jurisdiction," Trerotola v. Cotter, 601 A.2d 60,63 (D.C. 1991), or that Pioneer's activities in the District represent a "continuing corporate presence in the forum ... directed at advancing the corporation's objective," El-Fadl v. Central Bank of Jordan, 75 F.3d 668, 675 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (internal quotations omitted), as required under § 13-344. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not established general jurisdiction over Pioneer. III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs have failed to establish personal jurisdiction over Defendant Pioneer under either the District of Columbia's long-arm or general jurisdiction statutes. Accordingly, the Defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted. An appropriate Order will issue with this Opinion.

r2J: 2 ;( U[·J

Date

7

er es District Judge

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARTHA WRIGHT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action
No. 00-293 (GK)

FILED

OCT ~ 8 Z003

ORDER

NANCY

MAYER WHITTINQTON U.S. DISTRICT COURT'

~ ( \ I e . .

Plaintiffs in this action are inmates incarcerated at prison

facilities operated by Corrections Corporation of America, Inc.

("CCA"), as well as family members, legal counsel, and other

recipients of telephone calls from inmates at CCA facilities.

Plaintiffs bring this putative class-action against Defendants, CCA

and various telephone companies, seeking to challenge the rates and

terms arising from the long distance telephone service arrangements

between telephone companies and prison facilities operated by CCA.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Pioneer Telephone

Cooperative's (" Pioneer") Renewed Motion to Dismiss Plainti ffs'

Complaint. Upon consideration of the Motion, Opposition, Reply,

and the entire record herein, for the reasons stated in the

accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby

ORDERED that Pioneer's Renewed Motion to Dismiss [#121J is

granted; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a Status Report to the Court regarding the proceedings before the FCC by November 1, 2004.

Copies to:
David Cos son Kraskin, Lesse & Cosson, LLP 2120 L Street, N.W., Suite 520 Washington, D.C. 20037
Harold Logsdon General Counsel Pioneer Telephone Cooperative Post Office Box 539 Kingfisher, Oklahoma 73750
Vaughn W. Royal Chevy Chase Pavilion, Suite 960 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20015
James Bradtke Soule & Bradtke 155 North Michigan Avenue Suite 500 Chicago, Illinois 60601
Tracy Bridgham Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau - FCC 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554
Michael L. Burak Linda Bray Chanow Jonathan J. Frankel Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering 2445 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037-1420

istrict Judge

Adam M. Charnes MCI Communications Corporation Office of the General Counsel 1133 - 19th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036

Michael E. Deutsch People's Law Office 1180 North Milwaukee Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60622

Anthony C. Epstein Maury D. Shenk Steptoe & Johnson, LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20036

N.W.

Mark D. Hopson Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005

Lois J. Lipton AT&T Law and Government Affairs 222 West Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60606

Susan A. Littell Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, LLP 2101 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037-1526

2

Barbara J. Olshansky Center for Constitutional Rights 666 Broadway, Seventh Floor New York, New York 10022

Debra Ann Palmer Steven John Roman Schiff, Hardin & Waite 1101 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20036

N.W.

Charles H.R. Peters Schiff, Hardin & Waite 6600 Sears Tower Chicago, Illinois 60606

Stephen Seliger Seliger, Elkin & Dolan, Ltd. 155 North Michigan Avenue Suite 500 Chicago, Illinois 60601

Marie-Ann Sennett D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project 1400 - 20th Street, N.W. Suite 117 Washington, D.C. 20036

Daniel P. Struck Jones, Skelton & Hochull 2901 North Central Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Brian J. Telpner 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036

Anthony J. Trenga Miller & Chevalier, Chartered 655 - 15th Street, N.W. Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005-5701

Jay M. Vogelson Stutzman & Bromberg, P.C. 2323 Bryan Street, Suite 2200 Dallas, Texas 75201
Frank R. Volpe Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005

3

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

}

MARTHA WRIGHT, et al.

}

}

Plaintiffs,

}

}

v.

}

}

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF

}

AMERICA, et al.,

}

}

Defendants.

}

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>

Case No. l:OO-cv-00293(GK}

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On May 15, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File

a First Amended Class Action Complaint ("Motion") [Dkt. No. 178] .

They seek to reduce their original 12 counts to three while greatly

expanding the scope of the proposed class, as well as to update

the Complaint to reflect changes to the Parties' situations over

the last fifteen years. Defendants Securus Technologies, Inc.

( "Securus") and Corrections Corporation of America ( "CCA") have

filed responses in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion [Dkt. Nos. 180,

181], and Plaintiffs have filed a Reply [Dkt. No. 184]. Upon full

consideration of all the pleadings and the entire record herein,

the Motion shall be granted for the following reasons.

I . BACKGROUND

On February 16, 2000, Plaintiffs filed this putative class

action on behalf of inmates incarcerated at prison facilities owned

-1-

and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, as well as on behalf of family members and friends of the inmates.
In August 2001, the Court ruled that the Federal Communication Commission ("FCC") was "in the best position to resolve the core issues in this case, namely the reasonableness of the rates charged and the feasibility of alternative telephone arrangements in CCA facilities." Memorandum Opinion at 10-11 [Dkt. No. 94] . On November 5, 2001, the Court entered an Order staying the case [Dkt. No. 105].
Since then, Plaintiffs have filed two petitions for rulemaking with the FCC. On September 26, 2013, the FCC issued its Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Inmate Rate Order") . Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, 78 Fed. Reg. 67956 (Nov. 13, 2013) (to be codified at 47 C.F.R. pt. 64).
On November 14, 2013, Securus, a Defendant in this lawsuit under its former name Evercom, and others filed Petitions for Review of the FCC's Inmate Rate Order with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Securus Tech., Inc. v. FCC, 13-1280 (D.C. Cir. filed Nov. 14, 2013). In response to the FCC's uncontested motion to hold the case in abeyance pending the agency's adoption of permanent inmate calling reforms, the Court of Appeals stayed the appeal on December 16, 2014. See Securus, 13-1280 [Dkt. Nos. 1526582, 1527663]; see also Rates for Interstate
-2-

Inmate Calling Services, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Red 13170, 2014 WL 5408460.
On October 27, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Reopen and Lift Stay Temporarily [Dkt. No. 139]. On February 13, 2015, while the Motion to Reopen was pending, Plaintiffs also filed a Motion to Transfer the case to the Western District of Arkansas [Dkt. No. 163], which Defendants opposed [Dkt. Nos. 165, 166, 167]. The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen on April 30, 2015 [Dkt. No. 177]. On May 15, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the present Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. See Motion at 1; First Amended Class Action Complaint ("First Amended Class Action Complaint;' or "Am. Compl.") [Dkt. No. 178-2]. On May 18, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer [Dkt. No. 179]. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A. Leave to Amend The amendment of pleadings in civil matters is governed by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that the "court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (2). The decision to grant or deny leave to amend rests in the sound discretion of the trial court; however, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave without a sufficient justification for doing so. Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Sufficient justifications include "undue delay,
-3-

bad faith or dilatory motive

repeated failure to cure

deficiencies by [previous] amendments

[or] futility of

amendment." Id. (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182).

In assessing a motion for leave to amend, the Court is

required to assume the truth of the allegations in the amended

complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to the

movant. Caribbean Broadcasting Sys., 148 F.3d 1080, 1086 (D.C.

Cir. 1998). The party opposing the amendment bears the' burden to

I

-I

show why leave should not be granted. Dove v. Washington Metro.

Area Trans. Auth., 221 F.R.D. 246, 247 (D.D.C. 2004) (citing

Gudavich v. Dist. of Columbia, 22 F. App' x 17, 18 (D. C. Cir.

2001)).

Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' Motion and contend that it

should be denied because (1) the proposed amendments are improper

and beyond the scope of the initial Complaint, (2) Plaintiffs

unduly delayed in seeking to amend their Complaint, (3) the

proposed amendments are unduly prejudicial to Defendants, (4) the

proposed amendments are brought in bad faith, and (5) the proposed

amendments are futile. The Court will address each argument in

turn.

Plaintiffs' original Complaint focused on obtaining damages

for those who initiated telephone calls to people in correctional

institutions operated by CCA, and all prisoners incarcerated in

-4-

correctional institutions operated by CCA [Dkt. 1, ~ 34]. It reads
as follows:
Class (1): Families, Friends, Lawyers and Other Bill Payer Plaintiffs, defined as all persons, corporations and organizations billed for telephone calls initiated by people who presently are, have been or will be confined to a correctional facility operated by CCA.
as well as
Class (2): Prisoner Plaintiffs, defined as all persons who presently are, have been, or will be incarcerated in correctional institutions operated by CCA.
Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint contained
the allegations set forth above and ~ 50, which included all
persons using Securus telephone systems at non-CCA facilities. It
reads as follows [Dkt. No. 178-2]:
all persons in the United States who, at any time since February 16, 1998, have paid to use telephone systems provided by Securus at a CCA facility or who, at any time since May 15, 2013, have paid to use telephone systems provided by Securus at a non-CCA facility, in order to make or receive telephone calls involving a person incarcerated in any state in the United States (the "Class") .
as well as
all persons who, at any time since February 16, 1997, have paid to use telephone systems at a CCA facility in order to make or receive telephone calls involving a person incarcerated in any state in the United States (the "Class").
-5-

II. DISCUSSION A. The Proposed Amendments Do Not Improperly Expand the Scope of the Original Complaint A key issue to decide in any Motion to Amend is whether
Plaintiffs have improperly expanded the scope of the original Complaint.
Securus argues that leave to amend should not be granted "where the proposed amendments would expand the scope of the existing claims." Securus Opp'n at 5 (citing Lover v. District of Columbia, 248 F.R.D. 319, 322 (D.D.C. 2008). This is far too broad a reading of Lover.
That case does not prevent amendment of a complaint whenever the scope of the original claims is expanded. Rather, Lover acknowledges that an amendment "may unduly prejudice a defendant if [the] amendment would delay litigation or 'expand[] the allegations beyond the scope of the initial complaint.'" Lover, 248 F.R.D. at 322 (emphasis added) (quoting Parish v. Frazier, 195 F.3d 761, 763 (5th Cir. 1999)). "Prejudice is likely if 'the amended complaint contain[s] new complex and serious charges which would undoubt [edly] require additional discovery for the defendants to rebut.'" Id. (quoting Ferguson v. Roberts, 11 F.3d 696, 706 (7th Cir. 1993)).
-6-

Securus argues strongly that Plaintiffs are trying to

improperly expand the class. The initial Complaint, as it

pertained to Securus, was limited to those CCA facilities to which

Securus provided ICS. The new Complaint expands the scope to all

correctional facilities in the country served by Securus. While

Securus is correct that the First Amended Complaint does greatly1

increase the proposed class size, a mere .increase in class size is

neither complex nor inherently prejudicial.

Securus alleges that Plaintiffs are trying to reach back to

1998 for creation of the expanded class and that the proposed

amendment expands the case so significantly as to be prejudicial

to Defendants. Securus Opp'n at 9. Securus is clearly incorrect

about Plaintiffs' attempts to reach back.

The Complaint

specifically limits damages for the expanded class to May 15, 2013

and onward. See Am. Compl. ~ 49.

Otherwise, Securus offers little in the way of explaining

what prejudice it would suffer from the expanded class, other than

the magnitude of the expansion. Given the fact that the expanded

class is limited to the two-year statute of limitations, Plaintiffs

have gained no unfair advantage from the stay. That Plaintiffs

1 The First Amended Complaint does not provide an exact figure as to the number of correctional facilities it encompasses, but does allege that Securus has had exclusive contracts with "thousands of correctional facilities." Am. Compl. ~ 21.
-7-

could have merely filed a separate case at the time of the Motion on behalf of an expanded class supports this conclusion.
Nor does the expanded class introduce "new complex and serious charges" or delay the litigation. In Lover, the proposed amendment would have further delayed the completion of discovery and the resolution of the case. That is not the situation here. The'case, though stayed for many years, is still in the very early stages of litigation and discovery has barely begun, if at all.
Securus also contends that Plaintiffs want to expand the scope by "add[ing] the vague category of 'fees' to the claim." Securus Opp'n at 5. This argument overlooks the fact that Plaintiffs did in fact allege improper fees in the original Complaint. See, ~, Complaint ~ 37 (question of "whether the fees imposed by the defendants represent a fair market value for the services or the exploitation of an illegal monopoly"); Id. at 75 (describing rates and surcharges as "a regulatory fee that bears no relation to the actual administrative and enforcements costs incurred"). Though fee allegations are more prominent in the First Amended Complaint, they are not "new complex and serious charges," Lover, 248 F.R.D. at 322 (quoting Ferguson, 11 F.3d at 706).
B. Amendment Would Not Cause Undue Delay As already noted, while leave to amend a complaint is left to the discretion of the court, it is an abuse of that discretion to deny leave to amend unless there is sufficient reason, such as
-8-

"undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive ... repeated failure to cure deficiencies by [previous] amendments . . . [or] futility of amendment." Firestone, 76 F.3d at 1208 (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182) .
Defendant CCA argues that Plaintiffs unduly delayed seeking to amend their Complaint and "should not have waited 13 years." CCA Opp'n at 6. CCA contends that it is no excuse that the case was and remains stayed and then referred to the FCC. Id. The Court disagrees. It was entirely reasonable for Plaintiffs to wait to amend their Complaint until the FCC acted upon their rulemaking petitions, particularly in light of this Court's primary jurisdiction ruling. See Memorandum Opinion [Dkt. No. 94]. Significantly, Defendants have not suggested a more appropriate window of time in which Plaintiffs should have sought to amend their Complaint nor did Defendants file any motions to dismiss the Complaint. While thirteen years is obviously a long time, the timing of the Motion is through no fault or delay by the Plaintiffs.
CCA further argues that, at the very least, the 13 months that elapsed between the FCC's Inmate Rate Order and Plaintiffs' Motion constitutes undue delay. CCA Opp' n at 7. CCA does not explain why the Inmate Rate Order triggered an obligation for Plaintiffs to immediately file their amended Complaint.
In fact, Defendant Securus tellingly takes the opposite position from CCA, arguing that Plaintiff's Motion is premature
-9-

because the FCC's Inmate Rate Order, on which the First Amended Complaint relies in part, is currently on appeal to the D. C. Circuit (and was stayed on December 16, 2014). See Securus Opp'n at 17-19. By definition, Plaintiffs' Motion cannot be both dilatory and premature.
Plaintiffs have consistently pursued their case before this Court and the FCC. Plaintiffs were under no obligation to file their First Amended Complaint within a certain period of time after issuance of the Inmate Rate Order, and Defendants have not shown now they have suffered any prejudice from the passage of those thirteen months. As our court of Appeals noted in Caribbean Broadcasting, 148 F.3d at 1084,"the prolonged nature of a case does not itself affect whether the plaintiff may amend its complaint."
Nor is Plaintiffs' Motion premature. The fact that the Inmate Rate Order, as already noted, is currently on appeal and stayed at the request of the FCC, does not prevent Plaintiffs from amending their Complaint at this time. Even though it is possible that this case cannot be fully resolved until the appeal of the Inmate Rate Order is resolved, Securus fails to explain why this prevents Plaintiffs from amending their Complaint. Securus claims that "[a]llowing Plaintiffs to reopen this case now only invites waste and expense," Securus Opp'n at 18, but gives no specifics as to what they would be. Moreover, Plaintiffs are not seeking to lift
-10-

the stay entirely; it has only been lifted temporarily in order to seek the filing of their amendment of their Complaint.
CCA also argues that Plaintiffs abandoned their claim for damages 13 years ago, when Plaintiffs sought only injunctive relief from the FCC and did not submit complaints to the Enforcement Bureau. 2 See CCA Opp'n at 6. CCA also argues that Plaintiffs' failure to file a formal enforcement claim with the Enforcement Bureau is indicative of undue delay. CCA points to Plaintiffs' Third Report to the Court [Dkt. No. 132] ("Third Report"), submitted on February 24, 2004, in which Plaintiffs expressed their intention to bifurcate their claim. Plaintiffs stated that they would file a formal complaint with the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, "limited to claims regarding unreasonable inmate calling rates and unlawful rebates." They also planned to file a separate petition with the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau challenging exclusive
dealing arrangements between prisons and res providers, and the
practice of providing only collect calling services without the option of using debit and calling services. Third Report at 2.
Moreover, an enforcement claim is not a prerequisite to seeking damages and CCA fails to cite any case law indicating that
2 CCA is incorrect to characterize this case as "always about injunctive relief, not damages," from its inception. CCA Opp'n at 6 n.1. Plaintiffs clearly sought damages in their original Complaint, see Compl. at 51. CCA argues that Plaintiffs abandoned their damages claim, which obviously supports Plaintiffs' answer that they did in fact seek such changes.
-11-

a formal complaint with the Enforcement Bureau is a prerequisite to filing a damages claim. In addition, as Plaintiffs note, classwide relief is unavailable before the Enforcement Bureau and therefore an enforcement action would not have resolved Plaintiffs' class damages claims. See Pls.' Reply at 8.
For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs did not unduly delay in filing their First Amended Complaint.
C. The Proposed Amendments Are Not Unduly Prejudicial to Defendants
Defendants next argue that allowing Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint would result in prejudice to them. To determine if the threat of prejudice to the opposing party is great enough to warrant denying leave to amend, courts consider "the hardship to the moving party if leave to amend is denied, the reasons for the moving party failing to include the material to be added in the original pleading, and the injustice resulting to the party opposing the motion should it be granted." Childers v. Mineta, 205 F.R.D. 29, 32 (D.D.C. 2001) (quoting 6 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure, § 1487 at 621, 623 (3d ed. 2001)).
CCA contends, as it did in its undue delay argument, that it will suffer prejudice because Plaintiffs deprived the parties of the opportunity to resolve damages in a timely manner when they did not file a formal complaint for damages with the Enforcement
-12-

