Court Limits Depositions of Non-Lead States in Multi-State Avid Telecom Lawsuit
Court Case Snapshot
- Case Name: Arizona ex rel. Mayes v. Michael D. Lansky, L.L.C., et al.
- Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
- Case Number: No. CV 23-00233-TUC-CKJ (MAA)
- Decision Date: July 14, 2026
- Citation: 2026 WL 2034580 (D. Ariz. July 14, 2026)
- Type of Ruling: Discovery Order
A federal court in Arizona has ruled that non-lead state attorneys general participating in a multi-state consumer protection lawsuit against Avid Telecom are not required to provide separate corporate depositions when their claims rely on the same core facts as those pursued by the designated lead states.
The decision stems from litigation involving 48 states and the District of Columbia, which allege that Michael D. Lansky, LLC, doing business as Avid Telecom; its owner, Michael D. Lansky; and Vice President Stacey S. Reeves facilitated billions of allegedly unlawful and fraudulent robocalls through the company’s Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) platform. The lawsuit includes claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and various state consumer protection laws.
In Arizona ex rel. Mayes v. Michael D. Lansky, L.L.C., et al., the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona concluded that requiring additional depositions from non-lead states would likely result in duplicative discovery because the lead plaintiff states are already positioned to address the common factual issues at the center of the case.
Multi-State Litigation Led to Streamlined Discovery
The lawsuit was filed in May 2023 by nearly every U.S. state, with Arizona, Indiana, North Carolina, and Ohio designated as the lead plaintiff states during discovery.
Given the size and complexity of the litigation, the court adopted a coordinated discovery framework intended to reduce unnecessary duplication and improve efficiency. Under that plan, depositions were generally limited to the defendants, the four lead states, and any states pursuing claims based on distinct state-specific legal theories.
The discovery structure was designed to avoid requiring dozens of state attorneys general to provide testimony covering substantially the same factual issues.
Maryland Challenged Deposition Request
The dispute arose after Avid Telecom sought to depose the State of Maryland under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6).
Although Maryland is not one of the lead plaintiff states, it asserted separate claims under its own consumer protection laws. Avid argued that it should be permitted to question Maryland directly about issues including call routing involving Maryland residents and the defendants’ knowledge regarding the alleged unlawful calls.
According to the company, because the matter is a coordinated multi-state enforcement action rather than a class action, each participating state should be prepared to support its individual claims through discovery.
Maryland objected, arguing that the requested testimony largely concerned the same factual issues that would already be explored through the depositions of the lead states. The state maintained that preparing for an additional deposition would impose unnecessary burdens while providing little, if any, new information.
Court Finds Common Facts Already Covered
The court agreed with Maryland’s position.
Relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C)(i), which permits courts to limit discovery that is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, the judge found that the underlying allegations concerning Avid Telecom’s business practices, operational conduct, and knowledge are common across all participating states.
While individual calls and consumers may differ from state to state, the broader factual questions surrounding the defendants’ alleged conduct remain substantially the same, according to the court.
As a result, the court concluded that the lead states’ depositions should sufficiently address those common issues, making additional depositions of non-lead states unnecessary absent a showing of unique evidence.
Deposition May Proceed Only if Unique Information Exists
The ruling does not permanently prevent Maryland from being deposed.
Instead, the court held that Avid Telecom must first demonstrate that Maryland possesses unique, material information that cannot be obtained through discovery involving the lead plaintiff states. Without such a showing, the noticed deposition will not move forward.
The decision establishes a higher threshold for defendants seeking separate discovery from non-lead states participating in coordinated enforcement actions when their claims are based on shared factual allegations.
Potential Impact on Multi-State Enforcement Cases
The ruling highlights how courts may manage discovery in large-scale, multi-state regulatory litigation involving numerous government plaintiffs.
By limiting repetitive discovery, courts can reduce litigation costs and administrative burdens while allowing common factual issues to be addressed through a smaller group of representative parties.
For defendants, however, the decision may make it more difficult to obtain state-specific testimony unless they can identify information that is both unique and material to the claims at issue.
As coordinated enforcement actions continue to involve multiple state attorneys general, the decision may serve as a reference point for how courts balance discovery obligations with judicial efficiency in complex consumer protection litigation.
