Compel TCPA defendants who don't want to answer discovery requests

Peter Schneider
Jun 7
37 min read

TCPA lawsuits often require propounding carefully written discovery requests that can't be dodged with a useless answer or an objection that will stick, and then the second problem is compelling answers to the inevitable initial objections and non-answers. I have an earlier post on compelling discovery answers as well.

We can learn a lot from a recent discovery dispute and ruling in telephone consumer protection act case Newman v. Aeciq 2025 WL 1592834 (E.D. Cal June 5, 2025). I am going to post the entirety of the requests, the full responses, the and ruling as made, and my comments in blue. My comments are not in any way suggesting that Mr. Kaufman should have worded his requests differently, I am suggesting that you are not Mr. Kaufman and you probably will have more difficulty winning a motion to compel so I suggest that your requests be more conservative.

I don't know the history of the case beyond the documents shown here. The judge is going to compel complete answers to every request and on the court's own imitative, and use judge speak ask the plaintiff to file a motion asking for costs in bringing the motion.

One of two things is going on here. Either the judge doesn't like the defendant (not usually the case) or this is a smart judge. Stupid objections to reasonable discovery requests are the norm, not the exception, and foolish judges encourage them by entertaining them without consequences. Smart judge don't suffer fools on discovery issues, word gets around to not give foolish objections, and soon there is less work for the judge.

Smart objections, even if overruled, will seldom result in financial sanctions and often cause the other side to ease up on their requests to avoid bringing it to the judge. Political capital in a court case is limited, you can't keep taking silly disputes to the judge or before long the judge is going to lose patience and start doing things to motivate you to stop being silly.

The judge's order ends with:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED in full and defendant is ORDERED to fully respond to each interrogatory and requests for production at issue no later than June 13, 2025. The court emphasizes that defendant may not withhold any responsive documents for any reason (including relevance) except on the basis of privilege or work product doctrine, and any documents withheld on those bases must be adequately documented in a privilege log. Failure to timely respond to discovery requests may result in sanctions. Further, Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(5)(A) states that if a motion to compel is granted, the court must, after giving the opposing party an opportunity to be heard, award reasonable expenses to the prevailing party, including attorney’s fees, unless certain circumstances make such an award unjust. Plaintiff’s counsel did not include a fee or costs requests in her motion. Should she wish to file a motion for fees and costs, she may do so within 10 days of this order.

Here are the actual discovery requests. Always stand on the shoulders of giants, and many other TCPA plaintiffs could probably improve the language and scope of their own discovery requests by modeling them after these.

Interrogatory #1 is a good one to ask but would need to be modified slightly in a non-class action lawsuit, or of course a non prerecorded call case.. And I would narrow the scope of the request to the period of time of the calls instead of leaving it open-ended which normally would draw an objection if this defense attorney knew what he was doing.

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify the total number of prerecorded calls made by Defendant or on Defendant’s behalf. For each such call, please identify the date, time, content of the call, whether a prerecorded message was used, the maker of the call, whether a stop request was made, the telephone number from which the call was made, and the call recipient, including, but not limited to, the call recipient’s name, address, telephone number, and email address. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1 Defendant objects on the grounds that discovery is ongoing, and its investigation is in the early stages. [This can be valid objection if the request was made early in the discovery window. I suggest two things. One, get your discovery requests in early in the discovery window. Two, during the meet and confer prior to filing a motion, ask for a date that they can have the requested information. If you can live with their date, take it and memorialize it in an email back to opposing counsel. This locks the into a date.] Therefore, Defendant reserves the right to rely on additional information that becomes available to it during discovery. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the undefined terms “maker of the call,” and “stop request,” are vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations [I recommend that all terms like this be defined in the discovery request document. You are almost guaranteed to draw this objection if you don't. You will almost certainly draw this objection if you do, but they probably will agree to produce the discovery when you point it out in the meet and confer process, and it will cut the legs out from under them in a motion to compel.] Defendant further objects on the grounds that the Interrogatory is compound. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the Interrogatory is overbroad to the extent it is untethered to the proposed class definition. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome and that a response to this Interrogatory would violate the privacy rights of third parties.

My thoughts: The court order on the motion to compel Interrogatory #1 and RFPs #4, #7, and #23 gutted Aeciq. Aeciq could have made smart objections and worked on the definitions but because their objections were so foolish the court didn't give them anything.

