Escano v. Verified Docu Service, Inc. et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
RUBEN ESCANO,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 2:25-cv-00513-JB-JHR
VERIFIED DOCU SERVICE, INC. and
JARREN CLORES a/k/a BRANDON CLORES,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY [DOC. 82]
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Pro Se Plaintiff Ruben Escano’s Second
Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant Verified Docu Service, Inc. and for Costs (“motion
to compel”) [Doc. 82]. Verified Docu Service filed a response, [Doc. 89], and Escano filed a reply
[Doc. 91]. Having reviewed the briefing, case record, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS IN
PART Escano’s motion to compel discovery and grants Escano’s request for attorney fees and
costs.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Escano filed suit against Defendants on May 9, 2025, in New Mexico state court for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., the New
Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act, NMSA 1978, § 57-12-22, and trespass to chattels. [Doc. 1, at
18–23]. Defendants removed to federal court on June 1, 2025, and answered the complaint on June
6th. [Docs. 1, 3, 4]. Escano alleged that between August 24, 2018, and May 11, 2024, he received
at least fifty-eight auto-dialed telemarketing calls from Verified Docu Service despite his number’s
listing on the National Do Not Call Registry. [Doc. 1, at 11–12]. Escano further alleged that
Verified Docu Service would instruct its employees not to identify their employer and “spoofed”
Case 2:25-cv-00513-SMD-JHR Document 98 Filed 06/08/26 Page 1 of 11

2
their calls so that Escano’s caller ID would not reflect Verified Docu Service’s number. [Doc. 1,
at 12]. However, all calls would market Verified Docu Service’s debt consolidation services, and
a representative confirmed to Escano that the company had directed the calls. Id.
In its answer, Verified Docu Service denied that it spoofed its phone numbers, instructed
employees to not identify it on calls, marketed debt consolidation services, or was responsible for
the calls Escano alleged he received. [Doc. 4, at 4–5]. The Court issued a scheduling order on
September 3, 2025, and the parties began discovery. [Doc. 19]. Escano filed his first motion to
compel on December 30, 2025, which the Court denied as untimely on April 27, 2026. [Doc. 83].
Escano filed his second motion to compel on April 24, 2026, seeking to compel supplemental
disclosures from Verified Docu Service on interrogatories nos. 20, 21, and request for admission
no. 5. [Doc. 82].
II. APPLICABLE LAW
Discoverable material includes “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s
claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Factors
include the importance of the issues at stake, the importance of the sought material to resolving
those issues, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources and relative access to information,
and the burden of producing the sought material compared to its likely benefit. Id. Courts enjoy
considerable discretion to balance these factors when permitting or denying discovery. Gomez v.
Martin Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511, 1520 (10th Cir. 1995). The scope of discovery is
presumptively broad: material that has any possibility of relevance to a claim or defense, even if
the material itself is not admissible at trial, may be discoverable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Sugar
v. Tackett, No. 20-cv-00331, 2021 WL 5769463, at *4 (D.N.M. Dec. 6, 2021) (quotation omitted).
This liberal treatment of discovery does not require courts to approve an “unwieldy,
burdensome, and speculative fishing expedition.” Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Grp. Ins. Plan,
Case 2:25-cv-00513-SMD-JHR Document 98 Filed 06/08/26 Page 2 of 11

3
619 F.3d 1151, 1163 (10th Cir. 2010) (interpreting prior iteration of Rule 26(b)). The rules instead
permit “parties to flesh out allegations for which they have at least a modicum of objective
support.” Kennicott v. Sandia Corp., 327 F.R.D. 454, 465 (D.N.M. 2018) (quoting Rivera v. DJO,
LLC, No. 11-cv-01119, 2012 WL 3860744, at *1 (D.N.M. Aug. 27, 2012)). Overbroad discovery
requests include those that employ omnibus terms like “concerning” or “relating to” in
combination with broad categories of information. Moses v. Halstead, 236 F.R.D. 667, 672 (D.
Kan. 2006); see also Regan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co., 526 F.3d 641, 649 (10th Cir. 2008) (discussing
duty to phrase discovery requests with “reasonable particularity”). In addition, failure to specify
relevant timeframes, subject matter, or locations create overbreadth and undue burden. Baylon v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 12-cv-00052, 2013 WL 12164723, at *3 (D.N.M. Nov. 20, 2013);
see also Coolidge v. United States, No. 21-cv-00307, 2022 WL 1026947, at *4 (D.N.M. Apr. 6,
2022).
So long as a discovery request appears relevant on its face, the party who objects to the
discovery must show it falls outside Rule 26(b)(1)’s scope. Cardenas v. Dorel Juv. Grp., Inc., 232
F.R.D. 377, 382–83 (D. Kan. 2005). The party must specify their objection; boilerplate
statements—that a request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, or privileged, for example—will
receive “boilerplate overrulings.” AerSale, Inc. v. City of Roswell, No. 22-cv-00218, 2023 WL
8005213, at *5 (D.N.M. Nov. 17, 2023) (quoting Beard v. Cnty. of Stanislaus, No. 21-cv-00841,
2022 WL 2704856, at *8 (E.D. Cal. July 12, 2022)). In addition, a party cannot preserve objections
by producing discovery notwithstanding or “without waiving” those objections. See Heuskin v.
D&E Transp., LLC, No. 19-cv-00957, 2020 WL 1450575, at *2 (D.N.M. Mar. 25, 2020)
(interrogatories); see also Wagner Equip. Co. v. Wood, No. 11-cv-00466, 2012 WL 12862336, at
*6 (D.N.M. Nov. 21, 2012) (requests for production). A party must either disclose fully or object
to the discovery request, withhold information as a result, and state it has done so. See Smash
Case 2:25-cv-00513-SMD-JHR Document 98 Filed 06/08/26 Page 3 of 11

4
Tech., LLC v. Smash Sols., LLC, 335 F.R.D. 438, 447 (D. Utah 2020). Courts may exercise their
discretion to modify improper discovery requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C); see Punt v. Kelly
Servs., 862 F.3d 1040, 1047 (10th Cir. 2017).
III. ANALYSIS
A. The Court Will Require Verified Docu Service to Respond to a Modified
Interrogatory No. 20 and Supplement Its Response to Interrogatory No. 21.
For interrogatory no. 20, Escano asked Verified Docu Service to “[i]dentify the phone
numbers [it] used to receive and/or send phone calls, voicemails, and/or text messages, at any time
between January 1, 2013[,] to January 1, 2026.” [Doc. 82-1, at 6]. Verified Docu Service objected
to the interrogatory “on the grounds that it is overbroad and seeks information . . . not relevant to
a party’s claims or defenses.” [Doc. 82-2, at 3].
Escano argues that Verified Docu Service relies on an improper boilerplate objection which
the Court should overrule. [Doc. 82, at 3]. Furthermore, Escano asserts these numbers are relevant
to showing Verified Docu Service made the calls at issue in this case, investigating whether the
company has used numbers connected to illegal telemarketing, and responding to Verified Docu
Service’s contention that he may have consented to the calls. Id. at 4. Verified Docu Service objects
that the 2013–2026 timeframe is overbroad due to Escano’s allegation that the calls to him did not
begin until 2018. [Doc. 89, at 3–4]. In addition, Verified Docu Service argues that Escano’s
allegations of “spoofing” means that no number connected to Verified Docu Service would have
appeared on Escano’s caller ID if his allegations are true. Id. at 5.
For interrogatory no. 21, Escano asked Verified Docu Service:
[o]ut of the individuals with a business relationship with [Verified Docu Service]—
including but not limited to employees, agents, contractors, and vendors—at any
time between August 23, 2018[,] to May 12, 2024, how many of these individuals
were provided with a copy of the document produced by [Verified Docu Service]
in discovery and labeled with Bates Nos. DEFENDANTS--1 through
DEFENDANTS—3?
Case 2:25-cv-00513-SMD-JHR Document 98 Filed 06/08/26 Page 4 of 11

