MEMORANDUM
TO: ASSOCIATE
FROM: PARTNER
DATE: March 2
I have attached Missy Step’s answers to the first set of interrogatories sent by us. You are the defense attorney, and after reviewing these answers, you believe supplementation is required and certain objections are invalid. Please review them and prepare a letter to the plaintiff’s attorney asking for supplementation pursuant to Rule 1-037. Look on our website at the scope of Rule 1-026, and also look at Rule 1-037 and Rule 1-033 (interrogatories).
Remember that your letter must specifically state which answers are deficient, why they are deficient, and you should explain why you are entitled to the requested information. I often include cites to case law and the rules in my letter--recall that you may have to, at some point, attach the letter as Exhibit A to your motion to compel. Your letter should have an introductory paragraph and state a definitive (realistic) date to respond. You can, of course, agree to give the other lawyer more time if needed. The more you can work out without court intervention, the better!
Here's a quote from a Motion to Compel that contains some citations you may want to look at and/or include in preparing your letter:
In New Mexico, there is a presumption in favor of discovery, and the rules of civil procedure are intended to promote liberal pretrial discovery to enable the parties to “obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the facts before trial.” Griego v. Grieco, 90 N.M. 174, 561 P.2d 36 (Ct. App. 1977). Under the rules governing discovery in New Mexico, Ms. Reeves is entitled to “obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. . . .” See Rule 1-026(b)(1). “The pretrial discovery rules, including Rule 26, intend a liberal pretrial discovery, to enable the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the facts before trial.” Marchiondo v. Brown, 98 N.M. 394, 397, 649 P.2d 462, 465 (1982). “Such a right is fundamental to our system of jurisprudence.” Id. Such “discovery is designed to make a trial less a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.” United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co., 96 N.M. 155, 169, 629 P.2d 231, 245 (1980).