Thursday, December 04, 2008

Plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal and 'discovery sanction' motion fully briefed in UMG Recordings v. Lindor

In UMG Recordings v. Lindor, the motion has now been fully briefed and submitted to the Court, as the plaintiffs filed their final submission, a reply memorandum.

Additionally, plaintiffs filed their memorandum in opposition to defendant's Rule 11 motion.

Plaintiffs' reply memorandum
Plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition to Rule 11 motion

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...

You'd think the Plaintiffs would at least be competent enough not to issue a nugatory response, wouldn't you? Well, no, I know you wouldn't. Good luck, since dumb luck is the only thing that can keep you from prevailing.

Not Telling said...

The Court is going to sanction you and sanction you good Mr. Beckerman.

I read all of the documents, and clearly, the RIAA has fancier words than you do. And they have more pages.

When a case reaches 100 documents, it should automatically be closed. There has been too much paper generated in this action for nothing. The photocopying costs alone have exceeded the original settlement offer.

Anonymous said...

Plaintiffs have suffered severe and irreparable prejudice, including the destruction of the very computer that was connected to Defendant’s Internet account at the time of infringement.

This man's response is: You'll never know if that was true or not. The severe and irreparable prejudice is solely in the Plaintiff's mind and not proven to exist otherwise. While Plaintiffs are careful to not claim (with no evidence) that the connected computer is the infringing computer they claim (with faulty, unproven methods) to have detected, at most they would only be harmed if it was that infringing computer. If the computer they claim is now destroyed had no evidence of infringement then they'd be howling equally loudly that they weren't given the right computer and that these Defendants must be punished for that fact. All their complaints are really traceable back to these Plaintiff's own actions and inactions, and their unfounded belief that the Defendant in this case was absolutely guilty from the moment of identification despite any factual evidence to support this belief. Now they want revenge pure and simple.

Had Defendant been forthright from the outset of this litigation, this lawsuit would have been quickly resolved.

This man's translation: Had Defendant immediately admitted their complete and total guilt and written us a check in the amount we demanded only then would this have been quickly resolved. Anything else is wrong, mean, spiteful, disingenuous, and deserves the harshest of punishments from this court. Why? Because without any actually usable evidence to support it, we say so.

throughout this litigation, Defendant and her counsel made misstatements and provided incomplete and inaccurate information about facts material to Plaintiffs’ prosecution of this case.

We Plaintiffs can say this because we Plaintiffs cherry pick our facts. Exculpatory evidence need not apply because we Plaintiffs know who is lying and who is telling the gold standard truth. We Plaintiffs also read minds.

... which leads a party down a rabbit hole.

To this man it is the opposite that is true. The RIAA has stuck their head out of the rabbit hole and instead of the wonderland where everything they say, think, eat, sleep, breathe, and believe being absolutely true, has found the real world.

Yannick Raymond-Wright’s errata should be disregarded.

Right. Along with everything else that disputes the Plaintiff's case. That's only fair, Your Honor. Only her testimony that supports our cause — and you must support our cause because we're losing billions of dollars due to this Defendant and we're too big and important to be allowed to fail — should ever be considered in this court. Besides, the errata was provided after her deposition when she was older and probably senile.

While the objectives of Rules 11 and 37 may be similar - deterrence of improper litigation conduct - Rule 11 applies to misconduct in pleadings and motions, while Rule 37 applies to discovery misconduct.

Picky, picky, picky.

Plaintiffs acted diligently to bring this motion once they learned of the destroyed computer,

So it wasn't the actual Defendant's computer which was destroyed. The Defendant said from the beginning that she never owned the computer in question. These Plaintiffs pursued this case until they felt they found someone else — not this Defendant — who had a computer, now destroyed, before deciding to cut & run — correction, get their pound of flesh — through sanctions. Since the actions of other, non-party, computer owner is not the fault or responsibility of this Defendant would somebody please define vexatious for me once more.

{The Common Man Speaking}

Lior said...

Not a lawyer, my impression that legal disputes are resolved pre-trial and factual ones during the trial must be wrong. Otherwise I don't understand what page 5 of this brief means. Plaintiffs are basically asking defendant to be sanctioned for disagreeing with them over the facts -- if this was possible than what's the point of holding the trial?

Ben said...

