IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

DR. JEROME CORSI, et. al.

Plaintiff(s), 

v.

INFOWARS, LLC et. al.,

Defendant(s)

Case No.: 1:20-CV-00298-LY

DEFENDANT ROGER STONE’S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY, TO QUASH 

PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION NOTICES AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Defendant, Roger Stone, through counsel, files this motion to stay discovery, quash 

Plaintiffs’ notices of deposition filed on February 12, 2021 and for a protective order pending the 

ruling on the motions to dismiss.

1. Notice of deposition was filed without conferring with Defendant Stone. See ECF 

Nos. [92, 92-1, 92-2].

2. The depositions were unilaterally noticed one-a-day, starting on February 24, 25, 

26, of several defendants.

3. The burden of the location of the depositions has been placed on the noticed 

defendants. This violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1). Moreover, the notices make 

no accommodations to protect the participants from the spread of Covid-19.

4. Motions to dismiss have been fully briefed and pending since October 14, 2020.

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 93 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 8
2

5. The motions to dismiss and the accompanying Rule 11 motions concern absolute 

defenses against a shotgun complaint. See Klayman v. Infowars, Case No. 20-cv-80614 (S.D. 

Fla. Apr. 8, 2020) ECF No. [57-2] (complaint is “littered with ostentatious irrelevancy”). 

Plaintiffs never resided in Texas yet filed common law tort claims against Stone. Plaintiffs 

untimely filed this lawsuit against Stone well after the statute of limitations for their defamation 

claims. Also, plaintiffs did not comply with the notice requirement under the Texas Defamation 

Mitigation Act. Lastly, their Lanham Act claims do not concern a product or service or copyright 

or trademark. See ECF No. 70. Therefore, it is likely plaintiffs do not have standing and the 

District Court may not have jurisdiction over the remaining claims. Discovery depositions on the 

merits prior to a ruling on the motions to dismiss are therefore, inappropriate. 

6. Plaintiffs have yet to make any effort to convene a Rule 26(f) conference, a 

prerequisite to any discovery in this action. Plaintiffs have also failed to serve initial disclosures, 

pursuant to Rule 26(a).

7. Plaintiffs set depositions to harass defendants. While Roger Stone’s deposition 

has not been noticed in this case, Klayman has taken Roger Stone’s deposition on a consolidated 

basis in the many other lawsuits filed by both plaintiffs against Stone, alleging the same facts as 

in this lawsuit. The deposition was video recorded and placed on YouTube and promoted by 

Klayman’s organization, Freedom Watch. See Exhibit –1. This is what plaintiffs seek. They 

want to promote and fundraise on the depositions when it is highly unlikely this lawsuit will 

survive the pending motions to dismiss. 

8. On October 29, 2020, the Court referred the motions to dismiss to Magistrate 

Judge Austin. See ECF No. [88]. A report and recommendation is likely forthcoming shortly. 

Depositions are not meant to be used as a tool for political advocates who have filed “shotgun” 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 93 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 8
3

lawsuits in order to be granted the subpoena power of the Court. No deposition of any defendant 

can avoid the failure to notice, failure to file within the statute of limitations, create subject 

matter jurisdiction under the Lanham Act, or create plaintiffs’ citizenship in Texas required 

before claiming common law claims in Texas. A stay of discovery therefore, will not prejudice 

plaintiffs.

9. Discovery costs money. If this Court is ruling on the dispositive motions to 

dismiss, then taking party depositions is costly to all defendants, but most particularly, Roger 

Stone who is an individual of limited means, and not a well-heeled corporation. 

ARGUMENT

“Control of discovery is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its 

discovery rulings will be reversed only where they are arbitrary or clearly unreasonable.” Mayo 

v. Tri-Bell Indus., Inc., 787 F.2d 1007, 1012 (5th Cir. 1986) (citing Dukes v. South Carolina Ins. 

Co., 770 F.2d 545, 548–49 (5th Cir.1985); Perel v. Vanderford, 547 F.2d 278, 280 (5th 

Cir.1977); Scroggins v. Air Cargo, Inc., 534 F.2d 1124, 1133 (5th Cir.1976)).

This discretion permits courts to stay discovery pending resolution of dispositive motions. See 

Moore v. Potter, 141 F. App’x 803, 808 (11th Cir. 2005) (affirming stay of discovery pending 

decision on motions to dismiss); Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 n.2 (11th Cir. 2002) 

(finding no abuse of discretion in staying discovery pending resolution of motion for judgment 

on the pleadings in defamation action); Scroggins , 534 F.2d 1124, 1133 (5th Cir. 1976) (“We 

have constantly emphasized the broad discretion which a district judge may properly exercise in 

discovery matters.... [W]e see no possible abuse of discretion in the order staying general 

discovery ....”).

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 93 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 8
4

Other courts have similarly recognized that “[a] stay of discovery pending the 

determination of a dispositive motion ‘is an eminently logical means to prevent wasting the time 

and effort of all concerned, and to make the most efficient use of judicial resources.’” Chavous 

v. D.C. Fin. Responsibility & Mgmt. Assistance Auth., 201 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2001) (citation 

omitted). A peak at the dispositive motions to dismiss reveal that plaintiffs are unlikely to move 

beyond the pleadings stage. This is because there are too many dispositive issues such as failure 

to notice, statute of limitations, and failure to meet standing requirements of the Lanham Act. 

