Ponce et al v. ECO MS Transport Inc et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
LUIS PONCE, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ARELY PONCE, INDIVIDUALLY and AS
NEXT FRIEND OF Z.M., S.M., and K.P.,
Minors,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. 25-cv-1107-DHU-GJF
ECO MS TRANSPORT INC., ECO MS
GROUP LLC, TELLES DEJUAN
RANDALL, and TELLAS RD TRUCKING
INC.,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendants’
Responses to Written Discovery [Dkt. No. 33]. The motion is fully briefed. See Dkt. Nos. 34
(response), 40 (reply). After reviewing the briefing, exhibits, and applicable law, the Court
determines that no hearing is necessary. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES AS
MOOT Plaintiffs’ request to overrule Defendants’ “preliminary statement” but GRANTS
Plaintiffs’ request to overrule Defendants’ objections based on overbreadth, undue burden, and
relevance.
I. PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS
Although Plaintiffs attached 100 pages of exhibits to their Motion, their requests are quite
narrow. Plaintiffs first request that the Court construe as a discovery objection – and then overrule
– two paragraphs of a “preliminary statement” that Defendants included as part of their discovery
responses. Mot., Dkt. No. 33, at 2. Of more legal consequence, Plaintiffs also ask the Court to
Case 2:25-cv-01107-DHU-GJF Document 47 Filed 06/08/26 Page 1 of 4

2
overrule three specific bases of objections that Defendants interposed to the vast majority of
Plaintiff Luis Ponce’s interrogatories and requests for production. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs contend that
Defendants’ objections on the bases of “overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” are generalized, boilerplate objections
that courts in this district routinely condemn. Id.
For their part, Defendants assert that their “preliminary statement” is not an objection at all
but instead an advisory disclaimer by which they reserve their right to supplement their answers
and production under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e). Resp., Dkt. No. 34, at 2-3. As for
their actual objections, Defendants insist that they were sufficiently specific and tailored to the
corresponding interrogatory or RFP as to be valid. Id. at 4-5.
II. DISCUSSION
The Court agrees with Defendants that their “preliminary statement” is not a discovery
objection. Whether these two paragraphs someday may have legal consequence – or instead
amount to a legal nullity – is of no concern to the Court today. Objectively read, the “preliminary
statement” is not an independent operative objection but instead simply Defendants’ way of
reminding their legal adversary that they recognize their opportunity and obligation to supplement
as set forth in Rule 26(e). As the “preliminary statement” offers nothing to overrule, the Court
DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs’ request for the Court to do so.
Turning now to Defendants’ actual objections, the Court notes that Defendants construe
Plaintiffs’ Motion to include “a sweeping request that the Court overrule every objection raised by
Defendants[.]” Id. at 3 (emphasis added). But the Motion is far more modest in scope, as it asks
the Court only to overrule three specific categories of objection: (1) overbroad, (2) unduly
Case 2:25-cv-01107-DHU-GJF Document 47 Filed 06/08/26 Page 2 of 4

3
burdensome, and (3) not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
See Mot., ¶¶ 3, 6, 7. The Motion does not request that the Court also overrule objections based on
confidentiality, privilege, vagueness, ambiguity, or any other basis besides the three enumerated
above.
Between them, the four named defendants invoked the three categories of objection at issue
in their responses to a total of 33 interrogatories and 109 requests for production. In their brief in
opposition, however, Defendants spend little effort defending the merits of any of these objections.
They attach no declaration explaining why answering any interrogatory or responding to any
request for production presents an undue burden. Similarly, they shed little light on their relevance
or overbreadth objections. As an example, the only interrogatories that Defendants’ brief
specifically address dealt with the tires on the semi-truck involved in the collision and any other
collisions occurring in the five years preceding the collision in question. Resp., Dkt. No. 34, at 4.
Yet Defendants explain only their belief that tire-related discovery is not relevant because a tire
blew out. Id. The Court can’t tell what it was about the five-year look-back window that
Defendants find objectionable. With respect to requests for production, Defendants complain of
vagueness, ambiguity, and confidentiality without ever addressing the only three bases of
objections addressed by Plaintiffs’ Motion. Id. at 5. It is enough to say that explanations like
these offer the Court precious little guidance in how to resolve disputes like this.
The Court has considered the relevant legal standard that shapes the general contours of
discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs
of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
Case 2:25-cv-01107-DHU-GJF Document 47 Filed 06/08/26 Page 3 of 4

4
controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the
importance of the discovery in resolving issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit.”). Guided by that standard, the parties’ briefing and
exhibits, and the claims and defenses in this lawsuit, the Court GRANTS the Motion and
OVERRULES Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff Luis Ponce’s interrogatories and requests for
production to the extent they were “overbroad, unduly burdensome, or not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”1
As for remedy, the Court ORDERS Defendants – not later than 14 days after this Order
is filed – to supplement their answers to Plaintiff Luis Ponce’s interrogatories and their responses
to his requests for production to the extent that any content was withheld on the basis of
overbreadth, undue burden, or relevance.2
SO ORDERED.
_______________________________________
THE HONORABLE GREGORY J. FOURATT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1 Importantly, the Court is not addressing, much less deciding, any other category of objection that Defendants
interposed in their responses. This Order is limited to the scope of Plaintiffs’ Motion.
2 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(5), the Court finds that awarding fees to either side in this
particular dispute would be both unjust and unnecessary.
Case 2:25-cv-01107-DHU-GJF Document 47 Filed 06/08/26 Page 4 of 4