SHANAHAN v. MFS SUPPLY LLC: Discovery Errors and Key Lessons

Case Snapshot in Plain English

Terrence Shanahan filed a putative class action against MFS Supply LLC alleging the company sent
unsolicited marketing text messages to his cell phone even though his number was allegedly on the National Do Not Call Registry.
According to the filings, the dispute involved texts advertising products (including lockboxes) marketed to real estate agents.

In March 2025, the court issued an order denying two motions:

• Plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling order and amend the complaint (to adjust the class definition and
  add facts Plaintiff said were learned in discovery).
• Defendant’s motion to compel (seeking more complete discovery responses, “deemed admissions,” and permission
  to exceed the default interrogatory limit).

What’s important here is why both motions failed. The court didn’t just say “no.” It explained the kinds of procedural
and record-building mistakes that turn otherwise-arguable requests into dead-on-arrival motions.

Plaintiff’s Discovery-Driven Amendment Missteps

Amending pleadings in federal court is often sold as a friendly, welcoming processlike a potluck where everyone brings a casserole
and the judge says, “Sure, add more facts.” That’s Rule 15 energy.

But once there’s a scheduling order with a deadline to amend, a late amendment is no longer a potluck. It’s airport security.
You don’t get through by smiling. You get through by showing good cause under Rule 16(b), and the main currency
you’re paying with is diligence.

1) The “We Learned This in Discovery” Argument Didn’t Land

Plaintiff argued that discoveryparticularly a Rule 30(b)(6) depositionrevealed facts supporting a revised class definition
(including information about a larger text campaign and a nationwide list).

The court’s response (paraphrased into normal-human language) was:
New to you doesn’t always mean newly discovered. If the source of the information was available earlier, or if you could
have pursued it earlier with reasonable diligence, “discovery” doesn’t automatically create good cause.

2) Some “New Facts” Were… About Plaintiff’s Own Phone Numbers

One of the proposed amendments included additional facts about Plaintiff’s own phone numberslike which was personal, which were used
for business operations, and whether he had a landline.

Courts are generally unimpressed when a party says, “We just discovered my own phone situation.” The judge’s point was simple:
those facts were in Plaintiff’s possession from day one. If they mattered, they belonged in the complaint before the amendment deadline.

3) Timing Matters Because Discovery Doesn’t Wait for Your Rewrite

Another practical reason late amendments are hard: they create a domino effect.
Change the class definition late and you often need:

• new written discovery,
• new depositions,
• new expert work,
• and a brand-new schedule that makes everyone’s calendar cry.

The court noted that discovery milestones had already been moving forward, and allowing a late amendment would likely cause delay and additional burdens.
That’s the kind of prejudice courts take seriouslyespecially when the party seeking amendment can’t show diligence.

Practical Lesson: “Rule 15” Is Not a Time Machine

You can’t use Rule 15’s “freely give leave” vibe to undo Rule 16’s scheduling reality. Once a deadline has passed, the question becomes:
Why wasn’t this done on time? And the most persuasive answer is never “because we were busy.” It’s evidence of diligence:
what you did, when you did it, why you couldn’t do it sooner, and how the new information truly couldn’t have been obtained earlier.

Defense Motion-to-Compel Mistakes

If Plaintiff’s problem was “too late,” Defendant’s problem was “too fastand without the required pit stops.”
A motion to compel often feels like a power move:
“Judge, make them answer!”
But federal courts (and especially specific districts) expect you to follow procedural steps before you ask for judicial intervention.

1) Skipping the Required Pre-Motion Process

In this case, the court emphasized that the applicable case progression order and the district’s management practices required
parties to request a conference with the magistrate judge before filing certain discovery motions.
The motion to compel was denied in part because that process wasn’t properly followed.

Translation: in some courts, you don’t file first and explain later. You confer, you request the conference, you get leave (when required),
and then you file. If you skip that sequence, your motion can lose before anyone reaches the merits.

2) The “Meet and Confer” Wasn’t Shown with the Detail the Local Rules Demand

Many lawyers write “the parties met and conferred” the way people write “live, laugh, love” on a wooden sign.
It’s comforting. It’s vague. It’s not proof.

Local rules often require a genuine good-faith effort and details like dates, methods, and participants. The court faulted the motion
for not showing the required “personal consultation” and not providing supporting documentation of real, meaningful efforts to resolve the dispute.

3) Not Bringing the Receipts

Even if the court had excused the procedural missteps, the motion still had a record problem.
When you ask a judge to compel discovery, you’re basically saying:

“Here’s the request. Here’s the response. Here’s why the objection fails. Here’s what should be ordered instead.”

