capacity to store, produce, or call randomly or sequentially generated telephone numbers.” 995 F.Supp.2d at 1193, 2014 WL 494862 at *2 (emphasis in original). In further denying the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, the Gragg court specifically rejected this Court’s February 3, 2014 Order, finding that “[tjhere is no indication that the Ninth Circuit would deem a system that has to be reprogrammed or have new software installed in order to perform the functions of an ATDS to be an ATDS.” Gragg v. Orange Cab Co., Inc., No. C12-0576RSL, 2014 WL 801305 at *2 (W.D.Wash. Feb. 28, 2014). As Yahoo! has argued, two other district courts applying Ninth Circuit law have found similarly. See Hunt v. 21st Mortg. Corp., No. 2:12-CV-2697-WMA, 2013 WL 5230061 at *4 (N.D.Ala. Sept.17, 2013) (<HOLDING>); Dominguez v. Yahoo! Inc., — F.Supp.3d —, 2014
holding that defense counsel may call attention to the states failure to produce evidence holding that called party in  227b1 means the person subscribing to the called number at the time the call is made and not the intended recipient of the call holding that to meet the tcpa definition of an atds a system must have a present capacity at the time the calls were being made to store or produce and call numbers from a number generator holding statements on 911 tape admissible as present sense impression where call was made almost immediately after the defendant left the store after a shooting incident holding the evidence sufficient to permit the jury to infer the victim escaped from the defendant at a convenience store as opposed to being released in a safe place