1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Philip Charvat on behalf of himself and others )

similarly situated, )

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 1:12-cv-5746

)

v. ) Hon. Andrea R. Wood

)

Elizabeth Valente, Resort Marketing Group, Inc., )

Travel Service Network, Inc., TSN Travel, Inc., ) JURY DEMANDED

TSN International, Inc., TSN Marketing LLC, )

Carnival Corporation & PLC, )

Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., )

NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. )

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL ANSWERS, OR BETTER ANSWERS, 

TO FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Plaintiff Philip Charvat respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to 

Defendant Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.’s (“RCCL”) Motion to Compel Answers, or Better 

Answers, to First Request for Production (Dkt. 214). RCCL’s motion should be denied as the 

requested documents have been provided (indeed Plaintiff has produced 2,342 documents in the 

case), and in other instances, the requests repeat documents requests by RCCL’s co-defendant 

Resort Marketing Group (“RMG”) that have already been rejected by the Court in the context of 

RMG’s Motion to Compel production of the same records. See Dkt. 187, Order on Defendant 

Resort Marketing Group, Inc.’s Motion to Compel.1 Moreover, in response to a previous 

conference, Plaintiff specifically identified documents previously produced by bates number 

where possible. 

 

1 RCCL has a joint defense agreement and actively participated in argument on RMG’s Motion 

to Compel. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 221 Filed: 10/17/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:3798
2

RCCL’s motion represents a continuation of Defendant’s attempt to force Plaintiff into a 

motion for class certification without the benefit of full discovery, which has been rejected by the 

Court. Defendant’s requests, given that Plaintiff is actively pursuing discovery in this action, for

final identification of documents that Plaintiff will rely on in a motion for class certification 

should be rejected as Plaintiff is not in position to definitively answer those requests given the 

state of Defendants’ discovery responses. RCCL should not be permitted to repeat its dogged 

position that Plaintiff should file a motion or class certification without the benefit of discovery 

under the guise of a purported discovery dispute.

Argument Relating to Specific Requests

REQUEST NO 1, 4 and 5, 7-9, 11 (All documents in Support Of Class Certification and All 

Documents Plaintiff Intends to Rely on For Class Certification) (These requests seek

documents relating to the Plaintiff’s allegations concerning his membership in the class 

(RFP #7), typicality (RFP #8), adequacy (RFP #9) and commonality (#11)

RCCL takes issue with:

A. Plaintiff’s purported “non-response” because of reference to documents produced by 

RMG. 

The Plaintiff has referenced documents produced by RMG “vaguely” because Plaintiff

doesn’t know what RMG possesses, and is awaiting full production. However, Plaintiff has

identified over 2,000 pages of at least 11 different categories of documents, each itemized in the 

response.

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 221 Filed: 10/17/14 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:3799
3

B. Plaintiff’s failure to supplement now that “all defendants have by now responded to 

discovery” (1) Discovery responses from Defendants are not complete. (2) More 

substantively, nothing but the dialer database has been produced since the responses, 

which we are still in the process of reviewing, since it is quite large. 

C. Plaintiff’s use of the word “include” because it does not make clear that this is all

documents. Simply stated, Plaintiff has identified all of the documents it is aware of at 

this stage of the litigation.

D. Referring to every document produced by a co-defendant and several third parties is 

evasive, same issue with respect to every deposition. 

Plaintiff’s response is not evasive given that there have been limited documents 

produced. For now, every document has been produced that Plaintiff intends to use in support of 

class certification. The defendants continue to try to force the Plaintiff to give them a copy of the 

class certification motion before it is due. 

E. Not Producing Screen Shots of the Websites Referenced.

These documents were produced by the co-defendant RMG, and are publicly available 

information.

F. Privilege Objection – RCCL states that during the initial Rule 37 conference, the 

Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that all of the privilege objections relate to communications 

between counsel and the Plaintiff concerning this case. If that is the case, RCCL is not 

asking for a privilege log cataloging internal communications between the Plaintiff’s 

counsel and the Plaintiff, but rather the Plaintiff’s supplemental response indicate “There 

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 221 Filed: 10/17/14 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:3800
4

are no responsive documents other than communications between and among the Plaintiff 

and counsel relating to this litigation.” 

