Arizona, State of et al v. Michael D Lansky LLC et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
State of Arizona, ex rel. Kristin K. Mayes,
Attorney General; et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Michael D. Lansky, L.L.C., dba Avid Telecom;
et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV 23-00233-TUC-CKJ (MAA)
ORDER
Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion, filed on January 7, 2026, to compel the
defendant Stacey S. Reeves to produce documents. Doc. 197. The defendants filed a response
on February 11, 2026. Doc. 209. The plaintiffs filed a reply on February 18, 2026. Doc. 216.
The court finds the motion suitable for decision without oral argument. See LRCiv 7.2 (f).
Background
“On May 23, 2023, Plaintiffs, [48 states and the District of Columbia], filed this action
against Defendants Michael D. Lansky L.L.C., dba Avid Telecom (Avid Telecom), M. Lansky,
individually, and Stacey Reeves, individually and as Vice President of Operations and Sales of
Avid Telecom.” Order denying Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 64, p. 1. “Plaintiffs allege Defendants
violated the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (‘Telemarketing
Act’), 15 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.; the Telemarketing Sales Rule (‘TSR’), 16 C.F.R. § 310 et seq.;
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (‘TCPA’), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., and certain state
Case 4:23-cv-00233-CKJ-MAA Document 248 Filed 06/16/26 Page 1 of 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 - 2 -
laws that protect consumers against unfair and deceptive trade practices, including unfair,
deceptive, abusive, and illegal telemarketing practices.” Doc. 64, p. 1.
“Plaintiffs’ case focuses on the barrage of unwanted robocalls sent to millions of
American consumers that are harassing, annoying, threatening, and malicious.” Doc. 64, p. 1.
“The Complaint alleges the Defendants are in the business of providing Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP) services, facilitating, or initiating robocalls, and/or helping others make
robocalls.” Doc. 64, p. 1 (citing Complaint, Doc. 1).
In the pending motion, the plaintiffs move, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, that the court
order the defendant Stacey S. Reeves to provide “documents that she has failed to produce
and/or not logged correctly under the Court’s ESI [Electronically Stored Information] Order
(Dkt. #120).” Doc. 197, p. 1.
The plaintiffs explain that the Requests for Production were served on or about March
6, 2025. Doc. 197, p. 3. The initial deadline to respond was April 7, 2025. Doc. 197, p. 3.
After consultation, the parties agreed to extend the deadline to April 30. Doc. 197, p. 3. On or
about the new deadline, defense counsel emailed the plaintiffs’ counsel stating that the
responses would be completed by Friday, May 2, 2025. Doc. 196, p. 3. They were not. Id.
In May of 2025, the plaintiffs’ counsel contacted the defense counsel numerous times
in an attempt to obtain documents. Doc. 197, pp. 3-4. Eventually, the court became involved
and on July 1, 2025 instructed the parties to meet and confer before July 11, 2025. Doc. 197,
p. 4.
On July 11, 2025, Reeves produced approximately 320 documents. Doc. 197, p. 4. The
plaintiffs allege that “[t]he production was deficient under the ESI Order because, among other
things, the production was not Bates numbered and did not include an index identifying the
Request to which each document corresponded.” Doc. 197, pp. 4-5.
The plaintiffs informed the defense counsel of the deficiencies in the production, and on
August 13, 2025, Reeves made another production. Doc. 197, p. 5. The plaintiffs maintain that
“[t]he August 13 reproduction addressed some of the errors previously present, but it remained
Case 4:23-cv-00233-CKJ-MAA Document 248 Filed 06/16/26 Page 2 of 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 - 3 -
noncompliant with the ESI Order because, among other things, the production did not include
an index identifying the Request to which each document corresponded.” Doc. 197, p. 5.
On October 24, 2025, the court ordered that “the defendants shall by November 28, 2025,
and to the extent they have not already done so, respond to the plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests
for Production of Documents and comply with the court’s ESI (“Electronically Stored
Information”) order (Doc.120) regarding Bates numbering, specifying which documents relate
to which requests, and disclosing all documents with a “parent-child” relationship, among other
things.” Doc. 169, p. 5. “Reeves did not provide a conforming production by that date.” Doc.
197, p. 6.
The parties participated in another meet and confer on December 10, 2025. Doc. 197,
p. 6. The defendants revealed that a new law firm, Troutman Pepper Locke, would be
responsible for document production. Doc. 197, p. 6. The plaintiffs maintain that they have not
received any further production or document indicies. Doc. 197, p. 6.
