Slashdot Mirror
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."
Can you imagine if your name really was "John Doe"? Imagine the fun you could have showing up for court dates with alibi's for everything. "No, your honour... I was at a marriage ceremony on that date and I have 200 witnesses as well as photographic and video evidence"
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.
There's no point in fining rich lawyers and even richer multinational media corporations pathetically small amounts of money. Instead of a fine, maybe a lit candle should be held under the scrotum of each laywer and board member. It doesn't have to be held there long. Ten to fifteen seconds should do the trick.
The judge specifically wants to fine them under Rule 11(b)(3), which states: (b) By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper -- whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it -- an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery Basically, it's a serious ethics violation, and even being called on it without a penalty is going to kill these lawyers' reputations, and effectiveness in a courtroom.
The judge noted a clever tactic being used by the RIAA to obtain the lists of names from the captured ip addresses. A joint submission was being made to the court to gain clearance for this discovery process. Upon gaining the real names, the RIAA went on to sue them as individuals and ignored the group-status declared to the court.
RIAA lawyers were bending the law to get names--this was seen as being done in bad faith. Hence the footnote and the news article.
You may now resume your activity of reading further into the judge's remarks.
Cheers.
Yet Socrates himself is particularly missed.
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.