Friday, November 03, 2006

Court Denies Discovery Sanctions for RIAA's Failure to Deliver Hard Drive Report as Promised in Lindor

In UMG v. Lindor, Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy has denied Ms. Lindor's October 23, 2006, motion to dismiss the complaint based upon the RIAA's failure to deliver the hard drive analysis report as promised. The judge also admonished the lawyers to "exercise civility in their dealings with each other .... and restraint in seeking relief from the Court."

November 2, 2006, Order of Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy, Denying Defendant's Motion for Discovery Sanctions*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet.net

Keywords: digital copyright online 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:

Alter_Fritz said...

Some -real, non rethorical- question. please answer Ray.

If I recall correctly then there was this prior ruling that Mrs. Lindor will have the right to ask questions regarding the HDD examination after it is done.
Lets assume "RIAA-Richard" keeps playing unfair and hands over the report only at the last moment before this deadline thingy end of the year.

Has this dicovery deadline something to do with this prior ruling and if yes how does the court think that the defendant could excercise her right to ask the RIAA expert questions meaningfull in case that would mean no real time to do so?

dave m said...

Judge Levy asking for civility between the parties is laughable at best. It's relatively well known that these cases come to court only after a denial of extortion payment to the RIAA, so any action that reaches the court is contentious already. Further, seeking support from the court is exactly what the defendant is doing by bringing this to court to begin with, so asking the court to see the RIAA shenanigans for what they are is not that outlandish.

Ray Beckerman said...

Alter_Fritz said... "If I recall correctly then there was this prior ruling that Mrs. Lindor will have the right to ask questions regarding the HDD examination after it is done.
Lets assume "RIAA-Richard" keeps playing unfair and hands over the report only at the last moment before this deadline thingy end of the year.
Has this dicovery deadline something to do with this prior ruling and if yes how does the court think that the defendant could excercise her right to ask the RIAA expert questions meaningfull in case that would mean no real time to do so?


Good question, alter fritz, and thank you for being such a careful reader. You are indeed correct. At the July 25th conference, as reflected in his August 3rd order, the magistrate judge ruled we would be entitled to depose the hard drive expert after his analysis. By failing to deliver the report in time, the RIAA's lawyers are depriving us of the time we need to meaningfully prepare for the deposition of the hard drive expert. We need to review the report, decide whether to retain our own forensics expert, go over it and the drive with our own forensic expert, then prepare deposition questions, then take the deposition. Which is why I made the motion. And why I am very disappointed with the magistrate judge's ruling.

Muxecoid said...

Is it possible to prove anything without HDD, only by analyzing ISP's logs?

Thank you, you are doing something really important. Legalization of extortion in USA would be catastrophic.