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 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 he seeks through other methods of discovery, such as requests for production, interrogatories, and requests for admissions. Indeed, Plaintiff has served such requests on Defendant, and Defendant indicates that it has produced documents and responses relevant to those requests, including information regarding Defendant’s telephone software and hardware. Additionally, a deposition of Defendant’s corporate representative is scheduled for October 22, 2015. The burden imposed on Defendant by Plaintiffs request outweighs its benefit, as Defendant would be required to close its operations and potentially disclose private, confidential information relating to its other customers. Further, as stated above, this finding does not foreclose Plaintiff from obtaining the information he seeks to prove and defend his 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