Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02081/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02081-5/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiffs bring this case against Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227 and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200) regarding Defendants allegedly sending 

“junk faxes.” Plaintiff R. Fellen Inc. d/b/a Sunnyside Convalescent Hospital (“Plaintiff”) brings

this motion to compel RehabCare Group, Inc. (“Defendant” or “RehabCare”) to provide further 

responses to its interrogatories. Doc. 83. The parties have submitted a joint statement regarding the 

discovery dispute. Doc. 95. This matter is suitable for decision without oral argument and is 

considered on the pleadings. Local Rule 230(g). 

I. SUMMARY

Plaintiff brings this motion to compel further responses to three interrogatories which seek 

information regarding Defendant’s affirmative defense that they had prior express permission 

(“PEP”) from the recipients of the faxes. Defendant contends that it never sent any faxes, and has 

fully answered each interrogatory. The parties have sufficiently met and conferred with each other, 

and with the Court through informal telephonic conferences, prior to filing this motion. 

R. FELLEN, INC.; DAKOTA MEDICAL, 

INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

REHABCARE GROUP, INC.; CANNON & 

ASSOCIATES, LLC,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-CV-2081-MCE-SMS 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT 

REHABCARE GROUP INC.’S FURTHER 

RESPONSES

Doc. 83

Case 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM Document 98 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 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

2

II. RELEVANT RULES

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) defines the scope of discovery:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the 

importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' 

relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the 

discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not 

be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If a party fails to answer an interrogatory, a party may move for an order 

compelling an answer, after attempting to obtain the sought information without court action. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 37(3)(B)(iii). Evasive or incomplete responses are treated as a failure to respond. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 37(4). 

District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. Hallett 

v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). For good cause, the court may order discovery of 

any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be 

admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Interrogatories 1 and 2

Interrogatories 1 and 2 request the identities of each person Defendant contends gave it 

PEP to receive faxes and the communications surrounding the PEP. Defendant responded that it 

did not send any faxes. Defendant is a party to the lawsuit as a former owner of defendant Polaris 

based on vicarious liability, and intended to rely on Polaris’s PEP defense if required. In its 

amended response, Defendant added that it contended that any member of the identified trade 

associations who provided their facsimile number in the association directory provided PEP to be 

sent faxes by other members in the association. 

Plaintiff argues that Defendant was directly involved in sending the faxes at issue by 

buying the fax list, owning the website listed on many of the faxes, and directing Polaris’s 

activities. Plaintiff argues that membership in a trade association or merely providing a facsimile 

number does not constitute PEP to receive faxes. 

Case 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM Document 98 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 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

3

Defendant’s response is clear and sufficient. Defendant’s verified response is that it did not 

send any faxes and would rely on any PEP defense claimed by Polaris in the event of liability. 

Defendant argues and stated in its answer that it does not have independent knowledge of who 

may have given Polaris PEP. In addition, Plaintiff’s argument regarding the sufficiency of 

Defendant’s PEP defense is not properly placed in a motion to compel. Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel further responses to these interrogatories is denied. 

B. Interrogatory 15

Interrogatory 15 seeks facts supporting Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff gave PEP to 

be sent specifically identified faxes to their fax number. Defendant responded that, during the 

relevant time, Plaintiff provided its fax number for inclusion in the California Association of 

Health Facilities (“CAHF”) membership directory, thereby giving all members of CAHF PEP to 

be sent faxes during the relevant time. Defendant further stated that it is without knowledge as to 

whether Plaintiff gave additional PEP to Polaris.

Plaintiff argues that these facts do not support a PEP defense as to Plaintiff, and argues that 

Defendant should be required to state that it is not aware of facts supporting this defense. This 

argument regarding the sufficiency of Defendant’s potential defenses is not properly brought in a 

motion to compel. Defendant has responded with the facts it will use to support it or Polaris’s PEP 

defense and plainly described its defense generally, as to all members included in trade association 

directories. Hence, this interrogatory has been fully answered.

IV. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses from Defendant 

RehabCare Group, Inc. is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM Document 98 Filed 02/05/16 Page 3 of 3