Martin v. Comcast Corporation

Filing 110

ORDER: Plaintiff's Rule 56 (d) motion 103 is granted in part and denied in part for the reasons stated. Discovery should be conducted and completed by March 20, 2015 to allow plaintiff to respond to the motion by the District Judge's deadline of April 7, 2015. [For further details see order] - Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 2/24/2015. Mailed notice (np, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Nicholas M. Martin
Plaintiff

v.

Comcast Corporation
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

12cv6421

Judge Coleman
Magistrate Judge Cox

ORDER
Plaintiff’s Rule 56 (d) motion [103] is granted in part and denied in part for the reasons stated.
Discovery should be conducted and completed by March 20, 2015 to allow plaintiff to respond to
the motion by the District Judge’s deadline of April 7, 2015.

STATEMENT
The Court rejects the argument that plaintiff has waived his right to discovery on issues raised by
defendant’s motion for summary judgment because he failed to appeal this Court’s prior order to
District Judge Coleman under Rule 72. The topics for discovery raised in that motion, which
the Court granted but delayed enforcing until after an adverse ruling on defendant’s motion for
summary judgment, were issues pertaining to a potential class. The Court did not rule that
plaintiff was barred from discovering issues relating to the topics of prior express consent and the
reasonableness of the time frame before plaintiff was taken off the “do not call list.” In fact,
the Court noted that defendant Comcast already had agreed to this discovery, an agreement
which it apparently has withdrawn. Therefore, Rule 72 does not apply here.
The Court finds, however, that discovery under Rule 56 (d) should be limited to the following
which are fairly raised in the defendant’s motion, especially given the fact that plaintiff has filed
no conflicting affidavit in support of his motion for discovery about whether he provided his
telephone number to defendant and for what purpose. Plaintiff shall be permitted him to take
the following depositions: Shaunroy Villacastin (regarding topics raised in his affidavit attached
to defendant’s motion); Al Tenneson (regarding topics raised in his affidavit attached to
defendant’s motion), and a Rule 30 (b) (6) deposition of Comcast pertaining to its general
policies and procedures concerning its do not call list, its subscriber agreement and privacy

policy applicable to all customers, including information pertaining to retention of internet web
pages visited by plaintiff and internet chats allegedly conducted with plaintiff. Comcast should
also provide plaintiff with copies of any internet web pages allegedly visited by plaintiff and web
chats with plaintiff. In the Court’s view, this discovery should allow plaintiff an opportunity to
rebut the factual assertions raised in defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
This discovery should be conducted and completed by March 20, 2015 to allow plaintiff to
respond to the motion by the District Judge’s deadline of April 7, 2015.

Date: 2/24/2015

_______________________________
U.S. Magistrate Judge, Susan E. Cox