Slashdot Mirror
Papers Sealed In Class Action Against RIAA
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Andersen v. Atlantic Recording, the Oregon class action brought by Tanya Anderson against the RIAA, MediaSentry, and others, the plaintiff's motion for class action certification has been sealed by the Court. Also, the Court conducted an 'in camera' conference with the defendants' attorneys — meaning the Judge met with the defendants' attorneys alone — in connection with a discovery motion, and the record of that conference has been sealed as well. The RIAA has made a motion to dismiss the class action; that has not been sealed. In case you're wondering what's going on here, so am I."
Ray Beckerman (NYCL) has graciously hosted a fully illustrated PDF of the plaintiff's brief for class action certification (the documents in question) on his site. Now, I'm not a lawyer but that's got a whole lot of lengthy legalese that no human could understand.
But are there any plausible and non-nefarious explanations for this turn of events? I mean, is meeting with the defendant's attorneys privately, sealing the record of what went on there, and then sealing the plaintiff's motion a relatively normal thing? Or is it as weird and skeezy as it sounds?
Allow me to explain. It's like a child who has a new toy. The child must take the toy everywhere and show it to everyone and make the toy do everything it can to impress everyone. Similarly the RIAA has a new toy (the court) that they recently acquired ... and to show it off they have made it censor just about everything. Even briefs of motions for class action when you can find the full complaint in its entirety online.
Why? Because they can. Remember, they lost to her last year so they've got some face to save in this class action. Or at the least just keep it out of the eye of the public--don't want those sheep getting all uppity.
My work here is dung.
Ray Beckerman:
In case you're wondering what's going on here, so am I."
Oh fuck. It was bad enough when we had rank-and-file nerds asking for legal advice on slashdot.
Now we have a 'house lawyer', so to speak, and he's asking for legal information on slashdot.
The apocalypse is upon us! Run for the hills!*
IANAL. Even if I were a lawyer, I'd not be YOUR lawyer. This is not legal advice. By reading this footnote, you are agreeing to not hold Red Flayer liable for any damages sustained while running for the hills. For that matter, please walk, don't run -- and make sure to look both ways before crossing the street.
Good post, Red_Flayer. But I thought you guys could help me out and explain to me what's going on; I've only been working in the litigation field for 35 years, so I'm kind of new at this.
In Soviet Russia....... oh wait, maybe we are in Soviet Russia.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The first google search result for "sealed court case duration". [url]http://www.leg.state.nv.us/CourtRules/SCR_RGSRCR.html[/url] - " (c) Sealing of entire court file prohibited. Under no circumstances shall the court seal an entire court file. An order entered under these rules must, at a minimum, require that the following information is available for public viewing on court indices: (i) the case number(s) or docket code(s) or number(s); (ii) the date that the action was commenced; (iii) the names of the parties, counsel of record, and the assigned judge; (iv) the notation âoecase sealedâ; (v) the case type and cause(s) of action, which may be obtained from the Civil Cover Sheet; (vi) the order to seal and written findings supporting the order; and (vii) the identity of the party or other person who filed the motion to seal. 6. Scope and duration of order. If the court enters an order sealing or redacting a court record, the court shall use the least restrictive means and duration."
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
In Soviet Russia....... oh wait, maybe we are in Soviet Russia.
That would explain things. Soviet revolutionary tribunals were explicitly defined as "following the interests of the revolution" and therefore "not bound by and forms of legal proceedings". Also, when determining guilt, they were also meant to look first not at any evidence at hand, but at the social class to which the accused belongs.
From the linked pdf on NYCL's blog, it appears that the reasons cited for dismissing the case amount to a twisted interpretation of the Noerr Pennington doctrine roughly translated to:
1. IP addresses are fair game for probable cause because a previous case involving DirecTV successfully used the Noerr Pennington directive to challenge class action against people supposedly infringing on their signals by buying smart card readers.
2. Media Sentry not holding state investigative licenses is irrelevant because the information they gathered was publicly available.
3. That allegations of the impropriety of accessing publicly shared folders has no basis in law.
4. That any objection to the numerous 'Doe suites filed is countered by the successfulness of such proceedings. Also that such proceedings are not against the law.
5. That the case against Ms Andersen herself was not "objectively baseless" despite failure to link Ms Andersen to the accused infringing Kazaa user name due to flaws in the investigative process.
- IANAL
Still, pretty weak arguments imho. Certainly shouldn't be enough to dismiss the case.
As to the whole sealed shenanigans.. I guess we have to wait and see.
It is within a Judge's power to assent to sealing some documents related to a case before them; this is completely within their discretion.
There is no guarantee that all documents will be released when the case is over.
A judge can decide to seal some items that were brought before the court permanently.
Some documents may be highly personal; there might be privacy (or other) concerns in allowing certain materials to become public record.
Some of the reasons courts seal certain documents, proceedings, or evidence from the public view lead to them having the right to take that action on a permanent basis.
We here on Slashdot may have no love for the RIAA. But in general, defendants shouldn't be forced into exposing sensitive information, like trade secrets or business strategies, as a means to blackmail them into settling.
You mean like the RIAA does in every single one of their cases? Turning over all computer in the house probably with privilege information all over it as well as the only way these defendants have to contact and organize a defense.
Excellent observation, LORAX.
Actually the real reason the RIAA presses for secrecy of its own information in every case is that it seeks to increase the litigation costs for the defendants in other cases. The more information a defendant's lawyer can obtain online, from other cases, the less work he or she has to do in the case at hand.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful