Rodriguez Rodriguez v. Arizmendi et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
Gary Rodríguez-Rodríguez,
Plaintiff,
v.
Alida Arizmendi, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil No. 24-1388 (GMM)
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants’1 Motion in Limine to
Preclude Testimony at Trial and Documents Requested During
Discovery Not Produced by Plaintiff (“Motion in Limine”). (Docket
No. 80). For the reasons explained below, the Motion in Limine is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This is a political discrimination suit. On March 17, 2025,
Plaintiff Gary Rodríguez-Rodríguez (“Mr. Rodríguez” or
“Plaintiff”) filed an Amended Complaint against Defendants
pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Article II, Sections 1, 4,
6, and 7 of the Puerto Rico Constitution; Act No. 90-2020; and
Article 1536 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code. (Docket No. 34).
1 Hon. Jorge Ramos Ruiz (“Mayor Ramos”), in his official and personal capacity
as Interim Mayor of the Municipality of Mayagüez, Alida Arizmendi (“Mrs.
Arizmendi”) in her official and personal capacity as Director of the Art and
Culture Office, Yanira Robert (“Mrs. Robert”) in her official and personal
capacity as Director of Human Resources, and the Municipality of Mayagüez.
Case 3:24-cv-01388-GMM Document 91 Filed 10/12/26 Page 1 of 15

Civil No. 24-1388 (GMM)
Page -2-
Therein, Plaintiff alleges that he began working for the
Municipality of Mayagüez on August 30, 2019. (Id. at 5). Mr.
Rodríguez further asserts that in the primary election held on
June 2, 2024, he worked as a poll officer for the New Progressive
Party (“NPP”) at the Communal Center of Leguizamo ward in Mayagüez.
(Id. at 6). During that election, Mayor Ramos was a candidate for
mayor of the Municipality of Mayagüez for the Popular Democratic
Party (“PDP”) and won the nomination. (Id.). According to Mr.
Rodríguez after the primary election, he was subjected to a hostile
work environment and was stripped of all the functions and
responsibilities of his job by Defendants because of his
affiliation with the NPP and participation in the primary election.
(Id. at 6-8). Mr. Rodríguez alleges that since then he “was subject
of grave inferior working conditions, being politically harassed,
feeling humiliated for no other reason that having worked in the
primaries for the [NPP].” (Id. at 8).
Following various procedural developments, on March 25, 2025,
the Court issued its Case Management Order. (Docket No. 37). After
the parties requested a joint extension of time, conclusion of
discovery was set for May 28, 2026. See (Docket Nos. 49-54). On
July 3, 2026, the parties filed a Joint Pretrial Conference Report.
(Docket No. 64). Thereafter, the Court set a pretrial conference
for July 7, 2026, which due to technical difficulties, was
continued to and held on July 21, 2026. See (Docket Nos. 66; 79).
During the pretrial conference, the Court set the jury trial for
Case 3:24-cv-01388-GMM Document 91 Filed 10/12/26 Page 2 of 15

Civil No. 24-1388 (GMM)
Page -3-
October 20, 2026, and allowed the parties to file their motions in
limine by September 21, 2026. (Docket No. 79).
Accordingly, on August 13, 2026, Defendants filed their
Motion in Limine. (Docket No. 80). Therein, Defendants request the
Court to preclude Plaintiff from: (1) testifying about his
emotional and psychological state after the events alleged in the
Amended Complaint and the treatment he received after such events,
including the treatment and records of Dr. Yazmin Ríos (“Dr. Ríos”)
and APS Clinics; (2) testifying about and showing at trial his
alleged appointment as a poll officer in the primaries for the
NPP; and (3) testifying about and showing at trial any text
messages and pictures regarding his allegations in the Amended
Complaint. (Id. at 9). Defendants posit that Plaintiff failed to
produce documents and information: (1) in response to
interrogatories served on April 28, 2025, and (2) in response to
a request for documents made on March 27, 2026, after Plaintiff’s
deposition. (Id. at 3-6). Also, Defendants argue that Plaintiff
failed to produce such evidence prior to the conclusion of
discovery. (Id. at 5-6). Specifically, as to the evidence about
his emotional and psychological state and treatment, Defendants
argue that on July 17, 2026, Plaintiff produced some medical
records from Dr. Yazmin Ríos, a psychologist not mentioned during
his deposition, covering May 18, 2022 to May 8, 2026, and a record
from APS Clinics, on July 17, 2026. (Id. at 6-7). As such,
Defendants assert that because of the untimely production of any
Case 3:24-cv-01388-GMM Document 91 Filed 10/12/26 Page 3 of 15

