Lee v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Company

Filing 126

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY DISPUTE STATEMENT (Dkt. No. 114). Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 7/19/2013. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

JESSICA LEE, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals,

13
14

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 11-cv-43 RS (JSC)
ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY
DISPUTE STATEMENT (Dkt. No. 114)

v.

15
16
17
18

STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; TRIFECTA MARKETING
GROUP, LLC,
Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Now pending before the Court is a Joint Discovery Dispute Statement whereby
Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses from Defendant Stonebridge Life Insurance
Company (“Stonebridge”) to various Requests for the Production of Documents (“RFP”).
(Dkt. No. 114.) Having considered the parties’ submissions and having had the benefit of
oral argument on July 18, 2013, the Court issued the following rulings as stated on the record
at oral argument.
DISCUSSION
In the underlying discovery dispute, Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to
document requests relating to Stonebridge’s knowledge of Trifecta Marketing Group, LLC’s

1

(“Trifecta”) use of text message marketing and the scope of the agency relationship between

2

Stonebridge and Trifecta. In light of the Federal Communication Commission’s recent

3

decision regarding vicarious liability under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991

4

(“TCPA”), the Court overrules Stonebridge’s relevance objection to certain discovery

5

requests as set forth below. See In the Matter of the Joint Petition Filed by Dish Network,

6

LLC, the United States of Am., & the States of California, Illinois. N. Carolina, & Ohio for

7

Declaratory Ruling Concerning the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act (TCPA) Rules, 2013 WL

8

1934349, at *9, 28 F.C.C.R. 6574, 6584 (May 9, 2013) (concluding that under a vicarious

9

liability theory “a seller may be liable for violations by its representatives under a broad range

Northern District of California

of agency principles, including not only formal agency, but also principles of apparent

11
United States District Court

10

authority and ratification”).

12

1. Plaintiff’s Second Set of RFP, Nos. 2 & 3

13

Stonebridge shall produce documents regarding past marketing campaigns that

14

Stonebridge employees, who participated in the allegations underlying this case, participated

15

in with Trifecta. The parties shall meet and confer to define the parameters of the responsive

16

documents to exclude documents regarding customer information and other irrelevant

17

materials.

18
19

2. Plaintiff’s Second Set of RFP, Nos. 8 & 9
Plaintiff seeks Stonebridge’s recordings of any inbound calls relating to Trifecta’s

20

telemarketing campaigns for Stonebridge and its affiliates. Stonebridge has agreed to

21

produce 10 recordings of class member calls. If Plaintiff still seeks additional recordings

22

following receipt of the 10 recordings, Plaintiff may visit Stonebridge’s counsel’s office and

23

listen to the remaining recordings. If following this review of some or all of the additional

24

recordings, Plaintiff still seeks copies of the recordings the parties may file a joint statement

25

wherein Plaintiff shall state with particularity why she seeks the recordings, what the

26

recordings show, and how they are relevant to the claims or defenses at issue.

27
28

2

1
2

3. Plaintiff’s Third Set of RFP, No. 2

3

Stonebridge shall produce documents related to the Call-back and Benefits

4

Agreements as well as any communications between Stonebridge employees referring to

5

SMS or text messaging relating to Trifecta.

6
7

4. Plaintiff’s Third Set of RFP, Nos. 3-7
Plaintiff seeks communications between any Stonebridge employee and a specific list

8

of Trifecta employees. Stonebridge’s sole objection at the hearing was to relevance, which the

9

Court previously overruled. Stonebridge shall therefore produce responsive documents.
CONCLUSION

10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED in part as set forth

12

above and stated at oral argument. For all further discovery disputes, the parties shall meet

13

and in confer in person prior to filing the discovery dispute with the Court. The meet and

14

confer shall take place at the office of the party seeking to compel further discovery unless the

15

parties agree otherwise. Further, the parties are ordered to appear in person for all future

16

hearings regarding discovery disputes, should a hearing be required.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: July 19, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3