Judge Orders RIAA to Show Cause in DC Case

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's 'bumpy ride' in its 'ex parte' litigation campaign against college students just got a whole lot bumpier. After reading the motion to quash filed by a George Washington University student, the Judge took it upon herself to issue an order to show cause. The order now requires the plaintiffs to show cause, no later than November 29th, why the ex parte order she'd signed at the RIAA's request should not be vacated. She's also requested information showing why her ruling should not be applicable not only to John Doe #3, but to all the other John Does as well. p2pnet called this a 'potentially huge setback' for the recording companies."

Comments

Re:Simplify this legal language

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The judge is ordering them to give her whatever reasons they have as to why she shouldn't vacate the order.

Re:Simplify this legal language

[The Master Control P]

Though I'm sure Mr. Beckerman will arrive with the correct interpertation shortly, I think show cause just means show why. "They asked me to throw this out. Why shouldn't I?"

Re:Simplify this legal language

[Anonymous Coward]

Ex parte just means without the other team appearing, but the other team just showed up in this case. Show Cause means show cause for their complaint, i.e. justify why the judge should rule one way or the other, it's basically just a hearing date where each side shows up and presents their arguments, but there will be paper sumbissions before then, any evidence and arguments or declarations in writing has to be served on the other parties in advance of the hearing. OSC is your day in court.

Re:"Potentially huge setback"

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

It can't help the RIAA. Either it will hurt them, or things will be as they are now. But there's no scenario under which the RIAA comes out of it better because of the Judge's signing the order to show cause. The RIAA will now probably spend $10k or more "showing cause". Meanwhile, it's evidence is defective, and its legal arguments are nonexistent.... so it's unlikely that the Judge will find it has established "cause". Most likely this ex parte order, which never should have been signed in the first place, is going bye bye.

Re:Simplify this legal language

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

It's normal to set a deadline.

What's highly unusual is the judge issuing an order to show cause on her own.

Re:"Potentially huge setback"

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Mr. Beckerman: Could you also accompany the summary with a short comment about the significance of the legal actions? For example, I learned (from your response to another question) that it is highly unusual for a judge to issue the order to show cause herself. I'm also interested in the sibling post's question about precedence: if the case is dismissed, could it then be used throughout the federal circuit, or is it limited to DC, for example? We really appreciate everything that you do. I just think adding the information will help this (lay) audience understand its significance better. 1. John Doe #3 made a motion. The usual procedure would be for the Court to wait for the RIAA's opposition papers. Instead the Court made some findings indicating an awareness that the RIAA may not have been forthcoming in its original papers, and set an accelerated schedule, and raised the point that if the subpoena was wrongly issued, it was wrongly issued as to ALL defendants, not just Doe #3. It's just unusual for a Judge to take on that burden.

2. If the Judge grants the Does' motion, and does so with sound reasoning, the decision will reverberate throughout the country, and may lead to the end of the RIAA's John Doe litigations, which is where it all starts.

Re:Simplify this legal language

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually a judge decides something after hearing arguments from both sides. In rare cases, a judge will decide something without giving one of the parties a chance to make their arguments. That's what's called an "ex parte" order.

The catch is, if you're asking a judge to do something without giving the other side a chance to be heard, you have to be EXTRA SPECIAL fair in the way you present the arguments and evidence.

This judge granted an order trusting the RIAA had not misled her on the facts. But now, after the fact, the other side has had a chance to respond in writing. And after reading those arguments, she's started to wonder if the RIAA was blowing smoke in her face. So she wants the RIAA to come back and make their case again, this time with the other side in the room so they have a chance to say "wait a minute, that's not true!" and explain why.