In many TCPA class cases the Plaintiff can obtain the upper hand in discovery and leverage abusive discovery demands and depositions to extract a high-dollar settlement.

But with the proper moves a TCPA defendant can turn the tables and keep discovery far more limited–and this can pose real challenges for a TCPA litigator and class counsel.

For instance, in Saggio v. Medicredit, 2024 WL 1771274 (E.D. Mo. April 24, 2024) the Court barred Plaintiff from examining the Defendant on topics outside of the calls made to the Plaintiff’s number.

The case was originally pleaded as a class action but the court granted the defendant’s motion to phase discovery and focus first solely on the individual plaintiff’s claim. This was done to protect the parties and court from unneeded time and expense.

The Plaintiff essentially ignored that order by serving a 30(b)(6) deposition notice that sought testimony on, inter alia, policies for calls made to other class members and complaints. But none of those topics have anything to do with the individual merits of the plaintiff’s claim–as the Court correctly found:

The Court will grant Medicredit’s requests. When the Court entered the case management order, it limited discovery to Saggio’s individual claim and suitability as class representative to avoid costly and potentially unnecessary class discovery. Topics 2 through 5 frustrate the Court’s purpose by attempting to elicit information about Medicredit’s practices and policies during the entire class period. Saggio argues that these policies and procedures are relevant to his individual claim because they may evince willfulness and the TCPA provides enhanced penalties for willful violations. But to the extent that these policies could be evidence of willfulness, the purpose of the Court’s case management order is better served by eliciting that information in a later phase of discovery.

The Court also agrees that Topic 2 is overbroad. Medicredit’s policies and procedures for all mediums of communication with customers is simply not relevant to the alleged violation of the TCPA. The burden of preparing a witness to testify to these policies and procedures would far outweigh their probative value.

Topics 14 through 20 of Saggio’s notice list as matters for examination prior complaints against Medicredit “concerning alleged TCPA violations similar to those alleged in the present matter,” lawsuits against Medicredit for violation of the TCPA, and Medicredit’s subsequent remedial measures following those lawsuits. ECF No. 55-1 at 5. Medicredit argues that these matters are temporally overbroad, are stated with insufficient particularity, or seek irrelevant and inadmissible information. The Court agrees that these matters are irrelevant to Plaintiff’s individual claim and suitability as class representative. None are related to the alleged violation of the TCPA or whether Saggio “received a nonemergency telephone call from Medicredit to a cellular telephone line through the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice and…did not provide express consent to receive calls from Medicredit at that cellular telephone number.” ECF No. 1 at 5. The Court will accordingly prohibit inquiry into the matters set forth in Topics 14 through 20.

So there you go.

Notice that the original order limiting discovery really cut the limbs off the TCPA plaintiff’s effort to pursue the case as a class action. But that advantage is wasted if the Defendant allows the plaintiff to run roughshod over the court’s order on discovery. But Medicredit did a nice job forcing Plaintiff to honor the ruling and the Court had its back

Good job all the way around–very important that defendants push to keep discovery limited to the appropriate phase of the case as Medicredit did here.