Republican Party of New Mexico et al v. King et al

Filing 112

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen granting 109 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery for the sole purpose of permitting a second deposition of a Rule 30(b)(6) representative of the New Mexico Secretary of State with questioning limited to the supplemental discovery produced on May 10, 2018. The parties are to also confer and submit an agreed upon order extending the deadlines for filing discovery motions and dispositive motions in light of this ruling. (KBM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Republican Party of New Mexico, Republican
Party of Doña Ana County, Republican Party of
Bernalillo County, New Mexico Turn Around
Harvey Yates, Mark Veteto, and Jalapeño
Corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIV 11-0900 WJ/KBM

Hector Balderas, in his official capacity, New
Mexico Attorney General, Maggie Toulouse
Oliver, in her official capacity, New Mexico
Secretary of State, and District Attorneys Raul
Torrez, Dianna Luce, and Mark D’Antonio, in
their official capacities,
Defendants.

ORDER PERMITTING SECOND DEPOSITION
This case involves a constitutional challenge to New Mexico’s campaign finance
laws, specifically the contribution limits for state elections. Plaintiffs seek a second Rule
30(b)(6) deposition of a representative of the New Mexico Secretary of State to address
recently produced documents regarding “evidence and studies about past corruption in
New Mexico.” Doc. 111 at 4. Defendants acknowledge that “whether New Mexico’s
contribution limits further the constitutionally recognized interest in preventing corruption
and the appearance of corruption” is at issue. Doc. 110 at 2.
Defendants had ample time to collect retrieve and provide to Plaintiffs the
supplemental discovery, which they contend is of “minimal, if any” relevance, before the
deposition of the Secretary of State. Instead, they supplied the supplemental discovery

to Plaintiffs the day before discovery closed – and over 2 weeks after depositions took
place – thus depriving Plaintiffs of the opportunity to ask questions about it.
This Court discounts Defendants’ position that a second deposition is
unnecessary because the State can adequately “articulate [the Secretary of State’s]
opinion regarding the need for contribution limits to prevent corruption through its
counsel in briefing and argument to the Court.” See id. at 6. The Court agrees with
Plaintiffs that this argument “ignores the purpose of discovery, which is to achieve ‘full
disclosure of all potentially relevant information’ prior to trial or briefing. . . .” Doc. 111 at
4 (citing Landry v. Swire Oilfield Servs., L.L.C., 323 F.R.D. 360, 375 (D.N.M. 2018).
Although Defendants raise undue burden and hardship concerns, they fail to
persuade that these concerns outweigh an opportunity for Plaintiffs to depose the
Secretary or her representative about the importance of this second wave of discovery.
The Court notes that there is no trial setting or other obstacle to taking a second
deposition. Therefore, the Court will grant the Motion to Extend Discovery (Doc.109) for
the sole purpose of permitting a second deposition of a Rule 30(b)(6) representative of
the New Mexico Secretary of State with questioning limited to the supplemental
discovery produced on May 10, 2018. Also, the parties are to confer and submit an
agreed upon order extending the deadlines for filing discovery motions and dispositive
motions in light of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2