17 results for 'cat:"Consumer Law" AND cat:"Discovery"'.
J. Castañeda issues a multipronged discovery order in a lawsuit brought by an individual against a company for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act — determining, among other things, that it is too late for the company to designate an additional witness because it would be prejudicial to the suing individual.
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Castañeda, Filed On: April 5, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv301, NOS: Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) - Other Suits, Categories: Communications, consumer Law, discovery
J. Poplin partially grants the business defendants' motion to compel discovery in this lawsuit brought by timeshare developers asserting claims under the Lanham Act and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, based on the defendants' alleged efforts to disrupt their valid timeshare contracts. The timeshare plaintiffs are required to respond to certain requests, including requests for documents related to "bad debt" and "exit fees" stemming from timeshare cancellations.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Tennessee , Judge: Poplin, Filed On: March 18, 2024, Case #: 3:20cv251, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: consumer Law, Interference With Contract, discovery
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Fouratt grants, in part, the consumer's motion to compel, ruling that because the telemarketing company failed to provide a representative who had knowledge of the topics outlined in the deposition, he will be allowed to conduct a second, limited deposition of another employee who has knowledge of the relevant topics.
Court: USDC New Mexico, Judge: Fouratt, Filed On: March 1, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv360, NOS: Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) - Other Suits, Categories: Civil Procedure, consumer Law, discovery
J. Evanson grants in part the customer’s claim that the insurance agency had the call center send pre-recorded calls even though he is on the national Do Not Call registry. The customer does not present sufficient evidence from the contract between the insurance agency and the call center that the insurance agency knew what the call center allegedly did, so the former cannot be held vicariously liable for the latter’s alleged activities. The insurer’'s motion to stay discovery in the alternative to bifurcate discovery is denied. If the customer wants to file an amended complaint, he must do so within 14 days of this order.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Evanson, Filed On: October 11, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv16, NOS: Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) - Other Suits, Categories: Insurance, consumer Law, discovery
J. Deahl upholds the superior court's order enforcing a subpoena that requires Meta to hand over documents related to its enforcement of its Covid-19 misinformation policies. Contrary to Meta's arguments, the district is not required to get a warrant to compel disclosure under the Stored Communications Act, nor does the subpoena infringe the First Amendment rights of it or its users. Affirmed.
Court: DC Court of Appeals, Judge: Deahl, Filed On: September 14, 2023, Case #: 22-CV-0239 , Categories: Communications, consumer Law, discovery
J. Koppe grants the consumers’ motion to compel discovery in this suit alleging that Trans Union violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to conduct reasonable reinvestigations in response to dispute letters. The contents of each requested “Fixed File Inquiry” or “Fixed File Return” is relevant because, although the consumers have a copy of Trans Union’s user guide for decoding reports, the guide contains instructions for different types of reports and they cannot know which instructions to follow without more examples.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Koppe, Filed On: July 11, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv1214, NOS: Consumer Credit - Other Suits, Categories: consumer Law, discovery, Banking / Lending
J. Thacker finds the lower court properly entered a default judgment against the telemarketers. The telemarketers, accused of running an illegal telemarketing and consumer exploitation scheme, failed to respond accurately and fulsomely to numerous discovery requests and to comply with court orders pertaining to those requests. Affirmed.
Court: 4th Circuit, Judge: Thacker, Filed On: June 23, 2023, Case #: 22-1820, Categories: consumer Law, discovery