Shuckett v. DIALAMERICA Marketing Inc.

Filing 59

ORDER Re; 39 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute re Plaintiff's First Set of Written Discovery Requests. Plaintiff's request for an order compelling further responses to certain written discovery requests is granted in p art and denied in part. Defendant DialAmerica shall fully and completely comply with this Order by producing documents and providing further responses to interrogatories as directed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford on 9/7/2018. (jah)

FILED
1

SEP 1 0 2018

2

CLERK. U S D!SIR!CT COURT

3

SOUTHERN DI. TR1CT OF CALll=ORNIA (
BY
---~-.:.JEPUTY (

4
5

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ARIEL SHUC:KETT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18

v.
DIALAMERICA MARKETING, INC.;
and AMERICAN STANDARD
BRANDS, d/b/a AMERICAN
STANDARD BATHROOM AND
KITCHEN FIXTURES,

Case No.: 17cv2073-LAB(KSC)

ORDER RE JOINT MOTION FOR
DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY
DISPUTE (RE: PLAINTIFF'S FIRST
SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY
REQUESTS)

[Doc. No. 39.]

Defendants.

19
20
21
22

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery

23

Dispute. [Doc. No. 39.] In the Joint Motion, plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendant

24

DialAmerica Marketing Inc. ("DialAmerica") to provide further, substantive responses to

25

certain document requests and special interrogatories. DialAmerica objects to these written

26

discovery requests on various grounds and has declined to provide plaintiff with more

27

substantive responses. [Doc. No. 39, at pp. 6-50.] For the reasons outlined more fully

28

below, the Court finds that plaintiff's request for an order compelling DialAmerica to

l 7cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1 provide further responses to certain document requests and special interrogatories must be
2
3

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Background

4

The original class action Complaint was filed on October 9, 2017 against

5

DialAmerica. [Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint on

6

October 24, 2017. [Doc. No. 9.] Recently, on July 11, 2018, the District Court granted

7

plaintiff leave to amend the First Amended Complaint to add a new defendant: American

8

Standard Brands, doing business as American Standard Bathroom and Kitchen Fixtures

9

("American Standard"). [Doc. No. 30-1, at pp. 1-7; Doc. No. 41; Doc. No. 42.] The

10

Second Amended Complaint adding defendant American Standard was filed on July 12,

11

2018. [Doc. No. 42.] Defendant American Standard filed an Answer to the Second

12

Amended Complaint on August 14, 2018. [Doc. No. 51.]

13

The Second Amended Complaint includes two causes of action for negligent and

14

willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). [Doc. No. 42, at

15

pp. 2, 11-12.] According to the Ninth Circuit in Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs.,

16

LLC, 707 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir. 2012), the elements of a TCPA claim are that:

17

(1) the defendant called a cellular telephone; (2) the call was made with an automatic

18

telephone dialing system ("ATDS"); and (3) the recipient of the call did not give prior

19

express consent. Id. at 1043. However, the Meyer case was decided in the context of a

20

motion for preliminary injunction (id. at 1040), and the Ninth Circuit later stated in Van

21

Patten v. Vertical Fitness Grp., LLC, 847 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2017), that "prior express

22

consent is an affirmative defense, not an element of a TCPA claim." Id. at 1044 n.3.

23

In the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges that DialAmerica is a

24

telemarketing company that provides call center services to a variety of industries,

25

including American Standard, and "regularly makes autodialed telephone calls to

26

consumers in order to market products .... " [Doc. No. 42, at pp. 4-8.] Between July

27

2017 and August 2017, plaintiff alleges that defendants initiated repeated and

28

unauthorized telephone calls to her cellular telephone using a pre-recorded voice and an
2
17cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

ATDS. [Doc. No. 42, at p. 4.] Within this two-month time period, and on October 10,

2

2017, after this lawsuit was filed, plaintiff claims that defendants initiated about forty

3

(40) calls to her cellular telephone. [Doc. No. 42, at p. 5.] When the call was answered,

4

plaintiff alleges there was a pre-recorded, robotic message and no live representative was

5

on the line. [Doc. No. 42, at p. 5.] On three different occasions, plaintiff was able to get

6

through to a representative and asked for the calls to stop, but the calls continued. [Doc.

7

No. 42, at p. 5.] On some unspecified date, plaintiff alleges she was connected to a

8

representative for American Standard, who confirmed that the call was initiated by

9

DialAmerica. [Doc. No. 42, at p. 5.] Plaintiff further alleges that she did not consent to

10

be called on her cellular telephone by defendants for marketing or any other purpose, and

11

she incurs a charge for incoming calls. [Doc. No. 42, at pp. 6-7.]

12

Defendant DialAmerica' s version of the facts is markedly different from the

13

allegations in the Second Amended Complaint. DialAmerica believes that it has

14

erroneously been named as a party in this action. [Doc. No. 39, at p. 4.] In connection

15

with the Joint Motion and at other times during this action, DialAmerica has represented

16

based on its call records that it only called plaintiff once on October 10, 2017, and

17

plaintiff did not answer the call. If she did answer the call, DialAmerica represents that a

18

live DialAmerica employee would have been on the line, because DialArnerica does not

19

use pre-recorded voice calls for marketing purposes. [Doc. No. 39, at p. 4.]

20

With the Joint Motion, DialAmerica submitted a supporting Declaration by its

21

general counsel and a redacted copy of its service agreement with American Standard.

22

[Doc. No. 39-2, at pp. 1-7.] This agreement was fully executed as of May 23, 2016 [Doc.

23

No. 39-2, at p. 7] and states that DialAmerica "will provide American Standard with an

24

outbound telemarketing program with the purpose of generating qualified leads for their

25

walk-in tub product line. For phase one of the pilot program, DialAmerica will be calling

26

warm leads from American Standard's database. For phase two of the pilot program,

27

Dial America will be calling cold leads.

28

test with DialAmerica. Upon completion of the test American Standard has the option to

[~]American

Standard has agreed to a 500 hour

3
l 7cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

continue with DialAmerica under this agreement or to terminate the agreement." [Doc.

2

No. 39-2, at p. 5.] The start time for this project was "two weeks after DialAmerica has

3

received the [call] list. ... " [Doc. No. 39-2, at p. 5 .]

4

The agreement also states that: "Qualified leads will be warm transferred to

5

American Standard call center agents in real time." [Doc. No. 39-2, at p. 5.] Under the

6

agreement, "American Standard [is required] to remove all customers that are on

7

American Standard's internal Do Not Call List" and to "identify on the leads if the

8

customer provided express written consent to be contacted on their primary phone

9

number." [Doc. No. 39-2, at p. 5.]

