POPCORN TIME: Court Orders TCPA Plaintiff’s Lawyers Representing Litigator Daniel Human to Respond to a Subpoena– and This is Getting Really Good

This Daniel Human story is getting absolutely wild.

TCPAWorld readers will recall a court recently sanctioned Human after determining the repeat TCPA litigator had trashed a computer he had been ordered to produce–apparently to hide evidence of setting up TCPA lawsuits.

Well now his lawyers are under the gun– being forced to respond to a subpoena seeking information regarding Human’s misconduct.

In Human v. Fisher Investments, Inc. 2026 WL 1077465 (E.D. Mo. April 21, 2026) a federal judge just ordered two lawyers to produce records related to their client– and has suggested they themselves may be involved in misconduct.

The lawyers Edwin V. Butler and James A. Marks represented Human in past and current TCPA litigation and were subpoened to provide records to Fisher Investments related to its fraud claim against Human. These lawyers moved to quash the subpoena on the usually-good grounds that–hey, they’re lawyers– but here the court was simply not having it.

The court rejected claims of privilege as well as claims of burden determining the records were not work product or otherwise subject to A/C privilege, especially given the context of the fraud at issue here. As to burden the Court stated:

What is more, Fisher took reasonable steps to limit the burden on Movants and their respective firms by attempting to first
obtain the documents from Human himself. But Human maintains—truthfully or otherwise—that he does not have most of the
documents because he “never kept copies of anything.” Doc. [115-1] at 51. He “deleted” digital copies of the documents, and
as for hard copies, he “thr[e]w them away.” Id. at 51–52. Though supposedly not in his possession, the documents remain in
Human’s “control” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1); see also Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 4-1.22
(governing file retention by Missouri lawyers and noting a client may request his file). “Control” under Rule 34 does not
require actual physical possession of the documents. Rather, documents are under a party’s control when that party has the
right, authority, or practical ability to obtain them. See Mirlis v. Greer, 80 F.4th 377, 382 (2d Cir. 2023); Searock v. Stripling,
736 F.2d 650, 653 (11th Cir. 1984); U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n v. ASAT, Inc., 411 F.3d 245, 254 (D.C. Cir. 2005); see also 8B
Wright & Miller’s Federal Practice & Procedure § 2210 (3d ed.) (“Inspection can be had if the party to whom the request is
made has the legal right to obtain the document, even though in fact it has no copy.”). Had Human complied with his discovery
obligations, he would have requested the non-privileged documents from Movants, who then would have been required to
provide them to Human. See In the Matter of Cupples, 952 S.W.2d 226, 234 (Mo. banc 1997) (“The client’s files belong to the
client, not to the attorney representing the client.”). Since he did not, Fisher subpoenaed them from their source. Cf. Schwimmer
v. United States, 232 F.2d 855, 860 (8th Cir. 1956) (noting the “question of whether to issue a subpoena against the owner”
who has “constructive possession” or to a “third party” who has “physical possession” is “merely one of procedural choice and
convenience”). Since Movants would have a duty to provide these documents to Human anyway, the burden to provide them
directly to Fisher cannot be undue

Notice how the Court cast doubt on Human’s assertions he lacks the informaiton being sought. This guy is really in trouble.

But the lawyers might be in trouble also. Note the Court’s later issues with Butler and Marks:

The Court does not declare that Attorney Marks and Attorney Butler are guilty (or innocent) of any wrongdoing. The Court
makes this point only to show that, while they are third-parties subject to Rule 45’s protections from undue burdens, neither
Movant was some unlucky, unaffiliated bystander who has been roped into this litigation. Both Movants willingly engaged in
business with Human and made plenty of money doing so. The Court concludes that their burden is not entitled to the “special
weight” that a court might provide a typical non-party “stranger” who has no meaningful connection to the litigation at all. See
Cusumano v. Microsoft Corp., 162 F.3d 708, 717 (1st Cir. 1998) (noting that “strangers” to the litigation with “no dog in th[e]
fight” have a “different set of expectations” than parties who “must accept” a lawsuit’s “travails”).

Pretty scary stuff.

Bottom line these lawyers must produce records and may also find themselves in the line of fire soon. This is a train wreck– but we cant look away!

We will keep an eye on this.

Also Law Conference of Champions is officially sold out! No surprise there. But you can still attend next Monday-Wednesday May 4-6 2026 via the VIRTUAL OPTION, presented by Caller ID Reputation.

Chat soon!