5
[Doc. 82-1, at 5]. The document produced refers to Verified Docu Service’s compliance
procedures for the TCPA. Verified Docu Service objected that the interrogatory was overbroad
and sought irrelevant information, but “subject to and without waiving” that objection, responded
that it did not “keep a running tally” of who received its procedures. [Doc. 82-2, at 3].
Escano argues that his interrogatory has facial relevance to whether Verified Docu Service
complied with the TCPA’s requirements or willfully or negligently failed to do so. [Doc. 82, at 5].
To the extent Verified Docu Service could not answer the interrogatory with precision, it still had
a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation and respond as completely as it could. Id. at 6. Verified
Docu Service responds that its response was sufficiently complete. [Doc. 89, at 6–7].
1. Applicable law for interrogatories under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33
A party may serve an interrogatory inquiring about any matter within the scope of
discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). For entity parties, an officer or agent must answer the
interrogatory by furnishing “all available information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1)(B). “Available
information” includes all information the agent or officer can obtain with reasonable effort,
including from other agents, representatives, and current and former employees. Dalton v. Town
of Silver City, No. 17-cv-01143, 2021 WL 4307149, at *6 (D.N.M. Sep. 22, 2021). However, the
officer or agent need not expend undue labor and expense on an extensive investigation. City of
Las Cruces v. United States, No. 17-cv-00809, 2021 WL 330062, at *8 (D.N.M. Feb. 1, 2021). If
the party cannot give a full, fair, and specific answer to an interrogatory, its officer or agent must
state so under oath and describe the efforts undertaken to give a complete response. Id.
2. The Court will order Verified Docu Service to respond to a modified version of
interrogatory no. 20.
The Court finds that although Verified Docu Service made improper objections, the
interrogatory is facially overbroad. Verified Docu Service relied on a boilerplate objection by
failing to specify what about the interrogatory was overbroad. AerSale, Inc., 2023 WL 8005213,
Case 2:25-cv-00513-SMD-JHR Document 98 Filed 06/08/26 Page 5 of 11

6
at *5). While that error can subject the objection to overruling, the objection may still be considered
where the interrogatory is facially overbroad. Deakin v. Magellan Health, Inc., 340 F.R.D. 424,
434 (D.N.M. 2022); see also Renteria v. Liberty Mut. Grp., No. 23-cv-01093, 2025 WL 1827306,
at *2 (D.N.M. July 2, 2025). Here, Escano requests phone records stretching years before he
alleged Verified Docu Service made its unsolicited calls. [Doc. 82, at 4]; Hurster v. Specialized
Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 21-cv-00318, 2021 WL 9540305, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 14, 2021)
(discovery request for phone information prior to the dates the alleged TCPA violations occurred
overbroad). While Escano asserts that he phrased the interrogatory to mirror Verified Docu
Service’s previous subpoenas, those subpoenas have since been withdrawn. Id. Escano also argues
that this timeframe is relevant to Verified Docu Service’s contention that he may have consented
to any calls from them. Id. But Verified Docu Service made that contention in connection to its
subpoenas, and Verified Docu Service now argues that any time prior to April 24, 2018, is
irrelevant. [Doc. 89, at 4].
However, Verified Docu Service’s phone numbers that it used to make calls during the
time Escano alleges the TCPA violations occurred—April 24, 2018, to May 11, 2024—have facial
relevance. Hurster, 2021 WL 9540305, at *2. Verified Docu Service objects to disclosing its
numbers during this time frame on the grounds that Escano alleges they “spoofed” their numbers
so they would not appear on Escano’s caller ID. Therefore, Verified Docu Service’s numbers
would not match any of the numbers in Escano’s phone logs. [Doc. 89, at 5]. The Court finds this
argument unpersuasive. First, the numbers used are still relevant for identifying Verified Docu
Service in any call logs already in Escano’s possession or obtained through discovery. Second,
Case 2:25-cv-00513-SMD-JHR Document 98 Filed 06/08/26 Page 6 of 11

