STATE OF NEW MEXICO

COUNTY OF SANTA FE
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

No. D-101-CV-2016-00249

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

not in its individual capacity, but solely as trustee
for the RMAC Trust, Series 2016-CTT,

Plaintiff,
vs.

MARK F. COBLE,

Defendant.

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

COMES NOW, Mark F. Coble, Defendant by and through Attorney N. Ana Garner of
record in the above captioned case to hereby request that named Plaintiff, U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, not in its individual capacity, but solely as trustee for the RMAC Trust, Series
2016-CTT, pursuant to LR1-303 and NMRA 1-037 and all other Discovery Rules, be Ordered by
the Court to provide Discovery requested. As grounds therefor, Defendant states:
The objections failed to comply with LR1-303 (D) and NMRA Article 5 1-026. Defendant
states Plaintiffs failure to comply with the discovery should result in sanctions and attorney fees
in bringing this motion be awarded to Defendant. A cursory review of Defendants request for
discovery clearly show Plaintiffs lack of candor toward the Honorable Court and the Defendant.
Requests for discovery address the claim of the Plaintiff regarding ownership and possession of
the Note and Mortgage as well as the lack of records thereof. See Exhibit A, Plaintiffs Response
to Defendants Request for First Set of Admissions and Productions of Documents.
Defendant now addresses the third alleged Plaintiff, whom along with two Government
Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, have claimed ownership of the Note
and Mortgage or beneficial rights to the Note and Mortgage. It is incumbent on this new Plaintiff
to provide the requested Discovery to include named Plaintiff parties (those with first-hand
knowledge who presumably assisted in answering Discovery) for deposition. Defendant can and

1
will defend and justify all requests for production before the Honorable Court.
HISTORY TIMELINE

Defendant sent Plaintiff Defendants Request for First Set of Admissions and Production
of Documents on June 21, 2017. Plaintiff failed to respond with requested legal, lawful requests
by responding with eight general objections. Plaintiff objected to every request for production
of documents and all but 13 of the 47 Requests for Admissions. Defendant sent a good faith
letter to Plaintiff August 9, 2017 which was not responded to by the Plaintiff as of this date.

AUTHORITIES AND ARGUMENT

The pretrial discovery rules, including Rule 1-026, intend a liberal pretrial Discovery. The
amendments consolidate the prior language in Rule 1-026 (B)(1) to express the well-established
standard for liberal pretrial discovery. E.g., Marchiondo v. Brown (cites omitted) The parties
may obtain discovery of ANY information not privileged which is relevant to the subject
matter in the pending litigation. (Emphasis Defendants.) The amendment retains the provision
that the information sought need not be admissible at trial if the information appears to be
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The rule further explains
that parties responding to discovery requests seeking such information must provide responsive
information then known to the party and may not delay discovery of such information simply
because discovery is not complete or future pretrial deadlines may exist.
Defendant requires these documents to show, at the least, Plaintiffs continual bad faith
toward the tribunal and to further demonstrate the forgery and fraud by First Horizon Home Loans,
the first Plaintiff whom the current Plaintiff stepped into the shoes of. The pretrial discovery rules,
including this rule (Rule1-026), intend a liberal pretrial discovery, to enable the parties to obtain
the fullest possible knowledge of the facts before trial the presumption is in favor of discovery.
Marchiondo v. Brown, 98 N.M. 394, 649 P.2d 462 (1982). Such a right is fundamental to our
system of jurisprudence. The general rule governing discovery is towards liberality rather than
limitations. Ruiz vs. Southern Pac Transport Co., 97 N.M. 194, 638 P2d 406 (Ct. App 1981).
Plaintiffs objections claim that Defendants requests are vague, ambiguous, overly broad
and burdensome. Those claims are false. Defendants requests are clear in asking for records

2
regarding servicing agreements, assignments of mortgage, payment history and records of
beneficial rights as reported by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., to include MERS
Timelines and Milestones Reports. Plaintiff has not answered regarding their alleged ownership
interests or that of past parties ownership or interests.
For the foregoing legal and lawful reasons, rules and statutes, Defendant moves this Court
for an Order To Compel Discovery, sanctions against the Plaintiff and attorney fees awarded to
Defendant in bringing this Motion, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems proper
in the circumstances.

Respectfully Submitted,

(ATTACH THEIR RESPONSE TO OUR DISCOVERY EXHIBIT A)

(ATTACH THEIR RESPONSE TO OUR DISCOVERY EXHIBIT A)
(ATTACH THEIR RESPONSE TO OUR DISCOVERY EXHIBIT A)

THANKS!