F. v. G6 Hospitality, LLC

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
A.F.,
Plaintiff,
v. Civ. No. 23-879 KG/GBW
G6 HOSPITALITY, LLC
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR DISCOVERY TO BE REOPENED
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery to be
Reopened. Doc. 170. Having reviewed the parties’ briefing, docs. 172, 174, 175, 178, 179,
180, and being fully advised, the Court will GRANT IT in part and DENY IT in part.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed suit in this Court on October 6, 2023, bringing claims under the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1595, based on alleged
sex trafficking at a G6 property in New Mexico. Doc. 1. General discovery in the case
closed on July 18, 2025.1 On November 4, 2025, Defendant informed Plaintiff that it
1 There is some confusion about the closing date of discovery in the record. In the Court’s Order Granting
Second Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, doc. 78, the termination date of
discovery was extended to July 18, 2025. Id. at 1. In Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Amend and
Extend Certain Case Management Deadlines, doc. 106, the parties requested that the termination date of
expert discovery be moved from July 18, 2025, to August 29, 2025. Id. at 1. The Court approved this
extension and ordered that the parties would have until August 29, 2025, to complete expert discovery.
Doc. 107. On September 16, 2025, the parties jointly requested a 52-day extension of the discovery
deadline from August 29, 2025, to October 20, 2025. Doc. 125 at 1. In their attached proposed order, the
Case 1:23-cv-00879-KG-GBW Document 182 Filed 03/19/26 Page 1 of 16

2
would be making supplemental production of approximately 400 documents pursuant
to its obligations under Rule 26(e)(1)(A). Doc. 159 at 2; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A)
(stating that a party who has made a disclosure or responded to a discovery request
must supplement its response in a timely manner if the party learns that the disclosure
was materially incomplete or incorrect). On November 5, 2025, Defendant produced
the supplemental documentation and on November 11, 2025, Defendant produced an
amended privilege log. See doc. 170 at 3; doc. 178 at 3. While there is some debate
between the parties about how much new information was revealed by the late
disclosures and the necessary time it would take to review them, the parties agree that
Defendant provided approximately 370 documents after the close of discovery. See
docs. 153-3, 159-1.
On November 26, 2025, Plaintiff moved for a 60-day stay or extension on all
dispositive motions to review the belatedly produced documents. Doc. 153. The Court
held a hearing on December 10, 2025. Doc. 160. At the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel
showed four new documents that allegedly indicated some awareness of human
trafficking on the part of Defendant. Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s counsel also argued that
belatedly produced documents in a companion case, A.W. v. Red Roof Inns, Inc. et al, No.
language read that “the discovery deadline, set forth in ECF No. 107, is extended.” Doc. 125-1. The
corresponding Order stated that “[t]he parties’ joint motion to extend the discovery deadline to October
20, 2025,” was granted with no reference to the fact that the initial extension set forth in doc. 107 had been
for expert discovery. Doc. 136. These timing complications are largely irrelevant to the motion at hand as
regardless of when general discovery concluded (July 18, August 29, or October 20), Defendant’s
supplemental disclosures occurred later.
Case 1:23-cv-00879-KG-GBW Document 182 Filed 03/19/26 Page 2 of 16

