Papers Sealed In Class Action Against RIAA 215
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."
Link to Sealed Documents (Score:5, Informative)
Re:IANAL, etc. (Score:5, Informative)
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 [ilrweb.com].
Why? Because they can. Remember, they lost to her last year [slashdot.org] 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.
Re:Uh-oh! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Sealed? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:IANAL, Can this be appealed? (Score:3, Informative)
Link to Google Results [google.com]
Re:Uh-oh! (Score:5, Informative)
In Soviet Russia....... oh wait, maybe we are in Soviet Russia.
That would explain things. Soviet revolutionary tribunals [wikipedia.org] 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.
Noerr-Pennington doctrine (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re:Noerr Pennington doctrine ? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Noerr-Pennington doctrine (Score:4, Informative)
2. Media Sentry not holding state investigative licenses is irrelevant because the information they gathered was publicly available.
In Texas, at least, it doesn't matter if it's public info or not. You have to have a license for your company if it:
:(2) engages in the business of securing, or accepts employment to secure, evidence for use before a court, board, officer, or investigating committee;
Check Texas Penal code 1702.104 here [state.tx.us] if you don't believe me.
Re:Sealed? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Noerr Pennington doctrine ? (Score:4, Informative)
Ray, is it true that the RIAA mass-litigation model isn't even original, but rather harkens back to DirectTV?
Yes the bizarre mass-litigation model was pioneered in the Direct TV and cable descrambler cases, but the RIAA took it to new heights.
Re:mod grand parent down (Score:4, Informative)
I must admit, at first glance, I was concerned since I only knew about recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com [blogspot.com], but beckermanlegal.com [beckermanlegal.com] is in TFS, so I would imagine it too is genuine Ray Beckerman
Yes, both are mine. I haven't had any trouble opening the *pdf.
Re:Sealed? (Score:1, Informative)
The Judge should be removed from the bench or at the very least publicly reprimanded and removed from the case.
Proof positive that you are all irrational, ignorant whiners. Not only are you completely off the deep end with your one-party "BIG BIG no no" horse droppings, but you've got nothing resembling a grasp on who you're even talking about.
Marilyn Hall Patel (the judge) is an advocate for the very small subset of "your side" that has any legally defensible basis.
Remove her from the bench and lose an ally. Fools.
Re:mod grand parent down (Score:3, Informative)
Moderators -- please bother to check if a link is valid. That may change over time. That initial one has varied today from -1 troll to +5 , but all I see is a one-page pdf that says the doc is sealed. Which the summary already says. Maybe it used to contain the actual sealed document. But it doesn't now. All clicking on it will do is make people feel stupid. Not +5 material. BTW, I use foxit not adobe for pdf reading, in case that matters.
However, an actual copy of the petition appears on ilrweb:
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename=andersen_atlantic_080314SecondAmendedComplaint [ilrweb.com]
The best reason I can see for the court sealing it is that it lays out the whole case for how the RIAA has been screwing innocent people out of thousands of dollars for years (we knew that), and that the federal courts have been stupid patsies in letting themselves totally be the tools by which this is accomplished (we knew that too). But maybe for the first time a courts sees it clearly enough to be as horribly embarassed as they should be.
No inside knowledge; just cynicism about our "check your conscience at the door, merciful judge just means activist judge, the prosecution can deliberately fake evidence without affecting a jury verdict so no retrial for you, Martha" federal judiciary. Covering its exposed, very ugly, ass.
Wouldn't it be great if the RICO statute allowed for damages against the stupid judges who helped make this "several thousand dollars per innocent person" shakedown possible?
Ex Parte, not In Camera (Score:2, Informative)
IANAL but I lived with several law students and helpded many study so I've picked up a few things.
In Camera requires both parties to be present, I have a friend who had to do a lot of research to clarify that.
Ex Parte is where only 1 party is present.
Also, since it appears there are RICO charges involved, standard procedure is to seal the documents until a verdict so as to not impinge the good name of the defendant.
Re:IANAL, but ... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Explanation needed ... (Score:1, Informative)
There are a bunch of reasons why something can be sealed (I'm not familiar with US reasons) but the general logic is that it is disclosing information that is potentially harmful to an individual but relevant to the case.
For example we see it a fair bit here with some sexual assault cases, or young offenders.
Other reasons would be the disclosure of a commercial secret. Disclosing for example the recipe for coca-cola in a court proceeding would have huge consequences for that company. By sealing the record or transcript, they can get that testimony in front of a judge, where it can do some good, but protect the interests of vulnerable parties.
National security is another reason. Often misused or abused, but it does have some valid applications. A close parallel to this is the disclosure of personal or private information.
There are other reasons, but that's the general rationale for these kinds of motions-to protect a party potentially made vulnerable by their relevant disclosures.
However, every rule can be exploited or abused. The RIAA has shown a penchant for doing this in a rather appalling manner.
This is not intended for use as legal advice of any kind. Poster bears absolutely no liability whatsoever of any kind for any uses of this information.