AARON HIRSCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. USHEALTH ADVISORS, LLC and USHEALTH GROUP, INC. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:18-CV-245-P United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division Filed February 14, 2020 Counsel Warren T. Burns, Daniel H. Charest, Burns Charest LLP, Dallas, TX, Arthur Stock, Lane L. Vines, Pro Hac Vice, Michael Dell'Angelo, Berger Montague PC, Philadelphia, PA, Jamshyd (Jim) M. Zadeh, Law Office of Jim Zadeh PC, Fort Worth, TX, Thomas Bick, Butzel Long, P.C., Max F. MacCoby, Pro Hac Vice, Washington, DC, for Aaron Hirsch. Daniel L. Bates, Decker Jones McMackin McClane Hall & Bates, Fort Worth, TX, Gregg Ian Strock, Pro Hac Vice, Jeffrey A. Backman, Richard W. Epstein, Pro Hac Vice, Greenspoon Marder LLP, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for USHealth Advisors, LLC, USHealth Group, Inc. Cureton, Jeffrey L., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND PARTIALLY GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL *1 Pending before the Court are two motions: (1) Defendant USHealth Advisors, LLC and Defendant USHealth Group, Inc.'s (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”) Motion for Protective Order [doc. 79], filed on October 24, 2019 and (2) Plaintiff Aaron Hirsch's Motion to Compel Production of Documents [doc. 82], filed November 1, 2019. Having carefully considered the motions, responses, replies, and arguments presented at the hearing on January 15, 2020, the Court concludes that Defendants' Motion for Protective Order should be PARTIALLY GRANTED and Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of Documents should be PARTIALLY GRANTED. I. DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER As to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order, this discovery dispute pertains to subpoenas duces tecum (“subpoena”) served by Plaintiff Aaron Hirsch (“Plaintiff”) on VanillaSoft, Inc. (“VanillaSoft”) and Velocify, Inc. (“Velocify”), non-party vendors that some independently licensed insurance agents of Defendants purchase their customer relationship management (“CRM”) software services from. Plaintiff served the subpoenas seeking to depose a representative from VanillaSoft and Velocify on the following topics: (1) retention and storage of Call Lists for all current or former independent contractors who call and text consumers to market or sell Defendants' insurance products (“Agents”); (2) internal do not call (“IDNC”) lists for Defendants and the Agents; (3) contracts, agreements, and understandings with Defendants and the Agents, including without limitation those involving IDNC and national do not call (“NDNC”) data; (4) description of the IDNC and NDNC data collected, processed, stored, distributed, maintained, or possessed for Defendants and the Agents; (5) description of the computer hardware and software used in connection with services rendered to Defendants and the Agents; (6) personnel, employees, vendors, and agents involved in the collection, processing, storage, and distribution of IDNC and NDNC data for Defendants and the Agents; (7) communications with Defendants and the Agents regarding services rendered, including without limitation the IDNC and NDNC lists for Defendants and the Agents; (8) communications with Gryphon, a non-party vendor of Defendants, regarding services rendered, including without limitation the IDNC and NDNC lists for Defendants and the Agents; (9) policies and procedures concerning services rendered, including without limitation the IDNC and NDNC lists for Defendants and the Agents; and (10) documents requested in the Documents Request section of the subpoenas duces tecum. (Defendants' Appendix to Motion for Protective Order (“Defs.' App.”) at 4–13.) In addition, Plaintiff sought the following documents from VanillaSoft and Velocify containing the following: (1) all call lists for Defendants and the Agents; (2) the National Do-Not-Call (“NDNC”) lists and Internal Do-Not-Call (“IDNC”) lists for Defendants and the Agents; (3) contracts, agreements, emails and other correspondence with Defendants or the Agents regarding services rendered, including without limitation the IDNC and NDNC data for Defendants and the Agents; (4) contracts, agreements, emails and other correspondence with Gryphon regarding services rendered to Defendants and the Agents, including without limitation the IDNC and NDNC data for Defendants and the Agents; (5) documents concerning the collection, processing, storage, distribution, or