A deep dive into the Daniel Human v. Fisher Investments, Inc fraud allegations - a cautionary tale.
- Peter Schneider
- Sep 12, 2025
- 39 min read
Updated: Sep 12, 2025
You've seen the headlines FRAUDULENT TCPA SUIT?: Court Lays Out PERFECT Fraud Claim Against Repeat TCPA Litigator Daniel Human. Join me as we do a deep dive into the Daniel Human v. Fisher Investments Inc, 2025 WL 2614039 (E.D. Miss Sept. 10, 2025) fraud allegations.
A few things before we start. I don't have any knowledge of the case beyond court documents, and any 'facts' alleged in this post are from the court documents. I personally don't allege Mr. Human to have done anything.
While I am mindful that counterclaims are in the standard telemarketing playbook, I also don't in any way condone TCPA plaintiffs engaging in fraud. I also know how court often works - the judge decides who he's backing, helps his favorite side create a narrative even if certain facts need to be ignored or fake facts need to be created, and then helps push his/her side to victory.
Let's find out if that's what's happening here. To help us do that I've pulled many documents in this case, which are often quite lengthy. For the lengthy documents I've pulled excepts I think are representative of the situation. Feel free to download and read the entirety of the documents if you want a complete look. Some of what I've quoted/extracted has been edited for brevity.
Dkt 23 - Striking amended complaint
Plaintiff did not seek the Court’s leave, and nowhere does Plaintiff indicate that he had Defendant’s written consent.
Dkt 38 & 40 - Striking notice of dismissal
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.” Doc. [37]. It purports to dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. It does not do so. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A), a plaintiff can dismiss an action without a court order via “a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment” or by “a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). Here, Defendant has filed an Answer in this action.
Dkt 58 - Motion to dismiss counterclaim denied
Dkt 65 - Fisher's Motion to Compel
Specifically, Fisher requests that this Court compel Mr. Human to: (1) fully respond to Fisher’s discovery requests in this case, including providing complete answers to the interrogatories and producing all documents responsive to Fisher’s document request; (2) sit for his deposition within 7 days of fully responding to discovery; (3) comply with Fisher’s device inspection request, including by producing whatever is left of a desktop computer he apparently destroyed immediately before the court-ordered device inspection deadline. Fisher also requests that the Court dismiss Mr. Human’s Amended Complaint and impose monetary sanctions to compensate Fisher for its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred as a result of Mr. Human’s many violations of the Court’s orders and his discovery obligations.
Dkt 66 - Fisher's Supporting Memo
Mr. Human has thus put Fisher in an impossible position where it cannot obtain crucial discovery relevant to its defenses and counterclaim, including discovery that will expose his long running fraudulent scheme to manufacture dozens of lawsuits by intentionally consenting to calls and then denying it so he can falsely allege TCPA violations.
⋮
this motion to compel focuses on Mr. Human’s extensive misconduct since the January 22 hearing. The outcome of that hearing was a simple order instructing Mr. Human to do the following: (1) “sit for deposition by oral examination” by February 14, 2025; (2) “comply with” Fisher’s “device inspection request” by January 27, 2025; and (3) participate in “a meet and confer on the remaining discovery issues” by January 27, 2025.
⋮
Fisher served a device inspection request to seek key discovery to show that Mr. Human manufactured this lawsuit against Fisher by inviting calls he could use to assert TCPA claims. For example, Mr. Human’s devices could contain evidence that he consented to calls on websites by completing webforms inviting calls. They could also show communications with people Mr. Human is working with to perpetrate his scheme. And they could show other evidence consistent with fraud, including evidence that he receives an extraordinary number of calls and texts addressed to many different people at a single number. That is not how normal people use their phones. But it would be exactly how someone trying to fraudulently manufacture and file over 70 TCPA lawsuits in a short period of time would use their phone. Fisher thus served a targeted device inspection request seeking devices Mr. Human used during certain times in 2024 that Fisher believed were most likely to show evidence of Mr. Human’s fraudulent scheme.
⋮
Mr. Human then realized he would need to do something last minute to make it look like he was complying with the Court’s order. Unsurprisingly, Mr. Human’s purported “compliance” was a farce. He not only attended the device inspection over five hours late¾at significant additional expense to Fisher¾but produced a laptop that either wasn’t his or had not been used for over two years.
⋮
Mr. Human produced a laptop that is a mere decoy intended to give the false appearance that he was complying with the Court’s orders. He did this willfully and intentionally. As Mr. Human himself confirmed in a declaration he later filed, he knew exactly what he was doing—and that the laptop he produced was irrelevant: “I purchased a laptop from my former employer Square One Group, Inc. during silent auction, although I rarely turned it on and have no recollection of ever conducting an internet search on the laptop, a fact which I disclosed to a forensic examiner for Fisher.”
⋮
Mr. Human admitted in writing to Fisher’s counsel that he has at least one other responsive device he did not produce by the device inspection deadline: His “old desktop” he uses to send emails about his cases. He further claimed that he “had some terrible meltdown of [his] geriatric computer this weekend and had to replace it.” The timing of Mr. Human’s sudden computer destruction is extremely suspicious. He claims his desktop had a “terrible meltdown” the “weekend” before January 29, 2025. Id. That is the weekend before the court-ordered device inspection deadline of January 27.
⋮
Mr. Human also produced one cell phone for inspection. As suspected, the device contains substantial evidence of fraud, including that Mr. Human’s cell phone receives calls and texts addressed to at least a dozen different names, which may be aliases he uses to fraudulently complete lead forms inviting calls and texts
BONUS - they included discovery requests to Mr. Human (See starting at page 69 of Dkt. 66-1 for Mr. Human's responses):
INTERROGATORY NO. 1
Identify each person who supplied information in connection with or otherwise participated in answering these Interrogatories, and for each person identified, describe the nature of the participation or the information provided.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2
Identify and describe the content of all communications you claim to have had with Defendant or anyone you allege was working on its behalf, including with any persons or entities you claim were involved in the alleged calls to the subject telephone number, and for each communication, state the persons with whom you communicated, the manner of communication, the date of communication, the approximate length of the conversation (if any), and the matters
you communicated about.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3
Identify all persons you believe to have information that relates to, concerns, evidences, supports, or refutes your claims or Defendant’s defenses in this case, as outlined in Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and state generally the information you believe they possess. In your answer, identify all persons who witnessed, and with whom you have discussed, your receipt
of the alleged calls.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4
Identify all lead forms you have filled out or submitted between January 1, 2021 and the present. The term “lead form” means any form or communication you submitted (online or physical) that included the subject telephone number for the stated purpose of providing contact information to receive information or marketing about a product, service, or business.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5
Identify whether you have requested information online regarding financial investment products or services within the last four years. If so, please provide a description of the circumstances and state the dates you submitted them.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6
Identify and describe in detail by case style, case number, and court or tribunal, any and all lawsuits, court proceedings, administrative proceedings, arbitrations, hearings, or other legal proceedings (“matters”) to which you have been a party or in which you have provided oral or written testimony.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7
For the matters (defined in Interrogatory Number 6) you identified in Interrogatory No. 6,(1) identify which matters involved alleged violations of the TCPA; (2) identify which matters involved alleged violations of the Missouri No Call List and Telemarketing provisions; and (3) identify the matters in which the defendant(s) asserted that Plaintiff consented to the communications, including by submitting an online opt-in form.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8
Identify any and all crimes for which you have been convicted by case style, case number, and court or tribunal, and indicate any sentence served in connection with the same.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9
Identify each and every telephone number assigned to you, owned by you, or regularly used by you since January 1, 2021, when you were using the number, all persons you believe have knowledge of such information, whether each such telephone number was cellular or landline, and which companies provided service to such numbers.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10
Identify any and all personal email addresses, social networking sites (with associated user name or identification), and/or personal blogs you have used, maintained, accessed, consulted, or posted from January 1, 2021 through the present, including, but not limited to, personal e-mail accounts (e.g., AOL, G-Mail, Yahoo, Hotmail, or any other private or public e-mail account), Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Myspace, Tumblr, Instagram, Snapchat, or other similar social networking, file- sharing, social media, or similar sites, chat-rooms, or blogs whereby individuals communicate with each other via digital means).