3
2:21-cv-04934 (S.D. Ohio), impacted A.F.’s case before this court. See doc. 153 at 4-5; doc.
160 at 2; doc. 170 at 1-3; doc. 178 at 1-2. At the hearing, the Court ruled that Plaintiff
would have until January 16, 2026, to file a motion to reopen discovery. Doc. 160 at 4;
doc. 165 at 2.
On January 19, 2026, Plaintiff filed the present Motion to Reopen Discovery. Doc.
170. In it, Plaintiff requested that the Court (1) reopen the 30(b)(6) deposition, limited to
the discussion of newly produced documents and the underlying topics;2 (2) allow
Plaintiff to take the deposition of a third-party investigator, Mr. Ciceroni (“Mr. C”);3 (3)
allow Plaintiff to take the depositions of Joe Amorosia and Farah Bhayani, G6’s CEO
and general counsel; (4) order that Defendant produce the “hard copy investigation
reports for human trafficking and/or prostitution for the relevant time periods”; (5)
order that Defendant search and produce the “custodial files” of Joe Amorosia and
Farah Bhayani; (6) allow for privilege log challenges in both the present case and A.W.,
the companion case in Ohio; and (7) allow experts to use the new evidence to
supplement their reports.4 Doc. 170 at 5-9; see also doc. 170-3; doc. 170-4; doc. 174 at 2; doc.
179 at 10. Defendant argues that all these requests are futile attempts to delay Plaintiff’s
2 Plaintiff initially asked for three-hour depositions, see doc. 172-3 at 2; doc. 174 at 2, but now appears to
request four-hour depositions, see doc. 179 at 10.
3 Mr. Ciceroni’s name is sometimes spelled “Ciceroine” in the pleadings. See doc. 174 at 2, 170-4 at 3. He
is also sometimes referred to as “Mr. Cicerelli.” Doc. 170-5 at 3.
4 Plaintiff also seemed to originally request a one-hour deposition of Victor Glover, see doc. 172-3 at 2, doc.
174 at 2, but that request was not included in the body of Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Discovery, doc. 170,
nor in Plaintiff’s Reply, doc. 178.
Case 1:23-cv-00879-KG-GBW Document 182 Filed 03/19/26 Page 3 of 16

4
response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 130, and should therefore
be denied. Doc. 178.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The district court has broad discretion over the management of discovery,
including whether to extend discovery beyond its close. Smith v. United States, 834 F.2d
166, 169 (10th Cir. 1987). In determining whether discovery should be reopened, the
Court should consider a variety of factors, including:
1) whether trial is imminent, 2) whether the request is opposed, 3)
whether the non-moving party would be prejudiced, 4) whether the
moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the
guidelines established by the court, 5) the foreseeability of the need
for additional discovery in light of time allowed for discovery by the
district court, and 6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to
relevant evidence.
Id. (citations omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
a. Timeliness
As a preliminary matter, the Court will not dismiss Plaintiff’s motion outright on
timeliness grounds, as sought by Defendant. See docs. 172, 175. While Plaintiff’s motion
was filed three days after the deadline imposed by the Court, see doc. 165, the Court
finds that the delay is not prejudicial to Defendant, does not negatively impact or
seriously delay the proceedings, and can be characterized as reasonably outside of
Plaintiff’s control. See doc. 174 at 4-6 (asserting that the document was filed late due to
Case 1:23-cv-00879-KG-GBW Document 182 Filed 03/19/26 Page 4 of 16

5
serious illness and car trouble during a preplanned vacation out of state); see also Taitt-
Phillip v. Lockheed Martin Corp. 2022 WL 1262217, at *2 (D.N.M. Apr. 28, 2022) (outlining
the standard for a finding of excusable neglect). Because Plaintiff’s counsel has
arguably made out a case for excusable neglect, the Court will proceed to the merits of
the argument. However, counsel is warned that continued late filing may result in
summary denials of future motions.
b. The A.W. Case
Much of Plaintiff’s motion relies on documents produced in a separate matter,
A.W. v. Red Roof Inns, Inc. et al, No. 2:21-cv-04934 (S.D. Ohio). See generally doc. 170.
Plaintiff asserts that discovery should be reopened in part because Defendant belatedly
produced approximately 1,800 documents in A.W. and the parties agreed to cross notice
the depositions. See id. at 2-3. The Court disagrees.
On April 18, 2025, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel to inquire
about cross noticing depositions in both A.W. and A.F. Doc. 170-2. The depositions
were thereafter cross noticed, and the parties were able to use the deposition transcripts
in both cases. Doc. 170 at 2; doc. 178 at 5. Plaintiff’s counsel alleges that “[b]ecause
exhibits could come from either production, the Parties used A.W. the case to work
towards getting the necessary relevant documents produced.” Doc. 170 at 2. Plaintiff
did not seek to have the same documents produced in A.F. because of the agreement to
Case 1:23-cv-00879-KG-GBW Document 182 Filed 03/19/26 Page 5 of 16

