In Fitzhenry v. Safe Sts. United States Llc, No. 5:19-CV-394-BO, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105364 (E.D.N.C. June 16, 2020), the District Court permitted “other complaints” discovery in a TCPA action.

Finally, Safe Streets objects to producing lists of past TCPA litigation or complaints, but such information is plainly related to willfulness and the issue of damages and is thus discoverable. See Osborne v. Gila, LLC, No. 15-62585-CV, 2016 WL 7508260, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 24, 2016) (“Because the TCP A provides for additional damages if violated willingly or knowingly, the production of the information Plaintiff seeks would be relevant in determining if Defendant knew of the TCPA, and its restrictions, when it allegedly placed calls to Plaintiff.”); Pollock v. Northland Grp., Inc., No. 12-80335-RYSKAMP, 2012 WL 12905878, at* 1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2012) . Plaintiffs’ second motion to compel is also granted. In their second motion, plaintiffs seek discovery concerning Safe Streets’ potential vicarious liability for the telemarketing conduct of co-defendants. The internal correspondence related to the vendors that contacted plaintiffs (Doc. Re . 16) is relevant to show whether Safe Streets can be held vicariously liable for their vendors ‘ conduct. See Krakauer v. Dish Network,L.L.C. , 925 F.3d 643, 660 (4th Cir. 2019). The request for documents related to complaints or do-not-call requests (Doc. Req. 11) has been addressed above.