Dotson et al v. Acord et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
DAVID DOTSON, et al.,1
Plaintiffs,
v. No. 1:25-cv-00509-SCY-JHR
JOSEPH ACORD and
JOHN DOE 1, individually,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
COMPEL (DOC. 41)
THIS MATTER comes before Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Full and Complete
Interrogatory Discovery Responses [Doc. 41]. Despite the title, Plaintiffs seek to compel discovery
from Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)’s provision for initial disclosures. See id.
Defendant Joseph Acord filed a response [Doc. 46] and Plaintiffs replied [Doc. 49]. The Court,
having reviewed the briefing, case record, and applicable law, DENIES the Motion to Compel and
will award attorney fees to Acord pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case concerns 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for federal and state constitutional violations
against New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (“NMDGF”) officers Joseph Acord and John
Doe 1.2 The claims arise from the officers’ investigation into Plaintiff David Dotson for the killing
of a protected oryx in the White Sands Missile Range. See [Doc. 31, at 12]. On April 28, 2025,
Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants followed by an amended complaint on May 7, 2025.
1 In the interest of saving pages, the Court orders all parties to begin captioning the Plaintiffs in this case with “David
Dotson, et al.” in their filings.
2 John Doe 1 appears to be NMDGF officer Jake Morales. See [Doc. 31, at 9]. As of this Order, Morales has not been
joined as a named party.
Case 1:25-cv-00509-SCY-JHR Document 80 Filed 05/04/26 Page 1 of 4

2
[Doc. 1-1, at 1]. Defendants removed the suit to federal court on May 29, 2025. [Doc. 1]. On
September 23, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. [Doc. 21]. Plaintiffs allege that
during the oryx investigation, Acord and Morales entered the properties of Plaintiffs Jerry and
Dana Gum and David and Meagan Dotson without warrants or a warrant exception. [Doc. 21, at
13]. Plaintiffs further allege Acord obtained subsequent warrants for Dotson with a falsified
affidavit and illegally seized a rifle and scope, iPhone, and client files belonging to the Dotsons,
who are licensed attorneys. Id. at 14–18. Plaintiffs further allege Acord “tamper[ed]” with the
iPhone, causing security protections to delete work files, personal information, and attorney-client
privileged information therein. Id. at 19.
The Court issued an Initial Scheduling Order on November 5, 2025, setting the deadline
for initial disclosures on November 17, 2025, and a discovery scheduling conference for November
24th. [Doc. 27]. Pursuant to the parties’ joint motion, the Court reset the scheduling conference
for December 1, 2025, and extended the deadline for initial disclosures to November 24th. [Doc.
29]. The Court issued a Case Management Order on December 1, 2025. [Doc. 34]. The parties
began discovery, and on December 23, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel.
II. BRIEFING SUMMARY
Plaintiffs request the Court compel Acord to disclose photographs shown to be taken by
the officer at the Dotson property, all individuals to whom the iPhone and electronic client files
were “delivered” as part of the NMDGF investigation, and all individuals who had “custody,
possession and control” of the rifle and scope. [Doc. 41, at 10]. Plaintiffs argue Rule 26(a)(1)
mandates disclosure of this information because the individuals are “likely to have discoverable
information” and the photographs are “documents, electronically stored information, [or] tangible
things.” See id. at 9. Acord responds that Rule 26(a)(1) does not require he make these disclosures
Case 1:25-cv-00509-SCY-JHR Document 80 Filed 05/04/26 Page 2 of 4

3
because the rule is limited to discovery that he may use in aid of his defense. [Doc. 46, at 2, 4–6].
Furthermore, Acord argues Plaintiffs had already obtained several of the disclosures they seek
prior to filing their motion to compel. Id. at 4, 7.3 Plaintiffs do not reply to Acord’s arguments. See
[Doc. 49]. Instead, Plaintiffs allege Acord failed to disclose communications between his counsel
and the District Attorney’s Office for New Mexico’s Seventh Judicial District, who is prosecuting
an unrelated case in which David Dotson is defense counsel. Id. at 9.
III. APPLICABLE LAW
Rule 26 governs a party’s duty to make automatic disclosures in civil actions in federal
court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a). Under Rule 26(a)(1), a party “must, without awaiting a discovery
request,” disclose to the other parties the (1) name and contact information of individuals likely to
have discoverable information; and (2) copies of documents, electronically stored information
(“ESI”), and tangible things within its “possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(1)(A)(i)–(ii). However, a party need only disclose what it “may use to support its claims or
defense, unless the use would be solely for impeachment.” Id. (emphasis added). Therefore, a party
does not have a duty to disclose relevant material under Rule 26(a)(1) if it does not intend to use
it for its own case. Hayes v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., 12 F.4th 1186, 1202 (10th Cir. 2021). If the
opposing party wishes to obtain that material, it may do so via an appropriate discovery
mechanism. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 30, 33, 34, 36.
IV. ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is baseless under black-letter law. Plaintiffs do not argue that
Acord seeks to use the material they request in his own defense. See [Doc. 41]. Nor do they make
any showing that Acord based a motion or any other action in this litigation on that material in a
3 Acord also makes an argument based on his first motion for a stay of discovery that has since been resolved. [Doc.
46, at 4]; [Doc. 78 text only].
Case 1:25-cv-00509-SCY-JHR Document 80 Filed 05/04/26 Page 3 of 4

4
way that would create a Rule 26(a)(1) violation. See id. Nor do Plaintiffs dispute Acord’s
representation that they received at least some of the material they requested prior to filing their
motion to compel; instead, they allege Acord’s counsel has communicated with state prosecutors
on a separate case involving David Dotson. See [Doc. 49]. Plaintiffs argue these communications
prove Acord is not disclosing discoverable material that he has instead given to state prosecutors.
See [Doc. 49, at 1]. Regardless of the claim’s veracity, it would not concern Rule 26(a)(1) because
Plaintiffs do not argue how Acord may use this undisclosed material for his defense. See id.
Instead, Plaintiffs argue it proves “retaliation” and “interference” in “ongoing cases.” Id. If
Plaintiffs believe they can prove conduct by counsel which is both a breach of an applicable duty
or law and sanctionable by this Court, they must do so through an appropriate motion and with
specific supported statements of fact.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to compel [Doc. 41]. Pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B), the Court finds the motion to compel lacks substantial justification
and there is no indication that a fee award would be otherwise unjust; therefore, an award of
attorney fees to Acord is required. Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, Acord may move for
an award of attorney fees and costs for expenses incurred responding to the motion to compel.
[Doc. 46]. Plaintiffs may file a response contesting amount or reasonableness of the fees requested
within fourteen (14) days of service of the motion. Acord may file a reply, if any, within seven
(7) days of service of the response.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________
HON. JERRY H. RITTER
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00509-SCY-JHR Document 80 Filed 05/04/26 Page 4 of 4