Call Logs (Interrogatory No. 1; RFP Nos. 4, 7, 23) The court has reviewed the objections on which defendant stands and finds them to be wholly inadequate and boilerplate. Parties responding to discovery requests must do so with specificity, which includes making particularized objections. See DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458 (C.D. Cal. 2002). A responding party’s burden is not met by providing generalized or conclusory boilerplate objections. See F.T.C. v. AMG Servs., Inc., 291 F.R.D. 544, 553 (D. Nev. 2013). Defendant’s objections in this case do not satisfy the requirements of federal discovery practice. For example, plaintiff’s RFP No. 23 seeks documents containing specific information about outbound calls made by defendant or its vendors.. Defendant objects that the RFP is “not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” and “untethered to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint.” These objections seriously strain defendant’s credibility; plaintiff seeks information, in a putative class action about calls that violate the TCPA, about defendant’s outbound calls. The RFP is very obviously related to the claims in the complaint and calculated to produce admissible evidence. Defendant’s objections are non-specific, boilerplate, and nonresponsive. Additionally, this discovery is not premature. To the contrary, the close of discovery fast approaches. “Generally at the pre-class certification stage, discovery in a putative class action is limited to certification issues such as the number of class members, the existence of common questions, typicality of claims, and the representative’s ability to represent the class.” Gusman v. Comcast Corp., 298 F.R.D. 592, 595 (S.D. Cal. 2014). The Supreme Court has noted, however, that the class certification decision requires “a rigorous analysis” of Rule 23(a)’s prerequisites, and “[s]uch an analysis will frequently entail overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim.” In this case, discovery has not been ordered phased or bifurcated, so the parties have always been free to conduct discovery both as to class certification issues and as to the merits of claims and defenses. Defendant’s conclusory argument provides no legal basis whatsoever for delaying any subset of discovery until after a class is certified. The operative scheduling order does not provide for such a process. The requested discovery would not be premature even if discovery had been phased, because the questions at issue plainly go to certification. The motion to compel will be granted and defendant ordered to fully and expeditiously respond to all discovery requests at issue.

This is a great interrogatory to ask.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify how you obtained Plaintiff’s telephone number, including, but not limited to, the person(s) from whom you obtained Plaintiff’s telephone number, the relationship between you and any person(s) from whom you obtained Plaintiff’s telephone number, when you obtained Plaintiff’s telephone number, and the reason(s) you obtained Plaintiff’s telephone number. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Defendant objects on the grounds that discovery is ongoing, and its investigation is in the early stages. Therefore, Defendant reserves the right to rely on additional information that becomes available to it during discovery. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the Interrogatory is compound. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and/or trade-secret information

My thoughts: Aeciq would have been better off to just answer the damn question instead of obstructing. If you aren't going to win an objection, it is better to save your limited political capital on objections that might stick.

Vendors (Interrog. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and RFP No. 4, 17, 19, 20, 21, 36) With these discovery requests, plaintiff seeks the identity of, as well as documents and communications regarding, the lead vendor, dialing platform provider, and third party marketer involved in the calls to plaintiff. ECF No. 21 at 6. Defendant responds, “Subject to and without waiving its objections, as it relates to those requests which seek information specifically regarding any ‘lead vendor, dialing platform provider, and third party marketer involved in the calls to Plaintiff,’ Defendant will supplement its response(s) to the appropriate request(s).” Id. Defendant raises no specific objections to these discovery requests and as stated above, the boilerplate objections are insufficient. The motion to compel will be granted and defendant ordered to fully and expeditiously respond to all discovery requests at issue.

This is a great interrogatory to ask but in a non-class action lawsuit I would narrow the scope to calls made to the plaintiff's phone number.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify all vendors involved in making outbound prerecorded calls. This includes, but is not limited to, (a) third parties that you contract with who make calls and/or provide leads, and (b) the dialing system platform or provider used to make calls. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Defendant objects on the grounds that discovery is ongoing, and its investigation is in the early stages. Therefore, Defendant reserves the right to rely on additional information that becomes available to it during discovery. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the Interrogatory is compound. Defendant further objects to the undefined term “dialing system platform” and “provide leads” as vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the Interrogatory is overbroad to the extent it not limited in scope. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and/or trade-secret information.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify and describe the work of each vendor identified above. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Defendant objects on the grounds that discovery is ongoing, and in its investigation is in the early stages. Therefore, Defendant reserves the right to rely on additional information that becomes available to it during discovery. Defendant further objects to the undefined terms “work” as vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the Interrogatory is overbroad to the extent it not limited in scope. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and/or trade-secret information.

