In Bill v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., 2015 WL 5715402, at *2 (M.D.Fla., 2015), Judge Sneed denied a TCPA Plaintiff discovery of a site inspection of defendant’s facilities.
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 her burden of establishing that Defendant used an ATDS to call Plaintiff’s cell phone and to refute Defendant’s defense that it did not use an ATDS. However, the Court finds that the burden of the requested discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Specifically, Plaintiff is able to obtain the information she seeks through other methods of discovery, such as requests for production, interrogatories, requests for admissions, or deposition of Defendant’s corporate representative. Indeed, Defendant indicates that Plaintiff took written discovery regarding Defendant’s equipment and software used to make calls to Plaintiff and that Defendant served responses to such discovery requests. The burden imposed on Defendant by Plaintiffs request outweighs its benefit, as Defendant’s call centers are located in multiple locations throughout the United States and internationally and are secure, non-public locations that contain sensitive and valuable private information of third-party consumers. A site inspection would unnecessarily disrupt Defendant’s business operations by requiring supervision and assistance by Defendant’s employees during the inspection to open databases, monitor Plaintiff s counsel, and oversee the inspection to ensure that third-party consumer data is not divulged and that its equipment is not damaged. Further, as stated above, this finding does not foreclose Plaintiff from obtaining the information she seeks to prove and defend her case. Rather, Plaintiff is entitled to obtain such information by other means that are more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive than the site inspection of Defendant’s call center.