7
Verified Docu Service’s argument paradoxically implies that the more successful a defendant is in
obscuring unsolicited calls in a TCPA case, the less discoverable its call information becomes.1
Therefore, the Court ORDERS Verified Docu Service to disclose all phone numbers it used
to receive and/or send phone calls, voicemails, and/or text messages between April 24, 2018, and
May 11, 2024.
3. The Court overrules Verified Docu Service’s objections to interrogatory no. 21.
The Court overrules Verified Docu Service’s objections to interrogatory no. 21. First,
whether and how Verified Docu Service trained its employees on the requirements of the TCPA
is facially relevant to whether they knowingly or recklessly disregarded those requirements. Edeh
v. Midland Credit Mgt., Inc., 748 F. Supp. 2d 1030, 1044–45 (D. Minn. 2010); 47 U.S.C. §
227(b)(3) (availability of treble damages). But Verified Docu Service objected with improper
boilerplate objections and qualifications. AerSale, Inc., 2023 WL 8005213, at *5; Smash Tech.,
335 F.R.D. at 447. Second, Rule 33 imposes an obligation on entity parties to furnish “all available
information” that it can obtain through a reasonable search of its records and employees. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 33(b)(1)(B); City of Las Cruces, 2021 WL 330062, at *8. Thus, even if Verified Docu
Service cannot identify individual employees, agents, contractors, and vendors, it still had an
obligation to investigate and respond to the thrust of Escano’s interrogatory: what fraction of
Verified Docu Service’s employees, agents, contractors, and vendors were informed of their TCPA
obligations pursuant to company policy? To the extent Verified Docu Service cannot answer the
interrogatory completely, it has an obligation to describe what efforts it took to do so.
Therefore, the Court overrules Verified Docu Service’s objections to interrogatory no. 20
and ORDERS the company to respond to the interrogatory as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33.
1 Verified Docu Service also argues that the Supreme Court in Oppenheimer Fund established that discovery of events
and facts outside of a claim’s statute of limitations is improper. [Doc. 89, at 4]. But Oppenheimer interpreted a prior
version of Rule 26(b)(1) and otherwise stated that events occurring prior to an “applicable limitations period” can be
relevant to the issues in a case. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978).
Case 2:25-cv-00513-SMD-JHR Document 98 Filed 06/08/26 Page 7 of 11

8
B. Verified Docu Service’s Response to Request for Admission No. 5 Is Insufficient.
For request for admission no. 5, Escano asked Verified Docu Service to “[a]dmit that the
email produced in discovery and labeled with Bates No. ESCANO-000008, is an email sent by
Jacob Perez on October 24, 2022.” [Doc. 82-1, at 6]. Verified Docu Service responded that it “is
without sufficient information to either admit or deny this request for admission on the grounds
that Jacob Perez is no longer associated with Verified Docu Service.” [Doc. 82-3, at 2].
Escano argues that the response is insufficient because Verified Docu Service had a duty
to make a reasonable investigation to determine the author of the October 24th email, even if the
actual author had since departed the company. [Doc. 82, at 7]. If it still cannot identify the author,
Verified Docu Service must specify the efforts it made to do so. Id. Verified Docu Service responds
that only Jacob Perez could verify if he wrote the email, but it has no obligation to inquire with
former employees or otherwise describe its efforts to answer the request. [Doc. 89, at 8–10].
1. Applicable law for requests for admission under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36
Pursuant to Rule 36, a party may serve another party a written request to admit or deny the
truth of any matter within the scope of discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1). Unlike other discovery
methods designed to obtain unknown information, requests for admission “expedite trials by
establishing as true certain material facts without the necessity of formal proof.” Keen v. Detroit
Diesel Allison, 569 F.2d 547, 554 (10th Cir. 1978) (citations omitted). A party may ask for a factual
admission, a party’s belief about how relevant law applies to certain facts, or the genuineness of a
described document. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1)(A)–(B). However, a request for admission may not
ask about unrelated law nor demand a party concede a legal conclusion. Stark-Romero v. Nat’l
R.R. Passenger Co. (AMTRAK), 275 F.R.D. 551, 554 (D.N.M. 2011).
In response to a request for admission, a party must either admit, deny, state with detail
why the party can do neither, or assert that it does not possess the knowledge to admit or deny
Case 2:25-cv-00513-SMD-JHR Document 98 Filed 06/08/26 Page 8 of 11