INTERROGATORY NO. 11
Identify all the websites you visited from any electronic device you used on the following dates: June 18, 2024, June 24, 2024, June 27, 2024, July 1, 2024, July 9, 2024, July 12, 2024, and July 17, 2024. The term “electronic device” includes cell phones, computers, tablets, smart watches, or any other similar electric device that has access to the internet.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12
Identify every electronic device you used on the following dates: June 18, 2024, June 24, 2024, June 27, 2024, July 1, 2024, July 9, 2024, July 12, 2024, and July 17, 2024. The term “electronic device” includes cell phones, computers, tablets, smart watches, or any other similar electric device that has access to the internet.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13
Identify where you were residing (full-time or part-time) between January 1, 2021 through the present. In your answer: (1) identify the city and state of each residence: and (2) state when and for how long you were residing at each residence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14
For the residences and/or addresses identified in Interrogatory Number 13, identify all individuals who resided at those residences and/or addresses.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15
Identify where you were physically located on each of the following dates: June 18, 2024, June 24, 2024, June 27, 2024, July 1, 2024, July 9, 2024, July 12, 2024, and July 17, 2024. In your answer, identify the city, state, and physical address of each location, if available.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16
Identify your Internet Protocol addresses (IP address) for every electronic device you used on the following dates: June 18, 2024, June 24, 2024, June 27, 2024, July 1, 2024, July 9, 2024, July 12, 2024, and July 17, 2024. The term “electronic device” includes cell phones, computers, tablets, smart watches, or any other similar electric device that has access to the internet.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17
Identify all counsel you have retained or engaged: (a) for the matters (defined in Interrogatory Number 6) you identified in your response to Interrogatory Numbers 6 through 8; and (b) to send pre-suit letters to, including demand letters alleging violations of the TCPA and the Missouri No Call List and Telemarketing provisions, on your behalf.
INTERROGATORY NO. 18
Identify all matters in which you purported to represent a putative class and your counsel filed a motion to certify the class.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19
Identify all persons with which you discussed (either orally or in writing) the matters you identified in response to Interrogatories 6-8.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20
State the total dollar amount you received in legal settlements involving alleged violations of the TCPA and/or any other telemarketing statutes in following years: 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 (to date), as well as the total number of payments in each year.
INTERROGATORY NO. 21
Separately itemize all damages or other relief you seek.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST NO. 1
All documents evidencing, concerning, relating to, or referring to communications you
have had with any person regarding any of the facts and allegations set forth in, or underlying, the Complaint and/or the defenses in the Answer, including without limitation, all non-privileged communications you sent to or received from any person.
REQUEST NO. 2
All documents evidencing, concerning, relating to, or referring to communications you have had with any person regarding the matters (defined above and in Interrogatory Number 6) you identified in response to Interrogatories 6 through 8, including without limitation, all nonprivileged communications you sent to or received from any person.
REQUEST NO. 3
All documents evidencing, concerning, relating to, or referring to any relief, remedies, or damages you seek in this case, including, without limitation, the amounts of any relief, remedies, or damages you seek, the manner or method for calculation of such amounts, and any efforts by you to mitigate those damages.
REQUEST NO. 4
All recordings or contemporaneous notes of the alleged calls to the subject telephone number, and any other calls you claim relate to Defendant.
REQUEST NO. 5
All non-privileged recordings (written, video, audio, or otherwise) of any communications evidencing, concerning, relating to, or referring in any way to this lawsuit or the facts underlying it, including but not limited to all recordings of the alleged calls made to you by Defendant.
REQUEST NO. 6
All non-privileged documents reflecting any recordings, notes, or other information about the alleged calls to the subject telephone number, and any other calls you claim relate to Defendant.
REQUEST NO. 7
All records evidencing the alleged calls, including but not limited to call logs, screenshots, and telephone records.
REQUEST NO. 8
All non-privileged documents, including all written communications or confirmations, relating to or concerning Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, including that “[t]o generate leads,” Fisher “uses random, robocall and automated dialing system generated telemarketing calls/texts.”
REQUEST NO. 9
All non-privileged documents, including all written communications or confirmations, relating to or concerning Paragraph 30 of the Complaint, including that “Fisher also utilizes area code spoofing technology and computer systems to block or otherwise circumvent called numbers caller identification functions.”
REQUEST NO. 10
All documents, including all written communications or confirmations, relating to or concerning Paragraph 31 of the complaint, including that Plaintiff was allegedly a “subscriber” for the residential cellular telephone number at issue.
REQUEST NO. 11
All documents, including all written communications or confirmations, relating to or concerning Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, including that Plaintiff “personally registered his residential cellular telephone number . . . on the National and Missouri Do Not Call Registries in 2022.”
REQUEST NO. 12
All documents, including all written communications or confirmations, relating to or
concerning Paragraph 33 of the Complaint, including that Defendant “approved, encouraged, enticed and ratified” the subject calls.
REQUEST NO. 13
All documents, including all written communications or confirmations, relating to or concerning Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, including that “all calls received by the Plaintiff had the caller identification functioned [sic] blocked or otherwise circumvented so the Plaintiff could not identify the caller.”
REQUEST NO. 14
All documents, including all written communications or confirmations, relating to or concerning Paragraph 35 of the Complaint¾that “[j]ust prior to being connected to the telemarketer, Plaintiff Human heard a click, a pause, some dead air space, some various robotic and artificial sounds and squealing noises and then the call was then transferred and connected” and even though “Plaintiff indicated that they were interrupting his family time and was extremely busy and could not take the call,” Defendant continued to call.
