Eze et al v. Lunsford et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
PAULETTE EZE and PAMELA EZE
SYLVESTRE, as PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVES of the
ESTATE OF PRESLEY EZE,
ISAAC AND LORETTA EZE, parents of PRESLEY EZE,
PETE “OBI” EZE, brother of PRESLEY EZE,
ELENA EZE, spouse of PRESLEY EZE and
VINCENT J. WARD, as Guardian Ad Litem, of I.E.,
a minor child, of decedent Presley Eze,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	No. 2:23-cv-00976-KWR-KRS
THE CITY OF LAS CRUCES and
BRAD JUSTIN LUNSFORD,
in his individual capacity,
Defendants.
ORDER ON [140] CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL No. II:
PLAINTIFFS’ RELEASES AND RESPONSES TO CITY DEFENDANTS’
FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS
Currently before the Court is the City Defendants’ Motion to Compel No. II: Plaintiffs’
Releases and Responses To City Defendants’ First Set of Discovery Requests (“Motion”), filed
October 3, 2025. (Doc. 140). The Motion was first addressed at the telephonic hearing on October
22, 2025, at which time the parties confirmed that they had agreed to extend the deadline for
Plaintiffs to respond to the Motion until October 31, 2025, and that Plaintiffs intended to respond
by supplementing their discovery responses on or before that date. See (Doc. 150 at 4).
Accordingly, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiffs to serve the City Defendants with any
Case 2:23-cv-00976-KWR-KRS Document 190 Filed 12/04/25 Page 1 of 4

2
additional discovery related to the Motion on or before October 31, 2025, and for the City
Defendants to file a status report on or before November 7, 2025, indicating whether the issues
raised in the Motion had been fully resolved. (Doc. 154). The City Defendants then filed their
Status Report, which indicated that the majority of the issues raised in the Motion had been
resolved. See (Doc. 164). The Court now finds the Motion MOOT as to those issues identified in
the City Defendants’ Status Report as having been resolved by the parties.
After reviewing the City Defendants’ Status Report, the Court directed Plaintiffs to file a
response to the Motion and the City Defendants to file a reply, limited to the issues identified in
the Status Report as being still in dispute. See (Doc. 167). Plaintiffs filed their response on
November 18, 2025, and the City Defendants filed their reply on November 25, 2025. See (Docs.
172, 176). The Court reviewed the parties’ briefing and then held a hearing on December 3, 2025,
at which the parties were given the opportunity to present further arguments. Having considered
the briefing and the parties’ oral presentations, the Court now rules on the remaining issues raised
by the Motion as follows:
A. 	Requests for Production Seeking Computation of Damages
Request No. 14 	Requests for Production to Paulette
Eze and Pamela Eze, as personal
representatives 	of 	the 	Estate 	of
Presley Eze
Within twenty-one days of this
Order, Plaintiffs shall supplement
their 	responses 	confirming 	that
they have produced all responsive,
non-privileged documents within
their 	possession, 	custody, 	or
control. 	Subject 	to 	that
Request No. 7 	Requests for Production to Paulette
Eze
Request No. 7 	Requests for Production to Pamela
Eze
Case 2:23-cv-00976-KWR-KRS Document 190 Filed 12/04/25 Page 2 of 4

3
Request No. 7 	Requests for Production to Loretta
Eze
supplementation, the City’s request
to compel is denied.
Request No. 7 	Requests for Production to Isaac
Eze
Request No. 7 	Requests for Production to Elena
Eze
Request No. 8 	Requests for Production to I.E. Eze
B. 	Requests for Production Seeking Medical or Therapy Billing Records
Request No. 19 	Requests for Production to Paulette
Eze and Pamela Eze, as personal
representatives 	of 	the 	Estate 	of
Presley Eze
Within twenty-one days of this
Order, Plaintiffs, Paulette Eze and
Pamela 	Eze, 	as 	personal
representatives 	of 	the 	Estate 	of
Presley Eze, Loretta Eze, and Isaac
Eze, shall serve Defendants with
any 	responsive 	documents 	that
have not already been provided,
and 	supplement 	their 	responses
confirming 	that 	they 	have
produced all responsive documents
within their possession, custody, or
control. 	Subject 	to 	that
supplementation 	and 	further
production, 	if 	any, 	the 	City’s
request to compel is moot.
Request No. 9 	Requests for Production to Loretta
Eze
Request No. 9 	Requests for Production to Isaac Eze
Case 2:23-cv-00976-KWR-KRS Document 190 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of 4

4
C. 	Pamela Eze’s Health Care Providers
Interrogatory
No. 5
Interrogatories to Pamela Eze 	Within 	twenty-one 	days 	of 	this
Order, Plaintiff Pamela Eze shall
supplement 	her 	response 	by
confirming that she has not received
any 	mental 	health 	treatment 	or
counseling, and that her injuries for
which she seeks to recover do not
involve 	physical 	injuries 	of 	any
kind, and her psychological injuries
are “garden variety” only for which
she 	has 	not 	sought 	treatment.
Subject to that supplementation, the
City’s request to compel a further
response is denied.
In conclusion, the City Defendants’ Motion To Compel No. II: Plaintiffs’ Releases And
Responses to City Defendants’ First Set of Discovery Requests (Doc. 140), is (1) found MOOT
IN PART; (2) GRANTED IN PART, and (3) DENIED IN PART, for the reasons explained and
as set forth above, as well as at the hearing on December 3, 2025.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of December, 2025.
__________________________________
KEVIN R. SWEAZEA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:23-cv-00976-KWR-KRS Document 190 Filed 12/04/25 Page 4 of 4