Mey v. Monitronics International, Inc.
5:11-cv-00090
N.D.W. Va.Jan 28, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Diana Mey sued Monitronics and UTC under the TCPA alleging multiple telemarketing calls placed on her behalf by third-party dealer VMS despite her number being on the Do Not Call Registry; she seeks class certification.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing they did not place the calls and thus were not liable; Judge Keeley stayed and later applied the FCC’s Declaratory Ruling holding sellers can be vicariously liable under agency principles.
- Judge Keeley denied summary judgment, noting evidence that VMS acted as an "authorized dealer" could support apparent authority and ratification theories, and that discovery on defendant responses to complaints had been limited.
- Mey moved to compel broad discovery about all authorized dealers (complaints, compliance efforts, disciplinary actions, agreements, payments), arguing it is relevant to willfulness, knowledge, and ratification; defendants objected as overbroad and irrelevant outside VMS.
- The magistrate judge found the discovery time frame was appropriately limited to four years before suit, adhered to the law-of-the-case that defendants are sellers for TCPA purposes, and concluded discovery about other dealers is relevant to willfulness and ratification.
- The court granted Mey’s motion to compel; defendants ordered to produce complete responses within 30 days and Mey may seek reasonable expenses under Rule 37.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Temporal scope of requests | Requests limited to May 18, 2007–present (four-year TCPA window) | Requests are not temporally limited to class period | Granted — timeframe is May 18, 2007–present and not overly broad |
| Whether Monitronics/UTC are "sellers" under TCPA | Sellers may be liable under FCC rule; information about dealers matters | Monitronics argues it is not a "seller," so TCPA inapplicable | Denied — law of the case: Judge Keeley already found they can be sellers under TCPA |
| Relevance of complaints about other dealers to willful/knowing violations | Other-dealer complaints show defendants knew or should have known and thus support willfulness/knowledge | Defendants: they didn’t place calls; willfulness knowledge of others is irrelevant | Granted — such discovery is relevant to whether defendants knew or should have known and took steps to stop violations |
| Relevance of other-dealer materials to vicarious liability (ratification/apparent authority) | Evidence of responses to other dealers’ misconduct shows how defendants treated VMS and bears on ratification/apparent authority | Defendants: info limited to VMS is sufficient; other dealers irrelevant | Granted — other-dealer materials may show inconsistent or ineffective responses and are highly germane to ratification and vicarious liability |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir.) (scope of discovery relevance explained)
- Erdmann v. Preferred Research, Inc., 852 F.2d 788 (4th Cir. 1988) (district court has broad discretion over discovery)
- TFWS, Inc. v. Franchot, 572 F.3d 186 (4th Cir. 2009) (law-of-the-case doctrine described)
- Pasco v. Protus IP Solutions, Inc., 826 F. Supp. 2d 825 (D. Md.) (TCPA statute of limitations is four years)
- Am. Blastfax, Inc. v. [named parties], 164 F. Supp. 2d 829 (W.D. Tex.) (discussion of willful/knowing standard under TCPA)
- Mfgs Auto Leasing, Inc. v. Autoflex Leasing, Inc., 139 S.W.3d 342 (Tex. Ct. App.) (knowledge requirement for willful TCPA violations)
- Charvat v. Ryan, 879 N.E.2d 765 (Ohio) (state-level treatment of willful/knowing TCPA violations)
- Am. Home Servs., Inc. v. A Fast Sign Co., 747 S.E.2d 205 (Ga. Ct. App.) (seller held liable for willful TCPA violations despite third-party sending)