Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Out of Proportion: Court Denies Discovery Requests in Putative TCPA Class Action Due to Burden On Defendant

March 13, 2018 by Carlton Fields

This putative Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action arose from alleged marketing calls by Quicken Loans (Quicken) to potential mortgage customers. After the magistrate judge granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel production of “all documents of any type or kind or records of communications received by Defendant or any third party from a proposed class member requesting that Defendant not contact that consumer or customer,” Quicken objected to the district court. Quicken challenged the plaintiff’s request that it produce every shred of documentation in any form about every do-not-call request that Quicken received between September 2012 and June 2013, which would “require collecting and reviewing at least three million e-mails, a review that might cost millions of dollars.” In addition, Quicken objected that it “lack[ed] the capability to determine readily whether a telephone number in an e-mail or Internet ‘lead’ belong[ed] to a residence, a cell phone, or a business” and that “[t]o determine if a number belong[ed] to a residence, Quicken ‘would need to [ ] obtain[ ] [information] from a third-party telephone carrier.’” Quicken substantiated its objection to plaintiff’s discovery requests by submitting employee declarations establishing that compliance with the magistrate’s order would “consume hundreds of hours of Quicken Loans’ computer and team member hours,” and would “take many months (if not longer) to complete.” Finding this persuasive, the district court found that the “class-discovery requests impose[d] on Quicken a burden disproportional to the needs of this action” and overruled the magistrate judge’s order. In addition, the court denied the plaintiff’s request for further discovery and declined to extend the filing deadline for class certification.

Nece v. Quicken Loans, Inc., No. 16-cv-2605-T-23CPT, 2018 WL 1072052, (M.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2018).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Yahoo Enters $80 Million Securities Class Action Settlement After Data Breach

Next Article »

Ninth Circuit Gives Leg Up to Shoe Purchasers’ Data Breach Suit
Avatar

About Carlton Fields

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.