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 Balschmiter v. TD Auto Fin. LLC, 303 F.R.D. 508 (E.D. Wis. 2014), Vigus v. Southern Illinois Riverboat/Casino Cruises, Inc., 274 F.R.D. 229, 236 (S.D. Ill. 2011), and Jamison v. First Credit Services, Inc., 290 F.R.D. 92 (N.D. Ill. 2013), to argue that Plaintiffs have put forth no basis by which, even with a complete list of every alleged call, the appropriate class members may be ascertained. Integ’s argument lacks merit. In their motion to compel, Plaintiffs provide sufficient clarification for the disputed interrogatories explaining how each is directly relevant to Rule 23 issues of commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, and predominance. Plaintiffs need the requested information regarding the number of people called, the way Integ and/or MyAutoBlast obtained their numbers, the type of dialing equipment used, and the type of data Integ and/or MyAutoBlast has regarding each person called to establish the ability of the Court to identify class members. Plaintiffs do not intend on adding any additional named plaintiffs to the case. Finally, Integ’s reliance on Balschmiter, Jamison, and Vigus is misplaced. These cases were decided following complete class discovery and their holdings have been generally disagreed with by other courts. Courts routinely certify TCPA class actions. Simply because three courts have denied class certification in TCPA cases does not warrant dismissal of this case or allow Integ to skirt its obligations to respond in full to Plaintiffs’ class discovery.