Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-restaurant’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s action alleging that defendant violated Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), where third-party sent unsolicited fax to plaintiff “on behalf of defendant,” indicating that third-party was teaming up with defendant for “Lunch N’ Learn” opportunities for doctors to make presentations to companies, where said opportunities would come with complementary food from defendant. Dist.Ct. did not err in using agency principles to find that instant fax was not sent on behalf of defendant, where defendant was not aware that defendant was going to send any fax to anyone, and where defendant did not give third-party permission to use defendant’s logo in fax. As such, plaintiff was required under TCPA to show that third-party had express actual authority to send fax on defendant’s behalf or had implied or apparent authority to do so, which plaintiff had failed to show. Fact that Dist. Ct. had precluded plaintiff from deposing two individuals did not require different result, even though plaintiff had claimed that said individuals had relevant information on issues in case, where: (1) Dist. Ct. had based its refusal to depose said individuals on plaintiff’s failure to indicate how it was going to proceed against three of four defendants who had been served with instant complaint, but who had failed to make appearance; (2) Dist. Ct. could properly based instant refusal on need to avoid possibility of duplication of discovery efforts should any of three of said defendants decide to make appearance and wish to also depose said witnesses; and (3) plaintiff could only speculate as to what said individuals might be able to say with respect to defendant’s permission to have third-party send fax.
