Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00246/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00246-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:0227(b)(3) Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991

---

1

17-cv-0246-WQH-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TANEESHA CROOKS and 

ANTHONY BROWN, Individually 

and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiff, 

v.

RADY CHILDREN'S HOSPITIALSAN DIEGO,

Defendant. 

Case No.: 17-cv-0246-WQH-MDD

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR 

DETERMINATION OF 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

REGARDING DEFENDANT'S 

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF

CROOKS' DISCOVERY 

REQUESTS, SET ONE

[ECF No. 29]

Before the Court is a Joint Motion of the parties, filed on March 22, 

2018, to determine a discovery dispute involving two Requests for Production

(“RFP”) and four Interrogatories served by Plaintiff Crooks upon Defendant. 

(ECF No. 29). This case is a putative class action alleging violations of the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. 

LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to obtain 

discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 

defense and proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Case 3:17-cv-00246-WQH-MDD Document 31 Filed 03/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

17-cv-0246-WQH-MDD

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

26(b)(1). “Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in 

evidence to be discoverable.” Id. District courts have broad discretion to 

limit discovery where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or 

duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more 

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). 

An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired of 

under Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). The responding party must 

answer each interrogatory by stating the appropriate objection(s) with 

specificity or, to the extent the interrogatory is not objected to, by 

“answer[ing] separately and fully in writing under oath.” Rule 33(b). The 

responding party has the option in certain circumstances to answer an 

interrogatory by specifying responsive records and making those records 

available to the interrogating party. Rule 33(d).

Similarly, a party may request the production of any document within 

the scope of Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the 

response must either state that inspection and related activities will be 

permitted as requested or state an objection to the request, including the 

reasons.” Rule 34(b)(2)(B). If the responding party chooses to produce 

responsive information, rather than allow for inspection, the production must 

be completed no later than the time specified in the request or another 

reasonable time specified in the response. Id. An objection must state 

whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that 

objection. Rule 34(b)(2)(C). An objection to part of a request must specify the 

part and permit inspection or production of the rest. Id. The responding 

party is responsible for all items in “the responding party’s possession, 

custody, or control.” Rule 34(a)(1). Actual possession, custody or control is 

not required. Rather, “[a] party may be ordered to produce a document in the 

Case 3:17-cv-00246-WQH-MDD Document 31 Filed 03/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

17-cv-0246-WQH-MDD

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

possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the 

document or has control over the entity who is in possession of the 

document.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D. Cal. 1995).

DISCUSSION

1. Request for Production No. 7

It violates the TCPA to make calls to cellular telephones using an 

autodialer and/or a prerecorded or artificial voice, without the express 

consent of the persons called. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). Plaintiff 

recognizes that the statute requires the use of an autodialer and/or a 

prerecorded or artificial voice. Her current class description is as follows:

All persons within the United States who received any telephone call 

from Defendant or its agent/s and/or employee/s, not sent for emergency 

purposes, to said person’s cellular telephone made through the use of 

any automatic telephone dialing system and/or with an artificial or 

prerecorded message within the four years prior to the filing of this 

Complaint.

(ECF No. 1, ¶ 36). 

In RFP No. 7, Defendant is asked to produce all records of telephone 

calls from a particular telephone number to a cellular number for debt 

collection purposes over a four year period. (ECF No. 29 at 2).1 Defendant 

objects for overbreadth, relevance and proportionality. The RFP is not 

limited to calls made by an autodialer nor with an artificial or prerecorded 

voice. Accordingly, it is overbroad on its face. Even if limited to calls made 

by an autodialer, the Court would not enforce this RFP at this time. Prior to

class certification, the actual telephone numbers dialed, even with an 

 

1 The Court will refer to pagination supplied by CM/ECF rather than original pagination 

throughout.

Case 3:17-cv-00246-WQH-MDD Document 31 Filed 03/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

17-cv-0246-WQH-MDD

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

autodialer or using a prerecorded or artificial voice, are not relevant. While 

the number of such calls made can support the numerosity prong of a motion 

for class certification, the identification of those numbers does not. 

Defendant’s objection is SUSTAINED. 

2. RFP No. 8

Defendant is asked to produce documents used to determine whether 

alleged debtors had provided “prior express consent” over the relevant four 

year period. (ECF No. 29 at 6). Defendant objects for overbreadth, relevance 

and lack of proportion. Plaintiff claims that this information is relevant to 

the class certification issue of predominance. To the extent that Plaintiff is 

seeking records of individual debtors, the Court does not agree that such 

records are needed on the issue of predominance. To the extent that Plaintiff 

is not seeking individualized records, but is seeking instead documents 

reflecting Defendant’s processes and policies regarding documenting consent, 

such records may be relevant to certification. This RFP, however, is too 

ambiguous to enforce in that regard. Defendant’s objection is SUSTAINED.

3. Interrogatory No. 5

This interrogatory asks Defendant to state how many cellular 

telephones it called or attempted to call over the preceding four years to 

attempt to collect a debt. (ECF No. 29 at 9). Defendant objects for 

overbreadth, among other things. This Interrogatory suffers the same flaw 

as RFP No. 7 above: It is not relevant how many cellular telephones 

Defendant called or attempted to call to collect a debt unless they used an 

autodialer or artificial/prerecorded voice. Defendant’s objection is 

SUSTAINED.

4. Interrogatory No. 6

This interrogatory asks Defendant to state how many cellular telephone 

Case 3:17-cv-00246-WQH-MDD Document 31 Filed 03/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

17-cv-0246-WQH-MDD

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

numbers it called and attempted to call during the past four years to collect 

debts using an “ATDS.” (ECF No. 29 at 10-11). Defendant objects for 

overbreadth, burden and vagueness. The Court understands “ATDS” to refer 

to an Automated Telephone Dialing System. Defendant’s objections are 

OVERRULED. Defendant is required to respond. 

5. Interrogatory No. 7

This interrogatory is identical to Interrogatory No. 6 except that it 

addresses calls to cellular telephone numbers using an artificial or 

prerecorded voice. (ECF No. 29 at 12). As with Interrogatory No. 6, 

Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED and Defendant must respond.

6. Interrogatory No. 8

This interrogatory is identical to Interrogatory No. 6 except that 

addresses calls to cellular telephones using an autodialer, rather than an 

“ATDS,” assuming that there may be some perceived difference between the 

two. (ECF No. 13-14). As with Interrogatory No. 6, Defendant’s objections 

are OVERRULED and Defendant must respond.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Crooks’ motion to compel, as presented in this Joint Motion, is 

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. To the extent that the 

Court has ordered further responses, such responses must be served within 

14 days of this Order, absent further Order of the Court or a contrary 

agreement between the parties. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00246-WQH-MDD Document 31 Filed 03/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5