Plaintiff has no objection to this requested statement, but object that apparently RCCL is 

not subject to the same standard it urges here, as Defendants have acknowledged that they 

possess a transcript of a transcribed interview with Richard Borst, a former employee of RMG,

attended by counsel for all Defendants on the purported ground of work product, all without 

providing a privilege log.

REQUEST NO 2 (This request seeks any witness statements, affidavits, and declarations 

that the Plaintiff has obtained from any person) RCCL takes issue with:

A. The fact that Plaintiff produced the TDC Marketing declaration and that we may have 

other witness statements. 

The TDC Marketing declaration was produced contemporaneously with Plaintiff

receiving it, and the Defendant admits that it came in 4 days after our supplemental response. It 

is difficult to understand RCCL’s complaint. Plaintiff doesn’t have any other affidavits or 

witness statements, but will produce them if received. However, again Plaintiff objects to 

RCCL’s insistence for this type of document in light of its refusal to produce the transcript of the 

Borst interview.

B. Privilege. The privilege asserted by Plaintiff is identical to the one the Defendants have

asserted with respect to Mr. Borst. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 221 Filed: 10/17/14 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:3801
5

REQUEST NO 3 (The request asks for all documents obtained from any person relating to 

the subject matter of this action except the named Plaintiff) – RCCL takes issue with:

A. Plaintiff’s use of the word “include” because it does not make clear that this is all

documents. If Defendants will provide a similar privilege log, Plaintiff can provide a 

privilege log, but given Defendants’ position about its counsel’s investigation, RCCL’s 

position is not well taken.

B. RCCL wants all e-mails, draft affidavits or other correspondence and communications 

with third parties Again, the treatment of investigative materials must be treated the same 

for Plaintiff and Defendants.

C. RCCL also seeks to compel the Plaintiff to specifically identify by bates number the 

documents on which the Plaintiff intends to rely for RMG, Caldwell and TDC.

RCCL continues to try to force the Plaintiff to give them a copy of the class certification 

motion before it is due. For now, all of the documents produced that Plaintiff plans on 

using have been produced, so a further response is unnecessary.

D. Screen Shots Never Produced of the Websites Referenced.

These documents were produced by the co-defendant RMG, and are publicly available 

information. There is nothing for the Plaintiff to produce.

Request No 6 (This request seeks documents that the Plaintiff contends support the numerosity 

allegation in the Plaintiffs Second Amended Class Action Complaint) – RCCL takes issue with:

A. A purportedly evasive response since Plaintiff claim the documents are in the defendant’s 

possession. 

Plaintiff is at a loss for how RCCL can seriously claim it is contesting numerosity in this 

action. The dialer database produced by RMG contains more than 10,000,000 calls. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 221 Filed: 10/17/14 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:3802
6

Request No 10 (This request seeks documents Plaintiff’s tax returns that reflect income from 

filing serial TCPA litigation for the past ten (10) years).

This Court has already stated that the request for Plaintiff’s tax returns “borders on 

harassing.” DKT. No. 187 on RMG’s Motion to Compel at 4 (“The request regarding 15 years 

of tax returns borders on harassing.”) This request simply should not be put forth again in a 

motion to compel.

Request No 12-13, 15-20, 25-26, 28-39

 RCCL claims that the arguments are the same as to Request No. 1. RCCL continues to 

ask Plaintiff for documents supporting our common question allegations and other 

requisite class action allegations before discovery has been produced by Defendants.

Request No. 14 (This request seeks all documents received from any putative class member 

relating to the subject matter of this action)

Again Plaintiff does not object to producing a privilege log, but maintains that the same 

principle should apply to all parties in the case.

