Douglas v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc.

Filing 67

ORDER denying without prejudice 55 Motion for relief from provisions of confidentitality agreement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 8/2/2016. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
PATRICIA DOUGLAS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:15-cv-1185-Orl-22TBS

KOHL’S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Defendant’s Claim
that their Call Logs are “Confidential” (Doc. 55). Defendant has filed a response in
opposition to the motion (Doc. 65), and the matter is ripe for a decision.
During a seven month period, Defendant allegedly made 578 telephone calls to
Plaintiff using an automated telephone dialing system in an attempt to collect a debt (Doc.
54 at 1). Plaintiff claims that all of these calls were made in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(a)(A)(iii) and the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act, FLA. STAT. § 559.55 et seq. (Id.). Defendant contends that
Plaintiff provided her telephone number when she applied for credit, that she consented
to being called, and that she never revoked her consent (Doc. 68 at 3-4).
In discovery, Plaintiff sought copies of Defendant’s call logs documenting the
telephone calls made to her (Id., at 1). Defendant refused to produce the call logs unless
Plaintiff agreed that they are confidential (Id.). Plaintiff consented to a confidentiality
agreement covering the call logs and Defendant produced them (Id., at 1-2). The
confidentiality agreement permits Plaintiff to use the information in the call logs but she

may not file the actual logs (Id., at 2). Now, Plaintiff seeks an order removing the call logs
from the ambit of the confidentiality agreement.
Plaintiff’s motion is premature. She has not explained why she needs to file the call
logs if she can use the information in them. She has also not explained how she intends
to use the call logs if her motion is granted. The Court is not in the habit of making
decisions on issues that do not appear to have any bearing on the case. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED without prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 2, 2016.

Copies furnished to Counsel of Record

-2-