Maturin v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
CARLOS MATURIN,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Civ. No. 24-1125 JCH/SCY
T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
Defendant.
AMENDED PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
On November 25, 2025, I entered a Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition
(“PFRD”) regarding Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s cross motions for sanctions. Doc. 84. In this
PFRD, I recommended that the Court deny both parties’ request for terminating sanctions against
the other. Relevant to the present PFRD, as to Defendant’s motion for sanctions, I found
dismissal under the Ehrenhaus factors would be too harsh a sanction. I instead recommended
lesser sanctions, including: (1) ordering Plaintiff to provide complete discovery responses as
ordered in the Court’s July 9, 2025 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to
Compel (Doc. 55); and (2) ordering Plaintiff to provide Defendant a list of 5 dates, all which fall
on business days (not weekends or federal holidays) within the subsequent 30 days, that he is
available for his deposition and require that he attend a deposition as set by Defendant on one of
those dates. Id. at 11-12.
Defendant objected to this portion of my PFRD recommending lesser discovery
sanctions, arguing that because discovery has closed, and because it filed a pending dispositive
motion, the Court should not reopen discovery at this time. Doc. 90. That is, Defendant eschews
the relief I recommended the Court provide to Defendant: a limited reopening of discovery to
Case 1:24-cv-01125-JCH-SCY Document 91 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 3

2
allow Defendant to take Plaintiff’s deposition and to require Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s
previously-sent written discovery requests. Given Defendant’s express preference not to pursue
such discovery, I withdraw that recommendation and consider discovery to now be closed.
Accordingly, I recommend that the Court sustain Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc.’s
Objections to Portions of Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition
(Doc. 90). In conjunction with the previous PFRD (Doc. 84), I recommend that the Court DENY
Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Terminating Sanctions Due to Systemic Discovery Abuse and
Litigation Misconduct (Doc. 56).
I further recommend that the Court GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Defendant’s
Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff for Bad Faith Conduct and Frivolous Pleadings (Doc. 67)
and Defendant’s Supplement to its Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff for Bad Faith Conduct
and Frivolous Pleadings (Doc. 73). I recommend that the Court deny Defendant’s request to
dismiss Plaintiff’s case, but that it grant the following sanctions:
 	require Plaintiff to pay Defendant’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees,
necessary to investigate any of the false citations Plaintiff used in any filings;
 	require Plaintiff to pay Defendant’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees,
related to Defendant’s motion for sanctions (Doc. 67) and the supplement (Doc. 73);
 	require Plaintiff to pay Defendant’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees,
related to Plaintiff’s failure to appear at his August 15, 2025 deposition;
 	in all future court filings, require Plaintiff to disclose whether he used artificial
intelligence in drafting the filing and, if he did, require him to certify, under Rule 11, that
he has verified all information, including all case citations, provided by the artificial
intelligence.
Case 1:24-cv-01125-JCH-SCY Document 91 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Lastly, I recommend the Court warn Plaintiff that, should the Court adopt these
recommendations, failure to comply with any Court order or sanction may result in dismissal of
his case. I also recommend that Defendant be allowed to move for further sanctions should
Plaintiff fail to complete any of the ordered obligations.
____________________________________
STEVEN C. YARBROUGH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THE PARTIES ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE of a
copy of these Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition they may file written
objections with the Clerk of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party
must file any objections with the Clerk of the District Court within the fourteen-day period
if that party wants to have appellate review of the proposed findings and recommended
disposition. If no objections are filed, no appellate review will be allowed.
Case 1:24-cv-01125-JCH-SCY Document 91 Filed 12/15/25 Page 3 of 3