NEWS: Best. Lawyer. Ever!

The lawsuit filed by your office and your letter arrive at a particularly inappropriate time in Barry and Cathy Merchant's life. Mrs. Merchant left my office after our first meeting to attend to ill father in Colorado. She and Barry Merchant left my office today to attend his funeral. You should advise your clients that they are facing a "thin skull plaintiff" either on a Rule 11 sanctions motion or (upon favorable termination) in a malicious prosecution action. The emotional distress inflicted by your clients' litigation -- filed in Sacramento rather than the Fresno Branch of the Eastern District Court where my clients' live in violation of the Rules of Court -- has been extreme.

Your client should carefully consider whether it has probable cause to proceed at this point. Mr. Merchant's hard drive is available for immediate, carefully supervised inspection by your client; a carbon copy of the drive has been made by technicians to insure that the evidence is well backed-up.

At the time of inspection, we will expect your clients to be prepared to dismiss all claims with prejudice. The pleadings may be e-filed from my office the same day. Although dismissal will not avoid your clients' exposure to attorneys' fees under the Copyright Act, it will certainly mitigate damages to Mr. and Mrs. Merchant and the possibility of escalating the issues by counter-claim on federal grounds that have been successfully pleaded in other states as well as on pendant California claims that have, thus far, tempered your clients' California zeal for litigating in this state.

Your client take (sic) the position that my middle-aged, conservative clients should speculate regarding the identity of persons your clients' claim used their AOL account to download pornographic-lyric gangsta rap tracks as predicate to possible case resolution. In an age of Wintel-virus created bot-farms, spoofs, and easily cracked WEP encrypted wireless home networks (among other easy hacks), the only tech-savvy response to such a request is, "You've got to be kidding." The extensive press that has been generated over computer security (and the insecurity of Windows XP and its predecessors) underscores the complete absence of facts on which probable cause to sue my clients could be established and your clients' willingness (even insistence) that others be implicated in Big Music's speculative, "driftnet" litigation tactics. Sorry: Mr. Merchant cannot and will not expose himself to still more litigation by speculating.

Procedurally, we need to address how best to move the case to the Fresno Branch so you can enjoy our new Courthouse and avoid Judge Levi's wrath for filing in the wrong court. (Senior Judge Bob Coyle was responsible for building both our new facility and the District Court building in Sacramento; and, although neither building is as grand as Judge Manny Real's showpiece in Santa Ana, the Fresno Court is not only nicer than Sacramento but also one of the top three court facilities ever I've enjoyed practicing in.) Handling the issue by stipulation and order would probably be the most simple way to move the file. We do that routinely in PACA litigation although I am open to suggestions if you prefer to handle it differently

Once the case is moved to the Fresno Branch, your clients should consider cleaning up their complaint. The FRCP and collateral estoppel from other RIAA law and motion matters require much greater specificity in pleading than your clients provided in the complaint I reviewed. Dates of the alleged downloads, which plaintiff (or affiliate) holds which copyright to which track, etc. must be specifically pleaded and proven. You are as familiar as I am with the results in other cases where RIAA's general allegations have been challenged. Let's get over that hurdle without unnecessary law and motion practice.

Heracleitus said:
I see a potential sitcom... "His Name Is Merl"

In my head, this letter is accompanied by a GIF of Merl wagging his finger at the RIAA.

Solix said:
I hope every lawyer in the US sees this.

some country hardball

Fresno is nothing to be proud of

Demonstrating familiarity with local judges and customs and THEN delivering a finger-wagging lecture on civil procedure is the legal equivalent of stealing someone's girlfriend and then emailing them pictures of you and her doing it.

The only tech-savvy response to such a request is, "You've got to be kidding."

SignalNoise said:
I bet this dude is like the world's biggest character.

DeadGuyPerez said:
I'm sure RIAA has made mistakes with some of those letters but most are going to people who have stolen music. I don't understand why everyone gets so up in arms about being punished for theft. If you don't own the copyright to those songs, you don't have the right to copy and distribute them. I'm sure I'll get tons of responses telling me what an idiot I am and how music should be free, etc. The bottom line is musicians should be paid for their art. If bands want to make songs available online for free, that's fine, but in most cases people are breaking the law when they do this file sharing.

Subrosa said:
I have far fewer problems with the cause they try to promote than I do with the tactics they use to promote it.

Ascanius said:

That is the best explination of anything having to do with any law I have ever heard outside of Perry Mason. Seriously. Awesome article.