6
cross notice. Id. As a result “the A.W. case has many more relevant documents than
A.F.” Id.
Notwithstanding the challenge this organizational choice poses for Plaintiff’s
counsel, it is unclear why documents in A.W. should form a basis to reopen discovery in
the instant case. There is no joint A.F./A.W. discovery. As noted by both parties,
counsel never agreed to make all documents across both cases interchangeable. Docs.
178 at 5; doc. 179 at 5. There was never a guarantee that documents from A.W. would be
allowed in A.F. This reality should have been especially apparent given that the two
cases have different scopes of discovery, see doc. 178 at 6, and there is a protective order
in place in A.W. which restricts the use of A.W. documents to that case alone absent
permission from the Southern District of Ohio, see doc. 178 at 6; doc. 179 at 5; doc. 178 at
6.
In short, A.W. and A.F. are two separate cases, regardless of any agreements to
cross notice depositions. Whatever document sharing occurred in the name of
“efficiency” in the two cases was not a result of Court orders, nor even a comprehensive
discovery-sharing agreement between the parties. Documents belatedly produced in
A.W., a separate case, do not compel the reopening of discovery in this case. As such,
the Court will consider only the supplemental A.F. documents when determining
whether to grant Plaintiff’s discovery requests.
c. Hard-Copy Investigation Reports and “Discovery on Discovery”
Case 1:23-cv-00879-KG-GBW Document 182 Filed 03/19/26 Page 6 of 16

7
One reason Plaintiff seeks to reopen discovery is to obtain the “hard copy
investigation reports for human trafficking and/or prostitution.” Doc. 170 at 6. Plaintiff
states that these investigation documents were first identified in the deposition of Mark
VanBeest and were requested by Plaintiff but were never produced by Defendant. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that the newly produced A.F. documents include information that
should help Defendant locate the reports. Id.
Given the request for and apparent relevance of the hard-copy investigation
reports, Plaintiff is entitled to them. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (parties may “obtain
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or
defense and proportional to the needs of the case”). If the newly supplemented
documents provide an investigatory avenue to further search for the reports, Defendant
is obligated to pursue it and supplement discovery with what is discovered. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(a).
However, this category of Plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery is seeking to
conduct discovery about the methods that Defendant used to search for the binders. In
other words, Plaintiff is seeking to reopen discovery to conduct “meta discovery” or
“discovery on discovery.” Such discovery is generally disfavored by courts “in light of
the danger of extending the already costly and time-consuming discovery process ad
infinitum.” Dalton v. Town of Silver City, 2021 WL 4307149, at *5 (D.N.M. Sept. 22, 2021).
Based on the record before the Court, there is insufficient reason to doubt the
Case 1:23-cv-00879-KG-GBW Document 182 Filed 03/19/26 Page 7 of 16

8
sufficiency of Defendant’s discovery responses heretofore. Consequently, the Court
will not reopen discovery for this purpose at this time.
Accordingly, the Court will order Defendant to reevaluate its search for the hard-
copy investigative reports with the assistance of the newly-supplemented documents
(and any other new information they may possess) and produce them for the relevant
time periods if they exist and can be located. If Plaintiff believes that Defendant fails to
search for the hard-copy investigation reports in good faith, she can separately move for
sanctions or other appropriate remedy.
d. 30(b)(6) Deposition
Plaintiff requests that the Court reopen discovery so that she can “reopen the
30(b)(6) deposition, limited to the discussion of newly produced documents and the
underlying topics.” Doc. 170 at 5. While Plaintiff does not list the precise documents
that justify this request in her motion, a selection was presented to the Court at the
hearing held on December 10, 2025. Doc. 160. The documents presented to the Court
included (1) a budgeting document from 2015 with references to human trafficking, (2)
a “STARS” insurance claims report that has references to prostitution, (3) an email from
the hotel’s head of safety/security in which he asked for more training regarding human
trafficking, and (4) a safety and security report that shows guest privacy and safety on a
Case 1:23-cv-00879-KG-GBW Document 182 Filed 03/19/26 Page 8 of 16

