Composite

Exhibit A

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 1 of 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 21-24441-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres

MARK CASSIDY, 

Plaintiff,

v.

VOYAGER DIGITAL LTD., et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendants, Voyager Digital Ltd.’s (“Voyager 

Ltd.”) and Voyager Digital, LLC’s Expedited Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of 

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss the Complaint [ECF No. 29], filed on 

February 17, 2022. The Court issued an Order [ECF No. 30] requiring expedited briefing. 

Plaintiff, Mark Cassidy, filed a Response [ECF No. 33], to which Defendants filed their Reply 

[ECF No. 34]. For the following reasons, the Motion is denied.

Standard. A district court “has broad discretion to stay discovery pending decision on a 

dispositive motion.” Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1560 (11th Cir. 1985) 

(citations omitted). “Motions to stay discovery ‘are not favored because when discovery is delayed 

or prolonged it can create case management problems which impede the Court’s responsibility to 

expedite discovery and cause unnecessary litigation expenses and problems.’” Randy Rosenberg, 

D.C., P.A. v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., No. 19-cv-61422, 2019 WL 6052408, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 

15, 2019) (quoting Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997)). In determining 

whether to stay discovery, courts must take a “preliminary peek” at a dispositive motion to assess 

the likelihood that the motion will be granted. McCabe v. Foley, 233 F.R.D. 683, 685 (M.D. Fla. 

2006) (quotation marks omitted; quoting Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652). Parties seeking to stay 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 2 of 13 Case 1:21-cv-24441-CMA Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2022 Page 1 of 7
CASE NO. 21-24441-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres

2

discovery must make a “specific showing of prejudice or burdensomeness[.]” Cuhaci v. Kouri 

Grp., LP, No. 20-cv-23950, 2021 WL 1945819, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 14, 2021) (quotation marks 

and citation omitted).

Discussion. Having taken a “preliminary peek” at Defendants’ Motion to Compel 

Arbitration and to Dismiss the Complaint [ECF No. 28] (“Motion to Compel & Dismiss”), the 

Court cannot grant the Motion to Stay. Instead, the parties must conduct limited discovery to 

determine (1) whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over Voyager Ltd.; and (2) whether the 

arbitration agreement is enforceable. The Court explains. 

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Voyager Ltd. seeks to dismiss the 

Complaint [ECF No. 1] for lack of personal jurisdiction. (See Mot. to Compel & Dismiss 23).1 

Voyager Ltd. maintains that Plaintiff has “failed to make a prima facie showing of personal 

jurisdiction” over it. (Reply 7; see Mot. to Compel & Dismiss 23). To establish personal 

jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, a plaintiff “initially need only allege sufficient facts to 

make out a prima facie case of jurisdiction.” Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., Ltd., 178 F.3d 1209, 1214 

(11th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Courts must accept the facts alleged as true, to the extent they 

are undisputed. See id. at 1214–15. A genuine dispute of material jurisdictional fact warrants

jurisdictional discovery. See Aviation One of Fla., Inc. v. Airborne Ins. Consultants (PTY), Ltd, 

722 F. App’x 870, 878 (11th Cir. 2018).

Voyager Ltd. disputes that it purposefully “avail[ed itself] of the Florida consumer market 

through the promotion, marketing, sale, and service of [its] Voyager Platform in Florida.” (Compl. 

¶ 15 (alterations added); see Mot. to Compel & Dismiss 23). Voyager Ltd. describes itself as a 

1 The Court uses the pagination generated by the electronic CM/ECF database, which appears in the headers 

of all court filings. 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 3 of 13 Case 1:21-cv-24441-CMA Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2022 Page 2 of 7
CASE NO. 21-24441-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres

3

mere “holding company” that does not conduct business in Florida. (Reply 7 (citations omitted); 

see also Mot. to Compel & Dismiss 24). 

But Voyager Ltd.’s own statements contradict its position and bolster Plaintiff’s allegations

that it provides services in Florida. In Voyager Ltd.’s March 2021 earnings call, one of its

representatives stated, “We’re at 49 states today. We offer our services in 49 states. It’s only New 

York that we’re not — we don’t offer this service.” (Compl., Ex. G, March 3, 2021 Earnings Call 

[ECF No. 1-8] 17; see id. 2 (“[W]elcome to Voyager Digital Limited earnings call.” (alteration 

added)). It is possible that the representative meant to reference Voyager Digital, LLC, when he 

used “we,” but this ambiguity only accentuates the need for jurisdictional discovery. 

