Owen v. Audubon Field Solutions, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
DAVID OWEN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 2:24-cv-0215 MLG/DLM
AUDUBON FIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendant.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 87.) Having considered the parties’ arguments and the relevant law,
the Court RECOMMENDS1 that the motion be DENIED.
I. 	Relevant Procedural History
The undersigned has met with counsel in this matter half a dozen times to mediate
discovery disputes and/or to extend deadlines. (See, e.g., Docs. 18; 27; 42; 46; 61; 74.) On
September 30, 2025, the Court held a motion hearing on Owen’s Motion to Reopen Discovery and
Modify Schedule. (See Docs. 57; 61.) Owen sought extensions to the discovery and pretrial motion
deadlines in order to have time to schedule and conduct Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. (See Doc. 57
at 1–2.)
The Court heard argument from counsel, and the minutes reflect that the Court set a
deadline of January 21, 2026, for dispositive motions. (Doc. 61 at 2.) The Order memorializing
the Court’s rulings noted a pretrial motion deadline of January 13, 2026. (Doc. 62 at 1.) Audubon
1 United States District Judge Matthew L. Garcia entered an Order of Reference on February 4, 2026, referring the
Motion to Strike to the undersigned magistrate judge “to conduct hearings, if warranted, including evidentiary
hearings, and to perform any legal analysis required to recommend to the Court an ultimate disposition of the case.”
(Doc. 92.)
Case 2:24-cv-00215-MLG-DLM Document 96 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 3

2
filed its motion for summary judgment on January 13, 2026. (See Doc. 83.) Owen filed a motion
for summary judgment on January 21, 2026. (Doc. 85.) Audubon now moves to strike Owen’s
motion on the basis that it was untimely. (Doc. 87.) Owen argues that the motion was timely
according to the undersigned’s oral pronouncement at the hearing. (See Doc. 92 at 2.)
II. 	Analysis
Owen argues that the undersigned’s oral pronouncement regarding “dispositive” motions
is more specific than the general “pretrial” motion deadline set out in the Order. (See Doc. 90 at 2
(citations omitted).) The undersigned will clarify: the date recorded in the Order was an error. As
announced at the hearing and recorded in the minutes, the Court intended to set a pretrial motion
deadline—which included dispositive motions—of January 21, 2026.2 (See Doc. 61 at 2.)
Audubon argues that Owen’s later filing of his motion “is materially prejudicial to
[Audubon] because it let [Owen] tailor his Motion for Summary Judgment to the arguments and
evidence presented in [Audubon’s] motion.” (See Doc. 87 at 3.) Owen responds and points out the
differences between his response to Audubon’s motion and his own motion for summary
judgment. (See Doc. 90 at 7.) Owen’s argument is persuasive. Audubon fails to show prejudice
sufficient to strike Owen’s motion.
The undersigned regrets the scrivener’s error in the Order and urges counsel, in the future,
to reach out with questions about deadlines to avoid needless briefing. In short, I recommend the
Court DENY Audubon’s motion to strike.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Court DENY Defendant’s Motion to
Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 87.)
2 In this instance, the difference between “dispositive” and “pretrial” motions was meaningless. As the Court noted in
its original Scheduling Order, the pretrial motion deadline applies to “[p]retrial motions, other than discovery
motions,” and includes “motions related to the admissibility of experts or expert testimony that may require a Daubert
hearing, but otherwise does not apply to motions in limine.” (See Doc. 10 at 3 & n.2.)
Case 2:24-cv-00215-MLG-DLM Document 96 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 3

3
THE PARTIES ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE of a
copy of these Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition they may file written objections
with the Clerk of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party must file any
objections with the Clerk of the District Court within the 14-day period if that party wants
to have appellate review of the proposed findings and recommended disposition. If no
objections are filed, no appellate review will be allowed.
_______________________________________
DAMIAN L. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-00215-MLG-DLM Document 96 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 3