Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Protests Oregon AG Discovery Request
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA is apparently having an allergic reaction to the request by the State Attorney General of Oregon for information about the RIAA's investigative tactics. The request came in Arista v. Does 1-17, the Portland, Oregon, case targeting students at the University of Oregon. Not only are the record companies opposing the request (pdf), they're asking the Judge not to even read it. (pdf)"
No, at least not with smart lawyers. Judges tend to get annoyed with it and shoot your objections down by default after a while, even when they're legit.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Striking something is not quite the same as not even reading it. What Arista records seems to be saying is that the University of Oregon added new arguments in a reply memorandum and that these new arguments should not be considered by the court.
When a party in a case wants the court to do something, that party often provides a memorandum in support of the requested action. This support brief provides the arguments as to why the court should take action. The opposing party then has an opportunity to counter these arguments by providing arguments as to why the court should not take action. This is the response brief. At this point, the party that asked the court to do something can counter the arguments made by the opposing party. This is the reply brief. Then the court makes a decision.
The party that asked the court to do something generally cannot add new arguments into the reply memorandum. That party may reaffirm its original arguments or try to shoot holes in the opposing party's arguments, but new arguments are generally not allowed. The reason for this is that the opposing party no longer has an opportunity to respond to arguments before the court makes a decision.
If the party that asked the court to do something were allowed to make new arguments, then it would make sense to withhold the best arguments until the reply brief is filed. This would tilt the outcome to the party making the request, which would lead to parties making a lot of requests (it is bad enough now, but it could be a lot worse).
The reality is that procedural matters are an important part of our legal system. A judge could be required to retry a case if an argument was improperly considered or improperly dismissed. Some scrutiny has to be applied, especially when the issue of whether to consider an argument is raised.
The judge would probably read the University of Oregon's reply carefully to determine whether new arguments were raised or not. If new arguments were raised, then the judge might very well strike the new arguments or even the entire reply, thus basing the decision on just the support and response briefs. If the arguments in the reply are not new (or simply shoot holes in Arista's response), then the judge would not strike the reply and make a decision based on all three briefs.
Of course, some research into the specific procedures of the District Court for the District of Oregon is necessary to fully understand the situation, but that seems to be the gist of what is going on.
The description in the summary about asking the judge not to read it is grossly misleading. The linked filing is nothing but a run-of-the-mill procedural issue.
What normally happens in court is a petitioner files a Motion, the respondent files a Response, and finally the petitioner files a Reply. Then the judge decides the issue. These are the procedural rules of litigation. The petitioner isn't allowed to make new arguments in the Reply. All their arguments must be made in the initial Motion so that the respondent has a chance to address them in the Response. The Reply gives the petitioner a final chance to address the respondent's Response arguments.
Here's what happened: University filed a motion to quash. RIAA filed their Reply. University filed a Response, which (according to the RIAA) contains new arguments. The second linked filing by the RIAA says hey that's unfair. Either ignore the new arguments that we didn't get to address, or give us a chance to address them (the Surreply in the first link). It's a perfectly legitimate request. If the University included new arguments, they broke the rules here. Either way, it's no big deal. The judge will most likely just consider the RIAA's Surreply in deciding the motion to quash. No harm, no foul. It happens all the time in civil litigation.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
Did you actually read the RAs? Oh, of course not, this is /.
Had you read them, you would have seen that the issue is that the University has raised new issues at a point in the process where new issues are not permitted, because it wouldn't give the RIAA proper opportunity to reply to them. What the RIAA is asking is that either the new issues are struck down without consideration or they be given the right of reply.
The RIAA seems to do some pretty dreadful things, but this one looks perfectly reasonable to me.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
It's the 'motion to strike'. The motion to strike the reply memo means 'please do not read it in connection with the motion'.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful