Cress v. Nexo Financial LLC et al

1
JOINT STIPULATION TO PERMIT DEPOSITIONS AFTER DISCOVERY CUTOFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James Taylor-Copeland (284743)
james@taylorcopelandlaw.com
Max Ambrose (320964)
maxambrose@taylorcopelandlaw.com
TAYLOR-COPELAND LAW
501 W. Broadway, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 734-8770
Fax: (619) 566-4341
Counsel for Plaintiff John Cress
Ian S. Shelton (264863)
ianshelton@bakermckenzie.com
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 299-8535
Fax: (310) 201-4721
Counsel for Defendant Nexo Capital Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
JOHN CRESS,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEXO CAPITAL INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:23-CV-00882-TSH
JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING
DEPOSITIONS, AND ORDER
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 125 Filed 06/11/26 Page 1 of 6

2
JOINT STIPULATION TO PERMIT DEPOSITIONS AFTER DISCOVERY CUTOFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION
1. 	The Court’s operative Amended Scheduling Order (Dkt. 109) sets June 29, 2026 as the
deadline for the close of both fact and expert discovery in this action (the “discovery cutoff”).
The parties have taken, or are in the process of scheduling, between eight and ten depositions
to be completed between the date of this filing and the discovery cutoff.
2. 	Plaintiff John Cress (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Nexo Capital Inc. (“Nexo”) jointly stipulate
to (a) permit three depositions to be taken after the discovery cutoff and (b) certain
agreements intended to promote efficiency and eliminate technical and jurisdictional
objections to remote depositions.
3. 	Good cause exists for this limited accommodation, which is sought in good faith to address
scheduling and logistical constraints, will not affect any other case deadline, and will not
prejudice any party.
4. 	The parties served a total of six expert reports by the April 20, 2026, expert disclosure
deadline. The parties served a total of five rebuttal reports by the June 5, 2026, rebuttal
disclosure deadline. The parties have thus been scheduling numerous depositions to be
completed before the discovery cutoff.
5. 	Plaintiff first informed Nexo that he intended to depose Mr. Greaves on May 22, 2026, and
subsequently noticed the deposition of Augustus Greaves for June 18, 2026. On June 8, 2026,
the parties submitted a joint letter brief regarding Nexo’s Motion to Quash the Deposition of
Mr. Greaves.
6. 	On June 2, 2026, the Court entered a Discovery Order (Dkt. 120) that, among other things,
(a) ordered Defendant Nexo Capital Inc. (“Nexo”) to provide a Rule 30(b)(6) designee (or
designees) for one additional hour of deposition testimony concerning the VIP program,
which the Court ordered “may be conducted remotely”; and (b) denied Nexo’s motion to
quash the depositions of Kosta Kantchev and Yasen Damyanov, limited each such deposition
to four hours, and likewise ordered that those depositions “may be conducted remotely.”
Plaintiff has also designated an expert, Shimon Kogan, who is scheduled for remote
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 125 Filed 06/11/26 Page 2 of 6

3
JOINT STIPULATION TO PERMIT DEPOSITIONS AFTER DISCOVERY CUTOFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
deposition. These deponents—Nexo’s 30(b)(6) designee on the VIP program, Kosta
Kantchev, Yassen Damyanov, and Shimon Kogan (the “Remote Deponents”)—may be
located outside the United States.
7. 	The parties stipulate to the following:
a. 	Notwithstanding the discovery cutoff, Plaintiff may take the depositions of Nexo’s
expert witnesses Saul Solomon and Kristina Shampanier after the discovery cutoff.
b. 	If the Court denies Nexo’s Motion to Quash the Deposition of Augustus Greaves,
Plaintiff may take the deposition of Mr. Greaves after the discovery cutoff.
c. 	All other deadlines set forth in the operative Amended Scheduling Order (Dkt. 109)
shall remain in full force and effect.
d. 	The 	depositions 	of 	the 	Remote 	Deponents 	shall 	be 	conducted 	by 	remote
videoconference means pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4) and the
Court’s Order (Dkt. 120), before a privately retained court reporter, who need not be
in the physical presence of the deponent. The parties waive any objection under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 28 and 30(b)(5) to the court reporter administering
the oath by remote means, and agree that an oath so administered shall be deemed as
valid and effective as if administered in the physical presence of the deponent within
the United States.
e. 	The parties agree that the depositions are voluntary and waive any requirement to
proceed via the Hague Evidence Convention, letters rogatory, or the judicial
authorities of any country in which a Remote Deponent is physically located.
f. 	Notwithstanding that a deposition taken by remote means is ordinarily deemed taken
where the deponent answers the questions, the parties agree that the depositions shall
be treated as if taken within the United States for purposes of Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 30 and 32, and the parties waive any objection to the use of the transcript
or video based on the location of the deposition, the location of the deponent, the
location or qualifications of the officer, or the manner in which the oath was
administered.
g. 	The parties agree that the Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. 52) is sufficient to
safeguard all data in connection with the depositions.
Dated: June 11, 2026 	TAYLOR-COPELAND LAW, P.C.
By: /s/ James Taylor-Copeland
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 125 Filed 06/11/26 Page 3 of 6

4
JOINT STIPULATION TO PERMIT DEPOSITIONS AFTER DISCOVERY CUTOFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dated: June 11, 2026 	BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
By: /s/ Matthew Rawlinson
Attorneys for Defendant
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 125 Filed 06/11/26 Page 4 of 6

5
JOINT STIPULATION TO PERMIT DEPOSITIONS AFTER DISCOVERY CUTOFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTESTATION
Pursuant To Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I attest that concurrence in
the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatories.
Date: June 11, 2026 	TAYLOR-COPELAND LAW, P.C.
By: /s/ James Taylor-Copeland
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 125 Filed 06/11/26 Page 5 of 6

6
JOINT STIPULATION TO PERMIT DEPOSITIONS AFTER DISCOVERY CUTOFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	June 11, 2026
HON. THOMAS S. HIXSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 125 Filed 06/11/26 Page 6 of 6