Patti Santangelo pushes back
p2p news / p2pnet: Jordan Glass is the lawyer acting for Patti Santangelo in her Fight Goliath case in which the New York mother is in effect representing more than 18,000 American men, women and children whom the Big Four record labels are accusing of copyright infringement.
Standing against the multi-billion-dollar labels, the two-person Santangelo team – Patti and Jordan – are doing well and here’s a condensed look at what’s happening from the legal perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We pushed back and won
By Jordan Glass
Law is a "zero sum" game, which means that you can win every motion, every objection, every step along the way, but lose at trial (or even win at trial but lose on appeal). Only at the very end of the proceedings can you write (or say) that you’ve won.
I’ve experienced courts appearing to bend over backward in favor of one party, only to see that same seemingly "winning" party lose at trial. What appears to be favoritism is really the court ensuring it will not be overturned on appeal; in other words, giving every benefit to the side likely to lose and appeal. Mind you, there is no evidence for this, only experience.
Nonetheless, you can monitor the "attitude" of the proceedings and whether you’re making meaningful arguments by what happens along the way. You learn the tenor of the Court (meaning the judge), and the community mindset around your case.
That said, Patti objected to 18 of certain of their discovery demands (called "Requests for Admissions"). The Court didn’t rule on one of them, upheld 11, and directed that we answer the other six (how to answer them wasn’t before the Court, only whether they had to be answered at all).
I’ve received mixed responses to the objections (having nothing to do with the Court’s determination): one was that these were the same questions that had been used in the RIAA’s litigation around the country, and no one had raised any objections before; the second was that no one had taken the matter as far as Patti, so no one had ever objected before.
Patti pushed back.
As to publishing certain information I believed wasn’t relevant about the children, Plaintiffs’ attorneys agreed for it to be redacted (edited out) from certain documents and the Court ordered the document sealed.
Another small victory, and one which others might seek to explore, especially where children aren’t parties to the action.
Remember that many of the decisions and agreements made during this case aren’t binding on other cases. I don’t intend at all to imply that we’ve "made law" or that any Court has agreed with Patti’s arguments.
I only point out that the Court will listen to the claims and rule on the merits each time they’re presented.
In other words, you CAN fight back.
On other discovery portions, Plaintiffs’ attorneys have filed papers with the Court seeking to compel certain documents and information. I haven’t yet seen those papers, but the next hearing is set for March 3, by which time we’ll either be back in Court, or will have settled whatever disagreements we have on the matter.
The process is proceeding in an orderly, if not too-highly expedited, fashion.
The RIAA has been pursuing these cases for a few years now with teams of lawyers; Patti has never been through anything like this and even the defense lawyers only have limited experience with these cases, since most defendants never make it this far into the proceedings.
I’ll keep you posted.
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:37 pm
“That said, Patti objected to 18 of certain of their discovery demands (called “Requests for Admissions”). The Court didn’t rule on one of them, upheld 11, and directed that we answer the other six (how to answer them wasn’t before the Court, only whether they had to be answered at all).”
Of 18 demands, 11 were upheld by the court, 6 are answerable on order of the court and only 1 was not ruled on at all – how can that be good?