Hi TCPAWorld!
In Hopkins v. HomeLight, Inc., No. 26-cv-5017-BHS, 2026 WL 3025792 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 8, 2026), the Court granted HomeLight’s motion to bifurcate discovery. For the next 120 days, the parties may take discovery only on Hopkins’s own TCPA Do Not Call claims. Class discovery waits until the Court rules on summary judgment as to those individual claims, and any class discovery Hopkins already served does not have to be answered.
Hopkins brought a putative class action alleging that HomeLight’s phone calls and text messages violated the TCPA’s DNC provisions. HomeLight asked the Court to split discovery so the parties could first focus on narrow, potentially case-dispositive individual issues, such as whether Hopkins “consented, revoked consent, or has standing.” According to HomeLight, discovery on Hopkins’s individual claims would be easy to obtain, would not be extensive or time consuming, and would not force anyone into a difficult line-drawing exercise between merits and class discovery.
Hopkins opposed. He argued that individual and class discovery substantially overlap, that bifurcation would delay class certification and prejudice him, and that judicial economy weighed against it. In his view, splitting discovery would make the parties repeat much of the same work, raise costs for everyone, and push back resolution of the claims.
The Court looked to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42(b) and 23. Rule 42(b) gives the Court broad discretion to bifurcate proceedings “[f]or convenience or to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize.” When deciding whether to separate class discovery from discovery on the plaintiff’s individual claims, courts weigh four factors: (1) the overlap between individual and class discovery, (2) whether bifurcation will promote Rule 23’s requirement that certification be decided at “an early practicable time,” (3) judicial economy, and (4) any prejudice reasonably likely to flow from the grant or denial of a stay of class discovery.
The Court found good cause. HomeLight had raised potentially dispositive issues, including whether Hopkins consented to the calls and texts or revoked consent, and broad class discovery is not needed to resolve them. As for prejudice, the Court called any risk to Hopkins from a short delay minimal, particularly when weighed against the substantial prejudice HomeLight would face if forced into broad class discovery “in connection with an individual claim that is unlikely to succeed on the merits.” That is a notable line to find in a scheduling order. The Court also reminded the parties of their duty to preserve evidence and to make sure third-party vendors preserve relevant evidence as well.
The Court then adopted HomeLight’s proposed schedule in full. Individual merits discovery runs for 120 days. Opening summary judgment motions on Hopkins’s individual claims are due 30 days after that phase closes, oppositions 30 days after service, and replies 15 days after that. During the first phase, discovery is limited to seven issues: (i) whether Hopkins has standing; (ii) whether he received a “telephone solicitation,” meaning whether he or someone on his behalf gave or revoked “prior express invitation or permission” and whether he had an “established business relationship” with HomeLight; (iii) who physically placed the calls and is potentially liable, directly or vicariously; (iv) whether Hopkins is a “residential” subscriber; (v) whether and who registered the number on the National DNC Registry; (vi) whether HomeLight had internal DNC procedures in place at the time; and (vii) whether Hopkins would be an adequate or typical class representative.
Third-party discovery is allowed during this phase. Class discovery is not, except as to Hopkins’s adequacy and the typicality of his claims, absent further order. Once the Court rules on summary judgment, it will hold a case management conference to set a class discovery schedule if one is still needed. Either side may ask to extend the bifurcated period.
The case shows that bifurcation motion is more persuasive when the defendant names the specific individual issues that could end the case. HomeLight did it, and the Court granted the motion. The seven topics also read like a checklist of individual DNC defenses. Defendants should keep in mind, though, that bifurcation does not pause preservation, and that obligation extends to the vendors who placed the calls.
We will keep you posted, TCPAWorld!