United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
STEWART ABRAMSON and JAMES EVERETT SHELTON, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
AGENTRA, LLC, ANGELIC MARKETING GROUP L.L.C. and MATTHEW JONES, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PATRICIA L. DODGE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
seeks to compel discovery responses from Defendant Agentra,
LLC to three document requests that are identified in their
Motion to Compel Agentra, LLC to Provide Discovery Responses.
(ECF No. 93). For the reasons set forth herein,
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel will be granted in part and
denied in part.
Request regarding contracts or agreements
first seek contracts or documents that represent agreements
regarding Scott Shapiro, CRS Marketing or Health Advisors of
America. (ECF No. 93 at 5). Agentra originally objected to
this request on the ground that it was beyond the scope of
discoverable information based upon the current claims and
parties. (Id.). In its Response, Agentra has
withdrawn its objection to this request as it relates to Mr.
Shapiro and Health Advisors of America. (ECF No. 95 at 4
n.2). Thus, the only matter in dispute relates to CRS
respect to CRS Marketing, Plaintiffs state that it "is
owned and operated by Mr. Shapiro, which also worked with
Agentra agents related to lead generation." (ECF No. 93
at 6 n.2). Plaintiffs contend that their request is relevant
to the issue of vicarious liability because the requested
documents will show the extent to which CRS Marketing is an
agent of Agentra as well as the extent to which Agentra
authorized telemarketing calls, controlled its activities and
benefitted from them. (Id.). Agentra counters that
Plaintiffs have not specified how CRS Marketing has any
relevance to this action, including any facts to support that
CRS Marketing made any calls or even uses a robodialer. (ECF
No. 95 at 4).
the Court agrees that Plaintiffs have not set forth
additional facts regarding CRS Marketing beyond their
contention that CRS Marketing worked with Agentra regarding
lead generation, it notes that Agentra previously agreed to
produce documents regarding CRS Marketing in response to a
request for documents regarding "telemarketing or
customer acquisition." (ECF No. 93 at 7). Therefore, the
Court will permit discovery regarding the existence of any
contracts or agreements with CRS Marketing because it may
lead to evidence that supports Plaintiffs' contention
that CRS Marketing worked with Agentra to generate leads.
Whether CRS Marketing was, in fact, an agent of Agentra, or
made authorized robodialing calls on behalf of Agentra
remains in question at this point.
Request regarding internal communications
also seek documents with respect to all internal
communications regarding Mr. Shapiro, CRS Marketing or Health
Advisors of America. (ECF No. 93 at 6). Agentra objects to
this request on the grounds that the information sought is
not relevant or alternatively, is not proportionate to the
burden and expense that would be involved in producing these
documents. (ECF No. 95 at 5).
Court agrees that this request is overly broad and not
proportionate to the needs of this case. Plaintiffs have or
will obtain documents from Agentra related to telemarketing
and customer acquisition as well as any agreements or
contracts with these parties. Plaintiffs have not shown, to
date, that the production of "all internal
communications" with these third parties is proportional
to the needs of this case or that issues related to
Agentra's alleged vicarious liability cannot be addressed
by virtue of the documents that have been or will be
produced. In the event that Plaintiffs conclude after
subsequent document productions that production of these
documents is required, they may seek further relief.
Request regarding leads or customers
Plaintiffs seek documents regarding all leads or customers
provided to Agentra by Mr. Shapiro, CRS Marketing or Health
Advisors of America. (ECF No. 93 at 7). They state that this
discovery will assist in identifying putative class members
and that Agentra has already produced responsive documents
with respect to the co-defendants. (Id. at 7-8).
Agentra points out in its Response, Plaintiffs' request
is not limited to leads or customers who were acquired by
robodialing conduct, but rather, would encompass all leads or
customers, regardless of how they were acquired. (ECF No. 95
at 4). Agentra also objects to producing documents related to
CRS Marketing on the basis of relevance. (Id. at 3).
suggests as a compromise that Plaintiffs first produce the
business records obtained by subpoena from Rising Eagle,
which comprise all records and documents in its possession
regarding all calls or attempted calls made for or on behalf
of Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Smith of Health Advisors of America.
(Id. at 3-4) After receiving these documents,
Agentra proposes that it will produce documents responsive to
Plaintiffs' request, provided that the leads or customers
match by telephone number with the business records produced
by Rising Eagle. (Id. at 3). This will, according to
Agentra, balance relevance against the needs of this case
since customers or leads could also have been generated
without a robocall and therefore, any such individuals are
not appropriate class members. (Id. at
Court concludes that Agentra's suggested compromise is a
good starting point for discovery related to this issue. With
respect to CRS Marketing, the Court will deny Plaintiffs'
request for production of documents without prejudice at this
time. After the production and review of the documents,
Plaintiffs may renew their ...