1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ROGER KEY and JANET GAJEWSKI, 

individually and on behalf of all others Case No. 15-11235 

similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, HON. AVERN COHN 

v. 

INTEGRITY SURVEILLANCE 

SOLUTIONS, INC., d/b/a Integ Security 

Solutions, a Michigan corporation, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________/

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLETE RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 

AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT A RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION, TO 

SERVE THREE SUBPOENAS, AND TO EXCHANGE INITIAL DISCLOSURES 

(Doc. 16)1

I. INTRODUCTION 

This is a case under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et 

seq (“TCPA”). Plaintiffs Rogery Key (“Key”) and Janet Gajewski (“Gajewski”)2

 are suing 

Defendant Integrity Surveillance Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Integ Security Solutions (“Integ”) 

claiming that Integ violated the TCPA by placing unsolicited telemarketing calls to 

Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals without prior consent. 

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to compel complete responses to discovery 

requests and a motion for leave to conduct the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition of 

 

1 Upon review of the parties’ papers, the Court deems this matter appropriate for 

decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2).

2

 Collectively “Plaintiffs” when appropriate. 

2:15-cv-11235-AC-MJH Doc # 20 Filed 12/08/15 Pg 1 of 11 Pg ID 410
2

Integ, to serve subpoenas to MyAutoBlast (Integ’s automatic telephone dialing system) 

and Plaintiffs’ telephone carriers, and to compel the complete exchange of initial 

disclosures. 

For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part 

without prejudice. Integ shall provide complete responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery 

requests and initial disclosures and Plaintiffs may subpoena MyAutoBlast. In addition, 

Plaintiffs’ request to compel Integ to withdraw its allegedly meritless affirmative defense 

no. 3 will be granted. Plaintiffs’ request for leave to conduct a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) 

deposition of Integ and to subpoena Plaintiffs’ telephone carriers will be denied without 

prejudice to Plaintiffs’ right to renew upon receipt of the written discovery ordered 

above. 

I. BACKGROUND 

On March 31, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging violations of 

the TCPA and a motion for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). 

(Doc. 1.) 

On April 15, 2015, Integ responded to the complaint with affirmative defenses. 

(Doc. 5.) Included in the list of affirmative defenses is an assertion of a complete 

defense to liability because Integ “does not employ an automatic telephone dialing 

system as defined by the TCPA.” (Aff. Defense No. 3, Doc. 5 at 11.) Further, Integ 

asserted “[t]he alleged calls may be exempt from an action under the TCPA in that calls 

qualify as research, market surveys, and/or political polling which do not involve 

solicitation.” (Aff. Defense No. 12, Doc. 5 at 13.) 

2:15-cv-11235-AC-MJH Doc # 20 Filed 12/08/15 Pg 2 of 11 Pg ID 411
3

On April 27, 2015, Integ filed a motion to dismiss and/or deny class certification. 

(Doc. 7.) As part of its motion, Integ argued that the case should be dismissed and class 

certification denied before any “wasteful” and “expensive” class discovery is allowed. 

(Doc. 10 at 8.) 

On July 22, 2015, the Court heard argument on the motion for class certification. 

During the hearing, Integ’s counsel argued that the case should be dismissed and 

discovery should be denied, because class discovery would be burdensome and 

expensive. In addition, at the hearing, Plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint under 

seal to include their telephone numbers. On July 23, 2015, the Court issued an order 

stating, in pertinent part: 

A. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED. 

B. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) is DENIED. 

C. Consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 2) 

is deferred. 

*** 

A. Plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the date of this order to 

conduct limited written discovery relating to the class 

allegations. 

B. Defendant shall have 30 days within which to respond to the 

written requests. 

C. Plaintiffs shall have 10 days following completing of discovery to 

amend the class allegations of the complaint. 

D. Defendant shall have 10 days thereafter to amend its Motion to 

Deny Class Certification (Doc. 7) or otherwise plead. 

(Doc. 14.) 

On July 30, 2015, Plaintiffs served Integ with written interrogatories and requests 

for production of documents (“RTPs”). On August 3, 2015, Plaintiffs served their 

requests for admission (“RTAs”). 

2:15-cv-11235-AC-MJH Doc # 20 Filed 12/08/15 Pg 3 of 11 Pg ID 412
4

On September 1, 2015, Integ filed its responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. 

