RIAA's Boston University Subpoena Quashed

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "As first reported by p2pnet, the motion to quash the RIAA's subpoena seeking identities of Boston University students has been granted, at least for the moment. In a 52-page opinion (pdf) the Judge concluded that she could not decide whether or not to quash until she had seen the college's 'Terms of Service Agreement' for internet service. It was only then she could decide what 'expectation of privacy' the students had. She quashed the subpoena calling for the student identities, and told them they could go ahead with a subpoena just for the terms of service agreement. Interestingly the decision was issued on the very same day as the judge in Elektra v. Barker came to some of the same conclusions."

Re:Won't hold forever

[Admiral Justin]

It simply isn't permissible in the US legal system to prevent a plaintiff with a legitimate claim from discovering the identity of the person they have that claim against

Except that more and more of the claims are being shown to not be legit.

Besides, there are circumstances where such anonymity is a critical point to service or business. Journalist sources, for example.

Re:Getting Closer

[Dada Vinci]

The only court that can eliminate RIAA suits across the country is the Supreme Court. This case is in a trial court. The powers of a trial court are MUCH more limited.

A trial-level court can only make decisions that are binding in the case that it is hearing. Right now the case is in the federal court for the District of Massachusetts. The RIAA could just as easily file a suit against different college students in a different federal court and get a different outcome.

The next stop for this case would be an apellate court. The federal Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is the appellate court that would hear the appeal. If the appellate court rules in favor of the students, then all of the trial courts in a limited geographic area (Maine, Mass, New Hampshire, Rhode Island) are bound. If the RIAA filed outside that area then a different court could come up with a different outcome.

The next stop from the First Circuit would be the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the laws is binding nationwide. But, the Supreme Court hears less than 1% of the cases that people appeal. The odds of this case setting a national precedent are VERY low.

Of course, other judges can be pursuaded by the reasoning in this case, but there's nothing binding about it.

Re:Getting Closer

[nomadic]

The only court that can eliminate RIAA suits across the country is the Supreme Court. This case is in a trial court. The powers of a trial court are MUCH more limited.

A trial-level court can only make decisions that are binding in the case that it is hearing. Right now the case is in the federal court for the District of Massachusetts. The RIAA could just as easily file a suit against different college students in a different federal court and get a different outcome.

But precedent is really important where you want to bind other future litigants. When the litigant is the same you can get an order in one court that will bind them no matter where they operate. In this case the same entities are commencing the various lawsuits in the different jurisdictions. The court could enter, for example, an anti-suit injunction against the RIAA to prevent further similar lawsuits if they wanted, and if the RIAA filed the same suit in a different federal court they'd get slapped with contempt in the court issuing the anti-suit injunction.

Re:Getting Closer

[Dada Vinci]

Anything you said might make sense if the students were actually suing the RIAA or filing an anti-SLAPP lawsuit. But the students are moving to quash a subpeona, not suing the RIAA for malicious prosecution. The fact that the judge has already called it a close question, in effect, by issuing this ruling means that the judge is extremely unlikely to, on her own, decide to turn this into an anti-suit injunction.

Re:Won't hold forever

[TubeSteak]

Students are also a special breed type of legal entity, since the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) gives them extra privacy protections that the average person would not have.

I'm surprised the Judge is debating whether the school's TOS for internet use trumps FERPA.

Re:Getting Closer

[Foobar of Borg]

The federal Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is the appellate court that would hear the appeal. If the appellate court rules in favor of the students, then all of the trial courts in a limited geographic area (Maine, Mass, New Hampshire, Rhode Island) are bound. If the RIAA filed outside that area then a different court could come up with a different outcome.

While technically true, binding precedents in other Circuit Courts can be persuasive authority. If all the Circuit courts rule the same way, then a Supreme Court ruling is unneccesary. If several rule and there are major discrepancies, then the Supremes will more likely feel the need to rule in order to establish uniformity.

Re:Won't hold forever

[CorSci81]

I had a question regarding the improper joinder. I noticed on pages 9 and 10 this judge has consolidated multiple John Doe cases on account of "similar, even virtually identical, issues of law and fact" for "administrative efficiency". Whereas other judges have frequently brought up this same issues of improper joinder. What's the difference (if any) in these circumstances? I fail to see why consolidation should be appropriate here where other judges have considered it improper.

Re:Won't hold forever

[rohan972]

Perhaps the appropriateness depends on the goal. If an organisation wants to consolidate multiple cases in order to abuse the legal system more efficiently, it is inappropriate. If a judge wants to consolidate cases in order to more efficiently smack down an organisation for legal shenanigans, it is appropriate.

Re:Won't hold forever

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

1. The joinder is flatly prohibited under the federal rules.

2. Judge Gertner's automatic consolidation of each new RIAA case is, in my personal opinion, also contrary to law under these circumstances, and is certainly grossly unfair to the defendants.