9
despite reasonably inquiry. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). The party may do so to all or to part of the
request. Id. If a request for admission threatens to convey an unwarranted or unfair inference, a
party may also qualify or contextualize their admission or denial. Lowrey v. Portis, No. 23-cv-
00372, 2024 WL 2781892, at *5 (D.N.M. May 30, 2024).
Performing a “reasonable inquiry” for entity parties means consulting officers,
administrators, agents, or other personnel who conceivably and realistically could answer or lead
to the answer to the request for admission. SEC v. Goldstone, 300 F.R.D. 505, 524 (D.N.M. 2014).
In this District, a party’s statement that it undertook a reasonable inquiry without adding further
detail is sufficient. Id.; Stark-Romero, 275 F.R.D. at 555; N.M. ex rel. Balderas v. Real Est. L. Ctr.,
P.C., 405 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1252–53 (D.N.M. 2019).
2. Verified Docu Service must supplement its response to request for admission no. 5.
The Court finds that Verified Docu Service gave an improper response to the request for
admission. While this District does not require detailed descriptions of the efforts a party takes to
respond to a request for admission, Verified Docu Service still has an obligation to make those
efforts. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Verified Docu Service argues it satisfied that obligation by stating
the alleged author of the email no longer works for it, and Rule 36 imposes no obligations on an
entity party to contact a former employee to answer a request for admission. [Doc. 89, at 8–10].
As support, Verified Docu Service relies on the Court’s decision in Oliveros v. Board of County
Commissioners, in which the Court cited language from out-of-circuit cases that a company does
not need to interview third parties or otherwise bound itself to the representations of third parties
through a request for admission. Oliveros v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, No. 02-cv-00732, 2003 WL
27385057, at *2–3 (D.N.M. July 14, 2003).
The Court finds these decisions inapplicable. In Oliveros and other decisions, a “reasonable
inquiry” under Rule 36 did not categorically include or exclude conferring with former employees.
Case 2:25-cv-00513-SMD-JHR Document 98 Filed 06/08/26 Page 9 of 11

10
E.g., Oliveros, 2003 WL 27385057, at *2 (citing T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Fund, Inc. v.
Oppenheimer & Co., 174 F.R.D. 38, 43 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)); Dubin v. E.F. Hutton Grp. Inc., 125
F.R.D. 372, 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). In these cases, the courts found that conferral with a third party
was unnecessary when it would require the responding party to take on excessive time and expense,
effectively depose the third party on behalf of the requesting party, or be bound by the averments
of someone with conflicting interests. Oliveros, 2003 WL 27385057, at *3; T. Rowe Price Small-
Cap Fund, 174 F.R.D. at 44; Dubin, 125 F.R.D. at 374–75 (collecting cases); Al-Jundi v.
Rockefeller, 91 F.R.D. 590, 594 (W.D.N.Y. 1981). Thus, Verified Docu Service failing to consult
with the alleged author of the email based on his employment status alone was improper.
Furthermore, the request for admission did not ask Verified Docu Service to admit something only
Jacob Perez could know, at least not the face of the request; Verified Docu Service does not
indicate it made any effort to review its records, archives, or consult with active employees to
determine the email’s author. See Goldstone, 300 F.R.D. at 524.
Therefore, the Court finds that Verified Docu Service’s response to request for admission
no. 5 is incomplete and ORDERS Verified Docu Service to supplement its answer pursuant to the
requirements of Rule 36(a)(4).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS IN PART Escano’s motion to compel and
ORDERS Verified Docu Service to respond to the modified interrogatory no. 20, interrogatory no.
21, and request for admission no. 5 as directed above. Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(C), the Court may
apportion the parties’ attorneys fees and costs for their briefing on a motion to compel when the
motion is granted in part and denied in part. The Court finds that an award of reasonable fees and
costs to Escano is proper. While the Court did not grant Escano’s motion in full, it only did so
Case 2:25-cv-00513-SMD-JHR Document 98 Filed 06/08/26 Page 10 of 11

11
because Escano requested phone records for dates that Verified Docu Service initially put at issue
with its subpoenas before withdrawing them.
Consequently, Escano may file a motion for his reasonable attorney fees and costs, if any,
within fourteen (14) days of this Order. Verified Docu Service may file a response, if any,
contesting the amount of fees and costs requested within fourteen (14) days of Escano’s filing of
his motion for fees and costs. Escano may file a reply, if any, within seven (7) days of Verified
Docu Service filing its response.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________
HON. JERRY H. RITTER
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00513-SMD-JHR Document 98 Filed 06/08/26 Page 11 of 11