Request No. 40 (Documents relating to the listserv, internet forum or any other internet source 

that the Plaintiff or his counsel subscribe to or are members of where information concerning or 

relating to the TCPA claims and/or how to file TCPA claims are stored)

RCCL’s request simply repeats Request for Production No, 12 of RMG, already rejected 

by the Court in Dkt. 187 at 3:

Document Request 12: All TCPA or telemarketing listserve, 

Internet forum, or other Internet source the Plaintiff subscribes to 

or uses or visits where visitors deposit, submit, or store information 

that relates in any way to the TCPA. Plaintiff admits that he is a 

“TCPA activist,” but this request is overbroad and not likely to

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 221 Filed: 10/17/14 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:3803
7

lead to relevant information.

Request No. 42, 43 and 45, 46-49 (Documents that identify every e-mail address used by the 

Plaintiff and his family members)

Again, this request has already been rejected by this Court. Dkt. No. 187 Order on

RMG’s Motion to Compel at 4:

Defendants request all emails that contain the word cruise or that 

relate to travel or vacations that were sent or received by any email 

address ever registered by Plaintiff, including to specified email 

addresses. Defendants also request Internet browsing history, 

Internet activity records, cookies and downloads on any computer 

or laptop used by Plaintiff or his family. Defendants argue that 

these requests go to the consent defense and told the Court that 

near the time of the Robocalls in this case, Plaintiff took a 

vacation. However, Defendants also indicated to the Court that 

they should have an electronic record of an indication by Plaintiff 

of consent to receive Robocalls. In any event, the Court will allow 

some limited discovery into this area. The time frame for the 

search should be limited to one year preceding the Robocalls to the 

date of the Robocalls themselves. It will also be limited to the two 

email addresses identified in the Document Requests. The parties 

are directed to resolve the issues raised in Plaintiff’s objections 

requiring a Protective Order and attempt to resolve the appropriate 

search terms. (Dkt. 185, Ex. 3, Plaintiff’s Responses to Document 

Requests by RMG at 5-6). The parties are to report back to the 

Court at the next status.

Subsequently, the Plaintiff produced any e-mail that was possibly relevant. The Plaintiff 

has previously identified his e-mail addresses in those discovery requests. Further, these e-mails 

were produced, so any further information about his family member e-mails is harassing, as is 

the request for internet history.

Request No. 50 (The request sought the script that is used by the Plaintiff and his family when 

taking phone calls from telemarketers. No specific bate number was provided. RCL asked the 

Plaintiff to provide the bates number and the Plaintiff refused)

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 221 Filed: 10/17/14 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:3804
8

Contrary to RCCL’s statement, the Parties discovery conference focused on the answers 

to interrogatories and Plaintiff has no objection to identifying the scripts, which were produced at 

Charvat 2271-2288. RCCL’s claimed confusion about the call logs is curious however, as the 

call logs were used by Defendants as exhibits at Mr. Charvat’s deposition.

Request No. 51 (The request sought documents and communications relating to the system the 

Plaintiff used to record telephone calls made to his residential telephone line.) 

Plaintiff’s response is complete. In response to defendant’s Rule 37 request for 

supplementation to refer specifically to documents that are responsive, the plaintiff responded as 

follows: 

o Recordings of the Robocalls made to Mr. Charvat’s home. These recordings were 

attached as exhibits to the original Complaint and are in already in the possession 

of all defendants. 

o Bates 33-45: Transcripts and logs of the illegal telemarketing calls at issue. 

Mr. Charvat testified about his recording system at his deposition and identified the 

equipment in his interrogatories. He has no other documents to produce.

Request No. 52 (This request sought documents relating to the registration of the Plaintiff’s 

residential telephone line with the National Do-Not-Call-Registry. RCCL states that the Plaintiff 

answered that documents had been provided, but failed to identify the documents by bates

number. RCCL further objects that the supplemental response included bates numbers but also 

referred to Mr. Charvat’s deposition in its entirety and all exhibits. The reference to an entire 

deposition and all exhibits is not a response.)

