Gomez v. New Wave Energy Services Ltd. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MAGDALIA CHAVEZ, as next friend of
MANUEL GOMEZ,
Plaintiff,
v. Civ. No. 24-453 JMC/GJF
NEW WAVE ENERGY SERVICES, LTD.
d/b/a NEW WAVE ENERGY SERVICES
GROUP and ALLAN GUTIERREZ,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
This case is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order [Dkt. No. 66], in
which they seek relief from the obligation to answer two sets of requests for admission served on
them by Plaintiff on February 12, 2026. The Motion for Protective Order, which indicates that
Plaintiff opposes the motion, was filed on March 12, 2026. Therefore, under Local Rule 7.4(a),
Plaintiff’s response was due 14 days later, on March 26, 2026. As of the date of filing of this Order,
however, Plaintiff has not responded. Under Local Rule 7.1(b), “[t]he failure of a party to file and
serve a response in opposition to amotion within the time prescribed for doing so constitutes
consent to grant the motion.” D.N.M. LR-Civ. 7.1(b). Accordingly, the motion should be granted
on the ground that Plaintiff has consented to the motion.
The Court notes, however, that the motion should be granted on substantive grounds as
well. Defendants argue that the February 12, 2026, requests for admission are untimely. The
original Scheduling Order [Dkt. No. 15] stated that a “A written discovery request must be
propounded by a date which ensures that the response to that request is due on or before the
discovery deadline.” Although the discovery deadline was extended several times, this proviso
was never changed. The most recent discovery deadline was March 2, 2026. Under Rule 36(a)(3)
Case 2:24-cv-00453-JMC-GJF Document 69 Filed 04/01/26 Page 1 of 2

2
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party has 30 days to respond to a request for admission
or the matter is deemed admitted. Accordingly, Defendants’ responses to the February 12, 2026,
requests for admission were due on March 16, 20261—two weeks after the end of the discovery
period. Therefore, the requests for admission are untimely because responses were due after the
March 2, 2026, discovery deadline. The motion for protective order should be granted on this basis
as well.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order [Dkt. No.
66] is GRANTED, and Defendants are relieved of the obligation to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests
for admission served on February 12, 2026.
___________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1 Thirty days after February 12, 2026, is Saturday, March 14, 2026. Under Rule 6(a)(1)(C), that
deadline is extended to Monday, March 16, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-00453-JMC-GJF Document 69 Filed 04/01/26 Page 2 of 2