Bureau. CCA Opp'n at 8. As discussed above, Plaintiffs were not required to seek damages before the Enforcement Bureau as a prerequisite to seeking damages in this case. See supra, 7-8. In addition, since Plaintiffs requested damages in their original Complaint, Defendants were on notice of the claim. Thus, Defendants have shown no resulting prejudice.
CCA alleges that Plaintiffs "are trying to reach back to February 16, 1997, for damages that include the entire 13-year period of the stay." CCA Opp'n at 8. Again, Plaintiffs' original Complaint already included requests for damages and the expanded class is limited to the two-year statute of limitations. Defendants are not prejudiced by Plaintiffs seeking damages. Defendants have been on notice of the potential for damages since the first Complaint was filed. Whether damages--for the entire period of the stay, a shorter time period, or any at all--are appropriate will be decided at a later time and are not cause for denial of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend.
CCA' s next argument is that Defendants will be prejudiced because the evidence has grown stale and witnesses have disappeared. See CCA Opp'n at 8. The evidence issue exists regardless of whether Plaintiffs amend their Complaint or not.
Similarly, CCA argues that it will be prejudiced in its ability to discover evidence and prepare its defense. Id. at 8-9. CCA contends that it is not an ICS provider and does not keep or
-13-

maintain billing records that might show who accepted and received ICS calls, or if the charges were actually paid by Plaintiffs. Id. Again, this is not a problem that is unique to the First Amended Complaint; CCA will face these issues under the current Complaint.
Securus argues that Plaintiffs are seeking "to transform their case into something entirely new" through the proposed amendments. Securus Opp'n at 9 (quoting Mississippi Ass'n of Cooperatives v. Farmers Home Admin., 139 F.R.D. 542, 544 (D.D.C. 1991)). Securus cites to several cases in which amendment was denied. In those cases, the proposed amendments were unrelated or only tangentially related to the original case. Id. at 9-10; see e.g., Mississippi Ass'n of Cooperatives, 139 F.R.D. at 544-45 (denying leave to amend FOIA complaint against former federal agency to the extent plaintiff sought to include race discrimination claims and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act). Plaintiffs' proposed amendments here are more than tangentially related to the original Complaint and are readily distinguishable from the cases cited by Securus.
For all the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that Defendants will not be prejudiced by the proposed amendments to the Complaint.
-14-

D. Plaintiffs Proposed Amendments Were Not Brought In Bad Faith
Securus contends that Plaintiffs'. Motion should be denied because it is not brought in good faith. Securus argues that Plaintiffs' Motion exhibits bad faith because: (1) it is an attempt
•:
to obtain rehearing of the denial of Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer; and (2) the Motion's goal is to assist the Mojica case in Arkansas rather than seek relief from this Court. Securus Opp'n at 6-7.
Securus's first contention is easily disposed of, as Plaintiffs' Motion was filed before the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer. Therefore it cannot be "an attempt to relitigate the issue of transfer and circumvent the Court's May 18 decision," as the First Amended Complaint was filed on May 15, 2015. See Securus Opp'n at 6.
Second, Securus contends that Plaintiffs' cooperation with Arkansas counsel for Mojica, and the similarities between the complaints in both cases, is evidence of bad faith. Id. at 7-8. There is absolutely nothing to support this claim. Cooperation among attorneys with similar cases and aspirations of transferring a case are relatively commonplace and the Court does not find them to be indicative of bad faith.
-15-

E. The Proposed Amendments Are Not Futile. Securus argues first that Plaintiffs' proposed amendments are futile because the proposed amendments will not cure the circumstances which caused this Court to deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Transfer to the Western District of Arkansas. Id. at 11. Without predicting the merits of future motions to transfer, whether or not the case becomes transferable has no bearing on the futility of the case. Securus's argument says nothing about the case's ability to proceed in this Court, and therefore is
·i'
irrelevant to futility. Next, Securus argues that the six "Inmate" Plaintiffs in the
First Amended Complaint lack standing to lodge the rate claim against Securus. See Securus Opp'n at 11. Securus does not allege that all Plaintiffs lack standing, only a subset of them. The First Amended Complaint does not become futile because some Plaintiffs lack standing, so long as the remaining Plaintiffs have it. Therefore, even if Securus was correct that the Inmate Plaintiffs lack standing, others do have standing, which means that the Amended Complaint is not futile.
Securus also argues that the "Bill Payer" Plaintiffs did not receive calls from non-CCA facilities, and therefore they cannot support the newly expanded rate claim as it pertains to non-CCA facilities. See Securus Opp'n at 13. Securus fails to explain why this results in the Bill Payers lacking standing or why it renders
-16-

the First Amended Complaint futile. Id. Plaintiffs are correct

that this issue is more pertinent to class certification and the

class representatives' ability to represent the broader class,

rather than standing. Pls.' Reply at 12.

Securus next argues that Plaintiffs' claims regarding non-CCA

facilities are time-barred. See Securus Opp' n at 13. Securus

contends that Plaintiffs cannot relate their non-CCA facility

claims back to 2000. Plaintiffs do not seek to do so. Because

I

Plaintiffs limit these claims to the 2-year statute of limitations

.i

period, which Securus acknowledges, Securus's time-barred

arguments fail. See Am. Compl. ~ 49 (limiting non-CCA facility

class from May 15, 2013, to present); Securus Opp'n at 13-14 (non-

CCA facilities claims can reach back only to 2013).

Lastly, Securus argues that any allegations that it failed to

comply with the Inmate Rate Order are futile because the Inmate

Rate Order has future effect only. See Securus Opp' n at 16.

Plaintiffs counter that they are not seeking to have the Inmate

Rate Order applied retroactively. If and when the Court determines

damages under 47 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207, the Court will be able to

rely on the guidance and expertise provided by the FCC. See Pls.'

Reply at 14-15. Because Plaintiffs have not asked for the Inmate

Rate Order to be applied retroactively and, in any event, because

their requests for damages do not rely exclusively on the Inmate

-17-

Rate Order, Defendants have not shown that amendment of the Complaint would be futile.
F. Equity Does Not Bar Relief CCA contends that equity estops Plaintiffs from amending their Complaint. See CCA Opp' n at 9-10. CCA' s main argument is that Plaintiffs represented to the Court in 2001 when seeking a stay of the case, that Defendants would not be prejudiced by the stay, and that the present Motion does indeed prejudice the Defendants. Id. Since the Court has already rejected Defendants' prejudice arguments, there is no need to address them again under the umbrella of equity. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend their Complaint shall be granted. An Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

January 21, 2016

G~~~
GladysKeier United States District Judge

Copies to: attorneys on record via ECF

-18-

 
 Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 177 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARTHA WRIGHT, etaL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action No. 00-293 (GK)

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION ·OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

On October 27, 2014, Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Reopen and Lift Stay Temporarily

[Dkt. No. 139]. All Defendants oppose the Motion. See Securus Technologies, Inc.'s Response

[Dkt. No. 151], Corrections Corporation of America's Response [Dkt. No. 252], AT&T

Corporation's Response [Dkt. No. 153], and Corrections Corporation of America and Securus

Technologies,Inc.'sJoinderinResponses[Dkt. No. 160]. PlaintiffsfiledaReply[Dkt. No. 161].

Upon full consideration ofall the pleadings, the Court concludes, for the reasons stated herein, that

the Motion shall be granted. 1

1 On February 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Briefing on that Motion has just been completed and is ongoing.

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 177 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 6
I. BACKGROUND On February 16, 2000, Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of inmates
incarcerated at prison facilities operated by Corrections Corporation ofAmerica ("CCA"). Plaintiffs challenge what they deem to be the excessive and unreasonable charges of Defendants for Inmates Calling Services ("ICS") [Dkt. No. 1]. In 2000, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on the ground that the Federal Communication Commission ("FCC") had primary jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims [Dkt. Nos. 19, 22, 25]. After all briefing was concluded, the Court ruled that "the FCC was clearly in the best position to resolve the core issues in this case, namely, the reasonableness ofthe rates charged and the feasibility ofalternative telephone arrangements in CCA facilities." Mem. Op. at 10-11 [Dkt. No. 94]. Upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. No. 98], the Court entered an Order staying the case [Dkt. No. 105]. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to file Status Reports on May 1, 2002, November 1, 2002, and December 1, 2003.
In the meantime, the FCC was investigating the issue and ultimately, on September 26, 2013, issued its Report and Order and Further Notice ofProposed Rulemaking ("Inmate Rate Order"). 78 Fed. Reg. 6795,FCC 13-113,RatesforlnterstatelnmatesCallingServices, WCDocketNo.12-375 .(2013). GTL, Securus Technologies, Inc. ("Securus"), a Defendant in this lawsuit under its former name Evercom, and others filed Petitions for Review ofthe FCC's Inmate Rate Order in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Briefing in the Court of Appeals was completed on December 14, 2014; oral argument was scheduled for February 6, 2015; and on December 16, 2014, the Court of Appeals stayed the appeal with no explanation.
-2-

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 177 Filed 04/30/15 Page 3 of 6
During the period from 2003 to 2013, Plaintiffs and Defendants were litigating before the FCC, which culminated in the FCC's issuance ofits 2013 Inmate Rate Order on September 26, 2013, as noted above. II. PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR REOPENING THE CASE AND TEMPORARILY
LIFTING THE STAY Plaintiffs requested that the Court reopen this case and lift the stay on a temporary basis (1) so that they could amend their Complaint to preserve their rights and to revise their allegations and claims in light ofnew factual and legal developments; (2) Plaintiffs indicated that, because the status of several putative class representatives had changed, they "may wish to add new class representatives or to remove class representatives who have died or are unwilling or unable to actively participate in this case; and (3) that they needed to "modify their allegations for claims against the existing Defendants to account for new factual and legal developments." Plaintiffs also seek to reopen the case so that they may take preservation depositions under Rule 32 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and so they may bring in new counsel to assist present counsel, the Washington Lawyers' Committee, in handling this complex lawsuit. Mot. at 6-8. III. DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION Defendants spent many more pages than necessary raising their objections to the Motion. The Court will address them one by one. 1. Defendants argue vigorously that this case should not be reopened because it was administratively closed on January 31, 2005. That is wrong. As already noted, the Court referred the case to the FCC, stayed the case, and set deadlines for Status Reports by the Plaintiffs. The case, therefore, has remained open all these past 10 years.
-3-

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 177 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 6
It is true that on January 31, 2005, there was an ECF entry that the case had been "administratively closed." That entry was a mistake made by the Clerk's Office and was not brought to the Court's attention for a long period of time after its entry.
Even if it had been "administratively closed," "an administrative closure has no effect other than to remove a case from the Court's active docket and permit the transfer ofrecords associated with the case to an appropriate storage facility." Lehman v. Revolution Portfolio, L.L.C., 166 F.3d 389, 392 (1st Cir. 1999). Moreover, the mere designation of a case as "closed" "does not prevent the Court from reactivating it either ofits own accord or at the request ofthe parties." Florida Ass'n for Retarded Citizens, Inc. v. Bush, 246 F.3d 1296, 1298 (11th Cir. 2001).
In sum, the Court stayed the case, but never dismissed or closed it. 2. CCA argued vigorously that Plaintiffs simply abandoned this litigation once it had been referred to the FCC, and in doing so, waived their claims for damages. Nothing could be further from the truth. This case was stayed. Therefore, there was nothing for Plaintiffs to litigate in this case until the stay was lifted -- which no party ever moved to have done until the filing ofthe present Motion. What Plaintiffs were doing, however, was participating very actively in the deliberations of the FCC during those 13 long years.2 For example, Plaintiffs filed two separate petitions with the FCC for Rulemaking,3 and submitted dozens of other filings in several
2 The Court did order Plaintiffs to file three separate Status Reports, which they did, albeit the last one was very late. However, the Court failed to follow its usual practice of ordering regular Status Reports and therefore Plaintiffs were not obligated to file such reports.
3 Implementation ofthe Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions ofthe Telecommunications Act of 1996, Petition of Martha Wright, et al. for Rulemaking or, in the Alternative, Petition to Address Referral Issues in Pending Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96-128 at 3 (filed Nov. 3, 2003); Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation
continue ... -4-

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 177 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 6

administrative dockets, including one as recently as December 16, 2014.4 At one point, Plaintiffs

filed complaints with the FCC's Enforcement Bureau.

Obviously, all of these efforts conflict with Defendants' allegations that Plaintiffs had

abandoned their interest and/or participation in this· litigation. Rather, they were using the referral

to obtain a fair and appropriate Rule for their clients.

Finally, even ifthe Court had dismissed this case (which it did not), "the law ofthis Circuit

partakes of the general view that dismissal is an extensively harsh sanction and may be reversed

when discretion is abused." Trakas v. Quality Brands. Inc., 759 F.2d 185, 186 (D.C. Cir. 1985).

There was no abuse of that discretion in entering the stay so that an administrative agency with

expertise and experience could fashion a fair and appropriate Rule.

3. Defendants also claim that they will be clearly prejudiced by the Motions to Amend

that Plaintiffs have said they will file if and when the stay is lifted. That argument is both

speculative and premature. While the Plaintiffs have outlined in a very vague fashion what they will

seek in their motion to amend, there will be no precise certainty about their new claims until those

Motions are actually filed. What is more, at that time, Defendants will have an adequate opportunity

to challenge the substance of any such motions and make their claims of prejudice.

4. Finally, it must be remembered that the

granted Defendants' Motion to Refer,

over the Plaintiffs' objections that they would be clearly prejudiced by such a referral. Now,

3...continue Provisions ofthe Telecommunications Act of 1996, Petitioners' Alternative Rulemaking Proposal, CC Docket No. 96-128 (filed Mar. 1, 2007).
4 FCC, Electronic Comment Filing System, available at http://tinyurl.com/lxjs5f3 (last visited December 16, 2014) (listing 93 separate filings by the Wright Petitioners in the FCC).
-5-

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 177 Filed 04/30/15 Page 6 of 6

Plaintiffs would be the ones to be clearly prejudiced if they were not even allowed to file motions

requesting permission to file an amended complaint. The Court will make the ultimate decision as

to whether such Motions may be filed or not.

For all these reasons, it is

of

hereby

ORDERED, that Plaintiffs' Motion is granted; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiffs shall file their Motion to Amend no later than May 15, 2015.

