govinfo:USCOURTS-mdd-1_20-cv-01094-2

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 
 
 
DEBORAH BRADLEY,                 
 
                       v. 
 
DENTALPLANS.COM, et. al. 
 
 
 
 
Civil Action No. CCB-20-1094 
 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM & ORDER 
 
 The named plaintiff in this class action lawsuit, Deborah Bradley, has asked the court to 
compel Cigna, one of the defendants, to provide certain responses to her deposition noticed 
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6).  Mot. to Compel, ECF 90 (“Mot.”). On April 28, 
2020, Bradley sued DentalPlans.com, a distributor of Cigna’ s dental discount plans , alleging 
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227. See Compl., 
ECF 1. After Bradley amended her complaint  to bring in Cigna , E CF 4 2, Cigna moved to 
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, ECF 51, the court denied the motion, ECFs 80- 81, and 
the parties commenced fact discovery, working toward a deadline of February 15, 2023, see 
Scheduling Order, ECF 84. Fact discovery is now complete with the exception of the plaintiff’s 
outstanding request for a 30(b)(6) deposition of Cigna, which the court has granted the parties 
leave to conduct outside the initial fact discovery window and which has not yet taken place due 
to the current dispute. See Order, ECF 87. 
Bradley noticed the 30(b)(6)  deposition at issue here  on January 12, 2023, identifying 
twenty-seven proposed deposition topics. See Mot. at 1; Resp. to 30(b)(6) Notice, ECF 90-1. 
Cigna responded to the notice on March 8, 2023, objecting to a number of the proposed topics on 
various grounds. See Resp. to 30(b)(6) Notice. Although the parties were able to reach agreement 
Case 1:20-cv-01094-BAH     Document 101     Filed 06/13/23     Page 1 of 5
2 
 
on twenty-three of the proposed topics through subsequent conferrals, they have been unable to 
resolve disputes as to four remaining topics despite good faith discussion.1 
As a result of that stalemate, o n March 14, 2023, the parties requested a discovery 
conference under the procedures set forth in the initial scheduling order, see ECF 20 at 5, asking 
the court to define the scope of the 30(b)(6) deposition. On April 10, 2023, the parties filed letter 
briefs setting out the nature of the dispute and their respective  positions. See Mot.; Resp. to Mot. 
to Compel, ECF 91. On April 11, 2023, the court held a discovery conference during which it 
invited the parties to supplement their letter briefs with additional materials within two weeks. 
See Order, ECF 92. The parties did not file such supplements, but instead conferred and resolved 
at least two of the disputed deposition topics, Topics 7 and 8. See Status Report, ECF 100. They 
have remained at an impasse, however, as to Topics 15, 17, 20, and 21. See id.  
The court held a second discovery conference on June 12, 2023, to discuss these four 
outstanding topics. At that conference, the parties provided their positions on the disputed issues . 
Counsel for the plaintiff also propos ed deferring the 30(b)(6) deposition altogether in favor of 
summary judgment briefing directed at the issue of consent under the TCPA, a suggestion 
defense counsel represented would need to be discussed with Cigna. With that alternative course 
in flux, the court now resolves the dispute as to the outstanding deposition topics assuming the 
deposition will proceed as planned. Should the parties ultimately agree to defer the deposition, 
this ruling should nonetheless provide instructive guidance for future disputes. 
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, discovery is available on “any nonprivileged 
matter that is relevant to any party ’s claim or defense.” Fed.  R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). At the same 
 
1 The plaintiff’s motion to compel includes three additional topics, Topics 7, 8, and 10, see Mot. 
at 1-2, which the parties informed the court during the discovery conference and in a subsequent 
status report that they have since resolved, see Status Report, ECF 100. 
Case 1:20-cv-01094-BAH     Document 101     Filed 06/13/23     Page 2 of 5
3 
 
