Court Denies Motion to Compel Burdensome Production in TCPA Case

As we’ve coated , discovery in TCPA circumstances requires a cautious, considerate strategy. That’s true for Plaintiffs too, as counsel for Ronald Chinitz just lately realized. See Chinitz v. Realogy Holdings Corp., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197102 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2020). In that case, Plaintiffs sought to compel manufacturing from a third-party service to acquire “auto dialers and lists of cellphone numbers” allegedly offered to “Coldwell Banker brokers.”

The third-party service argued that “Plaintiffs can’t show that [the third party] has any connection to the claims or defendants of their class motion past gross hypothesis {that a} defendant might need used companies like these [the third-party service] supplies.” The Court docket agreed, holding that “Plaintiffs have didn’t show that their discovery requests are related by offering any information or allegations linking [the third-party service] to Plaintiffs’ claims or to the defendants within the underlying motion.”

Extra importantly for future TCPA circumstances, the Court docket additionally held that “most of the [Plaintiffs’] requests are facially overbroad. Plaintiffs don’t dispute [the third-party service’s] assertion that there could also be ‘tens of 1000’s’ of Coldwell Banker brokers. [And therefore Plaintiffs’] requests looking for ‘all paperwork,’ ‘all communications,’ and the like for every Coldwell Banker agent [are] overbroad.” Notably too, the third-party service supplier submitted a declaration explaining the particular burden: “$45,000 and 600 hours of labor” to supply paperwork, together with “handbook evaluation of the account of every agent.” On condition that vital “expense and inconvenience to” the third-party service supplier, the Court docket declined to compel manufacturing.

In TCPA litigation, a celebration dealing with an overbroad subpoena ought to establish the precise burden to extend the possibilities the Court docket declines to compel manufacturing.