The court noted that the motion did not supply a proper record to evaluate the dispute. One example:
Plaintiff objected that Defendant’s second set of interrogatories exceeded Rule 33’s default limit of 25 (including discrete subparts).
But Defendant didn’t provide enough contextsuch as the first set of interrogatoriesto let the court assess whether the objection had merit,
and Defendant didn’t meaningfully address the substance of the objection.

4) “Your Production Is Insufficient” Is Not a MotionIt’s a Feeling

Defendant also sought to compel more complete responses to requests for production. But broadly alleging inadequacy without pinpointing
which requests are deficient and why creates a problem: the court can’t do a targeted ruling.

A good motion to compel is specific. It’s organized. It treats each disputed request like a mini-argument with a clean record.
Otherwise, judges hear: “We’re unhappy.” And unhappy is not a discovery standard.

Practical Lesson: Discovery Motions Are Local-Rule Traps (So Read the Map)

Federal rules set the baseline, but local rules and case-specific progression orders often add extra gates:
conferences, certifications, formatting, evidentiary attachments, and deadlines tied to discovery cutoffs.
If you ignore those, you’re not filing a motion to compelyou’re filing a motion to annoy.

Requests for Admission: The “Three-Day Late” Problem

Requests for admission (RFAs) are the discovery equivalent of asking,
“Just say it out loud: the light was red.”
They can narrow issues fastor blow up your case if you miss the deadline.

Defendant asked the court to deem Plaintiff’s RFAs admitted because Plaintiff served responses late.
Plaintiff’s responses were late by a small margin (days, not months).

Here’s the key part: under Rule 36, late responses can result in admissionsbut courts can permit withdrawal or refuse to enforce
“gotcha” admissions when (1) it promotes resolution on the merits and (2) the opposing party isn’t prejudiced in maintaining its case.

In this dispute, the court was not persuaded that the brief delay caused meaningful prejudice, and it allowed the responses to stand rather than
treating the matters as conclusively admitted.

Practical Lesson: RFAs Are Sharp ToolsHandle With Deadline Gloves

• If you’re serving RFAs: track response deadlines like they’re medication times.
• If you’re responding: don’t assume “professional courtesy” is a legal doctrine.
• If you’re moving to deem admitted: be ready to show prejudice, not just irritation.

Key Lessons from Shanahan v. MFS Supply LLC

Lesson 1: Diligence Is the Real “Good Cause”

When a scheduling deadline passes, the court’s first question is not “Would the amendment help?”
It’s “Why didn’t you do this when you were supposed to?”
To win a late amendment, you need a timeline that proves diligence: requests served, responses chased, depositions scheduled,
and a clear explanation of why the new facts truly couldn’t be discovered sooner.

Lesson 2: Treat the Case Progression Order Like It’s the Constitution of Your Lawsuit

A scheduling order isn’t a suggestion. It’s the operating system of the case. If it requires a conference before filing a discovery motion,
do that first. If it sets a motion deadline, build internal reminders and work backward.

Lesson 3: “Meet and Confer” Must Be RealAnd Documented

Courts want to see good faith attempts to resolve disputes without judicial involvement. That means:

• a phone call (or real-time conversation), not just email sniping,
• a clear statement of the disputed requests and proposed compromises,
• and a written log of dates, participants, and what was discussed.

If you can’t show that, the court may never reach the merits.

Lesson 4: Build a “Judge-Ready” Record

A motion to compel should let the court rule without guessing. Include:

1. The exact request (interrogatory/RFP/RFA) at issue.
2. The exact response/objection.
3. Why the objection fails under the rules.
4. Why the discovery is proportional and relevant.
5. The specific relief requested (and any narrowing).

Lesson 5: Don’t Outrun Rule 33’s Interrogatory Limit Without Planning

Rule 33’s 25-interrogatory limit (including discrete subparts) is a common tripwire.
If you need more:

• seek stipulation early,
• or move for leave with a tight explanation tied to proportionality,
• and show the court what you already served so it can evaluate your request.

Lesson 6: Discovery “Games” Arguments Need Evidence

Words like “gamesmanship” can be persuasive ifand only ifyou support them with a clean record:
inconsistent responses, evasive productions, contradictions, and documented refusal to cooperate.
Otherwise, it can sound like a tantrum in a suit.

Lesson 7: TCPA Context Matters, But Procedure Still Rules the Day

TCPA cases often involve large datasets (call/text logs, vendor lists, opt-in records, scrub lists against the registry, and marketing workflows).
That can lead to discovery disputes quickly. But no matter how important the evidence is, courts still expect the procedural steps to be followed.