maintenance of IDNC and NDNC data for Defendants; (6) documents sufficient to identify the computer hardware and software used in connection with services rendered to Defendants, including without limitation the IDNC and NDNC data for Defendants and the Agents; and (7) documents sufficient to identify Vanilla Soft or Velocify's personnel, employees, vendors, and agents involved in services rendered to Defendants, including, without limitation, the IDNC and NDNC data for Defendants and the Agents. (Defs.' App. at 4–13.) *2 In their Motion for Protective Order, Defendants request the Court “enter a protective order modifying the document requests in the Subpoenas to VanillaSoft, Inc. and Velocify, Inc. to prevent disclosure of [Defendant USHealth Advisors, LLC's] [N]DNC list and the IDNC lists and call logs for the thousands of independent contractors who did not contact Plaintiff and did not purchase leads from the Honduras lead generator; limiting the deposition topics to services provided to the insurance agents who actually contacted Plaintiff, and requiring that the currently unilaterally set deposition be rescheduled at a mutually convenient date, time, and location for all counsel, parties, and third party subpoena recipients.” (Defendants' Motion for Protective Order (“Defs.' Mot. for Prot. Order”) at 21.) In their motion, Defendants argue that: (1) the subpoenas were not properly served under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 45; (2) the subpoenas are overbroad and request information outside the permissible scope of discovery; (3) the subpoenas ignore the requirements of HIPAA; (4) Plaintiff cannot circumvent Defendants' discovery objections with a subpoena; and (5) there is good cause to protect the class lists and class data. (Defs.' Mot. for Prot. Order at 6-21.)[1] In his response, Plaintiff argues, inter alia, that Defendants' motion should be denied because: (1) Plaintiff's counsel properly served Defendants' counsel with the subpoenas; (2) Defendants do not have standing for a protective order; (3) the objections that Defendants raised are objections that can only be raised by the subpoenaed parties; (4) the Agent call logs are clearly relevant, proportional to the needs of this case, and not overbroad; (5) the subpoenas do not seek HIPAA-related health information; and (6) Defendants' objections based on the merits of the case are not a basis to prevent discovery. (Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order (“Pl.'s Resp. to Mot. for Prot. Order”) at 6-13.) In their reply, Defendants reiterated many of the same arguments as set forth in their original motion. As to Defendants' claim that the subpoenas were not properly served under Rule 45, the Court finds that, even assuming, but without deciding, that there were some technical defects with service, Defendants timely received notice and copies of the subpoena prior to service and were not deprived of a fair opportunity to protect their interests. Consequently, no prejudice resulted, and the Court will not quash the subpoenas based on this argument. See, e.g., HomeLife in the Gardens, LLC v. Landry, No. 16-15549, 2018 WL 733213, at *3 (E.D. La. Feb. 6, 2018) (“While there was some confusion with respect to the emails and attachments, the Plaintiffs have complied with Rule 45 since before the subpoena was served, notice and a copy was given to the opposing party in the case.”); Ezell v. Parker, No. 2:14-CV-150-KS-MTP, 2015 WL 859033, at *3 n.1 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 27, 2015) (“declining to quash subpoenas based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with Rule 45(a)(4) because “Plaintiffs provided notice of the subpoenas immediately after service, and Defendants were not deprived of a fair opportunity to protect their interests”). The next issue is whether Defendants have standing to bring a motion for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 26(c) issued to VanillaSoft and Velocify, companies that are not parties to the underlying dispute. Parties have limited standing to quash subpoenas served on non-parties pursuant to Rule 45.[2] Nevertheless, a party has standing to move for a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) seeking to limit the scope of discovery, even if the party does not have standing pursuant to Rule 45(d) to bring a motion to quash a third-party subpoena. Bounds v. Capital Area Family Violence Intervention Ctr., Inc., 314 F.R.D. 214, 218–19 (M.D. La. 2016). *3 In this case, while it is questionable whether Defendants would have standing pursuant to Rule 45(d) to modify or quash the subpoenas to VanillaSoft and Velocify, Defendants have moved for a protective order under Rule 26(c)(1). Consequently, as parties to this litigation, Defendants have standing under Rule 26(c) to seek a limitation and/or modification of the scope of the subpoena. See Bounds, 314 F.R.D. at 218–19; Garcia v. Prof'l Contract Svcs., No. A–15–CV–585–LY, 2017 WL 187577, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2017). The final issues relate to whether, in essence, the subpoenas are overbroad and request information outside the permissible scope of discovery, including whether the subpoenas ignore the requirements of HIPAA, whether Plaintiff is trying to circumvent Defendants' discovery objections with a subpoena, and whether there is good cause to protect the class lists and class data. Rule 26(b)(1) permits parties to “obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expenses of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). However, Rule 26(c), which pertains to protective orders, authorizes a court, for good cause, to protect “a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Defendants, as the party seeking a protective order to prevent the discovery of information and documents from their vendors, nonparties to the suit, bear the burden of establishing the necessity of the order. See In re Terra Int'l, Inc., 134 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 1998); see also Williams ex rel. Williams v. Greenlee, 210 F.R.D. 577, 579 (N.D. Tex. 2002) (stating that the party moving for a protective order must show good cause and specific need for the protection). After reviewing the topics list and documents requested by Plaintiff in the subpoenas duces tecum to VanillaSoft and Velocify, the Court concludes that all information sought, other than Request No. 2 in the Topics list (“The IDNC lists for USHealth and the Agents”) and the documents sought in Request No. 2 of the Documents Requested (“The IDNC and NDNC data for USHealth and the Agents”) is overbroad and irrelevant. Plaintiff's allegations and class action allegations in his Amended Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) relate to Plaintiff and classes of people that received two or more calls by Defendants on their residential or cellular telephone numbers that had been registered on the NDNC and IDNC lists. Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint (“Pl.'s Am. Compl.”) at 17–18.) However, none of Plaintiffs allegations in the Amended Complaint otherwise relate to VanillaSoft and Velocify, who are non-party vendors that some independently licensed insurance agents of Defendants purchase their CRM software services from. Thus, the majority of Plaintiff's requests in the subpoenas duces tecum appear irrelevant and unduly burdensome to VanillaSoft and Velocify. Consequently, Defendants' Motion for Protective Order is PARTIALLY GRANTED in that VanillaSoft and Velocify are protected from providing testimony or producing any documents requested in the subpoenas duces tecum except for testimony responsive to Request No. 2 in the Topics section and documents responsive to Request No. 2 in the Documents Requested section of the Subpoenas Duces Tecum served by Plaintiff on VanillaSoft and Velocify. II. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS *4 In his Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant US Health Advisors, LLC (hereinafter referred to as “USHealth,” “USHEALTH,” or “USHA”) to produce documents responsive to Plaintiffs First Request for the Production of Documents Numbers 7-9 and Second Request for Production of Documents Numbers 5 and 9-13. (Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents (“Pl.'s Memo.”) at 1–24.) Plaintiff also seeks, pursuant to Rule 37(a)(3)(iv), an award of attorney fees for USHA's lack of any good faith basis in refusing to produce responsive documents. (Pl.'s Memo, at 24.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 34(b)(2), which deals with requests for production, states that any objection to a request for production must “state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons” and “must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) & (C). For the sake of simplicity and clarity, the Court will review each disputed request individually. • 1st Request for Production (“RFP”) No. 7: Documents sufficient to identify the total number of telephone calls USHA's agents made for telemarketing purposes for telephone numbers that were listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. USHA initially objected to this request on the following grounds: (1) overbroad and irrelevant; (2) not sufficiently limited in time and scope; and (3) not proportional to the needs of the case. (Plaintiff's Appendix to Motion to Compel (“Pl.'s App. to Mot. to Compel” at 23.) USHA also claimed it “has no documents within this request.” (Id.) USHA subsequently filed a supplemental response stating, inter alia: (1) Defendants “do not conduct telemarketing and do not maintain records for third party contractors who do conduct telemarketing;” (2) USHA was able to obtain one call record from independent insurance agent R.J. Martin, which has been produced to plaintiff; (3) USHA was able to obtain a recording of a call made by a third-party lead generator to Plaintiff where Plaintiff allegedly consented to receiving the call; (4) additional records of any telephone numbers called by Mr. Martin, if any, are likely in the possession and control of Mr. Martin and/or the third-party lead generator; (5) as to the parties who are not named Defendants, USHA further objected to such request as being vague, overbroad, irrelevant, not proportional, and unduly burdensome; and (6) Plaintiff does not define “Agent” in the discovery requests and the parties have been unable to establish an acceptable definition of “Agent”. (Pl.'s App. to Mot. to Compel at 33-34.) After reviewing the motion, response, and reply as well as the arguments made during the hearing, the Court first notes that the general, blanket, boilerplate, and unsupported objections to discovery requests are prohibited by the Rules. Heller v. City of Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466, 483 (N.D. Tex. 2014.); Enron Corp. Savs. Plan v. Hewitt Assocs., L.L.C., 258 F.R.D. 149, 159 (S.D. Tex. 2009). Moreover, the Court finds that this request is sufficiently tailored to obtain relevant discovery as the Amended Complaint contains allegations relating to Plaintiff and alleged classes of people that received two or more calls by Defendants on their residential or cellular telephone numbers that had been registered on the NDNC and IDNC lists. (See Pl.'s Am. Compl. at 17–18.) While USHA claims it has no documents that satisfy this request, the Court ORDERS Defendants to search its own records and request documents from the independent insurance agents that USHA has entered into an “Advisors Agent Agreement” with and take all reasonable efforts to obtain any responsive documents that comply with Plaintiff's request. USHA's objections to this request are OVERRULED. *5 • 1st RFP No. 8: Documents sufficient to identify the telephone numbers USHA's agents called for telemarketing purposes that were listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. USHA initially objected to this request on the following grounds: (1) overbroad and irrelevant; (2) not sufficiently limited in time and scope; and (3) not proportional to the needs of the case. (Pl's App. to Mot. to Compel at 23.) USHA also claimed it “has no documents within this request.” (Id. at 24.) USHA subsequently filed a supplemental response adopting the supplemental response set forth above in 1st RFP No. 7. After reviewing the motion, response, and reply, as well as the arguments made during the hearing, the Court first notes that the general, blanket, boilerplate, and unsupported objections to discovery requests are prohibited by the Rules. Heller, 303 F.R.D. at 483; Enron Corp. Savs. Plan, 258 F.R.D. at 159. Moreover, the Court finds that this request is sufficiently tailored to obtain relevant discovery as the Amended Complaint contains allegations relating to Plaintiff and classes of people that received two or more calls by Defendants on their residential or cellular telephone numbers that had been registered on the NDNC and IDNC lists. (See Pl.'s Am. Compl. at 17-18.) While USHA claims that it has no documents that satisfy this request, the Court ORDERS Defendants to search its own records and request documents from the independent insurance agents that USHA has entered into an “Advisors Agent Agreement” with and take all reasonable efforts to obtain any responsive documents that comply with Plaintiff's request. USHA's objections to this request are OVERRULED. • 1st RFP No. 9: Documents sufficient to identify the names, address and other identifying information associated with the telephone numbers in the foregoing Request. USHA objected to this