Friday, November 21, 2008

RIAA's request for extension of time granted in UMG Recordings v. Lindor

The RIAA's request for extension of time in which to serve its (a) reply papers in support of its motion for "discovery sanctions" and dismissal without prejudice, and (b) papers in opposition to defendant's Rule 11 motion in UMG Recordings v. Lindor has been granted.

They now have until December 4th to serve both sets of papers.

November 21, 2008, Order of Magistrate Judge Hon. Robert M. Levy Granting Plaintiffs' Request for Extension of Time

Keywords: lawyer 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 portable music player

8 comments:

Jadeic said...

I guess they will be working over the weekends then.

Dave

Ray Beckerman said...

Their request was granted, not denied.

Besides, I don't think the adjournment request was for the RIAA lawyers. I think it was for the investigators trying to dig up some new material for mud slinging.

bbsux said...

Or maybe they needed the time to think of new ways to contort facts into the shape they want them to be in...

Anonymous said...

Help me out with this. After pulling all the stuff they pulled, they are granted an extension of time, even in the face of misrepresenting the facts to the Judge?? What's up with that?? Is the Judge giving them more rope? Is there anything that they ask for that is not allowed?

Anonymous said...

Help me out with this. After pulling all the stuff they pulled, they are granted an extention of time, even in the face of misrepresenting the facts to the Judge?? What's up with that?? Is the Judge giving them more rope?

Anonymous said...

This man's observation is that the RIAA continues to get virtually everything they want procedure-wise, justified or not.

{The Common Man Speaking}

Ray Beckerman said...

"Help me out with this. After pulling all the stuff they pulled, they are granted an extention of time, even in the face of misrepresenting the facts to the Judge?? What's up with that?? Is the Judge giving them more rope?"

Under the procedure which is being used here -- bundling -- the motion papers have not yet been filed with the Court, so the Magistrate Judge has not yet read my papers pointing out the factual misstatements made by the RIAA lawyers. You've read them, but the Judge hasn't.

It is routine to grant requests for extension of time. (It is almost unheard of for me to refuse to consent, as I did here.)

You cannot draw any conclusions whatsoever from the Judge's having granted them the extension they requested.

eZee.se said...

"You cannot draw any conclusions whatsoever from the Judge's having granted them the extension they requested."

Thanks for clearing that up Ray, I was starting to think the judge was buying into their BS and giving them extra time to make up a stronger (BS) case (a bit like "Anonymous" posted above).

Guess we just have to wait and see..

Cheers!
Ryan
www.eZee.se