Garcia v. LHM SWH, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ANTONIO GARCIA,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 1:25-cv-942-JMR-KRS
LHM SWH, LLC, doing business as
LHM Southwest Hyundai Albuquerque;
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY;
and HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA, doing
business as Hyundai Motor Finance,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion To Compel Defendant LHM
SWH, LLC To Provide Complete Discovery Responses To First Set of Discovery (“Motion”)
(Doc. 41).
1. 	The Motion is denied without prejudice as moot to the extent that the parties have
resolved their disputes concerning certain discovery requests. See (Doc. 62 at 1 (Plaintiff’s Reply
Brief In Support Of Motion To Compel Defendant LHM SWH, LLC To Provide Complete
Discovery Responses To First Set of Discovery) (stating that LHM SWH’s supplemental responses
have resolved the Motion as to Interrogatories 1 and 7, and Requests for Production 8 and 9)).
2. 	As to remaining disputed discovery requests (Interrogatories 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13,
and 15, and Requests for Production 2, 4, 6, 7, and 11), the Motion is partially granted to the extent
that LHM SWH is directed to serve a supplemental response to the unresolved disputed discovery
requests making clear whether any information or documents were withheld based upon the
objections set forth in LHM SWH’s response or responses to those requests. If a privilege was or
is asserted as the basis for withholding any information or documents, then LHM SWH is directed
Case 1:25-cv-00942-JMR-KRS Document 69 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 2

2
to simultaneously produce a privilege log containing the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(5). If no information or documents were withheld based upon the stated objections, then the
supplemental response shall so state.
3. 	Following service by LHM SWH’s supplemental response as set out in paragraph
2, Plaintiff shall file a notice on the docket identifying any disputed discovery requests that were
resolved as a result of the supplemental response. If the supplemental response did not resolve any
of the remaining disputed discovery requests, then Plaintiff’s notice shall so state.
4. 	Following Plaintiff’s filing of a notice identifying the remaining disputed issues, as
set forth in paragraph 3, LHM SWH may file a surreply limited to matters raised in Plaintiff’s
notice or its previously filed reply brief (Doc. 62).
5. 	LHM SWH’s supplemental response (paragraph 2) shall be served on or before
March 11, 2026. The Court directs LHM SWH to also file its supplemental response on the docket
within three days of service.
6. 	Plaintiff’s notice (paragraph 3) shall be filed on the docket on or before March 27,
2026.
7. 	LHM SWH’s surreply brief shall be filed on or before April 3, 2026.
8. 	Apart from the above, the Motion is taken under advisement as to Interrogatories
2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15, and Requests for Production 2, 4, 6, 7, and 11. The Court will issue
a written ruling following LHM SWH’s filing of its surreply brief.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of February, 2026.
__________________________________
KEVIN R. SWEAZEA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00942-JMR-KRS Document 69 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 2