Sunday, March 01, 2009

RIAA lawyer Timothy Reynolds reneges on promise in Capitol v. Thomas, forces defendant to make motion for 2 week time extension

In Capitol Records v. Thomas, after first consenting orally to defendant's request for an extension of 2 weeks in which to file her expert witness's report, plaintiffs' counsel Timothy Reynolds then reneged on his promise, refused to enter into a stipulation, and forced defendant to make a motion asking for the time period to be extended from 7 days to 21 days.

Interestingly, although the motion for extension included a declaration -- which is a document made under penalty of perjury -- of defendant's counsel Brian Toder, Mr. Reynolds's 'refutation' provided no such document. I.e., he partially denied that he had made the agreement, claiming he had agreed only conditionally, subject to his clients' approval, but his denial was not under penalty of perjury.

In another development, the plaintiffs asked for -- and defendant did not object to -- an adjournment of the trial date from May 11th to June 15th. The adjournment was granted, without objection from defendant, so the trial is now scheduled to begin June 15, 2009, at 9:00 A.M.

Plaintiffs' motion to adjourn trial
Order granting plaintiffs' motion for adjournment of trial from May 11 to June 15
Defendant's motion to enlarge time from 7 days to 21 days for filing of expert's report
Plaintiffs' opposition to defendant's motion to enlarge time from 7 days to 21 days for filing of expert's report

[Ed. note. While it is most uncommon in ordinary legal circles (a) to object to a request of that nature, and (b) to renege on an oral agreement, it is typical behavior for Holme Roberts & Owen lawyers, in my experience. Were I Judge Davis, I would go ballistic over this professional misconduct, especially in view of the prior transgressions of that firm in this case. Judge Davis, however, appears to have an extremely long fuse. -R.B.]

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


Alter_Fritz said...


So again i think this looks as proof that doing stuff with those evil guys over phone or orally will get you nothing because they are as they are.

Now explain someone to me whey those guys are bugging judge gertner that Professor Nesson prefers to do confering stuff with those guys per mail instead by a phonecall.
you obviously can not trust them when you do procedural stuff with then over phone instead of writing where you have something in hand(or on taperecording in case of an oral interaction).

Lets hope judge gertner gets notice of this jet again demonstration that evil4 lawyers are not to be trusted and that tenenbaum and his counsel are doing what they do with 100% justification since they have to engage those bad behaviour RIAA lawyers.

Another Kevin said...

In these cases, it's obvious that Defendants have to accord the opponents the utmost professional courtesy - the tiniest slip, even by a pro se defendant, and the case is ruined. The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, need only conform to the minimum requirements of blackletter law, and often not even that. Watch the next move be a motion to sanction the attorney for the Defendant. Particularly if he has the unmitigated gall to file a reply brief.

Matt Fitzpatrick said...

Anyone still wondering whether running up litigation costs might be a key part of a mass nuisance settlement campaign?