request on the following grounds: (1) overbroad and irrelevant; (2) not sufficiently limited in time and scope; and (3) not proportional to the needs of the case. (Pl.'s App. to Mot. to Compel at 24.) USHA also claimed it “has no documents within this request.” (Id.) After reviewing the motion, response, and reply, as well as the arguments made during the hearing, the Court first notes that general, blanket, boilerplate, and unsupported objections to discovery requests are prohibited by the Rules. Heller, 303 F.R.D. at 483; Enron Corp. Savs. Plan, 258 F.R.D. at 159. Consequently, USHA's objections to this request are OVERRULED. Moreover, the Court finds that this request is sufficiently tailored to obtain relevant discovery as the Amended Complaint contains allegations relating to Plaintiff and classes of people that received two or more calls by Defendants on their residential or cellular telephone numbers that had been registered on the NDNC and IDNC lists. (See Pl.'s Am. Compl. at 17–18.) While USHA claims that it has no documents that satisfy this request, the Court ORDERS Defendants to search its own records and request documents from the independent insurance agents that USHA has entered into an “Advisors Agent Agreement” with and take all reasonable efforts to obtain any responsive documents that comply with Plaintiff's request. *6 • 2nd RFP No. 5: USHA's IDNC list as maintained during the relevant period (March 2014 to the present), including name, address, telephone number, and date of each entry. USHA made a general objection to producing a “Class List,” claiming that Plaintiff cannot be a member of such a class as he consented to being called by independent insurance agents and has regularly used his cell phone telephone number for business purposes. (Pl.'s App. to Mot. to Compel at 45; see Pl.'s App. to Mot. to Compel at 43.) In addition, USHA claimed that Plaintiff's personal relationship with his attorney created a conflict of interest. (Pl's App. to Mot. to Compel at 43, 45.) USHA also objected to this request on the following grounds: (1) overbroad and irrelevant; (2) not proportional to the needs of the case; and (3) not sufficiently limited in time and scope. (Pl.'s App. to Mot. to Compel at 45–46.) USHA, in its response, also claims that “this request is no longer at issue, as the Court already ordered third party Gryphon Networks, Inc. to produce the IDNC list that it maintains for USHA, and Gryphon Networks, Inc. has complied with that order.” (USHA's Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of Documents (“USHA's Br.”) at 14.) After reviewing the motion, response, and reply, as well as the arguments made during the hearing, the Court first notes that general, blanket, boilerplate, and unsupported objections to discovery requests are prohibited by the Rules. Heller, 303 F.R.D. at 483; Enron Corp. Savs. Plan, 258 F.R.D. at 159. In addition, USHA's merit-based objections are not a basis to prevent discovery at this time. Consequently, USHA's objections to this request are OVERRULED. Moreover, the Court finds that this request is sufficiently tailored to obtain relevant discovery as the Amended Complaint contains allegations relating to Plaintiff and classes of people that received two or more calls by Defendants on their residential or cellular telephone numbers that had been registered on the NDNC and IDNC lists. (See Pl.'s Am. Compl. at 17-18.) While USHA claims that it has no documents that satisfy this request, the Court ORDERS Defendants to search its own records and request documents from the independent insurance agents that USHA has entered into an “Advisors Agent Agreement” with and take all reasonable efforts to obtain any responsive documents that comply with Plaintiff's request. • 2nd RFP No. 9: USHA's contracts with software vendors, and USHA's communications with those vendors concerning the NDNC and IDNC lists: a. VanillaSoft, Inc. or related company; b. Gryphon Networks, Corp. or related company; and c. Sequel Business Solutions or related company. USHA, in its objections, claims that it did not have any such contracts with VanillaSoft, Inc. (Pl.'s App. to Mot. to Compel at 48.) As to Gryphon Networks, Corp., USHA in its response to Plaintiff's motion, claims that Gryphon has produced all responsive documents to Plaintiff on November 22, 2019 and that it will amend its written response to reflect “none” as to Sequel Business Solutions. (USHA's Br. at 15.) In his reply, Plaintiff does not dispute USHA's assertions. Consequently, the