REQUEST NO. 15
All documents, including all written communications or confirmations, relating to or concerning Paragraph 36 of the Complaint.
REQUEST NO. 16
All documents, including all written communications or confirmations, relating to or concerning Paragraph 37 of the Complaint, including that Defendant placed “unsolicited marketing calls to his private, personal cell phone and the Plaintiff had no prior business relationship with the Defendant,” to a number on the federal and Missouri Do Not Call registries.
REQUEST NO. 17
All documents, including all written communications or confirmations, relating to or concerning Paragraph 39 of the Complaint—“Plaintiff never provided his prior express written consent to receive nor requested these calls and has no prior business relationship with the Defendant.”
REQUEST NO. 18
All non-privileged documents, including all written communications or confirmations, relating to or concerning Paragraph 40 of the Complaint, including that Plaintiff “incur[red] provider fees” as a result of the subject calls.
REQUEST NO. 19
All non-privileged documents, including all written communications or confirmations, relating to or concerning Paragraph 41 of the Complaint, including that Plaintiff suffered “severe physical injuries, including chest pain, anxiety” and “incurr[ed] telephone service provider fees, wear and tear on phones, damage and disruption to the phone’s battery life, and other injuries and costs.”
REQUEST NO. 20
All non-privileged documents, including all written communications or confirmations, relating to or concerning Paragraph 45 of the Complaint, including that “it was obvious that they [the subject calls] were made by automatic yet random equipment . . . as each prefaced by automated clicks, computer squeals, pauses, and dead air space.”
REQUEST NO. 21
All non-privileged documents, including all written communications or confirmations, relating to or concerning Paragraph 46 of the Complaint—“Defendant Fisher and their agents, employees, and/or vendors placed numerous calls alleged in this complaint with one or more ATDS and predictive dialers.”
REQUEST NO. 22
All non-privileged documents, including all written communications or confirmations, relating to or concerning Paragraph 47 of the Complaint, including that “no human manually entered Plaintiff[’s] . . . cellular telephone number.”
REQUEST NO. 23
All non-privileged documents, including all written communications or confirmations, relating to or concerning Paragraph 64 of the Complaint, including that “Defendants [sic] made and/or knowingly allowed the telephone calls/texts to Plaintiff . . . to be made utilizing an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers, used a robotic interface with the Plaintiff, disabled the Caller I.D. function so Plaintiff could not identify the caller prior to answering the call/text, spoofed the area codes to deceive Plaintiff to answer the unsolicited calls.”
REQUEST NO. 24
All non-privileged documents, including all written communications or confirmations, relating to or concerning Paragraph 85 of the Complaint and all subparts—“Defendant Fisher is vicariously liable for the calls/texts complained of by Plaintiff because they: authorized or caused telemarketers to initiate the phone calls/texts or initiated the calls and texts themselves; directly or indirectly controlled the persons who actually made or initiated the calls/texts; allowed the employees, telemarketers and independent agents access to information and operating systems within Defendant’s control for the purpose of selling goods and services, without which they would not be able to sell their services using robocalling and direct dialing; allowed the telemarketers and independent agents to enter or provide consumer information into Defendant’s sales or operational systems; approved, wrote, reviewed, or participated in developing the telemarketing sales scripts and automated text messages; Defendant reasonably should have known or consciously avoided knowing that the actual telemarketers were violating the law and Defendant failed to take effective steps within their power to require compliance; or Defendant Fisher gave substantial assistance or support to the telemarketers and each other while knowing, consciously avoid knowing, or being recklessly indifferent to the fact that the telemarketers were engaged in acts or practices that violated the TCPA and MDNC.”
REQUEST NO. 25
All non-privileged documents, including all written communications or confirmations, relating to or concerning Paragraph 86 of the Complaint, including that “Plaintiff patiently listened and read to the scripted sales pitch.”
REQUEST NO. 26
All non-privileged documents, including all written communications or confirmations, relating to or concerning Paragraph 87 of the Complaint, including that Defendant Fisher supposedly “ratified the illegal robocalls, ATDS, and direct dialing DNC and MDNC violations.”
REQUEST NO. 27
All documents that relate in any way to any calls you placed to Defendant or third parties, including from the subject telephone number, insofar as they relate to the allegations in your Complaint.
REQUEST NO. 28
All documents that evidence, concern, or refer or relate to your communications with any person wherein you discussed the facts described in your Complaint, including but not limited to Defendants’ alleged calls to you and the alleged violations of the TCPA and Missouri No Call List and Telemarketing provisions.
REQUEST NO. 29
All documents that relate to, refer to, concern, evidence, or support or refute your allegation that Defendant authorized or authorizes calling telephone numbers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry.
REQUEST NO. 30
All documents you intend to present at or in any trial, deposition, written filing, hearing, or other proceeding in this matter insofar as they relate to Plaintiff’s individual claims and allegations in the Complaint, or Defendants’ defenses thereto, as outlined in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
REQUEST NO. 31
All documents identified or referenced in your responses to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories, served contemporaneously herewith.
REQUEST NO. 32
All documents referenced by you in preparing your responses to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories, served contemporaneously herewith.
REQUEST NO. 33
All documents you identified, reviewed, or relied upon in preparing your initial disclosures.
REQUEST NO. 34
All lead forms (defined above) you have filled out or submitted between January 1, 2021 and the present.
REQUEST NO. 35
Documents sufficient to identify all TCPA and Missouri No Call List and Telemarketing provisions lawsuits, court proceedings, administrative proceedings, arbitrations, or other legal proceedings to which you have been a party or witness, or in which you provided oral or written testimony, including, without limitation, any and all civil actions, arbitrations, mediations, administrative actions, or any other similar proceedings or actions.
REQUEST NO. 36
Document sufficient to evidence and identify your phone plan, the persons on such plan, and billing statements for such plan.
REQUEST NO. 37
Documents sufficient to evidence, concern, or relate to when and/or how you acquired the subject telephone number, including from whom you acquired it, and/or when it was assigned to you.
REQUEST NO. 38
All documents evidencing, concerning or relating to any contracts between you and the carrier(s) or provider(s) of telephone service for the subject telephone number, including terms of service applicable to your use of those numbers.
REQUEST NO. 39
The resume for each expert witness you reasonably expect to call at trial.
REQUEST NO. 40
For each expert witness you expect to call at trial, all documents, data or other materials provided to, shown to, or considered by the expert in arriving at his or her opinions.
REQUEST NO. 41
All documents evidencing, concerning, relating to, or referring to any subpoenas or informal requests for documents (e.g., emails requesting documents or relevant information from third parties) including any responses to subpoenas or informal requests from third parties in connection with Plaintiff’s claims.
