In Webb v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group LLC, 2014 WL 325132 (N.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Seeborg ordered a TCPA class action defendant to produce an outbound call list, evidence of “express consent”, and its hardware and software manuals for its dialer.
HRRG contends that in light of its concession that it called at least 100 cellular telephone numbers utilizing an artificial voice, the requested outbound dial list holds no relevance to the commonality inquiry. In particular, HRRG claims the call list has no bearing on the remaining elements of the TCPA claim, as it “does nothing to establish whether the dialer is an ATDS or whether HRRG had consent to call the telephone number.” (Defendant’s Objection, 10:7–8, ECF No. 29).FN2 Defendants fail to explain why the outbound dial list is irrelevant to establishing whether the calls were made using an ATDS. After all, the magistrate judge specified that the outbound dial list must show “all telephone numbers called by HRRG ‘utilizing an autodialer [.]’ ” (ECF No. 27 7:11). Accordingly, if HRRG provides the list as described in the order, the document would likely bear on the commonality inquiry. See Khalilpour v. CELLCO P’ship, 2010 WL 1267749, at *2 (N.D.Cal.2010) (“Relevancy is broadly construed, and a request for discovery should be considered relevant if there is ‘any possibility’ that the information sought may be relevant to the claim or defense of any party.”); see also Knutson, 2013 WL 3746118, at *8 (“A list of numbers dialed by an autodialer on behalf of Schwan’s for a singular purpose could be relevant to [the commonality] inquiry, especially since Plaintiffs claim the cell phone numbers can be reliably identified within the list and used in conjunction with evidence of lack of consent.”).