Tuesday, September 16, 2008

In Elektra Entertainment v. Licata, Magistrate grants RIAA motion to withdraw case, denies attorneys fees for defendant. Mr. Licata appeals.

In another "throwing in the towel" case, this one in Cincinnati, Ohio, Elektra v. Licata, the Magistrate Judge has (a) granted the RIAA's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, (b) denied defendant's motion for attorneys fees, and (c) denied Mr. Licata's motion to dismiss the complaint as "moot".

The Magistrate Judge reasoned that Mr. Licata had the duty to inform plaintiffs sooner that his children were planning to "take the Fifth Amendment".

Mr. Licata has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's decision, which will be determined by the District Court Judge.

Decision of Magistrate Judge Allowing Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice
Defendant's Objections to Decision of Magistrate Judge

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


Anonymous said...

The heck?
The Magistrate Judge reasoned that Mr. Licata had the duty to inform plaintiffs sooner that his children were planning to "take the Fifth Amendment".

I'm not versed at all law and I may not be interpreting this correctly but since when was it a duty for the defense to inform the other party how they plan to go about their defense? Is this actually a requirement??


raybeckerman said...

Well I think your instincts are just fine, and it was the Magistrate Judge who missed the mark.

Anonymous said...

The Magistrate Judges seem the most out of control of all. Their reasoning sometimes (e.g. here) defies logic, common sense, and outright fairness. The bar for being an MJ must be lower than for a full judge.


Anonymous said...

"Before filing this action, Plaintiffs identified Defendant as the responsible individual based on AOL's IP address identification. Similar evidence has served for the basis for bringing many other cases..."

The judge is clearly wrong. Defendant was not identified as the "responsible individual for file sharing", only as the "bill payer on the internet account". And plaintiffs know this does not mean or even make presumptuous that Defendant shared files.

If such evidence has been used in other cases, then the current case only goes to show the judges in the other cases were wrong too. Here we see, undisputed by all, a case brought against Defendant and later dismissed simply because it's easier than investigating first. What better example of why such evidence is without sufficient grounding does one need?


Anonymous said...

Ray, your judges journal article is referenced in Defendant's response. Cheers! Also, Defendant's response is well written. I'm excited to see where it goes. -dp

Igor said...

I've been thinking this all along...why don't the defendant's children always take the 5th when being deposed in a law suit against the parents!?

I don't follow the magistrate's logic at all.