Prison Phone Justice

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103 Filed 09/08/15 Page 1 of 20 PageID: 894

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

BOBBIE JAMES, et al.,

13 Civ. 4989 (WJM) (MF)
Plaintiffs,

vs.
GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION,
INMATE TELEPHONE SERVICE and
DSI-ITI LLC,
Defendants.

DEFENDANTS GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION AND DSI-ITI
LLC’S REPLY BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL
ARBITRATION ACT AND TO STAY THIS MATTER PENDING
CONCLUSION OF THE INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATIONS

Philip R. Sellinger, Esq.
Aaron Van Nostrand, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
200 Park Avenue
Florham Park, New Jersey 07932
Ph: (973) 360-7900
Attorneys for Defendants
Global Tel*Link Corporation and
DSI-ITI LLC

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103 Filed 09/08/15 Page 2 of 20 PageID: 895

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................... 1
ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................3
I.

II.

Plaintiffs’ Lack-Of-Assent Argument is Unsupported.................................. 3
A.

Plaintiffs Effectively Concede That Crystal Gibson Agreed
To Arbitration When Opening Her Account Online ................. 3

B.

The IVR Notice Fully Informed Plaintiffs That Their
Accounts Were Governed by the TOU, How the TOU
Could be Accessed, and That the TOU Had Been
Amended .....................................................................................4

Plaintiffs’ Duress Argument Should Be Rejected........................................ 8

III. Plaintiffs’ Waiver Argument is Baseless ..................................................... 9
A.

GTL’s Motion Was Timely ......................................................10

B.

There Has Been No Litigation of the Merits ............................11

C.

GTL Informed Plaintiffs of Its Intent to Seek Arbitration in
its Amended Answer .................................................................12

D.

GTL’s Engagement in Non-Merits Litigation Activity and
Discovery Does Not Support Waiver .......................................12

IV. Plaintiffs’ Request to Strike Certain Paragraphs of the Baker Declaration
Should be Rejected ....................................................................................13
V. The Claims of the Other Plaintiffs Should be Stayed .................................15
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................15

i

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103 Filed 09/08/15 Page 3 of 20 PageID: 896

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion.,
563 U.S. 333 (2011) ..............................................................................................6
Baker v. Conoco Pipeline Co.,
280 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (N.D. Okla. 2003)............................................................13
Coiro v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.,
2012 WL 628514 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2012) ............................................................. 7
Cole v. Jersey City Med. Ctr.,
215 N.J. 265 (2013) ............................................................................................12
Cont’l Bank of Pa. v. Barclay Riding Acad.,
93 N.J. 153 (1983) ................................................................................................9
Gray Holdco, Inc. v. Cassady,
654 F.3d 444 (3d Cir. 2011) ...............................................................................10
Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C.,
74 F. Supp. 3d 699 (D.N.J. 2014) ......................................................................... 6
Holdbrook Pediatric Dental, LLC v. Pro Computer Service, LLC,
2015 WL 4476017 (D.N.J. July 21, 2015) ........................................................... 7
Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co.,
980 F.2d 912 (3d Cir. 1992) ...............................................................................10
J & D Textile, Inc. v. Gabo Indus., LLC,
2013 WL 6763016 (App. Div. Dec. 24, 2013) ..................................................... 9
Jayasundera v. Macy’s Logistics & Ops.,
2015 WL 4623508 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2015) ............................................................ 5
Kocjancic v. Bayview Asset Mgmt., LLC,
2014 WL 5786900 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2014) ......................................................... 8
Maxum Founds., Inc. v. Salus Corp.,
779 F.2d 974 (4th Cir. 1985) ...............................................................................13
ii

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103 Filed 09/08/15 Page 4 of 20 PageID: 897

Mendex v. Puerto Rican Int’l Cos,
553 F.3d 709 (3d Cir. 2009) ...............................................................................15
Newark Bay, P’ship, LP v. ETS Powre Grp.,
2012 WL 4504475 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2012) .......................................................... 5
Nino v. Jewelry Exch., Inc.,
609 F.3d 191k, 208 (3d Cir. 2010) .....................................................................10
Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson,
561 U.S. 63, 70 (2010).......................................................................................... 8
Rota-McLarty v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.,
700 F.3d 690 (4th Cir. 2012) ...............................................................................13
Sacchi v. Verizon Online LLC,
252015 WL 765940 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2015) .................................................... 6
Schwartz v. Comcast Corp.,
256 Fed Appx. 515 (3d Cir. 2007) ....................................................................4, 5

iii

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103 Filed 09/08/15 Page 5 of 20 PageID: 898

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
GTL demonstrated that five of the seven Plaintiffs in this case agreed to
Terms of Use (“TOU”) containing a mandatory arbitration provision. One of the
Plaintiffs signed up online for an Advance Pay account, and clicked a box
expressly agreeing to the TOU. The other four Plaintiffs used GTL’s IVR system
multiple times to set up or access their Advance Pay accounts and ach time were
notified of the TOU and that it governed their transactions. Plaintiffs do not
dispute these facts, nor do they dispute that the TOU requires arbitration and
covers their claims.
Unable to dispute these points, Plaintiffs make four arguments, each of
which fails. First, the four Plaintiffs who signed up for or used an Advance Pay
account through GTL’s IVR system (Bobbie James, Barbara Skaladny, Milan
Skaladny, Betty King) argue that they never “explicitly” assented to the TOU
because they signed up over the telephone. 1 Plaintiffs do not deny that GTL’s IVR
system notified them repeatedly that their transactions were governed by the TOU
and that the TOU were available on GTL’s website at www.offenderconnect.com.
Upon hearing this notice, Plaintiffs could have accessed the TOU before
completing their transactions or could have completed their transactions, reviewed
the TOU and then opted out of arbitration. Plaintiffs did neither, and their apparent
1

This argument is a tacit admission that Crystal Gibson, who signed up for her
account on GTL’s website, did assent to the TOU and the arbitration provision.