REQUEST NO. 42
All documents related to any responses you have made—including any responses that mention the subject phone number or any of your other phone numbers—to an advertisement for Defendant’s services.
REQUEST NO. 43
All retention, retainer, or other agreements between Plaintiff and his counsel that memorialize counsel’s representation of Plaintiff in this lawsuit.
REQUEST NO. 44
Documents showing or evidencing Plaintiff’s internet search or website visit history—from any electronic devices (defined above) you used—on the following dates: June 18, 2024, June 24, 2024, June 27, 2024, July 1, 2024, July 9, 2024, July 12, 2024, and July 17, 2024.
REQUEST NO. 45
Documents sufficient to identify your Internet Protocol addresses (IP address) for every electronic device (defined above) you used on the following dates: June 18, 2024, June 24, 2024, June 27, 2024, July 1, 2024, July 9, 2024, July 12, 2024, and July 17, 2024.
REQUEST NO. 46
Documents sufficient to show all phone calls and emails you received at the subject telephone number on the following dates: June 18, 2024, June 24, 2024, June 27, 2024, July 1,2024, July 9, 2024, July 12, 2024, and July 17, 2024.
REQUEST NO. 47
All records of incoming calls to, or outgoing calls from the subject number between January 2022 and the present, including any and all calls that resulted in voice messages or voicemails.
REQUEST NO. 48
Documents sufficient to identify where you were physically located—including but not limited to calendar entries in Outlook, Apple Calendar, and/or the Samsung Calendar Application—on the following dates: June 18, 2024, June 24, 2024, June 27, 2024, July 1, 2024, July 9, 2024, July 12, 2024, and July 17, 2024.
REQUEST NO. 49
All correspondence or pre-suit demand letters you sent (or were sent on your behalf) alleging purported violations of the TCPA or Missouri No Call List and Telemarketing provisions.
REQUEST NO. 50
All correspondence or communications you received in response to your correspondence or pre-suit demand letters alleging purported violations of the TCPA or Missouri No Call List and Telemarketing provisions.
REQUEST NO. 51
All documents in which a defendant or opposing party asserted in response to pre-suit correspondence you sent or a complaint you filed that you consented or opted in to receive telephonic communications from them.
REQUEST NO. 52
All opt-ins or documents showing consent that concern, evidence, relate to, or refer to “Veronica” or “Veronica Moreno,” including those you have received from opposing parties or defendants in other matters (including in response to pre-suit correspondence).
REQUEST NO. 53
All lead certificates (including from Jornaya or TrustedForm) referencing or concerning “Veronica” or “Veronica Moreno,” including those you have received from opposing parties or defendants in other matters (including in response to pre-suit correspondence).
REQUEST NO. 54
All non-privileged documents mentioning or referencing “Veronica” or “Veronica Moreno” insofar as they relate to alleged violations of the TCPA or Missouri No Call List and Telemarketing provisions.
REQUEST NO. 55
All lead certificates (including from Jornaya or TrustedForm) referencing or concerning the subject telephone number, including those you have received from opposing parties or defendants in other matters (including in response to pre-suit correspondence).
REQUEST NO. 56
All non-privileged documents mentioning or referencing the subject phone number insofar as they relate to alleged violations of the TCPA or Missouri No Call List and Telemarketing provisions.
REQUEST NO. 57
All opt-ins or documents showing consent that concern, evidence, relate to, or refer to “Melody” or Melody Human,” including those you have received from opposing parties or defendants in other matters (including in response to pre-suit correspondence).
REQUEST NO. 58
All lead certificates (including from Jornaya or TrustedForm) referencing or concerning “Melody” or “Melody Human,” including those you have received from opposing parties or defendants in other matters (including in response to pre-suit correspondence).
REQUEST NO. 59
All non-privileged documents mentioning or referencing “Melody” or “Melody Human,” insofar as they relate to alleged violations of the TCPA or Missouri No Call List and Telemarketing provisions.
REQUEST NO. 60
All non-privileged documents mentioning or referencing Fisher Investments and “Melody” or “Melody Human.”
REQUEST NO. 61
Documents sufficient to identify all matters (defined above and in Interrogatory Number 6 to which you have been a party or in which you have provided oral or written testimony.
REQUEST NO. 62
Documents sufficient to identify all matters (defined above and in Interrogatory Number 6) in which you allegedly received calls or text messages intended for “Veronica” or “Veronica Moreno.”
REQUEST NO. 63
Documents sufficient to identify all matters (defined above and in Interrogatory Number 6) in which you allegedly received calls or text messages intended for “Melody” or “Melody Human.”
REQUEST NO. 64
Apart from counsel, identify all persons with which you discussed (either orally or in writing) the matters you identified in response to Interrogatories 6-8.
REQUEST NO. 65
All non-privileged documents produced or in any way related to Policy Scout LLC v. Human, 2:23-cv-00934-JNP (D. Utah.) and the underlying conduct, including but not limited to lead certificates (e.g., from Jornaya or TrustedForm), call logs, call recordings, other evidence of consent, demand letters, and correspondence from PolicyScout or its counsel related to that case. See Policy Scout LLC v. Human, 2:23-cv-00934-JNP, Doc. 1-1 (D. Utah. Dec. 29, 2023) (“Human willfully and voluntarily submitted his information to PolicyScout and opted-in to be called. He further represented to PolicyScout that he was interested in insurance and wanted to be connected to a broker. Human’s design was to convince PolicyScout that he was an interested consumer, induce PolicyScout to place phone calls to him, then threaten PolicyScout and its employees with legal action unless PolicyScout paid him an exorbitant sum.”); Policy Scout LLC v. Human, 2:23- cv-00934-JNP, Doc. 21 (D. Utah. Jan. 22, 2024) (“Mr. Human has a practice of engaging websites by visiting them and providing personal information with the purpose of deceiving companies into believing he is an interested consumer. He thereafter lays in wait for phone calls, and when received, contacts the companies, claims he did not want to be called and threatens litigation, all with the ultimate plan to extort money from legitimate companies.”).
REQUEST NO. 66
All non-privileged documents concerning “Veronica” or “Veronica Moreno,” including any communications with Veronica Moreno or others about her and any internet search history regarding Veronica Moreno.
REQUEST NO. 67
All settlement agreements between Daniel Human and third parties involving TCPA or Missouri No Call List and Telemarketing provisions allegations.
REQUEST NO. 68
All transcripts of deposition testimony provided by Daniel Human in cases involving TCPA and Missouri No Call List and Telemarketing provisions allegations.
REQUEST NO. 69
All deposition transcripts in which Plaintiff provided testimony.
