Garcia v. Experian Information Solutions

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 22-cv-02769-GPG-KAS
ALEXANDER NOEL GARCIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, Crediting Reporting Agency,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHRYN A. STARNELLA
This matter is before the Court on the following Motions:
• 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt of Court Against Defense Counsel
Alexander Prunka for Failure to Comply with Court Order (Doc. 161)
[#167];
• 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) for Failure
to Comply with Court Order (Doc. 161) [#168];
• 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	to 	Extend 	All 	Deadlines 	by 	45 	Days 	Due 	to
Defendant’s 	Noncompliance 	with 	Court 	Order 	and 	Discovery
Obligations [#169];
• 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order [#190];
• 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Supplemental and Amended Responses
and for Sanctions [#192];
• 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Request Judicial Notice [#193]; and
• 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions [#194].
The Motions [#167, #168, #169, #190, #192, #193, #194] have been referred to
the undersigned. See Memorandums [#172, #173, #195].
Case No. 1:22-cv-02769-GPG-KAS Document 198 filed 12/18/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 5

2
A. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt [#167]
Plaintiff requests an order holding former counsel for Defendant, Alex Prunka, in
contempt for an alleged failure to comply with a prior discovery order. See Motion [#167]
at 1. At an October 2, 2025 discovery hearing, the Court ordered Defendant to produce
certain documents to Plaintiff no later than October 14, 2025. See Minute Entry [#161]. In
the Motion [#167], docketed on October 28, 2025,1 Plaintiff alleges that he had not
received any documents from Defendant.
In its Response [#186], Defendant claims that all relevant documents were mailed
to Plaintiff by the court-ordered deadline of October 14, 2025. Response [#186] at 1.
Defendant explains that Plaintiff’s facility refused delivery and the documents were
returned to sender on October 29, 2025, and October 30, 2025. Id. at 3. As such,
Defendant mailed them again and confirmed they were delivered on November 3, 2025.
Id. Mr. Prunka notified Plaintiff that Plaintiff’s facility refused to accept the documents at
the first delivery attempt. Id. at 3. Mr. Prunka provides a detailed declaration supporting
each of these assertions. See Prunka Decl. [#186-2].
A prerequisite to civil contempt is that a party disobeyed a court order. F.T.C. v.
Kuykendall, 371 F.3d 745, 756-57 (10th Cir. 2004). “[A] plaintiff must prove liability by
clear and convincing evidence.” Id. at 756. Plaintiff does not satisfy this burden.
Defendant timely mailed the documents to Plaintiff before the October 14, 2025 deadline.
See Certificates of Service [#186-2] at 14, 16. The prison refused to accept these
documents because they failed to include Mr. Prunka’s attorney bar number. See Notice
of Return to Sender [#186-2] at 11, 23. Thereafter, Defendant took reasonable steps to
substantially comply with the Court’s order by promptly resending all relevant documents.
See Spectra Sonics Aviation, Inc. v. Ogden City, No. 89-4142, 1991 WL 59369, at *2
(10th Cir. Apr. 19, 1991) (“[I]t is a defense to a claim of civil contempt if the [d]efendant
takes 	all 	reasonable 	steps 	and substantially complies with 	the 	court 	order.”). 	Civil
contempt is inappropriate and unwarranted under these circumstances. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt [#167] is DENIED.
B. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions [#168]
Plaintiff also requests that the Court sanction Defendant for the same conduct
described above. See Motion for Sanctions [#168]. However, as the Court previously
explained, Defendant did not violate the Court’s prior order. In fact, Defendant mailed the
documents before the Court imposed deadline of October 14, 2025. When those
documents 	were 	ultimately 	returned, 	Defendant 	expeditiously 	notified 	Plaintiff 	and
remailed them. The Court identifies no sanctionable conduct. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions [#168] is DENIED.
1 The docketed motion does not include the envelope in which the motion was mailed to the Court;
therefore, the date on which Plaintiff placed the Motion [#167] in the prison mail is unknown.
Case No. 1:22-cv-02769-GPG-KAS Document 198 filed 12/18/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 5

3
C. 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Deadlines [#169]
Plaintiff requests the Court extend all remaining deadlines in this case by 45 days
based on the delayed production of relevant documents. See Motion to Extend Deadlines
[#169]. In addition, he requests that “no further extensions be granted to Defendant
absent full compliance with Document 161,” i.e., the deadlines the Court imposed at
October 2, 2025 discovery hearing. Id. at 5. Defendant did not file a response or otherwise
indicate opposition to the Motion [#169]. For good cause shown,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#169] is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part. It is denied in part to the extent Plaintiff requests that no further
extensions be granted to Defendant. It is GRANTED in part to the extent it requests an
extension of the case deadlines for all parties. The deadline to make affirmative expert
disclosures is February 2, 2026. The deadline to make rebuttal expert disclosures is
March 6, 2026. The discovery cutoff is April 6, 2026. The deadline to file dispositive
motions is May 4, 2026. No further extensions of the case deadlines will be permitted
absent extraordinary circumstances.
D. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order [#190]
Plaintiff requests the Court enter a protective order to “prevent further discovery
abuse and litigation gamesmanship.” Motion [#190] at 1. He first claims that Defendant
failed to produce CPM SERTS logs for 2010 and 2022, as well as D/R logs for disputes
dated January 13, 2022, and December 18, 2021. Id. at 1-2. However, Defendant
responds that these documents were provided to Plaintiff in accordance with the Court’s
October 2, 2025 Order. Response [#196] at 2-3.
Next, Plaintiff alleges Defendant produced a blank CD/DVD after representing that
it contained responsive documents. Motion [#190] at 2. Defendant contends that it mailed
Plaintiff a CD/DVD with the requested digital copies of the non-confidential information;
however, Defendant cannot speak to Plaintiff’s ability to access the documents on the
CD/DVD. Response [#196] at 3. Defendant also points out that Plaintiff does not contest
that he did, in fact, receive hard copy versions of these same documents. Id.
Next, Plaintiff claims that Defendant “back-dated a letter to claim timely mailing of
confidential documents,” that former counsel for Defendant falsely declared the mailing
dates of those documents, and that Defendant’s new counsel “repeated false factual
contentions in filings[.]”. Motion [#190] at 2. However, as noted in Section A above, the
Court finds that Defendant has not falsified or fabricated the dates of which the documents
were mailed. Ultimately, the Court finds that Defendant has not engaged in abusive
discovery tactics, nor has Defendant engaged in any sanctionable conduct that would
otherwise warrant a protective order. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order [#190] is
DENIED.
Case No. 1:22-cv-02769-GPG-KAS Document 198 filed 12/18/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 5

4
E. 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Supplemental and Amended Responses and
for Sanctions [#192]
In his Motion to Compel Supplemental and Amended Responses and for Sanctions
[#192], Plaintiff again rehashes the issue regarding Defendant’s delayed production of
documents pursuant to the Court’s October 2, 2025 order. The Court has already found
that Defendant substantially complied with its discovery obligations and produced the
required documents, so it will not readdress this issue.
Plaintiff then explains that Defendant’s interrogatory responses were not verified.
Id. at 3. Defendant has attached a copy of the verification to their Response [#196]. See
Verification [#196-1]. Moreover, Plaintiff takes issue with Defendant’s responses to written
discovery, claiming that they are “incomplete,” “evasive, contradictory, and amount to
gamesmanship.” Motion [#192] at 5. For instance, Plaintiff claims that Defendant’s
interrogatory responses lodge boilerplate objections, and that Defendant’s admissions
are contradictory. Id. Plaintiff asks that Defendant be ordered to serve amended
interrogatory responses. See id. at 6. In response, Defendant “stands on its prior
arguments regarding discovery at the October 2, 2025 hearing, as well as the Court’s
October 2, 2025 Order, which required production of confidential documents, amended
responses to Interrogatory #8 and Requests for Production #4, #5, #10, and denied
amended responses with respect to other discovery requests.” Response [#196] at 5-6.
Defendant contends it complied with the Court’s order and that Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate otherwise. Id. at 6.
The Court agrees with Defendant. Plaintiff does not specifically explain how
Defendant’s responses to written discovery are deficient. See Motion [#192] at 5 (merely
noting that Defendant’s responses to interrogatories were “[b]oilerplate objections and
false denials[.]”). Nor does Plaintiff attach the at-issue discovery responses for the Court
to review. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#192] is DENIED without prejudice.
F. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Request Judicial Notice [#193]
In the Motion for Leave to Request Judicial Notice [#193], Plaintiff asks the Court
to take judicial notice of certain state court orders, certified mail tracking records, and
certain case law. See Motion [#193] at 1-2. When a party requests judicial notice of a fact
and supplies the court “with the necessary information,” then the court “must take judicial
notice.” FED. R. EVID. 201(c)(2). Here, Plaintiff does not attach the at-issue documents to
his Motion [#193]. Moreover, he fails to demonstrate how the documents are relevant to
the resolution of his claims. See Faircloth v. Hickenlooper, No. 18-cv-01249-RM-STV,
2019 WL 13359576, at *2 (D. Colo. Feb. 13, 2016) (denying motion for judicial notice
where pro se plaintiff did not explain the relevance of the at-issue documents); White
River Vill., LLP v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, Nos. 08-cv-00248-REB-MEH, 08-
cv-00359-REB-MEH, 2009 WL 2913242, at *1 (D. Colo. Sept. 8, 2009). Furthermore,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02769-GPG-KAS Document 198 filed 12/18/25 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 5

