LEWIS v. NEWFOLD DIGITAL, INC.
1:25-cv-00275
S.D. Ind.Sep 16, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Tiffany Lewis sued Register.com, Inc. under the TCPA, alleging prerecorded/artificial-voice calls were placed to her cellular number without consent and seeking to represent a nationwide class of non-customers who received such calls within the statutory period.
- Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the class allegations; defendant also moved to bifurcate discovery to delay class-wide merits discovery until class-certification issues are resolved.
- Plaintiff served Requests for Production Nos. 6–11 seeking call data: lists of unique numbers called with prerecorded/artificial voice, indicators that the called number was a wrong number or opt-out, cellular assignment information, and records of the specific calls at issue.
- Defendant objected to broad class discovery as premature and burdensome, raising privacy/consent concerns for customers and citing its privacy policy notification obligations; it also argued Request No. 6 was overbroad because it seeks all numbers (including landlines).
- The court denied defendant’s motion to bifurcate/stay discovery and granted plaintiff’s motion to compel in part: defendant must produce responses to RFPs 7–11 and to RFP 6 limited to numbers assigned to cellular telephone service, by October 3, 2025.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to bifurcate/stay class-wide merits discovery pending resolution of class-certification/strike motions | Discovery on class-wide matters should proceed now to enable timely resolution and investigation | Stay/bifurcation justified to avoid burdensome and privacy-intrusive class discovery if no class is certified; conserve resources | Denied. Court found defendant failed to show good cause; stays are disfavored and protective orders can address privacy concerns |
| Scope and breadth of RFPs 6–11 (production of call data, wrong-number indicators, cellular status, and call records) | Requests are relevant and proportional because they enable investigation to identify non-customers and ascertain class membership | Overbroad and intrusive (requests encompass customers and landlines), privacy and consent issues, undue burden and notification obligations under defendant’s privacy policy | Granted in part. Defendant must produce RFPs 7–11 in full and RFP 6 limited to numbers assigned to cellular telephone service; privacy concerns mitigated by protective order; defendant failed to quantify burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (Sup. Ct. 1936) (courts may stay proceedings as part of case-management discretion)
- Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (Sup. Ct. 1998) (wide district-court discretion in case-management and discovery stays)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (class certification inquiries are often intertwined with merits issues)
- Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015) (court bears obligation to define the class)
- Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2012) (class definition may be refined rather than denied to avoid fail-safe or over-inclusiveness issues)