REQUEST NO. 70
All documents that relate in any way to Fisher Investments, including but not limited to all communications with or regarding Fisher Investments on any platform and browser history on any device relating to Fisher Investments.
REQUEST NO. 71
All documents relating to or concerning whether you provided the subject telephone number to Defendant.
REQUEST NO. 72
Documents sufficient to identify all criminal proceedings to which you have been a party or witness.
REQUEST NO. 73
All documents relating to whether the subject phone number is registered on the national Do Not Call registry, when any such registration occurred, and who registered the numbers.
REQUEST NO. 74
All class certification briefing (motions, responses, replies, etc., and any exhibits) for any case, including but not limited to TCPA cases, where Plaintiff was a purported class representative.
REQUEST NO. 75
To the extent not produced in response to any of the foregoing Requests, all documents that evidence, concern, support or refute, or refer to relate to your individual allegations set forth in the Complaint or the defenses set forth in the Defendant’s Answer to your Complaint.
Dkt 78 - Rule 11 Order to Show Cause
Plaintiff Daniel Human and Counsel for Plaintiff Edwin V. Butler, II must show cause why the following actions they undertook did not violate Rule 11(b):
• The unilateral filing of a “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal,” Doc. [37], on the morning of January 27, 2025—mere minutes before a scheduled device inspection that the Court had ordered and the timing of which had been mutually arranged between the parties in writing.
• The unilateral filing of a second “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal,” Doc. [39], that same date after the Court already explained Plaintiff could not unilaterally dismiss the case under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Doc. [38]. This second filing again delayed the scheduled device inspection that the Court had ordered and the timing of which had been mutually arranged between the parties in writing.
• The filing of a Notice of Appeal, Doc. [43], in this Court, which Plaintiff maintained divested this Court of jurisdiction over the matter. The Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s “premature appeal.” See Doc. [47].
Dkt 79 - Asking for attorney fees
At the March 28 hearing, the Court granted Fisher’s motion to compel (ECF No. 65) and impose related sanctions on Mr. Human for his misconduct in this case, with a written order to follow. At the hearing, Mr. Human confirmed on the stand that he destroyed a computer by throwing it “in the trash” less than two days before the court-ordered device inspection deadline. He also admitted he produced a laptop that he knew was irrelevant and twice attempted to dismiss his case at the last minute before the device inspection even though he knew Fisher was incurring substantial expenses to prepare for it. As additional court-ordered deadlines approached, Mr. Human then filed a frivolous notice of appeal to divest this Court of jurisdiction and prevent Fisher from immediately presenting certain issues to the Court. The Court rightly described this conduct, and more, as outrageous.
Per the Court’s order, Fisher files this petition for fees sought in connection with its motion to compel: (1) the cost of preparing for and attending the January 27 meet and confer where Mr. Human’s counsel promised to make a full production by February 3, only to break that promise one week later; (2) the expense of the January 27 device inspection; and; (3) the expense of preparing the motion to compel and supporting papers (ECF Nos. 65, 66), its reply (ECF No. 70), and attending the March 28 in-person hearing on Fisher’s motion.
⋮
Fisher seeks to recover $100,256.61, comprising of $94,268.38 in attorneys’ fees, $4,900 in device inspection fees, and $1,088.23 in costs. Fisher submits detailed billing records showing every hour from January 24, 2025 through March 28, 2025 relating to the fees Fisher seeks in its motion to compel
Dkt 82 - Court Hearing
Mr. Terepka: We are here today because Fisher is seeking justice and accountability for Human's fraud, massive fraud, that he's using the courts to perpetrate; and would T1ike an opportunity to explain that briefly. It will only take a few minutes because it's easier to discuss verbally, especially if the court has questions, and it gives crucial context to the discovery Mr. Human has refused to produce. Mr. Human has filed about 70 TCPA Tawsuits in just a few years and sent countless other demand letters, alleging that various companies, small, large, and everything in between, called his number without his consent. Except he did consent, on purpose, to set up a fraudulent lawsuit through various websites that invite consumers to provide their names and contact information if they are legitimately interested in hearing about a company's services . . .
He has not produced a single communication with other defendants responding to his claims. This discovery is crucial and easy to produce. It will show a pattern of unrelated defendants responding to his demands with evidence that he consented using a variety of aliases, crucial discovery. worst of all, Mr. Human has destroyed a key device, his computer he uses to email defendants about his claims the day or two before the court-ordered device inspection deadline on January 27. This intentional spoliation of crucial evidence immediately before a court-ordered deadline that Mr. Human admitted in writing is alone enough to impose the most severe sanctions. . . .
Given what has happened here and Mr. Human's effective failure to respond to the unequivocal evidence that he destroyed a device right before the court-ordered device inspection, the court should strike Mr. Human's pleadings responding to Fisher's counterclaim so Fisher could seek a default judgment in addition to the involuntary dismissal . . .
Court: I don't even know what you're [Mr. Human's lawyer Mr. Butler] saying in response to this. can you address the email where your client in an unrelated lawsuit references another computer? can you address that . . .
Court: You're the attorney. You speak. MR. BUTLER: 3Judge, the computer that he produced is the computer that he owned, and it was in his possession during that period of time that was specified in the order for examination . . .
Court: Hold on. This isn't -- that's all you're saying. This all this "what about-ism," these are your devices. You know what they should say, okay? Plus you haven't even properly addressed these issues in discovery, okay? so that has nothing to do with anything here. we're here on their motion to compel. why haven't you and your client produced the items that were lawfully through the civil process requested of you? And how do you address Document 70, page 2, the email from your client?
Mr Butler: The only answer that I have is that the computer in question didn't fit inside the guidelines. I really can't speak further to the court about, you know, what's contained here. The ones that -- to my understanding what was brought to the forensic examiner was all the documents that -- I'm sorry -- all the devices that he had in his possession or he used . . .
Examination of Mr. Human
Court: okay. You're under oath. what did you do with the computer?
Mr. Human: Thank you, Your Honor. That computer, I didn't own that desktop at the time that these illegal calls were made, okay? I acquired it sometime later in August.
Court: That's not the question at all. what did you do with the computer referenced in the email?
Mr. Human: The computer referenced in the email was the one --
Court: was it your computer?
Mr. Human: Yes, it was.
Court: Did you produce it in response to any of the discovery in this case?
Mr. Human: No, I did not.
Court: what did you do with it?
Mr. Human: It didn't even turn on.
Court: "what did you do with it?" is the question, sir.
Mr. Human: I threw it away, of course.
Court: where did you throw it away and when?
Mr. Human: I threw it away, I believe, that Saturday evening.
Court: what was the date of that, sir?
Mr. Human: Saturday. I don't have a calendar in front of me, Your Honor. I probably should have thrown it away 2 weeks earlier because it didn't work.
Mr. Terepka: Mr. Human, that Saturday was Saturday, January 25, correct?
