Mey v. Liberty Home Guard, LLC, 5:23-cv-00281

Plaintiff Diana Mey alleges Liberty Home Guard, LLC made unsolicited telemarketing calls to her and others on the National Do Not Call Registry, violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Mey seeks to represent a national class of individuals who received more than one such call in a 12-month period despite having their number registered on the Do Not Call Registry.
After initial individualized discovery, Mey served class-wide discovery requests seeking information about Liberty Home Guard’s calling practices, call records, and consent policies.
Liberty Home Guard refused to respond, objecting to all class discovery requests by claiming Mey’s situation was a unique data entry error and the requests were overly burdensome.
Mey moved to compel these responses, arguing the discovery was critical for class certification and was not unduly burdensome.
The court evaluated whether the discovery was both relevant and proportional under Rule 26, and if Mey’s claims were typical under Rule 23.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Typicality (FRCP 23(a)(3))	Mey’s claims are typical because all alleged victims received unsolicited calls after registering on Do Not Call Registry	Her experience is unique (result of a one-off data entry error) and not representative of the class	Plaintiff’s claims are typical; minor factual variations do not defeat typicality
Relevance of Class Discovery	Class-wide discovery is essential to prove systematic conduct and class certification elements	Discovery is irrelevant because Mey is not typical and cannot show class-wide issues	Requested discovery is relevant; typicality is satisfied
Proportionality / Burden	Request is not unduly burdensome; class records are necessary and only obtainable from defendant	Gathering records is extremely costly, time-consuming, and disproportionate to the needs of the case	Plaintiff’s requests are not overly burdensome; records are critical for class certification
Necessity of Call Detail Records	Call records are central to identifying class members and proving volume of offending calls	Production would require extensive effort and expense; proprietary formats add burden	Call detail records are crucial and must be produced to support class certification

Kingery v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 258 (S.D. W.Va. 2014) (claims need only share essential characteristics with class claims; minor factual variations do not defeat typicality)
Krakauer v. Dish Network, L.L.C., 311 F.R.D. 384 (M.D.N.C. 2015) (produced call records can be used to assess Rule 23 requirements for class certification)