Monday, February 18, 2008

Magistrate Judge Denies RIAA Motion to Vacate Stay of Discovery in Elektra v. Schwartz

In Elektra v. Schwartz, the case against a Queens woman who suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy has denied the RIAA's second motion to vacate the stay of discovery which has been in effect pending Ms. Schwartz's motion to dismiss the complaint based on Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Interscope v. Rodriguez (2007 WL 2408484):

[A]s there is a dispositive motion pending before Judge Trager and, in view of the order to preserve evidence, I find that at this time plaintiffs' interests are adequately safeguarded and any potential prejudice to plaintiffs is outweighed by the burden on defendant
February 8, 2008, Letter of Richard L. Gabriel*
February 8, 2008, Letter of Ray Beckerman*
February 18, 2008, Order of Hon. Robert M. Levy*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Keywords: digital copyright law online internet 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 intellectual property






4 comments:

Alter_Fritz said...

while I'm satisfied with the result of Mr. L's ruling, I don't think the wording is adequate:

[...]I find that at this time plaintiffs' interests are adequately safeguarded and any potential prejudice to plaintiffs is outweighed by the burden on defendant.

What "potential prejudice" is he talking about?
If the HDD is secured there can't be no prejudice and after all, did those -more then once caught by smart judges now at saying "not the truth"- Lawyers from HRO not standardly claim in one of their first boilerplate extortion letters that "the evidence against you has already being gathered"! (me don't remember exact words without looking it up)

So why does Riaa-Rich write such stupid things that evidence become stale?
Could it be plaintiffs trip one the wrong persons in congress and a law passes which invalidate all their copyrights, give them back to the artists, render all their suits void and dismantle the big 4?

Otherwise I don't see how digital evidence can become "stale". (of course once the slow court system gets on top of mediasentry's illegal "evidence" gathering...)
[yeah I know, I'm just a lunatic dreamer, Those useless burden to society named Big 4 record companies will not be dismantled and their copyrights voided, they have to much money to buy congress and maybe some judges too.] :-(

Russell said...

Ray,

Correct me if I haven't translated this correctly,

The RIAA motion for discovery is stayed until your counter motions are ruled on. Judge Levy balanced the need for the plaintiff's discovery for their case against the effort that the defendant would incur if the stay was lifted.

Discovery that would be moot if your counter motions are sustained.

Anonymous said...

This is truly disgusting on the Plaintiff's part to try and ram discovery through in the desperate attempt that they might be able to find some real evidence (which they're lacking) to charge some person (which they're lacking) to salvage their case (which is sorely lacking). They clearly have nothing, yet feel they have some God given right to bull their way around until something turns up. This is the opposite of the fact that you shouldn't be going to court until you have your evidence first.

XK-E

Nohwhere Man said...

The subtext I read in the order is "Sit down and shut up, I'll call on you when I'm ready."