Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rinky Dink, Inc. v. World Business Lenders, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

October 23, 2014

RINKY DINK, INC. d/b/a PET STOP, ORDER ON JOINT LCR 37 Plaintiff,
v.
WORLD BUSINESS LENDERS, LLC, Defendant.

ORDER ON JOINT LCR 37 DISCOVERY MOTION

JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on motion of Defendant World Business Lenders, LLC ("WBL") for a protective order (Dkt. No. 27). Having considered the parties' joint briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Rinky Dink, Inc. brings this proposed class action suit against Defendant WBL for alleged telemarketing. In its complaint, Plaintiff states that on October 16, 2013, it received a pre-recorded telemarketing call made by or on behalf of Defendant. Dkt. No. 1, Exhibit 1, p. 3. Plaintiff alleges that, by using an Automatic Dialing and Announcing Device ("ADAD"), Defendant violated the Washington Automatic Dialing and Announcing Device Statute ("WADAD"), RCW 80.36.400, and-by design-the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("WCPA"), RCW 19.86 et seq. Plaintiff brings suit on its own behalf and as a class representative for similarly situated businesses. Id. at 1. The class has not been certified, and the parties are conducting discovery for certification motions. See Dkt. No. 30.

In the current discovery dispute, Defendant both (1) objects to several production requests and (2) seeks a protective order barring Plaintiff from using identifying information to "solicit new clients or class plaintiffs." Dkt. No. 27, pp. 1, 10. Defendant proposes "a reasonable compromise" by disclosing the requested information subject to a protective order. Id. at 10.

A. Identifying Information on which a Protective Order is Sought

Defendant either objects to producing, or seeks a protective order limiting Plaintiffs use of, the following:

a) Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 3: Requesting any documentation identifying the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of persons to whom calls were made from December 20, 2009 to present. Defendant objects on the basis that the request is overly broad and "contact information for potential class members is improper pre-certification."
b) Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 5: Requesting all documentation demonstrating consent by Plaintiff or any class member to receive calls from Defendant or its third party agents. Defendant objects on the basis that "contact information for potential class members is improper pre-certification."
c) Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 6: Requesting all documentation demonstrating an established business relationship between Defendant-or its third party agents- and Plaintiff or any class member. Defendant objects on the basis that the request is vague and ambiguous.
d) Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 12: Requesting copies of all communication between Defendant and its third party agents regarding the automated calls made to Plaintiff and any class members. Defendant objects on the basis that "contact information for potential class members is improper pre-certification."
e) Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 13: Requesting all documentation in which a third party provided Defendant with information regarding the calls in issue, e.g. the date that calls were made, the numbers and area codes called, and the names and addresses of persons called. Defendant objects on the basis that "contact information for potential class members is improper pre-certification."
f) Plaintiffs Request for Production No. 15: Requesting documentation, databases, and contact information for persons who requested that Defendant or its third party agents cease making automated calls to them. Defendant objects on the basis that "contact information for potential class members is improper pre-certification."
g) Plaintiffs Request for Production No. 21: Requesting documentation referring or relating to the number of subscribers who receive the calls. Defendant objects on the basis that the request is overly broad and "contact information ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.