UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-22885-WILLIAMS/TORRES

PAYCARGO, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAVEL GALBREATH, et al., 

Defendants. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S CO-COUNSEL

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff PayCargo, LLC’s (“PayCargo”) 

motion to strike Defendant Pasha Probiv’s (“Probiv”) motion to disqualify PayCargo’s 

co-counsel Jason Weber. [D.E. 169]. Probiv responded in opposition on November 

22, 2021. [D.E. 171]. PayCargo has not filed a reply, and the time to do so has since 

passed. Therefore, PayCargo’s motion is now ripe for disposition. After careful 

consideration of the filings and relevant authorities, and for the reasons discussed 

below, PayCargo’s motion to strike is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and

Probiv is given leave to file an amended motion to disqualify PayCargo’s co-counsel 

Jason Weber under seal.1

I. BACKGROUND

On July 13, 2020, PayCargo filed its initial complaint against Probiv, which 

1 On July 15, 2020, the Honorable Kathleen M. Williams referred all nondispositive pretrial motions to the undersigned for disposition. [D.E. 4].

Case 1:20-cv-22885-KMW Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2022 Page 1 of 5
2 

alleged various claims concerning breach of contract and misappropriation of trade 

secrets. [D.E. 1]. In light of the litigation’s confidential nature, this Court entered 

a stipulated protective order that provides, in relevant part:

Deposition testimony (even where not yet transcribed) and any 

accompanying exhibits shall be deemed “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 

prior to transcription and for a period of fourteen (14) calendar days 

after the transcription of said deposition, but said designation will 

expire at the conclusion of that fourteen-day period unless Defendants 

or Plaintiff designate portions of said testimony as “CONFIDENTIAL” 

or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” by letter or e-mail to the other parties.

[D.E. 135 at 4]. 

On November 1, 2021, Probiv, who represents himself in this lawsuit, deposed 

Olivier Carissimo, one of PayCargo’s current agents and/or employees (“Carissimo”). 

Pursuant to the stipulated protective order, Carissimo’s deposition testimony was 

automatically deemed “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” until 14 days after transcription, 

which occurred on November 5, 2021. Therefore, at a minimum, Carissimo’s 

deposition should have avoided public scrutiny until November 19, 2021.

 Despite the terms of the stipulated protective order, Probiv filed excerpts from 

Carissimo’s deposition on the public docket on November 15, 2021. [D.E. 167-1]. In 

Probiv’s view, these excerpts from Carissimo’s deposition support his motion to 

disqualify PayCargo’s co-counsel Jason Weber (the “Disqualification Motion”). [D.E. 

167]. Probiv also filed an arrest record from 2019, which PayCargo believes to have 

been expunged under Florida law and which, therefore, presents a different set of 

privacy concerns. [D.E. 167-1]. Nevertheless, Probiv, who acknowledged in his 

Case 1:20-cv-22885-KMW Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2022 Page 2 of 5
3 

Local Rule 7.1 certification that PayCargo instructed him to file the Disqualification 

Motion and its exhibits under seal, apparently failed to comply with the stipulated 

protective order by filing the Disqualification Motion, along transcripts from 

Carissimo’s deposition, on the public docket before the expiration of the automatic 

“ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” designation. [D.E. 167, ¶ 23]. 

PayCargo then promptly moved to strike the Disqualification Motion from the 

docket [D.E. 169] and to seal its contents pending resolution of the motion to strike 

[D.E. 170]. As part of its motion to strike the Disqualification Motion, PayCargo also 

asked the Court to enter an Order to Show Cause against Probiv regarding why he 

violated the stipulated protective order. [D.E. 169 at 3]. Soon thereafter, Judge 

Williams ordered the sealing of the Disqualification Motion and its exhibits [D.E. 

167], the motion to strike [D.E. 169], the motion to seal [D.E. 170], and Probiv’s 

response in opposition to PayCargo’s foregoing motions [D.E. 171]. [D.E. 179]. 

II. ANALYSIS

Without reaching the merits of Probiv’s Disqualification Motion, the Court 

finds that Probiv’s filing of the unredacted Disqualification Motion, which attached 

excerpts from Carissimo’s deposition, on the public docket prior to the expiration of 

the 14-day “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” hold was a violation of the stipulated 

protective order. As such, it should be stricken from the record of this case. 

But whether Probiv should be sanctioned for this obvious error is another 

matter that necessitates an observation regarding the current stay order. [D.E. 

Case 1:20-cv-22885-KMW Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2022 Page 3 of 5
4 

181]. On November 9, 2021, PayCargo filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case 

without prejudice. [D.E. 163]. Defendants responded in opposition on November 

23, 2021. [D.E. 172; 173; 174]. Accordingly, on November 29, 2021, with the 

exception of PayCargo’s reply, Judge Williams stayed all remaining pretrial deadlines 

pending the resolution of PayCargo’s motion to dismiss. [D.E. 181]. 

If it is necessary after PayCargo’s pending motion to dismiss is resolved, Judge 

Williams intends to enter a separate order setting forth amended deadlines. [D.E. 

181]. In light of the fact that, as of this writing, all pretrial deadlines are stayed, 

the Court declines to enter an Order to Show Cause regarding Probiv’s violation of 

the stipulated protective order. Instead, the Court will grant Probiv leave to file an 

amended Disqualification Motion under seal. 

If Probiv chooses to file an amended Disqualification Motion under seal, 

PayCargo’s response will be subject to the current stay order [D.E. 181]. Accordingly, 

if the resolution of PayCargo’s pending motion to dismiss necessitates lifting the 

current stay, PayCargo’s response to Probiv’s amended Disqualification Motion will 

be due 14 days after the stay is lifted. Moreover, should Probiv file an amended 

Disqualification Motion, his failure to file it under seal will result in sanctions

regardless of his beliefs concerning the confidentiality of certain content contained 

therein.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS that PayCargo’s motion to 

Case 1:20-cv-22885-KMW Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2022 Page 4 of 5
5 

strike be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part: 

A. PayCargo’s motion to strike Probiv’s Disqualification Motion is

GRANTED. The Clerk is instructed to strike [D.E. 167] from the record.

B. PayCargo’s motion for an Order to Show Cause against Probiv regarding 

his failure to abide by the stipulated protective order when filing his 

Disqualification Motion is DENIED. 

C. Probiv has leave to filed an amended Disqualification Motion under seal.

Although he is not required to file such a motion, his failure to file it 

under seal – should he choose to do so – will result in sanctions.

D. If necessary, PayCargo may respond to Probiv’s amended 

Disqualification Motion up to 14 days after the stay imposed by [D.E. 

181] is lifted by Judge Williams. If such a response is warranted, 

PayCargo has leave to file its response under seal. 

E. If necessary, Probiv may reply to PayCargo’s response in opposition to 

his amended Disqualification Motion within seven days of the filing of 

PayCargo’s response. If such a reply is warranted, Probiv has leave to 

file his reply under seal.

DONE AND SUBMITTED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 10th day of 

January, 2022.

/s/ Edwin G. Torres 

 EDWIN G. TORRES

 United States Magistrate Judge

 

Case 1:20-cv-22885-KMW Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2022 Page 5 of 5