_

Joint Conference Report Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JOSEPH BOND, on behalf of himself and 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

FOLSOM INSURANCE AGENCY LLC,

CODY FOLSOM, and BERKSHIRE

HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.

1:24-cv-00075-MJT

JOINT REPORT OF SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

JOINT CONFERENCE REPORT

Pursuant to this Court’s form, the Parties file this joint Rule 26 report as follows:

1. A brief factual and legal synopsis of the case.

Plaintiff’s Statement: The Plaintiff, Joseph Bond, brings this cause of action against the 

Defendant for violating the “Robocall” provisions of the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection 

Act against the Defendants for sending a prerecorded call selling their insurance services to his 

cellular telephone without his consent. The elements this claim are: (1) the defendant called a

cellular telephone number or other prohibited number; (2) using an artificial or prerecorded voice; 

(3) for non-emergency purposes and without consent. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

Folsom Defendants’ Statement: Defendants Folsom Insurance Agency, LLC, and Cody 

Folsom (“Folsom Defendants”) deny that they violated the Federal Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act. Further, Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of waiver, 

ratification, estoppel, equitable estoppel, unclean hands, and failure to mitigate his damages. 

Further, Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2)(i)(A)-(E), 

Case 1:24-cv-00075-MJT Document 16 Filed 09/09/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 66
_

Joint Conference Report Page 2 of 5

47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)(c). Further, Plaintiff claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff 

was not charged for the ringless voicemail as required by the TCPA.

2. The jurisdictional basis for this suit.

Response: This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction, as this case arises 

under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). The Parties do not 

contest subject matter jurisdiction.

3. Confirm that initial mandatory disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) and this Order 

have been completed. 

Response: The parties have completed initial mandatory disclosures as required by Rule 

26(a)(1) and this Order.

4. Proposed Scheduling Order deadlines. Appendix 1 has the standard deadlines. 

Explain any deviations from standard schedule. Now is the time to inform the court of any special 

complexities or need for more time before the trial setting. The standard schedule is planned so 

that there is time to rule on dispositive motions before parties begin final trial preparation. 

Response: Since the parties are moving to transfer the venue to Northern District of Texas 

– Dallas Division, the parties will comply with the assigned judge’s orders in that venue on the 

scheduling order deadlines.

5. If the parties agree that mediation is appropriate, and the parties can agree upon a 

mediator, the name, address, and phone number of that mediator, and a proposed deadline should 

be stated. An early date is encouraged to reduce expenses. The court may appoint a mediator upon 

request. 

Case 1:24-cv-00075-MJT Document 16 Filed 09/09/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 67
_

Joint Conference Report Page 3 of 5

Response: The Plaintiff has tendered the name and information of a proposed mediator for 

the Defendants to take to their clients and will inform the Court about the status and timing of any 

potential mediation.

6. What changes, if any, should be made to the limitations on discovery imposed by 

the rules, including number of depositions and interrogatories. 

Response: Plaintiff proposed no changes or limitations at this time. Folsom Defendants 

request that this Court bifurcate individual and class discovery.

7. The identity of persons expected to be deposed. 

Plaintiff's Statement: The Plaintiff intends to depose, at minimum, the Defendants’ 

30(b)(6) representatives, owners and/or employees of Defendants, as well as any third parties 

which may have been involved in the calling conduct complained of. 

Folsom Defendants’ Statement: Folsom Defendants intend to depose Plaintiff, as well as 

any third parties that have knowledge about the facts of this case as developed through discovery.

8. Any issues relating to disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information, 

including the form or forms in which it should be produced. 

Response: The parties anticipate no issues currently with disclosure or discovery of ESI. 

The parties will co-operate in a collaborative process to review and resolve any disclosure or 

discovery disputes regarding ESI and will inform the Court if further changes or orders are needed.

9. Any agreements or disputes relating to asserting claims of privilege or preserving 

discoverable information, including electronically stored information and any agreements reached 

under Federal Rule of Evidence 502. 

Response: The parties anticipate no issues currently with disclosure or discovery of 

discoverable information. The parties will co-operate in a collaborative process to review and 

Case 1:24-cv-00075-MJT Document 16 Filed 09/09/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 68
_

Joint Conference Report Page 4 of 5

resolve any disclosure or discovery disputes regarding claims of privilege and preservation and 

will inform the Court if further changes or orders are needed. 

10. Whether any other orders should be entered by the court pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 26(c) or 16(b), (c). 

Response: The Plaintiff desires no such orders at present. In the event proprietary 

information is subject of written discovery, Folsom Defendant will require a protective order.

11. The expected length of trial and whether it will be to a jury or the bench.

Response: Trial will last approximately a week if tried individually and 2-3 weeks if tried 

as a class action and class certification is granted. The Plaintiff demands a jury trial. 

12. The names of the attorneys who will appear on behalf of the parties at the 

Management Conference (the appearing attorney must be an attorney of record and have full 

authority to bind the client). 

Response: Anthony Paronich for Plaintiff. Jason R. Jobe and/or Yesha P. Patel for Folsom 

Defendants.

13. Any other matters that counsel deem appropriate for inclusion in the Joint 

Conference Report. 

Response: Counsel for Plaintiff inadvertently filed this case in the Beaumont Division. 

This is because the ECF system automatically selects Beaumont as the division because it begins 

with "B" in the dropdown menu when a case is filed. The Parties jointly consent to movement of 

this case to Northern District of Texas – Dallas Division as the main Defendant was located in 

Kaufman County at the time of the incident, which lies in the Northern District of Texas - Dallas

Division.

Case 1:24-cv-00075-MJT Document 16 Filed 09/09/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 69
_

Joint Conference Report Page 5 of 5

Folsom Defendants request that the court bifurcate individual and class discovery in this 

case.

Respectfully submitted,

PARONICH LAW, P.C.

By: /s/ Anthony Paronich

Anthony Paronich

State Bar No. 678437

Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com

350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400

Hingham, MA 02043

Telephone: (508) 221-1510

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

THOMPSON, COE, COUSINS & IRONS, L.L.P.

By: /s/ Jason R. Jobe

Jason R. Jobe

State Bar No. 24043743

Email: jjobe@thompsoncoe.com

Yesha P. Patel

State Bar No. 24098228

Email: ypatel@thompsoncoe.com

Plaza of the Americas

700 N. Pearl Street, 25th Floor

Dallas, Texas 75201-2832

Telephone: (214) 871-8200

Telecopy: (214) 871-8209

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS FOLSOM 

INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, AND CODY 

FOLSOM

Case 1:24-cv-00075-MJT Document 16 Filed 09/09/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 70