Cress v. Nexo Financial LLC et al

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHN CRESS,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEXO CAPITAL INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 23-cv-00882-TSH
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. Nos. 112, 113, 118, 119
The parties have filed joint discovery letter briefs at ECF Nos. 112, 113, 118 and 119. The
Court addresses them in this order.
A. ECF No. 112
Plaintiff contends that Nexo’s Rule 30(b)(6) deponents were not sufficiently prepared to
testify on four topics. He seeks 2.5 additional hours for a remote deposition, at Nexo’s expense.
Nexo disagrees.
1. Document Preservation and Spoliation
Plaintiff has failed to show that Trenchev was insufficiently prepared to testify on this
topic.
2. VIP Program
Plaintiff has demonstrated that Dinca was not sufficiently prepared to testify on this topic.
3. Liquidation Fees and Mechanics
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Dinca was insufficiently prepared to testify on this
topic.
4. NEXO Token Sales to U.S. Customers
Plaintiff has not shown that Trenchev was insufficiently prepared to testify on this topic.
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 120 Filed 06/02/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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
United States District Court
Northern District of
 California
5. Ruling
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The
Court ORDERS Nexo to provide a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent for one additional hour of deposition
testimony concerning the VIP program. This deposition may be conducted remotely. It must
taken place within 30 days, and Nexo must identify the designee (or designees) in writing seven
days in advance of the deposition. Nexo must pay Plaintiff’s counsel’s fee for the one hour of
additional deposition. The remaining relief Plaintiff seeks is DENIED.
B. ECF No. 113
Nexo’s motion to quash the depositions of Kosta Kantchev and Yasen Damyanov is
DENIED. Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing that these depositions are worth taking. The
Court limits each deposition to four hours, and these depositions may be conducted remotely.
C. ECF No. 118
Nexo’s motion to depose Plaintiff John Cress for five additional hours is DENIED.
D. ECF No. 119
Plaintiff’s motion to quash or limit the deposition subpoena to Dieter Stenger is DENIED.
Stenger is a percipient witness who may have relevant knowledge, and Nexo is entitled to depose
him. The Court agrees with Nexo that it is likely unworkable to specify ahead of time the
questions or categories of questions Nexo will be permitted to ask. At the same time, this
deposition presents the risk of an invasion of privacy. Rule 30(d)(3)(A) says what to do in this
situation: “At any time during a deposition, the deponent or a party may move to terminate or
limit it, on the ground that it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably
annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party. . . . If the objecting deponent or party so
demands, the deposition must be suspended for the time necessary to obtain an order.”
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 2, 2026
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 120 Filed 06/02/26 Page 2 of 2