Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

In Warren v. Credit Pros Int'l Corp., No. 3:20-cv-763-TJC-MCR, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79150, at *20-28 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 26, 2021), Judge Richardson ordered a TCPA defendant to produce sweeping discovery in a TCPA class action. Now, as to the first category of documents, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to receive information regarding the hardware, software, and capabilities of… Read More

In Fitzhenry v. Safe Sts. United States Llc, No. 5:19-CV-394-BO, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105364 (E.D.N.C. June 16, 2020), the District Court permitted “other complaints” discovery in a TCPA action. Finally, Safe Streets objects to producing lists of past TCPA litigation or complaints, but such information is plainly related to willfulness and the issue of damages and is thus discoverable.… Read More

In Moser v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., No. 17CV1127-WQH(KSC), 2018 WL 6735710 (S.D. Cal. 2018), the District Court denied a TCPA defendant’s motion to allow an inspection of the plaintiff’s electronic device(s).   “Forensic examination is generally regarded as a drastic step....” Motorola Solutions., Inc. v. Hytera Commc’ns Corp., 314 F. Supp. 3d 931, 939 (N.D. Ill. 2018). . . . Here,… Read More

In Clark v. FDS Bank, 2018 WL 5830421, at *1–5 (M.D.Fla., 2018), Judge Mendoza ordered sweeping file-review discovery against a TCPA Defendant, expressing skepticism of the Defendant's claim that a file-by-file review would be required and the expense would be cost-prohibitive. Plaintiff wants to know the following information about collection calls made by Defendants during a four year period: (1)… Read More

In Diaz-Lebel v. TD Bank USA, N.A., 2018 WL 4145912, at *3 (D.Minn., 2018), Magistrate Judge Thorson found that a request for wrong number data was disproportionate to the litigation, but agreed to throw the Plaintiffs a bone. The sheer burden and proportionality concerns prevent this Court from ordering that all documents responsive to this request be produced. Plaintiff’s alternative proposals… Read More

In Cahill v. GC Services Ltd., 2018 WL 1791910, at *3 (S.D.Cal., 2018), the District Court rejected a TCPA Defendant's attempt to oppose a discovery motion on the grounds that the Plaintiff could not properly represent the class because Plaintiff was not dialed by an ATDS. The primary theme throughout Defendant’s motion is that Plaintiff is an atypical member of… Read More

In Ronquillo-Griffin v. Transition Rental Screening Solutions, Inc., 2018 WL 325051, at *3–5 (S.D.Cal., 2018), the District Court denied production of the actual class's call recordings in a call recording class action because the content was private. Plaintiffs assert that the requested audio recordings “are highly relevant to several requirements for a class certification motion,” including numerosity, ascertainability, commonality, predominance, and manageability.… Read More

In Mendez v. Optio Solutions, LLC, 2017 WL 3315971, at *2 (S.D.Cal. 2017), the District Court denied a TCPA defendant's MSJ to allow discovery into the Defendant's dialer system. Mendez contends that she cannot adequately respond to Optio's summary judgment motion without discovery relating to Optio's “ ‘custom-built’ dialing system.” (Doc. No. 36 at 28.) Specifically, Mendez argues she needs… Read More

In Mbazomo v. ETourandTravel, Inc., 2017 WL 2346981, at *3 (E.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Bastian compelled production of class-wide names and telephone numbers of potential classmembers. Defendant objects to the disclosure of names and telephone numbers of potential class members on privacy grounds. Plaintiff further points out that the parties have signed a protective order, while Defendant argues that that protective… Read More

In Doherty v. Comenity Capital Bank & Comenity Bank, Case No.: 16cv1321-H-BGS, 2017 WL 1885677 (S.D. Cal. 2017), Magistrate Judge Skomal allowed pre-certification discovery – including out-bound dial lists, but denied discovery of skip-traced and trapped numbers where a file-by-file review would be required. The Court ordered production of out-bound dial lists, despite difficulties in production by Plaintiff and overbreadth… Read More

In Meridith v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., 2017 WL 1355696, at *2 (N.D.Ohio, 2017), Judge Gaughan compelled production of class data, and ordered Defendant to write a program to do a program search or make its database available to Plaintiff's expert so that he could write the program. The information that Plaintiff seeks is relevant to establishing the size and… Read More

In West Loop Chiropractic & Sports Injury Center, Ltd. et al., v. North American Bancard, LLC et al,  2017 WL 404896, at *1–2 (N.D.Ill., 2017), Judge Gilbert allowed TCPA discovery in a blast-fax case as to other faxes besides those that the Plaintiff received. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the information they seek is relevant to a decision concerning the… Read More

In Lathrop v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2016 WL 3648596, at *2-3 (N.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Tygar deferred ruling on Uber's summary judgment motion until Plaintiff had an opportunity to do a bunch of discovery. Plaintiffs have satisfied the criteria for granting a Rule 56(d) motion. First, Plaintiffs have timely submitted, with their Rule 56(d) motion, a supporting declaration specifying the reasons… Read More

In Central Alarm Signal, Inc. v. Business Financial Services, Inc. 2016 WL 3595627, at *2 (E.D.Mich., 2016), Judge Whalen allowed a TCPA class action plaintiff to conduct discovery of faxes beyond the scope of what was attached to the complaint or defined by the class. That Plaintiff attached only a single fax to the FAC does not circumscribe the class allegations… Read More

In Beaulieu v. Wells Fargo, Judge Kelly granted a Motion for a Protective Order that broadly sought discovery of other complaints against the defendant in order to refute the Defendant’s anticipated arguments regarding the fact they have little, if any, business records supporting Plaintiff’s alleged oral revocations.  The Court found the deposition and document requests to be overbroad.   Read More

In O'Shea v. American Solar Solution, Inc., 2016 WL 701215, at *3 (S.D.Cal., 2016), Magistrate Judge Brooks ordered discovery to be produced by the TCPA defendant.   Magistrate Brooks ordered outbound dial call lists to be produced. Specifically, these requests generally concern the total number of call recipients and the total number of phone calls made to them. (See Mot.… Read More

In St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Nomax, Inc., 2015 WL 9451046, at *2 (E.D.Mo., 2015), Judge White refused to strike a TCPA blast-fax class action definition as being overlord, but then limited the Plaintiff's discovery solely to the faxes sent -- not to all faxes possibly sent during the 4-year SofL period. Plaintiff served a subpoena on Windstream Communications, LLC (“Windstream”)… Read More

In Key v. Integrity Surveillance Solutions, Inc., 2015 WL 8178055, at *3 (E.D.Mich. 2015), Judge Cohn issued pre-certification class discovery on a TCPA class action. Integ says that Plaintiffs intend to circumvent the Court's order limiting discovery with the main intent to determine class members from a reverse phone search in order to strength their case. Specifically, Integ relies on… Read More

In Gossett v. CMRE Financial Services, 2015 WL 6736883, at *1 (S.D.Cal.,2015), Magistrate Judge Stormes followed her previous decision on a motion to compel in Thrasher v. CMRE Financial Services, since the same defendant was involved, and the same counsel were involved as in Thrasher.   The parties presented this court with a discovery dispute regarding CMRE's responses to Gossett's first set of… Read More

In Al-Zaharnah v. Innovative Loan Servicing Company, 2015 WL 5897685, at *2 (M.D.Fla., 2015), Judge Sneed once again denied a TCPA Plaintiff a site inspection request. Plaintiff contends that a site inspection of Defendant's call center to examine the equipment used by Defendant in making calls to consumers is necessary for Plaintiff to meet his burden of establishing that Defendant used… Read More

1 2