10

In connection with this agreement, DialAmerica represents that it received

11

plaintiffs telephone number from American Standard "as a lead obtained with prior

12

written consent" on September 21, 2017. [Doc. No. 39, at p. 5.] Previously, in

13

connection with its Limited Opposition to plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a Second

14

Amended Complaint, defendant provided plaintiff and the Court with a copy of a report

15

from its archives showing a single call to plaintiffs telephone number on October 10,

16

2017 with zero "talk time" and a copy of its "Do-Not-Call Policy." [Doc. No. 35-1, at

17

p. 2; Doc. No. 35-2, at p. 2.] Based on these documents, DialAmerica states that plaintiff

18

never spoke to an employee of DialAmerica, and if the single call made to plaintiff's

19

cellular telephone was made after a "do-not-call" request, it was made as the result of an

20

error. [Doc. No. 39, at p. 4.]

21
22

Discussion
I.

23

Scope of Discovery.
"Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows:

24

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any

25

party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the

26

importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties'

27

relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the

28

Ill
4
17cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

discovery in resolving the issues and whether the burden or expense of the proposed

2

discovery outweighs its likely benefit." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(l).
If a party fails to answer written interrogatories or produce documents in response

3
4

to written requests, the party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling

5

disclosure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)&(4). "While the party seeking to compel discovery

6

has the burden of establishing that its request satisfies relevancy requirements, the party

7

opposing discovery bears the burden of showing that discovery should not be allowed,

8

and of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections with competent evidence."

9

Lofton v. Verizon Wireless (VATf} LLC, 308 F.R.D. 276, 281 (N.D. Cal. 2015).

10

Under Rule 26(b )(2)(C), "the court must limit ... discovery ... if it determines

11

that: (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be

12

obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less

13

expensive; ... or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule

14

26(b )(1 )." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b )(2)(C)(i)&(ii). In addition, "[t]he court may, for good

15

cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,

16

oppression, or undue burden or expense, including ... (A) forbidding the disclosure or

17

discovery; ... (C) prescribing a discovery method other than the one selected by the

18

party seeking discovery; (D) forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope

19

of the disclosure or discovery to certain matters; ... (G) requiring that a trade secret or

20

other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or

21

be revealed only in a specified way .... " Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(C)(l)(A)-(G).

22

II.

23

Outbound Dial Lists.
In the Joint Motion, plaintiff represents that the documents sought in response to

24

Document Request Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 13 are generally referred to as "outbound dial

25

lists." [Doc. No. 39, at p. 7.] According to plaintiff, these "outbound dial lists"

26

ordinarily "identify the telephone numbers called as well as the date and time, and may

27

also include call treatment such as whether the call was answered, a voice message was

28
5

17cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

left, and length of the call." [Doc. No. 39, at p. 7.] In pertinent part, the disputed

2

document requests read as follows:

3

Plaintiff's Document Request No. 9 broadly seeks production of:

4

"[A]ny and all documents relating to or regarding, and including, any and all
reports for each outbound dial list to persons that [DialAmerica] called on
behalf of [DialAmerica] and/or any third party, including those outbound
dial lists, in electronically searchable format, utilizing an autodialer since
four years prior to the filing of this action to the date of responding to these
document requests." [Doc. No. 39, at p. 6.]

5

6
7

8
9

10

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff's Document Request No. 10 broadly seeks production of:
"[A]ny and all documents relating to or regarding, and including, any and all
reports for each outbound dial list to persons that [DialAmerica] called on
behalf of [DialAmerica] and/or any third party, including those outbound
dial lists, in electronically searchable format, generated by any predictive
dialer campaign in which [DialAmerica] engaged in since four year prior to
the filing of this action to the date of responding to these document
requests." [Doc. No. 39, at p. 13.]

15
16
17
18
19

20
21

Plaintiff's Document Request No. 11 broadly seeks production of:
"[D]ocuments relating to or regarding, and including, the outbound dial list
to persons that [DialAmerica] called for and on behalf of [DialAmerica]
and/or any third party, including those outbound dial lists, in electronically
searchable format, for any autodialer marketing and/or advertising campaign
in which [DialAmerica] [was] engaged since four years prior to the filing of
this action to the date of responding to these document requests." [Doc.
No. 39, at p. 14.]

22

Plaintiffs Document Request No. 13 broadly seeks production of:

23

"[D]ocuments relating to or regarding and including, all reports in
electronically searchable format of autodialer or predictive dialer calls
made by [DialAmerica] or any of [DialAmerica's] employees, agents or
independent contractors, or other persons or entities working on
[DialAmerica' s] behalf, to pagers, cellular telephones, mobile telephones,
or wireless devices of persons [DialAmerica] called on behalf of
[DialAmerica] and/or any third party since four years prior to the filing of

24
25

26
27
28

6
l 7cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

2
3

this action to the date of responding to these document requests." [Doc.
No. 39, at pp. 14-15.]
Defendant objected to Document Request Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 13 on various

4

grounds and did not provide any substantive responses. A party responding to a

5

document request "must either state that inspection and related activities will be

6

permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request,

7

including the reasons. The responding party may state that it will produce copies of

8

documents or of electronically stored information instead of permitting inspection .... "

9

Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b )(2)(B). "An objection must state whether any responsive materials are

10

being withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection to part of a request must

11

specify the part and permit inspection of the rest." Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(B).

12

Defendant's responses to Document Request Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 13 are deficient

13

under Federal Rule 34(b)(2)(B) and (C), because they include only general, boilerplate

14

objections with no reasons. In addition, defendant's responses do not state whether any

15

responsive materials are being withheld based on these objections. Nor do

16

DialAmerica's responses provide any specificity as to the part or parts of the requests that

17

are objectionable. Despite the requirements in Federal Rule 34(b )(B) and (C),

18

DialAmerica did not state in any of its responses whether it would make a partial

19

production. For these reasons alone, the Court finds that plaintiff is entitled to an order

20

requiring DialAmerica to provide further, substantive responses to Document Request

21

Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 13.

22

In the Joint Motion, plaintiff argues in conclusory fashion that the broad expanse

23

of documents sought in response to Request Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 13 are "necessary" to

24

determine the class issues of numerosity, commonality, and predominance. [Doc. No. 39,

25

at pp. 7-8.] In support of the argument, plaintiff cites several unpublished District Court

26

decisions. These cases indicate that "outbound dial lists" may be relevant to the class

27

issues of numerosity and commonality in lawsuits involving alleged violations of the

28

TCPA. [Doc. No. 39, at p. 8.]
7
17cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

First, plaintiff cites Knutson v. Schwan 's Home Serv. Inc., No. 12cv964-

2

GPC(DHB), 2013 WL 3746118 (S.D. Cal. 2013), a class action involving alleged

3

violations of the TCPA by a grocery delivery service who made deliveries on its own

4

behalf and on behalf of a client, NutriSystem. If deliveries were not on schedule, the

5

defendant would notify customers by telephone using an automated dialing system. Id.

