T.H. v. Martinez et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
T.H.,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 2:24-cv-00887-MIS-KRS
MICHAEL ANDREW MARTINEZ,
in his individual capacity,
Defendant,
and
DOÑA ANA COUNTY,
Defendant-in-Intervention.
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the “County’s Second Motion To Compel And For
Sanctions” (Motion) (Doc. 168). The Motion seeks to compel full disclosure of Plaintiff’s mental
health history and to recover the costs of bringing the Motion pursuant to FED. R. C IV. P.
37(a)(5)(A).
Discussion
Interrogatory No. 11 of the County’s First Set of Interrogatories sought a “list all mental
health treatment providers [Plaintiff] ha[s] visited from April 30, 2013, to present.” (Doc. 167-5 at
7). The Local Rules of this Court mandate an automatic disclosure similar to Interrogatory No. 11,
except going back in time only five years. See D.N.M. LR-C IV. 26.3(d).1 Plaintiff originally
1 Local Rule 26.3(d) is titled “Required Initial Disclosure,” and states in relevant part as follows:
In all cases in which the physical or mental medical condition of a party is an issue, the
party whose condition is an issue must make a good faith effort to produce the following
information that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless solely
Case 2:24-cv-00887-MIS-KRS Document 190 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 5

2
responded to Interrogatory No. 11 on June 30, 2025, see (Doc. 108), by listing an unnamed
therapist who treated her years earlier when she was a child, but whose identity Plaintiff did not
remember. (Doc. 167-5 at 7). Plaintiff also listed three therapists by name—Katrina Bruns, LCSW,
LISW (Mental Health Therapist Katrina Bruns Therapy Services LLC, Las Cruces, New Mexico),
Cathleen Mauricette, LCSW (Wholistic Haven, Delray Beach Florida), and Marc Caplan, Ph. D.
(Las Cruces, New Mexico), as well as the Ben Archer Healthcare Center (Truth or Consequence,
New Mexico), where Plaintiff stated she was treated briefly in 2015 without naming any specific
treating provider. (Id.). Plaintiff “supplemented” her response to Interrogatory No. 11 on October
15, 2025, but merely repeated the same information previously given. (Id. at 7-8).
Plaintiff produced Dr. Bruns’s medical records to the County on October 23, 2025. Certain
information in those records alerted the County to the possibility that Plaintiff may not have
disclosed all of her mental health care providers. See (Doc. 168 at 5). Accordingly, the County
issued a subpoena to Plaintiff’s insurance carrier. See (id. at 6). On November 6, 2025, counsel for
the County requested Plaintiff’s counsel to provide the name of the provider or providers who
previously diagnosed Plaintiff with OCD and OTSD and prescribed her with medications, and to
for impeachment:
(1) a list of the name, address and phone number of any healthcare
provider, 	including 	without 	limitation, 	any 	physicians, 	dentists,
chiropractors, mental health counselors, clinics and hospitals which have
treated the party within the last five (5) years preceding the date of the
occurrence set forth in the pleadings and continuing through the current
date; ….
D.N.M. LR-C IV. 26.3(d). Plaintiff cites the introductory language leading up to subsection (1) of Local Rule 26.3(d),
which refers to “information that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses,” as limiting the
required disclosure in subparagraph (1) of “any health care provider … which ha[s] treated the party within the last
five (5) years.” Because the language of the Local Rule is arguably ambiguous on whether it requires disclosure of all
mental health care providers, or just those that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, the Court
relies solely on Interrogatory 11 for its ruling on the current Motion.
Case 2:24-cv-00887-MIS-KRS Document 190 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 5

3
execute a HIPAA release for the Ben Archer Healthcare Center. (Id. at 7; Doc. 167-11 at 3). The
County represents that it did not receive a response to these requests,2 and therefore filed the
present Motion eight days later on November 14, 2025. (Doc. 168 at 8). On November 24, 2025,
after the present Motion was filed, Plaintiff provided an additional supplemental response to
Interrogatory No. 11, which identified Sherlyn Oberlin, Roots Family Counseling Center in Truth
or Consequences, New Mexico, as the mental health provider who diagnosed Plaintiff with
OCD/PTSD in 2016, as well as the Sierra Vista Hospital in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico,
where Plaintiff was seen by a prescribing doctor to find a mental health professional in 2018. (Doc.
182 at 5; Doc. 179-1 at 3).
