Judge Says No to RIAA Subpoena Request

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "For at least the second time, a federal judge has dealt the RIAA's campaign against college students a blow by refusing an ex parte motion by the RIAA for a subpoena against college students. In Newport News, Virginia, Judge Walter D. Kelley, Jr., denied the RIAA's motion for information about students at the College of William and Mary. The Court denied the motion outright, saying it was unauthorized by law. (pdf) Last month it was reported that a New Mexico judge had denied a similar motion directed against University of New Mexico students on the ground that it should not have been made ex parte."

Comments

Re:Jargon Jingle.

[BKX]

My hand goes up. Ex parte is a very common legal term meaning to meet with a judge without both parties being present. Normally, no matter what the motion, when you meet with a judge, both sides get to be present. These subpoenas are being issued with only the RIAA being present.

Re:Jargon Jingle.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Yep, the RIAA prefers to do everything the sneaky way.

They find it inconvenient if someone else shows up to tell the judges the truth.

Of course, as Judge Garcia was kind enough to point out, their "ex parte" tactics are illegal. Just a minor detail.

Re:Jargon Jingle.

[UnknowingFool]

As NewYorkCountryLawyer pointed out, this particular ex parte motion is illegal. There are very rare circumstances where ex parte communications are allowed. However these are generally the exception and not the rule as the Judge in New Mexico pointed out. In this case Judge Garcia pointed out the the DMCA was written for this exact situation and the RIAA should follow procedures outlined in the statute (which incidentally they helped to write and lobby).

Re:Jargon Jingle.

[djmurdoch]

They're asking the judge to compel the university to do something, without having the university present to present objections. They know who the university is.

Re:Good to see critical thinking

[value_added]

This is definitely one where people should read TFA. The judge tears their motion apart, and stops just short of saying, "I award you no points, and may god have mercy upon your soul."

My favourite bit was the following from the last link:

Plaintiffs contend that unless the Court allows ex parte immediate discovery, they will be irreparably harmed. While the Court does not dispute that infringement of a copyright results in harm, it requires a Coleridgian "suspension of disbelief" to accept that the harm is irreparable, especially when monetary damages can cure any alleged violation. On the other hand, the harm related to disclosure of confidential information in a student or faculty member's Internet files can be equally harmful.

For anyone unfamiliar with Coleridge, reading something on the origin of the phrase suspension of disbelief might be informative. At least easier than reading Coleridge's own works.

Re:Jargon Jingle.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

They're asking the judge to compel the university to do something, without having the university present to present objections. They know who the university is. Correct.

Plus, it would be an easy matter for the RIAA to furnish the university, and for the university to send to the John Does, copies of (a) the summons and complaint, (b) the motion papers, and (c) the judge's rules -- i.e. all the things the rules say one is supposed to get when one is sued, and motion is made against one's interests.

Re:Good to see critical thinking

[kiracatgirl]

I'm not a lawyer either, I have read the article, but I honestly don't think anything you've said is wrong. Then again, the hideous legal document references were extremely distracting, so I don't think I fully understood the details like that myself. I just got the general impression that the Judge thought the RIAA's request was, in all possible interpretations, inappropriate.