FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/26/2022 | DOCUMENT NO. 605669 | Page 1 of 4 | PUBLIC

__________________________________________ 

PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

HomeAdvisor, Inc., a corporation, )

 d/b/a Angi Leads, ) Docket No. 9407

 d/b/a HomeAdvisor Powered By Angi, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

__________________________________________) 

ORDER ON NONPARTY TRIARES’ EMERGENCY PETITION TO STAY 

DEPOSITION AND TO QUASH OR LIMIT SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM 

I. 

On September 15, 2022, nonparty Triares Inc. (“Triares”) filed a motion titled, 

“Emergency Petition to Stay Deposition and to Quash or Limit Subpoena Ad Testificandum” 

(“Motion”). Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Complaint Counsel filed a response opposing 

the Motion on September 15, 2022 (“Opposition”). 

For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED. 

II. 

The Complaint in this matter alleges that Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc. 

(“HomeAdvisor” or “Respondent”) violated the provisions of the FTC Act by making false, 

misleading, or unsubstantiated representations to home service providers about the quality, 

characteristics, and source of information HomeAdvisor collected about potential customers 

(“leads”) that HomeAdvisor sold to the providers. Complaint ¶¶ 61-69. The Complaint further 

alleges that the consumer leads are obtained directly by HomeAdvisor primarily through its own 

website, and also indirectly, through consumer information obtained through affiliates of 

HomeAdvisor (“affiliates”). Complaint ¶¶ 10-16. 

Triares acknowledges that it obtained and sold consumer information to Respondent 

HomeAdvisor, which HomeAdvisor subsequently sold as leads to home service providers. See 

Motion at 1-2. On June 28, 2022, Complaint Counsel issued a subpoena duces tecum 

(“Document Subpoena”) and a subpoena ad testificandum (“Deposition Subpoena”) to Triares 

for information relating to the characteristics of leads it gathered and sold to HomeAdvisor. 

Triares was served with both subpoenas on or about July 7, 2022. Motion at 1. For the next 

several weeks, Triares and Complaint Counsel engaged in negotiations regarding the scheduling 
 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/26/2022 | DOCUMENT NO. 605669 | Page 2 of 4 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

and need for the deposition and the scope of both subpoenas. Triares’ Motion is addressed solely 

to the Deposition Subpoena. 

III. 

Pursuant to Rule 3.31(c)(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, unless otherwise 

limited by order of the Administrative Law Judge, parties may obtain discovery to the extent that 

it may be reasonably expected to yield information relevant to the allegations of the complaint, to 

the proposed relief, or to the defenses of any respondent. 16 C.F.R. § 3.31(c)(1). Pursuant to 

Rule 3.33(c)(1), a party may name as the deponent an organization, which shall designate one or 

more officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its 

behalf. The person(s) so designated shall testify as to matters known or reasonably available to 

the organization. 16 C.F.R. § 3.33(c)(1). 

Discovery shall be limited if the Administrative Law Judge determines that: (i) The 

discovery sought from a party or third party is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is 

obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; 

(ii) The party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain 

the information sought; or (iii) The burden and expense of the proposed discovery on a party or 

third party outweigh its likely benefit. 16 C.F.R. § 3.31(c)(2). In addition, the Administrative 

Law Judge may deny discovery or make any other order that justice requires to protect a party or 

other person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, or to 

prevent undue delay in the proceeding. 16 C.F.R. § 3.31(d). 

Under Rule 3.34, discovery from a nonparty is to be obtained through service of a 

subpoena. According to Rule 3.34(c), a nonparty may seek to quash or limit a subpoena by filing 

such motion “within the earlier of 10 days after service thereof or the time for compliance 

therewith.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.34(c). 

A nonparty seeking to quash a subpoena has the burden of demonstrating why discovery 

should be denied. In re Polypore Int’l, Inc., 2008 WL 4947490, at *6 (Nov. 14, 2008) (denying 

motion to quash subpoena ad testificandum); FTC v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

16178 at *12 (D.D.C.) “Even where a subpoenaed third party adequately demonstrates that 

compliance with a subpoena will impose a substantial degree of burden, inconvenience, and cost, 

that will not excuse producing information that appears generally relevant to the issues in the 

proceeding.” In re Polypore Int’l, Inc., 2009 FTC LEXIS 41, at *10 (Jan. 15, 2009) (quoting In 

re Kaiser Alum. & Chem. Corp., 1976 FTC LEXIS 68, at *19-20 (Nov. 12, 1976)); In re Kaiser 

Alum. & Chem. Corp., 1976 FTC LEXIS 68 at *19-20 (Nov. 12, 1976). 

In its Motion, Triares seeks to quash or limit the deposition.1 First, Triares argues that the 

information Complaint Counsel seeks to elicit from Triares is “not relevant or material to the 

1 Triares’ so-called “emergency petition” to stay the deposition, which was most recently scheduled for September 

1, 2022, is denied. Triares did not file its Motion until September 15, and it appears that the deposition did not take 

place on September 1. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/26/2022 | DOCUMENT NO. 605669 | Page 3 of 4 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

alleged misrepresentations made by Respondent.”2 Motion at 7. Specifically, Triares asserts that 

the Complaint does not make any allegations against it, nor “allege that Triares made any of the 

alleged misrepresentations that are the subject of the Complaint, or that Triares has ever 

communicated with any of Respondent’s Service Providers.” Motion at 2. Triares further asserts 

that “Triares does not communicate or have any relationship with Respondent’s Service 

Providers, and it does not offer or have any involvement in the products or services Respondent 

offers to Service Providers.” Motion at 10. Second, Triares asserts that the Deposition Subpoena 

seeks testimony concerning “highly confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive 

business information and trade secrets” by asking for information regarding websites and other 

“consumer-facing interfaces” or “avenues” used by Triares to generate leads provided to 

Respondent, as well as the URLs (uniform resource locators) associated with such websites. 