This only seems relevant to an ATDS claim. I personally probably would not spend an interrogatory asking this.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify by make, model, structure and location the system(s), platform(s), and/or equipment used by you, or any vendor, to contact the Plaintiff. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Defendant objects on the grounds that discovery is ongoing, and its investigation is in the early stages. Therefore, Defendant reserves the right to rely on additional information that becomes available to it during discovery. Defendant further objects to the undefined terms “make, model, structure” and “system(s), platform(s), and/or equipment” as vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the Interrogatory is overbroad to the extent it not limited in scope. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case, including, but not limited to, the relevance of any “system(s), platform(s), and/or equipment used” to “contact the Plaintiff.”

Asking for "all facts" is going to draw an objection from a competent defense attorney. It is better to ask for "all facts you intend to use at trial", or if you don't like that, "all material facts".

INTERROGATORY NO. 6: State all facts in support of any affirmative defenses you have raised. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Defendant objects on the grounds that discovery is ongoing, and its investigation is in the early stages. Therefore, Defendant reserves the right to rely on additional information that becomes available to it during discovery. Defendant further objects that this request is premature, and Defendant has not decided which documents may support its defenses. Defendant also objects to the extent any response is deemed an admission that Defendant bears the burden of proof or persuasion on any of the affirmative or other defenses contained in its answer to Plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint. Defendant also objects to the extent the Interrogatory is intended to include documents, information and/or communications protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine and/or which would reveal the mental impressions of counsel.

I would limit the time-scope of this to say six months prior to the calls, through the date of the last call. Interrogatories like this not limited in time are easy objections for a competent defense attorney. This judge is a fair judge, a judge looking to protect the telemarketer will grab onto the "all facts" language and use it against you.

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Have you ever received formal or informal complaints concerning telemarketing or prerecorded calls? If so, identify the complaint, the date of the complaint, and person(s) making the complaint, including, but not limited to, the complainant’s name, address, telephone number, and email address. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Defendant objects on the grounds that discovery is ongoing, and its investigation is in the early stages. Therefore, Defendant reserves the right to rely on additional information that becomes available to it during discovery. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the Interrogatory is overbroad to the extent it not limited in scope. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case, including, but not limited to, the relevance of any “formal or informal complaints” Defendant may have received “concerning telemarketing or prerecorded calls.”

My thoughts: Aeciq could have made a smart objection about a limited time and scope and then brought that up in the meet and confer, but the played their hand foolishly and didn't get anything.

Complaints/DNC requests (Interrog. Nos. 1, 7 and RFP Nos. 23, 28) With these discovery requests, plaintiff seeks documents and information regarding complaints and DNC requests arising from telemarketing calls by defendant. ECF No. 21 at 7. Defendant states that “Subject to and without waiving its objections, Defendant is willing to meet and confer with counsel to identify whether the parties can agree to a limited time and scope for Defendant to conduct a search for whether any such documents exist.” Id. This noncommittal response is meaningless in light of the closely approaching discovery deadline. The motion to compel will be granted and defendant ordered to fully and expeditiously respond to all discovery requests at issue

A good question but would need modified a little for a non-class action TCPA lawsuit.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify what type of consent or permission, if any, you or anyone on your behalf obtained from recipients of prerecorded calls identified in response to Interrogatory no. 1, including Plaintiff, to make prerecorded calls to their telephone numbers prior to making calls to them. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Defendant objects on the grounds that discovery is ongoing, and its investigation is in the early stages. Therefore, Defendant reserves the right to rely on additional information that becomes available to it during discovery. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the Interrogatory is overbroad to the extent it not limited in scope. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the Interrogatory is overbroad to the extent it is untethered to the proposed class definition. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome and that a response to this Interrogatory would violate the privacy rights of third parties.

My thoughts: This was another foolish waste of limited political capital. Consent is always a major issue in TCPA lawsuits so highly relevant and no judge is going to find otherwise.

Consent (Interrog. Nos. 8, 9 and RFP Nos. 8-16) Through this discovery plaintiff seeks any records defendant contends supports its consent defense for its calls to potential class members. Plaintiff asserts that to the extent defendant claims it has consent to make the calls at issue, plaintiff is entitled to documents evidencing this defense. Defendant responds that it stands on its objections, and “[s]ubject to and without waiving its objections, Defendant is willing to meet and confer with counsel to identify whether the parties can agree to a limited time and scope for Defendant to conduct a search for whether any such documents exist.” Again, this noncommittal response is meaningless in light of the closely approaching discovery deadline. The motion to compel will be granted and defendant ordered to fully and expeditiously respond to all discovery requests at issue.

