Martin v. Zagorski, 1:25-cv-02715

Plaintiff, Jamarlin Martin, filed suit pro se alleging whistleblower retaliation under Dodd-Frank, conspiracy under § 1985(3), and common-law negligence against DoubleVerify Holdings, its executives, Providence Equity, and others.
Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting the complaint was incurably flawed, particularly on employment, standing, and service grounds.
Martin had not responded to the motions to dismiss, having sought and received an extension to July 1, 2025.
Defendants requested to adjourn the deadline for the Case Management Plan, stay discovery, and postpone the Initial Pretrial Conference until after resolution of the motions to dismiss.
Martin opposed any procedural delays, arguing for the importance of prompt discovery and the scheduled conference.
The Court denied the request to adjourn the conference and CM Plan deadline but granted a hearing on motions to stay discovery and amend the complaint at the conference.

Issue	Martin's Argument	DoubleVerify's Argument	Held
Stay of discovery pending motions to dismiss	Speed to discovery serves his interests	Motions to dismiss likely to end case, so discovery wasteful	Heard at initial pretrial conference
Adjournment of Case Management Plan/conference	Adherence to original schedule is essential	Delay justified for efficiency and judicial economy	Denied
Validity of whistleblower/Dodd-Frank claim	Protected whistleblower activity alleged	Plaintiff was not Defendant's employee, claim defective	Not decided; part of motion to dismiss
Intent to amend complaint	Plans to add/clarify claims	Adjournment until scope of case clarified preferred	To be addressed at conference

Oliver v. City of New York, 540 F. Supp. 3d 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (discretion of court to stay discovery for good cause)
Williams v. Rosenblatt Sec. Inc., 136 F. Supp. 3d 593 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (Second Circuit does not deem whistleblowers a protected class under § 1985(3))