Hi TCPAWorld!
In Escano v. Verified Docu Service, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00513-JB-JHR, 2026 WL 1650740 (D.N.M. June 8, 2026), the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted in part a pro se plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, ordering Verified Docu Service to produce its phone numbers, supplement its interrogatory response on TCPA training, and revisit its response to a request for admission, and awarded plaintiff his fees and costs.
Ruben Escano alleged he received at least fifty-eight autodialed telemarketing calls from Verified Docu Service over roughly six years despite his number being listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. He further alleged that Verified Docu Service instructed employees not to identify the company on calls and “spoofed” its outbound numbers so they would not appear on his caller ID. Verified Docu Service denied all of it.
On interrogatory no. 20, which sought all phone numbers Verified Docu Service used to send or receive calls, voicemails, and text messages, the company objected that the request was “overbroad and seeks irrelevant information” without further explanation. The court found the boilerplate objection improper but agreed the timeframe was facially overbroad, trimming it from Escano’s requested 2013-2026 window to the alleged violation period of April 24, 2018 through May 11, 2024. Verified Docu Service contended that because Escano alleged spoofing, its real numbers could never appear on his caller ID and therefore were not discoverable. The court rejected it outright, noting the numbers remain relevant for cross-referencing call logs obtained through discovery, and observing that accepting the argument would mean the more successfully a defendant conceals its calls, the less it must produce. That is not how Rule 26 works.
On interrogatory no. 21, which asked what fraction of Verified Docu Service’s employees, agents, and contractors had received the company’s TCPA compliance procedures, the company lodged boilerplate objections and then answered, “subject to and without waiving” them, that it did not “keep a running tally.” The court overruled the objections and ordered a full response. Whether employees were trained on TCPA requirements is directly relevant to willfulness and the availability of treble damages under § 227(b)(3). Under Rule 33, an entity party must furnish all available information obtainable through reasonable investigation. A qualified non-answer is not enough.
On request for admission no. 5, which asked Verified Docu Service to admit that a specific email produced in discovery was sent by former employee Jacob Perez, the company responded that it lacked sufficient information because Perez no longer worked there. The court found this insufficient. Rule 36’s reasonable inquiry obligation requires consulting anyone who could realistically answer the question, including reviewing internal records and consulting current employees. Employment status alone does not end the analysis and Verified Docu Service offered no indication it had done anything beyond noting Perez’s departure.
This decision is a useful reminder of a few points. First, boilerplate discovery objections continue to backfire. Courts will overrule them, and the failure to articulate specific grounds forfeits any procedural advantage. Second, “subject to and without waiving” qualified responses are not a safe harbor: a party must either disclose fully or object, withhold, and say so. Third, TCPA defendants in spoofing-related cases should not assume that alleged concealment of call activity insulates call records from production. And fourth, fee awards on partially granted motions to compel are a real consequence of discovery resistance, even when the moving party does not prevail in full.
We will keep you posted, TCPAWorld!