In response to Plaintiffs’ 30 RTPs, Integ provided only a three page contract between 

Integ and MyAutoBlast, its contracted automatic call service. Next, Integ objected to 

answering all but one of Plaintiffs’ twenty-two interrogatories because the requested 

information is beyond the scope of the limited discovery ordered in the matter. 

On September 9, 2015 Plaintiffs sent Integ a letter outlining the deficiencies in its 

responses. Plaintiffs explained why the answers to the interrogatories were insufficient. 

Plaintiffs requested that Integ withdraw its affirmative defenses nos. 3 and 12 because 

they were meritless based on Integ’s responses to discovery. For example, affirmative 

defense no. 3 asserts that Integ does not employ an automatic telephone dialing 

system. This defense directly contradicts Integ’s response to Plaintiffs’ RTAs nos. 17 

and 18 in which it admits to using an automatic dialing system. Plaintiffs also requested 

that Integ withdraw affirmative defense no. 12 in which it claims an exemption under the 

TCPA, because the calls made were political polling. This defense directly contradicts 

Integ’s answer to RTA no. 19 in which it admits that the calls made to Plaintiffs were not 

political calls. 

On September 17, 2015, Integ replied via email to Plaintiffs that it disagreed with 

Plaintiffs’ objections to its responses to the discovery requests. Further, Integ said that it 

provided a complete narrative with supporting documentation and that the discovery 

requests were broad and ignored the court’s specific limitations on discovery. Finally, 

Integ said that Plaintiffs are inappropriately using discovery to find additional plaintiffs 

for the class action. 

2:15-cv-11235-AC-MJH Doc # 20 Filed 12/08/15 Pg 4 of 11 Pg ID 413
5

On September 29, 2015, the Court held a telephone conference with the parties. 

The Court advised that it could not resolve the dispute informally and said the Plaintiffs 

should file appropriate motions. 

On October 8, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel complete 

responses to discovery as well as a motion for leave to conduct a Fed. R. Civ. P. 

30(b)(6) deposition of Integ, to serve subpoenas on MyAutoBlast and Plaintiffs’ 

telephone carriers, and to exchange initial disclosures. (Doc. 16.) The motion is fully 

briefed. (Docs. 17, 19.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

 The scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is traditionally 

quite broad. Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., 135 F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir. 1998). Parties may 

obtain discovery on any matter that is not privileged and is relevant to any party's claim 

or defense if it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant evidence” is “evidence having any tendency to make 

the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more 

probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. But 

the scope of discovery is not unlimited. “District courts have discretion to limit the scope 

of discovery where the information sought is overly broad or would prove unduly 

burdensome to produce.” Surles ex rel. Johnson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 

288, 305 (6th Cir. 2007). 

 Rules 33 and 34 allow a party to serve interrogatories and requests for 

production of documents on an opposing party. A party receiving these types of 

discovery requests has thirty days to respond with answers or objections. Fed. R. Civ. 

2:15-cv-11235-AC-MJH Doc # 20 Filed 12/08/15 Pg 5 of 11 Pg ID 414
6

P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A). If the receiving party fails to respond to interrogatories or RFPs, 

Rule 37 provides the party who sent the discovery the means to file a motion to compel. 

Fed. R. Civ .P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii) and (iv). 

III. DISCUSSION 

A. Motion to Compel Complete Responses to Discovery 

1. Interrogatories 

Pursuant to the Court’s order, Plaintiffs served Integ with written discovery 

requests limited in scope to class action certification. 

Plaintiffs first served Integ with 22 interrogatories. Integ says that all but one of 

the 22 of the interrogatories exceeded the scope of the limited discovery ordered by the 

Court and are not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence relating to the 

class allegations. Additionally, Integ says that Plaintiffs intend to circumvent the Court’s 

order limiting discovery with the main intent to determine class members from a reverse 

phone search in order to strength their case. Specifically, Integ relies on Balschmiter v. 

TD Auto Fin. LLC, 303 F.R.D. 508 (E.D. Wis. 2014), Vigus v. Southern Illinois 

Riverboat/Casino Cruises, Inc., 274 F.R.D. 229, 236 (S.D. Ill. 2011), and Jamison v. 