The plaintiffs filed the pending motion on January 7, 2026, to compel the defendant
Stacey S. Reeves to produce documents. Doc. 197. The defendants filed a response on
February 11, 2026. Doc. 209. The plaintiffs filed a reply on February 18, 2026. Doc. 216.
Discussion
In general, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering
the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’
relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery
in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs
its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Rule 34, in turn, permits a party to “serve on any other party a request within the scope
of Rule 26(b) . . . to produce . . . any designated documents or electronically stored information
. . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(1)(A).
Case 4:23-cv-00233-CKJ-MAA Document 248 Filed 06/16/26 Page 3 of 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 - 4 -
And pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv): “A party seeking discovery may move
for an order compelling . . . production . . . if . . . a party fails to produce documents . . . .”
“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure strongly favor full discovery whenever possible.”
Militante v. Banner Health, No. CV-22-0352-PHX-DWL (JFM), 2023 WL 12073895, at *2 (D.
Ariz. Dec. 20, 2023). “The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery
should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its
objections.” Id.
In their motion, the plaintiffs identify five specific deficiencies in Reeves’s compliance
to date:
A. Reeves has “repeatedly asserted that she would produce non-privileged, responsive
documents.” Doc. 197, p. 6 (punctuation modified). She has previously stated that she is not
withholding any documents from production. Doc. 197, p. 6. Nevertheless, she has failed to
produce responsive documents for Request Nos. 1-18, 20-55, 63, 65, 81-84, 86, 89-97, and 99-
102. Doc. 197, p. 7. The documents that she has produced do not comply with the terms of the
court’s ESI Order (Doc. 120). Id.
B. Reeves’s production to date is deficient, citing Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) and Section A(3)
and Appendix A.4 of the ESI Order, because she did not produce documents as they are kept
in the usual course of business. Doc. 197, p. 7. For example, Quickbooks data was produced
in Excel format rather than its native Quickbooks format. Doc. 196, p. 7. The plaintiffs assert
that the documents produced “contain non-contemporaneous metadata, and have missing parent-
child associated documents.” Doc. 197, p. 7.
C. Reeves’s production is deficient, citing Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) and Section A(3) of the
ESI Order, because she failed to “label the documents in a way that corresponds to Plaintiffs’
Requests.” Doc. 197, p. 8. Moreover, the plaintiffs maintain that “Reeves did not provide a
document index as required under paragraph 3 of the ESI Order.” Doc. 197, p. 8.
Case 4:23-cv-00233-CKJ-MAA Document 248 Filed 06/16/26 Page 4 of 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 - 5 -
D. “Reeves has produced little to no records with respect to significant customers of
Avid Telecom, including but not limited to Virtual Telecom, Mobi Telecom, and Geist Telecom
. . . .” Doc. 197, p. 8.
E. Finally, “Reeves has produced no account history logs for any of Avid Telecom’s
customers nor any production in response to a request seeking information related to entries on
those logs.” Doc. 197, p. 8.
In their response, the defendants argue first that the plaintiffs’ motion is not supported
by “good cause,” which they assert must be demonstrated by the movant. Doc. 209, pp. 4-5.
They are incorrect. “[G]ood cause is not required to bring a motion to compel discovery.” RG
Abrams Ins. v. L. Offs. of C.R. Abrams, 2021 WL 4805315, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2021).
The defendants direct the court to Martin v. Cap. Transit Co., 170 F.2d 811, 812 (D.C.
Cir. 1948) for the proposition that a motion to compel requires an initial showing of good cause.
Martin, however, cited Fed.R.Civ.P. 34 as authority for this proposition. Id. When Martin was
decided, Rule 34 did have a “good cause” requirement, but it was removed in 1970.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 34, Advisory Committee notes, 1970 amendment. This aspect of Martin is no
longer good law.
The defendants also direct the court to cases decided by Arizona state courts construing
the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. These cases are inapposite because the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure govern this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
Addressing the QuickBooks issue (B), The defendants assert that Reeves’s production
in non-native format was proper under Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(E)(ii) because the plaintiffs “did
not request the native format,” and “Rule 34 does not create an independent obligation to do
so.” Doc. 209, p. 5. Moreover, Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(E)(ii) states that “[i]f a request does not
specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form
or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.” Doc.
