Phased Discovery ‘Appropriate’ in TCPA Case vs. State Farm, Says Insurer
Contrary to plaintiff Thomas Gebka’s assertions in his Feb. 7 opposition to State Farm’s motions to stay or phase discovery in Gebka’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint (see 2302080017), State Farm’s motions are “not a boilerplate request,” said the insurer’s…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
reply Monday (docket 1:22-cv-05546) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. Gebka “pled no facts to establish the threshold issue of standing to sue State Farm,” it said. He instead issued “tremendously broad discovery in search of a claim among State Farm’s 19,000 independent contractor agents,” it said. Gebka’s asserted prejudice arising from a brief delay of discovery “rings hollow” since he waited more than a year to file suit against State Farm “until he resolved his lawsuit against Allstate involving some of the same alleged phone calls” made in violation of the TCPA, it said. Gebka’s opposition to a discovery stay doesn’t explain “how he would be unduly prejudiced or tactically disadvantaged,” said State Farm. “Nor does it disprove State Farm’s arguments that the stay will simplify the issues and reduce the burden of the litigation.” State Farm is aware that a motion to dismiss does not automatically entitle it to a stay of discovery, it said. But Gebka’s arguments shouldn’t persuade the court to act “in a manner inconsistent with many other courts,” it said. Gebka’s opposition also doesn’t disprove State Farm’s argument that phased discovery “is warranted here” if the request for a stay is denied, it said. Courts prefer phasing or “bifurcating” discovery where such a process would “enhance expediency by allowing the court to make a timely resolution on a motion, it said. Courts also see bifurcation as improving judicial economy “by potentially limiting the discovery necessary for the entire case,” it said: “Phasing discovery is appropriate in this case as it would require less expansive and burdensome discovery and would allow the timely and efficient resolution of the class certification issue in the first stage.”