5
while Plaintiff appears to ask the Court to draw factual and legal conclusions from the
various documents, “[j]udicially noticed documents . . . are only considered to show their
contents, not to prove the truthfulness of those contents.” Maturin v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
No. 24-cv-1125 JCH/SCY, 2025 WL 1642420, at *3 (D.N.M. June 10, 2025). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#193] is DENIED without prejudice.
G. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions [#194]
In his Motion for Sanctions [#194], Plaintiff requests sanctions against counsel for
Defendant for two reasons. Motion [#194] at 1. First, he again avers that counsel for
Defendant misrepresented the mailing dates associated with Defendant’s recent
production of documents. Id. at 2. This is the same argument Plaintiff raised in his earlier
motions. See Motions [#167, #168].
In addition, Plaintiff claims that counsel for Defendant lodged an allegation that
Plaintiff hired Tammy Estrada to prepare his briefing. Motion [#194] at 1. More specifically,
in an earlier response to one of Plaintiff’s many motions, Defendant stated that Plaintiff
“retained an independent paralegal firm to assist in preparing [his Motion for Sanctions
[#168].” Response [#186] at 7 (quoting Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions [#168]). Plaintiff
takes issue with this accusation.
However, in Plaintiff’s earlier Motion for Sanctions [#168]—the one to which
Defendant was responding—Plaintiff expressly stated that he retained an independent
paralegal firm to assist in preparing that motion. Motion for Sanctions [#168] at 4. Plaintiff
also attached the invoice for those fees. Motion for Sanctions [#168] at 6-7. In its
Response [#196] to the instant Motion for Sanctions [#194], Defendant explains that the
invoice is from Bigdog Independent Consultants. Response [#196] at 9. Defendant
identified this company as being registered to Ms. Tammy Estrada through the Colorado
Secretary of State website. Id. Accordingly, Defendant drew the inference that Ms.
Estrada continues to act as an advocate on Plaintiff’s behalf, despite the Court’s prior
Order. See Courtroom Minutes [#124] at 1 (“Plaintiff’s power of attorney, Ms. Estrada,
may not act as an advocate for the plaintiff. She may only act as a pass-through for email
communication between the plaintiff and defense counsel.”). Moreover, Defendant’s act
of pointing out Ms. Estrada’s involvement is exactly what the Court previously ordered
Defendant to do. See id. (“Defense counsel is to alert the Court if Ms. Estrada is acting
as an advocate or holding herself out as a representative of the plaintiff.”). Plaintiff’s
Motion [#194] fails to identify any sanctionable conduct. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Sanctions [#194] is DENIED.
The Court will separately address Ms. Tammy Estrada's involvement in this case
in due course.
Dated: December 18, 2025
Case No. 1:22-cv-02769-GPG-KAS Document 198 filed 12/18/25 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 5