A. I believe it was.
Mr. Terepka: That's two days before the court-ordered device inspection, correct?
Mr. Human: I believe it is, yes.
You produced at that device inspection a laptop computer
of yours, correct?
Mr. Human: That's correct.
Mr. Terepka: You hadn't used that computer in years; isn't that true?
Mr. Human: That's correct. I told the examiner I didn't really use
the laptop at all. I got it at an auction and -- and never really used it.
Mr. Terepka: You understood that Fisher's device inspection request asked for devices you used in 2024; isn't that true?
Mr. Human: I -- I -- that's correct.
Mr. Terepka: But you produced a laptop you didn't use in 2024; isn't that true?
Mr. Human: That's true. I couldn't produce the computer because I didn't -- I didn't have it any longer. I no longer had it.
Court: But you did use that computer in 2024, correct?
Mr. Human: After August, yes, sir.
Court: so the computer you used in 2024 that would have been responsive to the device inspection you threw away 2 days before; 1is that correct?
Mr. Human: That's correct, Your Honor
Mr. Terepka: Mr. Human, you attempted to voluntarily dismiss your case Tess than 2 hours before the 10:00 a.m. scheduled device inspection; isn't that true?
Mr. Human: without prejudice, yes, that's correct, because we had added smart Asset at that point. smart Asset had now become another codefendant in the case.
Mr. Terepka: You understood that Fisher was incurring expense to arrange for the device inspection, didn't you?
Mr. Human: Certainly. Just as did we traveling 70 miles to produce it, yeah, sure.
Mr. Terepka: But you didn't dismiss your -- attempt to dismiss your case until the morning of on the day the device inspection was supposed to occur; isn't that true?
Mr. Human: I believe that's correct. we asked for a dismissal without prejudice because we believed that smart Asset had information that smart Asset had supplied this alleged lead to Fisher. so, obviously, we were going to include them in the lawsuit.
Court: A1l right. I want to be clear, then I'11 give you a chance to follow up if you like. But the bottom line for me is the computer that was in your possession at the very -- on the eve of the device inspection that was ordered by this court, that's the computer that would have been responsive to the discovery in this case and that was ordered to be inspected. You threw it away prior to that happening, correct?
Mr. Human: A couple days before the inspection, Your Honor
Court: That's a yes or no. Did you throw it away just prior to the inspection?
Mr. Human: A few days before, yes, Your Honor
Court: That was the computer and that was the computer you used during the relevant time period, correct?
Mr. Human: No, it is not, Your Honor. During the relevant time period, as I explained earlier, I didn't own that.
Court: You owned that computer during the relevant time period, correct?
Mr. Human: I didn't own that computer at the time these illegal calls were made, Your Honor. No, I didn't.
Court: when I say "relevant time period,” I'm saying the relevant time period of the inspection. You owned that computer, correct?
Mr. Human: Prior to that, yes.
Court: You threw it away just before, correct?
Mr. Human: Yes, Your Honor, I did. It didn't work.
Court: Did you tell your attorney about that? Did you tell your attorney you were throwing it away?
Mr. Human: I produced what I had at the time.
Court: Did you tell your attorney you had -- you were planning to throw that computer away?
Mr. Human: Your Honor, I don't know if I called Ed or not that day. I don't remember.
Court: How about prior to that? Did you tell him you were throwing it away?
Mr. Human: I didn't know prior to that. It was just a couple days before, sir.
Court: Then you produced for inspection by the defendants a computer that had absolutely nothing to do with anything related to this case; is that correct?
Mr. Human: That's correct.
Court: okay. I don't have any more questions You can step down. Do you want to ask him anything?
Mr Butler: Just to make a statement, Judge, that I did not know about it. I was not involved in that.
Court: I hope that turns out to be true, Mr. Butler, for your sake.
⋮
Court: You are avoiding my question, and I'm getting mad.
Mr Butler: I'm sorry. I apologize.
⋮
Mr. Terepka: Mr. Human has not even produced his cell phone bill.
Court: Has he produced his cell phone bil1?
Mr Butler: There is no bill that we have. It is pay-by-the-month kind of phone. It is set up where --
Court: I really think that -- I'm really getting concerned I should call the uU.S. Attorney's office here to hear this proceeding. So you're representing that there's no bill1?
Mr Butler: The credit card reflects that he makes a payment to this company every month. They send him --
Court: so he uses a burner phone for all this activity? That's what you're saying?
Mr Butler: I don't know. I would say I'm probably approaching a description of that, yes.
⋮
Court: where's the bill then? why hasn't that been produced? And if it hasn't been produced, why haven't you withdrawn? And why have you continued -- is that because of the 70 lawsuits that he's used this bill in? I think the whole thing you guys need to come to the realization of is that these guys are on you and I'm on you. So this isn't going to go away with dancing and dodging. where's the bil11? You're ordered to produce the bil1. You heard that, sir, right, Mr. Butler? Did you hear that?
⋮
Court: You didn't hear that I said you're ordered -- it's ordered that the bill be produced?
Mr Butler: Yes, sir. I got that.
Court: Mr. Human, did you hear that?
Mr. Human: I did, sir.
⋮
Court: I said produce the bill.
Mr Butler: oh, I got that, Judge.
Court: so there is a bill, isn't there?
Mr Butler: Not that I know of.
Court: well, do you know what's going to happen if they do a subpoena and get that from the provider?
Mr. Prosser: They've already done that.
Court: what's that? why are you even raising your voice? You're not even allowed to talk here.
Mr. Prosser: I humbly apologize.
Court: 1In fact, go sit in the back.
Mr. Prosser: I humbly apologize, Your Honor
Court: Go to the back. You're representing to the court, then, that through your due diligence and investigation as an officer of the court that there's no bill associated with the cell phone number at issue with their discovery request? That's your representation to the Court? I want you to be very careful here, Mr. Butler.
Mr Butler: Judge, based on all --
Court: what's your investigation into that? what have you done to -- if you're going to stick with that, what have you done?
Mr Butler: A thorough questioning of Mr. Human and I think that Mr. Prosser made many calls to the organization that -- looking for the bill, and nothing was produced.
⋮
Mr. Terepka: Another crucial category of documents are communications between Mr. Human and other targets of his Jawsuits that will show a pattern of defendants and targets responding you consented, we have consent for your number. Not a single communication with another target of his scheme has been produced.
Court: Did you inquire, Mr. Butler, with your client?
Mr Butler: oh, I absolutely did.
Court: And there's nothing there either; is that what you're saying?
Mr Butler: Nothing. And quite frankly, you know, a good thorough reading of what counsel wrote, you know, basically, he is saying that he believes that there's fraud there. He believes that --
Court: I'm not entertaining that. I'm entertaining these discovery requests. So it's your representation to this court --
Mr Butler: I don't have anything to produce in that regard.
