Category Archives TCPA

When movies, politics, the TCPA, and Article III standing come together, the results are magic.  This happened recently in Golan v. Veritas Entertainment, LLC, et al, in which the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals told us some things about the TCPA and Article III standing, and Mike Huckabee told us about a very special movie.  Ron and Dorit Golan were enjoying a peaceful evening at home when they received the following mysterious message on their answering machine (yes, some people still have answering machines, apparently): "Liberty.  This is a public survey call.  We may call back later."  The Golans, who were on the no-call list, did what any of us would do: they hired legal counsel, sued, and tried to certify a TCPA class. By way of background, the mysterious patriot on the other end of the line was Governor Mike Huckabee, who had been hired as a "celebrity" voice…

In Critchfield Physical Therapy, P.C., v. Techhealth, Inc., 2013 WL 791860 (E.D. Mo., March 4, 2013), Judge Fleissig split the difference in this class discovery dispute. Plaintiffs in this putative TCPA class action had moved to compel both the production of full, unredacted lists of fax recipients (including names, addresses, and contact information) in their native format, as well as mirror images of the Defendant's hard drives. The District Court ordered production of the unredacted fax recipient lists subject to a mutually agreeable protective order, reasoning that this information was not only relevant to the merits issue of whether a prior business relationship existed, but also to the class issue of whether all class members were similarly situated with the plaintiff with respect to this defense (i.e., presumably typicality and predominance). And though the District Court declined to order the Defendant to produce a mirror of its hard drives at…

In an interesting order, Judge Jackson granted defendant Office Depot’s motion to dismiss the class allegations in a putative class action brought under the TCPA, 42 U.S.C. § 227, alleging the transmission of unsolicited faxes.  Judge Jackson shrugged aside Plaintiff Lindsay Transmission’s protest that the motion to dismiss prior to class discovery was premature, citing Rule 23(c)(1)(A)’s directive to determine the propriety of class certification “at an early practicable time.”   This is of course consistent with the increasing number of courts that have expressed a willingness to dismiss class allegations at an early stage, and the Court may well have been influenced by Office Depot’s affidavit explaining that Lindsay Transmission’s initial nationwide discovery requests would have required more than 2,000 manager hours to interview 1,132 store managers in 1,111 retail stores, a truly expensive fishing expedition. Instead, the District Court mooted the onerous discovery requests by striking the class allegations…

Close