Slashdot Mirror
NC Judge Takes "A Fresh Look" At RIAA Subpoenas
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "When some North Carolina State students recently brought to the attention of the Court the apparent illegality of the RIAA's investigations by unlicensed investigators, they also caught the attention of the judges. After reading these new papers, District Judge Louise W. Flanagan, who admits that she's been routinely signing the RIAA's ex parte discovery orders in the past, has indicated that she is now going to take 'a fresh look' at the RIAA's tactics. She issued a stay of the subpoena, ordering NC State not to respond to it, and referred the motions to dismiss the cases to a Magistrate Judge for him to take that 'fresh look' at what has been going on."
Treat these subpoenas like they came from the mafia or a drug cartel. Make them go out of their way to do something crazy, like having proof.
They have proof*, the issue is whether the proof was legally obtained.
*for small values of proof
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
there's no bribery here, just misrepresented court documents. These are judges used to corporate case language for "stolen" IP and contract violations. The RIAA lawyers are disguising these "common" violations in mountains of legal speak like they were running pirate manufacturing operations... Judges to date have been willing to overlook the legal hyperbole because both sides will get their day in court... at least that's how it's supposed to work.
now that there have been more than a few plainly misrepresented case at all the stages, before discovery and during trials, these cases are going to get extra scrutiny to their worthiness before allowing them to continue en masse. It's wasting the court's time and of questionable legality.
It looks as if the RIAA's reputation in court is at last cracking. They've been getting away with a lot of crap an individual couldn't do, because courts have been more believing in the professionalism of corporate lawyers and corporate lawsuits. Courts are no longer taking the RIAA's professionalism for granted.
Yes I think you're right. For a judge to publicly acknowledge that he made a "manifest error of law", because he was misled by the RIAA's lawyers, is extraordinary.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
What would be interesting to find out is if the **AA attorneys had internally discussed the issue of private investigator credentials before the public or defendants raised the matter. Because if the **AA lawyers knew and didn't say anything to the Judges, they'd be looking at sanctions.
1. They're not smart enough to have thought about it on their own.
2. Tanya Andersen's lawyer thought about it for them in October 2005, so they've been on notice since then.
3. So yes they have exposure to sanctions, big time.
4. Or maybe worse, because they are aiders and abetters. If you hire a hit man you're equally guilty of the murder. We're talking criminal law here, because the use of unlicensed investigators is a criminal matter.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful