1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT -- EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MICHIGAN URGENT CARE & 

PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS, P.C., 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-14518 

 Hon. Robert H. Cleland 

 -vsMEDSOURCE INTERNATIONAL,LLC, 

and JOHN DOES 1-10, 

Defendants. 

Joint Status Report filed pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 26(f)

1. Nature and Basis of Claims and Defenses

a. Plaintiff's Claims

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 

U.S.C. §227 (“TCPA”) arising out of defendant Medsource, International, LLC’s sending or 

causing to send an unsolicited advertising facsimile to the facsimile machines of plaintiff and 

others similarly situated. 

 Defendant has filed an answer and various affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

b. Defenses to Plaintiff’s Claims

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendant 

Medsource International, LLC asserts that it did not send the alleged faxes identified in 

Plaintiff’s Complaint. Rather, the faxes were sent by MSI Healthcare, LLC which closed its 

2:14-cv-14518-RHC-MJH Doc # 13 Filed 02/10/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 37
 2

business in February 2014 and dissolved June 25, 2014. Defendant contends that Plaintiff and 

any purported class have no sustainable claims against Defendant Medsource International, LLC. 

2. Nature of Corporate Parties

Plaintiff is a private corporation and has filed a disclosure statement pursuant to LR 83.4. 

Defendant is a Minnesota limited liability company and its single member is a Minnesota 

resident and has filed a disclosure statement pursuant to LR 83.4. 

3. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. Mims 

v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 132 S.Ct. 740 (2012). 

4. Relationship to other cases

 The parties are unaware of any related matters, pending or otherwise. 

5. Amendments to pleadings

 Plaintiff is currently unaware of any amendments that need to be made to the complaint. 

Discovery may reveal the need for the addition of parties. Defendant is unaware of any 

amendments that are needed to the counterclaim. The parties agree to engage in meaningful 

concurrence discussions prior to filing any Iqbal/Twombly 12(b) motions. 

6. Expert Testimony

 Plaintiff may need to hire an expert to determine the manner of faxing and the identities 

or fax numbers of fax recipients and/or to inspect the facsimile equipment. Defendants may 

identify an expert witness in response to Plaintiff’s expert disclosure. 

2:14-cv-14518-RHC-MJH Doc # 13 Filed 02/10/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 38
 3

7. Discovery and Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures

 The parties agree that Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures will be exchanged before any written 

discovery is served. The parties agree that Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures will be made no later than 

March 2, 2015. 

 The parties agree that 150 days is sufficient for discovery. As such, the discovery cut-off 

date would be July 29, 2015. 

a. No changes should be made in the timing, form, limitations or requirement for 

discovery imposed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

b. Discovery will cover all subjects allowable under Rule 26 and will pertain to all 

subjects reasonably calculated to lead to relevant evidence. 

c. The parties anticipate that there may be privileged or protected materials 

requested in discovery; if this is the case, the parties may submit a motion for a 

protective order to the Court if they are unable to stipulate to such an order. 

8. Electronically Stored Information

 The parties will take steps to preserve all discoverable information. The parties agree 

that electronically stored information is subject to disclosure and adopt the Court’s model rule. 

9. Alternative Dispute Resolution

 The parties do not believe a facilitated settlement conference with the Court or a 

magistrate judge. 

10. Consent to Bench Trial/Magistrate

 The parties, at this time, have not consented to trial before the magistrate judge. Neither 

party has requested a jury trial. 

2:14-cv-14518-RHC-MJH Doc # 13 Filed 02/10/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 39
 4

11. Dispositive Motions/Settlement

 Both parties anticipate filing dispositive motions after the close of discovery. Plaintiff 

has requested certain the information that will be needed in order to commence settlement 

discussions and prepare a settlement demand. 

 Respectfully Submitted, 

 EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER 

 & GOODWIN, LLC 

 By: /s/ Daniel A. Edelman

 Daniel A. Edelman 

 Cathleen M. Combs 

Thomas E. Soule 

 EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER 

 & GOODWIN, LLC 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 

 Chicago, Illinois 60603 

 (312) 739-4200 

 (312) 419-0379 (FAX) 

 Email: dedelman@edcombs.com

 /s/ Adam G. Taub

 Adam G. Taub (P48703) 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

17200 W 10 Mile Rd Suite 200 

 Southfield, MI 48075 

 Phone: (248) 746-3790 

 Email: adamgtaub@clgplc.net

 KELLER & ALMASSIAN, PLC 

 

 By: /s/ Michael D. Almassian

 Michael D. Almassian (P61478) 

KELLER & ALMASSIAN, PLC 

Attorneys for Defendant 

 230 East Fulton Street 

Grand Rapids, MI 49503 

(616) 364-2100

 

Dated: February 10, 2015 

2:14-cv-14518-RHC-MJH Doc # 13 Filed 02/10/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 40
 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

 I, Daniel A. Edelman, certify that on February 10, 2015, I caused a true and accurate 

copy of the foregoing document to be filed via the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send 

notification of such filing to the following: 

Michael D. Almassian 

 KELLER & ALMASSIAN, PLC 

 230 East Fulton Street 

 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 

MAlmassian@kalawgr.com 

 /s/ Daniel A. Edelman

 Daniel A. Edelman 

Daniel A. Edelman 

Cathleen M. Combs 

Thomas E. Soule 

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER 

 & GOODWIN, LLC 

20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

 (312) 739-4200 

 (312) 419-0379 (FAX) 

2:14-cv-14518-RHC-MJH Doc # 13 Filed 02/10/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 41