9
continuum and allegedly shows a shift in Defendant’s priorities. See Motion Hearing
6:54–16:30, A.F. v. G6 Hospitality, LLC, 1:23-cv-00879 KG/GBW (D.N.M. Dec. 10, 2025).5
The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown a need to reopen the 30(b)(6) deposition:
trial is not imminent, and while reopening the 30(b)(6) deposition will incur additional
time and expenses and may therefore cause some prejudice to Defendant, there is a
colorable claim that additional discovery will lead to relevant evidence. See, e.g.,
Spacecon Specialty Contractors, LLC. v. Bensinger, 2010 WL 4823056, at *4 (D. Colo. Nov.
15, 2010) (“Because relevancy during the discovery process is broadly construed, the
Court agrees with Plaintiff that deposing [the witness] is likely to yield relevant
evidence.”). Defendant opposes the motion, but these documents were belatedly
produced and there is no evidence that Plaintiff was not diligent. As such, the Smith
factors support reopening the 30(b)(6) deposition for the limited purpose of exploring
the newly produced documents in A.F. See Smith, 834 F.2d at 169.
The Court does, however, find that the requested additional four-hour 30(b)(6)
deposition would be excessive. Doc. 179 at 10. As such, the Court will allow the
30(b)(6) deposition to be reopened for two (2) hours. The additional time will be
focused solely on the newly produced documents in A.F., not A.W.
5 The Motion Hearing citation refers to an audio recording of the December 10, 2025, hearing (doc. 160)
stored on the Court’s Liberty system. Neither the audio recording nor a transcript is currently available
on CM/ECF; however, any party may obtain the recording through the Court’s records department and
have it transcribed.
Case 1:23-cv-00879-KG-GBW Document 182 Filed 03/19/26 Page 9 of 16

10
e. Deposition of Mr. Ciceroni (“Mr. C”)
Plaintiff also seeks to reopen discovery to take the deposition of third-party
investigator Mr. Ciceroni (“Mr. C”). Doc. 170 at 7. Mr. C allegedly “compiled reports
for instances of human trafficking and prostitution.” Id. Plaintiff was first made aware
of Mr. C’s existence during the May 2, 2025, deposition of Mark VanBeest. Id.; see doc.
170-5 at 1-2. Plaintiff alleges that she never sought Mr. C’s deposition because no
investigation documents were ever produced. Doc. 170 at 7.
Considering the Smith factors, the Court finds that a late-stage deposition of Mr.
C would be inappropriate. “In the Tenth Circuit and many of its sister circuits, the
fourth Smith factor—the movant’s diligence—is paramount.” City of Las Cruces v. United
States, 2021 WL 5207098, at *47 (D.N.M. Nov. 9, 2021) (citations omitted). The Court
finds that Plaintiff was not diligent in conducting discovery regarding Mr. C. Plaintiff
was on notice of the third-party investigator and his reports on May 2, 2025, see doc. 170-
5 at 1-2, long before the close of discovery, yet she made no attempt to depose him.
Courts have found a lack of diligence when party could have easily obtained discovery
on a subject but chose not to do so. See, e.g., Anderson Living Tr. v. WPX Energy Prod.,
LLC, 308 F.R.D. 410, 441 (D.N.M. 2015).
While trial in this case is not imminent, allowing a deposition of Mr. C would
create more costs and delay; defendant opposes the relief sought; and Plaintiff was not
Case 1:23-cv-00879-KG-GBW Document 182 Filed 03/19/26 Page 10 of 16

