Imming v. De La Vega et al

Filing 185

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Damian L. Martinez granting 153 Motion to Compel. The parties are ORDERED to adhere with the deadlines stated herein. (im)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ASHLEY IMMING,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 2:23-cv-0378 GJF/DLM

OSVALDO DE LA VEGA;
MESILLA CAPITAL
INVESTMENTS, LLC;
SOUTHWEST HEALTH SERVICES, P.A.;
and MESILLA CAPITAL INVESTMENTS
de MEXICO, S. de R.L.;
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel requesting that
the Court order Defendant Oscar De La Vega (“DLV”) to produce a verification related to
interrogatories he responded to on January 20, 2023, in De La Vega v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, Doc. No. 10718-20 and that he fully respond to certain Interrogatories and Requests for
Documents to Plaintiff’s Eighth Set of Discovery to DLV. (Doc. 151.) Plaintiff’s Motion further
requests that Defendant Mesilla Valley Capital Investments, LLC (“MCI LLC”) fully respond to
certain Requests for Documents and Requests for Admissions in her Fourth Set of Discovery to
MCI LLC. (Doc. 151.) In their Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 163)
Defendants DLV and MCI LLC argue that all documents related to DLV’s interrogatory responses
in De La Vega v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue have been turned over and the verification
page does not exist. The Response further asserts that the Plaintiff’s motion should be denied
because the Interrogatories, Requests for Documents, and Requests for Admission are either
premature, or not relevant as to the time frame listed in those requests. On October 25, 2024, the

Court held a motion hearing on the Motion to Compel. (Doc. 183.) For the reasons stated on the
record the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion as follows:
I.

Discovery Requests to Defendant DLV
a. Request for Production No. 16: Defendant DLV has asserted, and Plaintiff agrees
that the verification related to the January 20, 2023, interrogatory response, in De
La Vega v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Doc. No. 10718-20 does not exist
and that no further documents related to this specific request need be produced.
Thus, no amended response is necessary.
b. Interrogatory No. 15(sic) 16: DLV shall supplement this response specifically
identifying exhibits that DLV may offer into evidence at trial.
c. Interrogatory No. 17(sic) 18: DLV shall supplement this response without
objection to the time frame.
d. Request for Documents No. 17: DLV shall produce the requested information
without objection to the time frame. Any other objection related to the production
of documents shall include a privilege log.

II.

Discovery Requests to MCI, LLC
a. Request for Documents No. 10: MCI LLC shall produce the requested information
without objection to the time frame. Any other objection related to the production
of documents shall include a privilege log.
b. Request for Documents No. 11: MCI LLC shall produce the requested information
without objection to the time frame. Any other objection related to the production
of documents shall include a privilege log.
c. Requests for Admission Nos. 4,5,6, and 7: MCI LLC shall respond to the Requests
for Admission without objection to the time frame.

III.

Attorney’s Fees
a. Defendants’ objections to the discovery requests were not substantially justified,
and they must pay Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees related to the Motion to Compel. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(ii).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 151) is

GRANTED, and consistent with the Court’s rulings from the bench at the October 25, 2024
Motion Hearing, Defendants shall provide the following information no later than 14 days

following the entry of this Order Defendants DLV and MCI LLC shall supplement their
discovery responses as outlined above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit a brief in support of their request
for fees and costs and no later than 14 days following the entry of this order; unless they indicate
their non-opposition to the brief, Defendants shall respond within 14 days of the brief; Plaintiff
may reply within 14 days of the response.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________________
DAMIAN L. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE