Narrow the scope of overbroad TCPA defendant subpoenas
- Peter Schneider
- Oct 11, 2025
- 4 min read
TCPA defendants feel a lot of pressure to use dirty litigation tactics because they generally have a weak hand. So they want to get your tax returns and hope they can learn something they can apply pressure to, or get unfettered access to your computer devices.
We strongly recommend playing along with much of this. Give your devices - to a reputable forensic examination company - with strict rules on what they are looking for, not a free ranging oh what do we have here exercise. Likewise we strongly recommend playing along with subpoenas for internet browsing records, but also with strict rules on what they are looking for, not a free ranging oh what do we have here exercise.
This is not what defendants what to do but you have power to reign them in as lawsuit Cameron v. CHW Grp., Inc., No. 2:23-CV-00320-HCN-DBP, 2025 LX 455033 (D. Utah Oct. 10, 2025) demonstrates. The TCPA defendant CHW Group issued three overbroad subpoenas looking to get the contents of all of Mr. Cameron's text messages:
All documents and records (paper or electronic) covering the time period 9/1/2022 to 2/28/2023 (i) identifying the subscriber for the phone number (801) [XXX2]-9185 and/or (ii) reflecting all communications (calls or text messages, including the contents of all texts) to or from said phone number.
All of the websites accessed from through Mr. Cameron's internet service provider:
All records (paper or electronic) identifying the subscriber or reflecting internet usage (including any websites, IPs, or URLs accessed or visited) for any internet services provided by your company at [XXX], Sandy, UT, 84093 on or between September 1, 2022 and February 23, 2023.
Mr. Cameron proposed narrowing the AT&T subpoena to eliminate the contents of the text messages:
Documents and records sufficient to identify the subscriber(s) for the phone number 801-[XXX]-9185 from 9/1/2022 to 2/28/23. 2. Any and all call or text logs for the phone number 801-[XXX]- 9185 from 9/1/2022 to 2/28/23, that identify the phone numbers involved in the communication, the date and time of the communication, and the duration of the communication in the case of a call. In answering this request, do not provide documents disclosing the contents of any texts.
And limiting the Lumen subpoena to
1. Documents sufficient to identify the subscriber(s) for any internet services provided by your company at [XXX], Sandy, UT 84093 on or between September 1, 2022 and February 23, 2023. 2. All records (paper or electronic) reflecting any access to the URL www.saveyourinsurance.com [add any other URLs of interest] through any internet services provided by your company at [XXX], Sandy, UT 84093 on or between September 1, 2022 and February 23, 2023.
CHW Group rejected these narrowed subpoena's, so Mr. Cameron filed a motion with the court to quash or modify them.
Plaintiff has demonstrated that he has a personal right or privilege to the information sought in the subpoenas. The court is persuaded that the information sought, such as text discussions and internet sites visited, concerns personal information. The requests may also uncover privileged information in this case because Plaintiff is an attorney [most TCPA plaintiffs are not lawyers but your arguments and right to privacy are the same.]. Thus, Plaintiff has standing to contest the subpoenas, but Plaintiff lacks standing to object to the subpoenas based on undue burden, and on the grounds of over breadth and relevance. The court finds the subpoenas here to be problematic. They seek "all documents and records" pertaining to calls or text messages and "all records" pertaining to an IP address. Such requests have the likely potential to require the production of privileged or irrelevant information. Even where a party lacks standing to challenge a third-party subpoena, the court must still limit irrelevant and non-proportional discovery requests. Defendant's subpoenas as drafted seek irrelevant information from non-parties to this action that may have used Plaintiff's internet.
Again, the defendant is going to be entitled to some of this information, and indeed you want them to get the relevant information to cut the legs from the could-have-done-it allegations. But not give them "drop this case or we'll embarrass you with your Onlyfan's internet history" ammunition.
In weighing the possibility of irrelevant and privileged information, the court notes that this is a TCPA case. Thus, questions about permission or invitation, receipt of a telephone solicitation, a business relationship with Defendant or its affiliates, and whether Plaintiff's status as a "residential subscriber" are at issue. This type of information is relevant to Defendant's case and proportional to the needs of this case. Defendant cites numerous authorities permitting the production of call logs and similar "related data." This authority is persuasive to the extent that the subpoenas should not be entirely quashed. The court reviewed Plaintiff's proposed changes to the subpoenas and finds they accommodate the balance between excluding irrelevant and potentially privileged information and allowing Defendant needed discovery. For example, Defendant may obtain information identifying call or text logs but not the contents of the respective texts. Thus, the court modifies the subpoenas adopting the proposals set forth by Plaintiff. Defendant may add additional URLs of interest or any other targeted information toward establishing [*8] its defenses. Further, if Defendant can specifically identify certain text numbers that directly relate to its defenses, it is possible that a heightened showing could be made for the specific text contents at a later date.
Play ball, but don't play too much ball. Be reasonable and show the other side isn't.
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