Mathis v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
THE ESTATE OF AARON JIMENEZ, Deceased, by
and through EUGENIO S. MATHIS, personal
representative,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Civ. No. 24-316 SCY/JMR
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC. et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO SUPPLEMENT EXPERT OPINION
Before the Court are several motions1 that boil down to two issues: (1) should Plaintiff be
allowed to supplement its expert report on the basis of documents Defendants provided after
Plaintiff’s expert submission, even though Plaintiff already had almost all of the documents in its
possession; and (2) should Plaintiff’s deadline to file a Daubert motion be extended. Although
the plethora of motions filed indicate the issues before the Court are complex, in reality, they are
simple. Plaintiff’s argument that it needed time to review the approximately 4,500 pages of
supplemental disclosures the NMCD Defendants produced after Plaintiff disclosed its expert
report has merit. Doc. 72 at 2. So does Plaintiff’s argument that the time needed to review this
discovery warrants an extension of certain briefing deadlines. However, because the discovery
the NMCD Defendants provided was either already produced by Defendants in the parallel state
1 The motions at issue are: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To Serve A Supplemental Expert
Disclosure And Report And For An Extension Of Time To File A Daubert Motion To Exclude
Testimony Of NMCD Expert Mary Boring, Doc. 71; (2) Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion To Stay
Briefing On NMCD Defendants’ Daubert Motion To Exclude Testimony Of Ryan Herrington,
M.D., Doc. 72; (3) Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion To Stay Briefing On Defendants’ Motions For
Summary Judgment, Doc. 73; and (4) NMCD Defendants’ Motion For Leave To File Surreply
Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion To Stay Briefing On Defendants’ Daubert Motion And Motion For
Summary Judgment, Doc. 89.
Case 1:24-cv-00316-SCY-JMR Document 94 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 4

2
court case as well as other related cases, or is not relevant to Plaintiff’s expert report, good cause
does not exist to support Plaintiff’s request to supplement its expert report.
Plaintiff’s initial argument that good cause exists to extend the scheduling order deadlines
to permit Plaintiff to supplement its expert report does have some appeal: a supplemental
production of documents could constitute good cause to permit the other side to update an expert
report to incorporate those documents. The problem with Plaintiff’s argument, however, is that
none of the documents in that supplement were new or unknown to Plaintiff as of its expert
deadline. Most of the documents were already in Plaintiff’s possession because NMCD produced
them to the same Plaintiff acting as personal representative prosecuting related claims in other
lawsuits against NMCD, or in the state court lawsuit that is a companion to this federal case.
Doc. 78 at 4. The only new documents in the disclosure amount to 82 pages. Id. at 7-8. And “the
overwhelming majority of those [new] records have no relevance to this lawsuit. For example,
NMCD produced training logs for all trainings regardless of whether they implicated medical
care, including training logs regarding weapons.” Id. at 9.
In reply, Plaintiff candidly admits that the NMCD Defendants are right. Plaintiff agrees
that it “does not claim that these materials were entirely new or previously unavailable.” Doc. 88
at 2-3. Instead, Plaintiff says the request to supplement its expert report was based on the need to
figure out what was in the production:
[T]he June production was a disorganized and poorly indexed collection of
documents, many overlapping with prior discovery, but presented without context
or clear identification. The burden fell on Plaintiff’s counsel to review and
reconcile the production against the existing record to identify what was new,
relevant, and material. That review and organization took time and consultation
with Plaintiff’s expert, which constitutes good cause under Rule 16(b)(4).
Id. at 3; see also id. (“NMCD’s late production did not provide Plaintiff with access [it] lacked,
but instead required time and effort to review and integrate those documents into the broader
Case 1:24-cv-00316-SCY-JMR Document 94 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 4

3
record.”).
The Court agrees that Plaintiff needed time to sort through the production.2 And the
Court gave Plaintiff a temporary stay on briefing most motions in this case because of this
supplemental production. Docs. 74 & 77. But at this point, Plaintiff has done the review. Having
now reached the conclusion that the documents in the supplementation were not new, there is no
basis to supplement an expert report on the grounds that the report needed documents Plaintiff
did not have. In other words, what Plaintiff wanted—time to sort through a large production—
Plaintiff has achieved. There is no remaining reason to permit Plaintiff to supplement an expert
report now that Plaintiff knows the production did not have any relevant material not already
available to it at the time of its expert report.
Plaintiff makes another related request for relief: an extension of time to file any Daubert
motion directed to the testimony of NMCD expert Mary Boring within seven days after service
of Plaintiff’s supplemental expert disclosure. Doc. 71 at 5. Plaintiff explains that the NMCD
Defendants disclosed this expert at the same time they made the supplemental production. Id. at
3. Although the Court does not permit Plaintiff to make a supplemental expert disclosure, the
reasoning above—the time needed for Plaintiff to review the contents of the supplemental
disclosure—constitutes good cause to grant an extension of time. Plaintiff may file its Daubert
motion directed to Boring’s testimony within 14 days of the date of this order.
In sum, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request to supplement its expert report but grants an
2 NMCD Defendants disagree their supplemental production was a disorganized mess that
necessitated laborious efforts by Plaintiff’s counsel. They request a surreply to defend the
method and contents of their production. Doc. 89. The Court’s decision, however, does not turn
on how well the production was disorganized. Even if the production was well organized, it was
large enough that Plaintiff would need some reasonable time to review the material.
Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ motion for surreply as moot.
Case 1:24-cv-00316-SCY-JMR Document 94 Filed 12/11/25 Page 3 of 4

4
extension to file a Daubert motion. It denies the NMCD Defendants’ motion for surreply as
moot. It denies Plaintiff’s motions to stay briefing on the NMCD Defendants’ Daubert motion
and summary judgment motion, and vacates the temporary briefing stay that was previously
entered (Docs. 74 & 77). The briefing schedule on all pending motions shall resume according to
the Local Rules starting from the date of this order.3
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To Serve A Supplemental Expert Disclosure And
Report And For An Extension Of Time To File A Daubert Motion To Exclude Testimony Of
NMCD Expert Mary Boring, Doc. 71, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART;
2. 	Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion To Stay Briefing On NMCD Defendants’ Daubert
Motion To Exclude Testimony Of Ryan Herrington, M.D., Doc. 72, is DENIED;
3. 	Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion To Stay Briefing On Defendants’ Motions For
Summary Judgment, Doc. 73, is DENIED; and
4. 	NMCD Defendants’ Motion For Leave To File Surreply Regarding Plaintiff’s
Motion To Stay Briefing On Defendants’ Daubert Motion And Motion For Summary Judgment,
Doc. 89, is DENIED AS MOOT.
_____________________________________
STEVEN C. YARBROUGH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3 For example, a pending motion without a response would mean the response is due 14 days
from the date of this order. A pending motion with a response would mean the reply is due 14
days from the date of this order. The Court is closed Thursday, December 25 and Friday,
December 26, 2025, meaning Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a)(3) and (a)(6) apply. The
Local Rules continue to apply, including stipulations or motions for extensions of time.
D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.4(a).
Case 1:24-cv-00316-SCY-JMR Document 94 Filed 12/11/25 Page 4 of 4