Ingram v. W. Cap. Lending, Inc.
Ingram v. W. Cap. Lending, Inc.
2023 WL 4336694 (N.D. Cal. 2023)
April 28, 2023
Cousins, Nathanael M., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The court denied the motion to compel further responses to certain document and interrogatory requests, finding them overly broad and not proportional to the needs of the case. West Capital's blanket claim that class discovery was premature was overruled, but no fees or costs were awarded.
Warren INGRAM, and others, Plaintiffs,
v.
WEST CAPITAL LENDING, INC., Defendants
v.
WEST CAPITAL LENDING, INC., Defendants
Case No. 22-cv-03865 BLF (NC)
United States District Court, N.D. California
Signed April 28, 2023
Counsel
Adam J. Schwartz, Adam J. Schwartz, Attorney at Law, Beverly Hills, CA, Anthony I. Paronich, Pro Hac Vice, Paronich Law, P.C., Hingham, MA, Dana J. Oliver, I, Oliver Law Center, Inc., Rancho Cucamonga, CA, for Plaintiffs.Jonathan D. Fink, Nicholas Gregory Hood, Todd Evan Chvat, Wright Finlay and Zak LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendants.
Cousins, Nathanael M., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN SMALL PART AND MOSTLY DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF Re: ECF 22
*1 Plaintiffs Warren Ingram and Linda Johnstone bring this case against West Capital Lending under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227. Plaintiffs, individually and seeking to represent a nationwide class action of all others similarly situated, allege that West Capital violated the TCPA by making telemarketing calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, including their own. West Capital is a licensed mortgage broker/originator specializing in refinancing existing loans. West Capital denies that it made or authorized any telephone calls to Plaintiffs, and thus is not liable. West Capital further claims that even if the alleged communications did occur, it is not vicariously liable for said communications undertaken by third party independent contractors and/or they were not made willfully or knowingly and thus no treble damages may be sought. See generally, Complaint, ECF 1; CMC Statement, ECF 16.
Now presented to the Court is a discovery letter brief in which Plaintiffs seek to compel further responses to certain document and interrogatory requests. ECF 22. The particular requests at issue are documents requests Nos. 4, 6, 8, 9, and 11, and interrogatory No. 9. ECF 22-1. The Court is aided by the proposed orders filed at ECF 26 (West Capital) and ECF 27 (Plaintiffs). The Court resolves the discovery dispute as follows and vacates the hearing set for May 1.
First, the Court addresses an overarching argument made by West Capital as to the scope of discovery. “West Capital will be filing a motion to stay or bifurcate the class discovery.” ECF 22 at p. 4. That ship has sailed. The parties presented their joint case management plan on October 17, 2022. ECF 16. West Capital did not request, and the Court did not grant, bifurcation or a stay of class discovery. Discovery is open and to the extent West Capital argues that all class discovery is premature, the objection is overruled.
Next, the Court addresses individual requests.
• Interrogatory No. 9: Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is denied. This request is compound, overly broad, and as drafted not proportional to the needs of the case. The Court lacks information from the other interrogatories to evaluate whether there were more than 25 interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1).
• Document request No. 9: “All communications with any vendors that contacted the Plaintiffs.” Motion to compel denied. This request is overly broad and not proportional to the needs of the case. “All communications” is too broad.
• Document request No. 11: “All internal communications at your company regarding any vendors that contacted the Plaintiffs.” Motion to compel denied. This request is overly broad and not proportional to the needs of the case. “All internal communications” in particular is too broad.
• Document request No. 8: “All contracts or documents representing agreements with any vendors that contacted putative class members but not the Plaintiffs.” Motion to compel is denied. This request is overly broad and not proportional to the needs of the case. The “contracts” or “agreements” with “vendors” are not tethered to the claims or defenses in this case, so go well beyond relevant information.
*2 • Document request No. 4: “Please produce all documents relating to any failure by you, or a vendor, to abide by your policies relating to the sending of outbound calls.” The motion to compel is denied. “Documents relating to any failure” and policies “relating to the sending of outbound calls” go beyond relevant information and are not proportional to the needs of the case. This request could be narrowed to connect to claims and defenses made in this case.
• Document request No. 6: “Please produce all documents relating to complaints or do-not-call requests concerning outbound calls, including, but not limited to, lists or databases containing complaints about them, and information identifying the complainants. This request includes any complaints to you by mail, email, live call, IVR, SMS, web form, social media, FCC, FTC, CFPB, state attorney general, BBB or any other source.” The motion to compel is denied. Do-not-call complaints, and who made them, when, and where, are relevant to the case and should be discovered. But this request is overly broad and not proportional because it seeks “databases” and “all documents relating to complaints.” This request could be narrowed to connect to claims and defenses made in this case.
In conclusion, West Capital's blanket claim that class discovery is premature is overruled. But Plaintiffs’ request to compel further responses to documents requests Nos. 4, 6, 8, 9, and 11, and interrogatory No. 9 is denied for the reasons explained in this order. No fees or costs are awarded.
IT IS SO ORDERED.