Garcia v. Board of County Commissioners for the County of Dona Ana et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
HECTOR GARCIA, JR., as Personal
Representative of the ESTATE OF
HECTOR GARCIA,
Plaintiff,
v. Civ. No. 21-485 DHU/GJF
CHS TX, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines
and Reset Trial Date [Dkt. No. 149], filed November 19, 2025. The motion is fully briefed. See
Dkt. Nos. 156 (response), 160 (reply). Being fully advised, and having consulted with the presiding
judge, this Court concludes that the motion should be denied.
BACKGROUND
In May 2021, Plaintiff filed his Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] asserting claims for wrongful death
and violation of civil rights as a result of Defendants’ alleged failure to provide Hector Garcia with
adequate medical care while he was in their custody. The Court initially placed the case on a six-
month discovery track. Dkt. No. 49. The parties twice stipulated to the extension of pretrial
deadlines to allow more time for discovery [Dkt. Nos. 70, 82], but in February 2023 the case was
stayed due to Defendant Corizon Health’s impending bankruptcy. Dkt. No. 99. In May 2025, the
bankruptcy stay was lifted [Dkt. No. 115], and on August 6, 2025, the Court reopened discovery.
Case 2:21-cv-00485-DHU-GJF Document 165 Filed 12/31/25 Page 1 of 6

2
Dkt. No. 120. In its Order Reopening Discovery, the Court authorized an additional four-month
discovery period to conclude on December 5, 2025.1
On November 19, 2025, Defendants filed the motion [Dkt. No. 149] currently before the
Court. Defendants ask to extend all remaining discovery deadlines and the trial date for at least 90
days. As grounds for the motion, Defendants contend that the October 30, 2025, deposition of
Defendant Melissa Garcia, a nurse practitioner who was employed by former Defendant Corizon
Health during the relevant time period, led to the discovery of new evidence “which materially
changes the factual record relating to the care of Hector Garcia and creates a need for additional
discovery that could not have reasonably been anticipated or completed within existing deadlines.”
Dkt. No. 149 at 1. Specifically, Defendants contend that at the deposition “for the first time it
became evident that a critical nursing note—a late entry attributed to an unnamed nurse—may not
have been created contemporaneously on August 5, 2019, as its internal narrative suggested,” but
rather three days later. Id. at 2. Defendants assert that this information raises questions concerning
the authenticity and reliability of the entry, including whether the late entry reflects an attempt to
retroactively modify or justify nursing care after Hector Garcia’s death. Id. Finally, Defendants
argue that unexpected information obtained during discovery constitutes good cause to modify the
scheduling order.
1 In July 2025, Plaintiff filed his motion to substitute CHS TX Inc. for the bankrupt defendant
Corizon Health, Inc. Dkt. No. 118. On October 23, 2025, the presiding judge granted that motion
and terminated Corizon as a party to the case. Dkt. No. 137. However, as of the date of the filing
of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, Defendants’ counsel have not formally entered an
appearance on behalf of CHS TX Inc., although they have acted as counsel for that Defendant for
months now. Accordingly, the Court orders defense counsel to enter their appearance on behalf
of CHS TX Inc. no later than January 12, 2026.
Case 2:21-cv-00485-DHU-GJF Document 165 Filed 12/31/25 Page 2 of 6

3
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, scheduling orders “may be
modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). However,
rigid adherence to a pretrial schedule “should not be exacted, especially where to do so will result
in injustice to one party and relaxing of such agreement will not cause prejudice to the other party.”
Walker v. THI of New Mexico at Hobbs Ctr., 262 F.R.D. 599, 602 (D.N.M. 2009) (citations
omitted). Additionally, Courts are afforded wide discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of
litigation. Id. at 604.
The Tenth Circuit has set out six specific factors that a court may consider when
determining whether an amendment to the scheduling order to extend discovery is appropriate.
Those six factors are “1) whether trial is imminent, 2) whether the request is opposed, 3) whether
the non-moving party would be prejudiced, 4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining
discovery within the guidelines established by the court, 5) the foreseeability of the need for
additional discovery in light of the time allowed for discovery by the district court, and 6) the
likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant evidence.” Smith v. United States, 834 F.2d 166,
169 (10th Cir. 1987).
DISCUSSION
Taking the Smith factors in turn, the Court considers first whether trial is imminent. In fact,
the presiding judge has set this case for a jury trial to begin on May 4, 2026, just slightly over four
months from now. That leaves barely enough time for the parties to prepare pretrial motions and
for the Court to rule on them. Therefore, trial is imminent, and this factor weighs against amending
the scheduling order. Second, Plaintiff opposes the request and does not wish to further delay this
Case 2:21-cv-00485-DHU-GJF Document 165 Filed 12/31/25 Page 3 of 6

