Friday, September 07, 2007

Showdown in Tucson in Loud v. Sanchez on September 10th

A number of complicated issues are due to be heard at oral argument on September 10th, in Tucson, Arizona, in Loud v. Sanchez, among them:

-whether the defendant's counterclaims for abuse of process and for a declaratory judgment are legally sufficient, and
-whether the RIAA's practice of citing unpublished decisions citation of which is prohibited by court rules should cause the Court to award sanctions and revoke the pro hac vice admission of the RIAA's Denver lawyer.

This is a case in which the RIAA previously sought to withdraw its case against the father, and then tried to amend the complaint to leave the father in the case but add the daughter as a defendant.

Amended Answer and Counterclaims*
Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims*
Defendant's Motion for Sanctions and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims*
RIAA Opposition to Motion for Sanctions*
Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion for Sanctions*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Keywords: digital copyright online law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs




4 comments:

Alter_Fritz said...

"55. Sanchez has never directed any human being to download or make available for distribution any songs."

http://info.riaalawsuits.us/foxtrot070304.jpg

*SCNR* (Sorry, Could Not Resist)

;-)

Alter_Fritz said...

Question:
Do you have somewhere before published "Plaintiffs’ Response to
Sanchez’s Motion to For Order to Show Cause As To Why Plaintiffs’ Counsel Should
Not Be Disciplined for Violating FRAP 36-3."?
As far as I can see, we only have here defendants demand for that and a reaction by him to it, but not the actual response why "Agent Bauer" should not be punished.

Arteekay said...

This has all the makings of a down and out battle, true brouhaha.

Admittedly I was giddy reading these papers, although I was surprised by the use of bold for emphasis, and somewhat bothered by the use of the word "bogus". That word always conjures up images of Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.

I truly hope we get to read some transcripts, I need far less of the MPAA's product when the drama here builds up.

AMD FanBoi said...

Here are the words that are most damning about the RIAA's entire litigation process:

70. By voluntarily dismissing their cases, the Plaintiffs have prevented the
illegality of their misconduct and improper strategy from being judicially
examined, and have prevented defendants in those cases from being
judicially vindicated.


To amend a complaint that drops all original Defendants, and then adds new ones to avoid having to start the entire process over from the beginning and pay new filing fees totally SMACKS of that fact that they had no true evidence against any of the original Defendants in the first place. This alone should be the cause of MAJOR sanctions!

I wonder if something related to their own lawyer's fees, which continue to accumulate on the same case as long as that case continues, and would be reset if a new case was filed instead, is the REAL REASON for this approach?

RIAA sues wrong person. RIAA has to pay legal fees for suing wrong person to wrong person. RIAA now sues new person, and tries to charge them for all legal fees they had to pay for suing wrong person. New person is required to PAY for RIAA mistakes! What is wrong with this picture?

It is well established by now that an Internet account holder is never automatically libel for possible illegal activities committed on that account, nor can they have ever monitored it use 24-hours a day. Yet these are the people the RIAA continues to sue, except for their recent focus on college students.

Regarding the question of Bad Faith in using unpublished opinions in violation of the rules, one question is certainly paramount: Have RIAA Plaintiffs used these same, or other, unpublished opinions in other cases? The answer to this would certain say a lot? As for myself, I think Plaintiffs are throwing in the kitchen sink just to run up Defendant legal burden and bills as Defendant's attorneys have to wade through amounts of inadmissible evidence!

Btw, I thought in Tucson they still settled these things out on the street, at high noon, with six-shooters.