In Sartin v. EKF Diagnostics, Inc., 2016 WL 7450471, at *6–7 (E.D.La., 2016), Judge Vance refused to strike a TCPA class action.
[D]efendants argue that Dr. Sartin’s proposed class definition fails to establish an ascertainable group, whose boundaries can be defined and policed in an administratively feasible way. To maintain a class action, the proposed class must be adequately defined and clearly ascertainable by reference to objective criteria. Union Asset Mgmt. Holding A.G. v. Dell, Inc., 669 F.3d 632, 639 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting DeBremaecker v. Short, 433 F.2d 733, 734 (5th Cir. 1970)). The class definition must be sufficiently definite in that it is administratively feasible for the court to determine whether a particular individual is a member. Mike v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 223 F.R.D. 50, 52-53 (D. Conn. 2004) (citing Wright & Miller, 7A Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1760 (2d ed.)). Nonetheless, “the court need not know the identity of each class member before certification; ascertainability requires only that the court be able to identify class members at some stage of the proceeding.” Frey v. First Nat. Bank Sw., 602 Fed.Appx. 164, 168 (5th Cir. 2015). Thus, “if the general outlines of the membership of the class are determinable at the outset of the litigation, a class will be deemed to exist.” Lee v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 01-1179, 2002 WL 31230803, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2002) (quoting Wright & Miller, 7A Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1760 (2d ed.)). Dr. Sartin’s proposed class meets the ascertainability requirement. In their briefs, defendants and Dr. Sartin both refer to fax logs or fax lists showing the numbers to which defendants sent fax transmissions. As Dr. Sartin correctly notes, fax logs provide objective data that make it possible to ascertain which entities and/or individuals received the faxes at issue. See, e.g., Sandusky, 821 F.3d at 997 (“[F]ax logs showing the numbers that received each fax are objective criteria that make the recipient clearly ascertainable.”); Am. Copper, 757 F.3d at 545 (“[T]he record in fact demonstrates that fax numbers are objective data satisfying the ascertainability requirement.”); Avio, Inc. v. Alfoccino, Inc., 311 F.R.D. 434, 442 (E.D. Mich. 2015) (“Plaintiff possesses a list of numbers to which the fax was sent, and it is certainly feasible to determine which individuals and businesses received the faxes at those numbers.”). As this litigation proceeds, the data contained in the fax logs will permit the Court and the parties to objectively determine whether potential class members fall within the boundaries of Dr. Sartin’s class. This is true even if, as Dr. Sartin alleges, the class encompasses a substantial number of individuals and entities. See Arnold Chapman, 747 F.3d at 492 (affirming class certification in a TCPA class action involving 10,145 persons); St. Louis Heart Ctr., Inc. v. Vein Centers For Excellence, Inc., No. 12-174, 2013 WL 6498245, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 11, 2013) (finding that “including in the class all persons who were sent a fax … does not render the class unascertainable or overbroad.”). Defendants correctly note that class membership cannot be ascertained from the fax logs alone. Because individual faxes may have been sent to multiple recipients—including the fax allegedly sent to Dr. Sartin, which was addressed to both Dr. Sartin and Eastern Jefferson General Hospital—single entries on defendants’ fax logs might in fact signify multiple potential class members. Nonetheless, Rule 23 does not require that all members of a class be instantly determinable without any individual examination; it need only be “administratively feasible for the court to determine whether a particular individual is a member of the proposed class.” Young v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 693 F.3d 532, 537-38 (6th Cir. 2012) (emphasis added). Although certain faxes shown in the logs may have been sent to multiple recipients, class membership can feasibly be determined by reviewing the actual faxes to determine the individuals and entities to whom they were addressed. This straightforward, mechanical procedure can be done without resort to individualized hearings or inquiry into the merits of each potential class member’s claims. Thus, Dr. Sartin’s proposed class does not present the type of administrative quandaries that have caused other classes to fail for lack of ascertainability. Cf. Barasich v. Shell Pipeline Co., LP, No. 05-4180, 2008 WL 6468611, at *4 (E.D. La. June 19, 2008) (denying class certification when the determination of whether an individual was a class member could not be made without inquiring into the merits of each person’s claim); McGuire v. Int’l Paper Co., No. 92-593, 1994 WL 261360, at *5 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 18, 1994) (finding proposed subclass untenable because determining membership would require prospective subclass members to submit to blood tests and depositions and would necessitate “an inestimable number of individual hearings”). Defendants’ argument that this type of review necessarily creates “insurmountable administrative problems” has been consistently rejected by other courts in the TCPA context. See, e.g., Sandusky, 821 F.3d at 997; Am. Copper, 757 F.3d at 545; Avio, Inc., 311 F.R.D. at 442; Brodsky, 2016 WL 5476233, at *9 (noting that defendant’s administrative concerns over determining all of the fax recipients can be addressed through case management techniques and do not warrant denial of class certification). As in Brodsky, any administrative concerns that defendants have at this stage in the litigation can be addressed in future case management orders and do not warrant striking Dr. Sartin’s class allegations.