OPINION & ORDER This decision resolves a motion, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3), to quash a third-party subpoena. Movant Fluent, LLC (“Fluent”) seeks to quash a subpoena served on it by Daniel Hernandez in Mackey v. IDT Energy, Inc., No. 18 Civ. 6756 (N.D. III. 2008) (the “underlying litigation”). The Court grants the motion in part and denies it in part.I. Background1A. Facts1. The Underlying LitigationFluent provides marketing information to clients including IDT Energy, Inc. (“IDT”), an energy services company. See Dkt. 3 (“Fluent Mem.”) at 2; Fluent Mem., Ex. 2 (“Compl.”) at 4. On October 5, 2018, Mackey and Hernandez (together, “plaintiffs”) filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. See Mackey, No. 1:18-cv-06756 (N.D. III. 2018).Plaintiff’s lawsuit alleges that IDT violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §227, et seq. (“TCPA”), by making unauthorized and unwanted calls to them. Compl. 1. The TCPA prohibits the use of “any automatic dialing system” to call or text a cellular telephone without the recipient’s prior express consent. 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1)(A)(iii). The TCPA authorizes a private right of action to individuals “who [have] received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of” an entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under §227(b). Id. §227(b)(3). Successful plaintiffs in TCPA cases may recover “actual monetary loss or $500 for each violation, whichever is greater.” Campbell Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 667 (2016). Treble damages are available for willful and knowing violations of the Act. Id.Specifically, plaintiff Mackey claims that between fall 2016 and early 2017, he received telemarketing calls on his cellphone from, or on behalf of, IDT. Compl. 22. Upon answering, he would have to say “hello” multiple times before a person began to speak on the line, indicating that these calls were made using an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”). Id. 25. Plaintiff Hernandez claims that beginning in March 2018, IDT used ATDS to call his cellphone repeatedly to solicit his business without his prior written consent. Id.
37-45. Plaintiffs allege that their cellphone numbers were each registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry for more than eight years before receiving the calls at issue in this case. Id.
