Blevins v. Premium Merchant Funding One, LLC, 2:18-cv-00377

Background

Plaintiff Jeffrey Blevins sued Premium Merchant Funding One, LLC under the TCPA for alleged text messages to a cellular number on the Do-Not-Call list.
Plaintiff filed the complaint April 24, 2018; parties submitted a Joint Rule 26(f) report and the Court entered a discovery schedule.
Defendant answered June 7, 2018; Plaintiff served discovery on June 12, 2018 which Defendant did not respond to.
Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and simultaneously moved to stay discovery pending that motion.
Defendant argued the texts were to a number used for business (thus outside TCPA protection); Plaintiff argued the FCC excludes home-based businesses from such an exemption and alleges his phone was used for a home-based business.
Magistrate Judge Deavers denied the motion to stay and ordered Defendant to respond to outstanding discovery by October 10, 2018.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery should be stayed pending a motion for judgment on the pleadings	Discovery should proceed; Defendant has not shown stay warranted and Plaintiff will be prejudiced by delay	A stay is appropriate while the dispositive Rule 12(c) motion is resolved to avoid undue burden and expense	Denied — stay not justified; discovery must proceed
Whether a Rule 12(c) motion (functional equivalent of 12(b)(6)) alone merits a discovery stay	Plaintiff contends the motion raises debatable factual/legal questions that require discovery	Defendant contends the motion is case-dispositive and should suspend discovery	Denied — a garden-variety 12(c)/(12(b)(6)) motion is insufficient to warrant a stay
Whether the merits of the 12(c) motion turn on an issue immune from discovery (e.g., legal determination not aided by discovery)	Plaintiff argues factual dispute (use of phone for a home-based business) matters and FCC guidance supports TCPA coverage	Defendant argues Plaintiff’s phone was held out as a business number so TCPA does not apply	Denied — issues are fairly debatable and not purely legal determinations that would be unaffected by discovery
Whether Defendant showed undue burden or prejudice from proceeding with discovery	Plaintiff asserts interest in timely prosecution and potential prejudice from delay	Defendant asserted undue burden and expense but offered no specific showing	Denied — Defendant failed to demonstrate particularized burden or lack of prejudice to Plaintiff

Key Cases Cited

In re Airline Pilots Ass’n v. Miller, 523 U.S. 866 (Sup. Ct.) (docket-management authority to stay proceedings)
Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for exercising discretion to stay proceedings)
Ohio Environmental Council v. U.S. District Court, 565 F.2d 393 (6th Cir.) (burden on movant to show stay will not harm other party/public)
Gettings v. Building Laborers Local 310 Fringe Benefits Fund, 349 F.3d 300 (6th Cir.) (limits on discovery appropriate where dismissal rests on legal determinations unaffected by discovery)
Muzquiz v. W.A. Foote Memorial Hosp., Inc., 70 F.3d 422 (6th Cir.) (same principle regarding dismissal without need for discovery)
Hahn v. Star Bank, 190 F.3d 708 (6th Cir.) (district court discretion to stay discovery while preliminary dispositive questions are resolved)