Monday, December 11, 2006

In Elektra v. Schwartz, Ms. Schwartz Files Initial Disclosures and Timothy Reynolds Seeks Pro Haec Vice Admission

Two developments in Elektra v. Schwartz in Brooklyn.

Ms. Schwartz has filed her "initial disclosures":

Defendant's initial disclosures*

Timothy Reynolds of Holme Roberts & Owen has filed for pro haec vice admission to the Court (admission for this case only); Ms. Schwartz's lawyer has suggested to Judge Trager that before deciding the motion he should find out whether Mr. Reynolds was in fact the author of the November 1, 2006, letter signed by Richard Guida telling the judge that AOL had confirmed that Ms. Schwartz owned an account that had been used for downloading and distributing hundreds of copyrighted songs.

Pro haec vice motion*
Reynolds affidavit in support of pro haec vice motion*
Declaration of Ray Beckerman Suggesting Court Defer ruling on pro haec vice motion pending further investigation*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Keywords: digital copyright online download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs


Alter_Fritz said...

Timothy M. Reynolds wrote: on the 4th day of December 2006 among other things; " 4. There are no pending disciplinary proceedings against me in any State or Federal Court. "

Ray I have no knowledge of your laws, but I have a feeling that I non the less understand from a laypersons view what is happening here. Please correct me if necessary and explain the situation in your own words

"RIAA-Timy" has so far officially nothing to do with this case. At some time a few days ago (maybe after your comment regarding him "Just for the record, [...] not by Mr. Guida. Mr. Guida is a young fellow who works for a fairly large Connecticut-based firm that is acting as "local counsel". [...] the words came from Mr. Reynolds, not Mr. Guida.[...] [Guida] is a young kid just starting out, so I pity him more than blame him") all the alarm bells were ringing in the RIAA-HQ because if the nov. 1st letter would really be the words/written by "RIAA-Timy" then that would be at least some kind of formal error.
Now "RIAA-Timy" wants with this pro hac thingy archive that he has something to do with the case and probably he hopes this way that no one (a judge that could possibly change the facts with regards to his Statement #4 for example) will notice his acting on this case prior to his becomming a guy for RIAA in THIS specific case.

Thats my feeling about my understanding of the situation at the moment.

Corrections, if necessary and/or comments please!

Alter_Fritz said...

Hm, looking at the November 1st letter and the december 11th one close together; is it just me that sees this 2 completely different styles to write letters like the "R" for example in Richard L. Guida ?

Alter_Fritz said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alter_Fritz said...

Alter_Fritz said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alter_Fritz said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
raybeckerman said...

1. It's got nothing to do with the signatures. The November 1st letter was signed by Richard Guida. The December 11th letter was signed by his secretary for him.

2. It's their standard operating procedure in contested cases to have the HRO lawyer running the case make a motion to be admitted pro haec vice.

3. It may be that the sudden realization that Mr. Reynolds's November 1st letter may have gotten Richard Guida into trouble that reminded them to make the pro haec vice motion in this case, but on that I would only be speculating.

Alter_Fritz said...

What a pity! :-(
I already imagined RIAA-Richard1 behind bars ;-)