Although the Court is only conducting a “preliminary peek at the merits,” McCabe, 233

F.R.D. at 685 (citation and quotation marks omitted), other courts have concluded that similar

evidence of business activity within a jurisdiction is sufficient to satisfy a plaintiff’s initial burden 

of alleging personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Sculptchair, Inc. v. Century Arts, Ltd., 94 F.3d 623, 

628, 632 (11th Cir. 1996) (affirming finding of personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant 

where her “sporadic” business activities occurred in Florida); Kinney v. Mindsize, LLC, No. 20-

62094-Civ, 2021 WL 3911859, at *4–5 (S.D. Fla. June 7, 2021) (concluding that unrebutted

allegations of business activity in a state “establish at least a prima facie basis for exercising 

personal jurisdiction” (italics omitted)). Given the Complaint’s allegations and Voyager Ltd.’s 

own statement that it operates in 49 states, including Florida, the possibility of dismissal “is not 

apparent enough after a ‘preliminary peek’ to warrant an across-the-board stay of discovery[.]” 

Cabrera v. Progressive Behav. Sci., Inc., 331 F.R.D. 185, 187 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (alteration added). 

While Plaintiff has satisfied his prima facie showing at this juncture, Voyager Ltd. has

produced a declaration that conflicts with Plaintiff’s allegations and evidence. (See Mot. to 

Compel & Dismiss, Ex. A., Casey Decl. [ECF No. 28-1] 3 (“Voyager Ltd[.] is a foreign holding 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 4 of 13 Case 1:21-cv-24441-CMA Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2022 Page 3 of 7
CASE NO. 21-24441-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres

4

company parent of Voyager [Digital] LLC with no operations or employees. Voyager Ltd[.] does 

not operate or market the Voyager Platform.” (alterations added))). Even though factual conflicts 

merit jurisdictional discovery, see Aviation One of Fla., 722 F. App’x at 878, Voyager Ltd. opposes 

discovery because “Plaintiff has not moved the Court for jurisdictional discovery or for an 

extension of time to respond to the Motion to Compel” (Reply 6).2 

Courts may occasionally deny informal requests for jurisdictional discovery, see Hinkle v. 

Cirrus Design Corp., 775 F. App’x 545, 550 (11th Cir. 2019), but they also “have the power to 

order the discovery of facts necessary to determine their jurisdiction over the merits[,]” Aviation 

One of Fla., 722 F. App’x at 878 (alteration added; citation omitted). The Court opts to exercise 

its authority to order jurisdictional discovery to resolve the disputed facts surrounding personal 

jurisdiction rather than waste time awaiting further briefing. 

Nevertheless, if Plaintiffs’ jurisdictional discovery requests are too far-reaching, and 

conferral is unsuccessful at resolving any disagreement, Defendants may address that matter with 

Magistrate Judge Torres.

Motion to Compel Arbitration. Defendants also argue that (1) permitting discovery 

prejudices Defendants because it risks a conclusion that they waived their right to arbitrate (see 

Mot. 4); (2) the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) requires the Court stay discovery until arbitration 

is conducted (see id. 4–5); and (3) failure to grant a stay will waste the parties’ resources (see id.

5–6). These arguments do not persuade.

First, Defendants can rest assured knowing that their participation in court-ordered 

discovery will not waive their right to arbitrate. It may be true that “substantially participat[ing]

2 Voyager Ltd. also argues that the Court should deny Plaintiff’s “informal requests for” jurisdictional 

discovery because Plaintiff omitted any jurisdictional inquiries in his first wave of requests. (Reply 6). 

