Judge Fred W. Slaughter, in the Central District of California, addressed a discovery dispute in a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Plaintiff alleged that the defendant made unsolicited calls to consumers listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Early in the litigation, the court granted the defendant’s request to bifurcate discovery, allowing only discovery relevant to the merits of the plaintiff’s individual claim, while staying broader class discovery.
The Discovery Challenge
During the first phase of bifurcated discovery, the defendant sought information from the plaintiff that, while specific to the plaintiff, could also bear on class certification issues—namely, the plaintiff’s typicality and adequacy as a class representative. The plaintiff objected, arguing that such requests constituted impermissible class discovery under the court’s bifurcation order. Magistrate Judge Scott resolved the dispute, permitting the defendant to obtain plaintiff-specific discovery relevant to class certification.
Court’s Ruling: Plaintiff-Specific Class-Related Discovery Allowed
The district court denied the plaintiff’s motion for review of the magistrate’s order, finding that the discovery sought was not “class discovery” precluded by the bifurcation order. The court emphasized that information about the named plaintiff’s suitability as a class representative—such as typicality and adequacy—is a threshold issue that can promote judicial economy and expedite resolution of class certification. The court clarified that discovery requests targeting only the named plaintiff, even if relevant to class certification, are permissible during the bifurcated phase.
The court finds that Judge Scott’s order was neither erroneous nor contrary to law. The court’s prior order explained that bifurcating discovery could be useful, including if it led to an early resolution on “whether Plaintiff is a typical and adequate class representative.” (Bifurcation Order at 3.) Discovery into Plaintiff as an individual is relevant to this issue: “Typicality [*5] and adequacy are not met, and class certification is not appropriate, when there are issues and defenses unique to the named plaintiff’s circumstances that could ‘preoccup[y]’ the named plaintiff and ‘skew the focus of the litigation.’” Sapan v. Veritas Funding, LLC, 2023 WL 6370223, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2023) (quoting Alaska v. Suburban Propane Gas Corp., 123 F.3d 1317, 1321 (9th Cir. 1997)). A discovery request that targets Plaintiff alone, and not any members of the putative class, is not “class discovery” that would be precluded under the court’s Bifurcation Order even though that discovery may be relevant to class certification. Ragsdale v. Harmony Leads, Inc., 2025 WL 1617233, at *2 (D. Colo. May 9, 2025) (“The theory behind bifurcation is that limiting initial discovery to the individual claims of the named plaintiffs could save the parties and the court the time and resources that would be needlessly consumed by class discovery should the narrow issues on the individual claims prove dispositive.”).