In response to the Motion, Plaintiff asserts that she “has responded promptly to new
requests, provided all requested releases, and worked to locate older or out-of-state provider
information as soon as it became available.” (Doc. 175 at 4). But she does not appear to dispute
that a release for the Ben Archer Healthcare Center was not provided prior to the filing of the
present Motion, or that she did not respond to the County’s request that she identify the name of
the provider or providers who previously diagnosed her with OCD and OTSD and prescribed her
with medications until after the Motion was filed.
Plaintiff’s supplemental response identifying for the first time Sherlyn Oberlin and the
Roots Family Counseling Center, as well as the Sierra Vista Hospital, which was served on the
County after the Motion was filed on November 24, 2025, references the fact that Ms. Oberlin saw
2 The County’s reply brief discloses that Plaintiff provided a second supplemental response to Interrogatory No 11 on
November 7, 2025, which referred to Plaintiff’s therapy records from Wholistic Haven (Dr. Mauricette), and from
Dr. Bruns provided to the County on November 6. 2025, see (Doc. 182 at 4; Doc. 182-1), but apparently was not
responsive to the County’s requests for the name of the provider or providers who previously diagnosed Plaintiff with
OCD and OTSD and prescribed her with medications and to execute a HIPAA release for the Ben Archer Healthcare
Center.
Case 2:24-cv-00887-MIS-KRS Document 190 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Plaintiff in 2016 “outside the 5-year discovery limitation” (Doc. 179-1 at 3); see also (Doc. 179-2
at 3). But Plaintiff failed to acknowledge that Interrogatory No. 11 requested a list of all mental
health care providers “from April 30, 2013, to present” (Doc. 167-5 at 7), and there is no indication
in the record that Plaintiff objected to the time period requested in the Interrogatory on the ground
that it was longer than the five years required by the Local Rule. Plaintiff could not just ignore
those parts of the County’s discovery requests to which she disagreed, but needed to have served
the County with a written objection and then filed a motion for protective order if the parties could
not reach agreement on the disputed time period. Any objection to the time period stated in
Interrogatory No. 11 that Plaintiff may attempt to raise now would be waived.3
Based on the above facts, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to disclose additional treating
mental health providers until after the County filed the Motion. The Court also finds as a result of
information recently learned by the County from having sent third-party subpoenas that it is likely
Plaintiff has yet to fully and completely disclose either all of her treating health providers for the
past five years as required by D.N.M. LR-C IV. 26.3(d)(1), or all of her treating mental health care
providers “from April 30, 2013, to present,” as required by Interrogatory No. 11. See (Doc. 179 at
2; Doc. 179-3; Doc. 179-4; Doc. 187-5). Therefore, Plaintiff will be required to further supplement
her discovery responses accordingly.
3 The Court also notes that the County states that, upon receiving Plaintiff’s supplemental response on November 24,
2025, the County offered to withdraw the pending Motion if Plaintiff would agree to an extension of the pretrial
deadlines and also provide a HIPAA release allowing the County to obtain records beyond the five year period
permitted by the Local Rules. See (Doc. 179 at 2; Doc. 179-2 at 2). As the County points out (Doc. 179 at 2), Plaintiff
declined to agree to this resolution of the pending Motion. See (Doc. 179-2 at 1).
Case 2:24-cv-00887-MIS-KRS Document 190 Filed 01/05/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons,
1. 	The County’s Second Motion To Compel (Doc. 168) is GRANTED.
2. 	Plaintiff is ORDERED to supplement her Local Rule 26.3(d)(1) disclosures, as
well as her answer to Interrogatory No. 11 on or before January 30, 2026. If Plaintiff contends
that no additional responsive information exists or is reasonably available, Plaintiff must so state,
with appropriate explanation. Plaintiff shall file a certificate of compliance with this order within
three (3) business days of providing her supplemental disclosures and responses.
3. 	Pursuant 	to 	FED. R. CIV. P. 	37(a)(5)(A), 	after 	providing 	Plaintiff 	with 	an
opportunity to be heard, the Court FINDS that Plaintiff’s failure to fully disclose her treating
mental health providers as required by Interrogatory No. 11 was not substantially justified, and
that no other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS
Plaintiff to pay the County’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in making
this Second Motion to Compel.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of January, 2026.
__________________________________
KEVIN R. SWEAZEA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-00887-MIS-KRS Document 190 Filed 01/05/26 Page 5 of 5