If you’re looking for another example of what can go wrong in a TCPA case when you hire the wrong counsel, imagine having to produce a record of every outbound marketing call you’ve made over the last four years AND all consent records for those calls AND having to pay Anthony Paronich’s attorneys fees to boot.
That just happened in Chet Wilson v. MAH Group, Inc. 2025 WL 3653800 (D. Or. Dec. 17, 2025) and somebody is going to get a lump of coal in their stocking.
In Wilson repeat litigator Chet decided to make an example of the defendant for failing to properly respond to discovery. And I cannot emphasize enough how bad the responses here were.
I don’t usually get this granular but let’s just look at one of these real quick.
RFP No. 16 read: Please produce all documents containing any of the following information for each outbound telemarketing call or text message sent by you or your vendors, including those made to the Plaintiff: a) the date and time; b) the caller ID; c) any recorded message used; d) the result; e) identifying information for the recipient; and f) any other information stored by the call detail records.
A huge number of proper objections could be asserted here. I would imagine 2-3 pages of non-boilerplate objections would be necessary to properly address all the problems with this demand.
Just start with the concept of “all documents” containing “any” of the following information. That would mean literally ANY document containing the dame “date” as any call made by the defendant would be responsive to this demand. Totally unthinking. Flat violation of Rule 26(g).
But even if we assume Plaintiff did not mean such an absurd result why a defendant would have to produce, for instance, all identifying information for any outbound call or text pre-certification is beyond me. And the burden here is likely extremely high.
Regardless, the defendant apparently responded with only the following objections:
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad as to the scope of documents regarding “each outbound telemarketing call or text message sent by you or your vendors.” This request is further improperly compound.
Wow. Just wow.
Yeah. That’s not going to get it done.
The Court had no problem rejecting this boilerplate nonsense holding Defendant must respond in full to the demand. (Good luck.)
Plaintiff also seeks all consent records:
17. Please provide all evidence of written consent to make calls in response to the foregoing, including any language that your company asserts complies with the E-Sign Act.
Again, tons of viable objections here– burden most of all.
But the Defendant’s response was a joke, complaining it does not know what “foregoing means”:
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the phrase “all evidence of written consent to make calls in response to the foregoing,” as it is unclear what “foregoing” refers. Moreover, the request is indefinite as to scope and overly broad. It is further vague and may call for a legal conclusion as to the phrase “asserts complies with the E-Sign Act.
Again the court swiftly rejected these totally useless objections and ordered a complete production.
Adding insult to injury the Defendant is also likely to be sanctioned and have to pay Plaintiff’s fees to his counsel– the Wolf, Anthony Paronich!
So not only did the defendant lose it now has to turn over a ton of records at great (and unnecessary) expense AND will likely have to pay thousands of dollars to the Wolf.
That’s a disaster.
And its what happens when you don’t take TCPA class litigation seriously folks.
Class discovery is the most important part of these cases and VERY few firms know how to handle this CRITICAL part of the case properly. That’s one of the reasons Troutman Amin, LLP has been called “the BEST TCPA firm in the nation.”
Give us a call before our rates rise January 1, 2025!
Chat soon.
Discover more from TCPAWorld
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.