Civil No. 24-1388 (GMM)
Page -4-
evidence of medical treatment they will be unable to challenge any
claim of emotional or psychological harm, as they were precluded
from deposing Plaintiff as to the matters produced after discovery
had concluded. (Id. at 7-8).
Regarding the evidence of the alleged appointment as a poll
officer in the primary election for the NPP, Defendants argue that
Plaintiff also failed to respond to interrogatory number 8, which
specifically requested “all documents” supporting the allegations
included in the Amended Complaint. (Id. at 3). Defendants assert
that on July 2, 2026, the day before the parties filed their Joint
Pretrial Conference Report, Plaintiff informed in writing that the
certification showing that he worked during the primary election
as a poll worker had been requested and would be provided but that,
as of the filing of the Motion on Limine, Plaintiff had not
produced it. (Id. at 8). Defendants argue that the same occurs
with all other documents requested from Plaintiff during written
discovery, the production of which was again requested at his
deposition and in the letters sent on March 27, 2026 and June 25,
2026, but which were not produced. (Id. at 9).
In opposition, on August 28, 2026, Plaintiff filed his Reply
to Defendants Motion in Limine. (Docket No. 81). Therein, Plaintiff
states that the medical records he had received were sent to
Defendants, and that a re-evaluation of his treatment dated July
20, 2026, was sent that day. Plaintiff further contends that he
cannot send medical records he has not received, and that
Case 3:24-cv-01388-GMM Document 91 Filed 10/12/26 Page 4 of 15

Civil No. 24-1388 (GMM)
Page -5-
Defendants could have requested his authorization to inspect or
copy his medical records but did not do so. (Id. at 2). Moreover,
Plaintiff asserts that he had received, and was sending to
Defendants that day, a copy of his appointment as poll officer in
the 2024 primary election, as well as his appointment, issued by
the State Elections Commission, to work in the general election.
(Id.) In addition, Plaintiff argues that he has the right to
testify about his medical conditions because it is of his personal
knowledge, and that he can also testify about the fact that he
worked in the primaries for the NPP. (Id.). On August 31, 2026,
Defendants filed their Reply to “Reply to Defendants Motion in
Limine”. (Docket No. 84). Therein, Defendants reiterate their
arguments and posit that Plaintiff should not be allowed to present
any document to prove his participation in the primary election
and that “[t]o allow the plaintiff to show evidence of medical
treatment and/or testify about it would be prejudicial for the
defendants, for they never had the opportunity to examine such
evidence while discovery was open and to hire an expert that would
testify about the lack of causation between the alleged adverse
working conditions and the treatment.” (Id. at 2). Defendants also
argue that Plaintiff’s opposition should be disregarded as
untimely under Local Rule 7(b), (Id. at 2); that the poll-officer
appointment documents a copy of a sticker and a handwritten
document— are not self-authenticating under Federal Rule of
Evidence 902(4)(B), (Id. at 2-3); and that Defendants should be
Case 3:24-cv-01388-GMM Document 91 Filed 10/12/26 Page 5 of 15

Civil No. 24-1388 (GMM)
Page -6-
allowed to raise the absence of such evidence at trial without
opening the door to its admission. (Id. at 3). Notably, Defendants
do not object to Plaintiff testifying that he worked in the 2024
primary and general elections, (Id.), and they distinguish between
Plaintiff testifying about how he felt as a result of the alleged
adverse working conditions and testifying about medical treatment
of which Defendants had no notice. (Id. at 2).
The matter is now fully briefed for disposition.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 37
“District courts have considerable autonomy in managing
discovery proceedings. This authority extends both to setting
disclosure deadlines and meting out sanctions when parties fail to
honor such deadlines.” González-Rivera v. Centro Médico Del
Turabo, Inc., 931 F.3d 23, 27 (1st Cir. 2019). Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a party to, “without
awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties ... a
copy —or a description by category and location— of all documents,
electronically stored information, and tangible things that the
disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and
may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be
solely for impeachment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(ii). The
failure to do so is subject to the potential exclusion of the
witness or evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).
Case 3:24-cv-01388-GMM Document 91 Filed 10/12/26 Page 6 of 15