6

at 1. During class discovery, plaintiffs sought an order compelling production of "a

7

comprehensive outbound call list" from the defendant and "a NutriSystem only call list."

8

Id. While the discovery motion was still pending, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking

9

certification of a class of "only NutriSystem customers" who received calls. Id. at 2.

10

The plaintiff argued that it was entitled to production of the defendant's call lists,

11

because they were relevant to the class certification issues of commonality,

12

predominance, typicality, and ascertainability. 1 Id. at 1-2. The District Court concluded

13

the call lists were not relevant to the issues of ascertainability or typicality but could be

14

relevant to the issue of commonality. Id. at 6-8. To establish commonality in a case

15

involving alleged violations of the TCPA, the District Court in Knutson v. Schwan 's

16

noted that the test "is not whether common questions exist, but whether common answers

17

to critical questions of law and fact can be reached without impediment." Id. at 7. A

18

common question in the case was whether individuals were all called by or on behalf of

19

the defendant without their consent on their cellular telephones with the use of an

20

autodialer. Id. at 8. Thus, the District Court concluded that"[ a] list of numbers dialed by

21

an autodialer on behalf of [the defendant] for a singular purpose could be relevant to this

22

inquiry, especially since plaintiffs claim the cell phone numbers can be reliably identified

23

within the list and used in conjunction with evidence of lack of consent." Id. However,

24
25
26
27
28

The plaintiff in Knutson v. Schwan 's did not argue that the outbound dial lists were
relevant to the issue of numerosity, because the defendant stipulated that the size of the
proposed class was "numerous" under Federal Rule 23(a). Knutson v. Schwan 's, 2013
WL 3746118, at 5.
8
l 7cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

because the plaintiffs were only seeking certification as to all NutriSystem customers

2

who received calls, it was the District Court's view that the broader, more comprehensive

3

list of all customers who received calls from defendant was not relevant at the class

4

certification phase of the case. Id. The matter was then remanded to the assigned

5

Magistrate Judge for further consideration. Id. at 9. Upon further consideration, the

6

Magistrate Judge ordered production of a narrow list of autodialed calls the defendant

7

made to individual telephone numbers on behalf of NutriSystem only. However, the

8

Magistrate Judge concluded the names associated with the telephone numbers were not

9

relevant to class certification issues and permitted the defendant to redact the names from

10

the list prior to production. The Magistrate Judge also stated that the broader, more

11

comprehensive outbound dial list, which included all of defendant's customers, including

12

customers ofNutriSystem, was not relevant. Knutson v. Schwan's Home Serv., Inc., No.

13

12cv964-GPC(DHB), 2013 WL 11070939, at p. 2 (S.D. Cal. July 23, 2013).

14

Second, plaintiff cites Stemple v. QC Holdings, Inc., No. 12cvl992-CAB(WVG),

15

2013 WL 10870906 (S.D. Cal. 2013), a class action alleging that the defendant contacted

16

the named plaintiff on his cellular telephone about twelve times using an artificial or pre-

17

recorded voice to collect a debt owed by a third party. Id. at 1. During the pre-

18

certification stage of the case, the plaintiff sought production of all outbound dial lists

19

generated by an autodialer. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's document requests

20

were overly broad because they would require production of non-actionable calls to

21

customers. The District Court acknowledged that the lists could be relevant to

22

ascertaining the number of potential class members and ordered them produced. Id. at 2-

23

3. However, on relevance grounds, the District Court allowed the defendant the option to

24

"scrub the list of land line numbers before production." Id. at 4. To protect the privacy

25

rights of class members and others whose telephone numbers were on the lists, the

26

District Court ordered the outbound dial lists produced subject to a protective order and

27

limited the plaintiff's use of the information. Id. at 4. The District Court also rejected the

28

defendant's argument that production of the requested documents was overly
9

17cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

burdensome, because the defendant "did not provide an estimate as to the time or expense

2

that would be required to produce the outbound dial list." Id. at 5.

3

Third, plaintiff cites Thrasher v. CMRE Financial Services, Inc., No. 14cv 1540-

4

BEN(NLS), 2015 WL 1138469 (S.D. Cal. 2015), which similarly found that outbound

5

dial lists were relevant to the issues of numerosity and commonality and should be

6

produced even though they included land line numbers. Id. at p. 2. The defendant was

7

given the option of "scrubbing" or redacting land line numbers from the lists prior to

8

production. Id.

9

DialAmerica argues in the Joint Motion that the Court should deny plaintiffs

10

request for an order compelling further responses to Document Request Nos. 9, 10, 11,

11

and 13, because they seek discovery that is irrelevant and disproportionate to the needs of

12

the case. According to DialAmerica, the scope of these document requests "vastly

13

exceeds the dispute of the matter ... " and it would be "unduly burdensome" for

14

DialAmerica to compile the documents and information plaintiff seeks in response to

15

these requests. [Doc. No. 39, at pp. 10-11.] DialAmerica believes that Document

16

Request Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 13 are worded broadly as part of a "fishing expedition" to

17

"develop new claims" not identified in the operative Second Amended Complaint. [Doc.

18

No. 39, at p. 1O.] However, as mentioned above, a party opposing discovery must clarify,

19

explain, and support its objections with "competent evidence." Lofton v. Verizon, 308

20

F .R.D. at 281. Here, DialAmerica did not submit any evidence, such as a declaration

21

estimating the time and cost of providing full or partial responses to these requests, so the

22

Court cannot adequately consider or address the issue of proportionality.

23

Federal Rule 34(b)(l)(A) states that a request for documents "must describe with

24

reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected." Fed.R.Civ.P.

25

34(b )(1 )(A). '"All-encompassing demands' that do not allow a reasonable person to

26

ascertain which documents are required do not meet the particularity standard of Rule

27

34(b)(l)(A)." In re Asbestos Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 256 F.R.D. 151, 157 (E.D. Pa.

28

2009). See also Regan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co., 526 F .3d 641, 649-650 (10th Cir. 2008)
10

17cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

(indicating that "sweeping requests" should be discouraged and that requests for

2

production should be narrowly tailored "for production of the fewest documents

3

possible").