11
diligent in conducting the deposition before the close of discovery. As such, the Smith
factors counsel against allowing this deposition.
f. Custodial Files and Depositions of Joe Amorosia and Farah Bhayani
Plaintiff also requests production of the custodial files of Joe Amorosia and Farah
Bhayani and to take their depositions. Doc. 170 at 8. Plaintiff alleges that the request is
justified because although she “did not immediately seek the production of Mr.
Amorosia’s custodial file and his deposition,” that was only because Defendant
represented that “he was not involved in the issue of human trafficking at the granular
level, and not a key player when it came to Defendant G6’s response to prostitution and
trafficking instances.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that newly produced documents establish
Mr. Amorosia as a “key player” and that “Defendant G6’s representations regarding
Mr. Amorosia’s involvement in human trafficking were wrong.” Id. Plaintiff makes the
same argument as it concerns Ms. Bhayani.6 Id. at 9.
To begin, while Plaintiff states that Defendant “represented” that Mr. Amorosia
and Ms. Bhayani were “not involved in the issue of human trafficking at the granular
level,” she does not reveal (1) who made the representation, (2) when that
representation was made, or (3) any specifics about what exactly was said. See id. at 8.
Defendant submits that Plaintiff had notice of Mr. Amorosia’s and Ms. Bhayani’s
6 Plaintiff consistently refers to Ms. Bhayani as “Mr. Bhayani” in her motion. See doc. 170 at 8-9.
However, Plaintiff corrected her error in subsequent filings. See doc. 180 at 1.
Case 1:23-cv-00879-KG-GBW Document 182 Filed 03/19/26 Page 11 of 16

12
existence long before the November supplementation. Doc. 178 at 12. Without more
information, the alleged misrepresentations about Mr. Amorosia and Ms. Bhayani’s
involvement cannot defeat an apparent lack of diligence in conducting discovery.
Plaintiff also concedes that most documents that “justify this request” come from
the A.W. production. Doc. 170 at 8. As explained above, the Court will not consider the
A.W. documents as a justification for continued discovery in A.F. This exclusion leaves
only five new documents that allegedly relate to Mr. Amorosia and Ms. Bhayani and
only general assertions about what new information they contain. Doc. 180 at 1-2.
Again, considering the Smith factors, Plaintiff has not established that discovery should
be reopened on this basis. There is little information that demonstrates the likelihood
that these files and depositions will lead to relevant evidence seeing as there were only
five allegedly relevant new documents produced in A.F. Id. Further, Plaintiff has not
provided enough evidence to refute Defendant’s claim of a lack of diligence. See doc.
178 at 12. As such, the Court declines to reopen discovery on the custodial files and
depositions of Joe Amorosia and Farah Bhayani.
g. Privilege Log Challenges
Plaintiff claims that she should be “allowed to challenge the new privilege logs
provided in A.F. and A.W.” Doc. 170 at 9. Defendant objects to this request as untimely.
Doc. 178 at 9-10. The Court agrees.
Case 1:23-cv-00879-KG-GBW Document 182 Filed 03/19/26 Page 12 of 16