Plaintiff’s response included specific reference to his NDNCR verification, and his 

deposition where he explains registering for it. RCCL has received a complete response. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 221 Filed: 10/17/14 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:3805
9

Request No. 53 (This request sought documents relating to the Plaintiff’s recording or 

documenting of telephone calls alleged in the pleadings in this case. Per #52 above, the original 

response simply referred to discovery otherwise produced to other Defendants with no bates

numbers. The supplemental response bates numbers and the telephone recordings attached to the 

original complaint.)

Plaintiff’s response identified the recording of the calls, the calls themselves (which were 

attached to the amended complaint), transcripts of the calls and logs for the calls. Plaintiff has 

no other documents, and it’s not clear what other documents RCCL thinks Plaintiff has.

Request No. 54 (Fee Agreements in this Case)

Plaintiff has produced everything he has to produce.

Request No. 55 (Our Fee Agreement in other Cases)

This request is irrelevant. Plaintiff identified other litigation his counsel have represented 

him in and identified every TCPA case he’s filed.

Request No. 57 (This request sought documents relating to the Plaintiff’s employment at any 

law firm, but the Plaintiff declined to produce the documents yet about the Plaintiff’s education 

and background relate to adequacy issues.)

Plaintiff provided the following objection, and stands by it: 

ANSWER: OBJECTION: The plaintiff declines to produce documents to the extent they 

have no relationship whatsoever to this case and, therefore, are not reasonably calculated to lead 

to discoverable evidence. Answering further, the request is overbroad, vague, oppressive and 

calculated to violate plaintiff’s privacy rights. 

This is the type of overbroad discovery request previously rejected by the Court.

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 221 Filed: 10/17/14 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:3806
10

Request No. 58 (This request sought all of the documents in the Plaintiff’s TCPA “Library” (His 

entire TCPA case file).

Plaintiff responds that this request is harassing and not relevant to his claim—and has 

already been rejected by this Court. See Dkt. 187, Order on Defendant Resort Marketing Group, 

Inc.’s Motion to Compel, at 3 as to RMG Request 12. 

Request No. 59 and 60 (Request 59 sought any letters the Plaintiff may have sent to 

telemarketers prior to filing TCPA lawsuits, including Travel Services and the cruise lines. 

Request No. 60 sought all documents relating to the number of TCPA claims the Plaintiff has 

made and how those claims were resolved.)

There was no letter to any party in this matter, so that request is the functional equivalent 

of requesting all of the files related to Plaintiff’s unrelated claims. It is unduly burdensome and 

harassing to request the Plaintiff to produce his entire file for any TCPA claim he has litigated. 

Plaintiff did identify every single filed action, which is more than sufficient for any legitimate 

purpose in this action.

Request No. 64 (This request seeks documents referring or relating to a script or set dialogue 

used by the Plaintiff when speaking to telemarketers)

Plaintiff has produced what he has, which is his telemarketing call log. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 221 Filed: 10/17/14 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:3807
11

CONCLUSION

For all of the above reasons, Mr. Charvat respectfully requests that this Court DENY in 

the entirety the “Defendant, Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.’s Motion to Compel Answer, or 

Better Answers, to First Request for Production.

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Edward A. Broderick

Edward A. Broderick

Broderick Law, P.C.

125 Summer St., Suite 1030

Boston, MA 02110

(617) 738-7080

(617) 314-7783 facsimile

ted@broderick-law.com

Pro Hac Vice

Alexander H. Burke

Burke Law Offices, LLC

155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020

Chicago, IL 60601

Phone: (312) 729-5288

aburke@burkelawllc.com

Matthew P. McCue

The Law Office of Matthew P. McCue

1 South Ave., Third Floor

Natick, MA 01760

(508) 655-1415

mmccue@massattorneys.net

Pro Hac Vice

Dated: October 17, 2014

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 221 Filed: 10/17/14 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:3808
12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing was filed through the ECF system and will be sent 

electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF), 

and copies have been electronically mailed to counsel of record.

/s/ Edward A. Broderick

Edward A. Broderick

Dated: October 17, 2014

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 221 Filed: 10/17/14 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:3809