After receiving Ms. Foster's objections to its motion for confidentiality of its attorneys billing records in Capitol v. Foster, the RIAA requested, and has received, permission to file additional papers:
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Serve Reply Papers*
Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Serve Reply Papers*
* 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
8 comments:
Don't worry Dreddsnik, Judge West was clear;
1) April 16
2) April 26
3) May 7
4) May 14
"The Court anticipates no extensions of these deadlines"
He might be, what I called an "old man judge", but being old, does not automaticly mean someone is oblivious or his orders are inconsequent.
I have no doubt THIS judge knows exactly what he is doing and is in total control of the situation.
I don't expect that the RIAA can game with him like they have done in so many cases in the last 4 years!
I don't think they are going to get the discovery deadline extended.
"Plaintiffs maintain their billing records in strict confidentiality, and any unnecessary disclosure of this information would cause serious and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs’ ability to combat online piracy and protect their copyrights."
All I can say is Prove It! Demonstrate to us how release of this information harms you at all, let alone irreparably.
"Such a requirement
imposes only a minimal burden on the parties, and one that pales in comparison to the harm that
Plaintiffs would suffer if their confidential commercial information were disclosed to the public."
Inquiring minds want to know what POSSIBLE harm could arise from the public gaining this information. Isn't there a duty to show proof on how this alleged harm would arise?
I am curious, but is there much precident for this? Ie irregardless as to RIAA's goofy look on the world, are records of this nature commonly confidential? Or even uncommonly but not really unknown?
Ryan,
There's no such valid word as "irregardless". I think you actually mean "regardless".
The answer is no, there is no precedent for it. The RIAA's argument is, as are most of its arguments, frivolous. The courts have repeatedly ruled that attorneys' bills and retainer agreements and billing records are NOT privileged. If the time records give away the contents of some privileged communication between attorney and client (which is pretty hard to imagine coming from a billing record) the privileged part could easily be redacted.
This is just part of the RIAA's lawyers' general overall litigation strategy, which as near as I can tell is guided by 3 simple rules:
-1. make the litigation as costly as possible for all concerned;
-2. stonewall every single discovery item defendant asks for;
and
-3. fight to the death to keep everything confidential, whether or not there is any legal basis for doing so, because any information which falls into the hands of defendants in other cases, or their lawyers, will make their litigations less costly for them, which would violate rule number 1.
Thanks,
Lol I have to ask because at some point they will accidently do something that is normal or allowed :D
Post a Comment