4

Generally, a discovery request without any temporal or other reasonable limitations

5

is objectionable on its face as overly broad. See, e.g., Ehrlich v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.,

6

302 F.R.D. 620, 625 (D. Kan. 2014); Johnson v. Kraft Foods North America, Inc., 236

7

F.R.D. 535, 541-542 (D. Kan. 2006). A document request or interrogatory is also overly

8

broad or unduly burdensome on its face if it: "( 1) uses an omnibus term such as 'relating

9

to' or 'concerning,' and (2) applies to a general category or group of documents or a

10

broad range of information." Moses v. Halstead, 236 F.R.D. 667, 672 (D. Kan. 2006).

11

On the other hand, a discovery request will not be objectionable as overly broad if it uses

12

an omnibus term to modify "a sufficiently specific type of information or group of

13

documents." Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging Inc., 291 F.R.D. 251, 261-262 (E.D. Wisc.

14

2013). For example, in a wrongful employment termination action, a document request

15

would be objectionable as overly broad if it sought all documents and e-mails referring or

16

relating to the plaintiff and/or the allegations in the complaint or the defendant's

17

defenses. Id. By contrast, a more specific document request in the same case would not

18

be objectionable as overly broad if it sought production of all documents referring or

19

relating to the defendant's decision to eliminate plaintiffs job. Id. at 262.

20

"Despite the overly broad nature of [a discovery request], a party typically has a

21

duty to respond to it to the extent the [discovery request] is not objectionable and can be

22

narrowed to an appropriate scope." Moses v. Halstead, 236 F.R.D. at 672. "This rule

23

does not apply, however, and the Court will not compel further response, when

24

inadequate guidance exists to determine the proper scope of the [discovery request]." Id.

25

When a discovery request "is overly broad on its face or when relevancy is not readily

26

apparent, the party seeking discovery has the burden to show the relevancy of the

27

request." Johnson v. Kraft, 236 F.R.D. at 542 n.20. In addition, "[a] responding party is

28

not generally required to conduct extensive research in order to answer an interrogatory,
11
l 7cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

but a reasonable effort to respond must be made." Gorrell v. Sneath, 292 F.R.D. 629,

2

632 (E.D. Cal. 2013).

3

As DialAmerica contends, Document Request Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 13 are overly

4

broad on their face, because they do not include any reasonable limitations and appear to

5

seek documents and information that exceed the scope of discovery permitted under Rule

6

26(b )(1 ). [Doc. No. 39, at pp. 13-17.] These requests use the omnibus terms "any and

7

all," "relating to," and "regarding" to apply to a very broad range of documents or

8

reports. When considered in light of the narrow allegations in the Second Amended

9

Complaint and other information currently available to the Court, the relevance of such a

10

broad range of documents is not readily apparent. Plaintiff has not explained in the Joint

11

Motion why such a broad range of documents and information are being requested when

12

the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint are remarkably narrow by comparison.

13

There is also nothing to indicate plaintiff attempted to narrow the scope of these requests

14

during the meet and confer process. As a result, it is difficult for DialAmerica or the

15

Court to determine what documents should be produced in response to these requests.

16

More specifically, Document Request Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 13 broadly seek

17

production of reports listing calls made to any person that DialAmerica called on its own

18

behalf and/or on behalf of "any third party." [Doc. No. 39, at pp. 6, 10, 13-14.] As noted

19

above, the Second Amended Complaint only includes allegations that unauthorized,

20

"autodialed" calls were made to plaintiffs cellular telephone by DialAmerica on behalf

21

of American Standard. [Doc. No. 42, at p. 5.] Other than the general allegation that

22

DialAmerica is a telemarketing company that "provides domestic call center services for

23

a variety of industries" [Doc. No. 42, at p. 4], there are no factual allegations in the

24

Second Amended Complaint to indicate the relevance of any calls that DialAmerica may

25

have made on its own behalf or on behalf of any third party other than American

26

Standard. In other words, the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint and

27

plaintiffs conclusory relevance arguments are not enough to justify an order allowing

28

plaintiff to rummage through more than four years' worth of telephone calls made by
12
l 7cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

DialAmerica on its own behalf or on behalf of any third party other than American

2

Standard. Without more, the Court finds that plaintiff is only entitled to production of

3

documents showing calls made by Dial America on behalf of American Standard during

4

a time period that directly relates to the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint.

5

As noted above, DialAmerica submitted a copy of its agreement to provide

6

American Standard with an "outbound telemarketing program," and this agreement was

7

fully executed as of May 23, 2016. [Doc. No. 39-2, at p. 5, 7.] The start time for this

8

project was "two weeks after DialAmerica has received the [call] list. ... " Doc. No. 39-

9

2, at p. 5.] The Second Amended Complaint alleges that unauthorized, "autodialed" calls

10

were made to plaintiffs cellular telephone between July 2017 and August 2017. [Doc.

11

No. 42, at p. 4.] DialAmerica admits that it made one call to plaintiffs cellular telephone

12

number on October 10, 2017. [Doc. No. 35, at p. 3; Doc. No. 35-1, at p. 2.] It therefore

13

appears that the above-referenced agreement between DialAmerica and American

14

Standard would have been in effect at the time of the alleged calls to plaintiffs cellular

15

telephone. There is nothing to indicate the existence of a prior agreement between these

16

parties that would have resulted in calls made by DialAmerica to plaintiff or to any other

17

consumer on behalf of American Standard prior to the May 23, 2016 agreement. Nor

18

does plaintiff explain the relevance of any autodialed calls made prior to the time of this

19

agreement. As a result, the relevance of calls made "since four years prior to the filing of

20

this action" is unclear. [Doc. No. 39, at pp. 6, 13, 14.] Unless there was a prior or

21

different agreement for DialAmerica to provide American Standard with telemarketing

22

services, the relevant time period is a narrow one - May 23, 2016 through October 10,

23

201 7. "Outbound dial lists" would also be relevant through the present day to the extent

24

DialAmerica's agreement to provide American Standard with an "outbound

25

telemarketing program" continued beyond October 10, 2017.

26

In sum, the Court finds that plaintiffs request for an order compelling defendant to

27

provide further responses to Document Request Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 13 must be

28

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs request is GRANTED to the extent
13
I 7cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendant to produce outbound dial lists for

2

autodialed calls made to cellular telephone numbers on behalf of American Standard for

3

marketing or advertising purposes during the period May 23, 2016 through the present. If

4

DialAmerica is unable to produce an outbound dial list that only includes cellular

5

telephones, it must produce an outbound dial list of all autodialed calls made on behalf of

6

American Standard for marketing or advertising purposes during the period May 23,

7

2016 through the present. Names and addresses associated with any telephone numbers

8

are not relevant at this time and should be redacted prior to production. Plaintiffs

9

request is DENIED to the extent it seeks an order compelling production of any other

10

documents in response to Document Request Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 13.

