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."

Comments

Re:Since submitter is a lawyer ...

[anonieuweling]

If defender wins, how can he get back at RIAA for a 'false' suit?

Is this stuff actually legal?

[Inominate]

Is this kind of stuff actually legal? The RIAA seems to like to do it, as SCO also did. Is it common to go into civil cases like this?

"We can't make a case against you, so you're going to have to do it for us."

What? Huh?

Atempt to translate and possible answer to RIAA

[hugetoon]

Let's try to translate:

RIAA: Hey yr honor, this dude stole my stuf, i know 'cause a guy i pay to hang on the net told me so!

DUDE: Nope, i didn't.

RIAA: Sure, they all claim the same, and actually by now i've got no evidence, but if you let me go his home and
put everything upside-down i bet my "experts" will find something!

Well, i hope this is not the way the USA justice works.

And if i were Defendant i'd ask RIAA in return (and before giving anything to them) to let me do forensics on computer their investigators used to identify my IP and computers they used to exchange mails and every other piece of equipement i could think off (like routers of their ISP). And it'd
take me 10 years or so, and of course at the expense or RIAA (i mean, forensics is a hard work, i intend to get payd for it) if i figure that they made a mistake.

This is the way the system works

[BGraves]

The US has liberal pleading rules, and as such, has wide discovery as well. This is good when a small person tries to sue a large company. Say a company is dumping chemicals into your water, and your kid gets cancer. There is no way the company is going to give you the evidence you need to get a civil verdict. That is why you can file a claim with little to no evidence, and then through discovery, the court can force the company to provide you with types and quantities of what they are dumping into the water. If they refuse, they can be brought up on criminal charges. Rule 11 in the federal laws of civil procedures is designed to prevent lawyers from filing civil suits just to get discovery priviliges. If I was the gentleman in question, I would ask my lawyer to evaluate a Rule 11 charge in addition to the summary ruling. I am reading the rule right now, and a judge could impose on the party involved monetary penalties that would prevent the conduct in the future. I don't see that happening, but even if the judge just fined the law firm representing the RIAA, it would make them less likely to help the RIAA in the future.

So...to continue the train of thought we all have

[StressGuy]

It kinda looks like we all see it the same way, i.e. - this guy just "called the RIAA's bluff".

So, now the RIAA wants permission to search for the evidence the clearly never had in the first place. Alright, my question is, can this guy go back to the judge with "Given that I was summoned to appear here on the pretext of compelling evidence that we now know the RIAA does not posses, and given that I am not prepared to waive my right to a speedy trial while they are given additional time to find this evidence, can we just dismiss this and all go home?"

Also, can I counter-sue for lost time, lost wages, added stress, etc.?

but, of course, IANAL (besides being ANAL, I'm not a lawyer either ;))

Very Funny

[beadfulthings]

I notice in reading the .pdf version of the motion that the RIAA lawyers didn't even have the man's name right in their initial filing of the lawsuit. His own attorney had to straighten that out. I'm glad Mr. Wilke's pockets are deep enough that he can afford astute legal counsel who knows how to handle a fight like this. I suspect that's not the case for the single mothers, recently-bereaved orphans, and elderly grandparents who are the RIAA's usual prey.

It's disconcerting to think they can sue when they have no real evidence that they've been injured. I suspect they do this more often than not. Let's hope this motion succeeds and that other defendants and lawyers take note of it.