Civil No. 24-1388 (GMM)
Page -7-
Accordingly, Rule 37(c)(1) provides that “[i]f a party fails
to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule
26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or
witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a
trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is
harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). However, Rule 37 also affords
the Court leeway to impose a lesser sanction where appropriate.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(A)-(C).
Therefore, whether a party’s witnesses and exhibits should be
excluded based on a failure to timely disclose “is not a strictly
mechanical exercise” and Rule 37(c)(1) provides for alternative
sanctions. Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 590 F.3d 72, 78
(1st Cir. 2009). “[D]istrict courts have broad discretion in meting
out ... sanctions for Rule 26 violations” that “range from limited
exclusion to dismissal of the case.” LaPlace-Bayard v. Batlle, 295
F.3d 157, 162 (1st Cir. 2002) (citing Ortiz-López v. Sociedad
Española de Auxilio Mutuoy Beneficiencia de P.R., 248 F.3d 29, 34
(1st Cir. 2001)). To determine if preclusion is warranted, the
First Circuit considers several factors:
(1) the history of the litigation; (2) the sanctioned
party’s need for the precluded evidence; (3) the
sanctioned party’s justification (or lack of one) for
its late disclosure; (4) the opponent—party’s ability to
overcome the late disclosure’s adverse effects—e.g., the
surprise and prejudice associated with the late
disclosure; and (5) the late disclosure’s impact on the
district court’s docket.
Case 3:24-cv-01388-GMM Document 91 Filed 10/12/26 Page 7 of 15

Civil No. 24-1388 (GMM)
Page -8-
Esposito, 590 F.3d at 78 (citing Macaulay v. Anas, 321 F.3d
45, 51 (1st Cir. 2003)) (internal quotations omitted). Moreover,
“[b]ecause an important object of [the discovery] rules is to avoid
trial by ambush, the district court typically sets temporal
parameters for the production of such information.” Macaulay, 321
F.3d at 50 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)). Such a timetable
“promotes fairness both in the discovery process and at trial.”
Thibeault v. Square D Co., 960 F.2d 239, 244 (1st Cir. 1992).
III. DISCUSSION
On July 3, 2026, the parties filed their Joint Pretrial
Conference Report and Plaintiff reported only excerpts from Mr.
Rodríguez’s personnel record as documents to be used at trial.
(Docket No. 64 at 16, § VII.A.1). Notably, no reference to medical
records, to any document evidencing Plaintiff’s appointment as a
poll officer, or to any other document, was included. In their
Motion in Limine, Defendants contend that on July 17, 2026,
Plaintiff produced some medical records and a record from APS
Clinics. (Docket No. 80 at 6). Defendants also argue that even
after the taking of depositions, the end of discovery, and the
pretrial conference held on July 21, 2026, Plaintiff had failed to
provide documentation of his appointment as poll officer, as well
as other documents requested during discovery. (Id. at 4-8).
Plaintiff ultimately sent Defendants copies of his poll-officer
appointments and concedes the late disclosure of the medical
records and even admits that a re-evaluation of Mr. Rodríguez’s
Case 3:24-cv-01388-GMM Document 91 Filed 10/12/26 Page 8 of 15

Civil No. 24-1388 (GMM)
Page -9-
treatment dated July 20, 2026 was sent on August 28, 2026. (Docket
No. 81 at 2).
Therefore, there is no dispute that Plaintiff disclosed the
documentary evidence late. Here, even though the information
requested by Defendants concerned Plaintiff’s own medical
treatment and political activity, matters within his own
knowledge, Plaintiff did not provide discovery as required by the
Rules. Plaintiff served his interrogatory answers approximately
five months2 after the Rule 33(b)(2)3 deadline regarding the
interrogatories, and nearly five months4 of the Rule 34(b)(2)(A)
deadline5, regarding documents requested after Plaintiff’s
deposition. Moreover, the documentary evidence was produced months
after the close of discovery, and also past the filing of the
pretrial memorandum and the pretrial conference.
2 Defendants served interrogatories on April 28, 2025 and after follow-up,
Plaintiff served his answers on October 29, 2025, but failed to include any
documents. (Docket No. 80 at 3-5.
3 Absent a stipulation or order by the court, Rule 34(b) requires the party to
whom an interrogatory has been served to respond or make a timely objection
within 30 days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33.
4 On March 26, 2026, Defendants took Plaintiff’s deposition and on March 27,
2026, Defendants sent Plaintiff, a letter requesting documentation and
information which included evidence that Plaintiff worked on primary day as
poll officer; text messages, and medical files. On June 25, 2026, Defendants
followed up on the request; however, the requested documents were not produced.
(Docket No. 80 at 4-6; 80-2; 80-3; 80-4). On July 2, 2026, Plaintiff responded
that “[a]s to the requested documents, the certification that plaintiff
Rodríguez worked as pole [sic] officer for the New Progressive Party in the
Legizamo Ward have been requested, as well as the medical file and will be
provided as well as the medical file.” (Docket No. 80-5).
5 Absent a stipulation or order by the court, Rule 34(b) requires the party to
whom a document request is served to respond within 30 days. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 34.
Case 3:24-cv-01388-GMM Document 91 Filed 10/12/26 Page 9 of 15

