Unethical TCPA defense attorneys - what can you do PART 2?
- Peter Schneider
- Jun 28
- 4 min read
Updated: Jul 22
This is part of of what might be a long running series of what to do when dealing with unethical TCPA defense attorneys. See part 1 here.
In our current episode, Part 2, we pick up after the judge ordered Mr. Delfgauw shall promptly re-produce his interrogatory responses with an attestation under oath that complies with Rule 33.
What would an ethical TCPA defendant and defense attorney do? What the court ordered - re-produce his interrogatory responses with an attestation under oath.
What will an unethical TCPA defendant and attorney do? Well, what Joe Delfgauw and Dawn VanDusen did was re-serve the interrogatory responses while surreptitiously changing some interrogatory answers without announcing that they are amended interrogatory answers. At first glace, you would not notice the amended answers. Here is the first page of the original version and the "corrected oath" version. Identical!
But starting on page 2 the defendant made subtle and easy to miss changes to the documents he referenced, and his attorney passed it off as the original answers, just with the correct oath at the bottom.
And they did it again on the next page.
Why did they do this? Notice the original answers references documents in the court docket. The surreptitiously changed answers point to random Bates stamped documents that don't at all match up with the documents on the court docket, basically making the surreptitiously changed answers gibberish.
If you remember from this post, as a rule the person answering the interrogatories can't just point to a document and tell you to go find it yourself, but there are exceptions to the rule and times when referencing other documents is acceptable. But be aware so you don't accept bad answers.
Back to the situation, they didn't make this change to all the answers, they just changed their answer to Interrogatory #26. Remember, the only reason they resubmitted their answers at all is because the judge forced them to make them under oath. The remainder of the answers remained unchanged, still pointing to documents on the docket.
They didn't change the answers on this page either.
But at least they correctly put the answers under oath as the judge ordered!
The lesson:
This is an object lesson on dealing with scumbag lawyers - if they "replace" a document with a "simple" fix - make sure you use a tool like https://www.draftable.com/compare to compare the new and original versions. A simple eye check won't always show the devious work of a scummy defendant and their lawyer.
Another deception
Here is a second deceptive thing TCPA defendants will do. Note in the above images that the answer repeats the interrogatory, and then gives the answer.
Is this the interrogatory that was asked, or did Mr. Delfgauw change the question to one he wanted to answer? Of course that's what he did, this is the Interrogatory that was put to him:
The lesson:
Wait until the defendant has answered the edited questions under oath, then run the pdf compare tool to find where your defendant has secretly edited the questions. In this case the edit was subtle so they thought they could get away with it.
After you catch him, make him answer the actual questions, and then use his deception against him in a deposition or at trial.
*** Update 7/21/2025 - a fabricated document filed under oath?
The plaintiff Nathen Barton filed a motion for contempt over the issue. In his motion he provides a video opening the interrogatory responses directly from attorney Dawn VanDusen's email https://youtu.be/RFhRH0K9SAw
Attorney Dawn Van Dusen filed a response on 7/20/2025, and an associated declaration. In her Response she accuses Mr. Barton of changing the document.
And in her declaration paragraph 3 she swears that the attached Exhibit B "is a true and correct copy of Defendan’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Seventh Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Joe Delfgauw."
There is one little hiccup to Dawn Van Dusen's declaration - Exhibit B was created yesterday! How was a document served in June of 2025 created on July 20, 2025?
And while Mr. Barton provided a video of him opening the file attached to Dawn Van Dusen's email, all Dawn Van Dusen provided was a document created yesterday.
Mr. Barton pointed this all out in his reply, and asked the Judge to do an in camera inspection of the files.
Got a Case Like This?
If you’ve had similar problems with telemarketers, debt collectors, bankruptcy-related harassment, or even general legal related issues, we might research and feature your story in a future blog post. Email your situation or legal filing to peter@nwdebtresolution.com or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com.
Are telemarketers bothering you in Washington or Oregon?
I handle TCPA lawsuits in Washington State and Oregon, and may be able to help.
📞 Call: 206-800-6000 / 971-800-6000
📧 Email: peter@nwdebtresolution.com
Note: The opinions in this blog are mine (Peter Schneider) and do not count as legal advice. If you're thinking of suing over illegal robocalls or Do Not Call list violations, contact me for a legal consultation.
コメント