Tuesday, March 21, 2006

RIAA Appeals From Magistrate's Rulings in Santangelo; Judge McMahon Rejects Appeal, Affirms Magistrate

We have learned that the RIAA appealed from the Magistrate Fox's ruling in Elektra v. Santangelo, in which he had struck most of the RIAA requests for admission, and that Judge McMahon has rejected the appeal, instead affirming Magistrate Fox's decision.

These are the "Requests for Admission" and Ms. Santangelo's lawyer's objections to many of them:

Ms. Santangelo's Objections to Request for Admissions*

The Magistrate's ruling was as follows:

"#7,19,26,28,29,30, are to be answered, all others are stricken."
Judge McMahon's affirmance is here:

Order Affirming Discovery Rulings of Magistrate Fox*

* Published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Keywords: copyright download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs

3 comments:

pepper said...

For all of us, most of us, who don't understand any of these proceedings, is there anyone here who can interpret in very simple to understand language as to what all this means? Thank you.

Ray Beckerman said...

It means that :

1. The RIAA served a large number of written discovery requests.

2. Ms. Santangelo's lawyer objected to many of them as being too burdensome.

3. The Magistrate Judge upheld many of the objections, and threw out many of the discovery requests.

4. The RIAA appealed to the Judge in charge of the case to overturn the Magistrate's rulings.

5. The Judge in charge of the case refused, saying she found nothing at all wrong with the Magistrate's rulings.

Kay said...

Thank you so much! I am following this blog, but the legal terms confuse me and I have to wait for someone else to coment for me to understand the meaning.