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

Out of control

[SuSEboy]

3 years eh? Good luck with that.

Re:Out of control

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Let's just hope there weren't any botnets using this computer.
If there were no botnets, then that order should be possible to fill, assuming there were no attempts at plausible deniability. That still leaves everything else awful, I know, inc. how the RIAA got its case in the first place; but still, if there were no botnets, then it should be possible to narrow down who downloaded the RIAA's sting files.
If there was a botnet on the computer, however, someone innocent will get cooked by this order. How's a layperson to know if there is?

Do your own damned work.

[SanityInAnarchy]

What evidence (if any) does the RIAA have on this person?

(None? Yeah, I thought so. Wouldn't exactly be uncommon.)

But really, it just strikes me as bizarre the amount of work they're requiring the defendant to do -- they are basically asking the defendant to investigate themself.

Ordinarily, of course, I wouldn't be worried. I'd simply turn in a bunch of sound files and say I don't remember where I ripped them from, or where the physical CD went. Because under ordinary US law, it would then be the burden of the plaintiff to prove that those particular files did not belong to me. But this isn't ordinary US law, this is bought-and-paid-for RIAA law.

Re:Do your own damned work.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a matter of evidence. The burden is on the defendent, since it is copyright law.

Re:Do your own damned work.

[cpt kangarooski]

Ok, since you're the lawyer can you show me a link where it says that the burden of proof rests with the defendant?

Well, let's start with that. Laypeople generally don't understand certain procedural aspects of the legal system. A lot of people will say 'burden of proof,' sometimes even lawyers (although then it's a sort of lazy, highly contextual shorthand), but technically there's no such thing.

There is a burden of persuasion, there are evidentiary burdens, and there is a standard of proof. They're all different things, though significantly interconnected. The burden of persuasion is the burden of a party to prove its claims. For example, when we say that people are considered innocent until proven guilty, it merely means that the prosecution has to convince a jury of guilt, nothing more. Evidentiary burdens are used for proving that specific facts are as a party claims; for example, in a copyright suit, the plaintiff begins with the burden of having to show that he is the copyright holder (or otherwise has a right to sue in the first place). If that burden is satisfied, then the burden may shift to the defendant who can try to rebut it with proof to the contrary; if he succeeds, the burden shifts again, and so on. And the standard of proof is the standard which must be met in order for a burden to be met. In a typical civil case, it'll be a preponderance of the evidence (i.e. more likely than not, even if only by the slightest amount). In a criminal case, it'll be beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a much higher standard.

But in any event, while we are talking about the discovery portion of a case, where the two sides are engaged in gathering the evidence that they need, I really don't see your point. On TV you have things like surprise evidence or witnesses, gathered and presented at the last moment for dramatic tension. This is unrealistic. In fact, by the time a trial actually begins, both sides will routinely know exactly what evidence will be presented, what testimony will be given, and have a pretty good idea of the ultimate outcome. This is part of the reason why most cases don't get to trial; it's more common for one side to know it'll win and the other to know it'll lose, and for them to want to come to some agreement without wasting time and money drawing it out. The discovery rules are meant to facilitate this; in a proper trial, there are no surprises.

So we have things like Rule 26(a), which requires each party to voluntarily give a lot of information to the other side without having to be asked about it, 26(b), which allows any party to get all probative non-privileged evidence, or even non-admissible evidence which will lead to admissible evidence. If the other side has a good reason, they can object to it and the whole thing gets hashed out by the judge, as we see here. But generally the US is extremely plaintiff-friendly and has extremely broad discovery, compared to much of the rest of the world.

I think the technical term is reading, I mean the law is all written down right? That is the idea behind self representation isn't it?

There's a reason why pro se litigants are so heavily discouraged. Yes, it's all written down. But then, you might as well try to learn how to use a spreadsheet program by diligently reading through the source code. It takes about three years of hard work for people to become lawyers, and that's with the benefit of people teaching them. And even then, a smart baby lawyer is going to find someone more experienced to work with so that he can learn the important practical aspects of the law which are generally ignored in school, in favor of the higher level concepts. And one of the first things you get taught is how to do proper research, often using tools which are specialized and not available to everyone. (For example, Google is crap for legal research, really. Westlaw and Lexis have it beat, both in terms of what's in their database, and the power and flexibility of the search queries. Of course, you have to pay to u

Re:RIAA

[nacturation]

They only are having success in the police states of america that means that they will soon parish. Are you sure you don't mean a church state? Perish the thought!

Re:Bad news for IT techs

[pfleming]

What's even worse is that they are asking for "By September 4, 2007, defendant is directed to produce all hard drives or data storage units, whether removable or not, which are in his possession and control, including but not limited to all hard drives or data storage units of any computer that through which he had internet access on or about August 17,2005."
So how many hard drives is that? I know that sometimes in a given day I may access the internet from two or three different computer systems/networks. I also have boxes full of hard drives sitting on the shelf. How the hell can they ask for so much that they might shut down entire businesses? There didn't even seem to be a time limit. I say stop buying stuff (and downloading/using it) from companies/groups/vampires that treat their customers like criminals.

An outrage

[cyphercell]

This is a horrific application of legal theory, in fact it flies in the face of US court proceedings. It's called "burden of proof" and without it you are guilty until proven innocent, literally you are tasked with proving yourself innocent.

It's a sad day indeed when a privately owned entity can practice McCarthyism and nobody notices. Welcome to the United Corporations of America, an experimental perversion of capitalism, totalitarianism, and military dictatorship.

Free speech is all we have left.

Botnets?

[infonography]

So how does one prove that the computer in question had been/was infected? Unless they kept detailed logs at the ISP then only an analysis of the traffic would be proof.

I would guess the ISP would balk at that due to;

1. The unlikelihood they had these on file. (if they did they would see a mass exodus of customers on GP)

2. The in-house costs of doing this analysis likely outside of the skill sets of the usual NOC staffers. Meaning Who is going to pay for said work? (See reason 1)

3. The Lawyers for the ISP refusing and standing on the grounds that they as a Common Carrier are not required to keep/give this sort of info without a search warrant in a CRIMINAL case. (by the way who are they we should shine some light on them)

But other claims could be made, like claiming that the wireless Linksys router the had didn't have any security or was provably crackable. [read as walk in the park]