Motion at 7. Finally, Triares asserts that sitting for a deposition is unduly burdensome. Based on 

the foregoing, Triares requests that the deposition be quashed, or in the alternative, that (1) the 

deposition be limited to exclude testimony concerning its “highly confidential and competitively 

sensitive business and trade secret information” or (2) “permit Triares to respond to written 

questions submitted by FTC Counsel.” Motion at 7, 13. 

Complaint Counsel argues that the Motion should be denied as untimely because Triares 

did not file its motion to quash or limit the July 7, 2022 subpoenas within 10 days of service, as 

required under Rule 3.34(c), but instead filed two months later on September 15, 2022. Triares 

asserts that Complaint Counsel agreed during negotiations that Triares could delay filing a 

motion to quash pending Complaint Counsel’s review of Triares’ document production and 

completion of negotiations as to the need for a deposition. Complaint Counsel disputes that there 

was any such agreement. Regardless of whether the Commission’s Rules of Practice permit 

parties to extend a rule deadline by agreement, as opposed to seeking leave of court (see Rule 

4.3(b))3

, the proper procedure would have been for Triares to file a motion to extend the 

deadline. Triares’ failure to file its Motion to quash within the 10-day deadline, or to seek an 

extension of the deadline, would be grounds for denying the Motion; however, in consideration 

of the good faith efforts of the parties to negotiate a resolution to their dispute, in the exercise of 

discretion, the merits of the Motion will be addressed. 

Complaint Counsel argues that the testimony sought from Triares is directly relevant to 

Complaint Counsel’s claims that HomeAdvisor made false or misleading claims about leads 

received from affiliates such as Triares. Moreover, according to Complaint Counsel, “Triares is 

the sole party in possession of the truth regarding how it gathered leads.” Opposition at 5. In 

addition, Complaint Counsel argues that the Protective Order issued in this case on March 14, 

2 Triares also asserts that a “higher standard of relevance” must be met when “extremely sensitive documents are 

subpoenaed,” particularly for a nonparty. Motion at 8. Triares cites several federal court cases applying the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not control Commission proceedings. 

See In re L.G. Balfour Co., No. 8435, 61 F.T.C. 1491, 1492, 1962 FTC LEXIS 367, *3-4 (Oct. 5, 1962). Moreover, 

as shown infra, the evidence sought is clearly relevant and Triares has failed to establish an undue burden in 

complying with the Deposition Subpoena. 

3 Rule 4.3(b)(2) provides that, except in circumstances not here presented, “[f]or good cause shown, the 

Administrative Law Judge may, in any proceeding before him or her . . . extend any time limit prescribed by the 

rules in this chapter . . . .” 16 C.F.R § 4.3(b)(2). 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/26/2022 | DOCUMENT NO. 605669 | Page 4 of 4 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

2022, is adequate to protect Triares’ confidential information because it bars disclosure of such 

information to the public or to HomeAdvisor. 

IV. 

Contrary to Triares’ argument, it is readily apparent that Triares possesses information 

relevant to the allegations of the Complaint. The Complaint alleges that HomeAdvisor made 

false or misleading statements about the leads it sells, including leads purchased from third-party 

affiliates; and Triares acknowledges that it obtained and sold leads to HomeAdvisor, which 

HomeAdvisor subsequently sold as leads to home service providers. 

Triares’ assertion that it is burdensome to provide the requested deposition is based solely 

on its own conclusory statement to this effect. This is insufficient to establish an undue burden 

on Triares and therefore does not excuse Triares from providing relevant information. See In re 

Flowers Industries, Inc., 1982 FTC LEXIS 96, *15-16 (Mar. 19, 1982) (“[T]he question is 

whether the demand is unduly burdensome or unreasonably broad. Some burden on subpoenaed 

parties is to be expected and is necessary in furtherance of the agency’s legitimate inquiry and 

the public interest.”). Moreover, Triares has failed to explain how limiting the deposition to 

written questions would be materially less burdensome. 

Finally, Triares’ confidentiality concerns also fail to justify quashing or limiting the 

Deposition Subpoena. First, the information Triares seeks to protect – its website URLs and 

consumer-facing interfaces – appear to be public. Moreover, the Protective Order in this case 

sufficiently protects Triares’ confidentiality interests in discovery material it produces in this 

case, including by deposition. Protective Order ¶¶ 1, 7-8 (providing that material designated as 

confidential, including a recording or transcript of oral testimony, may be disclosed only to 

Respondents’ outside counsel, who may only use the confidential material “for the purposes of 

the preparation and hearing of this proceeding, or any appeal therefrom, and for no other purpose 

whatsoever . . . .”). 

V. 

As set forth above, the Motion is DENIED. 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: September 26, 2022 

4