Human Rights Defense Center v. Lujan Grisham et al

I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, individually and
in her capacity as Governor of the State of New
Mexico; ALISHA TAFOYA LUCERO,
individually and in her capacity as Cabinet Secretary
of the New Mexico Corrections Department;
MELANIE MARTINEZ, individually and in her
capacity as Deputy Secretary of the New Mexico
Correction Department; GARY MACIEL,
individually and in his capacity as Deputy Secretary
of the New Mexico Correction Department; BRIAN
R. EVANS, individually and in his capacity as Chief
Executive Officer of The GEO Group, Inc.;
WAYNE H. CALABRESE, individually and in his
capacity as President and Chief Operating Officer of
The GEO Group, Inc.; THE GEO GROUP, INC.
d/b/a LEA COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY, a corporation; SCOTT
MARQUARDT, individually and in his capacity as
Chief Executive Officer of Management & Training
Corporation; DANIEL MARQUARDT,
individually and in his capacity as President of
Management & Training Corporation;
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING
CORPORATION d/b/a OTERO COUNTY
PRISON FACILITY, a corporation; JOHN AND
JANE DOES 1-20, individually and in their official
capacities; and ENTITIES 1-10,
Defendants.
No. 1:24-cv-01091-SMD-KRS
ORDER RE: [100] PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion To Compel State Defendants’
Discovery Responses (“Motion”) (Doc. 100), filed on September 2, 2025. The State Defendants1
1 The State Defendants include Governor Michele Lujan Grisham, Secretary of the New Mexico Corrections
Department Alisha Tafoya-Lucero, Deputy Secretary of the New Mexico Corrections Department Melanie Martinez,
Case 1:24-cv-01091-SMD-KRS Document 141 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 4

2
filed their response on October 28, 2025 (Doc. 126), and Plaintiff filed its reply on November 12,
2025 (Doc. 129). The Court ordered further briefing on November 17, 2025 (Doc. 131), and
supplemental briefs were filed by the State Defendants on December 5, 2025 (Doc. 137), and by
Plaintiff on December 10, 2025 (Doc. 138). A telephonic hearing on the Motion was held on
December 15, 2025, at which the Court’s decision was announced. As stated at the hearing, the
Court orders the parties to engage in a meaningful meet-and-confer over Plaintiff’s disputed
discovery requests according to the terms set forth below.
1. 	On or before January 6, 2026, Plaintiff shall provide the State Defendants with a
revised discovery letter, detailing and explaining: (a) what documents Plaintiff has received from
the State Defendants to date; (b) which discovery requests (including interrogatories) Plaintiff
believes have been fully responded to; (c) which discovery requests in Plaintiff’s opinion have not
been fully responded to, identifying missing information and/or specific documents Plaintiff
believes exist but have not been provided; and (d) which discovery requests, if any, Plaintiff is
willing to narrow, along with any proposals Plaintiff has for how specific requests can be narrowed.
2. 	On or before January 20, 2026, the State Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with a
letter (a) responding to all of the items listed in Plaintiff’s revised discovery letter, and (b) detailing
and explaining: (i) what documents the State Defendants have already produced to Plaintiff;
(ii) what documents the State Defendants are still searching for and/or anticipate producing;
(iii) which discovery requests (including interrogatories) the State Defendants believe have been
fully responded to; and (iv) any suggestions the State Defendants have for narrowing specific
discovery requests.
and Deputy Secretary of the New Mexico Corrections Department Gary Maciel.
Case 1:24-cv-01091-SMD-KRS Document 141 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 4

3
3. 	Plaintiff and the State Defendants shall conduct a meet-and-confer on or before
January 30, 2026 to discuss their respective positions concerning the matters addressed in each
side’s discovery letter. The meet-and-confer must be conducted in person, or, if both Plaintiff and
the State Defendants agree, by Zoom. It cannot be conducted by telephone or by email.
4. 	At least one week prior to the meet-and-confer, the State Defendants must provide
Plaintiff with a privilege log that complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. At the meet-and-confer, the
parties shall discuss and attempt to reach agreement on any issues or disagreements that exist
concerning the privilege log provided by the State Defendants.
5. 	At the meet-and-confer, Plaintiff and the State Defendants must discuss their
respective positions about whether either a Special Master or a third-party vendor will be needed
to manage Plaintiff’s discovery requests and the State Defendants’ responses thereto, including
whether Plaintiff’s discovery requests can be narrowed to the point where neither a Special Master
nor a third-party vendor will be necessary. If either Plaintiff or the State Defendants believe one
of these options might be necessary, then Plaintiff and the State Defendants shall also discuss their
respective positions regarding apportioning or paying for the cost of retaining a Special Master or
third-party vendor.
6. 	If Plaintiff and the State Defendants reach agreement at or immediately following
the meet-and-confer on some or all disputes between them concerning Plaintiff’s discovery
requests, they shall file a joint notice on or before February 13, 2026 setting forth the specific
points of their agreement and any discovery parameters to which they have agreed. If Plaintiff and
the State Defendants agree that all issues between them concerning Plaintiff’s discovery requests
have been resolved, the joint notice shall so state.
Case 1:24-cv-01091-SMD-KRS Document 141 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 4

4
7. 	If Plaintiff and the State Defendants are unable to reach agreement at or
immediately following the meet-and-confer on some or all disputes between them concerning
Plaintiff’s discovery requests, they shall each file a notice on or before February 13, 2026 setting
forth their disagreements and the discovery parameters to which they cannot agree.
8. 	Following the filing of any notice(s) of disputed issues, Plaintiff and the State
Defendants are directed to contact Chambers (Sweazeaproposedtext@nmd.uscourts.gov) to
schedule an informal discovery conference. Neither Plaintiff nor the State Defendants shall file a
motion to compel or motion for protective order until after the Court has engaged with those parties
in an attempt to resolve any remaining disputes over Plaintiff’s discovery requests without the
need for filing formal motions.
9. 	In summary, Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion To Compel State Defendants’ Discovery
Responses (Doc. 100) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that the State Defendants are ordered
to engage good faith discussions with Plaintiff concerning Plaintiff’s discovery requests as set
forth above, and otherwise DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of December, 2025.
__________________________________
KEVIN R. SWEAZEA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-01091-SMD-KRS Document 141 Filed 12/16/25 Page 4 of 4