Thursday, May 17, 2007

In Elektra v. Santangelo II, Judge Denies RIAA Application to Compel Examination of Judgment Debtor

In Elektra v. Santangelo II, the White Plains, New York, case against two (2) of Patti Santangelo's children in which the RIAA obtained a default judgment against Patti's daughter Michelle, the Court has denied the RIAA's motion to compel a judgment enforcement deposition of the defendant.

It is our understanding that a pretrial conference is scheduled for July 13, 2007, that under the court rules Ms. Santangelo cannot make a motion to vacate her default judgment until then, and that Ms. Santangelo is intending to make a motion to vacate her default judgment, which if granted would moot the RIAA's "judgment enforcement" attempts.

May 15, 2007, Memo endorsed Order denying application for judgment debtor exam*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Rate the Judge (RobingRoom.com)

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

5 comments:

Alter_Fritz said...

"the Court has denied the RIAA's motion to compel"

so far I understand this words and their meaning, but what does

"a judgment enforcement deposition of the defendant."

means in english for aliens? What would such a procedure involve/look like?

Ray Beckerman said...

When a case ends in a money judgment, and the judgment isn't paid, the judgment creditor is often allowed to engage in "discovery" into the judgment debtor's assets and income.

However, in a case where the "judgment" is a default judgment that is likely to be vacated, pressing for post-judgment enforcement is ludicrous.

AMD FanBoi said...

in a case where the "judgment" is a default judgment that is likely to be vacated, pressing for post-judgment enforcement is ludicrous.

It's more than that. It's outright harassment, and harassment they have to try and get away with now, lest they be shut down later.

One would have thought that, given their previous declarations in other cases of needing extra time just to keep up, that they'd be too busy to chase something like this at the same time. I'm convinced they were simply looking for another scalp to display in their PR campaign, no matter how unwarranted. Their victories seem to be few otherwise these days.

Alter_Fritz said...

Ah, sounds similar to something like a "Eidestattliche Versicherung" aka. "Offenbarungseid" that a creditor can demand about your assets and income if you are unwilling/unable to pay

Thanks Ray.

Ray Beckerman said...

Dear Mike,

Thanks for the offline ideas.