Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Debbie Foster Moves to Compel Enforcement with Order Directing Turnover of Records

In Capitol v. Foster, defendant has moved for an order compelling compliance with the Court's March 15th order directing the RIAA to turn over its attorneys billing records, in light of the RIAA's statements that it was going to make a new "protective order motion" seeking confidentiality, and file "significant" briefs in support thereof:

Motion to Compel Compliance with March 15th order*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

Slashdot
p2pnet.net
Privacy Digest



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

7 comments:

AMD FanBoi said...

Delay, delay, delay, delay, delay.

What can they be protecting, except disclosure of this information being helpful in other cases against them. The RIAA lawyers should have been in jail by now, if not long before.

Igor said...

Why file this motion with the court? Won't they be in violation of a court order if they don't comply by March 26? Though this is a good tactic to pre-empt any filing they were to make and put them on the defensive for once.

ryan said...

I would guess they are hoping that another Judge somewhere will make a ruling that they can bail them selves out with on this one. Well that or comments that I can't post here which would be more accurate to my feelings because they would be ... er... colorful :)

Anonymous said...

One of their excuses for needing more time is that they are filing "significant briefs" in Capitol v. Foster. Funny thing, the RIAA isn't supposed to be writing or filing briefs in Capitol v. Foster, they are supposed to be producing documents to comply with the motion to compel. Marilyn D. Barringer-Thomson spotted this little prevarication and asked the court to make them correct the record:

"Defense counsel takes issue with recitations made in this pleading and pursuant to Rule 11 that Plaintiffs’ counsel correct their recitations."

Anonymous said...

AC1 correction:

That is, "One of there excuses in needing more time in a different case, Warner v. Stubbs, is that they are filing "significant briefs" in Capitol v. Foster...."

Ray Beckerman said...

I would suggest that Ms. Foster's lawyer doesn't want any more delay.

She saw that instead of giving her the documents by the 26th they were just planning to give her a motion by the 26th.

So she accelerated the process.

Alter_Fritz said...

now wait a minute!
according to the papers "10. Plaintiffs’ most recent email communication(s) regarding their proposed motion was transmitted late in the afternoon of March 20, 2007. Defendant’s Exhibits 2 & 3.

I haven't seen yet Exhibits 2&3, but if it turns out RIAA borrowed arguments based on my quoting and comment here ("MR. GABRIEL: But as a general matter my firm doesn't publish its billing rates and you get into antitrust concerns." To bad "your" firm is now ordered by a judge to "publish" its billing rates!) I demand that they pay me a license fee! Made payable to the defective by design defense fund for RIAA victims