IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

ROSE COULTER-OWENS,

individually and on behalf of all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:14-cv-12688

Honorable Robert H. Cleland

v.

RODALE INC.,

Defendant.

JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT

Plaintiff Rose Coulter-Owens (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Rodale Inc.

(“Rodale”), by and through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby jointly

submit this Rule 26(f) Report. Counsel for the Parties engaged in two telephonic

conferences to discuss the issues contained in this report. Those conferences

occurred on February 24, 2015 and February 27, 2015.

1. Jurisdiction.

Plaintiff’s Position: This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this

action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §1332(d) (“CAFA”).

Rodale’s Position: Rodale agrees that this Court has statutory jurisdiction

under CAFA. Rodale, however, asserts that there is no subject matter jurisdiction

because Plaintiff lacks Article III standing, which is an issue that was raised in

2:14-cv-12688-RHC-RSW Doc # 31 Filed 03/11/15 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 261
- 2 -

Rodale’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 14. That aspect of the motion was denied in

the February 11, 2015 Order. See ECF No. 27.

2. Jury Trial. Plaintiff has demanded a trial by jury.

3. No Consent to Magistrate Judge. The Parties do not consent to

proceed before the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

4. No Supplemental or Pendant State Law Claims. Plaintiff’s claims

arise under state law, but there is original jurisdiction over such claims under

CAFA.

5. Summary of Plaintiff’s Claims. Plaintiff asserts claims under the

Michigan Video Rental Privacy Act, MCL § 445.1711, et seq. (“VRPA”) and for

common law unjust enrichment against Rodale. Rodale is a publisher of several

magazines, including Prevention. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 1. Plaintiff is a subscriber to

Prevention. Id. at ¶ 46. Plaintiff alleges that Rodale (i) maintains a digital

database of its subscribers’ “Personal Reading Information,” including their full

names, titles of magazines subscribed to, and home addresses, (ii) discloses such

Personal Reading Information without notice or permission to third party data

mining companies (who, in turn, append the database with additional personal

information about each subscriber), and (iii) sells such enhanced mailing lists

without notice or permission to third parties for money. Id. at ¶ 2; see also id. at

¶¶ 39-44, 46-51. Plaintiff alleges these practices violate the VRPA and unjustly

2:14-cv-12688-RHC-RSW Doc # 31 Filed 03/11/15 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 262
- 3 -

enriches Rodale. As such, Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of herself and a similarly

situated class of Michigan subscribers.

6. Summary of Rodale’s Defenses. Rodale denies it engaged in the

practices alleged and denies Plaintiff has any claim against it under the VRPA, for

unjust enrichment, or under any other legal theory. Rodale has several defenses to

Plaintiff’s claims. The primary defenses that are likely to be the focus of the

litigation include the following. First, Rodale provided written notice to Plaintiff

and the putative class in compliance with an express exception to the VRPA,

giving customers the ability to remove their names from third-party mailing lists.

See MCL § 445.1713 (allowing disclosure for “the exclusive purpose of marketing

goods and services directly to the customer,” if the customer is provided with

notice of the ability to “remove his or her name at any time by written notice”).

Second, the VRPA only applies to sellers “at retail,” which does not include

subscription sales and many of the other sales channels through which customers

subscribe to Prevention, through third-parties. Third, Plaintiff’s allegations

regarding Rodale’s practices, use of third-parties, and alleged sales of customer

information are factually in error. The VRPA’s express text does not apply to

disclosures to employees or agents, such as any entities Rodale uses in its business

operations.

2:14-cv-12688-RHC-RSW Doc # 31 Filed 03/11/15 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 263
- 4 -

7. No Withdrawal of Claims or Defenses. Plaintiff does not consent to

withdraw any claims without prejudice, and Rodale does not consent to withdraw

any defenses without prejudice.

8. Answer. Rodale filed its Answer on February 25, 2015. ECF No. 29.

9. Discovery Plan. The Parties agree this is a “complex case” as

designated in this Court’s practice guidelines, but that discovery can occur on a

relativity accelerated pace for a complex matter. The Parties have agreed on the

schedule below. The Parties propose specific dates through the date of Plaintiff’s

Motion for Class Certification.

Event Proposed Deadline

Deadline for Parties to exchange initial

disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(a)(1).

March 23, 2015

Deadline for joinder of additional parties. June 29, 2015

Deadline for amendment of pleadings. June 29, 2015

Deadline for Plaintiffs’ expert disclosures

relating to class certification.1

September 25, 2015

Deadline for Defendants’ expert disclosures

relating to class certification.

October 30, 2015

1 Rodale additionally states that it anticipates it may have certain merits-based

experts in the event a class is ultimately certified on a litigation basis. Rodale

therefore proposes deferring the disclosure of those experts until after any

certification decision to avoid incurring expenses on experts that may ultimately

prove unnecessary.

2:14-cv-12688-RHC-RSW Doc # 31 Filed 03/11/15 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 264
- 5 -

Event Proposed Deadline

Deadline for all fact discovery and

class certification expert discovery. 2

November 20, 2015

Deadline for Motion for Class Certification. December 18, 2015

Deadline for Dispositive Motions. To Bet Set At Future

Conference

(or April 1, 2016)

Rule 26(a)(3)(A) witness and exhibit

disclosures due.

To Bet Set At Future

Conference (or June 3, 2016)

Final Pretrial Order. To Bet Set At Future

Conference (or July 8, 2016)

Final Pretrial Conference. To Bet Set At Future

Conference (or July 15, 2016)

Trial. To Bet Set At Future

Conference (or July 29, 2016)

10. Settlement Conference. The parties have not yet engaged in any

settlement discussions. Rodale believes a mediation or settlement conference with

the Magistrate Judge would be beneficial at the appropriate time.

11. Estimated Length of Trial. Rodale believes it is premature to

estimate the length of any trial in this matter, given that the nature of the issues that

would be subject to a trial are uncertain. Rodale, however, believes if this matter

2 Rodale additionally states that although its investigation is ongoing, it anticipates

that it may have an early dispositive motion with regard to the Named Plaintiff’s

claims prior to any class certification motion. At this time, Plaintiff takes no

position on the propriety of such a motion.

2:14-cv-12688-RHC-RSW Doc # 31 Filed 03/11/15 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 265
- 6 -

were to actually proceed to trial, the trial would likely require 10 full court days or

more. Plaintiff, on the other hand, estimates the trial of this matter will take 5 full

court days.

Dated: March 11, 2015

Respectfully submitted by,

Plaintiff Rose Coulter-Owens Defendant Rodale Inc.

/s/ Ari J. Scharg

Ari J. Scharg

ascharg@edelson.com

Benjamin S. Thomassen

bthomassen@edelson.com

James D. Larry

nlarry@edelson.com

EDELSON PC

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60654

Tel: 312.589.6370

Fax: 312.589.6378

Henry M. Scharg – P28804

LAW OFFICE OF

HENRY M. SCHARG

718 Ford Building

Detroit, Michigan 48226

Tel: 248.596.1111

Fax: 248.671.0335

hmsattyatlaw@aol.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Rose Coulter-Owens

/s/ Natalie J. Spears

Natalie J. Spears

Anthony T. Eliseuson

Kristen C. Rodriguez

DENTONS US LLP

233 South Wacker Drive

Suite 7800

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 876-8000

(312) 876-7934 (fax)

natalie.spears@dentons.com

anthony.eliseuson@dentons.com

kristen.rodriguez@dentons.com

Peter B. Kupelian (P31812)

Carol G. Schley (P51301)

CLARK HILL PLC

151 South Old Woodward Ave.

Suite 200

Birmingham, MI 48009

pkupelian@clarkhill.com

cschley@clarkhill.com

Attorneys for Defendant

Rodale Inc.

2:14-cv-12688-RHC-RSW Doc # 31 Filed 03/11/15 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 266