Kinzer v. LifeAID Beverage Co.

Background

Michael Kinzer asserted individual and proposed class claims against LifeAID Beverage Co. under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal law regulating certain telephone and text-message marketing. He alleged that, after placing his cellular telephone number on the national Do-Not-Call registry, he received several unwanted marketing texts from LifeAID.

The court had previously allowed discovery about Kinzer’s individual claims and stayed other discovery. During the dispute over Kinzer’s deposition notice, Kinzer stated that he presently relied only on three text messages sent in July 2021. LifeAid argued that Kinzer had abandoned claims based on messages identified in his first amended complaint and that he had not yet been permitted to add allegations about the July messages. The court expressly did not decide whether those individual claims remained viable or whether Kinzer would be allowed to amend his complaint. For purposes of this discovery order, it limited discovery to individual claims based on the July 2021 messages.

Rulings on Deposition Topics

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which generally allows discovery relevant to a claim or defense when it is proportional to the needs of the case. It also applied Rule 30(b)(6), which allows a party to depose a corporation through a designated representative about information known or reasonably available to the corporation.

- Topic 5: LifeAid did not have to provide testimony about complaints, lawsuits, regulatory actions, claims, and other disputes concerning its text messages during the previous four years. The topic was too broad and was not limited to information bearing on whether the July 2021 messages were sent willfully. - Topic 11: Kinzer could ask which companies, if any, LifeAid used to send the July 2021 messages to his cellular telephone number. The court limited the topic to those messages and that number. - Topics 12–14: LifeAid did not have to provide testimony under the topics as drafted. They sought broad information about LifeAid’s policies and procedures concerning text messages, consumer contact information, and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The court found that the topics were not sufficiently limited to the circumstances underlying Kinzer’s individual claims. - Topic 15: Kinzer could ask whether LifeAid claimed that the July 2021 messages were sent by mistake. If LifeAid made that contention, Kinzer could ask about training received by the person or persons responsible for sending the messages. If LifeAid did not claim a mistake, the topic was not relevant. - Topics 17 and 22: Kinzer could obtain testimony about the basis for LifeAid’s answers to the relevant allegations. The opinion states that Kinzer could obtain testimony on Topic 22 even though the earlier description of disputed topics lists Topics 17–21 and 23–27. - Topics 18–20 and 23–26: LifeAid did not have to provide testimony about its answers to allegations concerning text messages that no longer formed the basis of Kinzer’s individual claims. - Topic 27: If LifeAid contended that it had Kinzer’s prior express invitation or permission to contact him when the July messages were sent, Kinzer could ask about the factual basis for that contention. - Topic 30: Kinzer could ask about LifeAid’s offer to pay $4,500 to resolve his individual claims concerning the July messages, plus $2,500 for his attorneys’ fees, including why LifeAid made the offer. He could not ask about communications between LifeAid or its representatives and LifeAid’s attorneys concerning the proposal. The court stated that the offer was neither privileged nor confidential on the facts presented.

Disposition and Effect

The court ordered that Kinzer may take LifeAid’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition consistently with these rulings. The order addressed only the scope of discovery; it did not resolve the merits of Kinzer’s claims, LifeAid’s defenses, Kinzer’s standing, or his request to amend the complaint. The signed order identifies Virginia K. DeMarchi as the United States Magistrate Judge, while Judge Edward Davila was identified in the opinion as having issued the earlier case-management order.