IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MAXX LYMAN, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF 

AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

GLOBE LIFE INC. 

Defendant. 

Case No. 4:23-cv-00911-SDJ 

JOINT 26(f) REPORT REGARDING CONTENTS OF SCHEDULING ORDER 

The Parties met and conferred on December 19, 2023. In accordance with the Court’s order 

of November 21, 2023 (ECF No. 10), the Parties jointly propose the following conference report: 

1. Plaintiff claims that the Defendant called his private telephone number 617-XXXXXXX from the identical caller ID 888-303-9533 multiple times on September 5, 2023. The 

Plaintiff alleged he requested multiple times for the calls to stop, but they did not stop. The Plaintiff 

alleges he was told on the call that the caller was from Globe Life and called to attempt to sell him 

a Globe Life brand insurance policy. When the number was called back, Plaintiff alleges the 

number went to agents who represented they were with Globe Life. Based on these allegations, 

the Plaintiff brings a class action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated for violations 

of the TCPA, as the calls were made to his number which is on the Do Not Call Registry. 

Defendant has a number of potential defenses to the Plaintiff’s claims in this case. At base, 

Defendant is a holding company that does not sell insurance policies. Accordingly, it does not call 

potential customers to try and sell insurance policies. The phone number 888-303-9533 is not one 

that is owned by Defendant or that is used by Globe Life employees in any capacity. And Plaintiff 

has not alleged that Globe Life is vicariously liable for calls made by any third parties, nor is Globe 

Case 4:23-cv-00911-SDJ Document 17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 131
 2 

Life vicariously liable for any calls placed to Plaintiff by any third parties. Defendant reserves the 

right to raise additional defenses as more evidence becomes revealed in this matter. 

2. This case sounds in Federal Question Jurisdiction. However, the Defendant has 

raised a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction as more fully outlined in the Defendant’s Motion 

to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1). 

3. Plaintiff would like the Court to be aware that discovery has uncovered that the 

888-303-9533 number was previously associated with an individual named Steven Keller with KS 

Insurance Group, doing business as Preferred Health Advisors. The Plaintiff has issued discovery 

to ascertain the connection between these entities and Defendant, and may amend the complaint 

to add these parties, or additional parties possibly involved in the calls Plaintiff received, as 

discovery in this matter progresses. 

Defendant has done a preliminary investigation, and it does not appear that Steven Keller, 

KS Insurance Group, or Preferred Health Advisors are licensed to sell insurance policies for any 

Globe Life insurance company. Further, it appears that Mr. Keller is solely licensed to sell 

insurance for LifeShield National Insurance Co., which is not a Globe Life entity. While Globe 

Life Inc. is not a proper defendant in this case, it is correctly identified, and it does not yet know 

who, if anyone, is the proper defendant in this lawsuit. 

4. The parties are not aware of any related cases to this one pending in any state or 

federal court. 

5. The Plaintiff and Defendant have completed and served their initial disclosures 

required by Rule 26(a)(1). 

6. The Parties believe that a modified version of the Court’s proposed scheduling 

order deadlines is appropriate given the current status of this case and the fact that it is a class 

Case 4:23-cv-00911-SDJ Document 17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 132
 3 

action. The Parties propose the schedule attached as Appendix 1, which is modeled after and 

consistent with the Court’s scheduling order in Schopp v. National Debt Relief, LLC, No. 23-CV568-SDJ (E.D. Tex.). After the class certification issue has been resolved, the Parties will propose 

a more comprehensive scheduling order for the disposition of the merits of the case. 

7. In accordance with Rule 26(f) the Parties describe: 

i. The Plaintiff will take discovery relating to the calls Plaintiff and the class received, 

how Plaintiff received them, why they were placed to the Plaintiff and Class members despite their 

numbers being on the Do Not Call registry, Defendant’s policies and procedures (or lack thereof) 

for complying with the TCPA, and similar discovery, including expert discovery, as to the calls, 

calling data, and any defenses to be raised by the Defendant, including in its motion to dismiss. 

The Plaintiff objects phased or limited discovery as the classwide discovery is almost identical to 

and duplicative of the individual discovery needed for his individual claims. 

At this time, Defendant anticipates taking the deposition of the named Plaintiff and 

potentially any other third-party witnesses that are identified during the course of the litigation. 