United States District Judge Copies via ECF to all counsel of record

-6-

 
 Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 191 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ETHEL PEOPLES 555 14th St., S.E. Washington, DC 20003
LAURIE LAMANCUSA 63 N. Hartford Ave. Youngstown, OH 44509
ULANDIS FORTE 6403 7th St., N.W. Washington, DC 20012
CHARLES WADE 647 G St., S.E. Washington, DC 20003
DOROTHY WADE 647 G St., S.E. Washington, DC 20003
MELVIN TAYLOR (Address Currently Unknown)
EARL PEOPLES FCI Fairton (P.O. BOX 420 FAIRTON, NJ 08320)
DARRELL NELSON FCI Schuykill (PO Box 759 Minersville PA 17954-0759)
JACKIE LUCAS 4213 7th Street S.E. Apt. 201 Washington, D.C. 20032
Plaintiffs,
v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, 10 Burton Hills Blvd. Nashville, TN 37215

) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:00-CV-00293 ) ) ) Judge: Gladys Kessler ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 191 Filed 01/21/16 Page 2 of 18

)

SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

)

1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900

)

Dallas, TX 75201

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, bring this class action under the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., (the “FCA”), the District of Columbia common law of unjust enrichment, and the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act against Defendants Securus Technologies, Inc., and Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”) (collectively, “Defendants”) challenging Securus’s imposition of excessive and unreasonable charges for inmate calling services (“ICS”) and related unreasonable conduct.
2. These excessive charges, which are most often borne by family members of inmates who have not themselves been convicted of any crime, are disconnected from the legitimate costs of providing inmate calling services. Rather, excessive ICS rates are the product of the high profits that ICS providers extract from Plaintiffs who have no alternatives, and of the commissions or kickbacks paid to private correctional companies and state and local governments in exchange for the exclusive contracts that ensure an absence of competition. The ICS industry’s use of exclusivity arrangements has facilitated the funneling of kickbacks from inmates and their families at up to 96% of ICS revenues. Meanwhile, the ICS market has grown to more than $1.2 billion annually.
3. The Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) found Securus’s ICS

2

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 191 Filed 01/21/16 Page 3 of 18
charges to be “unreasonably high, unfair, and far in excess of the cost of providing service.”1 The FCC further concluded that companies like Securus “exploited [their] economic position by charging rates for interstate calls greatly exceeding the cost of providing service, in direct violation of the requirements of Sections 201 and 276 of the [FCA] that those rates be just, reasonable, and fair.”2
PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Ethel Peoples is a resident of Washington, D.C. Her son, Earl Peoples, a resident of Washington, D.C., was incarcerated at Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, which was and is owned and operated by Defendant CCA in Youngstown, Ohio. Ms. Peoples paid unjust and unreasonable telephone charges to Defendant Securus during the Class Period. 5. Plaintiff Laurie Lamancusa is a resident of Youngstown, Ohio. Her ex-husband, Darrell Nelson, was a Washington, D.C. resident before being incarcerated at the Central Arizona Detention Center, in Florence, Arizona, and at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, both of which were and are owned and operated by Defendant CCA. Ms. Lamancusa paid unjust and unreasonable telephone charges to Defendant Securus during the Class Period. 6. Plaintiff Ulandis Forte is a resident of Washington, D.C., who was incarcerated at Central Arizona Detention Center, in Florence, Arizona. Mr. Forte paid unjust and unreasonable telephone charges to Defendant Securus during the Class Period. 7. Plaintiff Charles Wade is a resident of Washington, D.C., who was incarcerated at Torrance Detention Facility in Estancia, New Mexico, which was and is owned and operated by
1 See In re Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Servs., 28 FCC Rcd 15927, 15929 (F.C.C. Nov. 21, 2013) (“Interstate Inmate Calling Servs. II”).
2 Securus Techs., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 13-1280, Doc. No. 1470786, p. 1 (D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 16, 2013) (the “FCC Opp.”).
3

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 191 Filed 01/21/16 Page 4 of 18
Defendant CCA. Mr. Wade paid unjust and unreasonable telephone charges to Defendant Securus during the Class Period.
8. Plaintiff Dorothy Wade is a resident of Washington, D.C. Her son, Charles Wade, was incarcerated at Torrance Detention Facility in Estancia, New Mexico, which was and is owned and operated by Defendant CCA. Ms. Wade paid unjust and unreasonable telephone charges to Defendant Securus during the Class Period.
9. Plaintiff Earl Peoples is a resident of Washington, D.C., who was incarcerated at Northeast Ohio Correctional Center. Mr. Peoples paid unjust and unreasonable telephone charges to Defendant Securus during the Class Period.
10. Plaintiff Darrell Nelson, is a Washington, D.C. resident who was incarcerated at the Central Arizona Detention Center and at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center. Mr. Nelson paid unjust and unreasonable telephone charges to Defendant Securus during the Class Period.
11. Plaintiff Jackie Lucas is a Washington, D.C. resident who was incarcerated at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center. Mr. Lucas paid unjust and unreasonable telephone charges to Defendant Securus during the Class Period.
12. Plaintiff Melvin Taylor is a Washington, D.C. resident who was incarcerated at Central Arizona Detention Center. Mr. Taylor paid unjust and unreasonable telephone charges to Defendant Securus during the Class Period.
13. Defendant Securus is a privately held corporation headquartered in Dallas, Texas that provides managed telecommunications services at federal, state, and local correctional facilities throughout the United States. By using these services, inmates can communicate with family members, friends, attorneys, and other approved persons outside the correctional
4

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 191 Filed 01/21/16 Page 5 of 18
facilities. Securus serves approximately 2,200 correctional facilities in forty-five states and more than 850,000 inmates nationwide.
14. Securus was formed through the 2004 acquisition of Evercom Systems, Inc. (“Evercom”) and T-Netix, Inc. (“T-Netix”)—two inmate telephone service giants—by H.I.G. Capital, LLC, a Miami-based private equity firm with more than $1 billion of equity capital under management. Securus’s predecessors consolidated a large portion of the industry through the acquisition of several inmate telephone service providers across the United States in the late 1990s. When this suit was originally filed, Securus’s predecessor, Evercom, provided telecommunications services in the District of Columbia.
15. Defendant CCA is a Tennessee corporation doing business in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States. Pursuant to contracts it has entered into with numerous state and local governments, CCA currently owns and/or operates prisons and jails in twenty states, as well as in the District of Columbia. Defendant CCA has entered into a series of exclusive dealing agreements with various telephone companies, including, but not limited to Defendant Securus.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 16. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this matter involves a federal question. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. 17. Jurisdiction is also proper in Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) because the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs, and at least one Class Member is a citizen of a state other than the Defendants.
5

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 191 Filed 01/21/16 Page 6 of 18
18. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendants transact substantial business within, and are subject to personal jurisdiction in, this District. Venue is also proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims asserted herein took place in this District.
DEFENDANTS’ PROVIDED UNREASONABLE INMATE CALLING SERVICES 19. Correctional institutions, including those owned and operated by CCA, provide
inmates with access to pay telephones from which to make telephone calls to families, friends, and counsel. Inmates and those receiving their calls have three ways to pay for these telephone services: collect, debit, and prepaid options.
20. Inmates are a captive market for Securus, which provides and/or has provided pay telephone services in prisons, jails, and other correctional facilities. As noted by the FCC, there are no competitive market forces to constrain the prices set by Defendants.3
21. Securus has secured for itself the right to provide telephone services to hundreds of thousands of inmates through exclusive contracts with thousands of correctional facilities, including those owned and operated by CCA. As a result of the monopolies created by these exclusive contracts, Securus faces little or no competition to challenge increasing telephone rates.4
22. In return for this monopoly power, Securus provides kickbacks, masqueraded as “commissions,” to the contracting correctional facilities, including CCA. As a result of these contracts providing kickbacks, Securus has served as the sole telecommunications providers for
3 See In re Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Servs., 28 FCC Rcd 14107, 14129 (F.C.C. Sept. 26, 2013) (“Interstate Inmate Calling Servs. I”).
4 See FCC Opp p.3 (stating that “each provider is a monopoly in a given facility”).
6

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 191 Filed 01/21/16 Page 7 of 18
persons held in many federal, state, and county correctional facilities throughout the United States.
23. Because of their exclusive provider positions, Securus has been able to exploit Plaintiffs and the Class by charging them excessive rates for calls, as well as unconscionable and undisclosed fees and connection charges, without regard to what other providers of prepaid calling services are charging in the marketplace.
24. As a result of the absence of competition, “[f]amilies of incarcerated individuals often pay significantly more to receive a single 15-minute call from prison than for their basic monthly phone service.”5
25. The market rates for competitively priced prepaid calling cards are approximately $0.01 to $0.02 per minute for calls within the United States. Similarly, prepaid calling card rates for international calls can be as low as $0.01 per minute, depending upon the country being called.
26. Securus, however, charges vastly more—as high as $0.89 per minute—for calls within the United States, not including exorbitant per call connection fees. Securus, likewise, charges exorbitant per minute rates for international calls.
27. Illustrating the unreasonableness of the rates they charge, Securus purchases its minutes for calls terminating within the United States from connection carriers for less than a penny per minute. As a result, Securus often resells the minutes it buys at more than 100 times its cost to Plaintiffs and the Class.
5 See Cecilia Kang, FCC May Cut Prison Phone-call Prices, The Washington Post, Aug. 9, 2013.
7

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 191 Filed 01/21/16 Page 8 of 18
28. Indeed, when commission payments were removed from 2012 cost data provided by Securus to the FCC, its cost-per-minute rate was only $0.04, including all of its operational costs and call transmission costs.
29. Payment of kickbacks by inmate telephone service providers (such as Securus) is substantial, with reports estimating that kickbacks paid to correctional facilities exceed $103.9 million per year.
30. Plaintiffs paid exorbitant and unreasonable rates changed by Securus for inmate telephone services during the Class Period and have been damaged thereby.
AN OVERVIEW OF THE WRIGHT LITIGATION 31. On February 16, 2000, Plaintiffs filed their original class action complaint challenging excessive and unreasonable charges for inmate calling services. 32. In their original complaint, Plaintiffs sued CCA, Global Tel*Link (“GTL”), and Evercom, as well as AT&T, MCI-Worldcom, and Pioneer Telephone Cooperative, alleging that they violated Plaintiffs’ right to free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; Plaintiffs’ right to due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution; the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et. seq.; the FCA; and the laws of the District of Columbia. 33. The claims in the original complaint were asserted on behalf of those who were “billed for telephone calls initiated by people who presently are, have been or will be confined to a correctional facility operated by CCA.” Wright Compl., at ¶ 34. 34. Defendants subsequently moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground that the FCC had primary jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.
8

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 191 Filed 01/21/16 Page 9 of 18
35. In an August 2001 order, the Court “conclude[d] that the FCC is clearly in the best position to resolve the core issues in this case, namely the reasonableness of the rates charged and the feasibility of alternative telephone arrangements in CCA facilities.” (Docket Entry No. 94 at 10–11).
36. This Court initially entered the order as a dismissal and “directed [the parties] to file the appropriate pleadings with the FCC to ensure that the issues raised in this lawsuit are presented to the FCC.” (Docket Entry 95).
37. On November 5, 2001, however, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider and ordered that this case “be stayed, instead of dismissed, pending the proceedings before the FCC.” (Docket Entry No. 105).
38. While the case was stayed, the Court dismissed Defendants Pioneer and GTL on the ground that they did not fall within the Court’s personal jurisdiction; no other Defendants were dismissed.
39. The case was administratively closed sometime after the dismissal of GTL. 40. Shortly after this suit was referred to the FCC, the parties met with FCC staff to discuss the appropriate means by which the Plaintiffs’ allegations might be raised before the FCC. After protracted discussions, it was determined that the Plaintiffs should address policy matters, including determinations of whether rates were unjust and unreasonable, through the rulemaking process. 41. Accordingly, on November 3, 2003, several of the Plaintiffs, along with others, (“Petitioners”) filed a Petition for Rulemaking or, in the Alternative, Petition to Address Referral
9

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 191 Filed 01/21/16 Page 10 of 18
Issues in Pending Rulemaking (“First Wright Petition”). In the First Wright Petition, the Petitioners sought to initiate rulemaking to address the high cost of inmate calling services.6
42. On December 31, 2003, the FCC released a public notice requesting that
interested parties submit comments on the First Wright Petition. The Petitioners filed an
alternative petition for rulemaking in 2007 (“Alternative Wright Petition”), seeking to require a
debit-calling option in correctional facilities, prohibit per-call charges, and establish rate caps for interstate, interexchange calls.7 In 2012, the FCC again issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
seeking comment on inmate calling services and on the First Wright Petition and Alternative Wright Petition.8
THE FCC DETERMINED THAT SECURUS’S CHARGES WERE UNREASONABLE UNDER THE FCA
43. In its September 26, 2013, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (“Inmate Rate Order”), the FCC concluded that ICS providers like Securus
“exploited [their] economic position by charging rates for interstate calls greatly exceeding the
cost of providing service, in direct violation of the requirements of Sections 201 and 276 of the FCA that those rates be just, reasonable, and fair.”9
44. The FCC recognized Plaintiffs’ role in spurring it to action, explaining that “[t]his
all began with one Washington, D.C. grandmother, Mrs. Martha Wright, who spoke truth to
6 Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Petition of Martha Wright et al. for Rulemaking or, in the Alternative, Petition to Address Referral Issues in Pending Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96-128 at 3 (filed Nov. 3, 2003).
7 Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Petitioners’ Alternative Rulemaking Proposal, CC Docket No. 96-128 (filed Mar. 1, 2007).
8 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 16629, Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, WC Docket No. 12-375 (2012).
9 See FCC Opp. at p.1.
10

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 191 Filed 01/21/16 Page 11 of 18
power in 2003, and reminded us that one voice can still spur a movement and drive meaningful
change.”
45. The FCC characterized “the question before us [as] whether negotiated rates
result in unfairly high compensation for ICS providers and unjust and unreasonable rates for end
users” and “conclude[d] that they do.”10
46. Among other things, the FCC concluded that:
• The FCA “requires that all carriers’ interstate rates be just and reasonable. To be just and reasonable, rates must be related to the cost of providing service.” Interstate Inmate Calling Servs. II, 28 FCC Red. at 15929–30; see also Interstate Inmate Calling Servs. I, 28 FCC Red. at 14113-15 (“All charges . . . for and in connection with [interstate communication services], shall be just and reasonable”).
• The marketplace alone has not ensured that interstate ICS rates are just and reasonable and that they are fair to consumers. ICS Order, at 14131 ¶ 45.
• Millions of Americans have borne the financial burden of unjust and unreasonable interstate phone rates. Id., at 14108 ¶ 1.
• Under existing law, commission payments to correctional facilities are profitsharing kickback arrangements and “are not a . . . category of . . . costs” recoverable from end-users in the rates charged for interstate telephone calls. Interstate Inmate Calling Servs. I, 28 FCC Red. at 14135-37.
• Because correctional facilities grant the monopoly franchise partly on the basis of the commission payment offered, “competition” among providers produces increased commission payments and higher end-user charges. See id. at 14129.
• As a result, inmate telephone rates have “inflict[ ed] substantial and clear harm on the general public (and not merely on private interests)” and must be rejected under existing legal precedent. Interstate Inmate Calling Servs. II, 28 FCC Red. at 15938.
• Thus, “for many years, interstate [inmate telephone service] rates have been unreasonably high, unfair, and far in excess of the cost of providing service.” Id. at 15929–30 (emphasis added).
10 ICS Order, at 14108, ¶1 and n. 1, 2.
11

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 191 Filed 01/21/16 Page 12 of 18
47. As demonstrated above, the FCC has unequivocally determined that Defendants have, for many years, violated the FCA. In fact, as early as 1998 the FCC determined that inmate telephone service rates “must conform to the just and reasonable requirements of Section 201.”11
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 48. Plaintiffs bring this action, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. 49. For purposes of their claims against Securus under the FCA, Plaintiffs seek to represent a class, defined as follows: all persons in the United States who, at any time since February 16, 1998, have paid to use telephone systems provided by Securus at a CCA facility or who, at any time since May 15, 2013, have paid to use telephone systems provided by Securus at a non-CCA facility, in order to make or receive telephone calls involving a person incarcerated in any state in the United States (the “Class”). 50. For purposes of their claims against CCA under District of Columbia law, Plaintiffs seek to represent a class, defined as follows: all persons who, at any time since February 16, 1997, have paid to use telephone systems at a CCA facility in order to make or receive telephone calls involving a person incarcerated in any state in the United States (the “Class”). 51. This action is brought and properly may be maintained as a class action pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)-(4) and 23(b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) and satisfies the requirements thereof. 52. The members of the Class are so numerous that individual joinder of all the members is impracticable. On information and belief, there are not fewer than tens of thousands
11 See Billed Party Preference For Interlata 0+ Calls, 13 FCC Rcd. 6122, 6156 (FCC Jan. 29, 1998) (finding that inmate telephone rates “must conform to the just and reasonable requirements of Section 201”).
12

