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)
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?