Defendant does not believe, at this time, that phased or limited discovery is necessary. 

ii. The Plaintiff will be requesting all ESI to be produced in its original, native, format, 

together with all associated metadata. This is required so that the data may be efficiently and 

expeditiously analyzed by Plaintiff’s expert, such as to analyze calling records and data in 

anticipation of ascertaining the class for class certification. The parties agree to engage in a 

collaborative process in the event of any disputes over disclosure and discovery of ESI occur, 

potentially in cooperation with experts, and seek the Court’s intervention as part of a court order. 

iii. There are neither any agreements nor disputes related to asserting claims of 

privilege or preserving discoverable information. The Plaintiff may seek to designate as 

Case 4:23-cv-00911-SDJ Document 17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 133
 4 

confidential certain information, to include the Plaintiff’s telephone number, contact information, 

and similar such discovery in this case. The parties anticipate jointly seeking entry of a protective 

order to protect information designated as confidential. 

iv. The Parties have no proposals or changes to limit the discovery imposed by the 

Rules at this time. 

v. The parties currently do not require any other orders under Rule 26(c) or 16(b) at 

this time. 

8. The Plaintiff has tendered a settlement demand and is awaiting a response from the 

Defendant. The Defendant has not tendered their own demand or a counter-offer. The Parties have 

not agreed on a mediator but will certainly consider mediation as this case draws nearer to class 

certification. 

9. The Plaintiff intends to depose Globe Life’s 30(b)(6) representative, as well as 

potentially Steven Keller and the 30(b)(6) representative for KS Insurance Group. The Defendant 

intends to depose the Plaintiff. The parties intend to cross-depose any experts in this case. 

10. The Plaintiff requires approximately a week for his trial should this proceed as a 

class action or approximately 3-4 days should this proceed as an individual action. The Plaintiff 

has made a jury demand. The Defendant anticipates needing an additional week for their case at 

trial should this proceed as a class action or an additional 3-4 days should this proceed as an 

individual action. 

11. Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. will appear in person on behalf of Plaintiff at the 

management conference, is an attorney of record, and has full authority to bind the client. 

Presently, Defendant anticipates that Emily Fitzgerald will appear in person on behalf of 

Defendant at the management conference as attorney of record with full authority to bind the client. 

Case 4:23-cv-00911-SDJ Document 17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 134
 5 

12. The Parties do not jointly consent to a trial before a Magistrate Judge. 

13. The Plaintiff believes that firm case management from the Court and strict 

adherence to the deadlines in this case will be necessary to forestall defensive tactics in this matter 

that tend to work against the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of” this action. Only in 

this way will the Court be able to expeditiously and orderly prepare for trial. 

Defendant is not aware of any other matters appropriate for inclusion in the joint conference 

report or that deserve the special attention of the Court at the management conference. 

 

Case 4:23-cv-00911-SDJ Document 17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 135
 6 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AND DATED this January 3, 2024.

/s/ Andrew Roman Perrong (with permission) 

Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. 

Perrong Law LLC 

2657 Mount Carmel Avenue 

Glenside, Pennsylvania 19038 

Phone: 215-225-5529 (CALL-LAW) 

Facsimile: 888-329-0305 

a@perronglaw.com 

 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

/s/ Emily A. Fitzgerald 

Emily A. Fitzgerald 

Alston & Bird LLP 

Bar No. 24097690 

2200 Ross Ave., Suite 2300 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

Tel: (214) 922-3400 

Fax: (214) 922-3899 

emily.fitzgerald@alston.com

Counsel for Defendant Globe Life, Inc. 

 

Case 4:23-cv-00911-SDJ Document 17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 136
 7 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on January 3, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing JOINT 26(f) 

REPORT REGARDING CONTENTS OF SCHEDULING ORDER with the Clerk of Court using 

the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing and effectuate service to all counsel 

of record in this matter. 

 ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

/s/ Emily A. Fitzgerald 

Emily A. Fitzgerald 

Bar No. 24097690 

2200 Ross Ave., Suite 2300 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

Tel: (214) 922-3400 

Fax: (214) 922-3899 

emily.fitzgerald@alston.com

Counsel for Defendant Globe Life, Inc.

Case 4:23-cv-00911-SDJ Document 17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 137