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 191 Filed 01/21/16 Page 13 of 18
of persons who have been affected by Defendants’ conduct. The precise number of Class Members and their addresses are presently unknown to Plaintiffs, but may be ascertained from Defendants’ books and records. Class Members may be notified of the pendency of this action by recognized, Court-approved notice dissemination methods, which may include U.S. Mail, electronic mail, internet postings, and/or published notice.
53. Common questions of law and fact exist as to the Class, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2), and predominate over any questions that affect only individual Class Members within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The common questions of law and fact include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. whether Securus charged unreasonable and unjust telephone rates and fees; b. whether Securus charged telephone rates and fees that greatly exceed costs of
providing service; c. whether Defendants failed to fully and adequately disclose to Plaintiffs and the
Class telephone rates and fees that they will be, and have been, charged when Plaintiffs and the Class made or receive telephone calls involving an incarcerated person; d. whether, through the acts and practices complained of herein, Securus violated §201(b) of the FCA and regulations thereunder; e. whether, through the acts and practices complained of herein, CCA was unjustly enriched; f. whether, through the acts and practices complained of herein, CCA violated the District of Columbia Consumer Protections Procedures Act; and g. whether Plaintiffs and the Class have been damaged by Defendants’ acts and practices complained of herein, and if so, the measure of those damages and the nature and extent of any other relief that should be granted. 54. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class they seek to represent under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) because Plaintiffs and the Class have been subjected to the same wrongful practices and have been damaged thereby in the same manner.
13

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 191 Filed 01/21/16 Page 14 of 18
55. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class because they have no interests that are adverse to the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs are committed to the vigorous prosecution of this action and, to that end, Plaintiffs have retained counsel who are competent and experienced in handling class action litigation on behalf of consumers.
56. A class action is superior to any other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, and no unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action. The damages or other financial detriment suffered by Plaintiffs and each Class Member are relatively small compared to the burden and expense that would be required to individually litigate their claims against Defendants, so it would be impracticable for each Class Member to individually seek redress for Defendants’ wrongful conduct. Even if Class Members could afford individual litigation, individualized litigation creates a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments, and increases the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties, and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.
57. In the alternative, this action is certifiable under the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(l) and/or 23(b)(2) because:
a. the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual Class Members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant; and/or
b. the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members would create a risk of adjudications as to them that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of
14

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 191 Filed 01/21/16 Page 15 of 18
the interests of the other Class Members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; and/or c. Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole and necessitating that any such relief be extended to Class Members on a mandatory, class wide basis.
COUNT I (SECURUS) (Violation of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.) 58. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 59. Under § 201(a) of the FCA, Securus is a common carrier engaged in interstate wire communications for the purpose of furnishing such communication services. 60. The Communications Act classifies inmate calling services as payphone service. 47 U.S.C. § 276(d). 61. The telephone rates and fees charged by Securus, as alleged above, are unjust and unreasonable, and thus, violate § 201(b) of the FCA. 62. Securus’s failure to make full and adequate disclosures to their customers of these charges violates 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401 and, therefore, violates § 20l(b) of the FCA. 63. Securus has not filed its rates with the FCC. 64. As a direct and proximate result of Securus’s violations of the FCA, Plaintiffs and the Class have been damaged in amounts to be determined at trial.
COUNT II (CCA) (Violation of District of Columbia Common Law of Unjust Enrichment) 65. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
15

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 191 Filed 01/21/16 Page 16 of 18
66. As a direct and proximate result of CCA’s acts and practices alleged herein, CCA has been unjustly enriched and have obtained money, earnings, profits, and benefits directly from Plaintiffs and the Class to which CCA would not otherwise be entitled and which it would not have obtained but for its charging of rates and fees that are unjust, unreasonable, and greatly exceed market rates and costs of providing services.
67. CCA’s practices were intentional, knowing, malicious, or done with the intent to reap significant benefits at the expense of Plaintiff and the Class.
68. CCA is not entitled to this enrichment and obtained this enrichment to the detriment of Plaintiffs and the Class.
69. Plaintiffs and the Class reasonably expected that they would only have to pay market rates and would not have to incur other charges which provide no commensurate benefit to them.
70. Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered, and will continue to suffer, actual damages and injury—in the form of telephone rates and fees that exceed market rates and costs of providing services—as a result of CCA’s unjust retention of proceeds from their acts and practices alleged herein.
71. Under principles of equity and justice, CCA should be required to restore the above-described unjust enrichment to Plaintiffs and the Class in amounts to be determined at trial.
COUNT III (CCA) (Violation of District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C. Code § 28-
3901 et. seq) 72. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
16

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 191 Filed 01/21/16 Page 17 of 18
73. CCA has furnished, made available, and directly and indirectly solicited and offered the sale of inmate callings services.
74. In charging excessive rates for ICS services, CCA violated the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“DCCPPA”) by, among other things:
a. representing that goods or services have a source, sponsorship, approval, certification, accessories, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have;
b. making false or misleading representations of fact concerning the reasons for the price of ICS services in comparison to price of competitors or one’s own price at a past or future time;
c. making or enforcing unconscionable terms or provisions; and d. knowingly taking advantage of the inability of the Plaintiffs and the Class to
reasonably to protect their interests. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court enter a judgment against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class and award the following relief:
a. Certification of this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(l), (b)(2), or (b)(3) on behalf of the Class as defined above;
b. Declaration, judgment, and decree that the conduct alleged herein: • constitutes unreasonable and unlawful acts by Securus in violation of the FCA; • unjustly enriched CCA; and • constitutes a violation by CCA of the DCPPA .
c. Damages to Plaintiffs and the Class to the maximum extent allowed under D.C. and federal law;
d. Treble damages against CCA under the DCPPA; e. Punitive damages against CCA under the DCPPA;
17

Case 1:00-cv-00293-GK Document 191 Filed 01/21/16 Page 18 of 18

f. Costs and disbursements of the action; g. Restitution and/or disgorgement of Defendants’ ill-gotten gains; h. Pre- and post-judgment interest; i. Reasonable attorneys’ fees; and j. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiffs request a jury trial on all issues so triable.

May 15, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Deborah M. Golden
Deborah M. Golden (D.C. Bar. No. 470578) Elliot Mincberg (D.C. Bar No. 941575) Matthew Handley (D.C. Bar No. 489946) WASHINGTON LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS 11 Dupont Circle NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 319-1000 x108 Fax: (202) 319-1010 Deborah_Golden@washlaw.org Elliot_Mincberg@washlaw.org Matthew_Handley@washlaw.org

18

 
 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of:

)

)

Implementation of Pay Telephone

)

Reclassification and Compensation

) CC Docket No. 96-128

Provisions of the Telecommunications Act )

of 1996

)

) DA 03-4027

Petition for Rulemaking or, in the

)

Alternative, Petition to Address Referral )

Issues In Pending Rulemaking

)

)

)

)

)

COMMENTS OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION AND THE WASHINGTON LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS

The American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) and the Washington Lawyers’

Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs (“WLC”) (collectively, the “Commenters”) hereby respond to the Commission’s public notice in the above-referenced proceeding1 seeking

comment on the exclusive service agreements and other restrictions on prison inmate calling

options that Martha Wright and other prisoner and non-prisoner petitioners raised in the Wright Petition.2 The Commenters agree that the Commission should prohibit providers of prisoner

calling services from entering into exclusive service agreements with privately-administered

prison facilities and from paying excessive commissions to such administrators for the exclusive

1 FCC Public Notice, Petition for Rulemaking Filed Regarding Issues Related to Inmate Calling Services, Pleading Cycle Established, CC Docket No. 96-128, DA No. 03-4027 (Dec. 31, 2003). The comment deadline was extended from February 9, 2004, to March 10, 2004.
2 Martha Wright, et al. Petition for Rulemaking or, in the Alternative, Petition to Address Referral Issues in Pending Rulemaking (Oct. 31, 2003).

right to provide calling services in a prison facility. These exclusive arrangements prevent competitive forces from driving down the cost of prisoner calling services, and the commissions dramatically increase such costs.3
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY. The ACLU is a nationwide, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of more than 400,000
members dedicated to the principles of liberty and equality embodied in the Constitution and this nation’s civil rights laws. The ACLU established the National Prison Project in 1972 to protect and promote the civil and constitutional rights of prisoners. Through the National Prison Project, the ACLU advocates for the reform of criminal justice policy and educates the public about the social and fiscal ramifications of the current trend of moving away from rehabilitation toward debilitating imprisonment.
For more than thirty years, the WLC has represented both individuals and groups seeking to protect their constitutional and civil rights. The WLC’s mission is to address issues of discrimination, poverty, and other injustices in our community. It represents people with claims of discrimination based upon race, gender, national origin, disability, age, religion, and sexual orientation. It also assists immigrants seeking asylum and educational issues. The WLC has a very long history of providing legal assistance to D.C. men and women who are incarcerated.
More than two million people are currently incarcerated in the United States, many of them located in overcrowded prisons. Contact with family and friends is the single most important factor in stabilizing a prisoner’s mental health and supporting a prisoner’s successful
3 Although the Wright Petition addresses long distance telephone services provided to prisoners in privately-administered prison facilities, the Commenters support the implementation of similar relief in all prisons.
2

return to society. These ties, however, can be difficult, or even impossible, for prisoners to maintain in the face of the excessive charges for prisoner calling services.
Agreements allowing one telecommunications carrier to provide exclusive service to a prison facility and commissions paid to prison administrators for such exclusivity are responsible for prisoner calling rates that far exceed market rates for long distance telephone services that are available to the general public. Particularly for the many prisoners from low-income backgrounds whose friends and families cannot afford the expense, these rates prevent prisoners and their families and friends from associating with each other, in violation of their Constitutional rights. Accordingly, the Commenters urge the Commission to grant the Wright Petition and allow competition in the prisoner calling market and prohibit the payment of commissions to prison administrators.
The Wright Petition arises from a referral order in a class action brought in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.4 The plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit allege that the exclusive dealing arrangements between certain telecommunications carriers and private prison administrators restrict the choices prisoners and their families and friends have for telephone services in violation of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Communications Act”),5 and the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.6 The reasonableness of these restrictions and prisoner calling rates are common elements in the statutory and Constitutional claims raised in the class action lawsuit. For example, whether exclusive dealing arrangements abridge prisoners’ First Amendment rights will depend partly
4 Wright v. Corrections Corp. of America, C.A. No. 00-293 (GK) (D.D.C. Aug. 22, 2001). 5 47 U.S.C. § 201(b). 6 Wright Petition at 6-7.
3

upon whether these arrangements are justified and whether the calling rates charged under those arrangements are reasonable. Although the Wright Petition does not request that the Commission act on the Constitutional claims raised in the class action lawsuit, the Commission’s decision in this proceeding regarding telecommunications issues will impact the court’s consideration of the plaintiffs’ non-Communications Act claims.
II. THE COMMISSION SHOULD ALLOW COMPETITION IN THE PROVISION OF PRISON CALLING SERVICES BY PROHIBITING EXCLUSIVE DEALING ARRANGEMENTS AND THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSIONS UNDER THOSE ARRANGEMENTS. In many facilities, prisoners are able to communicate with family and friends only
through the telephone, and then only using collect calling services. As the Wright Petition explained, those calling services are in turn provided by one carrier in each prison, which secures the exclusive right to serve the facility under an arrangement by which it pays the prison administrator a substantial commission. Carriers increase their calling rates to some of the highest rates in the country to recoup the commissions. These exclusive dealing arrangements have been long defended as necessary due to certain security and penological measures, such as call monitoring, blocking and routing functions.7
These exclusive arrangements and the commissions paid for them result in unreasonable calling rates. Because collect calling services are typically the only option available to a prisoner, his or her family members and friends pay these high rates. Many of the consumers who receive collect calls from prisoners are economically disadvantaged. These consumers are often presented with an untenable choice – pay unreasonable amounts every month to talk to their loved ones who are in prison, or pay for housing, food and medicine.
7 See, e.g., Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 17 FCC Rcd 3248, 3276-77 (2002).
4

The Wright Petition proposes one way for multiple carriers to provide prisoner calling services to a prison without sacrificing security and penological measures that have been implemented at the facility. The affidavit of Douglas Dawson, which is attached to the Wright Petition, details how competitive services can be made available to prisoners and their families and friends and the feasibility of such a competitive system. The introduction of competitive telephone services in a prison would eventually put downward pressure on prisoner calling rates as competition has done in other markets. Not only would consumers have a choice of telephone service providers, but they also would enjoy lower calling rates. Prisoners would be able to spend more time on the telephone with parents, children, spouses, siblings and friends, strengthening ties with their community and reducing the chance of recidivism. This, in turn, benefits society by decreasing the prison population and the cost of housing them and increasing the number of productive, law-abiding citizens that contribute to the community.
Similarly, those using prisoner calling services should be presented with a choice of calling services. In particular, debit card and debit account systems should be available in private prisons. In many cases, debit services are less expensive than collect calling service. Providing an alternative, less expensive calling service should also put downward pressure on collect calling rates. Furthermore, it provides both non-prisoner and prisoner consumers with the ability to choose, a basic freedom they previously lacked. The federal penal system has already successfully implemented a debit system; thus, the security and penological measures prison administrators must employ can still be used when debit calling services are available.8
8 Affidavit of Douglas A. Dawson at 16-18 (Oct. 29, 2003) (Attachment A to Wright Petition); see also CURE Comments, Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-128, at 7 (May 24, 2002) (noting that the federal penal system and some state prison systems allow the use of debit systems).
5

Allowing carriers to recoup the substantial commissions they pay to prison administrators through prisoner calling rates also disserves the public. As previously noted, those paying for prisoner calls are typically a prisoner’s family and friends. Requiring them to pay for the commissions to prison administrators discriminates against these consumers and unfairly penalizes them for maintaining a relationship with someone that is incarcerated. These consumers should be afforded the same right to affordable and non-discriminatory telecommunications services that all consumers enjoy under the Communications Act.
III. CONCLUSION. The Commenters urge the Commission to act quickly to address the unreasonably high
rates that consumers are currently paying for prisoner calling services. Carriers and privatelyadministered prison facilities should be prohibited from entering into exclusive dealing arrangements and carriers should be prohibited from paying commissions to the administrators under these arrangements. The Commission should take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that non-inmate and inmate consumers have a choice of inmate calling services and providers of such services. Competition in the inmate calling market will lead to lower calling rates, support the rehabilitation of inmates, and benefit society as a whole.
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Elizabeth Alexander
Elizabeth Alexander Director, National Prison Project American Civil Liberties Union 733 15th Street, N.W., Suite 620 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 393-4930
March 10, 2004

/s/ Roderic V.O. Boggs
Roderic V.O. Boggs Executive Director Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil
Rights and Urban Affairs 11 Dupont Circle, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 319-1000

6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Jessica Feierman, hereby certify on this 10th day of March, 2004, a copy of the

foregoing Comments have been served via electronic mail (*) or first class mail, postage pre-

paid, to the following:

Charles H. Kennedy Frank W. Krogh Jennifer L. Kostyu Morrison & Foerster LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 5500 Washington, D.C. 20086
Counsel to Martha Wright, et al.

Deena Shetler (2 copies) Deputy Division Chief Pricing Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Federal Communications Commission Wireline Competition Bureau 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 5-A221 Washington, D.C. 20554

Deborah M. Golden D.C. Prisoners’ Legal Services Project, Inc. 2639 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 225 Washington, D.C. 20008
Counsel to Martha Wright, et al.

Joi Nolen* Pricing Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Federal Communications Commission Wireline Competition Bureau 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 5-A221 Washington, D.C. 20554 Joi.Nolen@fcc.gov

Stephen G. Seliger Laurie S. Elkin Seliger & Elkin, Ltd. #500 155 North Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60601

Qualex International*
Portals II 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-B402
Washington, D.C. 20554
qualexint@aol.com

Counsel to Martha Wright, et al.