4
case, which through no fault of Plaintiff has been pending for more than four and a half years. This
factor also weighs against granting the motion.
Next, the Court must consider whether Plaintiff would be prejudiced by amending the
scheduling order and postponing the trial. Plaintiff argues that he will be prejudiced because the
case is already old, so any additional delays will compound the problems of the fading memories
of witnesses, some of whom have moved. In addition, Plaintiff asserts that revision of the
scheduling order will oblige him to spend time and money revising his expert’s reports, while at
the same time affording Defendants additional time to file an expert report to rebut Plaintiff’s
experts. Defendants do not respond to these arguments. Accordingly, this factor weighs against
extending pretrial deadlines.
The fourth factor to consider is whether Defendants were diligent in obtaining discovery
within the guidelines established by the court. This factor also weighs against granting the motion.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have conducted no depositions in this case, which Defendants do
not dispute. Defendants also do not dispute that to date they have failed to obtain and produce an
expert report. This can hardly be described as satisfactory diligence. Furthermore, Defendants
argue for the first time in their motion that the current limitations on number of interrogatories and
requests for production should be expanded because those limits unfairly treat all Defendants as
one collective group instead of individuals and entities with “distinct medical roles,
responsibilities, licensure levels, and scopes of practice.” Dkt. No. 149 at 4. However, Defendants’
counsel failed to mention any need for additional interrogatories and requests for production at the
August 5, 2025, telephonic status conference. Dkt. No. 121. In fact, at that status conference
defense counsel went so far as to say that the parties did not need the additional four months of
discovery that the Court was offering. Id. In short, Defendants have only now, after four and a half
Case 2:21-cv-00485-DHU-GJF Document 165 Filed 12/31/25 Page 4 of 6

5
years, exhibited an interest in conducting additional discovery. Therefore, this factor weighs
against modifying the scheduling order.
With regard to the fifth factor, the foreseeability of the need to conduct additional
discovery, the Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ argument that it could not have known the
author of the nurse’s medical record entry that is at the heart of their motion, or the fact that the
entry was written three days after Hector Garcia’s death. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the
written document at issue [Dkt. No. 149-1] shows on its face the author (Alfonso Avitia), the date
the entry began (August 5, 2019), and the date the record was closed (August 8, 2019), which is
one day after Hector Garcia died. The narrative note also begins with the words, “Late entry.” But
more importantly, another witness had pointed out this discrepancy in her deposition testimony
long before Melissa Garcia did so on October 30, 2025. For example, Heather Barela noted it at
her October 20, 2022, deposition. See Dkt. No. 156-1 at 2-3 (deposition pages 86, 105-106). In
light of the foregoing, this factor also weighs against granting the motion.
The final factor to consider is the likelihood that further discovery will lead to relevant
evidence. Further discovery could lead to the deposition of Alfonso Avitia in order to further
understand why he made a late entry into the treatment record. According to their motion,
Defendants wish to probe “the authenticity and reliability of the late entry,” who else knew about
the information in the late entry and when they knew it, and whether the entry contains accurate
information. Again, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that this information, which is held by
Defendants’ employees or former employees and is written in the medical records controlled by
Defendants, is available to Defendants without extending the discovery period and postponing the
upcoming trial date. This factor also weighs against setting new pretrial deadlines and discovery
limits.
Case 2:21-cv-00485-DHU-GJF Document 165 Filed 12/31/25 Page 5 of 6

6
For all the foregoing reasons, the Defendants have failed to show good cause to support
their motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Extend Discovery
Deadlines and Reset Trial Date [Dkt. No. 149] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
_______________________________________
THE HONORABLE GREGORY J. FOURATT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:21-cv-00485-DHU-GJF Document 165 Filed 12/31/25 Page 6 of 6