Nonsense. Plaintiff served discovery before Voyager Ltd. moved to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction. (See Resp. 6). Plaintiff’s failure to predict Voyager Ltd.’s position does not require that he 

forgo jurisdictional discovery. 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 5 of 13 Case 1:21-cv-24441-CMA Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2022 Page 4 of 7
CASE NO. 21-24441-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres

5

in litigation” could reach “a point inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate.” Citibank, N.A. v. Stok 

& Assocs., P.A., 387 F. App’x 921, 924 (11th Cir. 2010) (alteration added; citation and quotation 

marks omitted). But no waiver occurs when a party invokes its right to arbitrate, and the court 

orders it to engage in discovery. See, e.g., Burch v. P.J. Cheese, Inc., 861 F.3d 1338, 1351–52 

(11th Cir. 2017) (“To conclude that [defendant] acted inconsistently with its right to arbitrate, we 

would have to conclude that [defendant] should have disobeyed the District Court’s order. We 

decline to adopt such a position.” (alterations added)). 

Second, Defendants are correct that the FAA requires courts to stay “any issue referable to 

arbitration under an agreement[,]” but courts must first be “satisfied that the issue involved in such 

suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an agreement[.]” 9 U.S.C. § 3 (alterations 

added). It is not immediately apparent, even after a “preliminary peek at the merits” of the Motion 

to Compel, that the arbitration agreement is enforceable. McCabe, 233 F.R.D. at 685 (citation and 

quotation marks omitted). 

To begin, assessing the merits proves difficult because it is unclear whether Florida or New 

Jersey law applies. (See Mot. to Compel & Dismiss 18–21; Resp. 13). Regardless, courts in both 

jurisdictions have chosen not to immediately enforce arbitration agreements that bear at least some 

resemblance to the arbitration agreement at issue here. See Doe v. Natt, 299 So. 3d 599, 600–02

(Fla. 2d DCA 2020); Morgan v. Sanford Brown Inst., 137 A.3d 1168, 1182 (N.J. 2016). 

Moreover, compelling arbitration could depend on which version, if any, of the arbitration 

provisions Plaintiff assented to. For example, even if a January 2021 arbitration provision is 

unenforceable (see Resp. 14), then Plaintiff could still be subject to an amended, later, valid

arbitration agreement. Until the parties have an opportunity to evaluate different iterations of the 

arbitration agreement and fully brief their enforceability, the Court cannot definitively state that 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 6 of 13 Case 1:21-cv-24441-CMA Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2022 Page 5 of 7
CASE NO. 21-24441-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres

6

Defendants’ chance of success is “apparent enough” to merit a discovery stay. Cabrera, 331 

F.R.D. at 187. 

Third, Defendants maintain that permitting discovery will waste the parties’ and Court’s 

resources. (See Mot. 5). Not only does this argument rely on a premature assumption that Plaintiff 

has “an invalid claim” (id. 6 (quotation marks omitted; quoting Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 

123 F.3d 1353, 1368 (11th Cir. 1997)), but Defendants point only to cherry-picked exhibits 

purportedly demonstrating that discovery would be a waste (see Mot. 6 (citing Mot. to Compel & 

Dismiss, Exs. A–F [ECF No. 28-1])). The Court cannot take Defendants’ word without giving 

Plaintiff a chance to investigate the evidence. Plaintiff will therefore have an opportunity to take 

discovery and assess the validity of the arbitration clause. See Envision Ins. Co. v. GrayRobinson, 

P.A., No. 8:13-cv-114, 2013 WL 12388601, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2013) (denying a motion to 

stay discovery pending a motion to compel arbitration where the arbitration clause’s validity was 

at issue). 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND AJUDGED as follows: 

1. Defendants, Voyager Digital Ltd. and Voyager Digital, LLC’s Expedited Motion to Stay 

Discovery Pending Resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and to 

Dismiss the Complaint [ECF No. 29] is DENIED without prejudice. 

2. Plaintiff shall propound written jurisdictional and arbitration-related discovery requests by 

March 7, 2022.

3

3. Defendants shall serve objections to written jurisdictional arbitration-related discovery 

requests — following proper conferral with Plaintiff — by March 17, 2022. Should any 

3 Defendants may similarly engage in discovery if they wish; the Court will not address deadlines for such 

discovery as this is not an issue in the parties’ briefing. 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 7 of 13 Case 1:21-cv-24441-CMA Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2022 Page 6 of 7
CASE NO. 21-24441-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres

7

objections be served, Plaintiff shall contact Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’s chambers 

by March 21, 2022 to arrange a date for a discovery hearing. 

