Wednesday, April 09, 2008

More discovery issues in UMG v. Lindor, with strong differences between the facts as presented by Messrs. Gabriel and Beckerman

In UMG v. Lindor, during the telephone conference conducted on April 3rd concerning MediaSentry's refusal to respond to its subpoena duces tecum, it was determined that defendant's lawyer would write a letter listing other unrelated discovery issues that had arisen.

Following are the letter he sent, Mr. Gabriel's response, and defendant's reply.

[Ed. note. The astute reader might notice a slight factual discrepancy or two between Mr. Gabriel's "recollection" of events, and the emails that he actually sent and received.]

April 7, 2008, Letter of Ray Beckerman to Hon. Robert M. Levy (8 discovery issues)*
April 9, 2008, Letter of Richard L. Gabriel (8 discovery issues)*
Exhibit A (email string)*
April 9, 2008, Letter of Ray Beckerman to Hon. Robert M. Levy (8 discovery issues)*
Exhibit A (4 email strings)*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation



(Contributions are tax deductible)


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.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

From Richard Gabriel:

(undersigned counsel was unaware that the production was 6,000 pages when he said that he would produce hard copies.)

So this somehow unilaterally excuses you from carrying out your side of the agreed bargain? How is that?

XK-E

Shane said...

Amazing!

For those who haven't read the documents, Ray agreed to an "attorney's eyes only" confidentiality stipulation to view info on how much money the record companies make per download. That means Ray, being an honest attorney, would be in deep stuff if the info got away from him, or, more likely, if that same info was leaked by Machiavellian industry insiders and the leak falsely attributed to Ray. So, when Richard asked Ray what format he wanted, Ray said hard copy, to make the information more secure. So, what did RIAA Richard do? He sent him a CD! Accident? Hmmm...you decide.

Richard says he gave Ray the wrong format as a favor to Ray, to save him the high costs the RIAA would charge for hardcopies. In the meantime Ray has left the CD sealed and asked Richard to provide what said he would provide (though, keep in mind, the discovery Richard provided in the wrong format is still not complete in anyway since it is just from Sony BMG.)


In his letter to the Judge, RIAA Richard says the only reason he offered to send Ray hard copies of the Royalty statements in the first place was because he didn't know how many pages were involved or he wouldn't have offered, which oddly, contrasts with his email characterization:

"From: Richard Gabriel ...
I have the documents on a disk. They are voluminous. In what form would you like me to send them to you?"
[emphasis added]

RIAA Richard also falsely claimed that Ray asked specifically for the royalty statements (as opposed to other types of documents or a stipulation) in lieu of taking depos! And that poor, poor RIAA spent time and money preparing the documents, and thus shouldn't have to offer anyone up for depo. (What legal theory is that?) Again, Richard is contradicted by his own emails which show that providing "royalty statements" was Richard's idea and that Ray never offered to forgo depos!

Me thinks Richard is working to many cases and can't keep his lies straight.

Jadeic said...

Don't you just love those audit trails ...

Slightly off topic - I turn my back on RI v TP for 24 hours and all hell breaks loose! Quite a flurry of posts for one day there Ray and much to read.

We perhaps need to add a few more cases to the 'Watch List' - I wouldn't like to miss any developments.

Dave

Shane said...

"We perhaps need to add a few more cases to the 'Watch List' - I wouldn't like to miss any developments."

Yes, it is quite the soap opera. Except with people's lives at stake and real villains who care not a whit about the law, guilt or innocence, only their own agenda.

Ray Beckerman said...

OK Dave, you've got your wish, I added the Carnegie Mellon case -- where the pro se litigant got the cases severed for misjoinder -- to the RIAA case watch list. (Fonovisa v. Does 1-9).

2 important issues there:

1. the misjoinder;

2. the "related case" issue.