Martinenko v. 212 Steakhouse Inc.
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-00518
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Martinenko v. 212 Steakhouse, Judge Rochon declined to stay Volper’s collection-related deposition, ordering it to proceed August 26, 2025.
Nikolay Volper, whose collection-related deposition was ordered to proceed, and the plaintiffs, whose efforts to collect the judgment could continue.
What happened
In Martinenko v. 212 Steakhouse Inc., Defendant Nikolay Volper asked the court to postpone his deposition while the court considered his planned motion to challenge the judgment. The deposition concerned the plaintiffs’ efforts to collect on that judgment.
The court did not grant the requested stay. It explained that Volper waited until three business days before the scheduled deposition to seek a stay, the judgment remained valid unless successfully challenged, and the deposition was narrow and focused on collection efforts. The court ordered the deposition to proceed in New York on August 26, 2025.
Judge Rochon issued the order on August 25, 2025.
The detailed version
- Martinenko v. 212 Steakhouse Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-00518
- Rochon
- Aug. 25, 2025
Background
On August 12, 2025, the court granted the plaintiffs’ request to compel Nikolay Volper’s deposition in connection with discovery about collecting the judgment. The court had previously noted that Volper planned to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which allows a party to seek relief from a judgment, but that such a motion does not automatically make the judgment ineffective or suspend enforcement.
On August 21, 2025, Volper submitted a letter-motion under Rule 26(c) and Local Civil Rule 7.1(d) seeking a protective order. He asked the court to stay, or postpone, his August 26 deposition until the court resolved his Rule 60 motion.
Analysis
Rule 26(c) gives a court discretion to stay discovery when there is good cause. The court explained that relevant considerations include whether a party has filed a motion that could dispose of the case, whether the requested stay would be short, whether the opposing party would be harmed by the delay, the scope and burden of the discovery, and the strength of the motion supporting the requested stay.
The court concluded that a stay was not warranted. Volper had told the court on August 6 that he planned to file a Rule 60 motion, but he waited until August 21—three business days before the deposition—to request a stay. The court also relied on its earlier conclusion that the judgment remained valid and enforceable unless Volper successfully challenged it. Finally, the court found that the deposition would be narrow and targeted because it concerned only the plaintiffs’ collection efforts.
Disposition
The court did not grant Volper’s request to stay the deposition. It ordered that his deposition proceed in New York on August 26, 2025. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon dated the order August 25, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.