A defendant accused of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making calls to individuals on their cell phones without obtaining proper consent because the calls were wrong numbers is objecting to a last-minute request from the plaintiffs for a “discovery do-over” on the eve of a hearing before the judge in the case.
A copy of the motion in the case of Leeb v. Charter Communications, Inc., can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff is one of a group of individuals who received calls from the defendant that were allegedly made using an automated telephone dialing service in an attempt to reach someone other than the individual who owned the phone number being called. The plaintiff alleges the defendant made the wrong number calls using an ATDS without obtaining the proper consent to contact the plaintiffs.
As part of the discovery process, the defendant was tasked with developing a call log, working with its third-party telephony providers. After working with the judge to establish the parameters of what would be provided, the defendant sought to compile a log of calls where a wrong number had been logged. The defendant said it worked in “close contact” with the plaintiff during the process and that the plaintiff “agreed” to the process.
But two days before a hearing, and nine months after the discovery process had began, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking to expand its request on what calls were included as part of the log.
The defendant, in his motion, argued that the plaintiff should have made the request “long ago, before Charter committed extraordinary resources to create the production file.” Any changes to the process would cause further delays in the case, as well, the defendant argued. But if the judge decides to allow for the expanded discovery, the plaintiff should foot the bill, the defendant requested.
