Virgin Records America, Inc v. Thomas

Filing 90

Virgin Records America, Inc v. Thomas

Doc. 90

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA DULUTH DIVISION VIRGIN RECORDS AMERICA, INC., a California corporation; CAPITOL RECORDS, INC., a Delaware corporation; SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, a Delaware general partnership; ARISTA RECORDS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; INTERSCOPE RECORDS, a California general partnership; WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC., a Delaware corporation; and UMG RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. Jammie Thomas, Defendant. Plaintiffs respectfully oppose Defendant Jammie Thomas' Three Docket 67 Motions in Limine (Doc. No. 67, 85) and state as follows: ARGUMENT 1. All Three of Defendant's Motions Should be Denied Because They Were Untimely. The Court extended the parties' deadline to file motions in limine to 12:00 p.m. CDT, September 24, 2007. (Order, Doc. No. 72.) Defendant filed one motion in limine shortly before that deadline (Doc. No. 81.) Defendant then filed a memorandum to support three additional motions in limine after the deadline at 4:57 p.m. CDT. (Doc. No. 85.) Accordingly, Defendant's three additional motions were untimely and should be denied on that basis.

Case No.: 06cv1497-MJD/RLE PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S THREE DOCKET 67 MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1
#1278604 v1

Dockets.Justia.com

2.

Defendant's First Motion In Limine Regarding Plaintiffs' Collective Presentation Of Their Case Is Without Any Factual Or Legal Support And Should Be Denied. Plaintiffs have never claimed to be a "single entity" or "organization" as Defendant

contends (Doc. No. 85 at 1, 2), and they do not intend to make any such arguments to the jury. Plaintiffs do not dispute that they are individual claimants and that each of them is required to substantiate the elements of its claim against Defendant. The factual and legal bases for each Plaintiff's claim against Defendant, however, are substantially identical. Each Plaintiff is suing Defendant for unlawfully sharing copyrighted sound recordings over the Internet. Thus, there will necessarily be some overlap in the evidence and arguments presented to the jury. To require each Plaintiff to repeat testimony common to each Plaintiff's claim would be exceedingly cumbersome and a waste of time. Likewise, to require counsel to list every Plaintiff every time that they refer to Plaintiffs would be wasteful and would serve no purpose whatsoever. Plaintiffs are not aware of any authority that prohibits counsel for Co-Plaintiffs to refer to their clients as "Plaintiffs," and Defendant cites none. To the extent that Plaintiffs' joint prosecution of this case remains a concern for Defendant, that concern can be alleviated by the following jury instruction: Each plaintiff has asserted claims against the defendant. The claims of each plaintiff must be considered separately and individually, and you should consider each instruction given to apply separately and individually to each plaintiff and to the defendant in this case. Plaintiffs submit that this instruction eliminates any risk of confusion by the jury as to this issues and burdens of proof in this case. For all of these reasons, the Court should deny Defendant's First Motion in Limine (to Prohibit Plaintiffs from Arguing Collectively).

2
#1278604 v1

3.

Defendant's Second Motion In Limine Should Be Denied Because It Is A Misstatement Of The Law And Of Plaintiffs' Claims In This Case. Defendant's second motion asks the Court to bar Plaintiffs from making statements to the

jury that the only element necessary to establish an act of infringement "is the act of downloading to defendant's ISP address." (Doc. No. 85 at 3.) Plaintiffs do not understand what Defendant means by the phrase, "the act of downloading to defendant's ISP address," and have never alleged such act in this case. To the extent that Plaintiffs can glean what Defendant is trying to say, it appears that this argument misstates Plaintiffs' case against Defendant. Plaintiffs intend to prove at trial that Defendant used the KaZaA file sharing program on her computer to download and distribute Plaintiffs' sound recordings from and to other users of the KaZaA file sharing network. The fact that such downloading and distribution occurred through Defendant's Internet Protocol ("IP") address is but one evidentiary fact that Plaintiffs will show to prove Defendant's responsibility for the infringement at issue in this case. Every court to consider the issue has held that downloading copyrighted sound recordings over the Internet without authorization from the copyright holder, including on peer-to-peer services like that at issue in this case, violates the copyright holder's right of reproduction. See, e.g., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 940 (2005) (describing online piracy as "infringement on a gigantic scale"); BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888, 889 (7th Cir. 2005) ("[P]eople who post or download music files are primary infringers."); In re Aimster Copyright Litig., 334 F.3d 643, 645 (7th Cir. 2003) ("[M]aking . . . a digital copy of [copyrighted] music . . . infringes copyright."); A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1014 (9th Cir. 2001) ("Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs' reproduction rights."). Accordingly, and contrary to Defendant's apparent