4. Defendants shall respond to written jurisdictional discovery requests by March 24, 2022.

5. The parties shall complete jurisdictional discovery, including depositions, by April 14, 

2022. 

6. Plaintiff has until April 14, 2022 to file his first amended complaint or file a notice stating 

that he intends to proceed with the Complaint [ECF No. 1].

7. Defendants have until April 16, 2022 to file a notice indicating they will not be challenging

personal jurisdiction or seeking to compel arbitration, or until April 24, 2022 to renew their

motion to compel arbitration and dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The response 

and reply memoranda are due within the times permitted by the Rules. No extensions of 

time will be given. 

8. The deadlines set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order [ECF No. 20] are SET ASIDE. 

Once the matters of personal jurisdiction and arbitration are resolved, the parties will be 

instructed by separate order to submit an amended joint scheduling report.

9. All pending motions are DENIED as premature.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 3rd day of March, 2022.

________________________________________

CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 8 of 13 Case 1:21-cv-24441-CMA Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2022 Page 7 of 7
From: cmecfautosender@flsd.uscourts.gov

To: flsd_cmecf_notice@flsd.uscourts.gov

Subject: Activity in Case 1:22-cv-22538-RKA Robertson et al v. Cuban et al Order on Motion to Certify Class

Date: Friday, November 18, 2022 4:33:14 PM

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT

RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. 

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States

policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to

receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required

by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later

charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the

referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.

U.S. District Court

Southern District of Florida

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 11/18/2022 at 4:31 PM EST and filed on 11/18/2022

Case Name: Robertson et al v. Cuban et al

Case Number: 1:22-cv-22538-RKA

Filer:

WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 08/31/2022

Document Number: 45(No document attached)

Docket Text:

PAPERLESS ORDER denying without prejudice [40] the Plaintiffs' Motion for

Class Certification. The Plaintiffs may refile their motion after we rule on the

pending Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 41]. We also DENY as moot [43] the

Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time since we've denied the Plaintiffs'

Motion for Class Certification.

Finally, we deny [42] the Defendants' Motion to Stay and for a Protective Order.

"Motions to stay discovery are not favored because when discovery is delayed

or prolonged it can create case management problems which impede the

Court's responsibility to expedite discovery and cause unnecessary litigation

expenses and problems." Cuhaci v. Kouri Grp., LP, 2021 WL 1945819, at *2 (S.D.

Fla. May 14, 2021) (cleaned up). "[D]iscovery stay motions are generally denied

except where a specific showing of prejudice or burdensomeness is made."

Montoya v. PNC Bank, N.A., 2014 WL 2807617, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 20, 2014).

The party moving for a stay of discovery "bears the burden of showing good

cause and reasonableness." Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla.

1997). Similarly, the Court's scheduling orders may be modified "only for good

cause." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

Here, the Defendants have failed to establish that staying discovery is

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 9 of 13
warranted. The Defendants' sole justification for requesting a stay is that their

pending motion to dismiss might eliminate the need for discovery. But that

could be said about nearly all motions to dismiss -- and so, the Defendants

have done nothing to establish a "specific showing of prejudice or

burdensomeness." They have not, for example, pointed to extraordinary costs

or to a long-awaited ruling on a dispositive motion or to a particularly dubious

complaint. In fact, taking "a preliminary peek" at the merits of the motion to

dismiss, the motion is not "clearly" meritorious. Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652-53.

For these reasons, the Defendants have not established that a stay would be

reasonable or that there is good cause for the request in this case.

And, to the extent the Defendants' Motion seeks a protective order, we'll DENY

that, too, because the Defendants haven't told us what they seek protection

from or what that protective order might look like. Signed by Judge Roy K.

