Final Expense Direct v. Python Leads, LLC et al

Filing 59

ORDER denying 53 Sealed Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 8/30/2024. (BEE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
FINAL EXPENSE DIRECT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 8:23-cv-2093-WFJ-AAS

PYTHON LEADS, LLC, JACQUELYN
LEAH LEVIN, and DAVID LEVIN,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
ORDER
Plaintiff Final Expense Direct (Final Expense) moves for an order
compelling Defendants Python Leads, LLC (Python), Jacquelyn Leah Levin,
and David Levin (collectively, the defendants) to produce documents
responsive to Final Expense’s Second Set of Requests for Production Nos. 3, 9,
and 13. (Doc. 53). The defendants oppose Final Expense’s motion. (Doc. 56).
I.

BACKGROUND
Final Expense, who engages in insurance sales, alleges it contracted with

Python, a limited liability company that provides telephone leads for
marketing purposes. (Doc. 25, ¶¶ 10–12, 25). Ms. Levin is the founder and only
member of Python, while Mr. Levin is an employee of Python. (Id., ¶¶ 7, 11–
12). As part of the agreement, Final Expense alleges Python agreed to generate
1

telephone leads for Final Expense’s insurance sales and indemnify Final
Expense for any leads that violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991 (TCPA). (Id., ¶¶ 12, 14). Final Expense contends the defendants refused
to indemnify them for lawsuits brought against it for TCPA violations, which
settled for an amount more than $100,000.00 because the defendants “refused
to participate.” (Id., ¶¶ 26, 28). Final Expense sued the defendants to pierce
the corporate veil and hold them responsible through causes of action ranging
from breach of contract to civil conspiracy. (Id.).
On May 28, 2024, Final Expense served its Second Set of Requests for
Production on the defendants. (See Doc. 53-8). On June 27, 2024, the
defendants served their objections and responses to Final Expense’s requests.
(See Doc. 53-11). Final Expense now moves for an order compelling the
defendants to provide documents responsive to request for production nos. 3,
9, and 13. (Doc. 53). The defendants oppose the motion. (Doc. 56).
II.

ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) allows discovery of any

“nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). When requesting
disclosure, “[a] party may move for an order compelling discovery from the
2

opposing party.” Goodloe Marine, Inc. v. B.C. Towing, Inc., No. 8:20-cv-679,
2021 WL 4133736, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 10, 2021); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). “The
party moving to compel discovery has the initial burden of proving the
requested discovery is relevant and proportional.” Id. (citing Douglas v. Kohl's
Dept. Stores, Inc., No. 6:15-CV-1185-Orl-22TBS, 2016 WL 1637277, at *2 (M.D.
Fla. Apr. 25, 2016)). “The responding party must then specifically show how
the requested discovery is unreasonable or unduly burdensome.” Id. (citing
Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559–60 (11th Cir.
1985)).
A district court has broad discretion to compel or deny discovery. Ray v.
Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, No. 3:20-cv-857, 2021 WL 3371494 (M.D.
Fla. Aug. 3, 2021) (citing Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662
F.3d 1292, 1306 (11th Cir. 2011)). It has long been established that “the courts
must employ a liberal standard in keeping with the purpose of the discovery
rules,” although the 2015 amendments temper the element of relevance by
allowing discovery “through increased reliance on the common-sense concept
of proportionality.” Off. Depot, Inc. v. Elementum Ltd., No. 9:19-CV-81305,
2020 WL 5506445, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2020) (citation omitted).
Final Expense’s Second Set of Requests for Production Nos. 3, 9, and 13
3

are at issue. The court will consider each request in turn.
REQUEST NO. 3: Produce all communications between
Defendants and Final Expense relating to Defendants informing
Final Expense that Mr. Ali Raza1 is Python’s and/or Ms. Levin’s
vendor in their native form.
RESPONSE: Objection. Harassing and unduly burdensome to the
following extent: If a communication was between Defendants and
Final Expense, then Final Expense would be in possession of any
such communication in their native form. Moreover, to the extent
Mr. Raza (on purported behalf of Defendants or otherwise) was
communicating with Final Expense directly without copying
Defendants or without Defendants’ knowledge, Final Expense
would have those communications, and not Defendants.
Final Expense is requesting production of communications between itself and
the defendants relating to Mr. Raza. Because these are communications with
Final Expense, they would possess those documents. It is overly burdensome
to request the defendants expend time and resources searching for
communications Final Expense has in its possession. Thus, the defendants’
objection to request for production no. 3 is sustained.
REQUEST NO. 9: Produce all call logs related to all leadgenerating calls that Defendants, including its agents, vendors, or
independent contractors, performed for Final Expense from
January 1, 2021 to the present.
RESPONSE: Defendants are not in possession of any such call
logs. However, Telcast Networks may have such call logs.

1

Mr. Raza served as Python’s vendor/contractor at the relevant time.
4

The defendants state they are not in possession of requested call logs.
The court cannot compel documents not in a party’s possession, custody, or
control. See Bloodworth v. United States, 623 F. App’x 976, 979 (11th Cir. 2015)
(“A party does not have authority to compel the production of documents
outside the possession, control, or custody of a party to the case through a
motion to compel under Rule 37.”); see also Eckhardt v. United States, No. 5:19CV-00266-TES, 2021 WL 2516555, at *7 (M.D. Ga. June 18, 2021). However,
the Eleventh Circuit has held that control is defined not only as possession,
but has the legal right to obtain documents requested upon demand. Searock
v. Stripling, 736 F.2d 650 (11th Cir. 1984). The defendants, “in good faith,”
provided Final Expense with the name of the entity likely in possession of these
call logs—Telcast Networks. (Doc. 56, p. 4). As such, Final Expense could issue
a third-party subpoena requesting these call logs.2 Thus, the defendants’
objection to request for production no. 9 is sustained.
REQUEST NO. 13: Produce all documents showing Mr. Ali Raza’s
contact information and residential address from January 1, 2020
to the present.
RESPONSE: Objection. Overly broad and unduly burdensome,
since this request effectively asks Defendants to review and/or
Final Expense cites Rollins v. Banker Lopez & Gassler, 2020 WL 1939396, No. 8:19cv-2336-T-33SPF (M.D. Fla. April 22, 2020), in support of its motion to compel. (Doc.
53, p. 8). However, in Rollins, the defendants were requesting to compel a response
to a third-party subpoena.
2

5

produce every e-mail with/from Mr. Raza over the past 4.5 years,
regardless of its relevance herein. Without waiving said objection,
Defendants have previously produced documents that show Mr.
Raza’s e-mail addresses and telephone numbers. Finally,
Defendants do not have any information or documentation
regarding Mr. Raza’s residential address, as Defendants generally
communicated with Mr. Raza via Skype, Zoom and e-mail.
As drafted, this request requires that the defendants review and produce
every communication with Mr. Raza over the past four and a half years,
regardless of its relevance. This request is not proportional to the needs of this
case. If Final Expense requests the defendants’ knowledge of Mr. Raza’s
contact information and residential addresses, Final Expense could propound
an interrogatory requesting that the defendants list all known contact
information for Mr. Raza. Thus, the defendants’ objection to request for
production no. 13 is sustained.
III.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, is it ORDERED that Final Expense’s motion to compel

(Doc. 53) is DENIED.
ENTERED in Tampa, Florida on August 30, 2024.

6