Court will SUSTAIN USHA's objections and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents is DENIED as to this request. *7 • 2nd RFP No. 10: Communications[3] concerning the NDNC list, IDNC list, and scrubbing of leads to assure that individuals or numbers on the NDNC or IDNC list do not receive unwanted telephone calls or texts. This request includes, but is not limited to, documents in files associated with James Schrader, Lawrence Wilford, William Shelton, Travis, Yoder, and Dean Whaley. In its objections, USHA made a general objection to producing a “Class List,” claiming that Plaintiff cannot be a member of such a class as he consented to being called by independent insurance agents and has regularly used his cell phone telephone number for business purposes. In addition, USHA claimed that Plaintiff's personal relationship with his attorney creates a conflict of interest. (Pl's App. to Mot. to Compel at 50.) In addition, USHA objected, inter alia, to this request on the following grounds: (1) overbroad and irrelevant; (2) not proportional to the needs of the case; and (3) not sufficiently limited in time and scope. (Pl.'s App. to Mot. to Compel at 50.) USHA further stated that it will produce responsive documents that are related to Plaintiff as discovery in this case “should be limited to the ‘campaign’ at issue.” (Id.) USHA also incorporated its response to Request for Production Nos. 1[4] and 5.[5] (Id.) After reviewing the motion, response, and reply, as well as the arguments made during the hearing, the Court first notes that general, blanket, boilerplate, and unsupported objections to discovery requests are prohibited by the Rules. Heller, 303 F.R.D. at 483; Enron Corp. Savs. Plan, 258 F.R.D. at 159. In addition, USHA's merit-based objections are not a basis to prevent discovery at this time, and USHA cannot unilaterally decide to limit discovery requests based on what USHA believes is relevant. Consequently, USHA's objections to this request are OVERRULED. Moreover, the Court finds that this request is sufficiently tailored to obtain relevant discovery as the Amended Complaint contains allegations relating to Plaintiff and classes of people that received two or more calls by Defendants on their residential or cellular telephone numbers that had been registered on the NDNC and IDNC lists. (See Pl.'s Am. Compl. at 17–18.) Consequently, the Court ORDERS Defendants to search its own records and request documents from the independent insurance agents with whom USHA has entered into an “Advisors Agent Agreement” and take all reasonable efforts to obtain any responsive documents that comply with Plaintiff's request. *8 • 2nd RFP No. 11: All communications between agents and USHA where agents seek to add Plaintiff to USHA's IDNC list. USHA objected to this request stating, “USHA has no responsive documents that were created prior to the litigation and are not privileged work product or attorney-client communications.” (Pl.'s App. to Mot. to Compel at 50.) According to USHA, they confirmed they had no responsive documents “through the meet and confer process, both in writing on April 12, 2019, and subsequently on the phone.” (USHA's Br. at 17.) USHA further stated, “This was also previously confirmed in February 2019 when independent insurance agents R.J. Martin, Gretchen Kennett, and Jaqueline Levine each responded to subpoenas with all of their records related to Plaintiff, and no records responsive to this request existed.” (USHA's Br. at 17.) The Court first notes that in order to invoke the privileges of work product or attorney-client communications, USHA was required, pursuant to Rule 26(b)(5), to “describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed—and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claims.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). “More specifically, the party withholding information under a claim of privilege generally must serve a ‘privilege log’ for the withheld information which ... will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.” IAS Servs. Grp., LLC v. Jim Buckley & Assocs., Inc., No. SA-14-CA-180-FB, 2014 WL 12861745, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2014). Because USHA failed to comply with this rule, their objections based on work product or attorney-client communications are OVERRULED. See, e.g., Nance v. Thompson Med. Co., 173 F.R.D. 178, 182 (E.D. Tex. 1997). Moreover, the Court finds that this request is sufficiently tailored to obtain relevant discovery as the Amended