11

III.

Plaintiff served defendant with the following document requests that are now at

12
13

Dia/America's Telephone Dialing System

issue in the parties' Joint Motion:

Document Request No. 21: "All documents relating to [DialAmerica's]

14

use of an automatic telephone dialing system." [Doc. No. 39, at p. 17.]

15

Document Request No. 22: "All documents relating to [DialAmerica's]

16

use of a predictive dialer." [Doc. No. 39, at p. 21.]

17

Document Request No. 29: "Produce any and all documents describing

18

the means for determining methodology for initiating and invoking the
telephone equipment and systems to make outgoing calls since four years
prior to the filing of the Complaint in this action." [Doc. No. 39, at p. 23.]

19
20
21

Document Request No. 30: "Produce any and all technical manuals,

22

network architecture diagrams, booklets, guidelines, and memoranda
regarding telecommunications/dialing systems used since four years prior
to the filing of the Complaint in this action." [Doc. No. 39, at p. 24.]

23
24

Document Request No. 31: "Produce any and all documents indicating

25

whether the telephone used to call plaintiff has the capacity to store
telephone numbers to be called (regardless if it was used this way)." [Doc.
No. 39, at p. 25.]

26
27

28

Ill
14
l 7cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

DialAmerica objected to these requests and did not provide plaintiff with any

2

substantive responses. DialAmerica's objections are that these requests are overly broad

3

and seek documents that are irrelevant. DialAmerica's responses to these requests are

4

deficient under Federal Rule 34(b)(2)(B) and (C), because they include only general,

5

boilerplate objections with no reasons and do not state whether any responsive materials

6

are being withheld based on these objections. Nor do DialAmerica's responses provide

7

any specificity as to the part or parts of the requests that are objectionable. Despite the

8

requirements in Federal Rule 34(b )(B) and (C), DialAmerica did not state in any of its

9

responses whether it would make a partial production. For these reasons alone, the Court

10

finds that plaintiff is entitled to an order requiring DialAmerica to provide further

11

responses to Document Request Nos. 21, 22, 29, 30, and 31.

12

DialAmerica also contends that Document Request Nos. 21, 22, 29, 30, and 31 are

13

overly burdensome because of the time that would be required to compile the documents

14

and information plaintiff seeks. In conclusory fashion, DialAmerica states that "[t]he

15

time required ... to obtain the information" would be "unduly burdensone, if not

16

impossible." [Doc. No. 39, at p. 2.] However, as noted above, DialAmerica has the

17

burden to explain, clarify, and support its objections with "competent evidence." Lofton

18

v. Verizon, 308 F .R.D. at 281. Yet, DialAmerica did not submit any evidence to

19

substantiate this objection, such as a declaration setting forth an estimate of the time and

20

expense involved in providing full and/or partial responses to plaintiffs requests. As a

21

result, the Court is unable to determine "whether the burden or expense of the proposed

22

discovery outweighs its likely benefit." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(l). Nor is the Court able to

23

determine whether a protective order would be appropriate under Rule 26(b )(2)(C) on the

24

ground that plaintiff is able to obtain the requested information in a manner that is "less

25

burdensome," such as the service of narrowly tailored interrogatories on DialAmerica.

26

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i).

27
28

On the other hand, the Court finds that Document Request Nos. 21, 22, 29, 30, and
31 are overly broad on their face as to time and scope because they seek production of
15
l 7cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

broad, general categories of documents using the terms "all," "any and all," and "relating

2

to" and beginning four years before the original Complaint was filed in this action. As

3

noted in the previous section of this Order, the relevant time period at issue based on

4

information currently before the Court is a narrow one -May 23, 2016 through the

5

present. Because the requests are worded so broadly, they seek access to documents that

6

undoubtedly exceed the relevance and proportionality standards in Rule 26(b )(1 ). From

7

the requests alone, it is simply not possible for defendant to determine what documents

8

should be produced.

9

In the Joint Motion, plaintiff did explain that in response to Document Request

10

Nos. 21, 22, 29, 20, and 31 she simply seeks to discover documents that would identify

11

the capabilities of defendant's dialing system, such as documents that would reveal how

12

the system functions and whether the system qualifies as an ATDS. Citing Title 47,

13

United States Code Section 227, plaintiff correctly contends that documents revealing the

14

features and capabilities of defendant's dialing system are relevant to causes of action

15

brought under the TCPA. [Doc. No. 39, at p. 17.] Plaintiff seeks to discover enough

16

information so that her expert can issue an opinion as to whether DialAmerica' s

17

telephone dialing system qualifies as an ATDS under the TCPA. To obtain this

18

information, plaintiff is willing to have its own expert examine the system. Alternatively,

19

plaintiff is willing to assist defendant in identifying responsive documents.

20

DialAmerica did not directly respond to plaintiffs offer to narrow the scope of

21

Document Request Nos. 21, 22, 29, 30, and 31 or plaintiffs offer to assist in identifying

22

responsive documents. Instead, DialAmerica argues that production of documents

23

"related to the dialing equipment are [un]necessary at this stage of the litigation." [Doc.

24

No. 39, at p. 20.] While documents revealing the functions and features of

25

DialAmerica's dialing equipment may not be needed in connection with the filing of

26

motions related to class certification, the Court notes that the operative Scheduling Order

27

in this case provides that "[f]act and class discovery are not bifurcated" in this case.

28

[Doc. No. 45, at p. 2] The Court also notes that the documents sought in response to
16

l 7cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

these requests will be relevant to key issues raised in the Second Amended Complaint

2

regardless of whether a class is ultimately certified in this case. Although these requests

3

are somewhat premature because they do not appear relevant to class issues, the Court

4

notes that class discovery should be nearly complete at this point in time, and the parties

5

will soon be focusing on the remainder of fact discovery in the case. Therefore, the Court

6

finds that plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling defendant to provide further

7

responses and to produce a narrow category of documents in response to these requests.

