Prater v. Medicredit, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Medicredit's Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 32) is DENIED. Denying 32 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins on 9/19/2014. (NCL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
JOHN PRATER, on behalf of himself
and others similarly-situated,
MEDICREDIT, INC., and
THE OUTSOURCE GROUP, INC., )
Case No. 4:14CV159NCC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the court is the Motion for Protective Order filed by Defendant
Medicredit, Inc. (Doc. 32). The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc.
9). The matter is fully briefed and ready for disposition. For the following
reasons, the Motion will be denied.
Plaintiff John Prater’s Class Action Complaint, filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a) and (b), alleges Defendants Medicredit, Inc., and The Outsource Group,
Inc., (jointly, Defendants) violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227.1 (Doc. 1). The Complaint alleges that Defendants acted
The TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, provides for restrictions on the use of
automated telephone equipment.
together and “routinely violate[ed] 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)2 by placing nonemergency telephone calls to the cellular telephones of consumers using an
automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice,
without the prior express consent of the consumers.” (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 3, 9).
Defendants subsequently filed a motion to stay this matter pending decisions
by the Federal Communications Commission (the FCC) on issues in two petitions
which, Defendants claimed, were both presently before the FCC and dispositive of
the issues presently before the court pursuant to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. 28).
The court denied the Motion to Stay, by Memorandum and Order, dated September
18, 2014. (Doc. 36).
The TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1), provides:
It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, or any
person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United
States-(A) to make any call (other than a call made for emergency
purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party)
using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
(iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging service,
cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other
radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called
party is charged for the call;
In the pending Motion, Defendant Medicredit asks the court for a protective
order, postponing Plaintiffs’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 30(b)(6) deposition of
Medicredit’s corporate designee, scheduled for September 23, 2014. Plaintiff’s
Amended Notice of Taking Deposition, Schedule A, reflects that the topics to be
addressed in the deposition include those relevant to Medicredit’s allegedly placing
non-emergency telephone calls to the cellular telephones of consumers, including
Plaintiff’s, using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or
prerecorded voice. Matters to be addressed are relevant to class certification.
In support of the Motion for Protective Order, Medicredit argues that, if the
deposition proceeds, its corporate designee will be required to investigate and
testify as to the information responsive to the topics relevant to class certification;
that the class certification hearing is not set until June 15, 2015;3 and that
Medicredit will be “unduly burdened” while the Motion to Stay is pending.
Defendants primarily base their arguments in support of the pending Motion on the
premise that the Motion to Stay should have been granted. As stated above,
however, the court has denied the Motion to Stay. Because the court has denied
the Motion to Stay, the class certification hearing set for June 15, 2015, will
Medicredit incorrectly states the class certification hearing is set for May
proceed as scheduled. As such, the court finds that the issues raised by Medicredit
in the Motion for Protective Order are moot and that the Motion should be denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Medicredit’s Motion for Protective Order
(Doc. 32) is DENIED.
Dated this 19th day of September 2014.
/s/ Noelle C. Collins
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?