MIXED BAG: Court Grants in Part and Denies in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery in TCPA Case

Hi TCPAWorld! The Baroness here and I have an interesting discovery ruling to report.

In Robert Nock v. PalmCo Administration, LLC d/b/a Indra Energy, et al., Case No.: 1:24-cv-00662-JMC, 2026 WL 353117 (D. Md. Feb. 9, 2026), the Court delivered a quick and dirty order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses in a TCPA and Maryland Telephone Solicitation Act case.

At issue first was Request for Production No. 9.

Request for Production No. 9 sought: “[a]ll documents concerning Indra’s “Do-Not-Call policy during the class period, including (but not limited to) all copies and/or versions of any Do-Not-Call list (including both National Do-Not-Call lists and internal Do-Not-Call lists), including all requests to be placed on any Do-Not-Call list, all documents sufficient to determine when particular telephone numbers were added to such Do-Not-Call lists, documents sufficient to identify all parties responsible for adding such telephone numbers to such Do-Not-Call list”.

Boy, would we have a field day objecting to this demand. As a reminder, boilerplate objections don’t fly in federal court. So you must assert all objections and explain why you are asserting them or else the Court will deem the objections waived.

Indra objected on the basis that the request was vague, ambiguous and overly broad. However, Indra’s objections were not enough to carry the day.

The Court agreed with Plaintiff that internal do-not-call lists are discoverable in cases involving violations of the TCPA’s internal do-not-call provisions. So the Court granted Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 9.

That’s it?

But the request sought much more than just internal DNC lists, it sought all documents concerning the DNC policy, including national lists, requests to be added, timing of additions, and identification of responsible parties.

Did Indra object to each piece of this demand? It is unclear based on the Court order. But regardless, now Indra is compelled to respond to the demand as phrased.

Next, Plaintiff sought to compel further responses to Interrogatories Nos. 4-6, 19, and Request for Production No. 23. The Court grouped these requests as seeking “basic information about Indra’s IT infrastructure.”

Turning to each request:

Interrogatory No. 4: “Identify every document repository containing information about Indra’s customers which [ ] is used in Indra’s business…”

The Court found this interrogatory improper under Rule 26(b).

Why?

Because it sought all repositories containing customer information—a sweeping demand untethered to proportionality. The Court further stated Plaintiff could obtain this information through less burdensome means like a deposition.

Interrogatory No. 5: “Identify each custodian and/or repository with respect to which Defendants have taken any measure to preserve documents, including the measure(s) taken to preserve such documents.”

Interrogatory No. 6: “Identify the search criteria and/or parameters used to search each custodian and/or repository identified in your answer to Interrogatories 4 and 5 above…”

Interrogatory No. 19: seeks the contact information of everyone “involved in Indra’s preservation, collection, and/or production of documents in this case,” and their involvement in such activity.

For Interrogatory Nos. 5, 6 and19, the Court stated these requests “undoubtedly extend beyond basic information about Indra’s IT infrastructure—they seek sweeping discovery related to the mechanics of Indra’s document production”. The Court recognized that discovery about discovery is often not permitted. As such, the Court denied further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 5, 6 and 19.

Request for Production No. 23: seeks documents concerning the operation and maintenance of any information system (including, by way of example, instruction manuals, operation manuals, [and] training manuals [ ] the written policies and procedures regarding the operation of such system, and/or communications reflecting unwritten policies and procedures regarding the operation of such systems) which used or made available to Indra or its sales agents, and (c) contain[ing] documents that [ ] are responsive to Plaintiff’s other discovery requests[.]

The Court granted in part and denied in part this request. Notably, the Court stated “[e]ven with the many pages Plaintiff offered in support of its position letter, the Court is unable to determine what exactly Plaintiff seeks to discovery from Request for Production No. 23 or how the expansive nature of this request is tied to the claims in this case.”

Couldn’t agree more.

But Plaintiff appeared to save part of it. The Court stated, based on Plaintiff’s clarification that RFP 23 sought documentation regarding the operation and maintenance of information systems used by Indra or its sales agents, the Court permitted the grant the request to the extent that it is limited in that regard.

So there you have it.

Defendant Indra was able to defeat majority of Plaintiff’s motion to compel but will be ordered to comply with some of the demands.