3
#1278604 v1

premise, a Defendant who downloads copyrighted sound recordings into a Kazaa share folder without authorization does violate the copyright act. Likewise, distributing copyrighted sound recordings over the Internet by making them available to other users of the file sharing network violates the copyright holder's distribution right. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d at 889 ("[P]eople who post or download music files are primary infringers."); Napster, 239 F.3d at 1014 (holding that file sharers "who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs' distribution rights"); Sony Pictures Home Entm't, Inc. v. Lott, 471 F. Supp. 2d 716, 721-22 (N.D. Tex. 2007) (granting summary judgment to the plaintiff motion picture companies based on evidence that their copyrighted motion pictures were being distributed from the defendant's computer); Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Howell, No CV06-2076-PHX-NWB, slip op. at 4-7 (D. Ariz. Aug. 20, 2007) (holding that the defendant violated the plaintiffs' distribution right by using the KaZaA program to make the plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings available to other KaZaA users) (attached as Exhibit A hereto); Motown Record Co. v. DePietro, No. 04-CV-2246, slip op. at 7 and n.38 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 16, 2007) (holding that making copyrighted works available to other online file sharers violates the copyright holder's distribution right) (attached as Exhibit B hereto). In this case, Plaintiffs intend to prove that Defendant did precisely that. For all of these reasons, Defendant's Second Motion has no factual or legal basis and should be denied. 4. Defendant's Third Motion In Limine Should Be Denied Because Limiting Plaintiffs' Proof Would Cause Substantial Prejudice To Plaintiffs. Defendant's third motion asks for the Court to prohibit Plaintiffs' counsel from describing conduct not involving Defendant. (Doc. No. 85 at 3.) Although Plaintiffs' agree with Defendant that other copyright infringement lawsuits are not relevant to the case, there is a 4
#1278604 v1

fundamental difference between discussing other cases and defendants--which discussion would be wholly irrelevant and should not be permitted by either party--and discussing the existence of other infringers in general--which discussion is relevant given the very nature of the file-sharing network at issue in this case. Indeed, it is impossible to discuss the alleged use of a file-sharing program like KaZaA without discussing the nature of such a program, which allows millions of individuals to share files with other users of the program. Prohibiting Plaintiffs from explaining the nature of the infringement at issue in this case would substantially prejudice Plaintiffs' ability to provide the jury with the fundamental context of peer-to-peer infringement that is necessary to understand this case and Plaintiffs' claims against this Defendant. In addition, Plaintiffs are entitled to present evidence substantiating the harm caused by Defendant's infringement, including the distribution of copyrighted sound recordings to potentially millions of other KaZaA users. Plaintiffs' have elected to pursue statutory damages against Defendant within the range provided in 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), and "[t]he law commits to the trier of facts, within the named limits, discretion to apply the measure furnished by the statute." Cass County Music Co. v. C.H.L.R., Inc., 88 F.3d 635, 644 (8th Cir. 1996). One of the factors in determining what amount of statutory damages to award is the harm to Plaintiffs. See 4 M. & D. Nimmer, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT § 1404(B)(1)(a) (determination of statutory damages within the applicable limits may turn upon such factors as the revenues lost by the plaintiffs as a result of the defendant's conduct). Because Plaintiffs are entitled to have a jury make factual findings relevant to determining the amount of damages to be assessed, whether they are actual damages or statutory damages, see Cass County Music Co., 88 F.3d at 644, they must be allowed to present evidence concerning the harm caused by Defendant's participation in a file-sharing network with millions of other infringers. Preventing Plaintiffs from putting on

5
#1278604 v1

such evidence would be extremely prejudicial. This evidence is also relevant to Plaintiffs' motive for bringing this case. Defendant has and likely will try to argue that this is a case of large corporate entities beating up on the little person. Plaintiffs need to be able to explain to the jury why this case is important and why they brought it. A discussion of the harm caused by online piracy and why Plaintiffs brought this case is essential. Finally, Defendant is wrong when she argues that, if Plaintiffs are allowed to put on evidence of harm caused by peer-to-peer file sharing, she should be allowed to discuss other lawsuits where Plaintiffs allegedly sued the wrong person. This argument mixes apples and oranges. The harm caused by Defendant's sharing files with potentially millions of other KaZaA users is directly relevant to Plaintiffs' claim for statutory damages. Defendant is free to argue to the jury, and likely will, that her alleged involvement is but a tiny part of the larger picture and should not warrant any increase in the damage amount. Both of these arguments are relevant and appropriate for presentation to the jury, which will make the ultimate decision. Evidence regarding other purported cases where Plaintiffs allegedly sued the wrong person, however, have no relevance to the parties' claims and defenses in this case and would be highly misleading and prejudicial, particularly given that Plaintiffs and other record companies have obtained judgments against literally thousands of other infringers, and the cases on which Defendant would rely reflect a very few exceptional cases. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403. The jury will decide whether Plaintiffs sued the right person in this case based on the evidence in this case. Evidence of what allegedly happened in other cases would only serve to confuse the issues, multiply these proceedings unnecessarily, and potentially prejudice the jury with irrelevant facts, and it would result in mini trials to demonstrate why the facts of other cases are completely

6
#1278604 v1

different to those of this case. See id. For these reasons, the Court should deny Defendant's Third Motion in Limine. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask that the Court deny Defendant's Three Docket 67 Motions in Limine (Doc. No. 67, 85). A form of order is attached for the Court's convenience. Respectfully submitted this 26th day of September 2007. _______________________________________ Felicia J. Boyd (No. 186168) Laura G. Coates (No. 350175) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-3901 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Richard L. Gabriel (pro hac vice) Timothy M. Reynolds (pro hac vice) David A. Tonini (pro hac vice) Andrew B. Mohraz (pro hac vice) HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP 1700 Lincoln, Suite 4100 Denver, Colorado 80203 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

7
#1278604 v1