Friday, October 09, 2009

Magistrate denies RIAA motion for discovery sanctions in UMG v Lindor

Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy has recommended that the RIAA's motion for discovery sanctions against the defendant and her counsel in UMG Recordings v. Lindor be denied, and that the RIAA's motion for the action to be voluntarily dismissed "without prejudice" be granted.

The Judge held that "Plaintiffs’ claims concerning defendant’s conduct are largely overstated."

Decision of Magistrate Judge denying plaintiffs' motion for discovery sanctions, granting plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice

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


Travis said...

4 Years of litigation and the judge says no attorney fees for you even though we can't prove a thing. This is disgusting.

bbsux said...

Yeesh - RIAA doesn't have to re-emburse her for her costs!!!

Welcome to the USB (United States of Obama)

raybeckerman said...

The decision does not make any recommendation regarding the Copyright Act attorneys fees. That issue was not before the Court.

derivative said...

"That issue was not before the court."

Well, that's good to know.

So maybe you can pull the old "it's after the statute of limitations so a dismissal without prejudice is still a final dismissal, so show me the money" trick?

If the appellate court is smart enough to read between the lines and do the right thing in Lava, I would think Lindor would be a slam dunk for this.

Congratulations on the rest of the decision anyway; during the case I was surprised by so many of the decisions that I wasn't sure how this was going to go.

-- derivative

Justin Olbrantz (Quantam) said...

Copyright Act attorneys fees? What exactly is distinct about that?

raybeckerman said...

Justin, the Court can't decide a motion that is not even before the Court. Mrs. Lindor hasn't made an attorneys fees motion yet.

Anonymous said...


USB? -> "B" is actually the first initial of another recent US president. Perhaps it is not what you meant. How about USoO (you sue)?

Anonymous said...

" Welcome to the USB (United States of Obama)"

This case was ongoing long before
Obama showed up.

Lets not turn THIS site into a stupid
political 'pissing' match ..

please ?


Garren said...

Mr. Beckerman, great job on the case and I'm glad to see your client and you came out 'winning' so to speak.

And you've got an article over here:

-Garren over at

mathinker said...

It seems to me that this judge seems fairly unswayed by "the power/propaganda of the corporation". While he did find in favor of sanctions in Interscope Records v. Barbosa, at $200, they weren't a grossly unreasonable sum like the jury judgments have been.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations on your victory. Please continue to do such an excellent job of standing against the abuse of power perpetrated by the RIAA and MPAA.

usagemayvary said...

welp, any surprise here Ray?

How did they get out of it on their side? Specifically vexatious litigation/malicious prosecution/abuse of process?

Does the process of profiting off the settlement letters uncovered by p2pnet have any possible bearing on this case? I'm referring to this:

jkgamer said...

> Welcome to the USB (United States of Obama)

C'mon, do we have to blame everything on the sitting president? There are plenty of other individuals involved in policy making decisions. Supreme Court, Senate, Congress, and President.

It's more likely "Welcome to the USC (United States of Corporations" since they seemed to be the ones calling all the shots in today's climate.

usagemayvary said...

it's not over yet. However, RIAA voluntary dismissal is a good step from some perspectives - although Lindor was demonized by this, at least they are out of the fire directly.

I hope she makes a motion for attorney fees...Ray, wasn't there some case/precedent where the RIAA or MPAA did this in another case and the judge awarded attorney fees to the defendant? was it this case, even?

Anti-bodies said...

I wish there were a way to punish the'RIAA for their, to my mind gratuitous suits against vulnerable individuals. I went on their site and was dismayed at the record labels who are their sponsors, including alternative and counter-cultural companies. They also claim to be for "Free Speech" that is obviously not free for anyone else. Even now, in 2010, where they have won many of their battles. They seem vicious and vindictive