Yazzie v. Law Offices of Ferrell & Seldin, 1:10-cv-00292

Yazzie (plaintiff) sues Law Offices of Ferrell & Seldin and Target National Bank (defendants) in the District of New Mexico.
Defendants move to extend the expert disclosure deadline and discovery deadline under Rule 26; basis is Yazzie’s failure to comply with automatic disclosures and prior court orders.
Court previously ordered compliance with D.N.M.LR-Civ. 26.3(d)(3) requiring five‑year treatment history and HIPAA releases for plaintiffs claiming physical, mental, or emotional injury.
Yazzie argued “garden variety” emotional distress and resisted disclosing treatment history.
Yazzie did not comply by deadlines; she appealed some orders but ultimately provided provider list and releases Sept. 20, 2010.
Court grants extensions after applying Smith factors, extending expert designation deadline by 30 days and extending discovery/depositions to January 18, 2010 (for healthcare providers and experts).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Yazzie must comply with Rule 26.3(d)(3) despite garden-variety claims.	Yazzie argues no automatic disclosure for garden-variety injuries.	Defendants are entitled to discover potential contributing factors.	Yazzie must comply with Rule 26.3(d)(3).
Whether extending the expert and discovery deadlines is warranted after noncompliance.	Extension would prejudice Yazzie; new expert requires more discovery.	Without extension, defense cannot timely evaluate and prepare; noncompliance by Yazzie justifies extension.	Extension granted; deadlines extended to accommodate additional expert discovery and related depositions.
Whether the court should apply Smith factors to decide post-deadline discovery extension.	Not stated beyond opposition to delay.	Smith factors support reopening discovery in light of delay caused by plaintiff.	Smith factors satisfied; modification of deadlines approved.

Smith v. United States, 834 F.2d 166 (10th Cir. 1980) (factors for reopening discovery in post-deadline motions)