Complaint contains allegations relating to Plaintiff and classes of people that received two or more calls by Defendants on their residential or cellular telephone numbers that had been registered on the NDNC and IDNC lists. (See Pl.'s Am. Compl. at 17–18.) While the Court notes that USHA claims that it has no documents responsive to this request, Defendants have consistently stated that they had no obligation to contact their independent insurance agents and request such documents from the agents, and Defendants do not appear to have made much of an effort to search their own records for responsive documents. Consequently, the Court ORDERS Defendants to search its own records and request documents from the independent insurance agents with whom USHA has entered into an “Advisors Agent Agreement” and take all reasonable efforts to obtain any responsive documents that comply with Plaintiff's request. • 2nd RFP No. 12: All documents that (1) identify all agents who called or texted plaintiff, including RF Martin, Jacqueline Levine, Devin (last name unknown), and Gretchen Kennett; (2) all communications between USHA and those agents concerning Plaintiff; and (3) all communications between USHA and those agents concerning the IDNC and NDNC. *9 In its objections, USHA states: Documents created after Plaintiff's Complaint was filed have been withheld based on attorney client and work product privilege. Additionally, the independent agents relevant to this request conducted their own searches [and] produced documents in response to Plaintiff's subpoenas. The independent insurance agents' responsive documents can be found at bates numbers GK 000031; JL 000001 – 000004 and 000084; and RJM 000065. ((Pl.'s App. to Mot. to Compel at 50–51.) Again, the Court notes that in order to invoke the privileges of work product or attorney-client communications, USHA was required, pursuant to Rule 26(b)(5), to “describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed—and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claims.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). “More specifically, the party withholding information under a claim of privilege generally must serve a ‘privilege log’ for the withheld information which ... will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.” IAS Servs. Grp., LLC, No. SA-14-CA-180-FB, 2014 WL 12861745, at *3. Because USHA failed to comply with this rule, its objections based on work product or attorney-client communications are OVERRULED. See, e.g., Nance, 173 F.R.D. at 182. Moreover, the Court finds that this request is sufficiently tailored to obtain relevant discovery as the Amended Complaint contains allegations relating to Plaintiff and classes of people that received two or more calls by Defendants on their residential or cellular telephone numbers that had been registered on the NDNC and IDNC lists. (See Pl.'s Am. Compl. at 17–18.) Consequently, the Court ORDERS Defendants to search its own records and request documents from the independent insurance agents with whom USHA has entered into an “Advisors Agent Agreement” and take all reasonable efforts to obtain any responsive documents that comply with Plaintiff's request that have not already been produced, including all relevant “.wav” recordings. • 2nd RFP No. 13: Communications and other documents concerning training for new agents, including, without limitation, telemarketing scripts and/or templates. This request includes, but is not limited to, documents in files associated with William Shelton and Travis Yoder. In response to this request, USHA stated: Subject to the General Objections above, as well as incorporating the Response to Request for Production No. 1 above, see USHEALTH 000002-000012; 000015-000052; and 000092-000093. Additionally, each of the independent insurance [agents] alleged to have contacted Plaintiff testified in their respective depositions that they were not given and did not use “scripts” from USHA. USHA specifically incorporates the documents produced by independent insurance agents R.J. Martin, Jaqueline Levine, and Gretchen Kennett into this Response. (Pl.'s App. to Mot. to Compel at 51.) *10 Once again, the Court notes that general, blanket, boilerplate, and unsupported objections to discovery requests are prohibited by the Rules. Heller, 303 F.R.D. at 483; Enron Corp. Savs. Plan, 258 F.R.D. at 159. In addition, USHA's merit-based objections are not a basis to prevent discovery at this time, and USHA cannot unilaterally decide to limit discovery