Threde v. Brandrep LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 5, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-03013
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 A1 ON TRACK SLIDING DOOR REPAIR Case No. 21-cv-03013-SI AND INSTALLATION, INC., et al., 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: DISCOVERY 12 v. Re: Dkt. No. 60 13 BRANDREP LLC, 14 Defendant. 15 16 The parties have submitted a discovery dispute to the Court. Dkt. No. 60. The parties 17 disagree about whether defendant should be required to produce records of telemarketing calls 18 placed on its behalf to potential class members. Plaintiffs state that this discovery is relevant to 19 class certification issues such as numerosity and commonality, as well as defendant’s vicarious 20 liability defense. Defendant objects to this discovery as a guise by plaintiffs to seek a new class 21 representative. Plaintiffs deny that they are seeking a replacement plaintiff, and they state that they 22 are amenable to having defendant produce the data with nondescript labels (i.e. Contact 1, Contact 23 2, Contact 3, etc.). 24 The Court agrees with plaintiffs that the discovery at issue is relevant. See Webb v. 25 Healthcare Revenue Recovery Grp. LLC, No. C. 13-00737 RS, 2014 WL 325132, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 26 Jan. 29, 2014) (ordering production of outbound dial list in TCPA case because such discovery 27 could be relevant to, inter alia, commonality). Defendant’s concern about producing names of 1 Defendant shall produce the outstanding discovery no later than April 18, 2022. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. Sint De 5 || Dated: April 5, 2022 SUSAN ILLSTON 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28