Barbara J. Olshansky
Center for Constitutional Rights 666 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10012

Paul C. Besozzi Patton Boggs LLP 2550 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037

Counsel to Martha Wright, et al.

Counsel to Evercom Systems, Inc.

7

Glenn B. Manishin Stephanie A. Joyce Kelley Drye & Warren LLP 1200 19th Street, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20036
Counsel to T-Netix, Inc.

Anita L. Wallgren Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005
Counsel to Corrections Corporation of America, Inc.
/s/ Jessica Feierman

8

 
 JURY,STAYED,TYPE-E
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:00-cv-00293-TJK

WRIGHT, et al v. CORRECTIONS CORP, et al Assigned to: Judge Timothy J. Kelly Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 02/16/2000 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff MARTHA WRIGHT

represented by Benjamin D. Brown COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 500 West Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408-4600 Fax: (202) 408-4699 Email: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen G. Seliger SELIGER, ELKEN & DOLAN 155 N. Michigan Avenue Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 616-4244 Fax: 312-565-7289 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah Maxine Golden THE LAW OFFICE OF DEBORAH M. GOLDEN 700 Pennsylvania Ave. SE Ste 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20003 (202) 630-0332 Email: dgolden@debgoldenlaw.com TERMINATED: 04/13/2017

Plaintiff ANNETTE WADE

Marie-Ann Sennett NICK BROWN PC 604 Lake Avenue Storm Lake, IA 50588 (410) 878-8600 Fax: (410) 878-8651 Email: sennettmarie@yahoo.com TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC & URBAN AFFAIRS 200 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite Seventh Floor Washington, DC 20001 202-559-2411 Email: MHANDLEY@HfAJUSTICE.COM TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS 11 Dupont Circle, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 319-1000 x133 Fax: (202) 319-1010 Email: phil_fornaci@washlaw.org TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden

Plaintiff DOROTHY WADE

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Abraham Braun COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS &

Plaintiff ETHEL PEOPLES
Plaintiff EVELYN MINOR

TOLL 1100 New York Avenue NW Suite 500, West Tower Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408-4600 Email: rbraun@cohenmilstein.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Abraham Braun (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MATTIE LUCAS

Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci

Plaintiff LAURIE LAMANCUSA
Plaintiff WINSTON BLISS

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Abraham Braun (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff SHEILA TAYLOR

Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff GAFFNEY & SCHEMBER
Plaintiff M. ELIZABETH KENT

represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004

Plaintiff CLARA MCCORMICK
Plaintiff SHONTE SARGENT

Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address)

Plaintiff ROSEMARY CROOM

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address)

Plaintiff JOHN C. BROWN
Plaintiff BETTYE LOCKLEAR

TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017

Plaintiff DEDRE EMMONS
Plaintiff KATHARINE GORAY

Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff JACKIE LUCAS

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018

Plaintiff ULANDIS FORTE
Plaintiff CHARLES WADE

Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Abraham Braun (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Abraham Braun (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff EARL PEOPLES

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Abraham Braun (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004

Plaintiff DARRELL NELSON
Plaintiff

Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Abraham Braun (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Abraham Braun (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MELVIN TAYLOR
Plaintiff PETER C. BLISS

represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017
Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Abraham Braun (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin D. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen G. Seliger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Maxine Golden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2017

V.
Defendant
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

Marie-Ann Sennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2004
Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2018
Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne Marie Orcutt STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI & ACEDO, P.L.C. 3100 West Ray Road Suite 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 (480) 420-1600 Fax: (480) 420-1696 Email: aorcutt@swlfirm.com TERMINATED: 08/28/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Patrick Struck STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI & ACEDO, P.L.C. 3100 West Ray Road Suite 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 (480) 420-1600 Fax: (480) 420-1695 Email: dstruck@strucklove.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank Robert Volpe SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 736-8366

Defendant
AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY TERMINATED: 07/06/2015

Fax: (202) 736-8711 Email: fvolpe@sidley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D. Hopson SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 736-8188 Fax: (202) 736-8711 Email: mhopson@sidley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Debra Ann Palmer SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 1101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 778-6400 Fax: 202-778-6460 Email: dpalmer@schiffhardin.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Runyan Geise SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP 901 K Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 778-6451 Fax: (202) 778-6460 Email: egeise@schiffhardin.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven John Roman BLANK ROME LLP 1825 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 420-4759 Fax: (202) 420-2201 Email: sroman@blankrome.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
EVERCOM INC. TERMINATED: 05/18/2000

Susan A. Littell DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 1825 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 420-2200 Fax: 202-887-0689 Email: littells@dsmo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine A. Bernard MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 263-3405 Email: cbernard@mayerbrown.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Muench MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 701-7059 Fax: (312) 706-8661 Email: jmuench@mayerbrown.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kyle J. Steinmetz MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 701-8547 Fax: (312) 706-9178 Email: ksteinmetz@mayerbrown.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anthony J. Trenga MILLER & CHEVALIER, CHARTERED 900 Sixteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20006

Defendant MICROWAVE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.WORLDCOM COMMUNICATIONS
Defendant PIONEER TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE

(202) 626-5862 Fax: (202) 628-5801 Email: atrenga@milchev.com TERMINATED: 05/18/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adam Howard Charnes KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 2001 Ross Avenue 2001 Ross Avenue Suite 4400 Dallas, TX 75201 214-922-7106 Email: acharnes@kilpatricktownsend.com TERMINATED: 12/02/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Charles Epstein STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-1795 (202) 429-8065 Fax: (202) 261-7507 Email: aepstein@steptoe.com TERMINATED: 12/05/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Jeremy Baratz STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 429-6468 Fax: (202) 429-3902 Email: mbaratz@steptoe.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Cosson LITCHFIELD CAVO, LLP

Defendant
GLOBAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS LINK TERMINATED: 07/07/2004

82 Hopmeadow Street Suite 210 Simsbury, CT 06089 (202) 333-5275 Email: dcosson@klctele.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vaughn W. Royal VAUGHN W ROYAL, ATTORNEY AT LAW 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 (202) 895-1530 Fax: (202) 686-6405 Email: vroyal@royal-law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jay Norman Varon FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 3000 K Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20007 (202) 672-5380 Fax: (202) 672-5399 Email: jvaron@foley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan J. Frankel STEESE EVANS & FRANKEL, P.C. Army Navy Club Building 1627 I Street, NW Suite 850 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 293-6841 Fax: (202) 293-6842 Email: jfrankel@s-elaw.com TERMINATED: 11/14/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Eileen Regina Ridley

FOLEY & LARDNER One Maritime Plaza 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 438-6469 Fax: (415) 434-4507 Email: eridley@foley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Francis Woodall FOLEY & LARDNER One Maritime Plaza 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 984-9812 Fax: (415) 434-4507 Email: kwoodall@foley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Leonard Burack Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 663-6029 Fax: 202-663-6363 TERMINATED: 11/14/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy J. Geenen FOLEY & LARDNER One Maritime Plaza San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 434-4484 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristen Grim Hughes LAW OFFICES OF KRISTEN GRIM HUGHES 1390 Chain Bridge Road 1390 Chain Bridge Road Suite 530 McLean, VA 22101 703-356-2629 Fax: 202-742-2804 Email: kghughes@hotmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant EVERCOM SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendant SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

represented by Stephanie Ann Joyce POTOMAC LAW GROUP, PLLC 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 838-3173 Fax: (202) 318-7707 Email: joyce.stephanie@arentfox.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/16/2000 02/16/2000
03/20/2000 03/20/2000 03/20/2000 03/31/2000 03/31/2000

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by plaintiffs; jury demand (jeb) (Entered: 02/17/2000)
SUMMONS (6) issued for defendant CORRECTIONS CORP, defendant AT&T, defendant EVERCOM INC, defendant MICROWAVE defendant PIONEER TELEPHONE, defendant GLOBAL TELECOMMUNIC (jeb) (Entered: 02/17/2000)
2 MOTION filed by defendant GLOBAL TELECOMMUNIC to dismiss complaint [1-1] for lack of personal jurisdiction ; declaration of Teresa Ridgeway (ab) (Entered: 03/21/2000)
3 LCvR 26.1 Certificate of disclosure of corporate affiliations and financial interests by defendant GLOBAL TELECOMMUNIC (tth) (Entered: 03/21/2000)
4 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant GLOBAL TELECOMMUNIC by Jonathan J. Frankel and Michael Leonard Burack (ab) (Entered: 03/21/2000)
5 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by defendant GLOBAL TELECOMMUNIC . Date waiver signed: 3/20/00 (tth) (Entered: 04/03/2000)
6 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by defendant CORRECTIONS CORP . Date waiver signed: 3/23/00 (tth) (Entered: 04/03/2000)

03/31/2000 03/31/2000 03/31/2000 04/14/2000
04/20/2000 04/21/2000 04/25/2000 04/27/2000 05/01/2000 05/04/2000
05/08/2000 05/11/2000
05/16/2000

7 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by defendant EVERCOM INC . Date waiver signed: 3/20/00 (tth) (Entered: 04/03/2000)
8 MOTION filed by plaintiffs for discovery , and revised briefing schedule in response to defendant Global's Motion to Dismiss ; Exhibits (4) (tth) (Entered: 04/03/2000)
9 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by defendant MICROWAVE COMMUNICAT . Date waiver signed: 3/17/00 (tth) (Entered: 04/06/2000)
10 RESPONSE by defendant GLOBAL TELECOMMUNIC in opposition to motion for discovery [8-1] and a revised briefing schedule in response to defendant Global's motion to dismiss [8-2] by plaintiffs (jf) (Entered: 04/18/2000)
11 MOTION filed by defendant AT&T to extend time to 5/17/00 to answer complaint [1-1] (tth) (Entered: 04/21/2000)
12 REPLY by plaintiffs' to response to motion for discovery [8-1] and motion revised briefing schedule in response to defendant Global's Motion to Dismiss [8-2]; exhibits (3) (jf) (Entered: 04/24/2000)
13 ERRATA by plaintiffs' to reply to defendant Global Tel opposition to plaintiffs' motion for discovery (jf) (Entered: 04/26/2000)
14 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 5/17/00 to answer complaint [1-1] [11-1] by AT&T ; Answer extended to 5/17/00 for AT&T (N) (jeb) (Entered: 04/27/2000)
15 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by defendant AT&T . Date waiver signed: 4/26/00 (bjsp) (Entered: 05/02/2000)
16 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : plaintiffs to file their opposition to defendant Global Tel*Links' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction due 6/16/00 ; , and juridictional discovery closes <date not set> 30 days following the date of this order; (N) (jeb) Modified on 05/05/2000 (Entered: 05/05/2000)
17 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiffs to extend time to file Motion for Class Certification (tth) (Entered: 05/09/2000)
18 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to file Motion for Class Certification [17-1] by plaintiffs; directing the parties to inform the Court of the date set for the filing of the motion for class certification. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 05/11/2000)
19 MOTION filed by defendant EVERCOM INC to dismiss complaint [1-1] , and alternatively, to sever , and to transfer claims ; Exhibits (4) (tth) (Entered: 05/17/2000)

05/16/2000 05/17/2000 05/17/2000 05/17/2000 05/17/2000 05/17/2000 05/17/2000 05/17/2000 05/17/2000 05/17/2000 05/17/2000 05/18/2000
05/18/2000

20 JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs and defendant to enlarge briefing scheduled on Global Tel*Link's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (tth) (Entered: 05/17/2000)
21 LCvR 26.1 Certificate of disclosure of corporate affiliations and financial interests by defendant CORRECTIONS CORP (jf) (Entered: 05/18/2000)
22 MOTION filed by defendant CORRECTIONS CORP to dismiss plaintiffs' constitutional claims [1-1] ; exhibits (2) (jf) (Entered: 05/18/2000)
23 LCvR 26.1 Certificate of disclosure of corporate affiliations and financial interests by defendant PIONEER TELEPHONE (jf) (Entered: 05/18/2000)
24 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant PIONEER TELEPHONE by Vaughn Washington Royal (jf) (Entered: 05/18/2000)
25 MOTION filed by defendant AT&T to dismiss complaint [1-1] ; exhibits (29) (jf) (Entered: 05/18/2000)
26 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant MICROWAVE COMMUNICAT by Anthony Charles Epstein, Adam M. Charnes (tth) (Entered: 05/18/2000)
27 RULE 26(a)(1) DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by defendant MICROWAVE COMMUNICAT (tth) (Entered: 05/18/2000)
28 MOTION filed by defendant MICROWAVE COMMUNICAT to dismiss complaint [1-1] ; Exhibits (4) (tth) (Entered: 05/18/2000)
MOTION filed by defendant PIONEER TELEPHONE to dismiss complaint [1-1] ; declarations (2); exhibit (1) (bjsp) (Entered: 05/19/2000)
34 MOTION filed by defendant PIONEER TELEPHONE to dismiss complaint [1-1] ; Exhibit (1); Attachments (2) (tth) (Entered: 05/22/2000)
29 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting joint motion to enlarge briefing schedule on Global Tel*Link's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [20-1] by defendant; plaintiff's response to defendant Global Tel*Link's Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction due by 6/30/00; defendant Global Tel*Link's reply to response due 7/17/00, unless service is by mail then reply due 7/20/00 ; (N) (jeb) (Entered: 05/18/2000)
30 STIPULATED ORDER by Judge June L. Green : dismissing as to defendant EVERCOM INC and adding Evercom Systems, Inc. as

05/18/2000 05/18/2000 05/19/2000 05/25/2000 05/25/2000
05/25/2000 06/30/2000 07/03/2000 07/06/2000

party defendant pursuant to FRCP21. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 05/18/2000)
31 LCvR 26.1 Certificate of disclosure of corporate affiliations and financial interests by defendant AT&T; Exhibit (1) (tth) (Entered: 05/19/2000)
32 MOTION filed by defendant AT&T for leave to file Corrected Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of AT&T's Motion to Dismiss Instanter ; EXHIBIT (CORRECTED MEMORANDUM) (tth) (Entered: 05/19/2000)
33 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff to extend time to file plaintiffs' Memoranda of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss by Defendants Evercom Systems AT&T, Corrections Corporation of America, MCI WORLDCOM, and Pioneer Telephone Cooperative (tth) (Entered: 05/22/2000)
35 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for leave to file Corrected Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of AT&T's Motion to Dismiss Instanter [32-1] by AT&T (N) (jeb) (Entered: 05/25/2000)
36 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to file plaintiffs' Memoranda of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss by Defendants Evercom Systems AT&T, Corrections Corporation of America, MCI WORLDCOM, and Pioneer Telephone Cooperative [33-1] by plaintiffssssssssssssssssssssssss (N) (jeb) (Entered: 05/25/2000)
59 MEMORANDUM (CORRECTED) by defendant AT&T in support of motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [25-1] by AT&T (ab) (Entered: 10/31/2000)
37 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] for lack of personal jurisdiction [2-1] by GLOBAL TELECOMMUNIC; Exhibits (16) (tth) (Entered: 07/03/2000)
38 ERRATA by defendant GLOBAL TELECOMMUNIC submitting the Original Affidavit of Marie-Ann Sennett in Support of Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Global Tel*Link Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction; Exhibit (1) (tth) (Entered: 07/05/2000)
39 ERRATA by plaintiffs submitting supplemental material to the Memorandum in Opposition of Plaintiffs to Defendant Global Tel*Link Motion ti Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction: (1) Exhibit Q, excerpts from the Ridgeway deposition; and (2) Exhibit F, the original Stipulation Between Global Tel*Link and Plaintiffs.

