Judge Gertner says no Oppenheim deposition
p2pnet news view | RIAA News:- In SONY BMG Music v Tenenbaum, [read RIAA vs Harvard student lawyers] judge Gertner has given Harvard law professor Charles Nesson a stinging slap on the wrist.
She’s issued an order denying defendant’s motion to compel the deposition of Matthew Oppenheim, and suggesting that the motion was frivolous, says Recording Industry vs The People.
Excess Copyright has a salient quote from Gertner’s decision:
“While the Court understands that counsel for the Defendant is a law professor, and that he believes this case serves an important educational function, counsel must also understand that he represents a client in this litigation — a client whose case may well be undermined by the filing of frivolous motions and the failure to comply with the Rules. Submission of a plainly flawed motion cannot be justified as a clinical exercise.
“The Court will not hesitate to impose appropriate sanctions, including potentially substantial costs, should the Defendant waste either the Plaintiffs’ time and money or scarce judicial resources by filing frivolous motions in the future.”
Order denying motion to compel deposition of Matthew Oppenheim
March 10th, 2009 at 8:55 am
“should the Defendant waste either the Plaintiffsâ time and money or scarce judicial resources by filing frivolous motions in the future.â
The plaintiffs SCARCE judicial resources.. is that judge on Crack?
March 10th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Just to be the Devil’s Advocate [which I certainly am ): )> ], the judge simply said “…or scarce judicial resources” in a string of things starting with “Plaintiffs’ time and money”.
Perhaps she was referring to the *Defendant’s* resources (which are inarguably more limited).
She has already shown in the past she’s not impressed with the imbalance of resources in favour of the MAFIAA.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Dodgy,
the “scarce judicial recources” are not the ones of Evil4.
It’s the resources of the judiciary she talks about!
If it were the Plaintiffs she had intended to mean at that late point in the sentence, she had not used an “and” between time and money but a “,”.
By using “and” it is clear that the enumeration of the plaintiffs things, that are allegedly wasted, is finished with the atribute behind that “and”.
You know, only evil4 themself deliberately try to be unclear with what they claim/allege by deliberately using the “and/or” in their sentences or switching now after the illegal investigators from SafeNet aka. Media Sentry are reportedly dropped to “identified” instead of “detected” in their claims.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
âThe Court will not hesitate to impose appropriate sanctions, including potentially substantial costs, should the Defendant waste either the Plaintiffsâ time and money or scarce judicial resources by filing frivolous motions in the future.â
Sounds like the RIAA’s whole campaign, but it doesn’t get sanctioned does it? This judge evidently has no idea what she is doing.