Plaintiffs can vehemently deny that the motions to dismiss will be granted, but it does not justify 

the short stay pending the Court’s ruling on the motions. Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced when 

they have waited to this point. On the flip side, depositions of parties are costly and time 

consuming. If the plaintiffs were earnest about taking the depositions for proper purposes, they 

would have scheduled them with opposing counsel.

Since this case is about whether speech is protected by the First Amendment or 

defamatory, concerns about wasting time and money are particularly pressing in defamation 

cases against the media, like this one, because “there is a powerful interest in ensuring that free 

speech is not unduly burdened by the necessity of defending against expensive yet groundless 

litigation.” Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 816 F.3d 686, 702 (11th Cir. 2016); see also Weyrich 

v. New Republic, Inc., 235 F.3d 617, 628 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (“[T]rial courts are understandably 

wary of allowing unnecessary discovery where First Amendment values might be threatened.”).

No doubt, at this late stage in the pleadings, plaintiffs see an opportunity to drum up 

video and transcripts to disparage party defendants. See Exhibit – 1. This is what plaintiffs do for 

a living – fight political wars on the internet and publish books. This is an improper use of the 

Court’s subpoena power. The Court should strike their notices and grant a protective order.

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 93 Filed 02/16/21 Page 4 of 8
5

CONCLUSION

 The unilaterally set notices for deposition, ECF Nos. [92, 92-1, 92-2] should be quashed

and a protective order issued that stays discovery in this case until the Court rules on the motions 

to dismiss.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert C. Buschel, Esq.

BUSCHEL GIBBONS, P.A.

501 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 304

Fort Lauderdale, FL. 33301

Tele: (954) 530-5301

Email: Buschel@BGlaw-pa.com

Attorneys for Roger J. Stone

By: __/s/ _Robert Buschel__________

ROBERT C. BUSCHEL

(admitted W.D. Texas)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above document was filed and served 

upon all parties of record on February 16, 2021 by CM/ECF, the court’s electronic filing system. 

By: __/s/ _Robert Buschel__________

ROBERT C. BUSCHEL

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 93 Filed 02/16/21 Page 5 of 8
6

1:20-cv-00298-LY

Corsi et al v. Infowars, LLC et al

Sanjay Biswas

Sanjay Biswas Attorney at Law PC

11720 Duxbury Drive

Frisco, TX 75035

972-866-5879

800-506-6804 (fax)

sanjaybiswas41@gmail.com

 Assigned: 07/29/2020

 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

representing Jerome Corsi

(Plaintiff)

Larry Klayman

(Plaintiff)

Larry Klayman

Klayman Law Group P.A.

2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW #800

Washington, DC 20006

561-558-536

202-318-8839 (fax)

leklayman@gmail.com

 Assigned: 03/07/2019

 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

representing Jerome Corsi

(Plaintiff)

Larry Klayman

(Plaintiff)

Marc J. Randazza

Randazza Legal Group, PLLC

2764 Lake Sahara Drive, Suite 109

Las Vegas, NV 89117

702-420-2001

702-297-6584 (fax)

mjr@randazza.com

 Assigned: 07/24/2019

 PRO HAC VICE

 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

representing Free Speech Systems, LLC

(Defendant)

cell is 702-757-1001 Infowars, LLC

(Defendant)

Alex E. Jones

(Defendant)

David Jones

(Defendant)

Owen Shroyer

(Defendant)

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 93 Filed 02/16/21 Page 6 of 8
7

Bradley Jordan Reeves

Reeves Law, PLLC

702 Rio Grande St., Suite 306

Austin, TX 78701

512-827-2246

512-318-2484 (fax)

brad@brtx.law

 Assigned: 04/02/2020

 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

representing Free Speech Systems, LLC

(Defendant)

Infowars, LLC

(Defendant)

Alex E. Jones

(Defendant)

Owen Shroyer

(Defendant)

Gregory P. Sapire

Soltero Sapire Murrell PLLC

7320 North MoPac Expy.

Suite 309

Austin, TX 78731-2311

512-431-9518

512-359-7996 (fax)

greg@ssmlawyers.com

 Assigned: 04/02/2020

 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

representing David Jones

(Defendant)

David Scott Wachen

Wachen LLC

11605 Montague Court

Potomac, MD 20854

(240) 292-9121

301-259-3846 (fax)

david@wachenlaw.com

 Assigned: 04/24/2019

 LEAD ATTORNEY

 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

representing David Jones

(Defendant)

Jay Marshall Wolman

Randazza Legal Group, PLLC

100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor

Hartford, CT 06103

(702) 420-2001

(305) 437-7662 (fax)

jmw@randazza.com

 Assigned: 04/04/2019

 LEAD ATTORNEY

 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

representing Free Speech Systems, LLC

(Defendant)

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 93 Filed 02/16/21 Page 7 of 8
8

Infowars, LLC

(Defendant)

Alex E. Jones

(Defendant)

David Jones

(Defendant)

Owen Shroyer

(Defendant)

 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 93 Filed 02/16/21 Page 8 of 8