Friday, June 26, 2009

Plaintiffs argue they should not have to answer defendant's interrogatories in SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the RIAA has asked the Court to deny defendant's motion to compel plaintiffs to respond to the outstanding interrogatories.

Opposition to defendant's motion to compel answers to interrogatories

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...

"(3) the
Interrogatories at issue are objectionable, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence."

While I realize that neither side in this case is practicing what any of us would call "law," how the heck does the plaintiff's counsel think they can get away with a failure to establish their right to sue; which is what it seems these interrogatories were asking, that they prove their ownership?

I know, I know, we're back in the non-"Real World" of law, but seriously, how can any attorney think to get away with this?


Anonymous said...

Isn't the proper time to object to interrogatories when they are made? Are there no "meet and confers" at that time?

Specifically, the "30 days" argument seems weak to me for that very reason: the "due date" didn't change after the interrogatories were first made.