Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05665/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05665-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LOFTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

VERIZON WIRELESS (VAW) LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-05665-YGR (JSC)

ORDER REGARDING VERIZON’S 

PRODUCTION OF CAMPAIGN 

RESULT REPORTS

Plaintiff brings this putative class action challenging Defendant Verizon Wireless (VAW) 

LLC’s debt collection practices. Plaintiff alleges that Verizon engaged a third party, Collecto,

Inc., to collect Verizon’s past due accounts as Verizon’s agent, and that in doing so Collecto 

violated state and federal law. In particular, Plaintiff alleges that he was not a current or former 

Verizon customer, but that Collecto nonetheless telephoned him on his cell phone on numerous 

occasions in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“IPA”), Cal. Penal Code § 630-

38, and the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A). 

Plaintiff alleges Verizon, through Collecto, violated the IPA by recording telephone calls with 

persons, such as Plaintiff, without the recipient’s permission, and violated the TCPA by using an 

automatic telephone dialing system to make the calls. The action has been referred to the 

undersigned magistrate judge for resolution of discovery disputes.

The Court has held no fewer than nine hearings and status conferences with the parties 

(Dkt. Nos. 44, 45, 48, 49, 67, 80, 93, 99, 104) and issued six discovery orders (Dkt. Nos. 47, 50, 

54, 68, 71, 81) in an attempt to move discovery along in accordance with the command of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that the Rules should be construed to “secure the just, speedy and 

inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Unfortunately, that 

Case 4:13-cv-05665-YGR Document 106 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

has not happened.

A. Collecto Documents

The parties’ disputes in this Court initially focused on discovery from Collecto. Plaintiff 

variously sought “call logs,” “history reports,” and “dialer logs,” which Plaintiff believed would 

identify “wrong number” calls. Verizon eventually represented that it had produced the soughtafter Collecto documents, subject to a few exceptions which the parties wanted to attempt to work 

out themselves in recorded calls with their consultants. The Court agreed and ordered as follows:

The Court will hold a further status conference on January 15, 2015 

at 10:30 a.m. Counsel for both parties must appear in person. If the 

parties are unable to resolve the remaining issues in recorded calls 

with their consultants, then the consultants, too, must appear in 

person at the January 15 conference. Counsel and their consultants 

shall plan on remaining at the courthouse for the duration of the day 

until they have worked out all remaining discovery issues, including 

issues as to production of documents from the other third-party 

vendors.

(Dkt. No. 81.) On January 15, 2015, the parties appeared with their consultants. Rather than 

focus on the documents that had already been produced, however, Plaintiff explained that he had 

recently discovered that there is a different report which each Verizon vendor could create which 

would give Plaintiff most of the information he needs: the campaign result report. The parties 

then met together with their consultants, but were unable to determine at that time if such reports 

could, in fact, be generated. At a follow up status hearing on January 23, 2015, the parties 

reported that they were working on determining whether Collecto could produce such a report and 

the Court therefore scheduled a further status for February 5, 2015.

At a telephone status conference on February 6, 2015 Verizon represented that it had just 

received two reports from Collecto which it believed to be campaign result reports, but that it had 

not yet produced them to Plaintiff. The Court ordered Verizon to provide the reports to Plaintiff 

and to set up a telephone call between Verizon, Collecto and Plaintiff on or before 

Tuesday, February 10, 2015 to discuss the reports and the feasibility of Verizon providing Plaintiff 

with the data he now seeks. 

Case 4:13-cv-05665-YGR Document 106 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

B. Other Verizon Vendor Documents

While Plaintiff was called by Collecto, he seeks to represent a class of all persons who 

were called by any third party vendor on Verizon’s behalf for the collection of debts, not just calls 

made by Collecto. (Dkt. No. 1-1 ¶ 27.) The Court previously ruled that due to its contracts with 

its vendors, Verizon has “control” for the purposes of a Rule 34 document request of documents 

showing what type of dialer system its vendors used. (Dkt. No. 71.) Verizon subsequently 

produced such documents. Plaintiff contends that the documents establish that each vendor 

utilizes a calling system that is capable of being used in such a way as to violate the TCPA, 

although he does not yet know if each did or does so. Plaintiff is seeking documents as to five 

vendors (in addition to Collecto): CBE Group, Conversent, Sunrise, Vantage, and Valentine & 

Kebartas.

Plaintiff previously served subpoenas on at least Sunrise and Valentine & Kebartas as 

these two Verizon vendors moved to quash the subpoenas. The Court denied the motions to quash 

without prejudice because Plaintiff and these third parties had never met and conferred 

regarding the subpoenas. The Court also gave explicit instructions on submission of joint letter 

briefs regarding any remaining subpoena dispute. (Dkt. Nos. 47, 68.) It appears, however, that 

Plaintiff never followed up with these parties regarding the subpoenas; at least Plaintiff never 

brought any dispute to the Court’s attention even though these parties never produced any 

documents.

At the February 6, 2015 status Verizon reported that these vendors are not cooperating 

with Verizon’s request for campaign result reports such that Verizon does not know if these 

vendors have the ability to produce such reports. The Court ordered Verizon to set up telephone 

calls between Verizon, each vendor and Plaintiff to discuss whether and how these reports may be 

created. Such calls must occur on or before Friday, February 13, 2015. 

Verizon currently has pending before the district court judge a motion for judgment on the 

pleadings. (Dkt. No. 77.) Through the motion, Verizon seeks to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s TCPA 

claims that are premised on the conduct of vendors other than Collecto. In the alternative, Verizon 

seeks to exclude persons who received calls from vendors other than Collecto from the class 

Case 4:13-cv-05665-YGR Document 106 Filed 02/09/15 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

definition. The outcome of that motion may impact any future orders regarding discovery of the 

third-party vendors (other than Collecto). In the meantime, however, the parties should proceed 

with arranging the telephone calls to determine the practical feasibility of producing campaign 

result reports. 

CONCLUSION

The Court will hold a further status conference at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 12, 

2015 to discuss the results of the meet and confer regarding the Collecto campaign result reports 

and the status of the telephone calls with the other five third-party vendors.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2015

______________________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:13-cv-05665-YGR Document 106 Filed 02/09/15 Page 4 of 4