Judge Lets RIAA Subpoena Defendant's Employer

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A judge has ruled that the RIAA can subpoena the defendant's employer in a case pending in Manhattan federal court, Atlantic v. Shutovsky. The judge's order (pdf) contained eight separate rulings deciding 19 pages of discovery disputes (pdf), resolving virtually all of them in favor of the RIAA. Other decisions made include: 'The plaintiffs were permitted to take depositions of Mr. Shutovsky's wife and his brother. Plaintiffs were required to produce all non-privileged documents or materials relating to any investigation and any sound files on their computer, and to produce a privilege log as to any claimed to be privileged. Defendant was required to provide the name and address of each person who used his computer during the three years prior to commencement of the lawsuit.'"

Comments

Re:Do your own damned work.

[cyphercell]

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 8 > 803 (b) 6 C vi I & II states:

803. Proceedings of Copyright Royalty Judges

(vi)

(I)
Any participant under paragraph (2) in a proceeding under this chapter to determine royalty rates may, by means of written motion or on the record, request of an opposing participant or witness other relevant information and materials if, absent the discovery sought, the Copyright Royalty Judges' resolution of the proceeding would be substantially impaired. In determining whether discovery will be granted under this clause, the Copyright Royalty Judges may consider--

(aa)

whether the burden or expense of producing the requested information or materials outweighs the likely benefit, taking into account the needs and resources of the participants, the importance of the issues at stake, and the probative value of the requested information or materials in resolving such issues;

(bb)

whether the requested information or materials would be unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or are obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; and

(cc)

whether the participant seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the proceeding or by other means to obtain the information sought.

(II)
This clause shall not apply to any proceeding scheduled to commence after December 31, 2010.

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 5 > 507

507. Limitations on actions

(a) Criminal Proceedings.-- Except as expressly provided otherwise in this title, no criminal proceeding shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within 5 years after the cause of action arose.

(b) Civil Actions.-- No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.

I would argue that while falling within the time limit listed under "Limitations on actions", that procuring evidence for the full time span would be contradictory to both sections aa and bb listed under "Proceedings of Copyright Royalty Judges". For instance I might suggest the RIAA run an ad in the local paper. Of course it looks like this case has passed the "debate with the judge" point, so I think I would run an ad in the paper asking anyone that has used my computer in the past three years to please step forward.

here's my source http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u sc_sup_01_17.html.