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103 Filed 09/08/15 Page 6 of 20 PageID: 899

failure to read the TOU is no defense to arbitration.
Second, Plaintiffs claim that they assented to the TOU under “duress”
because they allegedly had no choice but to accept the TOU so they could
communicate with inmates. However, Plaintiffs seriously misstate the nature of an
Advance Pay account, which is simply one way to pay for calls from inmates and
is not required to have contact with inmates. Plaintiffs could have communicated
with inmates by letter or in person, with no involvement from GTL. Or Plaintiffs
may have been able to accept collect calls from inmates billed through a local
exchange carrier or could have funded the inmates’ commissary accounts at the
prisons, which would have allowed the inmates to call direct, all without an
Advance Pay account or the TOU. Plaintiffs elected to set up an Advance Pay
account and were under no duress when they chose to do so.
Third, Plaintiffs attack GTL’s motive and timing in bringing this Motion,
arguing on the one hand that GTL is seeking to stall the litigation, while at the
same time arguing that GTL litigated the case so far and so quickly that it has
waived the right to seek arbitration. As shown, however, GTL sought leave to file
this Motion just twelve days after receiving the information needed to determine
whether and how Plaintiffs signed up for Advance Pay accounts and agreed to the
TOU. Plaintiffs’ delay in providing this information directly resulted in the timing
of the Motion, and as such, they cannot claim that GTL has waived arbitration.

2

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103 Filed 09/08/15 Page 7 of 20 PageID: 900

Fourth, Plaintiffs argue that certain paragraphs in the Baker declaration
should be stricken because GTL did not produce the entire IVR script. That
argument should be rejected, as discovery is still open, the entire IVR script is
being provided with this Reply, and the IVR script confirms what is in the Baker
declaration. Moreover, Plaintiffs do not dispute that GTL’s IVR provided notice
of the TOU. Instead, they have filed carefully crafted declarations stating that they
never heard a notice that references “arbitration.” But that assertion is a
distraction, as GTL has never contended that the IVR notice referenced arbitration.
The notice, which Plaintiffs received dozens of times, notifies them of the TOU
and that it will govern the account and the transactions. By proceeding with the
transactions, Plaintiffs agreed to the TOU, including the arbitration provision.
ARGUMENT
I.

Plaintiffs’ Lack-Of-Assent Argument Is Unsupported.
A.

Plaintiffs Effectively Concede That Crystal Gibson Agreed To
Arbitration When Opening Her Account Online.

Gibson admits that when she opened an Advance Pay account through
GTL’s website, she clicked the box to “accept” the TOU. Gibson Decl., ¶ 7. The
Opposition does not dispute that Gibson’s registration response constitutes a valid
acceptance of the TOU. 2 Plaintiffs also do not dispute that Gibson’s claims are
Although Gibson states in her declaration that her acceptance of the TOU in
2014 should not require her to arbitrate her claims because the lawsuit was filed in

2

3

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103 Filed 09/08/15 Page 8 of 20 PageID: 901

covered by the arbitration provision. Accordingly, at a minimum, Gibson must be
compelled to arbitrate her claims on an individual basis, as Plaintiffs do not contest
the enforceability of the class action waiver in the TOU.
B.

The IVR Notice Fully Informed Plaintiffs That Their Accounts Were
Governed by the TOU, How the TOU Could be Accessed, and That
the TOU Had Been Amended.

Each of Plaintiffs’ arguments in support of their contention that they did not
agree to the TOU by creating or depositing funds in an Advance Pay account using
GTL’s IVR system should be rejected.
First, the Opposition asserts that these Plaintiffs “are not bound by GTL’s
arbitration clause because it was not available to them” since the IVR notice was
on the phone and the TOU were on GTL’s website. Opp. Br. at 12. The notice on
the IVR system, however, specifically stated that Plaintiffs’ account and
transactions were governed by the TOU, directed Plaintiffs to the website to view
the TOU, provided the URL address for the website, and stated that the TOU were
amended as of July 3, 2013. Baker Decl., ¶ 2. Plaintiffs do not deny receiving this
notice. They simply claim that they do not recall it and apparently did not view the
TOU after being directed to it, which does not excuse them from the arbitration
provision. Schwartz v. Comcast Corp., 256 Fed Appx. 515 (3d Cir. 2007)
(enforcing arbitration provision that plaintiff did not read); Newark Bay Cogen.
August 2013, Plaintiffs do not make that argument in their brief or cite any
authority for that contention.
4

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103 Filed 09/08/15 Page 9 of 20 PageID: 902

P'ship, LP v. ETS Power Grp., 2012 WL 4504475, at *10 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2012)
(“failure to read or review the T & C does not render them invalid”).
Next, Plaintiffs assert that “[n]o reasonable consumer” would interrupt a
phone call to view the TOU on the website. Opp. Br. at 12. But that is not the
standard. As Plaintiffs concede, all that is necessary is that “the party to be bound
must have had reasonable notice of and manifested assent to the additional terms.”
Opp. Br. at 13. The IVR system provided the URL for the TOU and that Plaintiffs’
transactions and account were governed by the TOU. Schwartz, 256 F. App'x at
518 (finding the evidence showed that plaintiff “was aware that the services he
accepted were being offered pursuant to a subscription agreement” and holding
that plaintiff’s denial “that he received a copy of his subscription agreement . . . is
not sufficient to create a material dispute of fact”); Newark Bay, 2012 WL
4504475, at *10 (because plaintiff was aware of the T&C, “despite the fact that
[defendant] never provided their T & C to [plaintiff], [plaintiff] was bound to the
terms contained in the March 30, 2007 proposal once he manifested assent”). By
completing the transaction, Plaintiffs agreed to the TOU, including arbitration.
Schwartz, 256 F. App'x at 518 (“Whether or not [plaintiff] received a copy of the
subscription agreement, he could not accept services he knew were being tendered
on the basis of a subscription agreement without becoming bound by that
agreement.”); Jayasundera v. Macy's Logistics & Ops., 2015 WL 4623508, at *4

