State Farm Plaintiff Doubts Pre-Discovery Settlement Talks Would Be ‘Productive’
Plaintiff Thomas Gebka in the case against State Farm for alleged Telephone Consumer Protection Act wrongdoing believes the parties will need discovery about the identity of class members “before they can engage in meaningful settlement negotiations,” said a joint discovery…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
plan Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-05546) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. Gebka doesn’t believe a settlement conference “would be productive before such discovery occurs,” said the joint report: “To date, the parties have not discussed the possibility of settlement.” State Farm agrees no settlement discussions occurred and recognizes Gebka’s request for discovery, it said: “State Farm notes, however, that the identity of any putative class members should not be needed.” State Farm proposes that initial discovery, including expert discovery, “focus on the issues relating to whether a class may be certified,” it said. State Farm asserts Gebka doesn’t need discovery “relating to 19,000 agents to determine whether a class could be certified,” it said. Gebka alleges that “myriad” State Farm agencies made prerecorded voice and other telemarketing calls at the “behest” of State Farm to numbers on the national do not call registry to generate leads via vendors that State Farm “encouraged its agencies to use and recommended they use” (see 2302210008).