The RIAA has now asked for permission to serve reply papers in Capitol v. Foster, to further support its motion asking Judge West to "reconsider" his decision granting Ms. Foster's motion for attorneys fees:
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to file Reply*
* 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
They would be lucky if the judge even accepts the late filing in the stunt that they pulled yesterday. Motion should be denied. Next case.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I'm not a lawyer, isn't this kind of cut and dry? I've been told that a party can only file appeals on motions that aren't "final orders" in certain situations according to the FRCP. This "request for reconsideration" doesn't seem to be an appeal and really seems like an insult to the court ("hey judge, you don't know what you're talking about.")
ReplyDeleteYes this motion for "reconsideration" is procedurally incorrect, totally out of line, and frivolous.
ReplyDeleteYes it will be unceremoniously denied.
And yet it was unceremoniously approved :(
ReplyDeleteThe motion hasn't been approved. Just permission to file papers in support of the motion.
ReplyDeleteah yes, got ahead of myself. Thanks for pointing out the difference
ReplyDeleteand why shouldn't Judge West have given permission to file more papers? If the plaintiffs pay for them...
ReplyDeleteHe is entitled to a good laugh too, isn't he?
And if the plaintiffs think that such "manuevering" is good for them; oviously they don't see those waving flagpoles in the orders not.
;-)
Meanwhile, reply papers on a 'reargument' motion are inane.....
ReplyDeleteA reargument motion is based on showing the judge that he overlooked something.
If you haven't made a case for that in your initial moving papers, then you haven't made your case for reargument. Period.
What the defendant says in her opposition papers, or what the plaintiffs say in reply papers, is completely irrelevant......
I.e., it is but more frivolous paper.
When will the RIAA realize their lawyers are taking them for a ride?
CORRECTION-CORRECTION-CORRECTION
ReplyDeletei changed my mind....
i do expect the reconsideration motion to be granted....
here is my prediction of what the ruling will be: "(1) the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is granted, (2) upon reconsideration, the original determination is adhered to"......
but i still do expect it to be unceremonious.....