IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

NELSON WILLIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FILED

JUN 2 4 2024

Clerk, U.S. District Court

Texas Eastern

ADAM M. ARON, Defendant.

§§§§§§§§§

Case No.: 4:23-CV-732-ALM-KPJ

PLAINTIFF S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT ADAM M. ARON S RESPONSE (51) TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO

MOVE CASE DIRECTLY TO DISCOVERY PHASE (42)

THE HONORABLE DISTRICT JUDGE AMOS LOUIS MAZZANT, III

Your Honor,

Plaintiff humbly thanks this court for its dedication to justice and integrity.

Plaintiff states, let the record reflect that opposin counsel has, for the second time in two filings,

shifted from portraying Plaintiff as a harassing cyber stalker to no characterizing him as a disgruntled

shareholder. In two court cases. Plaintiff has only been declared a harassing cyber stalker up until the

opposing counsel's last filing and this current filing today. It is important to note that Plaintiff's emails

Case 4:23-cv-00732-ALM-KPJ Document 53 Filed 06/24/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1028
can easily be aptly portrayed and characterized as expressions of righteous an er from a concerned

shareholder.

Introduction:

Defendant Adam M. Aron ( Aron ) has filed a response opposing Plaintiff s Motion to Move Case

Directly to Discovery Phase. Plaintiff objects to this response and provides the following arguments and

supporting Texas case law to demonstrate why his motion should be granted. Additionally, Plaintiff

seeks to correct the factual inaccuracies presented in Defendant s response.

Law and Argument:

A. Plaintiff's Motion is Not Premature:

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's Motion is premature because Plaintiff has not attempted to obtain the

requested materials from the SEC via appropriate discovery rules. However, this is incorrect. Under

Texas law, and pursuant to Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 549 (Tex. 1985),

discovery should be liberally construed to allow the litigant access to all relevant and material

information necessary to establish their case. Plaintiff is merely seeking access to information that is

crucial for the preparation of his case.

B. Plaintiff's Motion Seeks Relevant Materials:

Defendant argues that the materials requested from the SEC are outside the permissible scope of

discovery. However, under Texas law, relevancy is broadly construed. As stated in In re National Lloyds

Insurance Co., 449 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex. 2014), discovery is permissible if it appears reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The requested materials are relevant to

Plaintiff's claims and counter arguments, and their production is necessary for a fair adjudication of this

case. Notably, Plaintiff has already filed a FOIA response from the SEC indicating an investigation into

AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. This establishes the relevance of the requested documents to the

case at hand.

Case 4:23-cv-00732-ALM-KPJ Document 53 Filed 06/24/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 1029
C. Plaintiff s Motion Seeks Materials Not Solely in His Possession:

Defendant claims that Plaintiff already has the requested materials in his possession. However, the

requested communications between Plaintiff and the SEC may contain additional context, notes, or

internal communications that Plaintiff does not possess. As established in In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968

S.W.2d 938, 942 (Tex. 1998), a party is entitled to discovery of documents in the possession of a third

party if those documents are relevant and necessary for the litigation. The SEC s responses and internal

documentation re arding Plaintiff s communications are crucial to understanding the full context and

potential impacts on the case.

D. Clarification of FOIA Request:

Defendant incorrectly states that Plaintiff submitted the FOIA request. In reality, an associate assisting in

the preparation of the case, Ethan Leibovitz, submitted the FOIA request in December 2023. The SEC's

response, which was received on May 2, 2024, confirmed an ongoing investigation into AMC

Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Defendant's failure to accurately review and represent the FOIA request

demonstrates a lack of diligence and a misrepresentation of the facts. This further underscores the

necessity of moving this case directly to the discovery phase to ensure all relevant information is

accurately and fairly assessed.

Conclusion:

For these reasons. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant his Motion to Move Case Directly

to Discovery Phase. The materials sought from the SEC are highly relevant to the case, necessary for a

fair adjudication, and not solely in Plaintiff's possession. Plaintiff's request for discovery is neither

premature nor outside the permissible scope of discovery, as established by relevant Texas case law and

the facts of this case.

Dated: June 24, 2024

Respe tfully submitted,

Plaintiff

Case 4:23-cv-00732-ALM-KPJ Document 53 Filed 06/24/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 1030
United States District Court

Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division

NELSON WILLIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADAM M. ARON,

Defendant

Case No.: 4:23-CV-732-ALM-KPJ

Certificate of Service

I, Nelson Willis, ereby certify that on June 24, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document

was, by filing with the Clerk Of The Court, sent via electronically mail to the parties that are registered

or otherwise entitled to receive electronic notices in this case pursuant to the Electronic Filing

Procedures in this District.

elson Willis

Pro Se Litigant

Case 4:23-cv-00732-ALM-KPJ Document 53 Filed 06/24/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 1031
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

NELSON WILLIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADAM M. ARON,

Defendant

§§§§§§§§§

Case No.: 4:23-C -732-ALM-KPJ

June 24, 2024

PROPOSED O DER GRA TING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT ADAM . ARON'S RESPONSE(Sl)

TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MOVE CASE DIRECTLY TO DISCOVERY PHASE (42)

Before the Court is the Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant Adam M. Aron's esponse to Plaintiff's Motion

to Move Case Directly to Discovery Phase. Having considered the Plaintiff s motion, the Defendant's

response, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's motion should be GRANTED.

ORDER 

It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Move Case Directly to Discovery Phase is GRANTED for

the following reasons:

1. """Introduction: 

- Plaintiff objects to Defendant's response opposing the Motion to ove Case Directly to Discovery

Phase and provides valid arguments supported by Texas case law.

2. **Plaintiff's Motion is Not Premature:**

- The Court finds that Plaintiff's motion is not premature. Pursuant to *Nixon v. Mr. Property

Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 549 (Tex. 1985)*, discovery should be liberally construed to allow

access to all relevant and material information necessary to establish Plaintiff's case. Plaintiff seeks

access to crucial information for case preparation.

3. **Plaintiff's Motion Seeks Relevant Materials:**

- The Court acknowledges that the materials requested from the SEC are relevant and necessary for

the fair adjudication of this case. Under *ln re National Lloyds Insurance Co., 449 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex.

2014)*, discovery is permissible if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. The Plaintiff's FOIA response from the SEC indicates an investigation into AMC Entertainment

Holdings, Inc., further establishing the relevance of the requested documents.

Case 4:23-cv-00732-ALM-KPJ Document 53 Filed 06/24/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 1032
4. Plaintiff s Motion Seeks Materials Not Solely in His Possession: 

- The Court finds that the requested communications between Plaintiff and the SEC may contain

additional context or internal communications not in Plaintiff's possession. As established in *ln re

Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d 938, 942 (Tex. 1998)*, a party is entitled to discovery of documents in

the possession of a third party if those documents are relevant and necessary for the litigation.

* Conclusion:**

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to ove Case Directly to Discovery Phase. The

materials sou ht from the SEC are relevant, necessary for a fair adjudication, and not solely in Plaintiff's

possession. The Court finds that Plaintiff s request for discovery is neither premature nor outside the

permissible scope of discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: , 2024

Hon. Amos Louis Mazzant, III

United States District Judge

Eastern District of Texas

Case 4:23-cv-00732-ALM-KPJ Document 53 Filed 06/24/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 1033