Civil No. 24-1388 (GMM)
Page -10-
As noted, under Rule 37(c)(1), Plaintiff must be precluded
from using those documents at trial unless the Court finds that
the failure “was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(c)(1). The question then becomes whether the documentary
evidence in controversy should be excluded under Rule 37. To make
that determination, the Court considers the factors set out by the
First Circuit. Plaintiff, as the party facing preclusion, bears
the burden of showing that his failure was substantially justified
or harmless. See Wilson v. Bradlees of New England, Inc., 250 F.3d
10, 21 (1st Cir. 2001).
As to the first factor, the history of the litigation, the
Court scrutinizes the procedural setting and timing of Plaintiff’s
late disclosure. Here, it is important to take a closer look into
the procedural history leading up to, and immediately following,
Plaintiff’s late disclosure. The original Complaint was filed on
August 28, 2024, and an Amended Complaint was filed on March 17,
2025. (Docket Nos. 1; 34). Thereafter, the Court issued a Case
Management Order and, after granting the parties’ joint request
for an extension, set the conclusion of discovery for May 28, 2026.
As previously highlighted, the Court held a pretrial conference on
July 21,2026, after the parties filed the Joint Pretrial Conference
Report. Throughout that time, Defendants repeatedly sought the
documents at issue through interrogatories served in April 2025,
at Plaintiff’s March 26, 2026 deposition, and by letters dated
March 27, 2026, and June 25, 2026. Yet, Plaintiff, who answered
Case 3:24-cv-01388-GMM Document 91 Filed 10/12/26 Page 10 of 15

Civil No. 24-1388 (GMM)
Page -11-
the interrogatories some five months late, did not produce them
before discovery closed. Instead, the medical records and the poll-
officer appointment evidence surfaced only after the Joint
Pretrial Conference Report was filed, and some only after the
Motion in Limine was filed, less than two months before a trial
scheduled for October 20. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor
of exclusion.6
As to the second factor, “[t]he sanctioned party’s need for
the evidence,” Esposito, 590 F.3d at 78, it weighs somewhat in
Plaintiff’s favor. Indeed, Plaintiff needs both the poll-officer
appointment documents and the medical records to support his claims
as well as to prove his damages. However, preclusion of the late-
disclosed documents does not amount to dismissal, as Plaintiff has
access to other evidence, including his own testimony, to establish
his claims. And Defendants do not object to Plaintiff testifying,
based on his personal knowledge, that he worked as a poll officer
in the 2024 primary and general elections, (Docket No. 84 at 3),
and, as explained below, Plaintiff may also testify about the
emotional distress he personally experienced.
6 Defendants’ March 27, 2026, and June 25, 2026 letters reiterated document
requests first made in Defendants’ April 28, 2025 interrogatories. (Docket Nos.
80 at 3-5; 80-2; 80-4). Whether or not those letters independently triggered
the thirty-day response period of Rule 34(b)(2)(A), Plaintiff remained under a
continuing duty to timely supplement his interrogatory answers, in which he had
identified his poll-officer appointment as supporting documentary evidence and
represented that his medical records would be provided. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(e)(1)(A).
Case 3:24-cv-01388-GMM Document 91 Filed 10/12/26 Page 11 of 15