8

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that plaintiffs request for an order

9

compelling further responses to Document Request Nos. 21, 22, 29, 30, and 31 must be

10

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. To the extent plaintiff requests an order

11

compelling production of the following documents, the request is GRANTED: Manuals,

12

diagrams, booklets, guidelines, memoranda, or portions thereof, that reveal the material

13

features and functions of the dialing system that DialAmerica used to provide American

14

Standard with an "outbound telemarketing program" during the relevant time period (i.e.,

15

May 23, 2016 to the present) and/or that address: (1) whether DialAmerica has used or

16

uses an "automatic telephone dialing system" and/or a "predictive dialer"; (2) whether the

17

telephone dialing system DialAmerica used to make telephone calls on behalf American

18

Standard has or had the capacity to store telephone numbers; and (3) the methodology

19

used by DialAmerica' s telephone dialing system to initiate and invoke outgoing

20

telephone calls on behalf of American Standard. DialAmerica must specifically advise

21

plaintiff in writing if it does not have responsive documents that address any of these

22

topics. If responsive documents do not exist, plaintiffs remedy is other discovery

23

methods, such as a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition or narrowly tailored interrogatories. To the

24

extent Document Request Nos. 21, 22, 29, 3 0, and 31 seek production of any other

25

documents, plaintiffs request for an order compelling production is DENIED at this time

26

for failure to establish relevance.

27

III

28

Ill
17
l 7cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1 JV.

Number of Calls by Dia/America.

2

Plaintiff served defendant with the following special interrogatories that are now at

3
4

5
6
7

8
9

10
11

12
13

issue in the parties' Joint Motion:

Special Interrogatory No. 3: "If [DialAmerica] [has] attempted to contact
consumers for the purposes of marketing and/or advertising on
[DialAmerica' s] own behalf and/or any third party at any time since four
years prior to the filing of this action to the date of responding to these
interrogatories, state when any such attempts began, how the contacts were
carried out [i.e. in what form: telephone, in person, email etc.] and dates of
all contacts made via an automatic telephone dialing system (hereinafter
'ATDS') and/or prerecorded messages." [Doc. No. 39, at p. 26.]
Special Interrogatory No. 5: "State how many telephone numbers
[DialAmerica] [has] called, including cellular telephones, landlines, or any
other telephone lines, since four years prior to the filing of this action to
the date of answering these interrogatories, in [DialAmerica' s] attempts to
market and/or advertise for or on [DialAmerica' s] behalf and/or any third
party." [Doc. No. 39, at p. 30.]

14

15
16
17
18

19
20

21

Special Interrogatory No. 6: "State how many telephone numbers
[DialAmerica] [has] called, including cellular telephones, landlines, or any
other telephone lines, since four years prior to the filing of this action to
the date of answering these interrogatories, in [DialAmerica' s] attempts to
market and/or advertise for and on [DialAmerica's] behalf and/or any third
party using an ATDS." [Doc. No. 39, at p. 33.]
Special Interrogatory No. 7: "State how many calls [DialAmerica] [has]
made to cellular telephones, mobile telephones, and wireless devices since
four years prior to the filing of this action to the date of answering these
interrogatories, using an ATDS." [Doc. No. 39, at p. 36.]

22
23

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 states that "[e]ach interrogatory must, to the

24

extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath."

25

Fed.R.Civ.P. (b)(1)(3). In other words, parties have an obligation to respond to

26

interrogatories to the fullest extent possible. "The grounds for objecting to an

27

interrogatory must be stated with specificity." Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)( 4). "Boilerplate,

28

generalized objections are inadequate and tantamount to not making any objection at all."
18

l 7cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

Walker v. Lakewood Condo. Owners Ass'n, 186 F.R.D. 584, 587 (C.D. Cal. 1999). For

2

example, objections must explain how an interrogatory is overly broad or unduly

3

burdensome. Mitchell v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 208 F.R.D. 455, 458 at n. 4

4

(D.D.C. 2002).

5

Here, DialAmerica objected to these special interrogatories and did not provide

6

plaintiff with any substantive responses. In other words, Dial America did not respond to

7

these interrogatories to the fullest extent possible. DialAmerica's objections are that

8

these special interrogatories are overly broad and harassing. [Doc. No. 39, at pp. 26, 30,

9

33, 36, 42, 45.] DialAmerica's responses to these requests are deficient under Federal

10

Rule 33(b )( 4), because they include only general, boilerplate objections and do not

11

explain how these interrogatories are overly broad and harassing. For these reasons

12

alone, the Court finds that plaintiff is entitled to an order requiring DialAmerica to

13

provide further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 7.

14

In the Joint Motion, plaintiff contends that the Court should order DialAmerica to

15

provide further response to these interrogatories, because she has alleged that

16

DialAmerica made marketing calls to her cellular telephone using an ATDS and a pre-

17

recorded message, so she is entitled to discover information about "similar calls." [Doc.

18

No. 39, at p. 26.] According to plaintiff, information about "similar calls" is relevant to

19

class certification issues, and DialAmerica has admitted that it made calls to "similarly

20

situated individuals," but the number of those calls is currently unknown. [Doc. No. 39,

21

at pp. 26, 28.] Obviously, the number of"similar calls" (i.e., autodialed calls made by

22

DialAmerica to cellular telephones on behalf of American Standard for marketing or

23

advertising purposes during the relevant time period) would be relevant to the class

24

certification issue of numerosity as it would be indicative of the number of potential class

25

members. See, e.g., Stemple v. QC Holdings, Inc., 2013 WL 10870906, at 2.

26

DialAmerica argues in the Joint Motion that "[t]here is no reason that plaintiff

27

needs information on all attempted calls DialAmerica has made in the past four years

28

using an ATDS as that request includes persons that could not be a part of the putative
19

l 7cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

class." [Doc. No. 29, at p. 29.] As worded, the Court finds that Special Interrogatory

2

Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 7 are overly broad on their face as to time and scope for the same

3

reasons discussed above in connection with plaintiffs document requests. These

4

interrogatories also appear to be somewhat repetitive or duplicative of one another.

5

However, since plaintiff indicated in the Joint Motion that the purpose of these

6

interrogatories is to discover information about "similar calls," the Court finds that

7

plaintiffs request for an order compelling DialAmerica to respond to Special

8

Interrogatory Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 7 must be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

9

Plaintiffs request is GRANTED to the extent these interrogatories seek to discover the

10

number of autodialed calls made by DialAmerica on behalf of American Standard as part

11

of any marketing or advertising campaign and the time period(s) when those autodialed

12

calls were made. Plaintiffs request is also GRANTED to the extent DialAmerica is able

13

to determine how many of any such calls were made to cellular telephones. If

14

appropriate under the circumstances set forth in Federal Rule 33( d), DialAmerica has the

15

option to provide this information by producing specifically identified business records.

16

To the extent Special Interrogatory Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 7 seek any other information,

17

plaintiffs request for an order compelling further responses by DialAmerica is DENIED

18

for failure to establish relevance.

19

v.

20
21
22

Methods for Documenting or Storing Telephone Calls.
Special Interrogatory No. 8: "Describe any system, scheme, technique,
practice, procedure, or method that [DialAmerica] maintain[s], operate[s], or
employ[ s] to record, memorialize, or otherwise document telephone calls
between [DialAmerica] and individuals." [Doc. No. 39, at p. 39.]