First Credit Services, Inc., 290 F.R.D. 92 (N.D. Ill. 2013), to argue that Plaintiffs have 

put forth no basis by which, even with a complete list of every alleged call, the 

appropriate class members may be ascertained. 

Integ’s argument lacks merit. In their motion to compel, Plaintiffs provide 

sufficient clarification for the disputed interrogatories explaining how each is directly 

relevant to Rule 23 issues of commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, and 

predominance. Plaintiffs need the requested information regarding the number of 

2:15-cv-11235-AC-MJH Doc # 20 Filed 12/08/15 Pg 6 of 11 Pg ID 415
7

people called, the way Integ and/or MyAutoBlast obtained their numbers, the type of 

dialing equipment used, and the type of data Integ and/or MyAutoBlast has regarding 

each person called to establish the ability of the Court to identify class members. 

Plaintiffs do not intend on adding any additional named plaintiffs to the case. 

Finally, Integ’s reliance on Balschmiter, Jamison, and Vigus is misplaced. These 

cases were decided following complete class discovery and their holdings have been 

generally disagreed with by other courts. Courts routinely certify TCPA class actions.3

Simply because three courts have denied class certification in TCPA cases does not 

warrant dismissal of this case or allow Integ to skirt its obligations to respond in full to 

Plaintiffs’ class discovery. 

Accordingly, Integ’s objections claiming that the questions exceeded the limited 

scope of discovery are unwarranted. 

2. Requests to Produce 

In addition to the 22 interrogatories, Plaintiffs served Integ with 30 RTPs. 

Plaintiffs say, and the Court agrees, that the RTPs are within the scope of the limited 

discovery and all requests are directly related to Rule 23 issues of commonality, 

typicality, adequacy of representation, and predominance. In their September 2015 

letter and later reiterated in the motion to compel, Plaintiffs say Integ failed to sufficiently 

respond to the RTPs on several bases. First, in response to 30 RTPs, Integ only 

produced one three-page contractual agreement between Integ and MyAutoBlast. 

Second, for 13 of the RTPs, Integ responded simply that it had no documents in its 

possession or control. (RTPs Nos. 1-5, 8-9, 17-20, 22, & 27.) These declarations are 

 

3

 See City Select Auto Sales, Inc. v. David Randall Associates, Inc., 296 F.R.D. 299, 

322 (D.N.J. 2013); Lee v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co., 289 F.R.D. 292, 294 (N.D. Cal. 

2013). 

2:15-cv-11235-AC-MJH Doc # 20 Filed 12/08/15 Pg 7 of 11 Pg ID 416
8

contrary to the list of eight categories of documents listed by Integ in its Rule 26(a)(1) 

disclosures. Finally, Plaintiffs question the truthfulness by which Integ answered the 

RTPs and say that Integ is refusing to disclose documents that it in fact has in its 

possession. Plaintiffs point to Integ’s prior statements that discovery would prove 

overwhelming and burdensome to suggest that Integ is withholding the requested 

documents. 

In its defense, Integ says that the RTPs exceed the scope of the limited 

discovery by requesting a report or spreadsheet containing Integ’s phone records during 

the relevant period of time for calls made to the phone numbers belonging to Plaintiffs 

and similarly situated consumers. Moreover, Integ made representations in its response 

that it does not have additional relevant documents to provide.4

 Further, Integ 

emphasizes that under the terms of its contract with MyAutoBlast, MyAutoBlast was 

given complete control of the method and means by which customers are contacted. 

Plaintiffs’ RTPs are within the scope of the limited discovery granted in the July 

23, 2015 order. The responses that Integ has provided to the RTPs merely refer to the 

three-page MyAutoBlast contract and the contract alone does not answer the questions 

sufficiently. 

As such, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to compel complete discovery in 

regards to the interrogatories and RTPs. Integ shall provide to Plaintiffs complete 

responses within 30 days. 

 

4

 Integrity is now at risk should the Court find that it in fact had in its possession 

additional relevant documents requested in Plaintiffs’ RTPs.

2:15-cv-11235-AC-MJH Doc # 20 Filed 12/08/15 Pg 8 of 11 Pg ID 417
9

B. Motion to Serve Subpoenas 

1. Subpoena for MyAutoBlast 

Plaintiffs request leave to subpoena MyAutoBlast for documents which will 

provide answers to their original discovery request submitted to Integ. Presuming 

Integ’s candor with the Court in its statements that MyAutoBlast is in complete control of 

the automated calling and that Integ is not in possession of any additional relevant 

documents regarding class certification, the Plaintiffs’ request for leave to serve 

MyAutoBlast with a subpoeana for documents within the limited scope of discovery is 

GRANTED. 

2. Subpoena for Plaintiffs’ Telephone Carriers 

Plaintiffs also seek permission to subpoena Plaintiffs’ telephone carriers. In doing 

so, Plaintiffs seek records showing that Integ – or MyAutoBlast on Integ’s behalf – 

called them and other similarly situated consumers without consent. This request will be 

denied without prejudice pending Plaintiffs’ receipt and review of the discovery materials 

that will be filed following this order. 

C. Integ’s Affirmative Defenses No. 3 and 12 

As noted above, in their letter in September 2015 to Integ, Plaintiffs questioned 

two of Integ’s affirmative defenses as meritless based on Integ’s answers filed in 

response to the discovery request. The Court will address each affirmative in turn. 

First, Integ’s affirmative defense No. 3 asserts Integ has a complete defense to 

liability because “Defendant does not employ an automatic telephone dialing system as 

defined by the TCPA.” (Doc. 5 at 11-12.) However, Integ admits in response to RTAs 

2:15-cv-11235-AC-MJH Doc # 20 Filed 12/08/15 Pg 9 of 11 Pg ID 418
10

nos. 17 and 18 that it used an automatic dialing system (“ATDS”). As such, Integ cannot 

prevail on affirmative defense no. 3 and it should be withdrawn. 

Plaintiffs next argue that affirmative defense no. 12 should be withdrawn because 

it is meritless. Affirmative defense no. 12 stated “[t]he alleged calls may be exempt from 

an action under the TCPA in that the calls qualify as research, market surveys, and/or 

political polling which do not involve solicitation.” (Doc. 5 at 13.) Plaintiffs say that this 

affirmative defense is entirely contradicted by Integ’s answer to RTA no. 9 which admits 

that the calls made to Plaintiffs were not political calls. However, Plaintiffs’ argument is 

lacking. While the answer to request no. 9 establishes that the calls were not political in 

nature, the RTAs do not inquire as to whether the calls qualify as research or market 

surveys. As such, the affirmative defense has not been entirely contradicted and does 

not need to be withdrawn at this time. 

D. Motion to Compel Exchange of Initial Disclosures 

Plaintiffs ask that the Court require that the parties exchange initial disclosures 

required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). Rule 26(a) requires parties to disclose 

substantial information about a case. Rule 26(a)(1) deals with "initial disclosures" and 

provides that a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, disclose the identity of 

persons likely to have discoverable information; copies of relevant documents in the 

party's possession; a computation of damages; and any relevant insurance agreement. 

On October 28, 2015, following its receipt of Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, Integ 

filed its initial disclosures. (Doc. 18.) Plaintiffs say that the initial disclosures are 

incomplete because Integ did not provide information regarding any potentially 

applicable insurance policy. 

2:15-cv-11235-AC-MJH Doc # 20 Filed 12/08/15 Pg 10 of 11 Pg ID 419
11

Integ shall provide to Plaintiffs the insurance information pursuant to Rule 

26(a)(1). 

E. Motion to Conduct a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) Deposition 

The court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion to conduct a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) 

deposition without prejudice pending the review of the discovery material that must be 

produced under this order. At this time, the Court will follow its own July 23, 2015 order 

and will limit discovery to only written discovery regarding class certification. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel complete responses to 

discovery, motion to subpoena MyAutoBlast, motion to compel complete exchange of 

initial disclosures, and request to compel the withdrawal of Integ’s affirmative defense 

no. 3 are GRANTED. The motion for leave to conduct a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) 

deposition and to serve a subpoena on Plaintiffs’ telephone carriers and Plaintiffs’ 

request to compel the withdrawal of Integ’s affirmative defense no. 12 are DENIED 

without prejudice. 

SO ORDERED. 

 s/Avern Cohn 

 AVERN COHN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: December 8, 2015 

Detroit, Michigan 

2:15-cv-11235-AC-MJH Doc # 20 Filed 12/08/15 Pg 11 of 11 Pg ID 420