Judge Says RIAA Can't Have Hard Drive

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A Texas judge has refused to allow the RIAA untrammelled access to the defendant's hard drive in SONY v. Arellanes. The court ruled that only a mutually agreeable, neutral computer forensics expert may examine the hard drive, at the RIAA's expense, and that the parties must agree on mutually acceptable provisions for confidentiality."

Comments

Re:woo, guess a few judges have read the law

[owlicks58]

This isn't a matter of legal debate, it's simply compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In order to compel the defendant to produce the hard drive, the plaintiff (Sony) had to show that the information contained therein is relevant (under FRCP 26(a)). In this case it certainly was, as the court stated. The defendant brought up some legitimate concerns about privacy of documents not in dispute on the hard drive, and the judge agreed that to allow a mirror of the hard drive by Sony would be overly broad. This strikes a fine compromise between the concerns of both sides.

Actual Rule

[ari_j]

I checked the court's order here and it looks like Rule 26(c) was invoked, oddly by the plaintiff RIAA. Apparently the defendant refused to produce her hard drive and the RIAA claimed that a mirror image of it was necessary, and that any privacy concerns could be dealt with under a Rule 26(c) protective order. Normally, a plaintiff makes a motion under Rule 26(c), so this looks a tad unusual to me but it works. The judge did not explicitly rely on Rule 26(c) in making his order, but everything about the order says it's a Rule 26(c) order.

Rule 26(c) provides that, when certain prerequisites are met, "the court ... may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including ... that the disclosure or discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions ...; that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery; that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the disclosure or discovery be limited to certain matters; [or] that discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the court[.]" See the text of Rule 26 for more.

Long story short - like I said, the court is just applying the rules and common sense. The RIAA is going to kick and scream about it, but there's nothing out of the ordinary about what just happened. :)