Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01049/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01049-3/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES GUSMAN, individually and

on behalf of all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13CV1049-GPC(DHB)

ORDER 

(1) GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL

LIMITED DISCOVERY; AND

(2) SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR

CLASS CERTIFICATION

[Dkt. No. 71.]

vs.

COMCAST CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for additional limited discovery in light of

the Federal Communication Commission’s recent July 10, 2015 Declaratory Ruling. 

(Dkt. No. 71.) Defendant filed an opposition on October 13, 2015. A telephonic

hearing was held on October 14, 2015. Jason Ibey, Esq. and Joshua Swigart, Esq.

appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and Bryan Merryman, Esq. and James Hawk, Esq.

appeared on behalf of Defendant. Based on the reasoning below, the Court GRANTS

in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s motion for additional limited discovery. 

Background

On May 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed this putative class action complaint alleging that

Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. §

227 et seq. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that “[b]eginning in

- 1 - [13CV1049-GPC(DHB) ]

Case 3:13-cv-01049-GPC-DHB Document 74 Filed 10/14/15 Page 1 of 6
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

February 2013, Defendant began contacting Plaintiff, sometimes as many as ten times

in a single day, with an automatic telephone dialing system (‘ATDS’) as defined by 47

U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) using an ‘artificial or prerecorded voice’ as prohibited by 47 U.S.C.

[§] 227(b)(1)(A) in order to discuss Defendant’s prescription services with Plaintiff.” 

(Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff further alleges he informed a representative on each occasion “that

Plaintiff was not a current subscriber to Defendant’s servicers nor had Plaintiff ever

been a subscriber.” (Id. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff did not provide his cellular telephone number,

which he obtained on or about February 1, 2013, to Defendant at any time. (Id. ¶¶ 16-

17.) Plaintiff further alleges Defendant’s use of an ATDS to contact Plaintiff was not

done for emergency purposes, the calls constitute solicitations under the TCPA, and

“Plaintiff did not provide prior express consent to receive calls or messages on

Plaintiff’s cellular telephones.” (Id. ¶¶ 22-24.)

In the Complaint, Plaintiff sought to certify the following class: “[A]ll persons

within the United States who received any unsolicited marketing and artificial or

prerecorded voice messages from Defendant without prior express consent which

message by Defendant or its agents was not made for emergency purposes, within the

four years prior to the filing of this action.” (Id. ¶ 27.)

Discovery began on September 24, 2013 with a deadline for discovery on

January 17, 2014. (Dkt. No. 17.) On February 13, 2014, Plaintiff moved ex parte for

an order extending dates in the scheduling order. (Dkt. No. 22.) On February 24,

2014, Magistrate Judge Bartick granted in part Plaintiff’s motion and set a deadline of

April 11, 2014 to complete class discovery. (Dkt. No. 28.) On March 5, 2014, Plaintiff

filed a joint motion for discovery. (Dkt. No. 29.) On April 2, 2014, the Magistrate

Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to produce its outbound dial list

and additional documentation regarding prior express consent. (Dkt. No. 41.) 

In its motion for class certification filed on May 20, 2014, which was

subsequently denied without prejudice after the Court granted Defendant’s motion to

stay, Plaintiff sought to certify a class based on the “wrong number.” (Dkt. No. 56-1,

- 2 - [13CV1049-GPC(DHB) ]

Case 3:13-cv-01049-GPC-DHB Document 74 Filed 10/14/15 Page 2 of 6
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

Mot. for Class Cert. (proposed SEALED LODGED documents).) 

On May 21, 2014, the Court stayed the case under the primary jurisdiction

doctrine in order to allow the FederalCommunicationsCommission (“FCC”) to resolve

an issue pending before it that is also an issue in this case. (Dkt. No. 58.) On July 10,

2015, the FCC released a Declaratory Ruling and Order that addressed the issue in this

case. (Dkt. No. 68-1, Ex. A.) The relevant issue, in this case, is whether “a caller

making a call subject to the TCPA to a number reassigned fromthe consumer who gave

consent for the call to a new consumer is liable for violating the TCPA.” In re Rules

and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 30

FCC Rcd. 7961, 7999 (2015) (“FCC Ruling”). 

On the issue of reassigned cell phone numbers, the FCC provided a one-time

exemption for a call to a reassigned number. Id. at 8007. The FCC stated,

In balancing the caller’s interest in having an opportunity to learn of

reassignment against the privacy interests of consumers to whom the

number is reassigned, we find that, where a caller believes he has

consent to make a call and does not discover that a wireless number

had been reassigned prior to making or initiating a call to that number

for the first time after reassignment, liability should not attach for that

first call, but the caller is liable for any calls thereafter.

Id.

The Court lifted the stay on September 24, 2015 and set a status hearing. (Dkt.

No. 69.) At the status hearing, Plaintiff requested limited additional discovery based

on the recent FCC ruling prior to refiling a motion for class certification and Defendant

objected. (Dkt. No. 70.) Accordingly, on October 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for

additional limited discovery. (Dkt. No. 71.) Defendant filed an opposition on October,

13, 2015. (Dkt. No. 72.) 

