Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01078/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01078-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:0101 Copyright Infringement (definitions)

---

1

15-cv-01078-BTM-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Victor Willis,

Plaintiff,

v.

Scorpio Music (Black Scorpio) S.A., 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15-cv-01078-BTM-AGS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART KAREN 

WILLIS’S MOTION TO CLARIFY 

[Doc. 83]

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 middeposition—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. 

Case 3:15-cv-01078-BTM-AGS Document 88 Filed 04/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

15-cv-01078-BTM-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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 

discovery devices.

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 

sanctions.

Dated: April 19, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-01078-BTM-AGS Document 88 Filed 04/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2