IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

 

CENTRAL ALARM SIGNAL, INC., 

individually and as representative of a 

class of similarly-situated persons, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

BUSINESS FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

INC., BUSINESS CASH ADVANCE, 

INC., BFS WEST, INC., and JOHN 

DOES 1-10, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-14166-

PDB-RSW 

 

Hon. Paul D. Borman 

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen 

JOINT LIST OF UNRESOLVED ISSUES REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

 Pursuant to the Magistrate’s Order, the parties jointly submit this Joint List 

of Unresolved Issues Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses. (Doc. 

42). The hearing on the motion is set for October 27, 2015 at 10:00 A.M. Counsel 

for the parties met on October 16, 2015, at the offices of counsel for Defendants. 

Present at the meeting were Ross Good, counsel for Plaintiff, and Terance A. 

Gonsalves and Charles A. DeVore, counsel for Defendants. 

UNRESOLVED ISSUES 

A. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to discovery related to fax advertising by or 

on behalf of Business Financial Services, Inc. or Business Cash 

Advance, Inc. 

1. Plaintiff’s Position 

2:14-cv-14166-PDB-RSW Doc # 48 Filed 10/23/15 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 854
2 

 Plaintiff is entitled to discovery related to fax advertising by all Defendants 

because all faxes sent during the class period are “related” to the fax sent to 

Plaintiff – they are all part and parcel of Defendants’ custom and practice of 

sending fax advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 

of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C) (“TCPA”). Plaintiff’s currently pending First 

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is premised on the fax it was sent by or on behalf of 

Defendants does not somehow operate to excuse Defendants as to all of the other 

fax advertisements sent by or on behalf of Defendants during the class period. 

(Doc. 10-1). All of those other recipients of Defendants’ fax advertising 

campaigns, regardless of the state the recipient is located in, suffered the very 

damage sought to be redressed by the TCPA. 

 Defendants' Initial Disclosures Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1) indicate that 

Cathy Bass is an individual with knowledge of this case. According to documents 

produced by Defendants, Cathy Bass was instrumental in designing and approving 

the fax advertisement which is attached to the FAC. Cathy Bass is an officer of 

both Business Financial Services, Inc. (“BFS”) and Business Cash Advance, Inc. 

(“BCA”). BFS, BCA and BFS WEST, INC. (“BFS West”) are all wholly-owned 

subsidiaries of the same corporate parent. (Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Compel, Doc. 47). BFS, BCA and BFS WEST operate in the same field 

of business: providing financing to small businesses that may not qualify for 

2:14-cv-14166-PDB-RSW Doc # 48 Filed 10/23/15 Pg 2 of 9 Pg ID 855
3 

traditional commercial loans. Id. BFS WEST operates within the state of California 

while BFS operates in the rest of the country. 

 Plaintiff is entitled to production of all of the documents and electronic data 

in Defendants’ possession, custody and control regarding all faxes sent during the 

class period. 

2. Defendants’ Position 

 Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery related to fax advertising conducted by 

or on behalf of Business Financial Services, Inc. or Business Cash Advance, Inc. 

(collectively “BFS”). Plaintiff alleges it received a single fax message from 

independent, non-party Infinite Synergy LLC.1

 Although Infinite Synergy 

provided potential applicants for financing, or “leads,” to BFS West, BFS had no 

contact or involvement with Infinite Synergy. BFS and BFS West are 

independent, wholly-owned subsidiaries of a common parent corporation. The 

fact that BFS and BFS West have a common corporate officer or operate in the 

same industry is not sufficient to impute the conduct of one subsidiary to the other, 

and does not justify discovery from BFS regarding work that is solely related to 

BFS West. As a result, fax advertising by or on behalf of BFS is entirely irrelevant 

to Plaintiff’s claims. 

 

1

 To Defendants’ knowledge, Infinite Synergy LLC is not incorporated in any state 

and has no employees. An individual, Michael Cafiero, used the name Infinite 

Synergy LLC in his dealings with BFS West, Inc. 

2:14-cv-14166-PDB-RSW Doc # 48 Filed 10/23/15 Pg 3 of 9 Pg ID 856
4 

 Further, the scope of Plaintiff’s discovery requests with respect to fax 

advertising by or on behalf of BFS is incredibly broad, including all 

communications and records related to all fax advertising during a four-year 

period. If ordered to comply with these requests, BFS would have to manually 

search its internal servers and the e-mail accounts and hard drives of numerous 

current and former employees. This would significantly disrupt BFS’ business and 

would impose an undue burden upon BFS. 

B. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to discovery related to fax advertising done 

directly by BFS West, Inc., or fax advertising done by any fax 

broadcaster hired by BFS West, Inc. for faxes that were not part of the 

fax campaign by third party Infinite Synergy that resulted in the fax 

sent to the Plaintiff 

1. Plaintiff’s Position 

 Plaintiff is entitled to discovery related to all fax advertising done by BFS 

West regardless of whether it was done directly or indirectly. 

 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are the sender of fax advertisements in 

violation of the TCPA. The FCC has specifically promulgated a rule defining the 

fax sender as the “person or entity on whose behalf a facsimile unsolicited 

advertisement is sent or whose goods or services are advertised or promoted in the 

unsolicited advertisement.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(10) (emphasis added). 

Furthermore, all of those other recipients of Defendants’ fax advertising campaigns 

suffered the very damage sought to be redressed by the TCPA. There is no 

2:14-cv-14166-PDB-RSW Doc # 48 Filed 10/23/15 Pg 4 of 9 Pg ID 857
5 

distinction under the law for violations of the TCPA based based on which third 

party the Defendants used. 

 Defendants have produced documents related to the third party Infinite 

Synergy. These documents clearly show that Cathy Bass was involved in designing 

and targeting fax advertisements for nationwide distribution. Furthermore, the 

documents show that the actual filled out fax leads came in from all over the 

country and were provided by Infinite Synergy to Defendants for them to contact 

regarding financing for small businesses. 

 Plaintiff asks this Court to order BFS West to identify all entities which 

transmitted fax advertisements on its behalf and provide complete responses to 

Plaintiff’s Requests for Production as it relates to these entities. 

2. Defendants’ Position 

 Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery related to fax advertising conducted 

directly by BFS West or advertisements sent by any fax broadcaster it hired. 

Plaintiff alleges that it received a single fax message from independent, non-party 

Infinite Synergy on August 1, 2013. Infinite Synergy provided potential applicants 

for financing, or “leads,” to BFS West. Infinite Synergy provided its last lead to 

BFS West in May 2013, and communications between the Infinite Synergy and 

BFS West ceased in June 2013. The fax Plaintiff received from Infinite Synergy 

was a generic form that did not identify BFS or BFS West and was transmitted 

2:14-cv-14166-PDB-RSW Doc # 48 Filed 10/23/15 Pg 5 of 9 Pg ID 858
6 

more than a month after BFS West and Infinite Synergy last had contact. 

Plaintiff’s receipt of a generic fax from Infinite Synergy, an independent, non-party 

that was no longer in contact with BFS West, and its claims based on that fax, do 

not entitle it to discovery related to any fax advertising conducted directly by BFS 

West or by any fax broadcasters it hired. 

C. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to discovery related to fax advertising done 

by independent third party lead providers other than Infinite Synergy. 

1. Plaintiff’s Position 

 To the extent Defendants are aware of third party lead providers that sent fax 

advertisements on behalf of any of the Defendants, Plaintiff believes is entitled to 

said discovery. Infinite Synergy was an independent third party lead provider who 

used fax advertising on behalf of Defendants to generate leads for Defendants. 

Cathy Bass and Defendants negotiated an agreement to pay Infinite Synergy a 

commission for sales made from leads generated by fax advertising. 

 Plaintiff asks this Court to order Defendants to identify all entities which 

transmitted fax advertisements on its behalf and provide complete responses to 

Plaintiff’s Requests for Production as it relates to these entities. 

2. Defendants’ Position 

 Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery related to fax advertising by 

independent, third party lead providers other than Infinite Synergy. During the 

four-year putative class period, Defendants received leads from more than 500 

2:14-cv-14166-PDB-RSW Doc # 48 Filed 10/23/15 Pg 6 of 9 Pg ID 859
7 

independent lead providers. Defendants do not dictate the methods independent 

lead providers use to contact potential applicants for financing or provide lists of 

individuals these lead providers should contact. Because the lead providers are 

independent, third parties, not controlled by Defendants, and their conduct is not in 

any way related to the fax Plaintiff received, Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery 

related to their fax advertising campaigns. 

 Further, Defendants do not maintain information about the method each 

independent lead provider uses to generate leads. If ordered to comply with 

Plaintiff’s broad discovery requests with respect to independent lead providers, 

Defendants would first have to attempt to identify leads that originated from fax 

campaigns by searching e-mails, faxes, and/or hard copy files they received from 

each lead provider. To the extent it is possible to reconstruct which independent 

lead providers conducted fax campaigns, Defendants would then have to locate and 

manually review all records and communications related to those lead providers. 

This exercise would be a tremendous burden on each of the Defendants and would 

substantially disrupt their businesses. 

 The fact that Infinite Synergy attempted to negotiate an agreement with BFS 

West does not justify Plaintiff’s request for all documents related to fax advertising 

by independent third parties that provided leads to Defendants. Defendants have 

already produced every e-mail between BFS West and Infinite Synergy, every lead 

2:14-cv-14166-PDB-RSW Doc # 48 Filed 10/23/15 Pg 7 of 9 Pg ID 860
8 

Infinite Synergy offered to BFS West, every internal BFS West e-mail discussing 

Infinite Synergy, and screen shots of BFS West’s database reflecting attempts by 

BFS West employees to contact potential loan applicants provided by Infinite 

Synergy. 

Dated: October 23, 2015 Respectfully submitted, 

CENTRAL ALARM SIGNAL, INC., a 

Michigan corporation, individually and 

as the representative of a Class of 

Similarly Situated Persons 

By: /s/ Ryan M. Kelly 

 Ross M. Good 

ANDERSON + WANCA 

Brian J. Wanca 

Ryan M. Kelly 

Ross M. Good 

3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 

Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 

Telephone: 847/368-1500 

Business Financial Services, Inc.; 

Business Cash Advance, Inc., and BFS 

West, Inc.

By: /s/Terance A. Gonsalves 

Terance A. Gonsalves (Ill. 6272295) 

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 

525 West Monroe Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60661 

Phone: (312) 902-5200 

Fax: (312) 902-1061 

terance.gonsalves@kattenlaw.com 

Stuart M. Richter (Cal. 126231) 

2029 Century Park East 

Suite 2600 

Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012 

Telephone: (310) 788-4582 

Fax: (310) 712-8434 

stuart.richter@kattenlaw.com 

David E. Plunkett (P66696) 

Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, 

P.C. 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave 

Suite 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

DEPlunkett@wwrplaw.com 

2:14-cv-14166-PDB-RSW Doc # 48 Filed 10/23/15 Pg 8 of 9 Pg ID 861
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on October 23, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing with 

the Clerk of Court using the ECF system, which will send notification of such 

filing to all attorneys of record. 

 By: /s/Terance A. Gonsalves 

Terance A. Gonsalves (Ill. 6272295) 

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 

525 West Monroe Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60661 

Phone: (312) 902-5200 

Fax: (312) 902-1061 

terance.gonsalves@kattenlaw.com 

Stuart M. Richter (Cal. 126231) 

2029 Century Park East 

Suite 2600 

Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012 

Telephone: (310) 788-4582 

Fax: (310) 712-8434 

stuart.richter@kattenlaw.com 

David E. Plunkett (P66696) 

Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, P.C. 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave 

Suite 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

DEPlunkett@wwrplaw.com 

 

2:14-cv-14166-PDB-RSW Doc # 48 Filed 10/23/15 Pg 9 of 9 Pg ID 862