Magistrate Suggests Fining RIAA Lawyers

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Angered at the RIAA's 'gamesmanship' in joining multiple 'John Does' in a single case without any basis for doing so, a Magistrate Judge in Maine has suggested to the presiding District Judge in Arista v. Does 1-27 that the record companies and/or their lawyers should be fined under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules, for misrepresenting the facts. In a lengthy footnote to her opinion recommending denial of a motion to dismiss the complaint (PDF, see footnote 5), Judge Kruvchak concluded that 'These plaintiffs have devised a clever scheme to obtain court-authorized discovery prior to the service of complaints, but it troubles me that they do so with impunity and at the expense of the requirements of Rule 11(b)(3) because they have no good faith evidentiary basis to believe the cases should be joined.' She noted that once the RIAA dismisses its 'John Doe' case it does not thereafter join the defendants when it sues them in their real names. Arista v. Does 1-27 is the same case in which student attorneys at the University of Maine Law School, "enthusiastic about being directly connected to a case with a national scope and significance", are representing undergrads targeted by the RIAA."

Comments

Re:The fat lady

[jaymaxSEA]

Rule 11 sanctions may possibly be an effective deterrent. Rule 11 sanctions are levied against the attorneys, not the clients. I doubt that the RIAA's lawyers are going to condone their client's behavior for very long if the RIAA's courtroom tactics forces their own lawyers to pay money to the court.

Do you get the feeling?

[FlatEric521]

Do you get the feeling that judges are tired of dealing with the RIAA now? I know what they have been doing is crap legal tactics to intimidate people, but I would have to guess its very rare for a judge to recommend fining a lawyer for their tactics.

Unfortunately, I assume not even a fine like this will slow down the RIAA. They will probably just move on to their next questionable tactic and keep going.

Typical

[Stargoat]

This is typical. Lawyers go after the most vulnerable members of our society, trying to score the big win that will elevate them to next political office or paycheck. Children are targeted, thrown in jail for decades to 'make the streets safe'. Why is it the streets are safe in Europe, Australia, Canada, or Japan and not here? Why is there a need for vile men like Paul Morrison of Kansas to put 16 year old girls in jail for a decade because they defended themselves from beatings and sexual abuse?

Until we're willing to elect leaders to make a change, until we are willing to demand that the education system educate, until we vote with our pocketbooks and with our protest signs, this will continue. How long are we going to let the law abuse us? How long will our children be tossed in jail among adults to be murdered and sexually abused?

Re:The judge

[Technician]

It looks like someone either forgot to pay that judge off!

More important is the fact someone didn't do their homework. The PDF is dated this year! It admits using Media Sentry. Isn't the legal status of using an unlicensed investigator already in question? This case could have been thrown back with so much holes exposed it could get laughed out of court. They even seem to get away with calling the infringement copyright piracy. Wow. At least they have toned it down and didn't call it outright theft. Dudes.. It's copyright infringement.

Re:Rule 11

[jesdynf]

That's not the first time I've heard a claim like that, and -- from the perspective of somebody who doesn't know anything about hands-on practice of law -- it doesn't seem credible. Can you go into more detail?

Is there a blacklist somewhere? How will it interfere with their ability to attract clients? Will people drop them as attorneys? Exactly how will it affect how they're perceived by a judge? By opposing counsel?

So what?

[gnasher719]

The defendants still lost their motion to disallow the subpoena for their identities. I also cannot find anything in the decision where the judge actually says she considers that the RIAA lawyers should be fined. Sure, she makes clear that she doesn't like it, but that is all. This is all very unfortunate so far.

Re:What if my name REALLY is "John Doe"

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally know someone who obtained the first personalized license plates that were available in his state almost 40 years ago. His initials were - DMV. The DMV approved his request and then spent years trying to rescind the plates. This man had more money than he knew what to do with, so he let his lawyers handle everything. It was a matter of principle. To this day, he still owns the car, with the original license plates. Some time ago the state declared all of the existing three digit license plates as state treasures, and all owners of cars with these vintage license plates are exempt from having to exchange them for the newer license plates. So they can never take the plates away from him now.

Re:Not really

[Jason Levine]

Thanks. That's pretty much what I thought. It would be more time, energy, and money for their lawyers as well as more time spent by judges (who would be more likely to get annoyed by RIAA vs John Doe #200).