There's a material misstatement in this document that in my mind constitutes an intentional lie. RIAA claims here that without the misstatements this case would not have proceeded to this point. However, from looking at all the other cases, even if we accepted their version of the facts, we must assume if would in fact have progressed to this point.

Anonymous said...

The good thing is that plaintiffs bring no new material (that I noticed) into play. Ray pretty well addressed all the old stuff -- and thus this response as well -- two months ago.


Jadeic said...

They are intellectually bankrupt, morally bankrupt and soon, fingers crossed, will be financially bankrupt.

Their locker is empty.

Bring it on...

Dave said...

They are intellectually bankrupt, morally bankrupt and soon, fingers crossed, will be financially bankrupt.
I don't think you covered all bases, you forgot they are intellectually corrupt and empty, morally corrupt and empty.

But I guess you got to be to work at the RIAA.

Most of this is old stuff and as pointed out Ray B addressed their points ages back, am shocked they didnt have more lies and cherry picked half truths to bring forward, almost disappointed. Come on RIAA people, we already know how low you are.. dont hold out on us now.


Alter_Fritz said...

Well, maybe it is just me again, but I wonder why the HRO lawyer Burton is writing so much without actually reminding the court what this suit was all about in the beginning.
Of course given the prior conduct of plaintiffs lawyers it could be that she does that on purpose, but I give her the benefit of doubt that she might really is not aware what *this* suit is/was all about in the beginning.
Since it was RIAA-Richard that was responsible for this case and had done all the dishonest "gaming" with the courts of Judge Trager and Levy in the MARIE(!) Lindor case, that might be quite likely and with all those cases these "well-known and respected" record companies Sony-BMG, Warner, Universal and EMI have burdened the courts it seems logic that this is what happended to Mrs. Burton's mind before she wrote the stuff she did!
So I take the liberty to remind the readers from my recollection as a nonparty in this case what it was about in the beginning:

Some years ago the Record-Companie's plaintiff's accused Marie Lindor via this "settlement letter" of being a direct copyrightinfringer and that they already had all the evidence secured that they need to prevail in a court of law action against her!
She said to plaintiffs various councels over the years that she has never ever used a computer in her life so far and that SHE who is sued in this action at issue is not a copyrightinfringer and did nothing of what the plaintiffs in their complaint accuse her of having done.

Then we had this "strange" events that plaintiffs "expert" Dr. Doug came up with roughly half a dozend reports or so in the last few years that nearly everytime claimed to prove some other events that prior "expert reports" of him did not mentioned. (A layperson might say that the good Doctor Jacobson indeed "doctored" his numerous expert reports).

But after all now finaly even the plaintiffs have admitted via their last few filings that they have NO case against MARIE Lindor the person that they claimed back then they had the evidence against already secured. Of course since at least the BMG part of the plaintiffs gang is german, those HRO lawyers are not unaware of the procedure that is called in german Sippenhaft(ung). They claim someone else related someway to Marie is the responsible person but since they never sued THAT person and have no evidence stuff from THAT person that they are prejudiced in their case against Marie Lindor since some computers are gone after all the years and that this is HER fault.

I thing everyone with common sense must come to the conclusion that dismissing *this* case against Lindor absolutely MUST be with prejudice since Plaintiffs admitted that they do no longer believe that Lindor is a copyrightinfringer, and that someone else is responsible for what they alledge that happended according to their "information and belief".
But because they are not "Mensch" enough to admit that they made an error in Lindor they come up with all this frivolous stuff that Marie and Ray should be punished for what in the end Plaintiff's Counsel RIAA-Richard and the others had done over the course of the last few years.

I do hope that Judges Trager and Levy are truely impartial judges with common sense and that they rule with common sense (i.e. dismissal of the case against Marie Lindor WITH prejudice and sanctioning Plaintiffs and their counsel).

If I had to rule as judge in this case I would ask plaintiffs to show cause why I should not do that "Rule 11ing" for (not at least) the events with the plaintiffs expert report(s) and how these events were gamed by former HRO Lawyer Mr. Gabriel("RIAA-Richard").


usagemayvary said...

@ alter fritz:

Good point. Don't these settlement letters claim that the information is factual, and wouldn't this be contradictory what they're claiming now Ray?

Just basic logic.