requests based on what USHA believes is relevant. Consequently, all USHA's objections are OVERRULED. Moreover, the Court finds that this request is sufficiently tailored to obtain relevant discovery as the Amended Complaint contains allegations relating to Plaintiff and classes of people that received two or more calls by Defendants on their residential or cellular telephone numbers that had been registered on the NDNC and IDNC lists. (See Pl.'s Am. Compl. at 17–18.) While USHA “incorporates” the documents produced by several independent insurance agents, USHA does not appear to have attempted to undergo its own search for responsive documents to this request. Consequently, the Court ORDERS Defendants to do so and produce any such responsive documents to Plaintiff. III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Protective Order [doc. 79] is PARTIALLY GRANTED in that VanillaSoft and Velocify are protected from giving testimony or producing any documents requested in the subpoenas duces tecum except for testimony responsive to Request No. 2 in the Topics section and those documents responsive to Request No. 2 of the Documents Requested section of the subpoenas duces tecum served by Plaintiff on VanillaSoft and Velocify.[6] Plaintiff, if it desires, may reissue the subpoenas duces tecum to VanillaSoft and Velocify to comply with this order and shall reschedule the date of the depositions at a mutually convenient date, time, and location for all counsel, parties, and third-party subpoena recipients. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents [doc. 82] is PARTIALLY GRANTED in that Defendants shall, no later 4:30 p.m. on March 13, 2020, produce the documents to Plaintiff as set forth above. All other requested relief is DENIED. Footnotes [1] The Court notes that, on October 31, 2019, Defendants filed a letter dated October 25, 2019 sent by VanillaSoft's counsel to Plaintiff's counsel. (See Doc. 81.) In the letter, VanillaSoft's counsel incorporated the objections to the subpoena raised by Defendants in their motion as well as VanillaSoft's own objections based on overbreadth, relevance, undue burden, privacy, HIPAA, privilege, vagueness, and ambiguousness. (Id.) [2] Generally, a party has standing to challenge a subpoena issued to a non-party if the subpoena seeks confidential or protected information sensitive to the movant. See Brown v. Braddick, 595 F.2d 961, 967 (5th Cir. 1979); Frazier v. RadioShack Corp., No. 10–855–BAJ–CN, 2012 WL 832285, at *1 (M.D. La. Mar. 12, 2012) (“[A] plaintiff cannot challenge a Rule 45 subpoena directed to a third party on the basis that it violates another person's privacy rights ..., that the subpoena is overly broad, or that the subpoena seeks information that is irrelevant because only the responding third party can object and seek to quash a Rule 45 subpoena on those grounds.”). “However, a party may not challenge a subpoena made to a third-party on the grounds that the information sought is not relevant or imposes an undue burden.” Keybank Nat. Ass'n v. Perkins Rowe Assocs., No. 09–497–JJB–SR, 2011 WL 90108, at *2 (M.D. La. Jan. 11, 2011). [3] The Court notes that it cannot find any documents in the motion, response, reply, or corresponding appendixes that define the term “communications” as used in the 2nd RFP. In addition, USHA does not appear to make a specific objection to this term as used in 2nd RFP Nos. 10, 11, 12, or 13. [4] USHA objected to 2nd RFP No. 1 on the following grounds: (1) it does not conduct telemarketing; (2) it is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information; (3) discovery should be limited to the “campaign” at issue; (4) “Plaintiff consented to receiving each and every telephone call he alleges to have received from a USHA independent insurance agent;” (5) “USHA has no relationship with the Honduras third party lead generator;” (5) the request is not sufficiently limited in time and scope; (6) the request is not proportional to the needs of the case; (7) “USHA is under no obligation to hunt for information from USHA's more than 9,000 independent contractors contracted during the class period based on Plaintiff's allegations about only a handful of them;” and (8) the request in unduly burdensome. (Pl.'s App. to Mot. to Compel at 44 (emphasis omitted).) [5] See pgs. 10–11, supra. [6] To the extent that any information protected by HIPAA is contained in the documents required to be produced. VanillaSoft and Velocify should redact such information prior to producing such documents.