Should RIAA Investigators Have To Disclose Evidence?

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A technology battle is raging in UMG v. Lindor, a court case in Brooklyn. The issue at hand is whether the RIAA's investigator SafeNet (the company that acquired MediaSentry) now needs to disclose its digital files, validation methodology, testing procedures, failure rates, software manuals, protocols, packet logs, source code, and other materials, so that the validity of its methods can be evaluated by the defense. SafeNet and the RIAA say no, claiming that the information is 'proprietary and confidential'. Ms. Lindor says yes, if you're going to testify in federal court the other side has a right to test your evidence. A list of what is being sought (pdf) is available online. MediaSentry has produced 'none of the above'. 'Put up or shut up' says one commentator to SafeNet."

Comments

Re:Similar to Drunk Driving defense...

[glavenoid]

Breathalyzer source code in criminal trials has come up on /. a few times. If you ask me, this sets a precedent that the "propriety technology" excuse can't be used to limit a defendant's right to examine all evidence against him/her. However, those were criminal cases, perhaps civil law doesn't follow the same legal precedents?

Re:This is standard civil procedure

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

IANAL, but I have been an expert witness in many legal proceedings in Federal courts. As a part of discovery, you *have* to give the other side your raw data and details of your methodology. Otherwise, the judge is almost certain to throw out your testimony, as the other side has no way of discovering the weak spots in your case. I was involved with one case where the judge sanctioned one of the opposing experts and it took us three tries to get a decent set of data and models out of them. This had a very negative effect on the credibility of the other side's expert, which pretty well torpedoed their case. (They won as a matter of law, but damages were negligible.) Mind you, the data and models are generally covered by a protective order to maintain confidentiality, but it's so common that the wording is almost boilerplate. SafeNet and the RIAA don't have a leg to stand on here, and I can't imagine why they're bothering to oppose this unless they're pulling an SCO -- in which case, the judge should slap them down HARD. You're 100% correct, Paul. Now let's see what the judges in this case do. They have previously allowed the RIAA's "expert" to testify as an expert even though he admittedly satisfied NONE of the Daubert reliability standards, and even though he admitted that all of the materials upon which he was relying -- the printouts MediaSentry would like us to accept as gospel -- likewise failed to satisfy ANY of the Daubert reliability standards.

Re:Discovery rules in Civil vs. Criminal cases?

[gnasher719]

I was under the impression that a judge in civil cases has a lot of discretion. There is plenty of discovery orders in civil cases. While the judge may not agree to say "Let the other side see...", he may say "Show me, I want to see ...". In any case, some discovery can be filed as sealed documents. That would seem to apply here. The judge can't keep anything like that to himself, he would have to allow access to the defendant's lawyers and expert witnesses (but not to the defendant and the public). Lawyers and expert witnesses would obviously be in big trouble if anything leaked out.

On the other hand, there is now precedent that you can't hide behind "proprietary methods"; I think there was the case of a manufacturer of breathalyzer equipment that ran into this problem. Of course they can refuse to open up their "proprietary methods", but then any evidence based on these proprietary methods would be invalid. In case of the breathalyzer equipment, nobody could actually force them to open up their code, but in practice every case based on their equipment would have been dropped, and the police would never again have bought their equipment.

Re:Disclose to defence at least

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Yes but that was an OUTRIGHT LIE on their part, TubeSteak. Didn't you read our reply?