Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02081/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02081-4/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 Defendant Cannon & Associates, LLC d/b/a Polaris Group (“Defendant” or 

“Polaris”) to provide further responses to its interrogatories. Doc. 84. The parties have submitted a 

joint statement regarding the discovery dispute. Doc. 89. This matter is suitable for decision 

without oral argument and is considered on the pleadings. Local Rule 230(g). 

I. SUMMARY

Plaintiff served interrogatories on Defendant, who, after two extensions and providing 

exclusively objections, provided supplemental responses. Plaintiff brings this motion to compel 

further responses to eight interrogatories which primarily seek information regarding Defendant’s 

affirmative defenses –that they had prior express permission (“PEP”) from, or an existing business 

relationship (“EBR”) with, the recipients of the faxes. Defendant contends that it has answered 

each interrogatory in full and provided all information in its possession. The parties have 

R. FELLEN, INC.; DAKOTA MEDICAL, 

INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

REHABCARE GROUP, INC.; CANNON & 

ASSOCIATES, LLC,

Defendants.

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

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT 

CANNON & ASSOCIATES’ FURTHER 

RESPONSES

Doc. 84

Case 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM Document 97 Filed 02/05/16 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

2

sufficiently met and conferred with each other, and with the Court through informal telephonic 

conferences, prior to filing this motion. 

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 5

Interrogatories 1 and 5 request that Defendant identify each person it contends gave PEP to 

be sent faxes and each person with whom it had an EBR at the time faxes were sent. Defendant’s 

supplemental response to Interrogatory 1 stated that it received requests and authorizations from 

hundreds or thousands of people and entities to receive information regarding Defendant. 

Defendant responded that it routinely would receive contact information, including facsimile 

numbers, by those with whom it conducted business. Defendant referred Plaintiff to Defendant’s 

customer relationship data, registration logs for 2010-2014 event registrations, and contracts 

spreadsheet. Defendant also responded that it routinely would obtain contact information, 

including facsimile numbers, at trade shows. Defendant referred Plaintiff to trade show attendance 

Case 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM Document 97 Filed 02/05/16 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

3

lists, business cards received, and other attendance lists. Defendant also responded that industry 

association members provided their facsimile numbers to be included in those association 

membership directories. Defendant provided a non-inclusive list of industry associations. 

Defendant stated that additional documents were forthcoming, including additional business cards 

and updated customer relationship data and registration logs. Defendant was not aware of any 

responsive documents not included in the supplemental response. In responding to Interrogatory 5, 

Defendant referred to its response to Interrogatory 1. 

Plaintiff argues that these responses are deficient because it contends that the law requires 

more than an exchange of contact information to constitute PEP or EBR, and Defendant’s 

response does not demonstrate PEP or EBR from any of the identified parties. This argument is 

misplaced in a discovery motion. Plaintiff may make its argument regarding the sufficiency of 

Defendant’s affirmative defense in a motion for summary judgement. Defendant has asserted that 

this is its only information supporting its PEP and EBR defense, and there are no other responsive 

documents. Plaintiff must accept this verified assertion.

Plaintiff also argues that it cannot discern from Defendant’s response which parties 

Defendant actually sent or attempted to send a fax. This inquiry is beyond the scope of the

interrogatory, which requests the identities of each party from or with whom it had PEP or an EBR 

when it sent the faxes, defined as any and all materials that discusses, describes, or promotes 

Defendant’s goods or services sent by facsimile during the relevant time. As written, it does not 

limit the response to only those to whom Defendant actually sent a promotional fax. 

However, Defendant’s answer is incomplete in that it identifies various industry 

associations when asked to identify persons. It also states that the list of associations is noninclusive. Therefore, this response does not answer the interrogatory which requests the identities 

of “all persons.” Defendant contends that each person who provided their facsimile information in 

the membership directory provided permission to receive communications. To the extent that 

Defendant is aware of the identities of the persons that gave PEP, it must set forth those identities 

in its response to the interrogatories. Hence, Defendant is directed to provide Plaintiff with an 

amended response to Interrogatories 1 and 5, either identifying “all persons” on the industry 

Case 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM Document 97 Filed 02/05/16 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

4

association membership directories from or with whom Defendant received PEP or had an EBR, 

or, if the identities of “all persons” are unknown, a statement regarding the same. 

B. Interrogatories 2 and 6

Interrogatories 2 and 6 follow Interrogatories 1 and 5, requesting that Defendant describe 

the communications by which each person identified in Interrogatories 1 and 5 gave PEP and the 

circumstances regarding how the EBR began. Defendant’s supplemental responses to 

Interrogatories 2 and 6 refer Plaintiff to its response to Interrogatory 1, discussed above. 

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s response is incomplete because it does not identify the 

specific facts -who, what, when, and how- of the alleged communications and circumstances. 

Plaintiff also takes issue with Defendant’s lack of specificity in answering the interrogatories. 

Plaintiff argues Defendant's response to the interrogatories should “focus on the Billian Facilities,” 

even though no such focus is requested in the language of the interrogatories. Defendant argues 

that it has answered in full.

Here, Defendant has provided Plaintiff with the information it has regarding how it came 

to acquire contact information from each of the identified parties. It has produced the identities of 

persons it argues gave PEP or had an EBR and stated the nature of their relationship –registration 

logs from events, tradeshow attendance lists, etc. It also described how some of the contact 

information was obtained –by exchanging contact information at events or trade shows. Defendant 

also states that it does not maintain more specific information than that given. These 

interrogatories have been fully answered. 

C. Interrogatories 3 and 4

Interrogatories 3 and 4 ask defendant Polaris regarding the EBRs established by defendant 

RehabCare, and how those EBRs came into place. Separate interrogatories were sent to 

RehabCare. Defendant Polaris responded that it lacks sufficient knowledge to respond to the 

interrogatories which are more appropriately directed to RehabCare. Defendant Polaris also directs 

Plaintiff to RehabCare’s discovery response, which it attached.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant must respond to the interrogatory as to what EBR’s 

defendant Polaris contends defendant RehabCare had during the relevant time. Defendant is 

Case 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM Document 97 Filed 02/05/16 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

5

correct that this interrogatory is more appropriate directed towards RehabCare, a separate entity 

not controlled by Polaris. Polaris cannot be compelled to provide information within RehabCare’s 

possession and control. Polaris’ opinion as to RehabCare’s EBRs is not relevant. Thus, 

Interrogatories 3 and 4 have been fully answered.

D. Interrogatories 7 and 8

Interrogatories 7 and 8 seek each facsimile number and its origin to which faxes were sent 

that did not originate from Billian. Defendant responded that it did not independently track this 

information and it would be impossible to determine the origin of each fax number. 

These interrogatories are vague and excessively overbroad. According to the way “faxes” 

are defined as any communication describing Defendant’s services sent by facsimile, Plaintiff 

potentially seeks the facsimile number of every party to whom Defendant ever sent a facsimile 

during the relevant time. This request is excessively overbroad and not reasonably calculated to 

the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant argues that it does not keep a record of 

the origination of each facsimile number. The existence of a number on the Billian’s list does not 

necessarily mean that Defendant’s possession of that number originated from the Billian’s list. 

Defendant may have possessed that number prior to or independent of the Billian’s list. As 

written, and because Defendant does not keep a record of each facsimile number’s origin, 

Defendant is correct that there is no way for it to reasonably respond to this interrogatory. Hence, 

its further response cannot be compelled. 

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM Document 97 Filed 02/05/16 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

6

IV. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Interrogatories 1 and 5 is GRANTED IN PART. 

Defendant shall, within 21 days of entry of this order, provide Plaintiff with an 

amended response to its Interrogatories 1 and 5, as specified above in this order; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Interrogatories 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 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 97 Filed 02/05/16 Page 6 of 6