Attorney’s Disappearance Leads Court to Deny TCPA Discovery Sanctions Against Defendant

Case Snapshot

• Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
• Case: Wilson v. MAH Group, Inc., No. 6:25-cv-00855-MTK
• Decision Date: July 8, 2026
• Core Issue: Whether a defendant should be sanctioned for discovery failures caused by its former attorney’s disappearance.
• Key Allegation: Plaintiff argued the defendant failed to comply with discovery obligations and improperly withheld vendor-held records.
• Court Holding: The defendant’s discovery failures were substantially justified under the circumstances, and the plaintiff failed to establish the defendant had legal control over all records maintained by its third-party vendor.
• Outcome: Court denied attorney’s fees and both motions for sanctions while allowing the fee request to be renewed if additional information about the missing attorney emerges.
• Notable Detail: The defendant’s CEO told the court its longtime attorney stopped communicating entirely, prompting concerns that “something terrible had happened.”

A federal judge in Oregon declined to award attorney’s fees or impose discovery sanctions against a defendant in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action after concluding the company’s discovery failures stemmed from the unexplained disappearance of its former attorney, not misconduct by the defendant itself.

In Wilson v. MAH Group, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon ruled that MAH Group Inc., which does business as WolfPak, acted reasonably once it learned its former counsel had stopped communicating with the court, opposing counsel, and even his own client. The July 8 decision provides guidance on Rule 37 discovery sanctions and addresses when companies are considered to have control over records maintained by third-party marketing vendors.

Discovery Breakdown Followed Attorney’s Disappearance

Plaintiff Chet Michael Wilson filed the proposed class action alleging WolfPak violated the TCPA by sending telemarketing calls and text messages without proper consent. The company denied the allegations and asserted the plaintiff had consented to receive the messages.

Discovery quickly became contentious.

After serving discovery requests in July 2025, the plaintiff granted the defendant at least seven deadline extensions requested by its original pro hac vice attorney. When responses were finally served, they contained objections, incomplete answers, and little substantive information.

The attorney acknowledged responsibility for the delays and assured the court additional production would follow. It never did.

The plaintiff successfully moved to compel discovery in December 2025, with the court ordering WolfPak to produce complete responses, including class-wide call records and evidence of written consent.

According to court filings, the defendant’s attorney had effectively disappeared months earlier.

The company’s CEO stated the attorney, whom he had known professionally for years, stopped responding to emails and calls in October 2025. The CEO said the silence was completely out of character and raised concerns that “something terrible had happened.”

The company reportedly did not learn the motion to compel had been granted until local counsel notified it on Dec. 31, 2025.

WolfPak retained new counsel in January 2026, obtained a short extension, and produced amended discovery responses by the court’s revised deadline. Additional supplemental productions followed after discussions with the plaintiff.

Court Rejects Attorney’s Fee Request

The plaintiff sought nearly $14,000 in attorney’s fees related to the motion to compel and the subsequent fee application.

Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 generally requires courts to award reasonable expenses after granting a motion to compel, the rule contains exceptions when the opposing party’s position was substantially justified or when awarding fees would be unjust.

The court found those exceptions applied.

Because the discovery failures appeared attributable to the missing attorney rather than the defendant itself, and because the circumstances surrounding the attorney’s disappearance remained unknown, the court concluded it could not determine whether the conduct warranted fee shifting.

Rather than permanently denying the request, the court denied it without prejudice, leaving open the possibility that the plaintiff could renew the motion if additional information becomes available regarding the attorney’s disappearance.

Sanctions Requests Also Denied

The plaintiff also sought coercive sanctions, including a $300-per-day penalty, alleging WolfPak failed to produce telemarketing records maintained by marketing vendor Yotpo.

The court declined to impose sanctions, finding no evidence of willfulness, bad faith or fault by the defendant after new counsel assumed representation.

Instead, the court found the company worked promptly with third-party vendors, produced substantial supplemental discovery and responded quickly to additional concerns raised by the plaintiff.

The judge characterized the remaining disputes as reasonable disagreements rather than sanctionable misconduct.

Third-Party Vendor Records Remain Key Discovery Issue

The decision also addressed an issue frequently litigated in TCPA cases: whether defendants must produce records maintained by outside marketing vendors.

The plaintiff argued WolfPak controlled Yotpo’s records because it had previously obtained some documents from the vendor.

The court disagreed.

Applying Ninth Circuit precedent, the court explained that “control” for discovery purposes requires a legal right to obtain documents on demand. The ability to persuade a cooperative vendor to voluntarily provide records does not automatically establish that legal right.

WolfPak produced hundreds of pages of documents, including consent-related records and message logs from Yotpo and Klaviyo. The company also asked the plaintiff to identify any additional records sought, an invitation the court noted the plaintiff declined.

The court further observed that Yotpo’s legal counsel submitted a letter stating the platform does not use an automatic telephone dialing system. While the court did not resolve the merits of that issue, it noted the evidence could become relevant to questions surrounding TCPA liability and consumer consent.

Why It Matters for the ARM Industry

The decision highlights several practical lessons for companies involved in TCPA litigation:

• Courts may decline Rule 37 fee awards even after granting a motion to compel if the discovery failures were not caused by the client.
• Companies that promptly replace nonresponsive counsel, communicate with the court, and quickly cure discovery deficiencies may avoid sanctions.
• Records maintained by third-party vendors are not automatically considered within a company’s possession, custody, or control. Plaintiffs may need to pursue discovery directly from vendors when defendants lack a legal right to compel production.

For businesses that rely on third-party marketing platforms, the ruling reinforces the importance of understanding contractual rights to access vendor data before discovery disputes arise.