Court: okay. what else?
Mr. Terepka: Documents and interrogatory responses that will show Mr. Human's internet service provider, which is a key piece of information for subpoenas. That's simple.
Court: why haven't you provided the internet service provider, Mr. Butler?
Mr Butler: I believe that we gave the internet service provider through this straight Talk, a website, and those are the people that, you know, he got the phone from. Those are the people that he pays
Court: That's cellular. I'm talking about internet service provider Is it your claim he doesn't have an internet service provider?
Mr Butler: Judge, that's what I've been made to understand.
Mr. Terepka: Your Honor, that's not what his
interrogatory responses said. They just didn't respond.
Court: what did his interrogatory responses say?
Mr. Terepka: I can find them quickly. But all of his interrogatory responses had relevant information, starting with sentences like "I'm a 68-year-old man on Social
Security."
Court: Yeah, I saw a lot of that. so have you ever answered the question is there an
internet service provider?
Mr Butler: You know, my recollection, Judge, is that we said that there was not. I -- I -- I would, you know, beg the court's indulgence.
Court: 1I'11 tell you what's frustrating to me as a federal judge sitting in federal court too is, in a motion to compel that's directly dealing with these topics, you're straining your recollection to even understand what you responded to. Did you prepare for this?
Mr Butler: Yes, sir.
Court: And so you don't know what you said, whether there's an internet provider or not? As you stand here, you don't know the answer to that question?
Mr Butler: I can only -- what I believe is that the answer was no.
Mr. Terepka: Your Honor, even his emails about his
desktop computer, which concede that he used it to communicate with our law office about cases, shows that he has an internet service provider.
Mr Butler: I don't have any dispute with counsel's representation.
Court: so there is an internet service provider? You're in agreement on that?
Mr Butler: I accept what they're saying. I have not found it.
Court: Al11 right. what else is outstanding?
Mr. Terepka: Additional settlement agreements, we asked for those. Mr. Human --
Court: He told you to look them up on Case.net. That's what he said. where are those settlement agreements? Mr. Butler, where are the settlement agreements? You have those maybe or Mr. Human does. There's none of those?
Mr Butler: The joint settlement agreement --
Court: How many times have you represented Mr. Human in these types of cases?
Mr Butler: 15 or 20.
Court: okay. So did you -- when it was requested for the settlement -- did all those cases settle?
Mr Butler: Yes, sir.
Court: So when you were requested, as part of this 1itigation, as an officer of the court, to provide those settlement agreements, why haven't they been provided?
Mr Butler: well, Judge, I delegated that to --
Court: You better be careful here.
Mr Butler: Yes, sir. And I --
Court: I want the answer to the question. Who did you delegate it to, then? Another officer of the court?
Mr Butler: No, sir. It would be to Mr. Human and
Mr. Prosser: I -- I do believe that I could come up with more of those, and I will.
Court: what else?
Mr. Terepka: we asked for communications showing anything addressed to Veronica Moreno or the email address associated with that name. We uncovered in the device inspection many text messages addressed to that person and other aliases. It is very likely there are emails in Mr. Human's possession addressed to this person that have not been produced.
Court: what's your answer to that?
Mr Butler: I know of no emails like that.
Court: Do you know of it in the same way you just -- did you "delegate," quote, knowing about that, or did you actually inquire -- did you inquire with your client about it? Did you conduct any examination or investigation of that issue?
Mr Butler:I inquired at great length, and I did not investigate the actual phone.
⋮
Mr Butler: Thank you, Judge. I do understand that, and I am -- you know, any confusion on --
Court: There's no confusion here. There's no confusion on my part. This is outrageous behavior on your part. 1It's outrageous behavior on Mr. Human's part. But I want to make sure you're able to say whatever you want to say. 1Is there anything else you'd 1like to say?
Mr Butler: well, Judge, I was not in agreement with, you know, several things that have happened.
Court: what does that mean? what happened? when, where, who, what, why, how? what are you talking about?
Mr Butler: Filing the dismissal, filing the appeal, filing the --
Court: wait. You weren't in agreement with doing that?
Mr Butler: I -- I took a position where I would argue against it, yes.
Court: wait. Are you talking about what you're saying to your own client? Is that what you mean? You did file those motions with me, right?
Mr Butler: (Attorney moved head up and down.)
Court: Correct?
Mr Butler: Yes, sir.
Court: And you signed those, right?
Mr Butler: Yes, sir.
Court: And you appealed it to the Eighth circuit, right?
Mr Butler: (Attorney moved head up and down.)
Court: I can't hear you.
Mr Butler: Yes, sir.
Court: Al11 right. And you -- with your42 years of experience, you understand you're responsible for anything submitted to the court, correct?
Mr Butler: Yes.
Court: Do you remember the Missouri bar?
Mr Butler: Yes.
Court: okay. So I don't know that I want to go into your attorney-client any more than you have, but there's major problems here on your side, major problems, for you as an attorney, for your client as a litigant. There's major problems here. I don't know how we got here, but we're not in a good place.
⋮
Court: okay. I got you. So I am going to issue an order. I am going to strike the defendant's pleadings in this case, both as to the -- his actions, Plaintiff, and as to his answers and responses to your counterclaim, okay? They're going to be stricken, and I'11 issue a written order to that effect.
⋮
Court: Al11 right. I'm also going to order you, Mr. Butler, on that same date, April -- is it 12th or 11th? I'm sorry.
⋮
I'm ordering you to show cause why there shouldn't be further sanctions issued by this Court pursuant to Rule 11, all right? You need to show cause why given the record in this case, the papers, that that's not appropriate. You can have 5 days to respond to that as well.
⋮
Mr Butler: Is that personal to myself or is that --
Court: It's personal to yourself and Mr. Human. It's another avenue the court has to address what it currently views as unethical conduct and misrepresentations to the court. They get to go forward with their fraud case. oh, the deposition, I'm ordering the deposition.
Mr. Terepka: with respect to that, Your Honor because the Court has stricken Mr. Human's pleadings in response to the counterclaim, as the court ordered in the Pasch v. OnDoc case that Your Honor ordered, Mr. Fisher can seek a default judgment and proceed straight to damages
Court: You don't want to depose him on damages?
Mr. Terepka: we would like to depose him on damages, Your Honor.
Court: That's what I thought. That's what I'm saying. So I'm going to order him to sit for a deposition relative to damages. Do you want to set a date now? I'll give you that date if you want to set a date.