A good question but would need modified a little for a non-class action TCPA lawsuit.

INTERROGATORY NO. 9: For each call recipient for whom you contend you had prior consent or permission, as identified in response to interrogatory nos. 8, explain when, how, and where you obtained consent. To the extent you contend that prior consent or permission was obtained through a website, identify the web address of the website, including any specific consent language on the website and the date such language was added and/or removed from the website. To the extent you contend that prior consent or permission was obtained through a means other than a website, identify any document reflecting the consent or permission, including any specific consent language on the document. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Defendant objects on the grounds that discovery is ongoing, and its investigation is in the early stages. Therefore, Defendant reserves the right to rely on additional information that becomes available to it during discovery. Defendant objects on the grounds that the Interrogatory is overly burdensome. Defendant further objects on the grounds that this is an improper compound Interrogatory. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the Interrogatory is overbroad to the extent it not limited in scope. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the Interrogatory is overbroad to the extent it is untethered to the proposed class definition. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome and that a response to this Interrogatory would violate the privacy rights of third parties.

I would limit the time-scope of this to say six months prior to the calls, through the end of the calls. Interrogatories like this not limited in time are easy objections for a competent defense attorney.

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify any policies, procedures, training protocols, practices, or protocols you maintain concerning compliance with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, including the date(s) any such policies, procedures, education, practices, or protocols went into effect. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Defendant objects on the grounds that discovery is ongoing, and its investigation is in the early stages. Therefore, Defendant reserves the right to rely on additional information that becomes available to it during discovery. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case, including, but not limited to, the relevance of all “policies, procedures, training protocols, practices, or protocols you maintain concerning compliance with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act” without regard to the allegations in the Class Action Complaint.

My thoughts: A good lesson to learn here is never make vague and boiler plate objections yourself.

Policies and Procedures (Interrog. No. 10 and RFP Nos. 5, 27) Through these discovery requests, plaintiff seeks policies and procedures from defendant related to telemarketing. Id. at 9. Defendant responds that it stands on its objections, and “[s]ubject to and without waiving its objections, Defendants will produce any documents in its possession which may be responsive to this category of requests.” The court construes this vague and noncommittal response as a non-opposition. The motion to compel will be granted and defendant ordered to fully and expeditiously respond to all discovery requests at issue.

INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Identify (by providing the names, addresses, telephone numbers, places of employment and job titles) all persons who have, claim to have, or whom you believe may have knowledge or information pertaining to any fact alleged in the pleadings (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a)) filed in this action or any fact underlying the subject matter of this action, including but not limited to the person who made the calls to Plaintiff. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Defendant objects on the grounds that discovery is ongoing, and its investigation is in the early stages. Therefore, Defendant reserves the right to rely on additional information that becomes available to it during discovery. Defendant will comply with its obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Defendant refers Plaintiff to its Rule 26(a)(1)(A) Initial Disclosures. Investigation continues.

INTERROGATORY NO. 12: State the specific nature and substance of the knowledge that you believe the persons identified in the response to Interrogatory No. 11 may have. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Defendant objects on the grounds that discovery is ongoing, and its investigation is in the early stages. Therefore, Defendant reserves the right to rely on additional information that becomes available to it during discovery. Defendant further objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks information that is more suitable for deposition testimony. Defendant will comply with its obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Defendant refers Plaintiff to its Rule 26(a)(1)(A) Initial Disclosures. Investigation continues.

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 1: All documents relating to insurance coverage of the acts alleged by Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, all potentially applicable policies issued by any insurer and all communications with any such insurers, including, but not limited to, reservation-of-rights letters, regardless of whether or not such coverage purports to exclude the acts alleged in this matter and regardless of whether or not such insurers have declined coverage in this matter. RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 1: Defendant objects to this Request as overbroad and seeks documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant objects to the undefined terms “acts” as vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations. Plaintiff further objects to the extent this Request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or any other applicable privileges or work product protections. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Defendant is not aware of any documents in its possession which are responsive to this Request.

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2: All indemnification agreements under which a third party may be responsible for satisfying all or part of a judgment that may be entered against you in this action, and all communications with those third parties. RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2: Defendant objects to this Request as overbroad and seeks documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and are not proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiff further objects to the extent this Request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or any other applicable privileges or work product protections. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and/or trade-secret information. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Defendant is not aware of any documents in its possession which are responsive to this Request.

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 3: All documents concerning the Plaintiff or his telephone number. RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 3: Defendant objects to this Request as overbroad and seeks documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to the extent this Request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or any other applicable privileges or work product protections. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Defendant will produce responsive, nonprivileged documents.

