Threde v. Brandrep LLC

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 A1 ON TRACK SLIDING DOOR REPAIR Case No. 21-cv-03013-SI AND INSTALLATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: DISCOVERY v. Re: Dkt. No. 60 BRANDREP LLC, Defendant.

16 The parties have submitted a discovery dispute to the Court. Dkt. No. 60. The parties disagree about whether defendant should be required to produce records of telemarketing calls placed on its behalf to potential class members. Plaintiffs state that this discovery is relevant to class certification issues such as numerosity and commonality, as well as defendant’s vicarious liability defense. Defendant objects to this discovery as a guise by plaintiffs to seek a new class representative. Plaintiffs deny that they are seeking a replacement plaintiff, and they state that they are amenable to having defendant produce the data with nondescript labels (i.e. Contact 1, Contact 2, Contact 3, etc.).

24 The Court agrees with plaintiffs that the discovery at issue is relevant. See Webb v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Grp. LLC, No. C. 13-00737 RS, 2014 WL 325132, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2014) (ordering production of outbound dial list in TCPA case because such discovery could be relevant to, inter alia, commonality). Defendant’s concern about producing names of Defendant shall produce the outstanding discovery no later than April 18, 2022.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sint De || Dated: April 5, 2022 SUSAN ILLSTON 6 United States District Judge

© = 17 Z 18