Garcia v. LHM SWH, LLC et al

Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ANTONIO GARCIA,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 1:25-cv-942-JMR-KRS
LHM SWH, LLC, doing business as
LHM SOUTHWEST HYUNDAI ALBUQUERQUE;
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; and
HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION TO COMPEL
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Antonio Garcia’s (“Plaintiff”)
Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant LHM
SWH, LLC’s responses to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery (“Motion”). (Doc. 34). In the Motion,
Plaintiff states he received Defendant LHM SWH, LLC’s (“Defendant”) responses on December
9, 2025, and amended responses on December 11, 2025. Id. at 1. On December 22, 2025, Plaintiff
began the meet and confer process regarding the aforementioned responses. Id. In light of the
holidays, the parties sought additional time to address the issues outlined in Plaintiff’s December
22, 2025, correspondence to Defendant. Id. On December 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant
Motion. Id. The Court was unable to address the Motion prior to Plaintiff’s filing deadline due to
federal court holiday closure. Subsequently, on December 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion to
Compel, (Doc. 35), and supporting brief, (Doc. 36), to preserve his right to object to Defendant’s
responses. Typically, the Court would find the Motion moot in light of Plaintiff’s December 29,
2025, Motion to Compel. However, given the unique circumstances presented by the court closure,
Case 1:25-cv-00942-JMR-KRS Document 37 Filed 12/31/25 Page 1 of 2

Page 2 of 2
and in the interest of judicial efficiency, the Court finds it necessary that the parties continue to
meet and confer to resolve the discovery disputes. Therefore, the parties shall continue conferring
to resolve any discovery disputes for which Plaintiff originally sought an extension. As such, the
Court having reviewed the Motion and being in all things fully advised in the premises, finds that
Plaintiff’s Motion is supported by good grounds, is well-taken, and should be granted.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel is GRANTED;
2. 	Plaintiff shall move to compel Defendant LHM SWH, LLC’s responses to
Plaintiff’s first set of discovery no later than January 19, 2026; and
3. 	Plaintiff is directed to withdraw his Motion to Compel, (Doc. 35), and the
supporting brief, (Doc. 36).
SO ORDERED THIS 31st day of December 2025.
______________________________
KEVIN R. SWEAZEA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00942-JMR-KRS Document 37 Filed 12/31/25 Page 2 of 2