USA v. Gomez-Montiel

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 5:25-cv-05041-MIS
JUAN GOMEZ MONTIEL,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Compel (“Motion”), ECF
No. 54, filed on April 20, 2026. The United States filed a Response on May 4, 2026. ECF No. 60.
Upon review of the Parties’ submissions, the record, and the relevant law, the Court will deny
Defendant’s motion.
This motion concerns the DEA’s file on a confidential source (CS) in this case. Resp. at 1,
ECF No. 60. The CS “was paid, previously lied to the DEA about a threat, and was deactivated
after being asked incriminating questions six months later.” Mot. at 1, ECF No. 54. The
Government has disclosed portions of the file bearing on the CS’s credibility. Resp. at 5, ECF No.
60.
Defendant asks the Court to “compel production of the [rest of] cooperating defendant’s
file for impeachment purposes.” Mot. at 1, ECF No. 54. Defendant requests the entire file because
“[t]he underlying file in counsel’s experience will have the details that are needed . . . [and] [t]his
material relates directly to counsel’s ability to cross examine effectively under the 6th Amendment
and the Due Process Clause.” Id. at 2. Defendant also asks the Court to compel production of the
“social media posting that was the subject of the recanted threat.” Id. at 1 n.1. Defendant does not
Case 2:25-cr-05041-MIS Document 61 Filed 05/05/26 Page 1 of 3

ask for specifics because “he does not know what he does not know, other than the cooperator lied,
and ultimately appears to have lied again and been terminated.” Id.
The Government argues it has “already disclosed the relevant and important impeachment
material from the file” under its obligations per Rule 16, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),
and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Id. at 5-6. The Government
disclosed reports written by DEA agents detailing their encounters with the
[confidential source (CS)] regarding Gomez-Montiel. These reports also detail
inconsistent statements made to agents by the CS. Additionally, on March 6, 2026,
the United States disclosed a letter from DEA detailing Brady, Giglio, and general
impeachment information regarding the CS, including his payments related to the
instant case and lifetime payments from the agency, other benefits conferred
including deferred action, and written agreements between the CS and DEA.
Resp. at 1, ECF No. 60.
Brady requires disclosure of favorable material evidence, 373 U.S. at 87, and Giglio
requires disclosure of material credibility evidence when the “reliability of a given witness may
well be determinative of guilt or innocence,” 405 U.S. at 154 (citation omitted). But “[u]ntil
Defendant can identify specific exculpatory material, it is up to the Government to search the
requested categories of documents and produce any Giglio evidence.” United States v. Thomas,
No. 1:18-CR-00458 WJ, 2018 WL 5268203, at *4 (D.N.M. Oct. 23, 2018) (citations omitted). A
defendant “has no constitutional right to law enforcement witnesses’ personnel files simply to see
whether they contain potentially impeaching information.” United States v. Garrison, 147 F. Supp.
3d 1173, 1185 (D. Colo. 2015).
As in Garrison, 147 F. Supp. 3d at 1178, the Government here asserts it has disclosed all
material information. Resp. at 5, ECF No. 60. And, as in Garrison, the Court has no reason to
doubt this assertion. 147 F. Supp. 3d at 1178. Defendant offers no specifics as to what he seeks in
the file, except a social media post that the CS lied about. Mot. at 1 n.1, ECF No. 54. To the extent
Case 2:25-cr-05041-MIS Document 61 Filed 05/05/26 Page 2 of 3

the Government has more material information pertaining to the CS lying about a threat, i.e., the
underlying social media post, id., it is ordered to disclose that information. Otherwise, the Court
takes the Government at its word that it has produced all material information in the CS’s file and
compelling production of the rest of the file would be redundant.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to
Compel is DENIED.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cr-05041-MIS Document 61 Filed 05/05/26 Page 3 of 3