209, p. 5 (emphasis added). The court, however, is not convinced.
Case 4:23-cv-00233-CKJ-MAA Document 248 Filed 06/16/26 Page 5 of 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 - 6 -
Fed.R.Civ.P.34(b)(2)(E) explicitly states that the general rules for producing
electronically stored information only apply “[u]nless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the
court.” And here, the court ordered that “[t]o the extent possible, spreadsheet file[s], including
without limitation Microsoft Excel Files (*.xls or *.xlsx), shall be produced in native format.”
ESI order, Doc. 120, B.2.a (emphasis added). The defendants do not argue that it was not
possible to produce her files in naive format. Accordingly, the court finds that Reeves’s
production in non-native format violates the court’s ESI order.
Addressing the Index issue (C), the defendants state that after consultation with counsel,
they “still contend[s] there is no issue with the List 2.” Doc. 209, p. 6. They do not further
explain why they think there is no issue. Id. They assert that the documents are labeled “with
bates numbering for the ease of identifying the documents for the plaintiffs,” but they do not
address the plaintiffs’ assertion that Reeves failed to identify each document with the particular
request for which each document was produced. Id. The defendants concede that counsel is
in the process of addressing the issues with regard to Lists 3 and 4. Id. They predict that
counsel will produce a corrected version within the next 7-10 days. Id.
In their reply, the plaintiffs concede that they received indicies from the defendants on
January 7, 2026, but they maintain that the provided indicies still have problems. Doc. 216, p.
4. They assert that they sent an email on February 4, 2026 to the defendants’ new counsel
describing the errors that still remain. Id. They report that “[n]o response was received.” Id.
Finally, addressing issue (A), the defendants assert that Reeves has produced all of the
documents that are in her possession, custody, and control. Doc. 29, p. 7; see Fed.R.Civ.P.
34(a)(1) (“A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) . . .
to produce . . . the following items in the responding party’s possession, custody, or control:
(A) any designated documents . . . .”). They maintain that “from the outset . . . Defendant
Reeves has consistently stated that [she] is not withholding any documents from production.”
Doc. 209, p. 3.
Case 4:23-cv-00233-CKJ-MAA Document 248 Filed 06/16/26 Page 6 of 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 - 7 -
The court agrees that Reeves cannot be compelled to disclose documents that she does
not have, but assuming she has conducted a search and found nothing, she is still required to file
a response stating as much. Doc. 209, p. 7. Louen v. Twedt, 236 F.R.D. 502, 505 (E.D. Cal.
2006) (“Even if there are no documents responsive to a request for production, the requesting
party is entitled to a response pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b).”). Addressing Request Nos. 1-18,
20-55, 63, 65, 81-84, 86, 89-97, and 99-102, the defendants state that Reeves has produced
documents in response to many of these RFPs. Doc 209, p. 7. They do not, however, specify
which RFPs have been addressed and which remain.
The defendants do not explicitly address issues (D) and (E). It is possible that they have
searched for responsive documents and failed to find any. If so, they still must provide a
response pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b).
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion, filed on January 7, 2026, to compel the
defendant Stacey S. Reeves to produce documents is Granted in Part. Doc. 197.
Reeves must respond to the plaintiffs’ Request for Production Nos. 1-18, 20-55, 63, 65,
81-84, 86, 89-97, and 99-102. She must either produce documents or provide supplemental
responses explaining why she has not done so.
Her disclosures must comply with the court’s ESI order in that they must be disclosed
in native format with parent-child associated documents, among other things. Doc. 120.
Her disclosure of documents must indicate the request to which each document pertains.
Doc. 120.
//
//
//
//
//
Case 4:23-cv-00233-CKJ-MAA Document 248 Filed 06/16/26 Page 7 of 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 - 8 -
Because the parties’ counsel are in the process of analyzing Defendants’ document
productions and working on revised indexes for the documents, as discussed in the Court’s
telephonic status conferences, the Court will not set a deadline at this time for compliance with
this Order. If Plaintiffs thereafter deem the document productions to be deficient, and the issues
are not resolved between the parties, Plaintiffs may bring those issues to the Court in a
subsequent motion to compel with specific reference to the deficiencies.
DATED this 15 day June, 2026.th
Case 4:23-cv-00233-CKJ-MAA Document 248 Filed 06/16/26 Page 8 of 8