Loftus v. Sunrun Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs alleged that Sunrun Inc. and Media Mix 365, LLC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act through unsolicited telemarketing. They also alleged that the defendants violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act by recording cellular communications without consent. Media Mix was in default, and its counsel had withdrawn.

The plaintiffs sought early discovery consisting of responses to requests for production and interrogatories. They first sought an order requiring discovery responses and then requested a telephone discovery conference. The court denied the telephone conference because Media Mix could not meaningfully participate and directed the plaintiffs to submit a discovery letter instead.

Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) generally prevents a party from seeking discovery before the parties have held the required discovery conference, unless the rules, a stipulation, or a court order allows it. Courts apply a good-cause standard when deciding whether to permit early discovery. The court explained that good cause may exist when a defendant has failed to appear and default has been entered.

The court found good cause here because Media Mix had defaulted and its counsel had withdrawn. Without court-ordered relief, the plaintiffs could not obtain discovery from Media Mix. The court also found that the proposed discovery was tailored to the claims and facts, including identifying the potential class, determining the number of alleged Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations, and determining Sunrun’s liability for the telemarketing. The information could affect both the plaintiffs’ case against Media Mix and their case against Sunrun because the plaintiffs alleged that Media Mix made the calls on Sunrun’s behalf.

Ruling

The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for discovery and ordered Media Mix to respond to the discovery within 30 days of the order. For requests seeking expert reports and unredacted papers filed in other Telephone Consumer Protection Act cases involving Media Mix, Media Mix had to identify documents containing third-party confidential information. The plaintiffs then had to meet and confer with those third parties about production. If no agreement could be reached, the third parties had to file a motion for a protective order within 30 days after the meet-and-confer process. The court also required the plaintiffs to provide those third parties with a copy of the order.