5

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103 Filed 09/08/15 Page 10 of 20 PageID: 903

(D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2015) (“Failure to opt out of an arbitration program after receiving
notice is sufficient conduct to signify acceptance.”).
Plaintiffs’ reliance on Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., 74
F. Supp. 3d 699 (D.N.J. 2014) (Opp. Br. at 12), is misplaced because the issue in
Guidotti was whether a second document that was not provided or available to
plaintiff at the time she signed the parties’ agreement was “incorporated by
reference.” Id. at 710. 3 Here, the issue is whether Plaintiffs had reasonable notice
of the TOU, which they plainly did. Baker Decl., ¶ 8-10. The IVR system directed
Plaintiffs to the TOU, which were available on GTL’s website, stating that they
governed the parties’ transactions. Baker Decl., ¶ 2. Courts have had no difficulty
enforcing TOUs agreed to under similar circumstances. See, e.g., Sacchi v.
Verizon Online LLC, 2015 WL 765940, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2015) (enforcing
online arbitration agreement under NJ law and holding “[w]hether or not
amendments posted to Verizon's website provided sufficient notice to Plaintiff, the
fact remains that Plaintiff subsequently received other forms of notice that
adequately informed him of the amendments and that clearly provided that
continued use of Verizon's services would be deemed acceptance,” citing
additional authority).
Guidotti is on appeal, one of the issues being whether the court relied on a state
law rule that is inconsistent with the decision in AT & T Mobility LLC v.
Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011). Guidotti, 74 F. Supp. 3d at 712.

3

6

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103 Filed 09/08/15 Page 11 of 20 PageID: 904

Holdbrook Pediatric Dental, LLC v. Pro Computer Service, LLC, 2015 WL
4476017 (D.N.J. July 21, 2015), does not support Plaintiffs’ position. In
Holdbrook, a hyperlink to the defendant’s terms was included in a broader
agreement, and the plaintiff was not advised that signing the broader agreement
constituted agreement to the terms. Here, by contrast, the TOU were not
referenced in a broader agreement. Rather, Plaintiffs were specifically advised that
their “account, and any transactions [they] complete, with GTL [or] DSI-ITI, are
governed by the terms of use,” and Plaintiffs were directed to the website where
they could access the TOU.
Plaintiffs’ attempt to distinguish Coiro v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 2012 WL
628514 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2012), on the basis that nothing “ put them on notice that
they were agreeing to give up their right to sue in court by using GTL’s services,
required them to affirmatively indicate their agreement or, if they did not agree,
advise them they should close their accounts.” Opp. Br. at 15. That statement is
simply wrong. The TOU clearly advised that (i) “absent this mandatory
[arbitration] provision, they would have the right to sue in court and have a
jury trial” (emphasis in original); (ii) “[b]y using the Service, . . . you agree to be
bound by the terms of these Terms of Use”; and (iii) “[i]f you create an account to
use the Service other than through the Site, and if you do not agree with or consent
to the terms of these Terms of Use, you will have thirty (30) days from the date

7

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103 Filed 09/08/15 Page 12 of 20 PageID: 905

you create the account with us to cancel the account.” Baker Decl., ¶ 4 & Ex. A ¶
R. In addition, the TOU give Plaintiffs 30 days to opt-out of arbitration.
II.

Plaintiffs’ Duress Argument Should Be Rejected.
Plaintiffs are mistaken that “[q]uestions of arbitrability, including the

validity of an arbitration agreement, are questions for judicial determination.”
Opp. Br. at 10. Plaintiffs ignore that “parties can agree to arbitrate ‘gateway’
questions of ‘arbitrability,’ such as whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate.”
Rent–A–Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 70 (2010); see also Kocjancic
v. Bayview Asset Mgmt., LLC, 2014 WL 5786900, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2014).
That is precisely what occurred here, with the parties agreeing to delegate all
questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator:
The arbitrator, and not any federal, state or local court or agency, shall
have exclusive authority to resolve all disputes arising out of or
relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation
of these Terms of Use, including, but not limited to any claim that all
or any part of these Terms of Use is void or voidable.
Baker Decl., ¶ 4 & Ex. A ¶ R(1). Because Plaintiffs have not challenged this
delegation clause, the Court should refer Plaintiffs’ duress argument to arbitration.
With regard to Plaintiffs’ baseless argument for duress, the case law is clear:
“[A] party alleging economic duress must show that he or she has been the victim
of a wrongful or unlawful act or threat, and the act or threat must be one which
deprives the victim of his unfettered will.” J & D Textile, Inc. v. Gabo Indus.,

8

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103 Filed 09/08/15 Page 13 of 20 PageID: 906

LLC, 2013 WL 6763016, at *5 (App. Div. Dec. 24, 2013) (citing Cont'l Bank of
Pa. v. Barclay Riding Acad., 93 N.J. 153, 176 (1983)). “‘Where there is adequacy
of consideration, there is generally no duress.... Merely taking advantage of
another's financial difficulty is not duress. Rather, the person alleging financial
difficulty must allege that it was contributed to or caused by the one accused of
coercion.’” Barclay, 93 N.J. at 177 (quoting 13 Williston on Contracts § 1607 (3d
ed. 1970)).
Plaintiffs cannot meet that standard here. First, there was adequate
consideration for the TOU. GTL provided its Advance Pay services, which it
would not have done without Plaintiffs’ agreement to the TOU. Second, Plaintiffs
point to no threats or coercion by GTL forcing them to agree to the TOU or
arbitration. To the contrary, GTL provided an opportunity to opt-out of arbitration.
Third, Plaintiffs were not deprived of their “unfettered will.” They could choose to
open or use an Advance Pay account or not. Plaintiffs could have communicated
in person or by letter, had the option of accepting collect calls billed through a
Local Exchange Carrier or could have funded an inmate’s commissary account,
allowing him to call directly (Macdonald Decl., ¶ 2), as Plaintiff Mark Skladany
apparently did. Mark Skladany Decl., ¶ 3-4.
III.

Plaintiffs’ Waiver Argument is Baseless.
Waiver is appropriate only “when the party opposing the arbitration

9

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103 Filed 09/08/15 Page 14 of 20 PageID: 907

demonstrates sufficient prejudice arising from the delay of the party seeking
arbitration in making its demand.” Gray Holdco, Inc. v. Cassady, 654 F.3d 444,
451 (3d Cir. 2011). Moreover, as the Third Circuit has held, “waiver will normally
be found only where the demand for arbitration came long after the suit
commenced and when both parties had engaged in extensive discovery.” Nino v.
Jewelry Exch., Inc., 609 F.3d 191, 208 (3d Cir. 2010). Here, the record
demonstrates that GTL’s Motion was timely and that there has been no waiver.
Plaintiffs’ agreements to arbitrate were not evident on the face of the complaint.
As a result, GTL was required to litigate this case up to the point when Plaintiffs
finally provided the account information needed to determine whether and when
they signed up for an Advance Pay account and agreed to the TOU. Twelve days
after receiving that information, GTL sought leave to move to compel arbitration,
as required by Court practice. There was no delay. Furthermore, with regard to
prejudice, Plaintiffs make the conclusory assertion that they would have litigated
differently had they known sooner that GTL intended to move to compel
arbitration, providing no concrete examples. None the factors in Hoxworth v.
Blinder, Robinson & Co., 980 F.2d 912, 926-27 (3d Cir. 1992), support waiver,
and Plaintiffs’ attempt to avoid their agreement to arbitrate should be rejected.
A.

GTL’s Motion Was Timely.

GTL sought leave to move to compel arbitration as soon as it received

10

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103 Filed 09/08/15 Page 15 of 20 PageID: 908

information that at least five of the seven Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate their claims.
Plaintiffs served discovery responses (albeit incomplete and uncertified) for 4 of
the 7 Plaintiffs on April 24, 2015, and GTL sought leave to file its motion to
compel arbitration less than two weeks later, on May 6, 2015. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs’ contention that there was a 23-month delay (Opp. Br. at 22) is ludicrous,
and the cases cited by Plaintiffs are inapposite.
Plaintiffs also criticize GTL for not serving discovery earlier in the case.
Opp. Br. at 22. That contention fails to acknowledge that the first 13 months of the
case were spent on GTL’s initial motion arguing that the case should be dismissed
or stayed because the Federal Communication Commission has primary
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims. The Court agreed with GTL, and stayed the
case. It was not until October 23, 2014, when Plaintiffs dismissed their Federal
Communication Act claims that the stay was lifted. The Court issued its
scheduling order on February 17, 2015, setting deadlines for the parties to serve
discovery, and GTL served its discovery requests 3 days later – on the deadline set
by the Court – seeking the information needed to identify Plaintiffs’ accounts.
B.

There Has Been No Litigation of the Merits.

Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, there has not been extensive litigation of
the merits. Opp. Br. at 23. GTL’s primary jurisdiction motion was directed at
which branch – the judiciary or the FCC – should determine the merits of

11

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103 Filed 09/08/15 Page 16 of 20 PageID: 909

Plaintiffs’ claims in the first instance. That motion did not address the merits of
Plaintiffs’ claims. GTL also argued on its initial motion that Plaintiffs had not
adequately pled their claims, but that aspect of the motion was denied without
analysis. Similarly, the Court deferred GTL’s request to file an additional motion
for judgment on the pleadings.
C.

GTL Informed Plaintiffs of Its Intent to Seek Arbitration in its
Amended Answer.

GTL filed an Amended Answer on March 9, 2015, asserting that certain
Plaintiffs or putative class members agreed to arbitrate their claims. Plaintiffs were
aware two months before GTL sought leave to move to compel arbitration that
GTL intended to pursuant arbitration. Cole v. Jersey City Med. Ctr., 215 N.J. 265
(2013), does not, as Plaintiffs contend, hold that assertion of arbitration as an
affirmative defense in an answer is “insufficient” to preserve that defense; rather, it
held the opposite: that “failure to list arbitration as an affirmative defense is not
dispositive.” Id. at 281 (emphasis added). Here, GTL listed arbitration as an
affirmative defense in its Amended Answer.
D.

GTL’s Engagement in Non-Merits Litigation Activity and Discovery
Does Not Support Waiver.

Aside from its initial primary jurisdiction motion and the request to bifurcate
discovery, Plaintiffs have instigated all non-merits motion practice in this case and
virtually all of those motions were presented after May 6, 2015, when GTL sought

12

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103 Filed 09/08/15 Page 17 of 20 PageID: 910

leave to file this Motion to Compel Arbitration. D.E. 69, 82, 87, 96. GTL should
not be prejudiced by having to respond to Plaintiffs’ repeated informal discovery
letters (all of which have been rejected). See Baker v. Conoco Pipeline Co., 280 F.
Supp. 2d 1285, 1300 (N.D. Okla. 2003) (participation in litigation after filing of
motion to compel arbitration and “[c]ompliance with court-imposed deadlines does
not support a waiver”); Maxum Founds., Inc. v. Salus Corp., 779 F.2d 974, 982
(4th Cir. 1985) (“We decline to create a rule that would require a party seeking
arbitration to avoid a finding of default by ignoring court-ordered discovery
deadlines and assuming the risk that its motion under the Federal Arbitration Act
will be unsuccessful.”). In addition, GTL’s proposal of a discovery plan, which it
needed to determine whether Plaintiffs had agreed to arbitrate, and seeking
bifurcation of discovery are not sufficient to find waiver. Rota-McLarty v.
Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 700 F.3d 690, 704 (4th Cir. 2012) (bifurcated
discovery plan, among other activity, did not demonstrate waiver). Finally, as
Plaintiffs concede, discovery in this case has not been extensive, and the discovery
produced in this case would be available for use in the arbitrations. Id. at 704
(plaintiff not prejudiced by discovery because she failed to show that it would be
“unavailable in arbitration”).
IV.

Plaintiffs’ Request to Strike Certain Paragraphs of the Baker
Declaration Should be Rejected.
Plaintiffs’ demand to strike the references in the Baker Declaration to the
13

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103 Filed 09/08/15 Page 18 of 20 PageID: 911

July 2013 IVR notice is unprecedented and unwarranted. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ cite
no case striking evidence on a motion made prior to the conclusion of discovery.
Plaintiffs’ reliance on Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) is misplaced because that only
applies when there has been a violation for Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) or (e). There has
been no such violation here. Fact discovery is still open, and GTL has until
September 11, 2015, to supplement its responses to Plaintiffs’ document requests.
D.E. 102. Nevertheless, the IVR script referenced in the Baker Declaration is
submitted as Exhibit D to the Reply Baker Declaration filed herewith.
Even if that rule does apply, the factors cited by Plaintiffs (Opp. Br. at 4) do
not support striking Paragraph 2 of the Baker Declaration. There is no “prejudice
or surprise,” as Plaintiffs who used GTL’s IVR do not dispute they heard the notice
about the TOU on multiple occasions, which informed them of the TOU and
notified them that it will govern the account and the parties’ transactions. Instead,
Plaintiffs have filed carefully crafted declarations stating that they never heard a
notice that references “arbitration.” 4 But that assertion is irrelevant, as GTL has
never contended that the IVR notice referenced arbitration. Any contrived
argument that GTL has engaged in an “ongoing plan to keep evidence away from
4

King Decl., ¶ 5-6 (“No arbitration clause was referenced . . . in the recorded
messages on the Defendants’ system. . . . I have used the Defendants' phone system
after July 3, 2013, but was never informed of an arbitration clause nor was there
any voice prompt telling me that new terms of service applied to my use of the
system and that I was somehow agreeing to arbitration if I used the phone
system.”); James Decl., ¶ 6-7 (same); Barbara Skladany Decl., ¶ 6-7 (same).
14

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103 Filed 09/08/15 Page 19 of 20 PageID: 912

Plaintiffs” (Opp. Br. at 6) is a distraction and an attempt to seek a denial of the
Motion for perceived discovery issues as opposed its merits. 5
V.

The Claims of the Other Plaintiffs Should be Stayed.
Finally, Plaintiffs present no basis for the Court to move forward with the

claims of Plaintiffs Mark Skladany and John Crow while individual arbitrations
proceed as to the other five Plaintiffs. The issues relevant to all seven Plaintiffs’
claims not only are overlapping; they are identical. Mendez v. Puerto Rican Int’l
Cos, 553 F.3d 709 (3d Cir. 2009), does not compel a different result and indeed
recognizes that a District Court has discretion to stay. Id. at 713 (affirming stay
even though 41 of 49 plaintiffs did not agree to arbitrate).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, above, GTL respectfully requests this court
grant this motion to compel arbitration and stay this matter pending the completion
of the individual arbitrations.

5

Plaintiffs also object to Baker stating in his declaration that certain Plaintiffs
agreed to arbitrate, contending that those statements are “legal conclusions and/or
argument.” Opp. Br. at 7. That contention is baseless and hypocritical. It is Mr.
Baker’s view, based on his review of GTL’s records, that Ms. James and Ms. King
“agreed” to GTL’s TOU when they used GTL’s IVR system, which is not a legal
conclusion, but is a conclusion based on his review of the evidence. Nevertheless,
Plaintiffs also state in their declarations that they did not agree to arbitrate. Gibson
Decl., ¶ 7-8; King Decl., ¶ 5-6; James Decl., ¶ 6-7; Barbara Skladany Decl., ¶ 6-7.
To the extent the Court strikes the references to an agreement to arbitrate in Mr.
Baker’s declaration, it likewise should strike them from Plaintiffs’ declarations.
15

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103 Filed 09/08/15 Page 20 of 20 PageID: 913

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Philip R. Sellinger
Philip R. Sellinger
Aaron Van Nostrand
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
200 Park Avenue
Florham Park, New Jersey 07932
Telephone: (973) 360-7900
Facsimile: (973) 301-8410
Attorneys for Defendants
Global Tel*Link Corporation and
DSI-ITI LLC
Dated: September 8, 2015

16

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103-1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 914

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103-1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 2 of 10 PageID: 915

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103-1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 3 of 10 PageID: 916

EXHIBIT
D

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103-1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 4 of 10 PageID: 917

Master Prompt list
AdvPay_1000Eng.wav:
We see that you are calling from…
AdvPay_1000Span.wav:
In Spanish: Vemos que nos está marcando desde…
AdvPay_1001Eng.wav:
If this is the number you are calling about, press 1. To enter a different number, press 2.
AdvPay_1001Span.wav:
In Spanish: Sí éste es el numero desde el cual nos está marcando, marque 1. Para ingresar otro numero,
marque 2.
AdvPay_1002Eng.wav:
Please enter the 10 digit telephone number you are calling about, starting with the area code.
AdvPay_1002Span.wav:
In Spanish: Ingrese el númerotelefónico a diez dígitos del que nos está marcando, empezando con la clave
lada.
AdvPay_1003Eng.wav:
I’m sorry that was an invalid entry. Please try again.
AdvPay_1003Span.wav:
In Spanish: Lo sentimos, el número que marcó no es valido, vuelva a ingresar el número.
AdvPay_1004Eng.wav:
Please listen as our menu options have changed. To create a new prepaid account or to make a credit card
deposit on your Advance Pay account, press one. To hear your account balance, press two. To hear deposit
instructions via western union or US Mail, press three. To repeat this menu, press nine. To exit, please hang
up now.
AdvPay_1004Span.wav:
In Spanish: Nuestromenú de opciones ha cambiado. Para crear una nueva cuenta de pre-pago o para hacer un
depósito con tarjeta de crédito a su cuenta “Advance Pay”, marque uno. Para escuchar el saldo de su cuenta,
marque dos. Para escuchar instrucciones de depósito por medio de Western Union o El Servicio Postal De
Estados Unidos, marque tres. Para repetir éste menú, marque nueve. Para salir, cuelgue ahora.
AdvPay_1005Eng.wav:
Sorry there is no Advanced Pay account for this telephone number. Pleasecheckthenumber and try again.
AdvPay_1005Span.wav:
In Spanish: Le pedimos una disculpa pero no se encontró una cuenta “Advanced Pay” de pago por
adelantadoregistrada a éste número. Revise el número y vuelva a intentar de nuevo.
AdvPay_1006Eng.wav:
You do not have sufficient funds in your Advance Pay account.
AdvPay_1006Span.wav:
In Spanish: No tiene suficientes fondos en su cuenta “Advanced Pay” de pago por adelantado.

inContact, Inc. 2010. All Rights Reserved.

1

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103-1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 5 of 10 PageID: 918

AdvPay_1007Eng.wav:
Your account balance is…
AdvPay_1007Span.wav:
In Spanish: El saldo de su cuenta es de…
AdvPay_1008Eng.wav:
…as of…
AdvPay_1008Span.wav:
In Spanish: …desde…
AdvPay_1009Eng.wav:
To make a credit card payment on your Prepaid account, please press one. To go to back to the main menu,
press two. Toexit, pleasehang up now.
AdvPay_1009Span.wav:
In Spanish: Para realizar un pago con su tarjeta de crédito a su cuenta de pre-pago, marque uno. Para
regresar al menú principal, marque dos. Para salir, cuelgue ahora.
AdvPay_1010Eng.wav:
Please have your Visa or Master Card ready. We accept deposits of $25 or $50. Your deposit may include a
transaction fee. Transaction fees and balances below $6 are non-refundable. Advance Pay balances that
remain unused may expire after 90 days. To make a deposit of $25, which may include a transaction fee,
please press one. To make a deposit of $50, which may include a transaction fee, please press two. To cancel
and return to the main menu, please press three.
AdvPay_1010Span.wav:
In Spanish: Por favor tenga su Visa o Master Card a la mano. Aceptamosdepósitos por $20 o $50 dólares. Su
depósito puede incluir una comisión por transacción. Comisiones por transacción y saldos menores a $6
dólares no son reembolsables. Saldos “Advanced Pay” de pago por adelantado que no sean utilizados
expiraran después de noventa días. Para realizar un depósito por la cantidad de $25dólares, la cual puede
incluir una comisión por transacción, marque uno. Para realizar un depósito por la cantidad de $50 dólares, la
cual puede incluir una comisión por transacción, marque dos. Para cancelar y regresar al menú principal,
marque tres.
AdvPay_1011Eng.wav:
To hear the applicable fee for this transaction, press one. To continue without hearing the applicable fee, press
two.
AdvPay_1011Span.wav:
In Spanish: Para escuchar la tarifa aplicable a esta transacción, marque uno. Para continuar sin escuchar la
tarifa aplicable, marque dos.
AdvPay_1012Eng.wav:
Please enter your 16 digit credit card number
AdvPay_1012Span.wav:
In Spanish: Ingrese su número de tarjeta a dieciséisnúmeros.

inContact, Inc. 2010. All Rights Reserved.

2

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103-1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 6 of 10 PageID: 919

AdvPay_1013Eng.wav:
Please enter your credit card expiration date by pressing two digits month followed by two digit year.
Forexample, iftheexpiration date is June 2014, press 0614.
AdvPay_1013Span.wav:
In Spanish: Por favor ingrese la fecha de vencimiento de su tarjeta de crédito marcando los dos dígitos del
mes seguido de los dos dígitos del año. Ejemplo, si su tarjeta vence en Junio del año dos mil catorce, marque
0614, cero seis catorce.
AdvPay_1014Eng.wav:
Please enter the 3 digit security code from your credit card. The code is located on the signature line on the
back of your credit card.
AdvPay_1014Span.wav:
In Spanish: Por favor ingrese el código de seguridad de tres dígitos de su tarjeta de crédito. El código se
encuentra en la parte de atrás de su tarjeta en la franja dónde lleva la firma su tarjeta.
AdvPay_1015Eng.wav:
Please enter the 5 digit zip code associated with the billing address of the credit card.
AdvPay_1015Span.wav:
In Spanish: Por favor ingrese el código postal a cinco dígitos de la dirección donde recibe mensualmente
su estado de cuenta.
AdvPay_1017Eng.wav:
You have chosen to make a $25 deposit. If this is correct, press 1. Tochooseanotherselection, press 2.
AdvPay_1017Span.wav:
In Spanish:Usteda elegido hacer un deposito por $25dólares. Si la cantidad es correcta, marque uno. Para
seleccionar otra opción, marque dos.
AdvPay_1018Eng.wav:
You have chosen to make a $50 deposit. If this is correct, press 1. Tochooseanotherselection, press 2.
AdvPay_1018Span.wav:
In Spanish: Usted a elegido hacer un deposito por $50dólares. Si la cantidad es correcta, marque uno. Para
seleccionar otra opción, marque dos.
AdvPay_1019Eng.wav:
Thank you. Please hold while we validate this transaction.
AdvPay_1019Span.wav:
In Spanish: Gracias. Por favor espere mientras validamos esta transacción.
AdvPay_1027Eng.wav:
To hear these instructions again, press one. To go back to the main menu, press two. Toexit, pleasehang up
now.
AdvPay_1027Span.wav:
In Spanish:Para volver a escuchar estas instrucciones, marque uno. Para regresar al menú principal, marque
dos. Para salir cuelgue ahora.

inContact, Inc. 2010. All Rights Reserved.

3

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103-1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 7 of 10 PageID: 920

AdvPay_1029Eng.wav:
You have entered…
AdvPay_1029Span.wav:
Usted ha ingresado…
AdvPay_1030Eng.wav:
If this is correct press 1.To try againpress 2.
AdvPay_1030Span.wav:
In Spanish: Si esto es correcto, marque uno. Para intentar de nuevo, marque dos.
AdvPay_1031Eng.wav:
Your payment is approved. Theamount of…
AdvPay_1031Span.wav:
In Spanish: Su pago ha sido aprobado. Por la cantidad de …
AdvPay_1032Eng.wav:
…will be charged to your credit card and appear as GTL INMATE TEL SVC. This amount minus any applicable
fees will be applied towards your Adv Pay account. Tired of paying fees and maintaining minimum balance
requirements on your checking account? Don’t have a checking account? Through our partnership with a
national provider, we now offer a prepaid debit card that can replace your checking account, your current
prepaid debit card and take the place of a credit card. Our card has no monthly maintenance fees, no overdraft
fees, and no credit checks – just get your money, whenever and wherever you need it. Signing up is fast and
our card can be used anywhere credit or debit cards are accepted. Visitwww.connectnetwork.comtodaytofindout
more!
AdvPay_1032Span.wav:
In Spanish: …será cargado a su tarjeta de crédito y aparecerá como GTL INMATE TEL SVC. Esta cantidad
menos cargos aplicables serán aplicados hacia su cuenta “Advanced Pay” de pago por adelantado. Está
cansado de pagar cargos y de requisitos de mantener un saldo mínimo en su cuenta corriente? No tiene una
cuenta corriente? Mediante una sociedad con un proveedor nacional, ahora le ofrecemos una tarjeta de debito
pre-pagada para sustituir su cuenta corriente, su actual tarjeta de debito pre-pagada y podrá sustituir una
tarjeta de crédito. Nuestra tarjeta no incluye cuotas de mantenimiento, cargos por sobregiro, ni verificación de
solvencia – disponga de su dinero cuando y en donde lo necesite. Solicitarla es muy fácil y rápidoademás de
que nuestra tarjeta puede ser usada en cualquier parte donde se acepten tarjetas de crédito y/o debito. Visite
nuestra páginawww.connectnetwork.com ahora para más información.

AdvPay_1033Eng.wav:
To go back to the main menu, press one. To exit, please hang up now.
AdvPay_1033Span.wav:
In Spanish: Para regresar al menú principal, marque uno. Para salir, cuelgue ahora.

inContact, Inc. 2010. All Rights Reserved.

4

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103-1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 8 of 10 PageID: 921

AdvPay_1035Eng.wav:
To hear western union payment instructions, press one. To hear mail payment instructions, press two. To
repeat this menu, press three. To go back to the main menu, press nine. Toexit, pleasehang up now.
AdvPay_1035Span.wav:
In Spanish:Para escuchar las instrucciones de pago de Western Union, marque uno. Para escuchar
instrucciones de pago por correo, marque dos. Para repetir este menú, marque tres. Para regresar al menú
principal, marque nueve. Para salir, cuelgue ahora.
AdvPay_1036Eng.wav:
You can call Western Union at 800-325-6000 or go to any western union location and complete a blue quick
collect form. Make the wire transfer payable to Global Tel*Link. Our code city is Advancepay and state AL for
Alabama. Include your name, area code and telephone number, zip code and the corrections facility name for
faster payment posting. Please Note: Western Union payments received will be posted within 24 hours during
the normal business week.
AdvPay_1036Span.wav:
In Spanish: Puede contactar a Western Union marcando 800-325-6000 (ochocientos tres veinticinco seis mil) o
puede acudir a cualquier agencia de Western Union y llenar una forma “blue quick collect form”. Haga su
transferencia electrónica a nombre de Global Tel*Link, nuestro código de ciudad es Advancepay y del estado
es AL para Alabama. Incluya su nombre, clave lada y númerotelefónico, código postal y el nombre del
establecimiento penitenciario para agilizar el pago. Nota: Los pagos recibidos de Western Union serán
contabilizados dentro de un lapso de veinticuatro horas de días hábiles.
AdvPay_1037Eng.wav:
Please mail payments made payable to Global Tel*Link, Dept 1722, Denver, CO 80291-1722. Please provide
your area code, telephone number, zip code and the corrections facility name on your payment for faster
posting.
AdvPay_1037Span.wav:
In Spanish: Favor de enviar pagos por correo aGlobal Tel*Link, Dept 1722, Denver, CO 80291-1722. Por favor
incluya su clave lada, número de teléfono, código postal y el nombre del establecimiento penitenciario para
agilizar el envío.
AdvPay_1038Eng.wav:
Thank you for calling Global Tel Link’s Advance Pay Automated Payment System for prepaid customers.
Attention Global Tel Link AdvancePay customers – you can now manage your account online at
www.offenderConnect.com. It’s the fastest and easiest way to process your payments so you can continue to
receive calls www.offenderConnect.comhas many more convenience features than paying by phone. Visit
www.offenderconnect.com and sign-up today. It’s fast, easy and convenient!
AdvPay_1038Span.wav:
This prompt will not exist as 1038Eng accounts for both.
AdvPay_1039Eng.wav: Note: This will not be used but recorded for later.
We’re sorry but we are unable to assist you at this time. Please try your call again later, or call our customer
service center at 866.230.7761.
AdvPay_1039Span.wav: Note: This will not be used but recorded for later.
In Spanish: Lo sentimos pero no podemos atenderlo por el momento. Por favor intente llamar de nuevo mas
tarde o llame a nuestro centro de atención a clientes al 866.230.7761 (ocho seis seis dos treinta siete siete seis
uno)

inContact, Inc. 2010. All Rights Reserved.

5

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103-1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 9 of 10 PageID: 922

AdvPay_1041Eng.wav:
Thank you. The system will now hang up. Goodbye.
AdvPay_1041Span.wav:
In Spanish: Gracias, el sistema colgara ahora. Hasta Luego.
AdvPay_1042Eng.wav:
The applicable transaction fee is...
AdvPay_1042Span.wav:
In Spanish: La cuota de transacción aplicable es de ...
AdvPay_1043Eng.wav:
…for this deposit.To accept the fee for this deposit press 1.To cancel thistransactionpress 2.
AdvPay_1043Span.wav:
In Spanish: …para éste depósito. Para aceptar el cargo por este deposito, marque uno . Para cancelar esta
transacción marque dos.
AdvPay_1044Eng.wav:
We are unable to process the credit card information you entered. To re-enter the information or to try another
credit card, press 1. If you are interested in obtaining our new prepaid debit card with no monthly maintenance
fees, please visit www.connectnetwork.com to apply. There are no credit checks and no overdraft fees. Signing
up is fast and easy. Our prepaid debit card can be used anywhere credit or debit cards are
accepted.Toendthiscall, pleasehang up now..
AdvPay_1044Span.wav:
In Spanish: No nos fue posible procesar la información de la tarjeta de crédito que ingresó. Para volver a
ingresar la información o para intentar con otra tarjeta de crédito, marque uno. Si está interesado en obtener
nuestra nueva tarjeta de debito de pre-pago sin cargos mensuales de mantenimiento, por favor visite nuestra
pagina web www.connectnetwork.compara solicitarla. No hay verificación de solvencia ni cuotas por sobregiro.
Solicitarla es fácil y muy rápido. Nuestra tarjeta de debito de pre-pago puede ser usada en cualquier lugar
donde se acepten pagos de tarjeta de crédito o debito. Para terminar esta llamada, cuelgue ahora.
AdvPay_1045a.wav:
Press 1 for English.
AdvPay_1045b.wav:
Marque dos para ser atendido en español.
AdvPay_1045c.wav:
Press 3 for Caribbean Creole.
AdvPay_1045d.wav:
Press 4 for Tagalog.
AdvPay_1045e.wav:
Press 5 for Cantonese.
AdvPay_1045f.wav:
Press 6 for Armenian.
AdvPay_1045g.wav:
Press 7 for French.

inContact, Inc. 2010. All Rights Reserved.

6

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103-1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 10 of 10 PageID: 923

AdvPay_1045h.wav:
Press 8 for Portuguese.
AdvPay_1045i.wav:
Press 9 for Mandarin.
AdvPay_1045j.wav:
Press 10 for Vietnamese.
AdvPay_1045k.wav:
Press 11 for Somali.
AdvPay_1046Eng.wav:
We are unable to process this transaction, please hold for the next available customer service representative.
AdvPay_1046Span.wav:
In Spanish: No podemos procesar su transacción, por favor espere a ser atendido por el un representante de
servicio a clientes .
AdvPay_1047Eng.wav:
Please hold while your call is being connected
AdvPay_1047Span.wav:
In Spanish: Por favor espere mientras su llamada es transferida.
Disclaimer.wav
Please note that your account, and any transactions you complete, with GTL, PCS, DSI-ITI, or VAC are
governed by the terms of use and the privacy statement posted at www.offenderconnect.com. The terms of use
and the privacy statement were most recently revised on July 3, 2013.

inContact, Inc. 2010. All Rights Reserved.

7

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103-2 Filed 09/08/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 924

Case 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF Document 103-2 Filed 09/08/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 925