My thoughts: A good lesson to learn here is never make vague and boiler plate objections yourself.

Documents Related to Plaintiff (RFP No. 3) Plaintiff seeks production of documents related to plaintiff or his telephone number, which he contends defendant already promised to produce. ECF No. 21 at 9. Defendant again writes that it stands on its objections but without waiving objections, will produce responsive documents. Once again, the court construes this as a non-opposition. The motion to compel will be granted and defendant ordered to fully and expeditiously respond to the discovery request at issue.

A good request but would need modified to narrow the scope down to calls to the plaintiff for a non-class action TCPA lawsuit, and limit the time scope accordingly.

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 4: All documents concerning outbound prerecorded calls, including prerecorded voice messages, including, but not limited to, call records, transmission reports, call reports or call logs. RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 4: Defendant objects to this Request as overbroad and seeks documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects that the undefined terms “transmission reports,” “call reports,” and “call logs,” are vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations. Defendant objects to this Request as overbroad to the extent the Request is untethered to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint. Defendant objects to this Request as overly burdensome to the extent it requests all documents related to every single outbound or inbound call and associated “call logs” to the extent such documents even exist. Defendant further objects to the extent this Request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or any other applicable privileges or work product protections. Defendant is not aware whether it is withholding documents based on these objections.

My thoughts: You can see the judge wavering a little bit about limiting the scope, but ultimately saying that dumb objections deserve bad things.

Recordings (RFP Nos. 4, 18) Plaintiff seeks exemplars of any recorded messages that have been transmitted during calls. ECF No. 21 at 10. Plaintiff asserts the discovery goes to commonality and typicality for class certification purposes. Defendant writes that it stands on its objections but without waiving objections, will produce responsive documents that “relate to Plaintiff” but does not provide any argument with respect to limiting the scope of production to plaintiff. The court is not persuaded that any such limitation is justified. The motion to compel will be granted and defendant ordered to fully and expeditiously respond to the discovery request at issue

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 5: All documents concerning policies and procedures relating in any way to telemarketing and/or Telephone Consumer Protection Act compliance by Defendant and/or its agents. RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 5: Defendant objects to this Request as overbroad and seeks documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case, including, but not limited to, the relevance of all “[a]ll documents concerning policies and procedures relating in any way to telemarketing and/or Telephone Consumer Protection Act compliance by Defendant and/or its agents” without regard to the allegations in the Class Action Complaint. Defendant further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or any other applicable privileges or work product protections. Defendant is not aware whether it is withholding documents based on these objections.

A good request but would need modified to narrow the scope down to the plaintiff for a non-class action TCPA lawsuit.

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO 6: All documents identifying the following information concerning recipients of prerecorded calls made by or on behalf of Defendant: (1) their name, address, email, and phone numbers; and (2) the source(s) from which Defendant obtained the telephone numbers called. RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 6: Defendant objects to this Request as overbroad and seeks documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to the extent this Request seeks private information regarding the names, addresses, and phone numbers of individuals not a party to this suit. Defendant objects to this Request as overbroad to the extent the Request is untethered to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and/or trade-secret information. Defendant is withholding documents based on these objections.

A good request but would need modified to narrow the scope down to calls initiated to the plaintiff for a non-class action TCPA lawsuit.

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 7: All documents identifying the total number of prerecorded calls, including prerecorded voice message calls, made by or on behalf of Defendant. RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 7: Defendant objects to this Request as overbroad and seeks documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant objects to this Request as overbroad to the extent the Request is untethered to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint. Defendant is not aware whether it is withholding documents based on these objections.

A good request but would need modified to narrow the scope down to the plaintiff for a non-class action TCPA lawsuit.

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 8: All documents concerning any purported prior, express, written consent from prerecorded call recipients to receive calls, including but not limited to the databases, lists, or other computer systems or equipment Defendant uses to maintain records of a person’s purported consent, records Defendant purports evidence consent, any and all user confirmation and/or keystroke records, and any and all manuals or guides for computer systems or equipment used to maintain records of consent RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 8: Defendant objects to this Request as overbroad, compound, and seeks documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and are not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant objects to this Request as overbroad to the extent the Request is untethered to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint. Defendant further objects to the extent this Request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or any other applicable privileges or work product protections. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the undefined terms “purported prior, express, written consent,” “a person’s purported consent,” “records Defendant purports evidence consent,” and “keystroke records,” are vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations. Defendant is not aware whether it is withholding documents based on these objections.