In Thrasher v. CMRE Financial, plaintiff filed a putative class action under the TCPA and during discovery, requested production of defendant's outbound dial list and evidence of consent for calling the numbers on that list, including skip trace reports.  Defendant resisted the production, arguing that a responsive list did not exist, that any list that was possibly responsive would need to be created, though it would include unrelated calls, and because the proof of consent was maintained by non-parties (the creditors).  The court overruled these objections, and ordered defendant to produce the outbound dial list and the evidence of consent, if any, even if defendant had to get the evidence from the creditors.

In Lightfoot v. Healthcare, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by continuing to call after plaintiff made a verbal request that the calls stop so that the calls were at a time known to be unwanted and inconvenient.  Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that there was no factual support showing that defendant knew the calls to be at an inconvenient time.  The court granted the motion, finding that "all debt collection calls are unwanted by consumers" and that interpreting the FDCPA "to mean that all unwanted debt collection calls are inconvenient to the consumer would be to read the statute too broadly."


Back to News & Resources