Discussion

Through a limited deposition of Defendant’s 30(b)(6) representative, Plaintiff

seeks to ask questions regarding the following:

1) Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding calls to reassigned

telephone numbers; 

2) Evidence that Defendant may rely upon to show consent to call

reassigned numbers or qualify for the one-time exemption; and, 

- 3 - [13CV1049-GPC(DHB) ]

Case 3:13-cv-01049-GPC-DHB Document 74 Filed 10/14/15 Page 3 of 6
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

3) If Defendant documents calls to a reassigned number specifically,

the ability to search Defendant’s records for evidence of calls to

reassigned numbers.

(Dkt. No. 71-1 at 4.) 

As to the first and third issueslisted, Plaintiff contends that discovery concerning

calls to reassigned telephone numbers was not a listed topic of Defendant’s 30(b)(6)

deposition held on April 3, 2014, because at that point in time, it was clear that calls

to reassigned numbers violated the TCPA and there was no one-time exemption for

reassigned numbers. Therefore, Plaintiff could not have asked Defendant questions

about the one- time exemption. Moreover, based on discovery, Defendant’s agents

have the ability to indicate that calls were made to a “wrong number”; however, a

“wrong number” does not necessarily mean it is a call to a “reassigned number.” 

Therefore, Plaintiff seeks discovery on whether Defendant had a specific policy for

documenting calls as a reassigned number rather than a wrong number. 

Defendant opposes the discovery sought because Plaintiff knew, since late 2013

and during the discovery period, that Defendant called Plaintiff because he had a cell

phone number that had been reassigned from a previous Comcast subscriber. Since

Plaintiff knew about the issue of reassigned cell phone numbers during discovery, he

had the opportunity to conduct the discovery he now seeks and should not be granted

leave for additional discovery at this time.

While the issue of reassigned cell phone numbers were known to Plaintiff before

the discovery deadline expired, the issue as to the one-time exemption was not. 

Moreover, it was Plaintiff’s position that any calls to a reassigned number violated the

TCPA. Therefore, based on its interpretation of the TCPA, despite the split among

district courts, Plaintiff was not given the full opportunity to conduct discovery on this

issue. Furthermore, since Defendant may raise the one-time exemption as a defense,

Plaintiffshould be given an opportunity for limited discovery. Accordingly, the Court

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for additional limited discovery on the first and third

topics. 

- 4 - [13CV1049-GPC(DHB) ]

Case 3:13-cv-01049-GPC-DHB Document 74 Filed 10/14/15 Page 4 of 6
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

As to the second topic, Plaintiff argues that the FCC’s one time exemption for

a call to reassigned number only applies if Defendant had obtained the requisite

consent in the first place to call a telephone number prior to reassignment to a different

consumer. Defendant argues that the prior express consent required for Defendant to

make calls to cell phone numbers provided by subscribers is the very same prior

express consent that is required to qualify for the safe harbor exemption. Plaintiff

already conducted discovery on the prior consent issue during discovery and should not

be allowed to reopen discovery on the issue of prior express consent. Defendant argues

that Plaintiff is trying to get another shot at discovery that Judge Bartick denied him.

The Court agrees with Defendant that the second topic has already been

addressed in discovery. On April 2, 2014, in a motion to compel, Plaintiff sought,

among other things, documentation as to prior express consent. (Dkt. No. 41 at 8-10.) 

Comcast stated that it had produced a screen shotshowing that the prior subscriber had

provided the phone number at issue as well as copies of its Agreement for Residential

Services and its Customer privacy Notice. (Id. at 9; see also Dkt. No. 72-1, Hawk

Decl. ¶ 9.) It further asserted that based on what was produced, it did not expect to rely

on any other documents on the issue of prior express consent. (Dkt. No. 41 at 9.) The

Magistrate Judge concluded that Comcast satisfied its discovery obligations by

producing its Agreement for Residential Services and its Customer Privacy Notice. 

(Id.) Since discovery on the prior express consent has already been conducted, the

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for discovery on the second topic. 

Defendant further asserts that if the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant

asks the Court to require Plaintiff to commit to a proposed class definition since it has

not committed to any proposed definition. The Court declines to grant Defendant’s

request as the issue is not properly before the Court. Pursuant to Defendant’s request

and what was proposed by Plaintiff at the statue conference, the deposition shall be

limited to no more than one hour. 

/ / / /

- 5 - [13CV1049-GPC(DHB) ]

Case 3:13-cv-01049-GPC-DHB Document 74 Filed 10/14/15 Page 5 of 6
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

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s motion

for additional limited discovery. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to conduct a

30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant’s representative on topics one and three listed above,

and DENIES Plaintiff’s request to conduct discovery on the second topic. 

The deposition of Defendant’s 30(b)(6) representative shall be conducted within

30 days of the date of this order. The deposition shall be limited to no more than one

hour. Plaintiffshall file a motion for class certification on or before December 8, 2015

and shall disclose his expert on class certification a week before the motion for class

certification. Defendantshall be file an opposition on or before January 15, 2015 and

shall disclose its expert a week before its opposition. Plaintiff shall file a reply on or

before January 22, 2016. A hearing is set on February 5, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. in

Courtroom 2D. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 14, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 6 - [13CV1049-GPC(DHB) ]

Case 3:13-cv-01049-GPC-DHB Document 74 Filed 10/14/15 Page 6 of 6