23
24

DialAmerica objected to Special Interrogatory No. 8 as overly broad. However,

25

defendant did state as follows: "Without waiving these objections, please see DA

26

Shuckett 001." [Doc. No. 39, at p. 39.] In the Joint Motion, plaintiff simply repeats

27

arguments made in connection with prior discovery requests at issue and does not

28

specifically address why DialAmerica' s response to this particular interrogatory is
20
17cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

inadequate. Under the circumstances set forth in Federal Rule 33(d), a party may respond

2

to an interrogatory by specifying a business record or records. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(d).

3

Although DialAmerica' s response is somewhat ambiguous, it does appear that

4

DialAmerica's position is that plaintiff is able to determine how DialAmerica records,

5

stores, memorializes, or documents telephone calls by referencing a particular document

6

which presumably has been produced in the litigation and labeled "DA Shuckett 00 l ."

7

[Doc. No. 39, at p. 39.] In other words, without more, it appears that DialAmerica

8

provided an adequate response to this request by referencing a business record that has

9

been produced in this litigation as permitted under Federal Rule 33(d). Under these

10

circumstances, the Court finds that plaintiff's request for an order compelling

11

DialAmerica to provide a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 8 must be

12

DENIED for failure to establish that DialAmerica provided an inadequate response to this

13

interrogatory.

14

VI.

15
16
17

Telephone Numbers Used by Dia/America to Make Calls.
Special Interrogatory No. 11: "Identify all local and long distance
telephone numbers used by [DialAmerica] to make outgoing calls since four
years prior to the filing of this action to the date of answering these
interrogatories." [Doc. No. 39, at p. 42.]

18
19

Defendant objected to Interrogatory No. 11 as overly broad but stated that

20

"DialAmerica uses business numbers to place calls for its business purposes including its

21

number [phone]." [Doc. No. 39, at p. 42.] In the Second Amended Complaint,

22

plaintiff alleges she received repeated marketing calls from DialAmerica to her cellular

23

telephone between July 2017 and August 2017 from telephone numbers that "always

24

started with 619-340-XXXX where the last four numbers always changed." [Doc. No.

25

42, at p. 4.] Plaintiff seeks an order compelling DialAmerica to disclose "all local and

26

long distance telephone numbers used by [DialAmerica] to make outgoing calls" so she

27

can cross-reference that list with the calls she received in order to determine the exact

28

number of calls she received from DialAmerica. [Doc. No. 39, at p. 42.]
21
l 7cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

Although Interrogatory No. 11 is in some respects objectionable as overly broad,

2

some of the information sought in response to this interrogatory is obviously relevant

3

based on the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint. It is also apparent that

4

DialAmerica did not respond to this interrogatory to the fullest extent possible.

5

Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiffs request for an order compelling DialAmerica

6

to provide a further response to Interrogatory No. 11 must be GRANTED. Plaintiff is

7

entitled to discover each and every telephone number DialAmerica used to make

8

autodialed marketing or advertising calls to consumers on behalf of American Standard

9

during the period May 23, 2016 to the present. In addition, plaintiff is entitled to

10

discover whether DialAmerica used the telephone numbers listed on pages 4 and 5 of the

11

Second Amended Complaint for marketing or advertising purposes or for any other

12

purpose during the period May 23, 2016 to the present. [Doc. No. 42, at pp. 4-5.]

13

Plaintiffs request for an order compelling DialAmerica to disclose any other information

14

in response to Interrogatory No. 11 is DENIED for failure to establish relevance.

15

VIL

16
17

18

Dia/America's Marketing and Advertising Policies and Procedures.
Special Interrogatory No. 16: "State precisely all of [DialAmerica's]
policies and procedures for marketing and/or advertising since four years
prior to the filing of this action to the date of answering these
interrogatories." [Doc. No. 39, at p. 45.]

19
20

DialAmerica objected to Special Interrogatory No. 16 as overly broad (i.e., that

21

"the scope vastly exceeds the dispute in this matter"). [Doc. No. 39, at p. 45.] In the

22

Joint Motion, DialAmerica also argues that the information sought in response to this

23

request is unlikely to substantiate class allegations. [Doc. No. 39, at p. 47.] As with all

24

of the other discovery requests at issue in the parties' Joint Motion, Special Interrogatory

25

No. 16 is overly broad on its face as to time and scope. In the Joint Motion, plaintiff

26

argues in conclusory fashion that "[t]he information requested is clearly relevant to

27

determine class issues of numerosity, commonality, ascertainability, and predominance."

28

[Doc. No. 39, at p. 45.] However, without more, the relevance of the broad range of
22
17cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

information requested is not obvious, and the Court is unable to determine the proper

2

scope of this interrogatory. In other words, Special Interrogatory No. 16 does not meet

3

the "reasonable particularity" standard in Federal Rule 34(b)( 1)(A), and plaintiff also did

4

not met its burden of establishing the relevance of the information requested in this

5

interrogatory.

6

The Court notes that DialAmerica has already disclosed some policies and

7

procedures that are obviously relevant to the dispute between the parties. For example,

8

DialAmerica disclosed its "Do-Not-Call Policy." [Doc. No. 35-2, at p. 2.] DialAmerica

9

also disclosed its written agreement to provide American Standard with "an outbound

10

telemarketing program," which includes the procedures to be followed by DialAmerica

11

and American Standard to implement the program. [Doc. No. 35-3, at pp. 2-4; Doc. No.

12

39-2, at pp. 5-7.] Additional information related to DialAmerica's internal policies and

13

procedures is included in the Declaration of DialAmerica's General Counsel, which was

14

submitted in support of arguments made by DialAmerica in the parties' Joint Motion.

15

[Doc. No. 39-2, at pp. 2-4.] To the extent plaintiff believes that other policies and

16

procedures are relevant to class or other issues in the case, it must make more specific

17

requests for this information.

18

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that plaintiffs request for an order

19

compelling DialAmerica to provide a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 16

20

must be DENIED. However, this denial is without prejudice to plaintiff serving

21

DialAmerica with new, more specific requests for disclosure of relevant policies and

22

procedures.

23

VIII. Dia/America's Trade Secret Claims.

24

In response to all of the discovery requests now at issue in the parties' Joint

25

Motion, except for Special Interrogatory No. 11, DialAmerica has objected to the

26

disclosure of all responsive documents and information based on a claim that its data and

27

dialing system are protectable as trade secrets. [Doc. No. 39, at pp. 6-50.] In support of

28

this claim, DialAmerica submitted a Declaration by its General Counsel detailing
23
l 7cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

DialAmerica's efforts to maintain the secrecy of its data and proprietary dialing system.

2

[Doc. No. 39-2, at pp. 3-7 (Kaya Deel.).] This Declaration also states as follows: "If the

3

[data or] dialing system [is] disclosed to unauthorized parties, the information could be

4

used by a competing or non-competing business to market goods or services to

5

DialAmerica's detriment." [Doc. No. 39-2, at p. 3.]

6

Under Federal Rule 26( c)(1 ), this Court "may, for good cause, issue an order to

7

protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden

8

or expense" by "requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development,

9

or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way .... "

10

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(l)(G). "Where trade secrets or other confidential commercial

11

information is involved, the court will balance the risk of disclosure to competitors

12

against the risk that a protective order will impair prosecution or defense of the claims."

13

Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech (SSPF) Int'!, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 555 (C.D. Cal. 2007).

14

As outlined above, plaintiff has established the relevance and importance of at least

15

a portion of the documents and information sought in response to the written discovery

16

requests at issue in the parties' Joint Motion. Although the discovery requests at issue in

17

the parties' Joint Motion were worded so broadly as to seek almost unlimited access to

18

DialAmerica's confidential business records, including documents and information that

19

are clearly protectable as trade secrets, the Court has considerably narrowed the scope of

20

the requests for reasons of relevance and proportionality. In narrowing and limiting the

21

scope of these requests, the Court has also considered DialAmerica's interest in

22

protecting the confidentiality of its data and other trade secrets. However, it is apparent

23

that some documents and information that DialAmerica considers to be confidential and

24

protectable as trade secrets must be disclosed for the parties to reach a fair resolution of

25

the case.

26

Given the relevance and importance of the documents and information that must be

27

produced as a result of this Order, the Court finds that DialAmerica's confidential

28

commercial information and trade secrets can be adequately protected by the entry of a
24

l 7cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

suitable protective order. Recently, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Protective Order

2

and a proposed order governing the exchange of confidential documents and information

3

between the parties for the purposes of this case. The Court expects that the parties'

4

proposed protective order will be in effect at the time this Order is issued. Therefore, any

5

documents or information that DialAmerica must disclose in order to comply with this

6

Order may be designated confidential or highly confidential as appropriate and produced

7

subject to the protective order.

Conclusion

8
9

For the reasons outlined more fully above, plaintiffs request for an order

10

compelling further responses to certain written discovery requests is GRANTED in part

11

and DENIED in part as follows:

12

1.

In response to plaintiffs Document Request Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 13,

13

DialAmerica shall produce outbound dial lists for autodialed calls made to cellular

14

telephone numbers on behalf of American Standard for marketing or advertising purposes

15

during the period May 23, 2016 through the present. If DialAmerica is unable to produce

16

an outbound dial list that only includes autodialed calls to cellular telephones, it must

17

produce an outbound dial list of all autodialed calls made on behalf of American Standard

18

for marketing or advertising purposes during the period May 23, 2016 through the

19

present. Names and addresses associated with any telephone numbers are not relevant at

20

this time and should be redacted prior to production. Plaintiffs request for an order

21

compelling production of any other documents in response to Document Request Nos. 9,

22

10, 11, and 13 is DENIED for failure to establish relevance.

23

2.

In response to plaintiffs Document Request Nos. 21, 22, 29, 3 0, and 31,

24

DialAmerica shall produce manuals, diagrams, booklets, guidelines, memoranda, or

25

portions thereof, that reveal the material features and functions of the dialing system that

26

DialAmerica used to provide American Standard with an "outbound telemarketing

27

program" during the relevant time period (i.e., May 23, 2016 to the present) and/or that

28

address: (1) whether DialAmerica has used or uses an "automatic telephone dialing
25
l 7cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

system" and/or a "predictive dialer"; (2) whether the telephone dialing system

2

DialAmerica used to make telephone calls on behalf American Standard has or had the

3

capacity to store telephone numbers; and (3) the methodology used by DialAmerica's

4

telephone dialing system to initiate and invoke outgoing telephone calls on behalf of

5

American Standard. DialAmerica must specifically advise plaintiff in writing if it does

6

not have responsive documents that address any of these topics. Plaintiffs request for an

7

order compelling production of any other documents in response to Document Request

8

Nos. 21, 22, 29, 30, and 31 is DENIED for failure to establish relevance.

9

3.

In response to plaintiff's Special Interrogatory Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 7,

10

DialAmerica shall disclose the number of autodialed calls it made on behalf of American

11

Standard as part of any marketing or advertising campaign and the time period(s) when

12

those autodialed calls were made. If possible, defendant shall also disclose how many of

13

any such calls were made to cellular telephones. If appropriate under the circumstances

14

set forth in Federal Rule 33( d), DialAmerica has the option to provide this information by

15

producing specifically identified business records. Plaintiffs request for an order

16

compelling DialAmerica to disclose any other information in response to Special

17

Interrogatory Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 7 is DENIED for failure to establish relevance.

18

4.

Plaintiffs request for an order compelling DialAmerica to provide a further

19

response to Special Interrogatory No. 8 is DENIED for failure to establish that

20

DialAmerica failed to provide an adequate response to this interrogatory.

21

5.

In response to plaintiffs Special Interrogatory No. 11, DialAmerica shall

22

disclose each and every telephone number it used to make autodialed marketing or

23

advertising calls to consumers on behalf of American Standard during the period May 23,

24

2016 to the present. DialAmerica shall also disclose whether it used any of the telephone

25

numbers listed on pages 4 and 5 of the Second Amended Complaint to make calls for

26

marketing or advertising purposes or for any other purpose during the period May 23,

27

2016 to the present. [Doc. No. 42, at pp. 4-5.] Plaintiffs request for an order compelling

28
26
l 7cv2073-LAB(KSC)

1

DialAmerica to provide any other information in response to Special Interrogatory No. 11

2

is DENIED for failure to establish relevancy.

3

6.

Plaintiff's request for an order compelling DialAmerica to provide a further

4

response to Special Interrogatory No. 16 is DENIED for failure to establish relevance

5

and/or to meet the "reasonable particularity" standard in Federal Rule 34(b )(1 )(A).

6

However, this denial is without prejudice to plaintiff serving DialAmerica with new,

7

more specific requests for disclosure of relevant policies and procedures.

8
9

8.

No later than October 5, 2018, DialAmerica shall fully and completely

comply with this Order by producing documents and providing further responses to

10

interrogatories as directed herein.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: September

:z__, 2018

13

14

United States Magistrate Judge

15

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

26
27
28
27
I 7cv2073-LAB(KSC)