Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Says It Doesn't Have Enough Evidence
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Elektra v. Wilke, the Chicago RIAA case in which defendant Paul Wilke has moved for summary judgment, the RIAA has responded to the summary judgment motion by filing a motion for 'expedited discovery', alleging that it needs expedited pretrial discovery because it does not have sufficient evidence to withstand Mr. Wilke's motion. The RIAA's lawyer said: 'Plaintiffs cannot at this time, without an opportunity for full discovery present by affidavit facts essential to justify their opposition to Defendant's motion.' The motion and supporting affidavit are available online."
Since almost everyone just settles *cough*extortion*cough*, they rarely have to prove anything.
... could'nt he just fucking translate the submission into english before posting ...
"Nul n'est sensé ignorer la loi", but who the fuck he supposed to understand legalese, I wonder.
Is this saying that RIAA sued someone, and the defendant actually fought back with a motion for dismissal? And the RIAA says that they don't actually have the evidence they need to prove anything, but just give them a minute, and they'll scrounge something up? Shouldn't the RIAA have thier evidence BEFORE the trial??
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
Not exactly.
They have enough evidence to start proceedings, but not enough to prove guilt. So they ask for more with the discovery. This is also seen in other types of cases, so its not unheard of.
The discovery might even entail impounding his entire home, and all his assets for 'review'. A good 'threat' to cause him to settle out of court like everyone else has. Does he have the balls for it? The RIAA has nothing to lose by a war of attrition. He does. ( we all do )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It also means that their supporting tort wasn't very strong, and might set precedent to require greater revelation in the tort to support their accusation before messing with both the court and the defendent(s).
It's a smelly, scummy sort of ambulance chaser that doesn't have his/her ducks in a row before they baste some poor person in oil and fry them before the bench.
This bodes badly for whatever hacks the RIAA has employed to enforce their ex-foreclosure bar-bells. I doubt they're embarrassed, as it is impossible to embarrass sociopaths.
Now mod me down for troll-- or be enlightened and understand that the poster actually got some most interesting and relevant information: the RIAA's enforcers are starting to sputter.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
When a plaintiff files suit in court, it does not necessarily need to have all of the evidence it needs to win. This is the purpose of the discovery phase of a lawsuit.
If a plaintiff believes it has been wronged but the information necessary to sufficiently prove their case is somehow privileged, there is no way for them to possess that information as evidence without discovery. That's why it's called "discovery". Plaintiffs frequently believe that internal documents or sworn testimony of the defendant will prove their case, but without discovery, they will never be able to read those documents or obtain that testimony.
In this case, the RIAA needs access to defendant's computer to prove its case. It has no such access without a subpoena, which it cannot obtain without a lawsuit. Plaintiff has filed that lawsuit and is now asking the court for permission to obtain the evidence needed to prove it.
I would be very surprised if the court denied their motion.