Arizona Court Rejects Circle K’s Bid to Inspect Plaintiff’s Devices in TCPA Lawsuit

Case Snapshot

• Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
• Case: Daniel D’Agostino v. Circle K Stores Incorporated
• Citation: No. CV-26-01225-PHX-JAT, 2026 WL 1741332 (D. Ariz. June 17, 2026)
• Defendant: Circle K Stores Incorporated
• Issue: Defendant sought inspection of the plaintiff’s computers, phones, and other digital devices, including search history related to Circle K and TCPA-related terms.
• Court Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to quash the inspection request granted.
• Reason: Court found the request overly broad, invasive, and not sufficiently relevant to the issues in dispute.
• Decision Date: June 17, 2026
• Key Holding: The court found that the plaintiff had no duty to mitigate the statutory damages sought under the TCPA.

A federal court in Arizona has denied Circle K Stores Incorporated’s request to inspect a plaintiff’s electronic devices in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case, finding the proposed inspection too broad, invasive, and insufficiently tied to relevant issues in the litigation.

The case highlights the challenges defendants may face when seeking access to a plaintiff’s phones, computers, or other digital devices in TCPA litigation, particularly where privacy concerns outweigh the stated discovery need.

Device inspections can be powerful discovery tools in TCPA cases when questions involving consent, website activity, communications, or prior business relationships are genuinely in dispute. However, the court’s decision underscores that such requests must be narrowly tailored, supported by a strong relevance argument, and protected by appropriate safeguards.

Circle K Sought Broad Access to Plaintiff’s Devices

In this case, Circle K requested access to each computer, phone, or other digital device used or available to the plaintiff during the relevant period. The request covered devices where communications, email communications, documents, or information concerning “Circle K” may have been stored or accessed.

The request also sought access to search engine queries and search history involving terms such as “Circle K,” “CircleK,” “TCPA,” “Abboud,” and “STOP2End.”

That scope created an immediate issue. Rather than limiting the inspection to a specific device, specific account, defined category of data, or targeted time period connected to the claims, the request appeared to reach across every digital device used or available to the plaintiff.

For courts evaluating electronic device inspections, that kind of breadth can trigger significant proportionality and privacy concerns. Personal computers and phones often contain private, irrelevant, and sensitive information far beyond the issues in a lawsuit.

Court Found the Relevance Argument Unpersuasive

Circle K argued that the requested search terms could reveal when the plaintiff first researched the Abboud case and when he first understood that he might file a TCPA complaint. The company also argued that the inspection was relevant to whether and when the plaintiff could have mitigated his damages.

The court was not persuaded by those arguments.

According to the court, the TCPA plaintiff seeking statutory damages has no duty to mitigate those damages. The court also saw limited relevance in when the plaintiff may have researched potential legal claims before filing the lawsuit.

Because the proposed inspection was directed toward issues the court did not view as central to the TCPA claim or defense, the privacy burden of the request became difficult to justify. The availability of other discovery tools further weakened the need for a device inspection.

As a result, the court granted the plaintiff’s request to quash the inspection request.

The Decision Does Not Eliminate Device Inspections in TCPA Litigation

The ruling should not be read as a blanket rejection of device inspections in TCPA cases. Instead, it reinforces the importance of precision.

In the right circumstances, a properly tailored inspection may still help uncover evidence related to consent, text message interactions, website submissions, opt-in activity, opt-out activity, or an established business relationship. These issues can go directly to the merits of a TCPA claim or defense.

The problem in this case was not necessarily the idea of a device inspection. The problem was the scope of the request and the relevance theory used to support it.

Key Takeaway for TCPA Defendants

For defendants seeking device inspections in TCPA litigation, the lesson is clear: courts are more likely to consider these requests when they are narrow, specific, and tied to a meaningful factual dispute.

A stronger inspection request would likely identify the specific device or account at issue, define the relevant time period, limit the search terms, explain why less intrusive discovery is insufficient, and include safeguards to prevent disclosure of unrelated private information.

This decision serves as a reminder that discovery strategy in TCPA litigation must balance the search for relevant evidence with the privacy interests attached to personal electronic devices. When that balance is not carefully addressed, even a potentially useful discovery tool can fail.