Friday, June 23, 2006

Discovery Dispute in UMG v. Lindor: RIAA Refuses to Answer Interrogatories & Document Requests, Asserting "Privilege"

In UMG v. Lindor, pending in Brooklyn federal court, the RIAA has refused to answer the defendant Marie Lindor's document requests and interrogatories, precipitating an application by Ms. Lindor's attorneys to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy.

Also in dispute is whether, if the RIAA wishes to use at trial the results of its "mirror imaging" inspection of Ms. Lindor's hard drive, it will have to give Ms. Lindor an opportunity for pretrial discovery into the taking and analysis of the mirror image.

Defendant's Request for Documents*
Defendant's Interrogatories*
Plaintiffs' Response to Interrogatories and Document Request*
Draft Stipulation for Mirror Imaging Procedure*
June 20, 2006, application to Magistrate Levy*
RIAA Response*
Exhibit A*
Exhibit B*
RIAA Motion to Compel*
Supplement Part 1*
Supplement Part 2*
Supplement Part 3*
Beckerman Reply to RIAA*
* Document 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

4 comments:

pepper said...

So, are we to assume that this means that Marie Lindor is asking the RIAA to provide all the proof they have, documents, etc...related to her case? And the riaa is saying...forget it?

Ray Beckerman said...

Yes.

The RIAA is, and has been, attempting to litigate by stealth.

CodeWarrior said...

The only thing that soothes members of the RIAA are cold suppositories.

StephenH said...

I think they are afraid of defendants setting precendents. I bet they are opposed to any defendant discovery that could put RIAA in jeopardy of losing a case. I bet there is information that they are hiding intentionally, because they know that Marie Lindor has a good chance of winning her case if it is released to her. Additionally, the RIAA may be opposed to have some of their evidence striken in court.

If a defendant sets a precedent in any of these cases, I think the RIAA will not be able to enforce their "guilty until proven innocent" standard, and racketeering type debt collection tactics to get people to pay Settlement Support Center LLC. It also could force RIAA's cost of litigating this campaign much higher, and also may cause the RIAA to have a less than 100% hit rate each time, meaning some cases will lead to "Not Guilty" verdicts, costing RIAA lots of money.

Do you agree?