Martin v. Zagorski
- Lewis Liman
- 1:25-cv-02715
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Martin v. Zagorski, Judge Liman denied defendants’ request to adjourn the initial conference, excused the case-plan filing, and reserved discovery arguments.
Jamarlin Martin and the defendants are affected by the scheduling ruling: the initial pretrial conference remains scheduled, the proposed case-management plan is not required, and arguments about discovery and amendment will be heard at the conference.
What happened
Martin v. Zagorski involves Jamarlin Martin’s claims for whistleblower retaliation, conspiracy to interfere with constitutional rights, and negligence. Defendants had asked to postpone the initial pretrial conference and related case-plan deadline and to pause discovery while their motions to dismiss were pending.
Martin, who was representing himself, opposed the request. He wanted the conference to proceed on schedule, believed prompt discovery served his interests, and said he planned to ask permission to amend his complaint and add claims.
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied defendants’ motion to adjourn the initial pretrial conference. The parties no longer had to file a proposed case-management plan, and the court would hear arguments about pausing discovery and Martin’s expected request to amend the complaint at the conference.
The detailed version
- Martin v. Zagorski · No. 1:25-cv-02715
- Lewis Liman
- June 3, 2025
Background
Jamarlin Martin filed the case while representing himself. The complaint asserted three types of claims: whistleblower retaliation under the Dodd-Frank Act, a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), and common-law negligence. Defendants had filed motions to dismiss the complaint. Those motions were still pending, and Martin’s deadline to respond had been extended to July 1, 2025.
The court had scheduled an initial pretrial conference for June 16, 2025, and required the parties to submit a proposed case-management plan by June 9, 2025.
Requests and Positions
Defendants asked the court to postpone the case-management-plan deadline until 14 days after the court ruled on the motions to dismiss, stay discovery while those motions were being decided, and postpone the initial pretrial conference. They argued that the motions to dismiss could resolve the entire case and identified alleged defects in Martin’s claims and service of process. These were defendants’ arguments, not rulings by the court.
Martin opposed postponing the conference. He expressed concern about further procedural delays, wanted to follow the existing conference schedule, and said that prompt discovery served his interests. He also told defendants that he intended to seek permission to amend the complaint, including by adding claims.
Court’s Ruling
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied defendants’ motion to adjourn the initial pretrial conference. The court relieved the parties of the obligation to file a proposed case-management plan.
The court stated that it would hear arguments at the initial pretrial conference on defendants’ motion to stay discovery and on Martin’s anticipated motion to amend the complaint. The order did not decide the pending motions to dismiss, did not grant or deny the requested stay of discovery, and did not decide whether Martin would be allowed to amend the complaint.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.