The Effect Continues: Court Orders Repeat Plaintiff to Produce Materials Referenced in His Letter to Some Guy named Eric J. Troutman

Editor’s Note: Don’t forget the “J.” when citing to me. Thanks. 

You just can’t make this stuff up.

So I’m kind of a big deal in TCPA circles. Occasionally repeat players like Ken Johansen ask to take a picture of me. Sometimes FCC commissioners come on my podcast. Sometimes my work gets cited to the Supreme Court or to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

And sometimes Phil Charvat just randomly sends me an open letter and agrees to let me post it on

Well in a lovely—if not intended twist—a Court in Ohio has now ordered Phil to produce records referenced in his letter to me, and I just can’t stop chuckling.

Now look, I’m not against Phil as a person—he has achieved some great results and he is sincere as the day is long. Seems like a good guy. But come on. I am a defense lawyer. Obviously I have to high five my defense brethren when they leverage my gifts to their solid advantage.

Today’s prize goes to my buddy Ana Tagvoryan over at Blank Rome, LLP. Great bunch over there. And really nice work here.

These are the real life discovery demands they served on Mr. Charvat:

Interrogatory No. 10: Identify all persons and entities to whom/which you have sent a communication alleging violation of the TCPA, including the date each communication was sent to that person or entity and the corresponding phone number(s) that you contend were called in violation of the law. a complete response must include the identities of all the recipients of the “private” dispute and “‘consent’ letters” referenced in a September 3, 2020 correspondence to Eric [J.] Troutman.

Interrogatory No. 11: State all facts upon which you base your contention that you are a repeat or serial TCPA litigant, but not a professional litigant.

Request for Production No. 12: All the “private” dispute letters and “‘consent’ letters” referred to in a September 3, 2020 correspondence to Eric [J.] Troutman.

Request for Production No. 13: All responses to the “private” dispute letters and “‘consent’ letters” in the foregoing Request for Production.

Take a note folks.

Finding this discovery to be imminently relevant to Mr. Charvat’s ability to serve as a class representative the Magistrate Judge in the suit has ordered the production demanded: “For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide complete responses to Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 11 as well as Request for Production Nos. 13 and 14 on or before December 2, 2020. If Plaintiff cannot meet this deadline, he must notify the Court immediately.”

Just beautiful work Ana.

*initiates slow clap*

The case is Charvat v. Tomorrow Energy Corp., Civil Action 2:20-cv-1064, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223525 (S.D. Oh. November 30, 2020) but the real story—of course—is how continues to literally make the TCPA news.

If you’re not following us yet, get with the program already.

And don’t miss the game-day coverage of the big TCPA SCOTUS oral argument next week. HUGE stuff.



Leave a Reply