time, though, Rule 26 “cautions that all permissible discovery must be measured against the 
yardstick of proportionality.” Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 269 F.R.D. 497, 523 (D. 
Md. 2010). Applying this framework, the court “must limit the frequency or extent of discovery” 
if: (i) “the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from 
some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive”; (ii) “the party 
seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the 
action”; or (iii) “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, 
considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties ’ resources, the 
importance of the issue s at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving 
the issues.” Lynn v. Monarch Recovery Mgmt., Inc., 285 F.R.D. 350, 355 (D. Md. 2012) (quoting 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)–(iii)). 
Cigna objects to topics 15, 17, 20, and 21 as irrelevant and overburdensome. Topic 15 
asks the deponent to  “[i]dentify any and all discipline or warnings you have initiated or 
participated in, concerning allegations of TCPA violations, prerecorded- voice telemarketing, or 
internal do- not-call violations. ” Resp. to 30(b)(6) Notice at 4. Topic 17 asks the deponent to 
identify “Cigna’s policies, practices, procedures, and training relating to the TCPA, the use of a 
prerecorded voice in outbound phone calls, cal l consent, do-not-call requests, telemarketing, and 
call-related complaints, whether as to Cigna or as to third parties like DentalPlans through which 
it has derived business.” Id. at 5. Topic 20 asks the deponent to “[i]dentify any and all complaints 
(whether resulting in a lawsuit or not), grievances, investigations, or actual or threatened 
litigation from private individuals, business bureaus (such as the BBB), and government entities 
regarding alleged nonconsensual calling or the TCPA —and any corresponding response or 
investigation—along with: (1) the number of such, and (2) the number of such attributable to 
Case 1:20-cv-01094-BAH     Document 101     Filed 06/13/23     Page 3 of 5
4 
 
DentalPlans.” Id. at 6. Finally, Topic 21 asks the deponent to “[i] dentify all audits, 
investigations, disciplinary actions, trainings, and other a ctions Cigna has taken, if any, to try to 
prevent violations of the TCPA by it or DentalPlans, as well as the circumstances that gave rise 
to such actions, the dates such actions occurred, and the outcome.” Id. 
Cigna argues that these topics are irrelevant  (and, correspondingly, overburdensome) to 
the extent they cover complaints  about calls beyond those made by DentalPlans in connection 
with the products at issue in this case. The plaintiff responds that these topics are relevant 
beyond Cigna’s relationship with DentalPlans because, to the extent Cigna exercised oversight 
over other vendors but not DentalPlans, they are probative of ratification  (and thus an agency 
relationship between Cigna and DentalPlans ), and to the extent Cigna received complaints 
related to other vendors but failed to take corrective action, they are probative of whether 
Cigna’s alleged violations were knowing and willful  (and thus trigger treble damages under the 
TCPA). 
After considering the parties ’ contentions, the co urt concludes that, at this stage in the 
litigation, Topics 15, 17, 20, and 21 must be limited to testimony related to calls made by 
DentalPlans in connection with the products at issue in this case. As for the plaintiff’s ratification 
theory, ratification “is the affirmance of a prior act done by another, whereby the act is given 
effect as if done by an agent acting with actual authority.”  Hodgin v. UTC Fire & Sec. Americas  
Corp., 885 F.3d 243, 252 (4th Cir. 2018) (citing Rest. (3d) of Agency § 4.01(1)). It is difficult to 
imagine how deposition testimony on Cigna’s relationship with  non-DentalPlans vendors could 
produce probative evidence that Cigna “affirmed” DentalPlans’ specific conduct , and such an 
expansive line of inquiry would severely burden the de fendant. As for the knowledge theory, the 
court agrees that lawsuits, enforcement actions, consumer complaints, and other evidence of “a 
Case 1:20-cv-01094-BAH     Document 101     Filed 06/13/23     Page 4 of 5
5 
 
widespread problem,” met with a failure to act, may be evidence of a knowing and willful TCPA 
violation. Krakauer v. Dish Network, L.L.C., 925 F.3d 643, 662 (4th Cir. 2019). Given the 
uncertain relevance of the information at this stage of the case, however, and the burden on 
Cigna, the motion will nevertheless be denied except as to calls made by DentalPlans in 
connection with the products at issue in this case. This ruling may be revisited if necessary at the 
damages phase of this litigation. 
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF 90, is GRANTED in part and  
DENIED in part as set forth in this memorandum and order. 
So Ordered, this 13th day of June, 2023. 
 
 
                      /s/      
      Catherine C. Blake 
        United States District Judge 
 
 
Case 1:20-cv-01094-BAH     Document 101     Filed 06/13/23     Page 5 of 5

Passage view · GavelSight