LSSI Data Corp. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72122
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- LSSi seeks a preliminary injunction under 47 U.S.C. §§ 202(a), 251(b)(3), 406 to obtain nondiscriminatory access to Time Warner Cable’s directory assistance data; the court denies the motion.
- FCC orders (2001 and 2005) recognize three categories entitled to access: CLEC, agent of a CLEC, and competing call-competition providers; the issue is whether LSSi fits these categories.
- LSSi is a data aggregator/seller asserting entitlement based on those categories; TWC argues LSSi is not a competing LEC, agency, or call-completer under §251(b)(3).
- TWC migrated to a Go-It-Alone model, outsourcing data processing and DA functions to Targus, Neustar, and KGB; evidence shows LSSi’s claimed agency and call-completion roles lack sufficient documentation and corroboration.
- Court conducts expedited discovery, scrutinizes LSSi’s evidence (including internal letters and 30(b)(6) testimony), finds substantial inconsistencies and insufficient proof of LSSi’s status under §251(b)(3).
- Court concludes LSSi has not shown entitlement under §251(b)(3) or discriminatory access under §202(a); irreparable harm not shown; injunction denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LSSi is a competing LEC under §251(b)(3) | LSSi argues it is an LEC certified in states and thus a competing provider. | TWC claims LSSi is not actually providing exchange service in the states and lacks CLEC status. | No clear entitlement; LSSi not shown to be a competing LEC in any state. |
| Whether LSSi is an agent providing DA services for a competing LEC | LSSi asserts agency relationships with AT&T, Frontier, etc., making it a DA agent entitled to access. | Evidence insufficient to prove agency; letters ambiguous; Volt/LSSi relationship unclear. | Agency evidence insufficient; LSSi fails to prove qualifying agency under FCC rules. |
| Whether LSSi is a competing provider of call completion services | LSSi claims it provides call completion nationwide. | FCC requires explicit call-completion service with separate charge and own facilities or resale; evidence lacking. | Not proven; no demonstrable separate charge or clear completion through LSSi’s own facilities. |
| Whether LSSi shows non-discriminatory access or §202(a) discrimination | As a §251(b)(3) entrant, LSSi should receive nondiscriminatory access; §202(a) prohibits discrimination against like services. | TWC's access to data via Targus on equal terms defeats discrimination claims; no like-service comparison shown. | No discrimination; non-discriminatory access not established; §202(a) claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunction standard; four-factor test; public-interest considerations)
- Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010) (irreparable harm as an important prerequisite for a preliminary injunction)
- Faiveley Transp. Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp., 559 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009) (irreparable harm is the single most important prerequisite for a preliminary injunction)
- Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., 598 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2010) (injunction standards and effect of status quo in relief determinations)