A Florida lawyer convinced a judge yesterday to quash several RIAA subpoenas directed against anonymous University of South Florida students. The subpoenas, which use the secretive ex parte discovery process, were shot down by the judge on narrow technical grounds that seem limited to this particular case. Still, attorney Michael Wasylik tells Ars that his victory still matters because it shows that RIAA attorneys "have to obey the rules" when they use the court system.Until this point, Interscope v. Does 1-40 has proceeded much like other cases against college students across the country. RIAA lawyers move on an aggressive schedule in such cases; this case was filed in June, subpoenas were authorized in July, were sent out immediately, and were due back by mid-August.
Under ex parte discovery rules, the students aren't notified until after a subpoena has already been granted, giving them little time to contest the process. Unless they act quickly, the RIAA gets the identifying information it needs from the university in question, then usually dismisses the case and files individual suits against the students (whose identities it now knows). It's an aggressive strategy, and as Wasylik points out, is one built on speed and stealth.
In this case, the suit was filed after school had ended for the summer, and the subpoena information was requested before students returned. Once the university received the subpoenas in July, it did attempt to forward them to the students' summer addresses. Not all addresses were correct or up to date, though, and at least one student was traveling in Europe and could not be reached by his agitated parents, who received the letter.
Read More
