In Warner v. Does, the case where two Two "John Does", one from the Southwest, the other from the Greater New York area, have joined forces in Manhattan to fight back against the RIAA, the RIAA has now filed its papers opposing the defendants' motion to vacate the ex parte discovery order, quash the subpoena, and sever and dismiss as to John Does 2-149.
Memorandum of Law in Opposition*
As they did in the Motown v. Does 1-99 case, they stayed away from getting into the embarrassing factual quagmire they had invited in an earlier motion, in Atlantic v. Does 1-25, where they introduced a second declaration by RIAA executive Jonathan Whitehead which contradicted his first declaration, in an unsuccessful attempt to rebut the attack by computer programmer Zi Mei on the legitimacy of the RIAA's "investigation". In this case, as in Motown, they only introduced a memorandum of law by their counsel.
Some of the previous litigation documents are linked here:
Ex Parte Order.*
Second Ex Parte Order.*
John Does' Notice of Motion*
Affidavit of Morlan Ty Rogers in Support of Motion*
Affidavit of Zi Mei in Support of Motion*
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion*
John Does 37 and 61 have asked Judge Owen for a stay of the ex parte order and subpoena pending determination of their motion, since the turning over of their identities before the motion is decided would moot the motion.
March 31, 2006, Letter of Morlan Ty Rogers Requesting Stay
The RIAA agreed to a stay, but argued that the stay should only apply to the moving defendants and not to the other 147 defendants.
March 31, 2006, Letter of J. Christopher Jensen Opposing Stay as to Other 147 Defendants
The Court has not ruled on the stay.
* Document available 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