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)"
Nevermind our tactics, just give us the convictions (oh, and the penalty money too) we seek!
The RIAA is a cornered beast that is under increasing scrutiny, of course it will react like this in response to a federal case. Not to mention it is a profit-hungry corporation just like all the rest.
Isn't this standard lawyer behavior? Objecting to everything the other side does?
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
However, it is a little know fact that the RIAA lawyers do have a parallel universe law library, in which are housed alternative versions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Copyright Act, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Code of Professional Responsibility for attorneys.
The case law in this parallel universe law library consists chiefly of (a) ex parte cases (i.e. cases where the other party was never notified of the proceedings), (b) default cases (i.e. cases where the other party may or may not have been notified, but never managed to show up), and (c) pro se cases (i.e. cases where the other party could not afford an attorney).
I assume that the existence of this parallel universe law library is a reason why the American Association of Law Libraries has participated in amicus curiae briefs opposing the RIAA's tactics. See, e.g., the amicus curiae brief in Capitol v. Foster. Because, you see, rather than employ law librarians, the RIAA's library employs baboons.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Some sorts of safeguards are required for this material. Traditionally, this has been up to attornies having professional ethics. A dubious proposition in some cases. Perhaps some sort of "fruit of the poisoned vine" is required for civil evidence.
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 question that I haven't seen anyone pose yet is if the claims by the RIAA attorneys are valid. Is it permitted under Oregon rules to raise the items that were raised in the University's reply? Are the seven different points all just meaningless drivel or is there something real there?
I don't know. It does not seem to be completely without merit and the University's reply seems to contain a bunch of material that is utterly irrelevalent. Certainly when arguing for the quashing of discovery bringing up opinions about what the plantiff's motivations may or may not be is not relevant to the issue at hand. Implying (or stating) that the plantiff is "spying" on the Does hardly seems to be on point in such a reply either.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables