CJ-2026-574 - TELEPHONE CONNECTIONS, LLC v. CLINTON ROOT

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: this isn’t just about a guy who left his job and started calling old clients. No, no, no. This is a full-blown digital heist — a former contractor allegedly raiding the VoIP equivalent of Fort Knox, stealing customer data, pretending he still works for the company, and then filing a federal complaint against his ex-boss to cover his tracks. If this were a movie, it would be The Social Network meets Ocean’s Eleven, but instead of stealing Facebook or robbing a casino, we’re talking about porting pins and VoIP portals in suburban Oklahoma. Welcome to the high-stakes world of small business telecom drama.

Meet Telephone Connections, LLC — not some Silicon Valley startup with a sleek glass office, but a modest VoIP service provider based in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. Think of them as the behind-the-scenes tech wizards who help small businesses ditch their clunky landlines and make phone calls over the internet. Their bread and butter? Keeping clients happy with smooth, reliable service and, crucially, guarding their customer list like it’s the secret recipe for Coca-Cola. Running the show is Randall Hobson, the managing member, who — let’s be honest — probably never thought he’d have to sue someone for impersonating his company while hijacking client phone numbers. But here we are.

On the other side of this telecom tango is Clinton Root, a contractor from Mustang, Oklahoma — Canadian County’s answer to the gig economy. Back in October 2017, Telephone Connections brought Root on board as an independent contractor, not a full-time employee, with one job: make sales and service calls to keep customers from jumping ship. Sounds simple. Except Root wasn’t just dialing for dollars — he was signing a confidentiality agreement in January 2018, swearing to protect the company’s trade secrets, including customer lists, pricing models, and access to their secure online portal. That portal? It’s like the control room of their operation — the place where clients manage their phone systems, change settings, and, yes, transfer their phone numbers to another provider (a process known as “porting”). And at the heart of that process? The “porting pin” — a digital key that, if stolen, could let someone reroute a business’s entire phone system. Basically, the VoIP version of your house keys, garage code, and security alarm password all rolled into one.

Everything was fine — until it wasn’t. On September 26, 2025, the contract ended. Root was out. No hard feelings (allegedly). But then, almost immediately, things got weird. According to the filing, Root didn’t just move on — he went full double agent. He allegedly started calling Telephone Connections’ service provider, pretending he was still an authorized rep, and tricked them into giving up porting pins for existing customers. He accessed the company’s secure portal using login info he shouldn’t have had. He used insider knowledge of pricing and services to undercut the company and poach clients. And — this is the chef’s kiss of audacity — he successfully lured away at least two customers, redirecting their business (and their phone numbers) to his own competing setup.

But wait — it gets better. When Telephone Connections inevitably pushed back and refused to hand over more porting pins (because, hello, this guy doesn’t work here anymore), Root didn’t just sulk. He filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission, accusing the company of being “uncooperative” in the porting process. Let that sink in: the guy who allegedly stole customer data and impersonated the company is now playing victim to a federal agency, painting himself as the wronged party. It’s like if a burglar broke into your house, stole your car, and then called the police to report that you were refusing to give him the spare keys.

So why are we in court? Because Telephone Connections isn’t having it. They’re suing Root under Oklahoma’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act, claiming he didn’t just quit — he misappropriated their trade secrets. That’s legalese for: “You took our confidential info, used it for your own gain, and screwed us over.” The company argues that their customer lists, pricing strategies, and portal access aren’t just random data — they’re valuable, closely guarded secrets that give them a competitive edge. And by using that info to steal clients, Root allegedly crossed the line from “former contractor” to “corporate spy.”

Now, you might be wondering: how much money are we talking about here? Is this a million-dollar betrayal? A five-figure grudge match? Surprisingly, the filing doesn’t specify a dollar amount for damages — at least not yet. Instead, the company is asking for a temporary injunction (a court order to make Root stop what he’s doing right now), a permanent ban on his shady tactics, and reimbursement for attorney’s fees and costs. They also want “exemplary damages” — which is just a fancy way of saying “punitive damages,” or punishment money — if the court finds Root’s actions were willful and malicious. Translation: “We don’t just want our losses covered. We want you to hurt for doing this.”

And honestly? That feels about right. In the world of small VoIP providers, losing even a handful of customers can sting. But the real damage isn’t just financial — it’s reputational. When a contractor impersonates your company, files false complaints with federal agencies, and starts rerouting your clients, it erodes trust. Other customers start wondering: “Can I still rely on these guys? Is my data safe?” That kind of damage doesn’t show up on a balance sheet, but it can kill a business just as surely as a cash crunch.

So what’s our take? Look, we’re not rooting for corporate vengeance. But come on — the sheer gall of this guy. He signs a confidentiality agreement, gets cut loose, and instead of starting fresh, he goes full cyber-saboteur. He doesn’t just compete — he impersonates. He doesn’t just leave — he lies to the FCC. And now he’s on the receiving end of a lawsuit that reads like a cautionary tale for every small business owner who’s ever handed a contractor the keys to the digital kingdom.

The most absurd part? That he thought he wouldn’t get caught. That he believed pretending to still work for the company — accessing private systems, stealing customer data, redirecting services — would just… fly under the radar. In 2026. In an industry built on digital trails and audit logs. Did he really think no one would notice when two clients suddenly vanished and a former contractor started acting like the CEO?

We’re entertainers, not lawyers. But if we were judges? We’d at least want to see the deposition where Root explains — under oath — why he thought filing a federal complaint was a better move than, say, starting his own legit business. Maybe next time, just build your own portal. Don’t steal the keys to someone else’s.

Case Overview

Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court in and for Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Lowell L. Peterson

MCARTOR LAW

Relief Sought

Injunctive Relief

Plaintiffs

TELEPHONE CONNECTIONS, LLC business
Rep: Lowell L. Peterson

Defendants

CLINTON ROOT individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Misappropriation of Trade Secrets	Defendant misused trade secrets after contract termination

Petition Text

1,443 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA TELEPHONE CONNECTIONS, LLC ) v. ) CLINTON ROOT, ) Defendant. Plaintiff, PETITION AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND SUPPORTING BRIEF COMES NOW the Plaintiff, TELEPHONE CONNECTIONS, LLC, ("Plaintiff"), and for its Petition against Defendant, CLINTON ROOT ("Defendant") alleges and states as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff Telephone Connections, LLC, is an Oklahoma limited liability company, with its principal place of business in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. Broken Arrow is in Tulsa County. 2. Randall Hobson, managing member of Telephone Connections, LLC, is a resident of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. Broken Arrow is in Tulsa County. 3. Defendant is an individual person who resides in Mustang, Oklahoma. Mustang is in Canadian County. 4. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in Tulsa County. MATERIAL FACTS 5. Plaintiff is a Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") service provider. 6. VoIP is a modern telecommunications solution that allows businesses to make and receive phone calls using an internet connection instead of traditional telephone lines. By converting audio signals into digital data packets, VoIP systems enable voice communication over IP networks, including the internet or internal intranets. 7. A VoIP system provides a foundation for integrated, flexible, and location-independent communication without the limitations of physical infrastructure or legacy hardware. 8. VoIP turns voice into internet data packets, enabling voice calls via internet connection rather than traditional phone lines. 9. Plaintiff has developed unique proprietary systems/phones that enable Plaintiff to provide competitive advantage to its customers/clients. 10. Plaintiff functions as the "host" who maintains all infrastructure and businesses subscribe to the service. 11. Plaintiff’s VoIP system “portals” are web-based platforms that allow users to manage their VoIP communications efficiently and provide the basis for interactions between the host and its clients/customers. 12. On October 2, 2017, Plaintiff retained the services of Defendant as an independent contractor to perform limited designated services to includes sales and services calls for the purpose of retaining customers. 13. Defendant was never an employee of Plaintiff. 14. Defendant’s services were subject to a non-disclosure and confidentiality agreement, signed January 11, 2018, such that Defendant agreed to protect and preserve the confidential and/or proprietary nature of Plaintiff’s proprietary information, to include marketing information and customer/client data and contact information. 15. Defendant acquired knowledge of Plaintiff's trade secrets and confidential information, including customer buying and pricing information and existing and prospective customer lists. 16. Defendant’s contractual relationship to Plaintiff terminated September 26, 2025 17. Since that date, with no authorization from Plaintiff and in violation of Plaintiff's right to benefit from its proprietary information and portal access, Defendant has falsely represented himself as an employee of Plaintiff and has by improper means misdirected customer/clients from the service of Plaintiff to his own use. 18. More particularly, Defendant has: a. Contacted Plaintiff's service provider under the pretense that he was still an agent of Plaintiff in order to access private proprietary information ("porting pin") that belongs to Plaintiff in order to divert customers of Plaintiff to services provided by Defendant. b. Unlawfully accessed the porting pin of one or more other customers. c. Accessed Plaintiff's portal using private log-in information without authorization. d. Used his knowledge of Plaintiff's pricing and service models to undermine Plaintiff's integrity with current customers. e. Successfully diverted at least two former customers. f. Filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission alleging that Plaintiff has been uncooperative in the porting process and refusing to provide the necessary porting pin. VIOLATION OF UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT 19. Defendant’s conduct constitutes misappropriation inasmuch as Defendant has retained, or disclosed and used trade secrets without express or implied consent with knowledge that such trade secrets were acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain their secrecy and abstain from their unauthorized use. 20. Plaintiff derives economic value from such trade secrets not being generally known or readily ascertainable by unauthorized persons. 21. As the direct result of Defendant’s willful and malicious conversion of Plaintiff’s intellectual property, Plaintiff has suffered compensable damages, the exact nature and amount of which are as yet indeterminable. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION 22. Plaintiff has no knowledge of whether Defendant is represented by legal counsel as to the subject matter of this action nor the identity of such counsel who may be representing Defendant with respect hereto. 23. Plaintiff has attempted to contact Defendant by cease and desist letter dated January 15, 2026, sent by U.S. certified mail, return receipt requested, which was rejected by Defendant. 24. Relief requested by this Petition consists in part of restraining the conduct of Defendant and continuance by Defendant of such conduct during the litigation of this action will exacerbate injury to Plaintiff and would be in violation of the Plaintiff’s rights with respect to the subject of this action. 25. Plaintiff urges the Court to consider the following factors in determining whether to grant temporary injunctive relief: a. In view of the verified facts, there is substantial likelihood of Plaintiff’s success on the merits; b. Plaintiff will incur irreparable injury if Defendant’s conduct is not enjoined; c. No injury will affect the Defendant as a result of being enjoined from the misappropriation of trade secrets described herein. d. There will be no adverse impact on any public interest by granting Plaintiff injunctive relief. 26. By service of this Petition and Order for Hearing, Defendant shall have notice of Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Injunction. 27. Defendant’s persistence in representing that he is employed by Plaintiff and misappropriating Plaintiff’s trade secrets will cause irreparable harm to Plaintiff if such conduct is not enjoined. 28. Plaintiff respectively requests the Court to issue a temporary injunction pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1382. 29. Plaintiff is prepared to undertake surety in an amount to be fixed by the Court in its discretion. 30. Plaintiff has attached hereto an Affidavit in support of this Request. RELIEF REQUESTED 31. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1382, make a determination that it appears to the Court that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief herein demanded and that such relief consists in restraining the conduct of Defendant described herein, the continuance of which is likely to produce further injury to Plaintiff, and therefore grant a temporary injunction to restrain such conduct. 32. Plaintiff further requests that Defendant be permanently enjoined from his misconduct described herein. 33. Plaintiff further requests that it recover damages for the misappropriation described herein, including actual monetary loss and unjust enrichment caused by the misappropriation not taken into account in computing such actual loss. 34. Plaintiff further requests that the Court finds that Defendant’s misappropriation is willful and malicious and that Plaintiff is therefore entitled to exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding the award of actual monetary damages. 35. Plaintiff further requests that the Court finds that Defendant's willful and malicious misappropriation entitles Plaintiff to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs of this action. 36. Plaintiff prays for judgment in excess of the jurisdictional amount pursuant to Title 28 § 1332 of the U.S. Code. Respectfully Submitted, Lowell L. Peterson OBA #22839 601 S. Boulder Avenue, Suite 602 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119 Tel. (918) 584-4992 Fax (918) 582-2366 Email: [email protected] AFFIDAVIT STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF TULSA ) I, RANDALL HOBSON, being of lawful age and duly sworn, upon oath, state as follows: 1. I have personal knowledge of all facts stated herein. I am further both willing and able to testify competently as to these matters if called as a witness in this action. 2. I am the managing member of Telephone Connections, LLC ("Plaintiff" herein). 3. Plaintiff is an Oklahoma limited liability company engaged in the business of providing Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services. 4. Plaintiff retained the services of Clinton Root ("Defendant" herein) on a contract basis for the limited purpose of making sales and service calls with the intention of acquiring and retaining customer accounts. 5. The contract for Defendant's services was terminated on September 26, 2025. 6. Defendant is not now and has never been an employee of Plaintiff. 7. Since the termination of Defendant's services, and without authorization, Defendant has represented himself as an employee, agent or representative of Plaintiff in an effort to solicit customers for his own benefit 8. Defendant has further gained access to certain customer "portal pins" in order to divert their business to his own accounts. 9. Such misappropriation of the Plaintiff's name and trade secrets has and will continue to cost Plaintiff significant economic damages. Further Affiant sayeth not. Randy Hobson TULSA COUNTY ) ) ss STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) The foregoing Affidavit of RANDALL HOBSON was signed and subscribed to in my presence and Affiant affirmed that every statement therein is true to the best of his knowledge and belief and that he made such Affidavit for the purposes stated therein. DAWN M DAVIS Notary Public In and for STATE OF OKLAHOMA Commission #13008294 Expires: Sep. 09, 2029