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