Altman on 11/18/2022. (js07)

1:22-cv-22538-RKA Notice has been electronically mailed to: 

Adam M. Moskowitz adam@moskowitz-law.com, dione@moskowitz-law.com,

rejane@moskowitz-law.com, service@moskowitz-law.com 

Alexandra Lyn Tifford atifford@fowler-white.com, aherazo@ecf.courtdrive.com,

aherazo@fowler-white.com, atifford@ecf.courtdrive.com, CAfilings@fowler-white.com,

mramirez@ecf.courtdrive.com 

Barbara Cabrera Lewis barbara@moskowitz-law.com, service@moskowitz-law.com 

Christopher Edson Knight cknight@fowler-white.com, CAfilings@fowler-white.com,

golivares@fowler-white.com 

David Boies dboies@bsfllp.com 

Esther Elisa Galicia egalicia@fowler-white.com, CAFilings@fowler-white.com,

sabreu@fowler-white.com 

Jessica N. Meyers jmeyers@brownrudnick.com 

Joseph M. Kaye joseph@moskowitz-law.com, dione@moskowitz-law.com,

rejane@moskowitz-law.com, service@moskowitz-law.com 

Rachel O. Wolkinson rwolkinson@brownrudnick.com 

Sigmund Wissner-Gross swissner-gross@brownrudnick.com 

Stephen A. Best sbest@brownrudnick.com 

Stephen N. Zack szack@bsfllp.com, Cwashenko@BSFLLP.com 

1:22-cv-22538-RKA Notice has not been delivered electronically to those listed below and

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 10 of

13
will be provided by other means. For further assistance, please contact our Help Desk at

1-888-318-2260.: 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 11 of

13
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 22-cv-22538-ALTMAN/REID

PIERCE ROBERTSON, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MARK CUBAN, et al., 

Defendants. 

/ 

ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING

This cause comes before the Court following a discovery hearing conducted on January 6, 

2023. [ECF No. 76]. At the hearing the parties discussed the following issues: (1) Defendants’ 

request to bifurcate deposition discovery; (2) Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s initial discovery 

requests; (3) the date for Defendant Mark Cuban’s deposition; (4) whether Mr. Cuban’s deposition 

will be limited to jurisdictional issues; (5) the date Defendant Dallas Mavericks (“Mavericks”) 

must produce employees Ryan Mackey and Kyle Tapply to be deposed; (6) scheduling the inperson depositions of three Florida-based Plaintiffs, Pierce Robertson, Rachel Gold, and Sanford 

Gold, as well as non-party Eric Rares (Rachel Gold’s husband); and (7) Plaintiffs’ responses to 

Defendants’ First Omnibus Request for Production. 

Having heard from the parties, in accordance with the ruling from the bench, and for the 

reasons stated on the record, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. Defendants’ request to bifurcate discovery allowing Plaintiffs to initially depose witnesses 

regarding solely jurisdictional issues is denied’

2. Mark Cuban’s deposition, scheduled to take place in Dallas, Texas, on February 2, 2023, 

will be taken in full and will not be limited to jurisdictional issues; 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 12 of Case 1:22-cv-22538-RKA Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2023 Page 1 of 2

13
2

3. The three Florida-based Plaintiffs shall appear for in-person depositions as follows: 

a. Pierce Robertson may be deposed in Chicago, Illinois during the week of January 

9, 2023; 

b. Rachel Gold shall be deposed in her Coral Springs, Florida home on January 23, 

2023;

c. Sanford Gold shall be deposed in Miami, Florida, on either January 23 or 24, 2023; 

d. Non-party Eric Rares shall be deposed in Miami, Florida on either January 23 or 

24, 2023;

4. Plaintiffs shall produce outstanding discovery requested in Defendants’ First Omnibus 

Request for Production. Specifically, Plaintiffs must produce outstanding discovery

relating to Plaintiffs’ Voyager accounts and trading and financial information related to 

those Voyager accounts by the close of business January 13, 2023. With respect to the 

request for “documents relating to any investment accounts with any brokerage firm, 

person or entity,” at this juncture, Plaintiffs have not established the relevancy of those 

documents; and

5. Defendants shall produce Mavericks employees Ryan Mackey and Kyle Tapply to be 

deposed prior to February 23, 2023. Defendants shall prioritize and produce all discovery 

to Plaintiffs as to these two individuals by the end of January 2023. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 6th day of January 2023.

LISETTE M. REID

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: U.S. District Court Judge Roy K. Altman; and

All Counsel of Record 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 13 of Case 1:22-cv-22538-RKA Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2023 Page 2 of 2

13