The plaintiff's motion to compel rested on requests for admissions that used imprecise TCPA terminology and sought responses the court deemed broader than the bifurcated framework allowed. The judge rejected the motion in full and added a footnote cautioning the plaintiff to adhere to the phased discovery plan and employ precise statutory language in future requests.
The ruling signals a hardening defense tactic in TCPA class actions: early bifurcation to wall off expensive class discovery until the named plaintiff's individual claims are resolved. Attorneys defending mass texting cases should expect similar scheduling orders and should prepare discovery requests that track the specific language of the TCPA and respect phase limitations. Plaintiffs' counsel should anticipate that courts will police discovery boundaries closely and will require precise statutory framing to avoid having requests denied as premature class discovery.