ORDER

Docket No. 71

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery from Defendant Le Vian Corp. Docket No. 71. Le Vian filed a response in opposition, and Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket No. 74, 76. The gist of the pending dispute is whether Plaintiff is entitled to broad discovery regarding any of the Defendants' telemarketing (or related) activities even if they are unrelated to the particular event identified in the complaint and even if those telemarketing activities do not involve the other Defendants in this case. Plaintiff's motion fails to discuss — or even cite — a single case addressing discovery, whether addressing discovery in the class action context generally, addressing discovery in the TCPA class action context, or addressing discovery requests analogous to those presented here.1 For its part, Le Vian quotes the basic standards for discovery during the class certification process, Docket No. 74 at 9, but fails to cite legal authority for its specific arguments that the Court should limit discovery to the confines of the class definition and that the Court may consider its contention at this stage that the discovery sought necessarily relies on a class that cannot survive the certification process.2

In short, the parties have not substantiated their arguments with sufficient legal authority. The Court declines the invitation to either find the applicable legal authority itself or to rule without a clear understanding of what binding or persuasive authority exists on the particular discovery issues presented. The motion to compel is therefore DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff is permitted to refile the motion if supported with applicable legal authority. Any renewed motion must be filed no later than March 1, 2016. If the motion is renewed, any response must be filed no later than March 7, 2016, and any reply must be filed no later than March 10, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.