Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01608/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01608-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:227 Telephone Consumer Protection Act

---

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

WILLIAM LOFTUS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SUNRUN INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01608-RS (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY 

LETTERS

Re: Dkt. No. 75, 76

Plaintiffs filed the instant case against Defendants Sunrun Inc. and Media Mix 365, LLC 

(“Media Mix”), alleging that Defendants had violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 

(“TCPA”) through its unsolicited telemarketing. (First Amended Compl. (“FAC”) ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs 

also allege that Defendants violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) by recording 

cellular communications without consent. (Id.) Defendant Media Mix is now in default. (Dkt. 

No. 63.)

On September 10, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order 

requiring Defendant Media Mix to provide discovery responses to Plaintiffs’ requests for 

production (“RFPs”) and interrogatories. (Dkt. No. 64.) In support, Plaintiffs explained 

Defendant Media Mix “claims that it has ceased all operations and cannot continue to operate as a 

business.) (Id. at 1 (internal quotation and emphasis omitted).) On September 11, 2019, the 

presiding judge denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and referred the discovery 

dispute to the undersigned. (Dkt. No. 66.)

On September 23, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a request for a telephonic discovery conference 

regarding Defendant Media Mix’s failure to provide discovery. (Dkt. No. 72.) The Court denied 

the motion, explaining that because Defendant Media Mix is in default and its counsel had moved 

Case 3:19-cv-01608-RS Document 83 Filed 10/16/19 Page 1 of 3
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

to withdraw,1“a telephonic discovery conference does not appear to be productive as Defendant 

Media Mix cannot meaningfully participate.” (Dkt. No. 73 at 1-2.) The Court ordered Plaintiffs 

to instead file a discovery letter. (Id. at 2.)

On September 27, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a discovery letter seeking Defendant Media Mix’s 

responses to Plaintiffs’ RFPs and interrogatories. (Dkt. No. 75.) On October 2, 2019, Plaintiffs 

filed an amended discovery letter, correcting a typo. (Discovery Letter, Dkt. No. 76.)

Having reviewed the discovery letters, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for 

discovery. In general, Rule 26(d) provides that “[a] party may not seek discovery from any source 

before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except . . . when authorized by these 

rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” In deciding whether to allow early discovery, courts 

apply a good cause standard. Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. Johnston, Case No. 16-cv-3404-BLF, 

2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44863, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2017); Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron 

Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Courts have found good cause “where a 

defendant has failed to appear, resulting in the entry of default against the defendant . . . .” Twitch 

Interactive, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44863, at *5. Thus, in Twitch Interactive, Inc., the 

district court permitted early discovery on the defaulting defendants and third-party entities, 

explaining that the “proposed areas of discovery are related to the scope of the [defendants’] 

alleged unlawful activities and the revenue generated by those activities.” Id. at *8. Such 

discovery was “reasonably calculated to lead to evidence in support of a motion for default 

judgment and a request for damages.” Id. Moreover, the district court acknowledged that the 

plaintiff “cannot conduct traditional discovery as the [defendants] refused to participate in this 

action.” Id.

Here, Defendant Media Mix likewise has defaulted, and its counsel has withdrawn. (See

Dkt. No. 82.) Thus, absent relief from the court, Plaintiffs will be unable to obtain discovery from 

Defendant Media Mix. The inability to obtain discovery will not only affect Plaintiffs’ case 

against Defendant Media Mix, but their case against Defendant Sunrun, as Plaintiffs allege that 

 

1 On October 11, 2019, the presiding judge permitted Defendant Media Mix’s counsel to 

withdraw. (Dkt. No. 82.)

Case 3:19-cv-01608-RS Document 83 Filed 10/16/19 Page 2 of 3
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

Defendant Media Mix made illegal telemarketing calls to Plaintiffs on Defendant Sunrun’s behalf. 

(FAC ¶ 90.) To not allow discovery of Defendant Media Mix will therefore also affect Plaintiffs’ 

case against Defendant Sunrun, as Defendant Media Mix may have relevant information 

pertaining to its co-defendant.

Having reviewed the proposed discovery requests, the Court finds that the discovery is 

tailored to the facts of the case and causes of action, including identifying the prospective class, 

establishing the number of TCPA violations, and determining Defendant Sunrun’s liability for the 

telemarketing at issue. Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request and ORDERS Defendant 

Media Mix to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery within 30 days of the date of this order, with the 

below additional requirements for RFP Nos. 45 and 46.

RFP Nos. 45 and 46 seek expert reports and unredacted papers filed by any party in any 

TCPA case in which Defendant Media Mix was a party. To the extent such requests seek the 

confidential information of third parties, Defendant Media Mix shall identify for Plaintiffs any 

documents that contain confidential information. Plaintiffs shall then meet and confer with the 

third parties to determine whether the information can be produced. If Plaintiffs and third parties 

are unable to come to an agreement, the third parties shall file a motion for a protective order 

within 30 days of the meet and confer. Plaintiffs shall provide a copy of this order to the third 

parties during the meet and confer process. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01608-RS Document 83 Filed 10/16/19 Page 3 of 3