A Quick “Do This, Not That” Checklist

• Do: calendar amendment deadlines at day one. Not that: wait until after depositions to “think about” class definition tweaks.
• Do: confirm local-rule meet-and-confer requirements. Not that: paste “we conferred” without dates, details, and proof.
• Do: attach the key discovery requests/responses. Not that: ask the court to trust your summary.
• Do: request conferences when required. Not that: treat court staff like an optional subscription plan.

Experience-Based Takeaways: What This Looks Like in Real Litigation (500+ Words)

Below are composite, real-world-style scenarios that commonly show up in discovery fights like the one in Shanahan v. MFS Supply LLC.
They’re not claims about any one lawyer or any one case file; they’re patterns that litigators and in-house teams repeatedly run into
and they line up neatly with the court’s “this is why we denied it” reasoning.

1) The “Discovery Will Save My Pleading” Myth

A common mindset is: “We’ll file the complaint with the basics, then discovery will fill in the blanks and we’ll amend later.”
Sometimes that worksif you amend on time. But once an amendment deadline passes, discovery stops being your friend and starts being your
unhelpful roommate who says, “You should’ve taken the trash out last week.”

In practice, the worst version of this looks like a party waiting for depositions to confirm things they could have investigated earlier:
public records, internal client documents, consent language, phone-number histories, or marketing workflows.
When the deadline passes, “we learned it in discovery” often translates (to a judge) into: “we didn’t prioritize it.”

The fix is boringbut it works. Build a pre-deadline “amendment decision point” into your case plan. Even if you don’t have every fact,
you decide: Are we amending? What do we still need? Can we get it before the deadline? If not, what discovery steps are we taking right now
to show diligence later?

2) The Meet-and-Confer That Was Really Just Email Ping-Pong

In many discovery disputes, both sides will sincerely believe they “met and conferred.” One side means, “I sent three emails.”
The other side means, “I replied with a one-line ‘no.’” Neither is what most courts mean by a good-faith consultation.

Real meet-and-confer success usually requires a live conversation and a concrete agenda:
“Here are the five disputed RFPs. Here’s what we can produce. Here’s what we’re withholding and why. Here’s a proposed narrowed request.”
When lawyers skip that and jump straight to motion practice, judges often treat it as avoidable court involvementand punish it by denying the motion.

A practical trick teams use is a “dispute chart” shared before the call:
request number, position, proposed compromise, and what evidence is needed to resolve it. It turns a messy argument into an organized discussion.
If the motion becomes necessary, the chart becomes your roadmapand your record.

3) The Motion to Compel That’s Strong on Emotion and Weak on Exhibits

Discovery motions are uniquely vulnerable to failure because judges cannot rule on vibes. They rule on the record.
A motion that says “their production is insufficient” without showing which requests, what was produced, what’s missing, and why the objection is invalid
forces the court to do detective work. Courts don’t love being drafted into unpaid detective work.

In real practice, the best motions to compel read like a well-labeled museum exhibit:
“Request 12 asked for X. Response said Y. That objection fails because Z. Here’s the narrow order we want.”
It’s less dramatic, but it wins more often.

4) The “Deemed Admissions” Gambit That Backfires

Lawyers sometimes treat requests for admission like a trap door: “If they’re late, we win the facts.”
Courts know that game. If the delay is short and there’s no real prejudice, judges often favor decisions on the merits
over procedural ambushespecially when the case is still actively litigated.

The better approach is to use RFAs strategically: narrow issues, lock down authenticity, streamline trial proof.
If a deadline is missed, you can raise itbut be prepared to explain how the delay actually harmed your ability to litigate
(missed deposition opportunities, expert deadlines impacted, dispositive motion timing disrupted, etc.). “We’re annoyed” rarely equals prejudice.

Bottom Line: Good Litigation Feels Boring

The most successful teams in discovery-heavy cases often look “boring” from the outside:
meticulous calendars, documented meet-and-confers, clean exhibit sets, narrow disputes, and motions supported by a record so clear
the judge can rule without squinting. Shanahan v. MFS Supply LLC is a reminder that “boring” is how you avoid procedural unforced errors
and how you keep discovery from becoming the main character of your lawsuit.

Conclusion: The Case Is a Procedural Mirror

Shanahan v. MFS Supply LLC is valuable not because it rewrites TCPA law, but because it highlights something more universal:
discovery outcomes are often shaped by process discipline.
The plaintiff couldn’t clear Rule 16’s good-cause bar for a late amendment. The defendant couldn’t clear local-rule and scheduling-order gates for a motion to compel,
and didn’t build a strong enough record to win even if those gates were opened.

If you want a single takeaway you can tape to your monitor, make it this:
Deadlines + local rules + a clean record beat clever arguments almost every time.
And if your team treats meet-and-confer like a real step (not a checkbox), you may never need that motion to compel in the first place.