Wednesday, April 18, 2007

RIAA Opposes Random Reassignment of Cases in Brooklyn; Praises Judges Trager and Levy

In response to the defendants' motions for their cases to be deemed unrelated and randomly reassigned to different judges, in Maverick v. Chowdhury and Elektra v. Torres, both cases against Queens men which are being brought in federal court in Brooklyn, the RIAA has countered with letters to District Judge Trager and Magistrate Judge Levy that the cases are related and should stay together.

The RIAA lawyer praised Judge Trager and Judge Levy as being "very familiar with the legal, factual, and technical aspects of these cases" and said that "their familiarity with these cases has resulted in efficiency and judicial economy for both the Court and the parties".

April 17, 2007, Letter of Richard Gabriel Asking For Brooklyn Cases to Be Deemed "Related" in Maverick v. Chowdhury*
April 17, 2007, Letter of Richard Gabriel Asking For Brooklyn Cases to Be Deemed "Related" in Elektra v. Torres*

* 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


AMD FanBoi said...

Oh, now that's a surprise!

AMD FanBoi said...

The RIAA's claim that the cases are related are like saying that the FBI (or appropriate federal prosecutor) should be allowed to prosecute all bank robbers in front of the same judge, because they were caught by the same people, prosecuted by the same prosecutor, and committed the identical crime of bank robbery. I've never heard of such a thing happening before.

And why is the judge hearing the case the one to decide this? It makes the RIAA "appear" to be judge shopping.

Justice is not about saving money.

jellie said...

Wow, what suck ups. The judicial expediency and saving money arguments are ridiculous. You should move for dismissal using those same arguments. :P

As the other posted pointed out, why does the same judge hear these arguments? I always thought a neutral judge should have to hear it.