Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D. Md.: Discovery will continue in prison phone service antitrust suit, (Jun 17, 2025)

Martin A. Steinberg, J.D.

Three telephone service providers allegedly conspired to enforce a scheme to fix prices and pay unlawful kickbacks in the inmate telephone services market, in violation of the Sherman Act and RICO.

The federal court in Greenbelt, Maryland, partially granted Securus Technologies’ second bid to halt discovery in a putative nationwide class action alleging that major prison—telecom providers fixed prices and paid kickbacks in violation of the Sherman Act and RICO. The court held that Securus had not demonstrated the “particular and specific” good cause required for a blanket stay, as its arguments rested on speculative outcomes and overlooked the extensive discovery already completed and scheduled. Balancing the risk of wasted effort against the significant prejudice to the Plaintiffs and judicial efficiency, the court ordered discovery to continue. It compelled Securus to produce within seven days the 100-employee biographies previously agreed upon. The court granted a temporary pause for discovery of search-term negotiations governing the production of electronic communications and certain third-party subpoenas, stating that it will schedule a conference to resolve these disputes (Albert v. Global Tel*Link Corp., No. 8:20-cv-01936-LKG (D. Md. Jun. 13, 2025)).

Background. Plaintiffs Ashley Albert, Ashley Baxter, Karina Jakeway, and Melinda Jabbie initially brought this action against Global Tel*Link Corp. (GTL), Securus, and 3Cinteractive Corp. (3CI) on behalf of themselves, a nationwide class, and three nationwide subclasses on June 29, 2020. They alleged that, beginning in 2012, Defendants entered into agreements to allocate geographic markets, fix rates, and utilize correctional facility contracts to enforce a scheme to fix prices and pay unlawful kickbacks in the inmate-telephone-services market, in violation of the Sherman Act and RICO. Plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of a nationwide class of incarcerated callers and their families, and they assert both antitrust and racketeering claims.

On September 30, 2021, the court granted-in-part and denied-in-part a motion to dismiss and dismissed the RICO claims. On May 25, 2023, the Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal of the RICO claims, finding that they had sufficiently pled the proximate cause element of these claims. On February 23, 2024, Plaintiffs Melinda Jabbie and Karina Jakeway voluntarily dismissed their claims against all Defendants without prejudice.

Shortly after remand, Securus moved to compel arbitration of claims brought by four named plaintiffs whose contracts contained arbitration clauses. On March 27, 2025, the court granted the motion in part, compelling arbitration for the four named Plaintiffs but leaving open the claims of the remaining statewide subclasses. The court stayed Albert’s and Baxter’s claims against Securus, pending the completion of the parties’ arbitration proceedings. The court noted that the order could potentially affect the scope of discovery in the future, given that it leaves one of the sub-classes without a named representative.

On June 11, the court denied Securus’s motion to dismiss, substantially undercutting many of the arguments Securus had relied upon in its second request to stay all discovery. The court found that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a Sherman Act claim and RICO claims against Securus. The court explicitly rejected the argument that the Plaintiffs, who only purchased GTL products, were unable to pursue their RICO conspiracy claims against Securus.

Discovery stay. Concurrent with the motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss, Securus sought a complete discovery stay, arguing that further proceedings would be wasted if its threshold motions succeeded. The court, applying the good cause standard under Rule—26(c), weighed (1) Securus’s likelihood of success on its dismissal and arbitration motions, (2) the risk of wasteful expense, (3) potential prejudice to Plaintiffs from delay, and (4) the manageability of discovery. Finding that Securus’s legal challenges, while colorable, do not present a high probability of entirely disposing of the case, that substantial discovery had already proceeded, and that a blanket stay would unfairly prejudice Plaintiffs, the court grants only a limited stay. It pauses discovery on the narrow, actively disputed categories (electronic communications searches and certain third-party subpoenas), requires the prompt production of 100 agreed-upon employee “biographies,” and directs the parties to meet and confer on remaining scope issues under the existing schedule.

Good cause. After evaluating whether Securus has shown “good cause” under Rule 26(c) to justify pausing discovery, the court concluded that a complete stay is unwarranted. Instead, it granted only a limited stay affecting two narrowly defined discovery categories and allows all other discovery efforts to continue. Securus asked to halt all discovery, mainly based on the mistaken belief that the court would grant their Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, in turn, ask that the Court permit discovery to proceed just as it would have before the court granted Securus’s Motion to Compel Arbitration because they have sought leave to add new Named Plaintiffs not subject to Securus’s arbitration arguments. As the court had not granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend and had denied Securus’s Motion to Dismiss, the court only partially granted Securus’s Motion to Stay.

Securus’s arguments were further undercut by the resources the court and the parties have committed to discovery. Since the case was referred for discovery, the parties and the court have devoted six separate, multiple-hour conferences to resolving the discovery disputes, addressing, on multiple occasions, two of the three remaining issues. Regarding the first issue, the scope of electronic communications, the court has issued numerous orders and established a detailed schedule for exchanging search terms and hit reports, as well as participation in meet-and-confers, to resolve the issue.

Regarding the second issue, the 100 biographies, the court, after hearing arguments from both parties, had already determined that production is appropriate, and Securus has already gathered the information to be produced. Accordingly, the parties and the court have already devoted much of the resources that Securus argued would be saved if discovery had been stayed. Finally, arguments regarding the burden of discovery are generally not a basis to pause all discovery.

Complete stay. While Securus’s request that the court limit discovery until the pleadings are set is somewhat more persuasive, it does not justify a complete stay of all discovery. To issue a stay, the court must be satisfied that a pressing need exists and that the need for a stay outweighs any possible harm to the nonmovant. Several courts have cautioned against staying discovery, noting that motions to stay discovery are not favored because when discovery is delayed or prolonged, it can create case management problems, which impede the court’s responsibility to expedite discovery and cause unnecessary litigation expenses and difficulties.

Even if Securus had established good cause for staying all discovery in the case, any such reason would be outweighed by the Plaintiffs’ and the court’s interest in the prompt resolution of the case. As the court explained, given the long-running nature of the case, it was in the parties’, as well as the court’s, interest to resolve the discovery disputes between the parties as soon as practically possible. Significant time has already been devoted to resolving the discovery disputes. These efforts would be put to waste were Securus now excused from participating in all discovery. This is particularly the case regarding the categories of discovery which the court has already taken the time to resolve, such as the 100 biographies, and the categories of information that the parties have already, under the court’s orders, begun work towards resolving, such as the scope of electronic communications Securus must produce.

Recognizing the competing interests, the court ordered Securus to produce, within seven days, the biographies that the court had previously ordered and that Securus had agreed to provide. Regarding the two remaining categories, electronic communications and third-party subpoenas, the court will schedule an additional discovery conference to determine what, if any, portions of the discovery sought are relevant and not unduly burdensome under the current Complaint.

The Case is No. 8:20-cv-01936-LKG.

Judge: Quereshi, A.

Companies: Global Tel*Link Corp., Securus Technologies LLC, and 3Cinteractive Corp.

Cases: Antitrust RICO MarylandNews