Using the argument that individualized issued “often predominate” Telephone Consumer Protection Act class-action lawsuits, a District Court judge in Florida has overruled a magistrate judge’s order requiring a defendant — Quicken Loans — from a plaintiff’s request for “every shred of documentation in any form about every do-not-call request that Quicken received from any consumer between September 2012 and June 2013.”
A copy of the ruling in Nece v. Quicken Loans can be viewed here.
The plaintiff inquired about obtaining a loan from the defendant. Subsequently, the defendant attempted to contact the plaintiff more than a dozen times. During one of those calls, the plaintiff revoked consent to be contacted. The plaintiff subsequently filed suit against the plaintiff, alleging violations of the TCPA.
Quicken objected to the document discovery requests of the plaintiff, arguing it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, consumer hundreds of hours of computer and team member hours, and take “many months” to complete. Quicken explained that the requests “require collecting and reviewing at least three million e-mails, a review that might cost millions of dollars.”
The District Court agreed.
In this circumstance, Nece’s class-discovery requests impose on Quicken a burden disproportional to the needs of this action.