07/07/2000 07/07/2000 07/12/2000
07/12/2000 07/20/2000 08/04/2000 08/09/2000
09/07/2000 09/15/2000 09/15/2000

Also submitted are pages correcting typographical or formatting errors in the Motion; Attachment (1). (tth) (Entered: 07/10/2000)
40 MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT/REPORT PURSUANT TO L.R. 16 filed by plaintiffs. (tth) (Entered: 07/10/2000)
41 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff to extend time to file Meet and Confer Statement to 7/7/00. (tth) (Entered: 07/10/2000)
42 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : Case assigned to the Complex track (track three). , plaintiff's response to motions to dismiss by defendants due 8/15/00 ; defendant's replies due 10/2/00 ; plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction due 8/15/00 ; response to motion due 10/2/00 ; reply to motion due 10/30/00 ; setting forth instructions to counsel. (N) (ks) (Entered: 07/12/2000)
43 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to file Meet and Confer Statement to 7/7/00. [41-1] by plaintiffs; and that this Order be granted nunc pro tunc to 7/3/00 (N) (ks) (Entered: 07/12/2000)
44 REPLY by defendant GLOBAL TELECOMMUNIC to memorandum to plaintiffs' opposition to dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction [2-1]; exhibits (8) (td) (Entered: 07/24/2000)
45 JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs, defendants to extend time for the briefing schedule for defendants' motions to dismiss and plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction (dam) (Entered: 08/08/2000)
46 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting joint motion to extend time for the briefing schedule for defendants' motions to dismiss and plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction [45-1] by defendants; plaintiff's response to motions to dismiss due by 9/15/00 ; defendant's replies due by 11/2/00 ; plaintiffs are to file a motion for preliminary injunction by 9/15/00 ; defendant's response due by 11/2/00 ; plaintiff's reply due by 11/30/00 (N) (ks) (Entered: 08/09/2000)
47 PROTECTIVE ORDER (STIPULATED) by Judge June L. Green ; setting forth procedures for handling confidential material; allowing designated material to be filed under seal. (N) (ks) (Entered: 09/07/2000)
48 MOTION filed by plaintiff to extend time to file motion for preliminary injunction (clv) (Entered: 09/18/2000)
49 MOTION filed by plaintiff for leave to file memorandum in opposition to dismiss ; EXHIBIT (memorandum in opposition to motion to dismiss) (clv) (Entered: 09/18/2000)

09/15/2000 09/18/2000 09/21/2000 09/21/2000 09/21/2000
09/21/2000 10/04/2000 10/27/2000 10/31/2000
11/14/2000

50 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [34-1] by PIONEER TELEPHONE; attachments (5) (clv) (Entered: 09/18/2000)
51 NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs' regarding plaintiffs memorandum in opposition to motion to dismiss.; attachments (1) (ATTACHMENT FILED UNDER SEAL IN ROOM 1800) (dam) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
52 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for leave to file memorandum in opposition to dismiss [49-1] by plaintiffs (N) (ks) (Entered: 09/21/2000)
53 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to file motion for preliminary injunction [48-1] by plaintiffs; plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction due by 11/1/00 ; defendant's response to motion due by 12/15/00 ; plaintiff's reply to motion due by 1/15/01. (N) (ks) (Entered: 09/21/2000)
54 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [28-1] by MICROWAVE COMMUNICAT, motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [34-1] by PIONEER TELEPHONE, motion to dismiss [1-1] [22-1] by CORRECTIONS CORP, motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [19-1] by EVERCOM INC, motion to transfer claims [19-3] by EVERCOM INC; Exhibits (7). (ks) (Entered: 09/21/2000)
55 NOTICE OF FILING RE: page 64 of plaintiff's memorandum in opposition to motions to dismiss and/or to transfer by plaintiff; attachment (tb) (Entered: 09/25/2000)
56 ERRATA RE: page 62 of plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition to motion to dismiss was erroneously omitted by plaintiffs; attachment (tb) (Entered: 10/07/2000)
57 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff, defendant to extend time of the briefing schedule for defendants' motions to dismiss and plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction (jf) (Entered: 10/31/2000)
58 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting joint motion to extend time of the briefing schedule for defendants' motions to dismiss and plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction [57-1] by defendants, plaintiff; defendant's reply to motions to dismiss due by 11/17/00 ; plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction due by 11/17/00 ; response to motion due by 1/19/01 ; reply to motions due by 2/23/01 (N) (ks) (Entered: 10/31/2000)
60 MOTION filed by defendant AT&T for a separate and prompt hearing on its motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party or to transfer (cdw) (Entered: 11/15/2000)

11/14/2000 11/14/2000 11/16/2000 11/17/2000 11/17/2000 11/27/2000 11/27/2000 11/29/2000
11/30/2000 12/04/2000 12/11/2000

61 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant AT&T by Susan A. Littell (tb) Modified on 11/15/2000 (Entered: 11/15/2000)
62 SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY by defendant AT&T in support of its motion to dismiss complaint or transfer [1-1] [25-1] by AT&T(cdw) Modified on 11/30/2000 (Entered: 11/15/2000)
63 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff to extend time to 12/15/00 to file motion for preliminary injunction (cdw) (Entered: 11/17/2000)
64 MOTION filed by defendants for leave to file a reply memorandum in excess of the twenty five pages limitation in support of Motions to Dismiss on Common Issue ; EXHIBIT (REPLY) (hsj) Modified on 11/30/2000 (Entered: 11/20/2000)
65 REPLY MEMORANDUM by defendant PIONEER TELEPHONE in further support of motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [34-1] by PIONEER TELEPHONE (hsj) Modified on 11/29/2000 (Entered: 11/29/2000)
66 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for leave to file a reply memorandum in excess of the twenty five pages limitation in support of Motions to Dismiss on Common Issue. [64-1] by defendantssssss (N) (clv) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
67 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 12/15/00 to file motion for preliminary injunction [63-1] by plaintiffs; responses due by 2/12/01; replies due by 3/12/01; (N) (clv) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
69 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiffs for leave to file plaintiffs memorandum in opposition to defendant AT&T's motion for a separate and prompt hearing on its motion for failure to join an indispensible party or transfer ; EXHIBIT (Memorandum in Opposition) (cdw) (Entered: 12/01/2000)
68 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for a separate and prompt hearing on its motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party or to transfer [60-1] by AT&T (N) (ks) (Entered: 11/30/2000)
70 MOTION filed by plaintiffs to compel responses to discovery requests ; exhibits (4), exhibit B (FILED UNDER SEAL) (cdw) (Entered: 12/08/2000)
71 REPLY by defendant AT&T to response in opposition to motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [25-1] by AT&T (tb) (Entered: 12/13/2000)

12/14/2000 12/19/2000
01/09/2001 01/10/2001 01/29/2001 01/29/2001 01/31/2001
02/06/2001 02/09/2001 03/27/2001
04/09/2001 05/14/2001

72 MOTION filed by plaintiff to extend time to file their motion for preliminary injunction (cdw) Modified on 12/18/2000 (Entered: 12/15/2000)
73 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to file their motion for preliminary injunction [72-1] by MARTHA WRIGHT; that parties will inform the Court of the briefing schedule when plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is filed. (N) (ks) (Entered: 12/19/2000)
74 RESPONSE by defendant CORRECTIONS CORP to motion to compel responses to discovery requests [70-1] by MARTHA WRIGHT; exhibits (2) (cdw) (Entered: 01/10/2001)
CASE REASSIGNED from Judge June L. Green to Judge Gladys Kessler (ks) (Entered: 01/11/2001)
75 JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs defendant CORRECTIONS CORP to withdraw plaintiff's motion to compel [70-1] (cdw) (Entered: 01/30/2001)
76 MOTION filed by plaintiffs for oral argument on all defendants motions to dismiss (cdw) (Entered: 01/30/2001)
77 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: granting joint motion to withdraw plaintiff's motion to compel [70-1] [75-1] by defendant, plaintiff; withdrawing by MARTHA WRIGHT motion to compel responses to discovery requests [70-1] (N) (pob) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
78 RESPONSE by defendant AT&T to motion for oral argument on all defendants motions to dismiss [76-1] by MARTHA WRIGHT (cdw) (Entered: 02/07/2001)
79 REPLY by plaintiffs to response to motion for oral argument on all defendants motions to dismiss [76-1] by MARTHA WRIGHT exhibits (1) (cdw) Modified on 02/13/2001 (Entered: 02/12/2001)
80 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by defendants in support of motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [34-1] by PIONEER TELEPHONE, motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [25-1] by AT&T, motion to dismiss plaintiffs' constitutional claims [1-1] [22-1] by CORRECTIONS CORP, motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [19-1] by EVERCOM INC (cjp) (Entered: 03/30/2001)
81 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to defendant's supplemental memorandum in support of motions to dismiss [80-1] (cdw) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
82 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by defendants CORRECTIONS CORP, AT&T, MICROWAVE COMMUNICAT,

05/25/2001
06/07/2001 07/11/2001 07/16/2001 07/16/2001 07/16/2001 07/26/2001 07/26/2001 08/02/2001

PIONEER TELEPHONE, and EVERCOM SYSTEMS INC to motion to dismiss [1-1] [28-1] by MICROWAVE COMMUNICAT, motion to dismiss [1-1] [34-1] by PIONEER TELEPHONE, motion to dismiss [1-1] [25-1] by AT&T, motion to dismiss [1-1] [22-1] by CORRECTIONS CORP, motion to dismiss [1-1] [19-1] by EVERCOM INC (bm) (Entered: 05/15/2001)
83 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff MARTHA WRIGHT in opposition to defendaants' supplemental memorandum to motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [28-1] by MICROWAVE COMMUNICAT, motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [34-1] by PIONEER TELEPHONE, motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [25-1] by AT&T, motion to dismiss plaintiffs' constitutional claims [1-1] [22-1] by CORRECTIONS CORP, motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [19-1] by EVERCOM INC, motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] for lack of personal jurisdiction [2-1] by GLOBAL TELECOMMUNIC (cjp) (Entered: 05/30/2001)
SCHEDULING NOTICE: motion hearing set for 10:00 7/31/01 before Judge Gladys Kessler Courtroom 19. (pob) (Entered: 06/07/2001)
84 MOTION (UNOPPOSED) filed by defendant GLOBAL TELECOMMUNIC for leave to file a supplement to its reply memorandum concerning dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction ; EXHIBIT (SUPPLEMENT) (aet) (Entered: 07/12/2001)
85 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler : granting motion for leave to file a supplement to its reply memorandum concerning dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction [84-1] by GLOBAL TELECOMMUNIC (N) (pob) (Entered: 07/17/2001)
86 SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY MEMORANDUM by defendant GLOBAL TELECOMMUNIC concerning dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction (cdw) (Entered: 07/18/2001)
87 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to defendant Global Tel*Link's supplemental reply memorandum concerning dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction; exhibits (6) (cdw) (Entered: 07/18/2001)
88 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant AT&T by Steven John Roman (bjsp) (Entered: 07/27/2001)
89 REPLY by defendant GLOBAL TELECOMMUNIC to plaintiffs opposition to defendants jurisdictional supplement (bjsp) (Entered: 07/27/2001)
90 MOTION filed by plaintiffs for Stephen G Seliger to appear pro hac vice ( Seliger, Elkin, & Dolan, Ltd. 155 North Michigan Avenue -

08/03/2001 08/07/2001 08/09/2001
08/15/2001 08/22/2001 08/22/2001
08/27/2001 09/05/2001 09/05/2001 09/18/2001

Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60601, (312) 616-4244 (cdw) (Entered: 08/03/2001)

91 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: Motion hearing set for 4:15 p.m. on 8/8/01, in courtroom 19 (N) (gdf) (Entered: 08/07/2001)

92 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: granting motion for Stephen G Seliger to appear pro hac vice ( Seliger, Elkin, Dolan, Ltd. 155 North Michigan Avenue - Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60601, (312) 6164244 [90-1] by plaintiffs (N) (pob) (Entered: 08/07/2001)

MOTION HEARING before Judge Gladys Kessler: granted motion for oral argument on all defendants motions to dismiss [76-1] by MARTHA WRIGHT; defendants motions to dismisss heard and taken under advisement. Reporter: Frank Rangus (pob) (Entered: 08/10/2001)

93 TRANSCRIPT of motion hearing filed for date(s) of 8/9/01. Reporter: Frank J Rangus (cdw) (Entered: 08/17/2001)

94 MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Gladys Kessler (N) (pob) (Entered: 08/22/2001)

ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: granting motion to dismiss

95

complaint [1-1] [28-1] by MICROWAVE COMMUNICAT,

granting motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [34-1] by TELEPHONE,

granting motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [25-1] by AT&T,

granting motion to dismiss plaintiffs' constitutional claims [1-1] [22-

1] by CORRECTIONS CORP, granting motion to dismiss

complaint [1-1] [19-1] by INC, granting motion to dismiss

complaint [1-1] for lack of personal jurisdiction [2-1] by GLOBAL

TELECOMMUNIC; case dismissed without prejudice; parties are

directed to file the appropriate pleadings with the FCC. (N) (pob)

(Entered: 08/22/2001)

96 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Mark Daniel Hopson, Frank R. Volpe representing defendant CORRECTIONS CORP . New address: Sidley Austin Brown & Wood 1501 K Street, NW Suite 600 Washington DC 20005. (cdw) (Entered: 08/29/2001)

97 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiffs by Stephen G. Seliger (cdw) (Entered: 09/06/2001)

98 MOTION filed by plaintiffs for reconsideration of order of 8/22/01 [95-1] (cdw) (Entered: 09/07/2001)

99 RESPONSE by defendant CORRECTIONS CORP, defendant MICROWAVE COMMUNICAT, defendant PIONEER TELEPHONE, defendant EVERCOM SYSTEMS INC to motion

09/19/2001
09/19/2001 09/19/2001 09/28/2001 09/28/2001 11/05/2001
11/05/2001 05/01/2002 05/03/2002 05/13/2002
05/21/2002 05/28/2002

for reconsideration of order of 8/22/01 [95-1] [98-1] by plaintiffs (cdw) (Entered: 09/20/2001)
100 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by defendant PIONEER TELEPHONE in support of defendants' response to plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration [99-1] by EVERCOM SYSTEMS INC, PIONEER TELEPHONE, MICROWAVE COMMUNICAT, CORRECTIONS CORP (cdw) (Entered: 09/20/2001)
101 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by defendant PIONEER TELEPHONE in support of motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [341] by PIONEER TELEPHONE (cdw) (Entered: 09/20/2001)
102 RESPONSE by defendant GLOBAL TELECOMMUNIC in opposition to motion for reconsideration of order of 8/22/01 [95-1] [98-1] by plaintiffs (cdw) (Entered: 09/20/2001)
103 REPLY by plaintiffs to response in opposition to motion for reconsideration of order of 8/22/01 [95-1] [98-1] by plaintiffs (cdw) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
104 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's Pioneer and Global's renewal of their motions to dismiss [101-1], 100-1] (cdw) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
105 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler : granting motion for reconsideration of order of 8/22/01 [95-1] [98-1] by plaintiffs; case stayed and parties are to file a report with the Court on 5/1/02. (N) (pob) (Entered: 11/05/2001)
Case Reopened (pob) (Entered: 11/05/2001)
106 FIRST REPORT TO THE COURT by plaintiffs; exhibits (2) (cdw) (Entered: 05/02/2002)
107 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: Plaintiff shall file a Second Report to the Court by 5/1/02 (N) (tth) (Entered: 05/03/2002)
108 MOTION (RENEWED) filed by defendant AT&T to sever , and to transfer case to the USDC for the Eastern District of Oklahoma ; exhibits (6); BULKY PLEADING (cdw) Modified on 05/15/2002 (Entered: 05/15/2002)
109 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant AT&T a supplemental certificate of service of their renewed motion t sever and transfer (cdw) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
110 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to renewed motion to sever and transfer case to the USDC for the Eastern District of Oklahoma [108-2] by AT&T; exhibits (2) (cdw) (Entered: 05/30/2002)

06/05/2002 06/06/2002 06/17/2002 06/19/2002 06/19/2002 06/21/2002 08/16/2002 10/25/2002 11/01/2002 11/05/2002 11/06/2002 11/15/2002

