DISCOVERY DESTRUCTION: Healthcare Company DESTROYED in Discovery Ruling– Must Produce Huge Amounts of Unnecessary Data

The thing that really sets Troutman Amin, LLP apart from other law firms that try to practice in the TCPA space is our ability to craft proper objections and oppose wide-ranging class discovery.

The biggest hammer class counsel uses to drive TCPA settlements is crushing and abusive class discovery demands. Responding to these demands with proper objections takes painstaking work since boilerplate objections are not permitted in federal court. Troutman Amin, LLP commonly serves hundreds of pages of (proper and meritorious) objections to demands– to assure that our client is in the best possible position to oppose unnecessary class discovery productions.

But that is just the start.

Any effort to oppose class discovery needs to be supported by an EVIDENTIARY showing that proportionality factors favor the defense. And we have been incredible successful in this effort–usually because class counsel demands information they do not actually need, they just want it to make the defendants life hard.

We take class discovery incredibly serious because this is the single most important moment in most TCPA class actions– but many law firms do not understand that.

Not every law firm does things the way Troutman Amin, LLP does, however, and they don’t have the same track record of success.

Take Kattato v. Cross Country Healthcsre, Inc. 2026 WL 497802 (W.D. Virginia. Feb. 23, 2026) for example.

There the defendant hired a #biglaw firm to defend it in a TCPA class action and things did not go well.

Defendant was just ordered to provide complete responses to the following INSANE demands:

(1) Discovery Request III.a.1 3 : “The phone numbers for those persons meeting the Internal Do Not Call List class definition,
which Plaintiff defines as ‘From August 4, 2019 through the present, all persons to whom, Defendants (or Defendants’
agent) initiated or authorized the initiation of two or more text messages about a health-care position or health-care referral
opportunity more than 30 days following a request by such individual not to receive such communications, where the
request was made within five years preceding the call or text.’ ” (Id. at 4.)

(2) Discovery Request III.a.2: “Information/documents on dates texts were sent to each phone number identified in number
one, as well as the date of the text recipient’s request not to receive communications.” (Id. at 5.)

(3) Discovery Request III.a.3: “The phone numbers for those meeting the following portion of the National Do Not Call
Registry class definition 4 : From August 4, 2019 through the present, all persons whom Defendants (or Defendants’ agents)
texted about a health-care position or health-care referral opportunity two or more times in a twelve-month period.” (Id.
at 6-7.)

*7 (4) Discovery Request III.a.4: “Information/documents on dates texts were sent to each phone number identified in
number three.” (Id. at 8.)

These demands are totally unnecessary at this stage of the case– a Plaintiff does not need to identify class members (much less all facts supporting the claims of each class member) pre-certification. Essentially the demands here require Defendant to identify the Plaintiff’s class members for him– which is exactly the opposite of how things are supposed to work. Plus the burden here is seemingly monumental.

But the defense seemingly did not approach things the right way here.

First they allowed plaintiff’s counsel to change the demands on them AFTER service, which is nuts. Even the judge seemed surprised the defense didn’t object to that: “Defendants did not object to Kattato’s right to amend his discovery requests. (See generally Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, at 1-9.) Kattato’s reply brief confirms that the above clarified discovery requests are the operative discovery requests. (Pl.’s Reply Br., at 11.) Thus, the court treats the four discovery requests in Kattato’s motion to compel (and reproduced above) as the operative discovery requests in this motion to compel”

Hmmm. Ok.

But the big failure was in the lack of evidence around burden to the defense. This is CRITICAL. Yet here the “Defendants did not submit
an affidavit estimating the cost of compliance with the motion to compel.” Eesh.

The other big failure was the inability to explain to the court why Plaintiff does not actually need any of the crap they are seeking–at least not at this stage. And if the case is not certified then PRIVATE FINANCIAL AND HEALTHCARE information of NON-PARTIES was just turned over for no reason.

Should NEVER happen.

But here we are.

Hire the right counsel to make the right moves for you and avoid outcomes like this.

Or… don’t.

Remember we here at Troutman Amin, LLP read literally every single TCPA case every single day. Nothing slips past us. We make sure we are fully armed and ready to go for you so that you never have to wonder if you hired the right team.

And if you want the most COMPREHENSIVE TCPA guide out there be sure to request a FREE copy of the 2026 Troutman Amin, LLP TCPA Annual Review, presented by Contact Center Compliance. All you have to do is ask!

FIRST DAY OF CZARMAS 2026: THE 2026 TROUTMAN AMIN, LLP TCPA ANNUAL REVIEW, Presented By Contact Center Compliance is now FREE for the Asking!!!!!!!!!!!

Chat soon!