Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Marie Lindor moves to compel MediaSentry to respond to document subpoena

In response to the document subpoena served upon it in UMG v. Lindor, MediaSentry served none of the documents and data relating to its investigation, serving only objections and some previously filed declarations and affidavits.

Ms. Lindor has now moved to compel a response by MediaSentry.

February 19, 2008, Motion to Compel MediaSentry Document Subpoena Response*
Exhibit A to Motion to Compel MediaSentry Document Subpoena Response (Subpoena sans exhibits)*
Exhibit B to Motion to Compel MediaSentry Document Subpoena Response (Response sans declarations and affidavits responding to item 4)*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet.net









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

To contribute to Marie Lindor's legal defense, see below.

















The above donation button links to a PayPal account established by Marie Lindor's family for people who may wish to make financial contributions to Ms. Lindor's legal defense in UMG v. Lindor. Contributions are not tax deductible.




3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Typical of all their objections:

4. SafeNet objects to the Subpoena on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents subject to attorney-client privilege…

I believe it has been established that neither SafeNet, nor the RIAA, are either attorneys, or clients.

All of this is part of the obvious RIAA litigation strategy to demand everything, while stonewalling every discovery attempt in return, in the belief that they will wear down the Defendant's before having to reveal any useful information. They have everything to hide, except for evidence – since they have none of that.

XK-E

Andrew said...

I was just reviewing the Subpoena and Safenet response to it and noticed a couple of interesting things.

What first attracted my attention is that in response to request number 11 (source code for programs used to detect the infringement) SafeNet is claiming attorney-client privilege. I have been programming for over 40 years and never have I even heard the suggestion that the source code of a program code be a "confidential communication" with a lawyer.

The same privilege is claimed for the manuals, copies of the Kazaa software, and the files used to prepare their reports (Responses 12 and 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18)

And then I hit the jackpot. Response number 27. All the other responses quote the original request exactly, but this one rephrased the request eliminating the enumerations (A). (B), (C) etc.

It also completely omitted the last part of the request: "(D) all email communications between Verizon and any other parties concerning the DHCP records".

Given that the response to the request was "There are no such documents in SafeNet's possession", this leads me to believe that indeed there are emails -- if one believe Dr. Pouwelse, probably a great many -- that indicate that SafeNet has often identified the wrong or a non-existent address.

I hope this helps.

shane said...

"It also completely omitted the last part of the request: "(D) all email communications between Verizon and any other parties concerning the DHCP records".

Given that the response to the request was "There are no such documents in SafeNet's possession", this leads me to believe that indeed there are emails -- if one believe Dr. Pouwelse, probably a great many -- that indicate that SafeNet has often identified the wrong or a non-existent address."


This probably isn't as sinister as you might think. Here MS can't deny such documents exist because they don't know all of what Verizon has sent or to whom except to the extent they were cc'd on such communications--however, MS may know of such documents and who has some--such as the RIAA or the RIAA's lawyers.

But, I think your point about the laughability of computer source-code being "privileged communication" is well taken. As ray has pointed out in his motion to compel, MS has not provided a "privilege" log that shows they have reviewed all their documents and have identified which ones they specifically claim to be privileged. Meanwhile, the RIAA routinely demands a complete copy of everything on a defendants hardrive--a wholesale dump of all of a person's private data including copyrighted computer programs that the RIAA is not legally entitled to copy! (I don't know to what extent pre-trial discover is exempt from copyright law...)