Dkt 86 - Human's response to Rule 11 Order to Show Cause (Dkt 78)
[It underwhelmed me]
Dkt 89 - Human's 3rd MSJ denied
Dkt 93 - Mr. Human's settlement agreements
These documents show that Mr. Human and his counsel have knowingly made false statements about his income to the Court. In particular, Mr. Human submitted a declaration claiming that his “sole source of actual income is the $1,627.00” he receives monthly from SSI, and he repeats this claim in other Court submissions, including submissions that Mr. Human’s counsel signed. But Mr. Human and his counsel’s statements are knowingly false, as the attached settlement agreements he produced show. For example, in just five TCPA settlement agreements out of presumably hundreds, Mr. Human received $32,250, and out of that sum, $11,750 was received within a two-month period in August and September 2024. Mr. Human also received an $8,500 settlement in March 2024. And this is just a small fraction of Mr. Human’s settlement income. Fisher’s damages discovery will uncover still more evidence of settlement payments that further confirm Mr. Human’s testimony about his “sole source of actual income” is knowingly false. ECF 70 at 8–9 (citing evidence of many other settlement agreements that Mr. Human still has not produced).
Dkt 101 - Notice of Mr. Human's bankruptcy filing
This morning, Fisher received a notice in the mail that Mr. Human filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
Dkt 110 - Court orders Mr. Human's deposition
Dkt 115 - Re: Mr. Human's deposition
Mr. Human admitted that the desktop he destroyed contained crucial evidence. He testified at the March 28 hearing that he threw a desktop computer in the trash two days before the court ordered device inspection. ECF No. 82 at 19:21–20:2, 20:12–17, 23:5–14, 24:13–18. At deposition, he admitted that he owned that desktop computer for at least a year and used it as his “primary device” for his TCPA cases. Ex. A at 129:23–25. On the desktop, he prepared Word documents and emails to various TCPA defendants. Id. at 129:20–25. Mr. Human thus intentionally destroyed the computer that contained the most important information in the case that would further expose his fraud right before the court-ordered device inspection. ECF No. 82 at 19:21–20:17. Mr. Human’s destruction of this computer alone warrants the most severe sanctions.
Mr. Human admitted he still had custody of the desktop computer at the time of the court ordered device inspection but refused to produce it anyway. Mr. Human previously testified that on Saturday, January 25, 2025—two days before the court ordered device inspection—he threw his desktop computer in the trash. ECF No. 82 at 19:21–20:2, 20:12–17, 23:5–14, 24:13–18. At deposition, he testified that he threw the computer into a trash bin at the house where he lives. Ex. A at 130:23–131:2. But his weekly trash collection is on Fridays. Id. at 131:3–9; see also Exhibit B (trash collection schedule showing Friday pickup at Mr. Human’s house). In other words, when Mr. Human went to the court-ordered device inspection on Monday, January 27, his desktop computer was still within his possession, custody, or control and he chose to leave it in his trash bin that weekend instead of producing it.
Mr. Human destroyed key documents during this case. Fisher seeks to compel the production of documents it asked for in its damages discovery and Mr. Human refused to produce. ECF Nos. 65– 66, 70, 109. Mr. Human admitted that he never provided any documents responsive to several of Fisher’s requests to his counsel for production in this case. Ex. A at 122:18–22, 124:1–7, 124:12–17, 124:24–125:2, 125:10–13, 126:13–22, 127:3–12, 127:17–22. He also repeatedly admitted that he deleted crucial responsive documents during this litigation while sending preservation notices to defendants demanding that they preserve documents. Id. at 24:24–25:22, 122:1–3, 124:5–7, 124:16– 17, 125:3–4, Ex. 1 (Mr. Human’s preservation notice to Fisher).
Mr. Human repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, which warrants an adverse inference of fraud in this civil case. “In civil cases, a trial court may, in its discretion, draw adverse inferences,” including an inference of fraud, “from the invocation” of the “Fifth Amendment right” against self-incrimination as long there is other “evidence in addition to” the adverse inference. U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Arrington, 998 F. Supp. 2d 847, 863 (D. Neb. 2014), aff’d sub nom. U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Kratville, 796 F.3d 873 8th Cir. 2015) (drawing adverse inference against defendant “with respect to his responses to deposition questions in which he asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege”); see also Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. A & P Steel, Inc., 733 F.2d 509, 521 (8th Cir. 1984) (citing Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976)). An adverse inference here is still another independent reason to impose the most severe sanctions
Dkt 115-1 - Mr. Human's deposition transcript
Dkt 129 - Mr. Human's motion to dismiss counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction denied
Because the Motion is meritless, the Court will deny it. In the Motion—Plaintiff’s latest attempt to delay or dispose of this litigation after things went south for him—Plaintiff argues that, since he was pro se when he filed this putative class action, the action “was a legal nullity” and everything filed in this action is therefore “entirely void.”
Dkt 141 - Mr. Human's motion to quash subpoena
Dkt 142 - Mr. Human's motion for summary judgment on counterclaim
Dkt 143 - Mr. Human's memorandum in support of Dkt. 142
Dkt 144 - Mr. Human's statement of uncontroverted facts
Dkt 145 - Fisher's Response to Mr. Human's motion to quash subpoena
Dkt 146 - Court denies Mr. Human's motion for summary judgment on counterclaim
Like the others before it, the Court will deny this latest Motion for multiple reasons. First, as Human well knows, the Court decided that his actions in this litigation warrant the striking of his pleadings, including his Answer . . . Thus, the issue of Human’s liability is no longer in dispute. But even assuming the Court does not strike Human’s Answer, his Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied for at least two additional reasons
. . . Lastly, even if Human met his initial burden on summary judgment as the movant, which he did not, the record here would allow the merits of Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Fischer Investments, Inc. (“Fischer”)’s fraud claim against Human to go before a jury . . . Human admitted to disposing of a computer—the key piece of evidence in this matter—hours before a forensic exam was set to go forward. This egregious misconduct would entitle Fischer to an adverse inference. At his deposition, Human invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination dozens of times when questioned about the fraud Fischer alleges. See generally Doc. [115-1]. That too warrants an adverse inference here. Besides these adverse inferences, there is evidence in the record that easily would allow a jury to find in Fischer’s favor.
At some point it doesn't matter what Mr. Human did, he's dug himself a hole so deep it is hard to imagine him extricating himself out of it. This story illustrates the point many of the posts on this blog to help insure other's don't join Mr. Human on his journey.
Got a Case Like This?
If you’ve had similar problems with telemarketers, debt collectors, or bankruptcy-related harassment, we might feature your story in a future blog post. Email your situation or legal filing to peter@nwdebtresolution.com or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com.
Are telemarketers bothering you in Washington, Oregon, or Montana?
I handle TCPA lawsuits in Washington State and Oregon, and may be able to help.
📞 Call: 206-800-6000 / 971-800-6000
📧 Email: peter@nwdebtresolution.com
Note: The opinions in this blog are mine (Peter Schneider) and do not count as legal advice. If you're thinking of suing over illegal robocalls or Do Not Call list violations, contact me for a legal consultation.
Comments