Hall v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.

State: Illinois

Court: 5th District Appellate

Docket No: 5-05-0314 Rel

Case Date: 07/25/2006

Preview:N O T IC E Decision filed 10/31/06. The text of this dec ision m ay b e changed or corrected prior to the P e t i ti o n for filing of a or the

NO. 5-05-0314 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

Re hea ring

FIFTH DISTRICT ________________________________________________________________________ JESSICA HALL, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of ) Madison County. Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) ) v. ) No. 04-L-113 ) SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P., d/b/a SPRINT ) PCS GROUP, and SPRINTCOM, INC., ) d/b/a SPRINT PCS GROUP, ) Honorable ) Nicholas G. Byron, Defendants-Appellants. ) Judge, presiding. ________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff, Jessica Hall, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed suit against defendants, Sprint Spectrum L.P., doing business as Sprint PCS Group, and SprintCom, Inc., doing business as Sprint PCS Group. The parties stipulated to a protective order entered by the circuit court of Madison County. Pursuant to a motion by plaintiff, the circuit court later modified the protective order. On appeal, defendants raise issues regarding whether the trial court erred in modifying the protective order. We affirm and remand. FACTS Plaintiff filed suit alleging the abuse of an "Early Termination Fee" (ETF). The ETF was a part of a contract to provide cellular phone service. Under the terms of the contract, a customer is obligated to pay the ETF if he or she chooses to end the contract before the expiration of an agreed period of service. Defendants contend that the ETF is a valid part of a term rate plan. Plaintiff contends that the ETF operates as an unlawful penalty to 1

disposition of the same.

prevent cancellation. Plaintiff won class certification and thereafter sought voluminous discovery. Defendants contended that plaintiff sought the discovery of proprietary documents reflecting revenues, pricing information, systems, and business strategy. The parties entered into a stipulated protective order under which either party could label documents as "Confidential" or "Attorneys [sic] Eyes Only." The protective order limited access to the documents according to how they were labeled and provided that the labeled documents were to be used solely for the lawsuit. In a separate lawsuit, a South Carolina state court directed a different telecommunications provider to file a petition before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seeking a declaratory ruling on whether a fee is a "rate charged" under the Federal Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.

Download Hall v. Sprint Spectrum L.P..pdf