TCPA Plaintiff Urges Denial of LoanDepot Motion to Stay Discovery
Plaintiff Zachary Sawicki partially opposes loanDepot’s March 10 motion to stay and bifurcate discovery in his Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims pending the court's ruling on loanDepot's motions to dismiss and to strike Sawicki's class allegations (see 2303130030), said Sawicki’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.
opposition Friday (docket 2:22-cv-14425) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Pierce. The court should deny loanDeport’s request to stay discovery and should only bifurcate discovery to the extent that Sawicki “is afforded the opportunity to conduct class discovery prior to the deadline to file a motion for class certification,” said his opposition. LoanDepot failed to demonstrate “good cause to stay discovery,” it said. Its contention that a stay would be appropriate because the motions are potentially dispositive is “without merit,” it said. Its further contention that the case should be stayed because the pending motions are plainly meritorious is “frivolous,” it said. Based on loanDepot’s “logic,” defendants can stay discovery in every case “by baldly contending that their pending dispositive motions are plainly meritorious, said Sawicki’s opposition. “Such logic is facially absurd and must be rejected,” it said. Sawicki doesn’t oppose the motion to bifurcate discovery, provided that discovery is completed on his individual claims before beginning class discovery, it said.