United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
JOHN PRATER, on behalf of himself and others similarly-situated, Plaintiff,
MEDICREDIT, INC., and THE OUTSOURCE GROUP, INC., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NOELLE C. COLLINS, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is the Motion for Protective Order filed by Defendant Medicredit, Inc. (Doc. 32). The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 9). The matter is fully briefed and ready for disposition. For the following reasons, the Motion will be denied.
Plaintiff John Prater's Class Action Complaint, filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b), alleges Defendants Medicredit, Inc., and The Outsource Group, Inc., (jointly, Defendants) violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227. (Doc. 1). The Complaint alleges that Defendants acted together and "routinely violate[ed] 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) by placing nonemergency telephone calls to the cellular telephones of consumers using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice, without the prior express consent of the consumers." (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 3, 9).
Defendants subsequently filed a motion to stay this matter pending decisions by the Federal Communications Commission (the FCC) on issues in two petitions which, Defendants claimed, were both presently before the FCC and dispositive of the issues presently before the court pursuant to Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. 28). The court denied the Motion to Stay, by Memorandum and Order, dated September 18, 2014. (Doc. 36).
In the pending Motion, Defendant Medicredit asks the court for a protective order, postponing Plaintiffs' Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and 30(b)(6) deposition of Medicredit's corporate designee, scheduled for September 23, 2014. Plaintiff's Amended Notice of Taking Deposition, Schedule A, reflects that the topics to be addressed in the deposition include those relevant to Medicredit's allegedly placing non-emergency telephone calls to the cellular telephones of consumers, including Plaintiff's, using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Matters to be addressed are relevant to class certification. (Doc. 33-1).
In support of the Motion for Protective Order, Medicredit argues that, if the deposition proceeds, its corporate designee will be required to investigate and testify as to the information responsive to the topics relevant to class certification; that the class certification hearing is not set until June 15, 2015; and that Medicredit will be "unduly burdened" while the Motion to Stay is pending. Defendants primarily base their arguments in support of the pending Motion on the premise that the Motion to Stay should have been granted. As stated above, however, the court has denied the Motion to Stay. Because the court has denied the Motion to Stay, the class certification hearing set for June 15, 2015, will proceed as scheduled. As such, the court finds that the issues raised by Medicredit in the Motion for Protective Order are moot and that the Motion should be denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Medicredit's Motion for Protective Order ...