Leo Tolstoy wrote, “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” And one surefire way to be unhappy is getting dragged into a TCPA lawsuit arising out of a complicated web of professional and personal relationships.
In Quintin Shammam v. American Honda Finance Corporation, No. 3:24-cv-00648-H-VET, 2025 WL 2816791 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 25, 2025), Defendant American Honda Finance Corporation (“Honda”) allegedly placed marketing calls to Plaintiff Shammam (“Plaintiff”) and others without prior express consent in violation of the TCPA, and recorded calls without authorization in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).
Honda contends that it received Plaintiff’s phone number from Plaintiff’s company, ILS Labs, Inc. (“ILS”), when ILS leased a Honda Civic on May 18, 2020. Plaintiff is an owner of ILS and has been its General Counsel since it was founded. Danny Barka, the President of ILS, purportedly filled out the lease documents for the Honda Civic and included Plaintiff’s phone number. Honda claims it contacted Plaintiff because ILS failed to make several lease payments for the Honda Civic and did not return the vehicle at the end of the lease.
Honda issued a subpoena to depose to Dr. Noori Barka, the patriarch of the Barka family, who had invested over a million dollars in ILS. To add another layer of complexity, Dr. Barka is also Plaintiff’s father-in-law. Dr. Barka moved to quash the subpoena, challenging the relevance of his deposition testimony and contending it would cause him undue burden. The Court rejected both these arguments.
First, the Court found that Dr. Barka provided no information specifying why or how the proposed deposition presents an undue burden, as neither inconvenience nor being busy provided a basis to quash the deposition. Further, because Honda represented that the deposition will be “brief” and “short,” and is prepared to depose Dr. Barka at whatever location is most convenient for him, the Court held that appearing for a deposition in person is not unduly burdensome.
Second, the Court found that Dr. Barka’s deposition was relevant to Honda’s contentions that Plaintiff (i) manufactured his TCPA and CIPA claims, (ii) consented to the telephone calls at issue, and (iii) is not an adequate class representative, in part due to alleged financial conflicts between his interests, his family’s financial interests, and the interests of the class. The Court held that “[c]onsidering Dr. Barka’s investment in ILS (the lessee of the Honda Civic) and the informal way the Barka family runs ILS, Dr. Barka’s deposition may shed light on these various contentions.”
Accordingly, Dr. Barka’s Motion to Quash the Subpoena was denied.
However, the Court did issue a protective order limiting the duration of the deposition to three hours, and the scope to the lease signing for the Honda Civic and surrounding events, ILS’ ability and failure to make lease payments or otherwise finance the Honda Civic, ILS’ failure to return or refinance the Honda Civic, and the complaint’s impact on Dr. Barka’s investment in ILS, his family, and family dynamics.