Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Matthew Oppenheim admitted pro hac vice in Capitol Records v. Thomas, further papers filed

In Capitol Records v. Thomas, on Monday, Matthew Oppenheim sought, and was immediately granted, pro hac vice admission.

In other developments:

-plaintiffs filed an amended exhibit list on Monday;
-defendant yesterday filed her reply brief in support of her motion to suppress the MediaSentry evidence;
-defendant this morning filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, on the ground that the RIAA does not have admissible evidence of the copyright registrations;
-argument of the various outstanding in limine motions was conducted this morning, and decision reserved;
-also in this morning's argument, the Court denied the motion to dismiss as premature:

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Michael J. Davis: Motion Hearing held on 6/10/2009 re 279 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Defendant from Raising or Asserting Evidence of Other Lawsuits filed by UMG Recordings, Inc, Warner Bros Records Inc, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Capitol Records, Inc, Interscope Records, Arista Records LLC, 310 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Jammie Thomas-Rasset, 283 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Fair Use Defense filed by UMG Recordings, Inc, Warner Bros Records Inc, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Capitol Records, Inc, Interscope Records, Arista Records LLC, 276 MOTION in Limine - Unopposed filed by Jammie Thomas-Rasset, 284 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Defendant from Asserting an Innocent Infringement Defense at Trial filed by UMG Recordings, Inc, Warner Bros Records Inc, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Capitol Records, Inc, Interscope Records, Arista Records LLC, 272 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Defendant's Expert Dr. Yongdae Kim by Plaintiffs filed by UMG Recordings, Inc, Warner Bros Records Inc, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Capitol Records, Inc, Interscope Records, Arista Records LLC, 263 MOTION to Suppress Evidence filed by Jammie Thomas-Rasset. Motions were moved argued and taken under advisment. Order to follow. Motion to Dismiss 310 was ruled premature and denied. (Court Reporter Lori Simpson) (kmw) (Entered: 06/10/2009)


Plaintiffs' Amended Exhibit List
Defendant's Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Suppress MediaSentry evidence
Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet.net





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

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to see what role, if any, Mr Oppenheim plays at trial. On its face, it seems like a tactic to help shield him from deposition as the client rep in future litigation a la Tenenbaum. And that just makes me wonder even more what he has to hide...

lost in thought

Marc W. Bourgeois said...

Guess I'll get to see Mr. Oppenheim again come Monday.

crmanriq said...

Non-lawyer asking a few questions:
1) The scheduling order referenced in the plaintiffs exhibit list makes no mention of submission of said list. The May 20 Notice of Trial states that all exhibits shall have been produced on or before June 1. What is the chance of defendant getting motion granted denying use of documents not in their possession as of June 1?

2) Is it just me or do defendants attorneys write very very well? They make their points in plain convincing language.

3) Is it usual to see this much last minute back and forth, or is this due to the late entry of Camara, or another factor?

Scott said...

Just want to echo crmanriq's second point -- the defendant's briefs are written with exceptional clarity, at least to this layman's eyes. That has to count for something.