Mey v. Phillips: Hide the Ball in a Robocall Case and You Can Lose the Whole Game

The setup

Diana Mey received a flurry of calls promoting debt relief in the form of lower credit card rates. She sued under the TCPA and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, alleging that a web of 25 related parties ran the scheme as alter egos of one another.

Discovery went badly, and not by accident. According to the opinion, the defendants answered only in the present tense, produced just 57 documents in two years (mostly public filings), hid prior lawsuits and a state attorney general investigation, and failed to disclose more than 15 related businesses, some formed while the case was pending. Mey's lawyers dug up much of this themselves from secretary of state records in several states.

The district court first struck the defendants' defenses and then entered default judgment and awarded $828,801.36 in damages, including $270,000 trebled TCPA damages for 180 violations, and state law penalties (for 104 calls).

What the Fourth Circuit held

Judge Thacker wrote for a unanimous panel.

Default was justified. The court walked through its four factor test: bad faith, prejudice, deterrence and whether lesser sanctions would work. Bad faith was "easily met." The hidden material went straight to the alter ego theory. And the defendants had plenty of warning, through repeated motions to compel and a court that said it was "troubled" by their pattern.

Summary judgment was properly mooted. The defendants argued Mey had no evidence they made the calls. The court basically said: that's because you hid it.

Damages weren't limited to 25 pleaded calls. The complaint alleged continuing calls, including calls during the case, and default meant those allegations were admitted. No hearing was needed because the damages were fixed statutory amounts.

Stacking was fine. The TCPA and the state statute punish different conduct, so both can apply to the same call. And separate TCPA violations in one call can each carry their own $500.

Why this one matters

It's not a flashy statutory interpretation case. It's a reminder that procedure can decide everything. Companies tied to lead generation or telemarketing networks sometimes treat discovery as a game. Courts don't.

Takeaways

1. Answer discovery fully (including historical practices and affiliated entities).
2. Don't form new entities mid-case and keep quiet about it.
3. Default admits the complaint's allegations, including alter ego claims.
4. Expect stacked federal and state damages per call where state law allows.

General information only, not legal advice.

Read the Fourth Circuit's opinion in Mey v. Phillips.