FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 8/16/2022 | Document No. 605335 | PAGE 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 GRANTING COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO REQUEST 14 

I. 

On August 4, 2022, Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Complaint Counsel filed a

motion to compel Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc. (“Respondent” or “HomeAdvisor”) to 

produce documents responsive to Complaint Counsel’s Request for Production of 

Documents (“Motion”). Respondent filed an opposition to the Motion on August 11, 2022 

(“Opposition”). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED. 

II. 

On June 8, 2022, Complaint Counsel served Respondent with Complaint Counsel’s 

Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents (“Requests”), containing three

requests numbered 14-16. Request 14 seeks production of all recordings of 

HomeAdvisor’s sales calls from a specified six-month period, May through October 2019, 

while Request 15 seeks additional documents related to those recordings, and Request 16 

asks for any quality assurance documents relating to call recordings (“Quality Assurance

Recordings”). Complaint Counsel seeks an order requiring Respondent to produce 

documents responsive to Request 14 within five days. 

Complaint Counsel states that during the investigation prior to this litigation, the 

Commission issued a Civil Investigative Demand (“the CID”) in July 2019, that requested, 

among other things “[a] representative sample . . . between You and service providers, 

including telephone recordings . . . ” and that Respondent produced 1,710 call recordings 

in response to the CID. Complaint Counsel asserts that when Complaint Counsel 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 8/16/2022 | Document No. 605335 | PAGE Page 2 of 4 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

introduced the content of a selected sample of those recordings in support of its April 7, 

2022 motion for summary decision, which was denied on August 2, 2022, Respondent 

asserted that the selected recordings were not representative. 

Complaint Counsel states that Respondent informed Complaint Counsel that 

Respondent would produce approximately 5,000-6,000 sales calls from the specified time 

period for which it had quality assurance documents (i.e., documents responsive to 

Complaint Counsel’s Document Request 16, Quality Assurance Recordings). Complaint 

Counsel states that it proposed to accept those recordings as sufficient in response to 

Request 14 if Respondent made certain stipulations and representations regarding them, so 

that the Quality Assurance Recordings could be treated as representative.

1 

Respondent states that: in response to the CID, it produced 1,710 recordings of 

sales calls with prospective service provider customers; it has produced thousands more 

audio recordings subject to its quality assurance review of sales calls from the May 

through October 2019 period2; and has offered to produce sales recordings from a later 

time period that are easier for Respondent to retrieve and produce.

3 

III. 

Pursuant to Commission Rule 3.31(c)(1): “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). Discovery shall be limited if the Administrative Law Judge determines that it 

is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,” or the “burden and expense of the proposed 

discovery . . . outweigh its likely benefit.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.31(c)(2). “Parties resisting 

discovery of relevant information carry a heavy burden of showing why discovery should 

be denied.” In re Daniel Chapter One, No. 9329, 2009 WL 569694, at *2 (Jan. 9, 2009). 

1 Complaint Counsel stated that it will accept the Quality Assurance Recordings as sufficient production in 

response to Request 14 if Respondent: (1) “represents that the Quality Assurance Recordings consist of all 

extant recorded calls from its internal Quality Assurance process from the period of May 1, 2019 through 

October 31, 2019 for which quality assurance forms exist”; (2) “represents that no retention or deletion

policy or procedures have resulted in any particular category of recorded call being omitted from the Quality 

Assurance Recordings”; and (3) “stipulates that the Quality Assurance Recordings are representative of all 

sales calls from the period of May 1, 2019 through October 31, 2019.” MacDonald Declaration, Exh. G at 2. 

2 Respondent states that Quality Assurance Recordings are stored separately from other sales call audio files, 

making them far easier to retrieve. 

3 Respondent states that sales calls from the specified period have been archived and are retrievable only via 

a “legacy” system that HomeAdvisor no longer operates in its ordinary course of business, and that sales 

calls from a more recent period are less burdensome to retrieve and produce. Complaint Counsel argues the 

sales calls from a more recent period would be after Respondent knew it was the subject of an FTC 

investigation. Respondent will not be allowed to substitute sales calls from a more recent period for the sales 

calls from the requested period. 

2 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 8/16/2022 | Document No. 605335 | PAGE Page 3 of 4 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

If a party fails to comply with any discovery obligation under the rules, Rule 3.38 

authorizes the opposing party to seek an order compelling such compliance. “Unless the

Administrative Law Judge determines that the objection is justified, the Administrative 

Law Judge shall order that . . . [response] be made.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.38(a). 

This case involves three counts alleging that HomeAdvisor misrepresented its 

products in its advertising and sales calls to service providers. See Complaint at 14-15. The 

first element of a deception claim is that the challenged representation was made to 

consumers. In re POM Wonderful, LLC, 155 F.T.C. 1, 6 (2013). In its statement of material 

facts in opposition to Complaint Counsel’s motion for summary decision, Respondent 

stated that all sales of HomeAdvisor’s memberships require a telephone conversation 

between the prospective member and a HomeAdvisor sales agent. (Respondent’s 

Statement of Material Facts at page 185, attached to Respondent’s Opposition to 

Complaint Counsel’s Motion for Summary Decision, filed June 6, 2022). Thus, the 

contents of sales calls are clearly relevant to understanding what claims HomeAdvisor may 

have made to service providers. Respondent does not dispute that the requested recordings 

are relevant, but instead asserts that the Request is unduly burdensome and seeks material 

that is cumulative of sales calls Respondent has already produced. 

To support its claim of undue burden, Respondent submitted a declaration from a 

Senior Manager of Enterprise Infrastructure at HomeAdvisor’s parent company, Angi, Inc. 

(“Angi”). (“Tracy Declaration”). According to the Tracy Declaration: the audio recording 

database that retains these calls is no longer in use; the calls have been moved into archival 

storage; personnel have already spent approximately 80 hours trying to retrieve responsive 

files; and Tracy anticipates it will take approximately 160 hours for Angi to complete its 

review for responsive material. Tracy Declaration ¶¶ 2, 3, 5, 6. This explanation does not 

satisfy Respondent’s heavy burden of showing why discovery should be denied. 

Respondent’s argument that sales calls from May through October 2019 are 

cumulative of sales calls Respondent has already produced also fails. The parties dispute 

whether the call recordings Respondent has already produced are a representative sample. 

If the 1,710 calls Respondent has already produced are not a representative sample, then 

the calls from May through October 2019 would not be cumulative. If the Quality 

Assurance Recordings are not a representative sample, then the calls from May through 

October 2019 would not be cumulative. Complaint Counsel will be permitted to obtain the 

requested additional selections of sales calls. 

IV. 

For the above stated reasons, the Motion is GRANTED, and it is hereby 

ORDERED Respondent shall produce material responsive to Complaint Counsel’s Request 

for Production Request 14 within 14 days. Nothwithstanding the foregoing, Respondent 

may accept the stipulations and conditions regarding the Quality Assurance Recordings 

offered by Complaint Counsel, as set forth in footnote 1 of this Order, as an alternative to 

3 
ORDERED: _ 

 Michael Chappell D.

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: August 16, 2022 

4