Segovia et al v. Montoya et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JOSE SEGOVIA and
JESUS SEGOVIA,
Plaintiffs,
vs. No. CIV 23-763 GJF/DLM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Opposed Motion to Extend Motion in
Limine Deadline [Dkt. No. 123], which is now fully briefed. See Dkt. Nos. 129 and 132. After
reviewing the briefs and the law, the Court concludes that the motion is not well taken and should
be denied.
BACKGROUND
On December 10, 2025, the Court entered its Order [Dkt. No. 107] setting the March 16,
2026, bench trial and associated deadlines, including a January 30, 2026, deadline for motions in
limine. On February 6, 2026, one week after the motion in limine deadline had passed, Defendant
filed its motion asking for a two-week extension of the deadline to file motions in limine until
February 13, 2026. As grounds for the motion, defense counsel states that they are new to the case,
having been assigned to it around December 8, 2025, after previous counsel left the U.S.
Attorney’s Office. Dkt. No. 123. For the first time in its reply [Dkt. No. 132], Defendant states that
it wishes to file a motion in limine to exclude Plaintiffs’ expert witness, Dr. Matthew Budway, on
the grounds that Plaintiffs’ expert witness disclosures are inadequate. In particular, Defendant
argues that Plaintiffs have not fully disclosed Dr. Budway’s prior testimony or his anticipated
Case 2:23-cv-00763-GJF-DLM Document 134 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 3

2
testimony in this case. Id. at 4. According to the reply, Plaintiffs made those disclosures on August
5, 2024, and May 30, 2025. Dkt. No. 132 at 3-4. Other than personnel turnover among its counsel,
Defendant offers no explanation for waiting until this late date to raise the issue of inadequate
expert witness disclosure.
In their response in opposition [Dkt. No. 129], Plaintiffs argue that Defendant has failed to
show good cause to extend the motion in limine deadline. Plaintiffs point out that they disclosed
their medical experts 18 months ago (giving Defendant ample time to raise any concerns about the
disclosures), and the motion is not based on any newly discovered evidence. They contend that the
substitution of new counsel does not constitute good cause to modify the pretrial order under Rule
16. They also note that Defendant did manage to file two other motions in limine by the January
30, 2026, deadline, which demonstrates that Defendant was aware of the deadline. Plaintiffs further
argue that Defendant failed to request the extension until after the deadline had already expired,
thereby requiring a showing of excusable neglect in accordance with Rule 6(b)(1)(B). Plaintiffs
contend that Defendant has failed to meet that standard as well.
DISCUSSION
Here, Defendant has known about any deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ expert disclosures since
they were made 18 months ago, yet it did not bring the issue before the Court until now, after the
deadline for motions in limine has passed. Defendant does not explain why prior counsel did not
raise the issue or at the very least alert Defendant’s current counsel to the need to file a motion
objecting to the allegedly inadequate expert disclosure. Simply stated, Defendant has not shown
due diligence or excusable neglect. Indeed, courts have often found that “[a] change in legal
strategy or the errors of past counsel do not equate to due diligence” in the context of establishing
good cause or excusable neglect necessary to extend an expired scheduling order deadline.” Sexton
Case 2:23-cv-00763-GJF-DLM Document 134 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 3

3
v. Bankers Std. Ins. Co., 2025 SL 3294701 at *3 (D. Kan Nov. 26, 2025) (citation and quotation
omitted). See also Thornton v. Collier, No. 05-cv-01103-WYD-BNB, 2007 WL 2491848, at *2
(D. Colo. Aug. 29, 2007) (denying a party’s request to belatedly file a motion for summary
judgment following retention of new counsel).
Denial of the motion is without prejudice, however, to Defendant’s right to object to
admission of the testimony at trial if it has reasonable grounds to do so under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of Evidence.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Opposed Motion to Extend Motion in
Limine Deadline [Dkt. No. 123] is DENIED.
_______________________________________
THE HONORABLE GREGORY J. FOURATT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Presiding by Consent
Case 2:23-cv-00763-GJF-DLM Document 134 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 3