Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories in New Mexico

Background

N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-033(A) provides that:

“Without leave of court or written stipulation, any party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories, not exceeding fifty (50) in number including all discrete subparts, to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association or governmental agency, by any officer or agent who shall furnish such information as is available to the party.” (N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-033(A).)

The same rule further provides in prelevant part: “[l]eave to serve additional interrogatories shall be granted to the extent consistent with the principles of Subparagraph (2) of Paragraph B of Rule 1-026 NMRA.” (Id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Rule 1–037(A)(2) NMRA provides the basis for a party's motion to compel discovery if interrogatories have not been answered. (See e.g., Little v. Baigas (2016) 390 P.3d 201, 208 n.3 citing NMRA Rule 1–037(A)(2).)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

Motions to compel discovery are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. (See, Villanueva v. Sunday School Bd., 121 N.M. 98, 105 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995) [holding that “the judge did not abuse her discretion in denying Worker's motion to compel discovery.” see also, Kerman v. Swafford (1984) 101 N.M. 241, 245.)

The Court’s Decision

“[R]emedies for the violation of discovery rules or orders are discretionary with the trial court.” (Chavez v. Brd. of Cnty. Commissioners, Curry (2001) 130 N.M. 753, 764 citing Shamalon Bird Farm, Ltd. v. United States Fid. Guar. Co. (1991) 111 N.M. 713, 716.)

“[A] party who seeks to challenge an order granting a motion to compel discovery ... can either apply for an interlocutory appeal or refuse to comply, be held in contempt and file an appeal as of right from both the contempt judgment and the underlying discovery order on which the contempt was based.” (Boulanger v. Rio Rancho Pub. Sch., No. A-1-CA-36953, at *3 n.1 [N.M. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2021] citing King v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2004-NMCA-031, ¶ 19, 135 N.M. 206.)