112 MOTION filed by defendant AT&T to extend time to 6/17/02 in which to file a reply in support of its renewed motion to sever and transfer ; attachment (1) (bm) (Entered: 06/10/2002)
111 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: granting defendant AT&T Corporation's time to file its reply brief in support of its Renewed Motion to Sever and Transfer reply to brief due 6/17/02; (N) (tth) (Entered: 06/07/2002)
114 MOTION (SECOND AGREED) filed by defendant AT&T to extend time to 6/19/02 to file a reply in support of its renewed motion to sever and transfer ; declarations (1) (cdw) (Entered: 06/19/2002)
113 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler : granting motion to extend time to 6/17/02 in which to file a reply in support of its renewed motion to sever and transfer [112-1] by AT&T reply to motion due by 6/19/02; (N) (tth) (Entered: 06/19/2002)
115 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant AT&T copy of reply in support of AT&T's renewed motion to sever and transfer; attachment (1) (bm) (Entered: 06/21/2002)
116 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by defendant AT&T n support of motion to sever [108-1] and transfer case to the USDC for the Eastern District of Oklahoma [108-2] by AT&T; exhibits (1) (cdw) (Entered: 06/25/2002)
117 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler : denying motion to sever [108-1] by AT&T, denying motion to transfer case to the USDC for the Eastern District of Oklahoma [108-2] by AT&T (N) (tth) (Entered: 08/16/2002)
118 NOTIFICATION OF RELATED CASE: Case related to Case No(s): 02cv1779 Francis Hannon, et al v. Jeffrey Beard, et al (cdw) (Entered: 10/30/2002)
119 SECOND REPORT to the Court by plaintiffs (cdw) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
120 ERRATA by plaintiffs regarding filing of corrected second report to the Court originally file on 11/1/02 (cdw) (Entered: 11/07/2002)
121 RENEWED MOTION (copy) filed by defendant PIONEER TELEPHONE to dismiss complaint [1-1] ; exhibits (3) (cdw) (Entered: 11/07/2002)
122 CONSENT MOTION filed by plaintiffs to extend time to file plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition to Pioneer Telephone Cooperative's renewed motion to dismiss (cdw) (Entered: 11/19/2002)

11/18/2002 11/29/2002 12/11/2002 12/12/2002 10/08/2003 10/08/2003 11/14/2003
11/14/2003 11/14/2003
11/14/2003

123 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: granting motion to extend time to file plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition to Pioneer Telephone Cooperative's renewed motion to dismiss [122-1] by plaintiffs response to dispositive motions due by 12/1/02; (N) (tth) (Entered: 11/19/2002)

124 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [121-1] by PIONEER TELEPHONE (cdw) (Entered: 12/03/2002)

125 MOTION filed by defendant PIONEER TELEPHONE for leave to file reply to plaintiffs' opposition to renewed motion to dismiss out of time ; EXHIBIT-REPLY (bm) (Entered: 12/12/2002)

ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler : granting motion for leave to file

126

reply to plaintiffs' opposition to renewed motion to dismiss out of

time [125-1] by PIONEER TELEPHONE reply to dispositive

motions due 12/11/02 ; (N) (tth) (Entered: 12/13/2002)

127 MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Gladys Kessler (N) (clv) (Entered: 10/08/2003)

128 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler : granting motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [121-1] by PIONEER TELEPHONE (N) (clv) (Entered: 10/08/2003)

MINUTE ORDER -- The Court's Order of October 8, 2003 erroneously ordered the parties to file a Status Report by November 1, 2004. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties file a Status Report regarding the proceedings before the FCC by December 1, 2003. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 11/14/03. (lcgk1, ) (Entered: 11/14/2003)

129 NOTICE of Appearance by Kristen Grim Hughes on behalf of GLOBAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS LINK (Hughes, Kristen) (Entered: 11/14/2003)

130 MOTION for Limited Admission of Nancy J. Geenen, Eileen R. Ridley, and Kevin F. Woodall by GLOBAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS LINK. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Nancy J. Geenen, Eileen R. Ridley; and Kevin F. Woodall# 2 Affidavit of Nancy J. Geenen# 3 Affidavit of Eileen R. Ridley# 4 Affidavit of Kevin F. Woodall)(Hughes, Kristen) (Entered: 11/14/2003)

131 NOTICE by GLOBAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS LINK of Substitution of Attorneys (Hughes, Kristen) (Entered: 11/14/2003)

11/19/2003 02/24/2004 04/15/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004
05/10/2004
05/10/2004
05/12/2004 07/07/2004

MINUTE ENTRY -- ORDER granting 130 the Motion for Admission of Nancy J. Geenen, Eileen R. Ridley and Kevin L. Woodall pro hac vice. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 11/19/03. (CS, ) (Entered: 11/19/2003)

132 THIRD REPORT to the court by plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(rje, ) (Entered: 02/27/2004)

NOTICE of Appearance by Deborah Maxine Golden on behalf of

133

all plaintiffs (Golden, Deborah) (Entered: 04/15/2004)

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Personal) by

134

GLOBAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS LINK. (Ridley, Eileen)

(Entered: 05/10/2004)

135 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities from Global Tel*Link Corporation in Support of Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. (Ridley, Eileen) (Entered: 05/10/2004)

136 AFFIDAVIT re 134 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Personal) of Kevin F. Woodall by GLOBAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS LINK. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Ridley, Eileen) (Entered: 05/10/2004)

137 AFFIDAVIT re 134 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Personal) of Teresa Ridgeway by GLOBAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS LINK. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Ridley, Eileen) (Entered: 05/10/2004)

138 ENTERED IN ERROR..... MOTION for Order by GLOBAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS LINK. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Global Tel*Link Corporation's Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction)(Ridley, Eileen) Modified on 5/12/2004 (rje, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 5/12/2004 (rje, ). (Entered: 05/10/2004)

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY. Document No. 138 was entered in error and counsel was notified not to refile Proposed Orders as a Motion. This Order will be attached to Document No. 134. (rje, ) (Entered: 05/12/2004)

MINUTE ORDER - On May 10, 2004, Defendant Global Tel*Link filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. To date, Plaintiffs have failed to file an opposition to that Motion. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant

Global Tel*Link's Renewed Motion to Dismiss 134 is

10/27/2014
10/27/2014
10/29/2014 10/29/2014 11/12/2014 11/12/2014 11/12/2014

GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED and all claims against Global Tel*Link are dismissed. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 7/7/04. (lcgk1, ) (Entered: 07/07/2004)
139 MOTION to Lift Stay and Reopen by PETER C. BLISS, WINSTON BLISS, JOHN C. BROWN, ROSEMARY CROOM, DEDRE EMMONS, ULANDIS FORTE, GAFFNEY & SCHEMBER, KATHARINE GORAY, M. ELIZABETH KENT, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, BETTYE LOCKLEAR, JACKIE LUCAS, MATTIE LUCAS, CLARA MCCORMICK, EVELYN MINOR, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, SHONTE SARGENT, MELVIN TAYLOR, SHEILA TAYLOR, ANNETTE WADE, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE, MARTHA WRIGHT (Golden, Deborah). Added MOTION to Reopen Case on 10/28/2014 (znmw, ). (Entered: 10/27/2014)
140 NOTICE of Proposed Order by PETER C. BLISS, WINSTON BLISS, JOHN C. BROWN, ROSEMARY CROOM, DEDRE EMMONS, ULANDIS FORTE, GAFFNEY & SCHEMBER, KATHARINE GORAY, M. ELIZABETH KENT, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, BETTYE LOCKLEAR, JACKIE LUCAS, MATTIE LUCAS, CLARA MCCORMICK, EVELYN MINOR, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, SHONTE SARGENT, MELVIN TAYLOR, SHEILA TAYLOR, ANNETTE WADE, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE, MARTHA WRIGHT re 139 MOTION to Lift Stay and Reopen (Golden, Deborah) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
141 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel P. Struck on behalf of CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA (Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
142 NOTICE of Appearance by Anne Marie Orcutt on behalf of CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA (Orcutt, Anne) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
143 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephanie Ann Joyce on behalf of Securus Technologies, Inc. (Joyce, Stephanie) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
144 LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by Securus Technologies, Inc. (Joyce, Stephanie) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
145 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion to Reopen and Lift Stay Temporarily by Securus Technologies, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Joyce, Stephanie) (Entered: 11/12/2014)

11/12/2014
11/12/2014
11/12/2014 11/12/2014
11/13/2014
11/13/2014 11/13/2014
11/13/2014 11/21/2014 11/21/2014

146 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to /For AT&T to REPSOND TO PLAINTIFFS' FOR MOTION TO REOPEN AND LIFT STAY TEMORARILY by AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service Certificate of Service, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Geise, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 145 the Consent Motion for Extension of Time; Securus Technologies shall have up to and including November 24, 2014, in which to file a Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen and Life Stay Temporarily. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 11/12/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 11/24/2014 (CL, ). (Entered: 11/12/2014)
147 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 139 MOTION to Lift Stay and Reopen MOTION to Reopen Case by CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 146 AT&T's Motion for Extension of Time; AT&T shall have up to and including November 26, 2014, in which to file a Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen and Lift Stay Temporarily. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 11/12/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 11/26/2014 (CL, ) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 147 the Consent Motion for Extension of Time; Corrections Corporation of American shall have up to and including November 24, 2014, in which to file its Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen and Lift Stay Temporarily. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 11/13/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 11/24/2014 (CL, ) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
148 NOTICE of Appearance by Catherine A. Bernard on behalf of AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY (Bernard, Catherine) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
149 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- John E. Muench, :Firm- Mayer Brown LLP, :Address- 71 S. Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL 60606. Phone No. - (312) 701-7059. Fax No. - (312) 706-8661 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090-3913689. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND

11/21/2014
11/24/2014 11/24/2014 11/24/2014 11/24/2014 11/25/2014 11/25/2014

TELEGRAPH COMPANY (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Bernard, Catherine) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
150 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Kyle J. Steinmetz, :Firm- Mayer Brown LLP, :Address- 71 S. Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL 60606. Phone No. - (312) 701-8547. Fax No. (312) 706-9178 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090-3913723. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Bernard, Catherine) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 149 the Motion for Leave of John E. Muench to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 11/24/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 150 the Motion for Leave of Kyle J. Steinmetz to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 11/24/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
151 RESPONSE re 139 MOTION to Lift Stay and Reopen MOTION to Reopen Case filed by SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix FCC Second FNPRM)(Joyce, Stephanie) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
152 RESPONSE re 139 MOTION to Lift Stay and Reopen MOTION to Reopen Case filed by CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
153 RESPONSE re 139 MOTION to Lift Stay and Reopen MOTION to Reopen Case filed by AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY. (Bernard, Catherine) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
154 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 139 MOTION to Lift Stay and Reopen MOTION to Reopen Case by PETER C. BLISS, WINSTON BLISS, JOHN C. BROWN, ROSEMARY CROOM, DEDRE EMMONS, ULANDIS FORTE, GAFFNEY & SCHEMBER, KATHARINE GORAY, M. ELIZABETH KENT, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, BETTYE LOCKLEAR, JACKIE LUCAS, MATTIE LUCAS, CLARA MCCORMICK, EVELYN MINOR, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, SHONTE SARGENT, MELVIN TAYLOR, SHEILA TAYLOR, ANNETTE WADE, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE, MARTHA WRIGHT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Golden, Deborah) (Entered: 11/25/2014)

11/26/2014 11/26/2014 12/01/2014 12/01/2014 12/02/2014 12/05/2014 12/12/2014
12/15/2014

MINUTE ORDER granting 154 Plaintiffs' Agreed Motion for Extension of Time; Plaintiffs shall have up to and including December 17, 2014, in which to file a Reply in Support of their Motion to Reopen and Lift the Stay Temporarily. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 11/26/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 11/26/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 12/17/2014. (CL, ) (Entered: 11/26/2014)
155 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Jeremy Baratz on behalf of MICROWAVE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.-WORLDCOM COMMUNICATIONS (Baratz, Michael) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
156 NOTICE of Effective Date of Plan of Reorganization and Discharge of Defendant MCI-Worldcom by MICROWAVE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.-WORLDCOM COMMUNICATIONS (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael Vatis, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E)(Baratz, Michael) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
157 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to MICROWAVE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.-WORLDCOM COMMUNICATIONS. Attorney Adam Howard Charnes terminated. (Charnes, Adam) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
158 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to MICROWAVE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.-WORLDCOM COMMUNICATIONS. Attorney Anthony Charles Epstein terminated. (Baratz, Michael) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
159 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiffs' Reply Brief by PETER C. BLISS, WINSTON BLISS, JOHN C. BROWN, ROSEMARY CROOM, DEDRE EMMONS, ULANDIS FORTE, GAFFNEY & SCHEMBER, KATHARINE GORAY, M. ELIZABETH KENT, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, BETTYE LOCKLEAR, JACKIE LUCAS, MATTIE LUCAS, CLARA MCCORMICK, EVELYN MINOR, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, SHONTE SARGENT, MELVIN TAYLOR, SHEILA TAYLOR, ANNETTE WADE, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE, MARTHA WRIGHT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Golden, Deborah) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 159 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated Reply Brief in support of their Motion to Reopen and Lift the Stay Temporarily not to exceed 35 pages in length. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 12/15/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/16/2014 12/17/2014 01/23/2015 02/13/2015 02/19/2015

160 Joint MOTION for Joinder in Responses Opposing Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen and Lift Stay Temporarily by CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA (Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 12/16/2014)
161 RESPONSE in support of the re 139 motion to reopen and lift the stay temporarily filed by PETER C. BLISS, WINSTON BLISS, JOHN C. BROWN, ROSEMARY CROOM, DEDRE EMMONS, ULANDIS FORTE, GAFFNEY & SCHEMBER, KATHARINE GORAY, M. ELIZABETH KENT, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, BETTYE LOCKLEAR, JACKIE LUCAS, MATTIE LUCAS, CLARA MCCORMICK, EVELYN MINOR, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, SHONTE SARGENT, MELVIN TAYLOR, SHEILA TAYLOR, ANNETTE WADE, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE, MARTHA WRIGHT. (Golden, Deborah) Modified text and linkage on 12/18/2014 (td, ). (Entered: 12/17/2014)
162 NOTICE of Death of a Named Representative Plaintiff by PETER C. BLISS, WINSTON BLISS, JOHN C. BROWN, ROSEMARY CROOM, DEDRE EMMONS, ULANDIS FORTE, GAFFNEY & SCHEMBER, KATHARINE GORAY, M. ELIZABETH KENT, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, BETTYE LOCKLEAR, JACKIE LUCAS, MATTIE LUCAS, CLARA MCCORMICK, EVELYN MINOR, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, SHONTE SARGENT, MELVIN TAYLOR, SHEILA TAYLOR, ANNETTE WADE, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE, MARTHA WRIGHT (Golden, Deborah) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
163 MOTION to Transfer Case Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) by PETER C. BLISS, WINSTON BLISS, JOHN C. BROWN, ROSEMARY CROOM, DEDRE EMMONS, ULANDIS FORTE, GAFFNEY & SCHEMBER, KATHARINE GORAY, M. ELIZABETH KENT, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, BETTYE LOCKLEAR, JACKIE LUCAS, MATTIE LUCAS, CLARA MCCORMICK, EVELYN MINOR, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, SHONTE SARGENT, MELVIN TAYLOR, SHEILA TAYLOR, ANNETTE WADE, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE, MARTHA WRIGHT (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Golden, Deborah) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
164 ORDER that Defendants shall file any Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer no later than February 26, 2015, by 4:00 p.m.; any Reply shall be filed no later than March 2, 2015, by 12:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 2/19/15. (CL, ) (Entered: 02/19/2015)

02/19/2015 02/26/2015 02/26/2015 02/26/2015 03/02/2015 03/02/2015
03/02/2015 03/03/2015 03/04/2015

Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 2/26/2015. Replies due by 3/2/2015. (CL, ) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
165 RESPONSE re 163 MOTION to Transfer Case Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) filed by AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Bernard, Catherine) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
166 RESPONSE re 163 MOTION to Transfer Case Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) Opposition filed by SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Joyce, Stephanie) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
167 RESPONSE re 163 MOTION to Transfer Case Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) filed by CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - 4, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
168 NOTICE of Joinder by CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA re 165 Response to motion, 166 Response to motion (Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
169 REPLY to opposition to motion re 163 MOTION to Transfer Case Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) filed by PETER C. BLISS, WINSTON BLISS, JOHN C. BROWN, ROSEMARY CROOM, DEDRE EMMONS, ULANDIS FORTE, GAFFNEY & SCHEMBER, KATHARINE GORAY, M. ELIZABETH KENT, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, BETTYE LOCKLEAR, JACKIE LUCAS, MATTIE LUCAS, CLARA MCCORMICK, EVELYN MINOR, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, SHONTE SARGENT, MELVIN TAYLOR, SHEILA TAYLOR, ANNETTE WADE, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE, MARTHA WRIGHT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Golden, Deborah) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
170 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 163 MOTION to Transfer Case Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) Partial Joinder in CCA Response filed by SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. (Joyce, Stephanie) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
171 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer by SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 2 Supplement Surreply)(Joyce, Stephanie) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
172 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Consolidated Response to Securus's Partial Joinder in CCA'S Opposition and to Securus's Motion for Leave to File a Surreply to Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer by PETER C. BLISS, WINSTON BLISS, JOHN C.

