DISCOVERY DENIED!: Court Shields Non-Lead State AGs From Depositions In Massive Multi-State Telecom Lawsuit

Hi TCPAWorld!

The Dame here with a massive procedural win for the state attorneys general litigating the massive multi-state lawsuit against Avid Telecom.

A federal court in Arizona just denied Avid Telecom’s attempt to depose the State of Maryland, ruling that non-lead states in this 48-state TCPA, TSR, and state level consumer protection law action do not have to sit for a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate deposition if their claims rely on the exact same common facts that will already be covered by the lead states. Arizona ex rel. Mayes v. Michael D. Lansky, L.L.C., et al, No. CV 23-00233-TUC-CKJ (MAA), 2026 WL 2034580 (D. Ariz. July 14, 2026).

Back in May 2023, 48 states and the District of Columbia teamed up to sue Avid Telecom, its owner, M. Lansky, and VP of Operations and Sales, Stacey Reeves. The AGs alleged that the defendants’ VoIP platform facilitated millions of illegal, automated telephone calls across the country, asserting violations of the TCPA, the TSR, and various state consumer protection laws.

Because of the scale of the litigation, the court treated it like a “collective action” and set up a discovery plan designed to prevent duplicative work and capitalize on efficiencies of scale. The court limited party depositions to the defendants, four “lead” plaintiff states (Arizona, Indiana, North Carolina, and Ohio), and states bringing separate state-law claims.

The current fight began when Avid Telecom tried to depose Maryland. Although Maryland is not one of the four lead states, it did bring separate state law claims. Avid served a 30(b)(6) deposition notice covering topics ranging from state specific call routing data to whether Avid knew the calls were illegal. Maryland pushed back, arguing that these topics are identical to the joint federal claims being handled by the lead states, and that forcing them to sit for a separate deposition would be completely duplicative. Avid argued that because this is a collective action and not a class action, they had a fundamental due process right to depose Maryland directly regarding the unique calls routed to Maryland residents.

The court sided with Maryland. Relying on its duty under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C)(i) to limit discovery that is unreasonably cumulative, the judge explained that while the individual calls might be unique to each state, the facts regarding Avid’s business practices, conduct, and knowledge are common across all plaintiffs/states. Therefore, once Avid deposes the lead plaintiff states, they are unlikely to get any new or “essential” information from the non-lead states regarding those common facts.

The court ordered that Maryland does not need to sit for the noticed deposition unless Avid can prove the state possesses unique, material information that the lead states do not have.

This is a massive win for the AGs, allowing non-lead states to essentially hide behind their designated lead states to avoid the pain, expense, and resources of preparing for depositions.

For defendants facing multi-state regulatory actions, it means you will face a very high bar if you want to force individual state governments to defend their specific claims on the record.

We will continue to keep an eye on this case as it develops.