Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01608/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01608-1/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 DENYING LETTER 

REQUESTING TELEPHONIC 

DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

Re: Dkt. No. 72

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

Defendant Media Mix 365, LLC (“Media Mix”), and certain individuals associated with it, to 

provide discovery responses to Plaintiffs’ requests for production and interrogatories. (Pls.’ Mot., 

Dkt. No. 64.) In support, Plaintiffs explained Defendant Media Mix “now 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 because “[t]his matter does not warrant the extraordinary relief 

requested,” and referred the discovery dispute out. (Dkt. No. 66 at 1.)

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

regarding Defendant Media Mix’s failure to produce discovery. (Dkt. No. 72.) Plaintiffs stated 

that they had met and conferred with Defendant Media Mix’s counsel, but that counsel could not 

“proceed substantively” in the case. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs provided an e-mail from Defendant 

Media Mix’s counsel, in which counsel states: “Media Mix terminated us and we have no client 

authorization for anything.” (Fougner Decl., Exh. A, Dkt. No. 72-2.)

The Court notes that Defendant Media Mix is in default, and that both of Defendant Media 

Mix’s attorneys have moved to withdraw. (Dkt. Nos. 62, 63, 68, 70.) Accordingly, a telephonic 

Case 3:19-cv-01608-RS Document 73 Filed 09/24/19 Page 1 of 2
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

discovery conference does not appear to be productive as Defendant Media Mix cannot 

meaningfully participate. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for a telephonic 

discovery conference, and ORDERS Plaintiffs to file a discovery letter, explaining what relief they 

seek and identifying legal authority that permits Plaintiffs to obtain discovery from a defendant 

who is in default. The discovery letter shall comply with the undersigned’s standing order. (See

Westmore Standing Order ¶ 14.) Because Defendant Media Mix’s counsel have no client 

authority, however, Plaintiffs need not meet and confer or provide Defendant Media Mix’s 

position.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 24, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01608-RS Document 73 Filed 09/24/19 Page 2 of 2