Hurtado et al v. AM Transport Services, Inc. et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
LILLIAN HURTADO, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v. No. 1:22-cv-00599-KG-JFR
FNF CONSTRUCTION INC., et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant FNF’s Construction Inc.’s objections to
Plaintiffs’ amended deposition designations before trial. Docs. 368–70, 372–73. At the
threshold, the Court rejects Plaintiffs’ argument that FNF’s objections during the five depositions
at issue did not preserve those objections for trial, see Doc. 367 at 11–14, as FNF’s objections
were “stated concisely in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner” under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 30(c)(2). The Court addresses FNF’s deposition objections below.
1. Robert Wood Deposition Objections (Doc. 370)
The Court’s overrules, without prejudice, FNF’s objections to Robert Wood’s deposition
testimony, as they are moot. The Court will require Mr. Wood to appear in person at trial, and
his deposition testimony is admissible for impeachment purposes only. The Court reaches this
conclusion because both parties intend to call Mr. Wood during their cases in chief, Mr. Wood is
an important witness for both parties, and his appearance in person for both parties will avoid
confusing the issues and misleading the jury.
Case 1:22-cv-00599-KG-JFR Document 376 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 6

2
2. Sgt. Davin Barela Deposition Objections (Doc. 368)
• Lines 87:2 to 87:10: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the testimony lacks
foundation and asserts an improper legal conclusion.
• Lines 88:5 to 88:11: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the testimony lacks
foundation, calls for speculation, and relies on “Exhibit 106B,” a document about
which the Court does not have information at this stage.
• Lines 94:20 to 94:25: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the testimony calls for
speculation and asserts an improper legal conclusion.
• Lines 92:9 to 92:20: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the testimony calls for
speculation, lacks foundation, asserts an improper legal conclusion, and is
argumentative.
• Lines 97:1 to 97:25: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the testimony calls for
speculation, asserts an improper legal conclusion, and is argumentative.
• Lines 145:6 to 145:17: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the testimony calls for
speculation, lacks foundation, and asserts an improper legal conclusion.
• The Court overrules FNF’s remaining objections to Sgt. Barela’s deposition
testimony.
3. Lt. Shane Bennett Deposition Objections (Doc. 369)
• Lines 19:3 to 19:13: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the testimony is
speculative.
• Lines 24:3 to 24:7: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the testimony is
speculative.
Case 1:22-cv-00599-KG-JFR Document 376 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 6

3
• The Court overrules FNF’s remaining objections to Lt. Bennett’s deposition
testimony.
4. Larie Aparicio Deposition Objections (Doc. 372)
• Lines 47:9 to 47:14: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the testimony is
speculative and lacks foundation.
• Lines 48:3 to 48:10: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the testimony is
speculative, lacks foundation, and asserts an improper legal conclusion.
• Lines 60:25 and 61:1 to 61:5: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the question is
leading and assumes facts not in evidence, and testimony about what Mr. Aparicio
“wished” would have happened is irrelevant.
• Lines 52:3 to 52:13: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the Court does not have
information at this stage about what “Exhibit 13” is, and Mr. Aparicio’s testimony
about what Officer Lundy did the night of the crash lacks foundation, is
speculative, and assumes facts not in evidence.
• Lines 52:16 to 52:25: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the Court does not have
information about what “Exhibit 14” is at this stage, and the deposition excerpt
does not include Mr. Aparicio’s answer to the question “And you drove past this
sign too?”
• Lines 47:16 to 47:24: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the testimony is
speculative, lacks foundation, and asserts an improper legal conclusion.
• Lines 48:20 to 48:25: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the testimony is
speculative, lacks foundation, and asserts an improper legal conclusion.
Case 1:22-cv-00599-KG-JFR Document 376 Filed 12/02/25 Page 3 of 6

4
• Lines 53:25 to 54:19: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the Court does not have
information about what “Exhibit 16” is at this stage.
• Lines 56:11 and 56:16: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the question is
leading and the Court does not have information about what “Exhibit 20” is at this
stage.
• Lines 56:18 and 56:21: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the question is
leading and lacks foundation.
• Lines 56:23 to 56:25: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the question is leading
and the deposition excerpt does not include Mr. Aparicio’s answer.
• Lines 57:1 to 57:5: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the question “Do you see
this?” is vague and lacks foundation.
• Lines 57:7 to 57:13: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the question is leading
and lacks foundation.
• Lines 58:8 to 58:15: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the testimony is
speculative, lacks foundation, and asserts an improper legal conclusion.
• Lines 55:19 to 55:24: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the question is leading
and the Court does not have information about what “Exhibit 19” is at this stage.
• Lines 56:1 to 56:6: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the question is leading.
• Lines 59:11 to 59:22: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the question is leading
and the testimony is speculative and asserts an improper legal conclusion.
• Lines 60:11 to 60:16: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the question is leading
and the testimony is speculative.
Case 1:22-cv-00599-KG-JFR Document 376 Filed 12/02/25 Page 4 of 6

5
• Lines 60:18 to 60:23: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the question is leading
and the testimony is speculative.
• Lines 61:7 to 61:22: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the question is leading
and the testimony is speculative and asserts an improper legal conclusion.
• Lines 62:2 to 62:20: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the questions are leading
and the testimony is speculative.
• Lines 62:21 to 62:25: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the question is leading
and the testimony is speculative and asserts an improper legal conclusion.
• Lines 63:5 to 63:11: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the question is leading
and the testimony is speculative and asserts an improper legal conclusion.
• Lines 63:13 to 63:17: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the question is leading
and the testimony is speculative.
• Lines 63:18 to 63:25: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the question is leading
and the testimony is speculative.
• Lines 64:1 to 64:7: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the question is leading and
the testimony is speculative and asserts an improper legal conclusion.
• Lines 64:9 to 64:14: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the question is leading
and the testimony is speculative.
• Lines 67:13 to 67:19: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the question is leading
and the testimony is speculative and asserts an improper legal conclusion.
• Lines 67:21 to 67:25 and 68:1 to 68:2: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the
question is leading and the testimony is speculative.
Case 1:22-cv-00599-KG-JFR Document 376 Filed 12/02/25 Page 5 of 6

6
• Lines 64:16 to 64:25: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the question lacks
foundation and is leading, and Mr. Aparicio’s answer asserts an improper legal
conclusion.
• Lines 66:2 to 66:20: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the questions are leading
and the testimony is speculative and asserts improper legal conclusions.
• Lines 70:4 to 70:17: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the questions are leading
and the testimony lacks foundation and is speculative.
• Lines 70:22 to 70:25: FNF’s objections are sustained, as the question is leading.
• The Court overrules FNF’s remaining objections to Mr. Aparicio’s deposition
testimony.
5. Dr. Chad Songy Deposition Objections (Doc. 373)
• The Court sustains all of FNF’s objections to Dr. Songy’s deposition testimony,
as the questions are leading.
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
▪ Please note that this document has been
electronically filed. To verify its
authenticity, please refer to the Digital File
Stamp on the NEF (Notice of Electronic
Filing) accompanying this document.
Electronically filed documents can be found
on the Court’s PACER public access
system.
Case 1:22-cv-00599-KG-JFR Document 376 Filed 12/02/25 Page 6 of 6