Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Judge in Atlantic v. Andersen orders plaintiffs to produce detailed hard drive expert witness report, denies pending motions, extends deadlines

In the Oregon case of Atlantic v. Andersen, the judge has entered an order
-denying defendant's motion for sanctions;
-extending the deadline for completion of discovery to March 15, 2007,
-extending the deadline for dispositive motions (i.e. motions for dismissal or summary judgment) to April 13, 2007,
-directing that defendant's deposition would not be taken until after the exchange of written discovery,
-denying plaintiffs' motion to dismiss counterclaims without prejudice,
-denying defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims without prejudice,
-striking defendant's amended counterclaim and allowing defendant 20 days to file another amended pleading or motion for leave to file an amended pleading, and
-directing plaintiffs to produce an expert witness's report regarding the hard drive inspection, including the expert's identity, qualifications, methodology, investigation chronology, notes, records, raw data, and informed opinion and conclusions of the investigation.

December 13, 2006, Order*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

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

3 comments:

Alter_Fritz said...

"[order] directing plaintiffs to produce an expert witness's report regarding the hard drive inspection, including the expert's identity, qualifications, methodology, investigation chronology, notes, records, raw data, and informed opinion and conclusions of the investigation.

Ray that was ordered within a 30 day timeframe counting from december 13th. Do you have any follow up information if RIAA showed their cards last week?

Or is "dougj"* busy in preparing the papers for his deposition by you?

To me as a layman the dec.13th court document by the honorable Judge Ashmanskas reads as if he is upset by the gamesmanship the RIAA plays.
Any other impression from a professional POV?

* http://vulcan.ee.iastate.edu/~dougj/html/images/alt3-head.jpg

StephenH said...

I think that the RIAA was in contempt of court, because they did not produce a neutral expert, as the did. I also think that it is good that they did not dismiss the counterclaims, which I think will be an interesting to see if she wins.

Ray Beckerman said...

I think the judge was expressing some frustration with the RIAA, but I'm only guessing, because the decision was very moderately worded.