BIFURCATION MEANS BIFURCATION: Utah Federal Court Shuts Down Plaintiff’s Attempt to Backdoor Class Discovery in TCPA Suit

Happy Wednesday, TCPAWorld!

We frequently discuss the strategic importance of bifurcating discovery in TCPA class actions. Asymmetrical discovery costs are one of the primary levers the plaintiff’s bar uses to force classwide settlements. When a defendant is forced to produce millions of outbound call records before the plaintiff even establishes individual standing, the leverage heavily favors the plaintiff. We have a clear example out of Utah today of a court strictly enforcing a bifurcation order and stopping a plaintiff from circumventing those limits.

The case is Jordan Cameron v. CHW Group, Inc., 2026 WL 1396530 (D. Utah May 19, 2026). This is a putative class action alleging CHW violated the TCPA by calling numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Early in the litigation, CHW successfully moved to bifurcate discovery. The court’s scheduling order explicitly stated that “class related discovery shall not be allowed” and limited Phase 1 to issues directly related to the plaintiff’s individual claim. This included whether messages to Cameron were sent with prior express permission, whether an established business relationship existed, and whether Cameron actually had standing.

Despite this clear order, the plaintiff served broad Interrogatories and Requests for Admission (“RFAs”) demanding information on all of CHW’s affiliates, all outbound telephone numbers used, and all third-party vendors. CHW objected and provided supplemental responses narrowed exclusively to the plaintiff. In response, Cameron filed two short-form discovery motions to compel.

Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead enforced the boundaries of the scheduling order. Addressing the Interrogatories, the court agreed with CHW that it should not be compelled to respond to class discovery requests. The judge ordered the plaintiff to redraft the requests to confine the temporal scope and limit the focus exclusively to calls made to Cameron. The court did reject CHW’s boilerplate objection that the word “placed” was vague, noting that in the context of a TCPA case, the term is straightforward. However, the court maintained that CHW is only required to answer as the requests relate to the individual plaintiff.

The court took an even firmer stance on the RFAs. The plaintiff argued CHW’s responses were contradictory and evasive. For example, Cameron complained that CHW denied making “marketing calls” but admitted to calling consumers who had provided prior express permission or with whom it had an established business relationship. The plaintiff argued that “CHW either does or does not make telephone calls–both cannot be true.”

The court rejected this argument, pointing out that the plaintiff’s RFAs were flawed because they ignored the specific statute’s terminology. Judge Pead reminded the plaintiff that the TCPA does not broadly ban “marketing calls.” Instead, it specifically regulates “telephone solicitations” and carves out express exemptions for calls made to consumers with an “established business relationship” or by “express invitation.”

Because the plaintiff misused TCPA terminology and tried to compel responses using imprecise language, the court refused to order further answers. Judge Pead denied the motion to compel the RFAs in its entirety, finding it was based on faulty premises and constituted a premature attempt at class discovery. The court also included a footnote instructing the plaintiff to comply with the phased discovery plan and use precise TCPA terminology in any future requests. Neither party was awarded fees.

This decision is a straightforward reminder of how to handle early stage TCPA litigation. If discovery gets bifurcated, be sure to hold that line.

That’s all for now!