Hasthantra v. <mark>CleanSpark, Inc</mark>. — Entry #127: OPINION & ORDER: Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for leave to serve an amended report is DENIED, and the Court finds that there is no need for a conference on…

Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP      Document 127    Filed 10/14/26   Page 1 of 4


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

    DARSHAN HASTHANTRA,
    Individually and on Behalf of
    Others Similarly Situated,
                                                    No. 21-CV-511 (LAP)
                        Plaintiff,
                                                      OPINION & ORDER
    -against-

    CLEANSPARK, INC., et. al,

                        Defendants.

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge:

        Plaintiff seeks to file a “motion for leave to serve an

amended Merits Report for Dr. Zahn Bozanic, to address the issues

raised at the Court’s June 30, 2026, [] conference.”                       (Dkt. no.

122 at 1, see also dkt. no. 126.)               Defendants oppose.         (See dkt.

no. 125.)       For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s request is

DENIED. 1 0F


        After briefing and oral argument on the matter, the Court

previously granted Defendants’ motion to preclude the reports and

testimony       of   Plaintiff’s     proposed     expert,   Dr.     Zahn    Bozanic,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702.              (See dkt. nos. 107, 123

at 28.)         Specifically, the Court concluded that Dr. Bozanic’s


1 The Court has determined that it can resolve the underlying issue
in the parties’ pre-motion conference letters without further
briefing or argument on the matter.     See Dietz v. Bouldin, 579
U.S. 40, 47 (2016) (“district courts have the inherent authority
to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the
efficient and expedient resolution of cases”).
                                         1


    Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP   Document 127       Filed 10/14/26   Page 2 of 4


Merits Report is not the product of reliable principles and methods

because his opinions depend fundamentally on his use of a 50

percent   confidence    level 2
                             1F   as   the     threshold     for   statistical

significance and he did not apply that threshold consistently

throughout his work product.       (Dkt. nos. 123 at 26-27.)           Notably,

the Court found that:

     Dr. Bozanic himself admitted in deposition that “a 50 percent
     level is not the convention in academic literature,” and he
     acknowledged that a P-value of 0.05 (a 95 percent confidence
     level) is “a reasonable and conventionally used statistical
     cutoff.”      Moreover,   his   own   reply   Merits   Report
     acknowledge[d] that conventional cutoffs include “the 90
     percent, 95 percent, or 99 percent level.”

(Id. at 26) (citations omitted.)


      Plaintiff now seeks a second bite at the apple to “address

the issues the Court identified.”          (Dkt. no. 122 at 2.)      Plaintiff,

however, does not “get a do-over.”           Suffolk Cnty. Water Auth. v.

Dow Chem. Co., 837 F.Supp. 3d 491, 497 (E.D.N.Y. 2026) (quotation


2Astonishingly, Plaintiff continues to assert that it is incorrect
to “contend that Dr. Bozanic ‘advocated’ a ‘50% statistical
significant threshold’” in his Merits Report. (See ECF 126 at 1.)
This assertion is belied by the plain text of the Merits Report.
For example, paragraph 69 of the report says, “Overall, the
Corrective Disclosure Events caused stock price movements that
were statistically significant at better than the 50% level
. . . .” (ECF No. 108-4 ¶ 69).     Similarly, paragraph 78 says,
“Exhibit 3 summarizes the results of the event study I conducted
on the Corrective Disclosure Events, demonstrating that each
alleged corrective disclosure listed in the table exhibits a
negative price reaction, and is statistically significant at the
50% level or better.” (ECF No. 108-4 ¶ 78). Paragraph 117 says
that a “single day price decline is statistically significant at
the 57.2% confidence level.” (ECF No. 108-4 ¶ 78).
                                       2


       Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP         Document 127      Filed 10/14/26       Page 3 of 4


marks and citation omitted).

        Under Rule 16, a discovery schedule “may be modified only

for    good   cause    and     with    the     judge’s       consent.”           Fed.R.Civ.P.

16(b)(4).     In determining whether to permit such a modification,

“the    primary     consideration         is       whether    the        moving    party   can

demonstrate diligence.”               Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen Inc.,

496 F.3d 229, 244 (2d Cir. 2007). Another relevant factor includes

prejudice to the non-moving party.                   Id.

        Here, the Court finds that there is not good cause to modify

the discovery schedule.               This case has been pending since 2021,

(see ECF      1),   Dr.   Bozanic       testified          that    his     own    statistical

threshold was not the convention in academic literature in October

2025, (see ECF 108-7 at 427:22–24), and Defendants moved to exclude

Dr.    Bozanic’s      report    in     December       2025,       (see    ECF     107).    Yet

Plaintiff did nothing to remedy the exceedingly obvious defects in

Dr. Bozanic’s Merits Report until after the Court excluded it.

Plaintiff cannot show diligence based on these facts.

        In addition, the Court finds that allowing Plaintiff to

attempt to remedy the Merits Report would prejudice Defendants by

prolonging the litigation and increasing defense costs.                                    See

Suffolk Cnty. Water Auth., 837 F. Supp. 3d at 498–99 (“[T]he

prejudice that would result to [the opposing party] from another

round of Daubert motions and depositions, and the ensuing delay to

the case schedule, is too great to justify affording [the moving

                                               3


    Case 1:21-cv-00511-LAP   Document 127    Filed 10/14/26   Page 4 of 4


party] an opportunity to fix a problem of their own making.”).

         Accordingly,   Plaintiff’s   request   for   leave    to serve     an

amended report is DENIED, and the Court finds that there is no

need for a conference on the matter.        The Parties shall confer and

inform the Court how they wish to proceed within two weeks of the

date of this order.

         SO ORDERED.

Dated:      October 14, 2026
            New York, New York


                             __________________________________
                             LORETTA A. PRESKA
                             Senior United States District Judge


                                      4