13
Regarding A.W., this Court cannot grant permission to challenge a privilege log
in separate case. Concerning A.F., Local Rule 26.6 provides that “[a] party served with
objections to: an interrogatory; request for production or inspection; or request for
admission must proceed under D.N.M.LR-Civ. 37.1 within twenty-one (21) days of
service of an objection” and that “[f]ailure to proceed within this time period constitutes
acceptance of the objection.” D.N.M.LR-Civ. 26.6. “A privilege log is essentially an
objection to a request for production: it is a list of documents that a party objects to
disclosing on the basis that the documents are privileged.” Dentsply Sirona Inc. v. Edge
Endo, LLC, 2019 WL 4816213, at *2 (D.N.M. Oct. 1, 2019); see also Sedillo Elec. v. Colo. Cas.
Ins. Co., 2017 WL 3600729, at *7 (D.N.M. Mar. 9, 2017) (finding that a challenge to a
privilege log is subject to Local Rule 26.6). Defendant’s amended privilege log was
produced November 11, 2025. Doc. 170 at 3. As such, Plaintiff had until December 2,
2025, to challenge any privilege designations appearing in the new documents.
Plaintiff asserts that she “challenged the log within 21 days of the de-designated
documents being produced.” Doc. 170 at 9. She is presumably referring to the
Expedited Motion for a 60-Day Stay or Extension of Briefing on Dispositive Motions,
filed November 26, 2025. See doc. 153. In that motion, Plaintiff stated that she “has
challenged some of the privilege designations and also plans to challenge all of the
Case 1:23-cv-00879-KG-GBW Document 182 Filed 03/19/26 Page 13 of 16

14
redactions made without explanation.”7 Id. at 5. This language indicates that the
motion itself was not meant to be the objection. Further, the motion did not attach a
copy of the objectionable document and Defendant’s response as required by Local Rule
37.1.
Because Plaintiff did not properly challenge Defendant’s updated privilege log
within the period allowed by the local rules, she has accepted the objections. D.N.M.
LR-Civ. 26.6. Further, she has not shown good cause for why the Court should extend
the objections period. See id. (permitting the court to extend the 21-day period “[f]or
good cause”). Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for privilege log
challenges.
h. Expert Supplementation
Further, Plaintiff requests that the Court allow for expert supplementation on
additional discovery. Because the Court is granting Plaintiff’s motion in part and
allowing the 30(b)(6) deposition to be reopened, Plaintiff’s experts may use the re-
opened deposition, and the approximately 370 documents newly produced in A.F. to
supplement their reports if necessary.
i. Delay to Summary Judgment Motion Response
7 Though Plaintiff claimed to have challenged some of the privilege designations, she never filed an
official motion to compel under Local Rule 37.1. The last motion to compel was filed on the docket in
September of 2024, see doc. 57, which was before Defendant even served their initial privilege log, see doc.
178 at 10.
Case 1:23-cv-00879-KG-GBW Document 182 Filed 03/19/26 Page 14 of 16

15
Finally, Plaintiff requests a delay in responding to the pending motion for
summary judgment. Doc. 180 at 10. At this time, such a request is not ripe. Plaintiff’s
response is not due until her pending Rule 56(d) motion has been resolved. See doc. 165
at 1. The ruling on that motion may moot any request for a further delay in responding
to the summary judgment motion. In any event, a request for such an extension should
be made to the presiding judge after resolution of the 56(d) motion. Consequently, the
undersigned will deny it without prejudice.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery to be Reopened (doc.
170) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendant shall utilize any relevant information in the newly-produced
documents to further search for any existing hard copy investigation
reports for human trafficking and/or prostitution for the relevant time
periods and produce any reports discovered to Plaintiff within 21 days of
entry of this Order. Plaintiff shall provide Defendant with the information
she claims will aid in finding the documents within 7 days of entry of this
Order.
2. Within 30 days of entry of this Order, Plaintiff shall complete a 2-hour
deposition of Defendant’s 30(b)(6) deponent regarding only the newly
produced documents in the A.F. case.
Case 1:23-cv-00879-KG-GBW Document 182 Filed 03/19/26 Page 15 of 16

16
3. Within 14 days of the re-opened 30(b)(6) deposition, Plaintiff’s experts
may supplement their reports with the new deposition transcript and the
approximately 370 documents supplemented by G6 in the A.F. case.
_____________________________________________
GREGORY B. WORMUTH
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-00879-KG-GBW Document 182 Filed 03/19/26 Page 16 of 16