Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02461/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02461-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS LLC, 

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MICHAEL PICKER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02461-VC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR A 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 8, 18

The plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is granted. The CPUC defendants are

enjoined from enforcing the Commission's May 3, 2016 ruling compelling the plaintiffs to 

disclose the subscription data to TURN (or other third parties) until cross-motions for summary 

judgment are adjudicated. A hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment will take place

on August 4, 2016 at 10 am, and the parties can expect a ruling shortly after that date.1

"A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 

the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 

balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Arc of Cal. 

v. Douglas, 757 F.3d 975, 983 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 

F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011)). Courts in the Ninth Circuit "evaluate these factors via a sliding 

scale approach, such that serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships that 

tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the 

plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the 

 

1

If the parties are unavailable August 4th, they may stipulate to a hearing on the Court's regular 

civil law and motion calendar in the latter half of July or in the latter half of September.

Case 3:16-cv-02461-VC Document 65 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 4
2

public interest." Arc of Cal., 757 F.3d at 983 (quoting All. for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 

1131, 1135) (internal quotation marks omitted).

On the merits, at a minimum there is a serious preemption question. Indeed, considering

the parties' submissions thus far, the plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success. Although the

FCC materials cited by the plaintiffs are not crystal clear on whether federal law allows a state 

commission to disclose this kind of data to a third party pursuant to a protective order, those 

materials suggest the answer is "no." For example, one regulation states that the FCC may only 

provide this kind of data to a state commission if the commission "has protections in place that 

would preclude disclosure of any confidential information." 47 C.F.R. § 1.7001(d)(4)(i). And 

the FCC's form agreement regarding data sharing with state commissions requires those 

commissions to affirm "that the requested data will not be shared with any individuals who are 

not direct employees" of the state commission. FCC Form 477 Data-Sharing Agreement with 

State Regulatory Commission (2009).

2

 These provisions seem to stand for the proposition that 

federal law precludes state commissions from sharing this kind of data with third parties under 

any circumstances. If that's right, the CPUC's decision to require the plaintiffs to disclose the 

data to TURN and other third parties would conflict with federal law and therefore be preempted. 

The defendants respond primarily by citing FCC materials that describe the important 

role state commissions play in regulating the telecommunications industry. These materials 

emphasize that state commissions, to effectively perform their roles in this federal-state 

regulatory scheme, need access to the kind of data at issue here. See, e.g., Nat'l Ass'n of 

Regulatory Util. Comm'rs Petition for Clarification or Declaratory Ruling that No FCC Order 

or Rule Limits State Auth. to Collect Broadband Data, 25 FCC Rcd. 5051, ¶¶ 9, 10 & n.30 

(2010). But that's beside the point. Nobody disputes that the state commissions themselves need 

this kind of data. The issue presented by this preliminary injunction motion is whether the state 

commissions may require the data to be disclosed to third parties. 

 

2

https://transition.fcc.gov/form477/letter-of-agreement-format-2009.pdf. 

Case 3:16-cv-02461-VC Document 65 Filed 05/20/16 Page 2 of 4
3

The defendants also argue that because the CPUC has obtained the data directly from the 

regulated parties rather than from the FCC, the FCC provisions relied upon by the plaintiffs don't 

apply. In other words, the FCC provisions by their terms merely speak to the transfer of data

directly from the FCC to the state commissions, and condition that transfer on nondisclosure. 

Therefore, according to the defendants, the same condition doesn't apply where a state 

commission uses its regulatory power to obtain the data directly from regulated parties. That 

argument can't be right. It would make no sense for the FCC to impose serious confidentiality 

restrictions on data it shares with state commissions if those state commissions could readily

avoid the restrictions by forcing regulated parties to provide the data directly. 

None of this is to say the preemption question is easy. Perhaps, for example, the word

"disclosure" in section 1.7001(d)(4)(i) merely means disclosure to the general public, in which 

case it might be permissible for a state commission to provide this kind of data to certain third 

parties subject to a protective order. Or perhaps the disclosure of the data by a state commission 

to certain third parties subject to a protective order would be appropriate if federal law permitted 

the FCC to make a similar disclosure under similar circumstances. See § 1.7001(d)(4)(iii); Local 

Competition & Broadband Reporting, 15 FCC Rcd. 7717, ¶ 95 (2000).3 There is also a question 

whether some of the materials relied on by the plaintiffs — such as the FCC's form agreement 

governing data sharing with state commissions — have the force of law, and if not, how that 

affects the preemption analysis. Cf. Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 576 (2009). But the 

defendants, in their response to the preliminary injunction motion, did not meaningfully address

these issues, so the Court must conclude that the plaintiffs have met their burden with respect to 

the merits at this early stage in the process. 

The remaining three factors in the preliminary injunction analysis overwhelmingly favor 

the plaintiffs. First, if federal law indeed precludes the CPUC from requiring this disclosure, the 

plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief — the disclosure cannot be undone. 

 

3

Perhaps there are even past examples of the FCC disclosing this kind of data (or similarly 

sensitive information) to third parties under a protective order. 

Case 3:16-cv-02461-VC Document 65 Filed 05/20/16 Page 3 of 4
4

Cf. CBS Corp. v. FCC, 785 F.3d 699, 708 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 

Second, regarding the balance of hardships, the defendants will suffer virtually no harm if 

disclosure of the data to TURN and any other parties is delayed for two or three months while 

cross-motions for summary judgment are adjudicated. The CPUC already has the data, and can 

continue to use it in furtherance of its investigation. As for TURN's role in the investigation,

counsel acknowledged at argument that TURN can still meaningfully participate in the 

proceeding, even without receiving the underlying data, by advocating to the CPUC about how 

the CPUC itself should analyze the data. And counsel for CPUC acknowledged at argument that 

it has experts on staff who are capable of digesting and analyzing the data themselves. The 

investigation can therefore continue while the preemption issue is adjudicated (and the 

investigation can be supplemented with TURN's own analysis of the data if the defendants 

ultimately prevail and the plaintiffs are required to disclose it). 

Third, the public interest weighs in favor of interim relief. California residents have an 

interest in ensuring the CPUC conducts its investigations in a manner that does not conflict with 

federal law. The public has an interest in ensuring thorough judicial review before government 

disclosure of sensitive information. And the CPUC has been unable to articulate how its 

investigation would be rendered less effective by the short delay in disclosure of the data to 

TURN and other third parties, pending adjudication of the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2016

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02461-VC Document 65 Filed 05/20/16 Page 4 of 4