Meredith v. United Collection Bureau, Inc.
319 F.R.D. 240
N.D. Ohio2017Background
- Plaintiff Deborah Meredith filed a putative class TCPA action alleging United Collection Bureau (CUB) made automated, prerecorded debt-collection calls and voicemails to her cell phone and to many "wrong number" cell numbers without prior express consent.
- Plaintiff seeks class data identifying which autodialed/prerecorded calls were "wrong number" recipients and the associated account notes for the class period to support numerosity and damages (TCPA provides per-violation damages).
- The court previously denied a motion to compel similar class data because producing it would have required a manual review of >278,000 accounts and was unduly burdensome.
- During the defendant CTO’s deposition, he testified that a program/script could be written to query the database (action codes and notes) to pull the relevant records, or that account lists could be processed through a script to extract notes.
- Plaintiff asked CUB either to write the program to produce the class data or to produce relevant database portions so Plaintiff’s expert could run the query; CUB refused and sought a protective order.
- The court ordered production: CUB must either write and run the program (costs borne by Plaintiff) or provide database access and documentation so Plaintiff’s expert can run the script; any runs must occur outside business hours and CUB must make knowledgeable personnel available or answer discovery about database implementation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must defendant produce ESI extracted by a new script or program to identify class members? | Meredith: The database can be queried/programmed to produce relevant class data; production is relevant and necessary for class size and damages. | CUB: Rule 34 limits production to the way ESI is kept in the ordinary course; requiring creation of a new program is improper and unduly burdensome. | Court: Defendant may be required to create a program or provide data access to allow extraction; production compelled. |
| Is a protective order warranted because of alleged burden and business impact? | Meredith: Burden is not excessive compared to need; defendant can run script off-hours or plaintiff will pay reasonable costs. | CUB: Writing/testing the program would take days and could harm operations; expert may not be familiar with customized DB. | Court: Burden does not outweigh benefit; no good cause for protective order; order denied. |
| Who must bear costs and what cooperation is required to enable extraction? | Meredith: Plaintiff offered to have her expert write the program or to stipulate to numerosity until after class certification. | CUB: Opposed to outside expert running queries and to producing DB schema; only CUB personnel know implementation. | Court: If CUB writes program, Plaintiff pays reasonable cost; if Plaintiff’s expert writes it, CUB must provide DB details/knowledgeable witness and permit off-hours runs; CUB may need to supplement discovery or provide deposition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. ACB Business Services, Inc., 135 F.3d 389 (6th Cir.) (discusses traditionally broad scope of discovery under the Federal Rules)
- Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1984) (trial court has broad discretion to issue protective orders under Rule 26)
- Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (permitting ESI discovery despite significant engineering time to produce data)