Civil No. 24-1388 (GMM)
Page -12-
The third factor to consider is “the sanctioned party’s
justification (or lack of one) for its late disclosure.” Esposito,
590 F.3d at 78. This too weighs in favor of exclusion. Plaintiff
did not justify or explain his late disclosure. On the contrary,
Plaintiff concedes that there has been a late disclosure. Moreover,
Plaintiff only argues that exclusion is not warranted because Mr.
Rodríguez can testify as to facts alleged in the Amended Complaint
which are of his personal knowledge and does not have to present
documents to ratify his testimony. (Docket No. 81 at 2). Thus, the
record is devoid of any evidence that would justify the late
disclosure.
As to the fourth factor, “the opponent-party’s ability to
overcome the late disclosure’s’ adverse effects—e.g., the surprise
and prejudice associated with the late disclosure,”, Esposito, 590
F.3d at 78, Plaintiff has failed to make any meaningful argument
to establish that his late disclosure is harmless. On the contrary,
Defendants have established that the late production of the
requested information —the medical records, the poll-officer
appointment documents, and other documents such as text messages
and photographs -is not harmless. Defendants contend they made
strategic decisions, such as whether to employ an expert or reopen
Plaintiff’s deposition, based on the disclosures and production
that were available to them at the close of discovery. (Docket
Nos. 80 at 7; 84 at 2). Specifically, Defendants posit that if
Plaintiff had produced the medical records in a timely manner
Case 3:24-cv-01388-GMM Document 91 Filed 10/12/26 Page 12 of 15

Civil No. 24-1388 (GMM)
Page -13-
during the months of April and May 2026, they would have had the
opportunity to reopen Plaintiff’s deposition to inquire about his
emotional and psychological state and the treatment received
before and after the events alleged in the Amended Complaint.
(Docket No. 80 at 7). At this moment, Defendants cannot do that,
as discovery concluded in May. The same applies to other
documentary evidence that was untimely produced and on which
Plaintiff could rely to support his political discrimination
claim. As for the text messages and photographs, the Court is
unable to identify in the record indication that Plaintiff has
produced them all. The fourth factor also weighs heavily in favor
of preclusion.
Finally, the Court considers “the late disclosure’s impact on
the district court’s docket.” Esposito, 590 F.3d at 78. As has
been previously highlighted, discovery concluded in May 2026.
Thus, not precluding the use of the documents in controversy would
require reopening discovery to avoid prejudice against Defendants,
extending this litigation that commenced in August 2024. This
factor, too, weighs in favor of exclusion.
For the reasons discussed, Plaintiff’s the late disclosure
was neither “substantially justified” nor “harmless.”
Consequently, the untimely disclosure (or nondisclosure) of the
medical records, the poll-officer appointment documents, and any
other documents requested as part of discovery as detailed in the
Motion in Limine, warrants exclusion. Therefore, Plaintiff is
Case 3:24-cv-01388-GMM Document 91 Filed 10/12/26 Page 13 of 15

Civil No. 24-1388 (GMM)
Page -14-
precluded from introducing such documentary evidence at trial and
is barred from introducing the documents’ contents or relying on
the information they contain during the testimony Mr. Rodríguez
will provide. However, this limitation does not preclude otherwise
admissible testimony based on Mr. Rodríguez’s independent personal
knowledge, subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Specifically,
Plaintiff may testify about his own emotional and psychological
state as he personally experienced it but may not testify about
any diagnosis or about the treatment he received from Dr. Ríos,
APS Clinics, or any other provider, nor offer any testimony
requiring specialized knowledge. See Fed. R. Evid. 701(c).
Plaintiff may also testify, based on his personal knowledge, that
he worked as a poll officer for the NPP in the 2024 primary and
general elections, but may not introduce documents to that effect.
Plaintiff may not introduce, or testify about the contents of, any
text messages or photographs requested in discovery that were not
produced before its close. Given this disposition, the Court need
not reach Defendants’ alternative arguments under Federal Rules of
Evidence 401, 403, and 902(4)(B).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, the Motion in Limine is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff is precluded from
introducing at trial or testifying about the contents of the
medical records of Dr. Ríos and APS Clinics (including the July
20, 2026 re-evaluation), the poll-officer appointment documents,
Case 3:24-cv-01388-GMM Document 91 Filed 10/12/26 Page 14 of 15

Civil No. 24-1388 (GMM)
Page -15-
and any text messages, photographs, or other documents requested
in discovery and not produced before its close, and from testifying
about the medical treatment he received.
Plaintiff may testify, based on his personal knowledge and
subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence, about his own emotional
and psychological state and about his work as a poll officer in
the 2024 primary and general elections.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, on October 12, 2026.
s/Gina R. Méndez-Miró
GINA R. MÉNDEZ-MIRÓ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-01388-GMM Document 91 Filed 10/12/26 Page 15 of 15