Willis v. Scorpio Music (Black Scorpio) S.A. et al

Filing 88

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part Karen Willis's 83 Motion to Clarify. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 4/19/2017. (rlu)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 3 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Victor Willis, 4 Case No.: 15-cv-01078-BTM-AGS Plaintiff, 5 v. 6 Scorpio Music (Black Scorpio) S.A., 7 et al., 8 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART KAREN WILLIS’S MOTION TO CLARIFY [Doc. 83] Defendants. 9 10 Would-be intervenor Karen Willis seeks to clarify this Court’s order denying Reach 11 Music’s motion to quash. There are a number of procedural problems with her request. 12 First, Karen Willis failed to file her complaint in intervention in the time allotted by the 13 District Judge, so she is not currently a party to this litigation. Second, her motion partly 14 seeks reconsideration on Reach Music’s behalf, but she has no standing to assert Reach 15 Music’s interests. Nonetheless, the Court will GRANT her request in part and clarify its 16 previous order. Otherwise, her motion is DENIED. 17 On April 10, 2017, this Court denied Reach Music’s motion to quash a deposition 18 subpoena. [Doc. 82.] First, Ms. Willis asks whether this ruling is affected by the pending 19 motion for voluntary dismissal. The answer is no. If the dismissal motion is granted before 20 the deposition—or before any other discovery deadline—then that discovery event would 21 become moot and no one would need to appear. If the dismissal motion is granted in mid- 22 deposition—or in mid-compliance with any other discovery deadline—then the parties 23 need not continue, as the authority for that discovery event would no longer exist. But 24 since no stay has been requested or granted in this case, discovery will continue during the 25 pendency of any motions, including the pending motion to dismiss. That motion is opposed 26 by all defendants, and this Court will not pre-judge the district court’s ruling on it. 27 Next, Ms. Willis requests that she be allowed to conduct her deposition of defendant 28 Can’t Stop Productions, Inc., during the month of April. Again, discovery is not stayed. 1 15-cv-01078-BTM-AGS 1 So long as their deposition notices comply with the rules and there is no valid reason for a 2 protective order, the parties may depose whomever they wish, whenever they wish. But 3 Karen Willis is not a party to this case because she failed to timely file her intervenor 4 complaint. Unless and until she becomes a party to this case, she may not use the Court’s 5 discovery devices. 6 Finally, Ms. Willis moves the Court to reconsider or clarify its order, to the extent 7 that it implies that Reach Music may not exercise “its independent right to finally be heard 8 with respect to the third party subpoena.” [Doc. 83, at 3.] To reiterate, Ms. Willis lacks 9 authority to assert Reach Music’s rights. Moreover, Reach Music was not denied its right 10 to “finally be heard.” Its motion was heard and denied. What Reach Music may not do is 11 engage in abusive litigation practices. Reach Music could have asserted its rights months 12 ago, when it first received notice of the deposition subpoena. Instead, it waited until two 13 prior motions to quash this subpoena were heard and denied before opposing it. And when 14 it finally filed its own motion to quash, Reach Music raised no new factual or legal issues 15 that would change the Court’s prior rulings. All litigants may assert their rights and file 16 timely and proper motions before this Court. But no one is allowed to file repetitive 17 motions that cause unnecessary delay and needlessly increase the costs of litigation. See 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1) & (c)(3). 19 Defendants assert that Reach Music’s attorney is functioning at Karen Willis’s 20 command and is not truly acting as independent counsel. The current motion does much 21 to concern this Court that defendants’ suspicions are correct. Karen Willis is warned that 22 any further attempt to advance others’ rights in the judicial process may be met with 23 sanctions. 24 Dated: April 19, 2017 25 26 27 28 2 15-cv-01078-BTM-AGS

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?