Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00809/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00809-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:0227 FCC-Unsolicited Telephone Sales

---

1 

3:18-cv-00809-H-NLS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATIE RENVALL, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., 

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-00809-H-NLS

ORDER:

(1) SUBMITTING MOTION ON THE 

PAPERS; and

(2) DENYING MOTION TO 

BIFURCATE

[Doc. No. 10.]

On June 8, 2018, Defendant Albertsons Companies, Inc. (“Albertsons”) filed a 

motion to bifurcate discovery and partially stay this case. (Doc. No. 10.) Plaintiff Katie 

Renvall (“Renvall”) opposed the motion on July 24, 2018, (Doc. No. 21), and Albertsons 

replied on July 27, 2018. (Doc. No. 22.) Having reviewed the parties’ briefing,1 the Court 

now denies the motion.

This putative class action arises under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 

 

1

 A hearing on the motion is scheduled for August 6, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. (Doc. No. 19.) Pursuant 

to its discretion under Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), the Court determines the matter to be appropriate for 

resolution without oral argument, submits it on the papers, and vacates the motion hearing. 

Case 3:18-cv-00809-H-NLS Document 24 Filed 08/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

3:18-cv-00809-H-NLS

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

(“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227. Renvall alleges that she received an illegal unsolicited text 

message from Albertsons on March 15, 2018. (Doc. No. 1, Complaint, ¶ 13.) She seeks 

to recover statutory damages for herself and on behalf of a class of persons who received 

similar text messages between 2014 and 2018. (Id. at ¶ 26.) Albertsons contends that it 

was not the “maker” of the text message sent to Renvall, as that term is defined by federal 

law. (Doc. No. 11, Albertsons’ Br., at 2.) In this motion, Albertsons asks the Court “to 

bifurcate discovery solely on the discrete and dispositive issue of whether Albertsons is the 

‘maker’ of the . . . text Plaintiff received, and to stay the remainder of the case.” (Id. at 3 

(emphasis omitted).) In other words, Albertsons wishes to forgo any class proceedings 

unless and until Renvall survives a summary judgment motion on her individual claim. 

District courts have broad discretion to divide discovery into multiple discrete 

phases when doing so enhances the efficiency of the litigation and is otherwise reasonable 

under the circumstances. See, e.g., In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litig., 292 F.3d 

1124, 1134 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming decision to bifurcate discovery). In deciding whether 

to stay class discovery until after individual discovery has been completed, “[a]mong the 

matters the court may consider . . . are: (1) the overlap between individual and class 

discovery, (2) whether bifurcation will promote Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23’s 

requirement that certification be decided at ‘an early practicable time,’ (3) judicial 

economy, and (4) any prejudice reasonably likely to flow from the grant or denial of a stay 

of class discovery.” True Health Chiropractic Inc. v. McKesson Corp., No. 13–cv–02219–

JST, 2015 WL 273188, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2015). 

After considering the parties’ respective arguments and relevant legal authorities, 

the Court concludes that bifurcating discovery would not substantially improve the 

efficiency of this litigation, and denies the motion. See True Health, 2015 WL 273188, at 

*2–3 (denying motion to bifurcate individual and class discovery in a TCPA case). 

However, the Court agrees with Albertsons that it is desirable to ascertain as early as 

possible whether Renvall’s individual claim is viable. The Court accordingly orders the 

parties to meet and confer, and work and good faith to prioritize discovery related to 

Case 3:18-cv-00809-H-NLS Document 24 Filed 08/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

3:18-cv-00809-H-NLS

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

whether Albertsons was the “maker” of the text message sent to Renvall on March 15, 

2018. At a minimum, the parties must exchange all discovery relevant to this issue on or 

before October 1, 2018. The Court refers any disputes related to compliance with this 

Order, and any discovery disputes in general, to the Hon. Nita L. Stormes for disposition 

in the first instance. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 1, 2018 

 

 MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:18-cv-00809-H-NLS Document 24 Filed 08/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3