F. v. G6 Hospitality, LLC

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
A.F.,
Plaintiff,
v. 1:23-cv-00879-KG-GBW
G6 HOSPITALITY LLC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to complete
discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), Doc. 168, and the Government’s
response, Doc. 169. For the reasons below, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.
I. Background
Plaintiff filed this action on October 6, 2023, asserting claims under the Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TPVA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1595, based on alleged sex
trafficking at a G6 property in New Mexico. Doc. 1. General discovery closed on July 18, 2025.
Doc. 182 at 1. On October 10, 2025, Defendant moved for summary judgment. Doc. 130.
On November 5, 2025, Defendant produced approximately 370 supplemental documents.
See Doc. 182 at 2. In light of this voluminous production, the Magistrate Judge authorized
limited additional discovery. See Doc. 182. Specifically, the court ordered that: (1) Defendant
search for and produce any responsive hard-copy investigation reports within 21 days; (2)
Plaintiff complete a two-hour continuation of Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition within 30
days, limited to the newly produced documents; and (3) Plaintiff’s experts may supplement their
reports within 14 days after the deposition. Id. at 15–16.
Case 1:23-cv-00879-KG-GBW Document 183 Filed 04/14/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Plaintiff now moves under 56(d) for additional time to respond to Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment. Doc. 168. Plaintiff asserts that she is unable to present facts essential to
oppose summary judgment because she “never saw” thousands of pages of late-produced
discovery materials “until the summary judgment motion had been filed.” Doc. 168-1 at 1, 3.
Plaintiff claims that she “requested these documents” during discovery, but Defendant withheld
them “until the eleventh hour.” Id. at 3–4. She contends that this production includes “smoking
gun documents” related to Defendant’s knowledge of alleged sex trafficking. Id. at 2–3.
Therefore, Plaintiff contends that she requires additional time to incorporate the newly produced
materials into the record, through document review, limited deposition testimony, and
supplementation of expert opinions. Id.
II. Standard of Review
“[S]ummary judgment [should] be refused where the nonmoving party has not had the
opportunity to discover information that is essential to his opposition.” Burke v. Utah Transit
Auth., 462 F.3d 1253, 1264 (10th Cir. 2006). If the opposing party “shows by affidavit or
declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition” to
a motion for summary judgment, the court can defer or deny the motion or allow time for
discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). The affidavit must “explain[ ] why facts precluding summary
judgment cannot be presented,” which requires the party “identify[ ] (1) the probable facts not
available, (2) why those facts cannot be presented currently, (3) what steps have been taken to
obtain these facts, and (4) how additional time will enable [the party] to obtain those facts and
rebut the motion for summary judgment.” Valley Forge Ins. v. Health Care Mgmt., 616 F.3d
1086, 1096 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although relief is not automatic,
Case 1:23-cv-00879-KG-GBW Document 183 Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Rule 56(d) motions “should ordinarily be treated liberally.” Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of
Pittsburgh v. Dish Network, 17 F.4th 22, 34 (10th Cir. 2021).
III. Analysis
Plaintiff has met her burden to establish that she cannot, at this time, present facts
essential to justify her opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The record
reflects that the materials at issue were produced after the close of discovery and after the filing
of the summary judgment motion, and Plaintiff could not have incorporated this information into
her opposition earlier through the exercise of diligence. See Doc. 168-1 at 1–3. Moreover, the
late-produced materials appear to bear directly on issues raised in Defendant’s motion, including
its knowledge of sex trafficking on its property and related policies. Id. At the time Plaintiff
filed her Rule 56(d) motion, she had not had a meaningful opportunity to review these materials
or to test them through discovery. Requiring Plaintiff to respond to summary judgment without
that opportunity would risk resolution of the motion on an incomplete factual record.
Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to a limited deferral of her response to Defendant’s motion
for summary judgment to complete discovery and incorporate it into her opposition. The
Magistrate Judge has addressed the scope of appropriate follow-up discovery and authorized
limited additional discovery. See Doc. 182. That ruling defines the extent of discovery
warranted considering Defendant’s late production. Id. at 15–16.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons above, the Court orders:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time under Rule 56(d), Doc. 168, is granted.
Case 1:23-cv-00879-KG-GBW Document 183 Filed 04/14/26 Page 3 of 4

4
2. Upon completing supplemental discovery, Plaintiff shall file a certification
confirming compliance with the Magistrate Judge’s order reopening discovery and
setting the schedule, Doc. 182.
3. Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Doc. 130, shall be
filed within fourteen (14) business days after Plaintiff files the certification of
completion.
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Please note that this document has been
electronically filed. To verify its
authenticity, please refer to the Digital File
Stamp on the NEF (Notice of Electronic
Filing) accompanying this document.
Electronically filed documents can be found
on the Court’s PACER public access
system.
Case 1:23-cv-00879-KG-GBW Document 183 Filed 04/14/26 Page 4 of 4