03/09/2015 03/09/2015
03/10/2015 04/28/2015

BROWN, ROSEMARY CROOM, DEDRE EMMONS, ULANDIS FORTE, GAFFNEY & SCHEMBER, KATHARINE GORAY, M. ELIZABETH KENT, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, BETTYE LOCKLEAR, JACKIE LUCAS, MATTIE LUCAS, CLARA MCCORMICK, EVELYN MINOR, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, SHONTE SARGENT, MELVIN TAYLOR, SHEILA TAYLOR, ANNETTE WADE, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE, MARTHA WRIGHT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Consolidated Response)(Golden, Deborah) (Entered: 03/04/2015)
MINUTE ORDER granting 172 the Plaintiffs' Consent Motion for Leave to File a Consolidated Response to Securus's Partial Joinder in CCA's Opposition and to Securus's Motion for Leave to File a Surreply to Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 3/9/15. (CL, ) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
173 RESPONSE (Consolidated) re 170 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 163 MOTION to Transfer Case Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) Partial Joinder in CCA Response and 171 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer filed by PETER C. BLISS, WINSTON BLISS, JOHN C. BROWN, ROSEMARY CROOM, DEDRE EMMONS, ULANDIS FORTE, GAFFNEY & SCHEMBER, KATHARINE GORAY, M. ELIZABETH KENT, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, BETTYE LOCKLEAR, JACKIE LUCAS, MATTIE LUCAS, CLARA MCCORMICK, EVELYN MINOR, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, SHONTE SARGENT, MELVIN TAYLOR, SHEILA TAYLOR, ANNETTE WADE, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE, MARTHA WRIGHT. (znmw, ) (Entered: 03/10/2015)
174 REPLY re 156 Notice (Other), filed by PETER C. BLISS, WINSTON BLISS, JOHN C. BROWN, ROSEMARY CROOM, DEDRE EMMONS, ULANDIS FORTE, GAFFNEY & SCHEMBER, KATHARINE GORAY, M. ELIZABETH KENT, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, BETTYE LOCKLEAR, JACKIE LUCAS, MATTIE LUCAS, CLARA MCCORMICK, EVELYN MINOR, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, SHONTE SARGENT, MELVIN TAYLOR, SHEILA TAYLOR, ANNETTE WADE, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE, MARTHA WRIGHT. (Golden, Deborah) (Entered: 03/10/2015)
175 ORDER granting 171 Securus Technologies, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Surreply; the Surreply shall be filed within one calendar month of this Order. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 4/24/15. (CL, ) (Entered: 04/28/2015)

04/28/2015 04/30/2015 04/30/2015 05/15/2015
05/18/2015 06/01/2015 06/01/2015 06/01/2015 06/05/2015 06/15/2015

176 SURREPLY to re 163 MOTION to Transfer Case Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) filed by SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. (Joyce, Stephanie) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
177 ORDER granting 139 Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Case and Lift Stay Temporarily; Plaintiff shall file their Motion to Amend no later than May 15, 2015. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 4/30/15. (CL, ) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motion to Amend due by 5/15/2015. (CL, ) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
178 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint by PETER C. BLISS, WINSTON BLISS, JOHN C. BROWN, ROSEMARY CROOM, DEDRE EMMONS, ULANDIS FORTE, GAFFNEY & SCHEMBER, KATHARINE GORAY, M. ELIZABETH KENT, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, BETTYE LOCKLEAR, JACKIE LUCAS, MATTIE LUCAS, CLARA MCCORMICK, EVELYN MINOR, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, SHONTE SARGENT, MELVIN TAYLOR, SHEILA TAYLOR, ANNETTE WADE, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE, MARTHA WRIGHT (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Golden, Deborah) (Entered: 05/15/2015)
179 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Case 163 . Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 5/18/15. (CL, ) (Entered: 05/18/2015)
MINUTE ORDER granting 160 Motion for Joinder. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 6/1/15. (CL) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
180 RESPONSE re 178 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Stephanie A. Joyce)(Joyce, Stephanie) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
181 RESPONSE re 178 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
182 NOTICE of Proposed Order Denying Motion for Leave to File Amended Class Action Complaint by SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. re 180 Response to motion (Joyce, Stephanie) (Entered: 06/05/2015)
183 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave File An Amended Class Action Complaint by PETER C. BLISS, WINSTON BLISS, JOHN C.

06/15/2015
07/02/2015 07/06/2015 07/07/2015 10/07/2015

BROWN, ROSEMARY CROOM, DEDRE EMMONS, ULANDIS FORTE, GAFFNEY & SCHEMBER, KATHARINE GORAY, M. ELIZABETH KENT, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, BETTYE LOCKLEAR, JACKIE LUCAS, MATTIE LUCAS, CLARA MCCORMICK, EVELYN MINOR, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, SHONTE SARGENT, MELVIN TAYLOR, SHEILA TAYLOR, ANNETTE WADE, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE, MARTHA WRIGHT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Golden, Deborah) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
184 REPLY to opposition to motion re 178 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by PETER C. BLISS, WINSTON BLISS, JOHN C. BROWN, ROSEMARY CROOM, DEDRE EMMONS, ULANDIS FORTE, GAFFNEY & SCHEMBER, KATHARINE GORAY, M. ELIZABETH KENT, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, BETTYE LOCKLEAR, JACKIE LUCAS, MATTIE LUCAS, CLARA MCCORMICK, EVELYN MINOR, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, SHONTE SARGENT, MELVIN TAYLOR, SHEILA TAYLOR, ANNETTE WADE, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE, MARTHA WRIGHT. (Golden, Deborah) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
185 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Voluntarily Claims Against AT&T by KATHARINE GORAY, BETTYE LOCKLEAR (Golden, Deborah) (Entered: 07/02/2015)
186 ORDER granting 185 the Parties' Motion to Dismiss; the Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice as to AT&T Corporation is hereby granted. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 7/6/15. (CL) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
187 NOTICE of Preservation of Objection to Stipulation for Dismissal by CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA (Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
188 NOTICE of Appearance by Benjamin D. Brown on behalf of PETER C. BLISS, WINSTON BLISS, JOHN C. BROWN, ROSEMARY CROOM, DEDRE EMMONS, ULANDIS FORTE, GAFFNEY & SCHEMBER, KATHARINE GORAY, M. ELIZABETH KENT, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, BETTYE LOCKLEAR, JACKIE LUCAS, MATTIE LUCAS, CLARA MCCORMICK, EVELYN MINOR, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, SHONTE SARGENT, MELVIN TAYLOR, SHEILA TAYLOR, ANNETTE WADE, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE, MARTHA WRIGHT (Brown, Benjamin) (Entered: 10/07/2015)

01/21/2016
01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/21/2016
02/03/2016 02/11/2016 02/12/2016 02/12/2016 02/16/2016
04/13/2016
04/14/2016

189 ORDER granting 178 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Class Action Complaint; Plaintiffs shall file their First Amended Class Action Complaint no later than January 28, 2016. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 1/21/16. (CL) (Entered: 01/21/2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION to the Order granting Plaintiffs'

190

Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Class Action Complaint.

Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 1/21/16. (CL) (Entered:

01/21/2016)

Set/Reset Deadlines: Amended Complaint due by 1/28/2016. (CL) (Entered: 01/21/2016)

191 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. with Jury Demand filed by CHARLES WADE, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, ULANDIS FORTE, MELVIN TAYLOR, EARL PEOPLES, DARRELL NELSON, DOROTHY WADE, ETHEL PEOPLES, JACKIE LUCAS.(znmw) (Entered: 01/28/2016)

192 MOTION to Clarify Stay by CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA (Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 02/03/2016)

193 RESPONSE re 192 MOTION to Clarify Stay filed by SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. (Joyce, Stephanie) (Entered: 02/11/2016)

194 ORDER granting 192 Motion to Clarify and staying the case as of 1/21/16; Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 4/13/2016. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 2/12/16. (lcgk2, ) (Entered: 02/12/2016)

Case Stayed (tth) (Entered: 02/12/2016)

195 NOTICE by ULANDIS FORTE, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, JACKIE LUCAS, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, MELVIN TAYLOR, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE re 194 Order on Motion to Clarify, Set/Reset Deadlines, 193 Response to motion (Brown, Benjamin) (Entered: 02/16/2016)

196 Joint STATUS REPORT by ULANDIS FORTE, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, JACKIE LUCAS, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, MELVIN TAYLOR, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE. (Brown, Benjamin) (Entered: 04/13/2016)

197 ORDER that a further Joint Status Report shall be filed by September 15, 2016, or earlier if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

04/14/2016 09/15/2016 09/19/2016 09/19/2016 12/15/2016 01/06/2017 04/13/2017
04/14/2017 08/28/2017

District of Columbia rules on issues affecting this case. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 4/14/16. (CL) (Entered: 04/14/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 9/15/2016 (CL) (Entered: 04/14/2016)
198 Joint STATUS REPORT by ULANDIS FORTE, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, JACKIE LUCAS, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, MELVIN TAYLOR, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE. (Brown, Benjamin) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
199 ORDER that the Parties shall file a further Joint Status Report on or before December 15, 2016. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 9/19/16. (CL) (Entered: 09/19/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 12/15/2016 (CL) (Entered: 09/19/2016)
200 Joint STATUS REPORT of Plaintiffs, Securus, and CCA by ULANDIS FORTE, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, JACKIE LUCAS, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, MELVIN TAYLOR, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE. (Brown, Benjamin) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
201 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert Abraham Braun on behalf of ULANDIS FORTE, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, JACKIE LUCAS, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, MELVIN TAYLOR, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE (Braun, Robert) (Entered: 01/06/2017)
202 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to PETER C. BLISS, WINSTON BLISS, JOHN C. BROWN, ROSEMARY CROOM, DEDRE EMMONS, ULANDIS FORTE, GAFFNEY & SCHEMBER, KATHARINE GORAY, M. ELIZABETH KENT, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, BETTYE LOCKLEAR, JACKIE LUCAS, MATTIE LUCAS, CLARA MCCORMICK, EVELYN MINOR, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, SHONTE SARGENT, MELVIN TAYLOR, SHEILA TAYLOR, ANNETTE WADE, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE, MARTHA WRIGHT. Attorney Deborah Maxine Golden terminated. (Golden, Deborah) (Entered: 04/13/2017)
203 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew K. Handley on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Handley, Matthew) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
204 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA. Attorney Anne Marie Orcutt terminated. (Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 08/28/2017)

09/01/2017 09/14/2017 10/10/2017 10/10/2017 11/02/2017
11/02/2017 12/05/2017
01/12/2018

205 NOTICE of Change of Firm Name and Attorney Contact Information by CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA (Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 09/01/2017)

Case directly reassigned to Judge Timothy J. Kelly. Judge Gladys Kessler is no longer assigned to the case. (ztnr) (Entered: 09/14/2017)

206 Mail Returned as Undeliverable; Sent to Stephen G. Seliger; Type of Document Returned: Reassignment Notice filed 9/14/2017; Resent at New Address: N/A. (kh) (Entered: 10/10/2017)

207 Mail Returned as Undeliverable; Sent to Nancy J. Geenen; Type of Document Returned: Reassignment Notice filed 9/14/2017; Resent at New Address: N/A. (kh) (Entered: 10/10/2017)

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the joint status report 200 filed by the parties on December 15, 2016, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report by December 5, 2017. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 11/2/2017. (lctjk3) (Entered: 11/02/2017)

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 12/5/2017 (tj) (Entered: 11/02/2017)

Joint STATUS REPORT of Plaintiffs, Securus, and CCA by

208

ULANDIS FORTE, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, JACKIE LUCAS,

DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES,

MELVIN TAYLOR, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE.

(Brown, Benjamin) (Entered: 12/05/2017)

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the joint status report 208

01/16/2018 02/14/2018 06/29/2018

filed by the parties on December 5, 2017, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report by June 29, 2018. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 1/12/2018. (lctjk3) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 6/29/2018. (kh) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
209 Mail Returned as Undeliverable Sent to Stephen G. Seliger; Type of Document Returned: Minute Order dated 1/12/2018; Resent at New Address: No Forwarding Address. (kh) (Entered: 02/15/2018)
210 Joint STATUS REPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS SECURUS AND CCA by ULANDIS FORTE, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, JACKIE LUCAS, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, MELVIN TAYLOR, CHARLES

07/05/2018 07/09/2018 08/01/2018 08/10/2018 08/13/2018
10/26/2018 10/31/2018

WADE, DOROTHY WADE. (Braun, Robert) (Entered: 06/29/2018)
NOTICE OF ERROR re 210 Status Report; emailed to rbraun@cohenmilstein.com, cc'd 40 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Counsel should use (TJK) for Judge's initials on future pleadings. (ztth, ) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the Joint Status Report 210 filed by the parties on June 29, 2018, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report by October 26, 2018. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 7/9/2018. (lctjk3) (Entered: 07/09/2018)
211 Mail Returned as Undeliverable; Sent to Stephen G. Seliger; Type of Document Returned: Minute Order dated 7/9/2018; Resent at New Address: No Forwarding Address. (kh) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
212 NOTICE of Appearance by Philip J. Fornaci on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Fornaci, Philip) (Entered: 08/10/2018)
213 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to PETER C. BLISS, WINSTON BLISS, JOHN C. BROWN, ROSEMARY CROOM, DEDRE EMMONS, ULANDIS FORTE, GAFFNEY & SCHEMBER, KATHARINE GORAY, M. ELIZABETH KENT, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, BETTYE LOCKLEAR, JACKIE LUCAS, MATTIE LUCAS, CLARA MCCORMICK, EVELYN MINOR, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, SHONTE SARGENT, MELVIN TAYLOR, SHEILA TAYLOR, ANNETTE WADE, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE, MARTHA WRIGHT. Attorney Matthew K. Handley terminated. (Handley, Matthew) (Entered: 08/13/2018)
214 Joint STATUS REPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS SECURUS AND CCA by ULANDIS FORTE, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, JACKIE LUCAS, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, MELVIN TAYLOR, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE. (Braun, Robert) (Entered: 10/26/2018)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of the parties' 214 Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report by December 28, 2018. The report shall address the status of related proceedings before the Federal Communications Commission and when the parties anticipate moving to lift the stay. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 10/31/2018. (lctjk3) (Entered: 10/31/2018)

11/28/2018 12/28/2018 06/27/2019
09/04/2019

215 Mail Returned as Undeliverable; Sent to Stephen G. Seliger; Type of Document Returned: Copy of Minute Order dated 10/31/2018. (kh) (Entered: 11/28/2018)
216 Joint STATUS REPORT by ULANDIS FORTE, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, JACKIE LUCAS, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, MELVIN TAYLOR, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE. (Brown, Benjamin) (Entered: 12/28/2018)
217 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to PETER C. BLISS, WINSTON BLISS, JOHN C. BROWN, ROSEMARY CROOM, DEDRE EMMONS, ULANDIS FORTE, GAFFNEY & SCHEMBER, KATHARINE GORAY, M. ELIZABETH KENT, LAURIE LAMANCUSA, BETTYE LOCKLEAR, JACKIE LUCAS, MATTIE LUCAS, CLARA MCCORMICK, EVELYN MINOR, DARRELL NELSON, EARL PEOPLES, ETHEL PEOPLES, SHONTE SARGENT, MELVIN TAYLOR, SHEILA TAYLOR, ANNETTE WADE, CHARLES WADE, DOROTHY WADE, MARTHA WRIGHT. Attorney Philip J. Fornaci terminated. (Fornaci, Philip) (Entered: 06/27/2019)
218 NOTICE of Change of Address by Stephanie Ann Joyce (Joyce, Stephanie) (Entered: 09/04/2019)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

04/15/2021 16:32:56

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 30

Cost:

Harrington
1:00-cv-00293TJK 3.00