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 Martin’s requests to disqualify defense counsel, lift the discovery stay, and extend the amendment deadline.
Jamarlin Martin must continue with Yenisey Rodriguez-McCloskey representing Kate Jhaveri; the discovery stay remains in place, and any requested extension of the amended-complaint deadline was denied.
What happened
In Martin v. Zagorski, Jamarlin Martin, who represented himself, asked the court to remove Yenisey Rodriguez-McCloskey as counsel for Defendant Kate Jhaveri. He also asked to lift the stay on discovery and, apparently, to extend the deadline for filing an amended complaint.
The court found that Martin had not shown Rodriguez-McCloskey received harmful confidential information from or about him. The brief conversation concerned possible representation in an earlier case, and Rodriguez-McCloskey said she declined that representation after recognizing a former client on the other side. Martin provided no evidence contradicting her account or his former lawyer’s confirmation that no confidential information was shared.
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the request to disqualify Rodriguez-McCloskey. He also denied the request to lift the discovery stay because Martin identified no changed circumstances, and denied any request to extend the amended-complaint deadline for the same reasons.
The detailed version
- Martin v. Zagorski · No. 1:25-cv-02715
- Lewis Liman
- July 31, 2025
Background
Jamarlin Martin, proceeding without a lawyer, moved to disqualify Yenisey Rodriguez-McCloskey from representing Defendant Kate Jhaveri. The motion was opposed. Martin also moved to lift the stay on discovery. The court additionally addressed, to the extent Martin sought it, a request to extend the deadline for filing an amended complaint.
Legal standard
The court explained that disqualification of counsel is within a federal district court’s discretion and is generally disfavored. A party seeking disqualification must meet a high standard of proof. Disqualification is ordinarily appropriate when a lawyer’s conflict undermines confidence in the lawyer’s representation or when the lawyer may use privileged information from a prior representation to give a current client an unfair advantage. Speculation is not enough when the alleged problem involves disclosure of client confidences.
Analysis
Martin’s motion relied on an email concerning an earlier case. Martin’s former lawyer had said that an attorney contact could not represent Martin because she had previously represented a party on the other side of that earlier case. The attorney contact was Rodriguez-McCloskey.
Rodriguez-McCloskey stated that she received the call, recognized the opposing defendant as a former client, and promptly told Martin’s lawyer that she could not participate. She described the discussion about Martin as brief and fleeting and stated that no confidential or privileged information was disclosed. Martin’s former lawyer later confirmed that he had not shared confidential information with Rodriguez-McCloskey. The court found that Martin offered no evidence to the contrary and had not shown that Rodriguez-McCloskey received information that could harm him in this case or any other basis for disqualification.
The court also found no changed circumstances supporting Martin’s request to lift the discovery stay. It denied any request to extend the amended-complaint deadline for the same reasons.
Disposition
The court denied the motion to disqualify Rodriguez-McCloskey. It also denied the motion to lift the discovery stay and denied, to the extent requested, an extension of the deadline to file an amended complaint. The opinion does not state that the court dismissed the case or resolved the underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.