View
215
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
1/27
1
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTDISTRICTOFMINNESOTA
________________________________________________________________
CAPITOLRECORDS
INC.,
aDelawarecorporation;
SONYBMGMUSICENTERTAINMENT,
aDelawaregeneralpartnership;
ARISTARECORDSLLC,
aDelawarelimitedliabilitycompany;
INTERSCOPERECORDS,
aCaliforniageneralpartnership;
WARNERBROS.RECORDSINC.,
aDelaware
corporation;
and
UMGRECORDINGS,INC.,
aDelawarecorporation;
Plaintiffs,
v. MEMORANDUMOFLAW&ORDERCivilFileNo.061497(MJD/RLE)
JAMMIETHOMAS
RASSET,
Defendant.
________________________________________________________________
AndrewB.Mohraz,DavidA.Tonini,andTimothyM.Reynolds,HolmeRoberts
&Owen,LLP;FeliciaJ.Boyd,KaraL.B.Barrow,andMaryAndreleitaWalker,
Faegre&Benson,LLP;andMatthewJ.Oppenheim,OppenheimGroup,LLP;
counsel
for
Plaintiffs.
JoeSibleyandK.A.D.Camara,Camara&Sibley,LLP,andGarrettD.
Blanchfield,Jr.,ReinhardtWendorf&Blanchfield,counselforDefendant.
________________________________________________________________
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
2/27
2
ThismatterisbeforetheCourtonthepartiesmotionsinlimine. The
CourtheardoralargumentonthesemotionsonJune10,2009. Trialissetto
beginonJune15,2009.
I. DefendantsMotiontoSuppressEvidence[DocketNo.263]DefendantJammieThomasRassetarguesthattheCourtshouldexcludeall
evidencegatheredbyMediaSentrybecauseitoperatedinviolationofstateand
federallaws
and
because
Plaintiffs
attorneys
violated
ethical
rules
through
their
involvementwithMediaSentry. BecausetheCourtholdsthatMediaSentryhas
notviolatedanyoftheassertedstateorfederallaws,itdeniesDefendants
motion.
A. MediaSentrysActionsPeertopeernetworksallowInternetuserstoconnecttoeachotherand
transferfilesdirectlyfromusertouser. (JacobsonDecl.2,Pls.Ex.A.) When
filesaredistributedfromoneusertoanotheruserthroughapeertopeer
network,suchasKazaa,asetofidentifyinginformationtiesthefilesbacktothe
userwhodistributedthefiles. (Id.3.) Thisinformationincludesthe
distributorsIPaddress,thenameofthefile,thesizeofthefile,thecontenthash,
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
3/27
3
andtheportinformation. (Id.) Theuserrequestingthefilescommunicatesthe
requestthatthesharingcomputersendthefiles,andthesharingcomputerthen
sendsthose
requested
files.
(Id.
5;
Connelly
Decl.
2,
Pls.
Ex.
B.)
Kazaa
does
notallowoneusertogainaccessintoortomanipulatethecontentsofanother
userscomputer. (JacobsonDecl.5.) Itdoesallowausertoviewthecontents
ofthefilesthatotherusersplacedinthesharedfolder. (Id.)
TheKazaainterfacedisplaysinformationabouteachfilethatisavailable
inotheruserssharedfolders. MediaSentryrecordedtheimageforeachscreen
displayedbyKazaathatliststheavailablefiles. ItalsousedKazaatodownload
selectedfilestoitsownmachinetoconfirmthatthefileswerecopyrightedsound
recordings.
TheIP
address
is
transmitted
as
part
of
the
normal
process
of
connecting
onecomputertoanotherovertheInternet. (JacobsonDecl.6.) When
attemptingtoidentifyallegedinfringersonpeertopeernetworks,MediaSentry
usedthesameKazaanetworkprotocolsthateveryotheruserusedtosearchfor
and
download
files
on
the
network.
(Connelly
Decl.
2.)
Files
were
transferred
toMediaSentrybytheuploaderintheformofdatapackets,whichcontained
informationidentifyingthesourceIPaddress. (Id.) Throughpacketcapture
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
4/27
4
technology,MediaSentryrecordedtheinteractionbetweenitselfandthe
computerconnectedtothefilesharingnetworkanddistributingthematerialto
MediaSentry.
(Id.;1Trial
Tr.
185.)
MediaSentry
captured
every
packet
transferred,whichincludedtheIPaddressofthesourceofthepacket. (1TrialTr.
18788.)
B. TheMinnesotaPrivateDetectivesAct1. WhetherMediaSentryViolatedtheAct
DefendantallegesthatMediaSentrycollectedevidenceagainstherin
violationoftheMinnesotaPrivateDetectivesAct,Minn.Stat.326.32,etseq.
(MPDA). TheMPDAprovides:
Nopersonshallengageinthebusinessofprivatedetectiveor
protectiveagent,oradvertiseorindicateinanyverbalstatementor
inwritten
material
that
the
person
is
so
engaged
or
available
to
supplythoseservices,withouthavingfirstobtainedalicenseas
providedinsections326.32to326.339.
Minn.Stat.326.3381,subd.1. MediaSentrydoesnotholdaprivatedetective
licenseinMinnesota. (Def.Ex.A.)
Defendant
argues
that
MediaSentry
engaged
in
the
business
of
being
a
privatedetectiveundermultipleprovisionsofthestatute:
Personswhoforafee,reward,orotherconsideration,undertakeany
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
5/27
5
ofthefollowingactsforthepurposeofobtaininginformationfor
othersareconsideredtobeengagedinthebusinessofaprivate
detective:
***
(2)investigatingtheidentity,habits,conduct,movements,
whereabouts,transactions,reputation,orcharacterofanypersonor
organization;
(3)investigatingthecredibilityofwitnessesorotherpersons;
(4)investigatingthelocationorrecoveryoflostorstolenproperty;
[or]
***
(8)obtainingthroughinvestigationevidencetobeusedbeforeany
authorizedinvestigatingcommittee,boardofaward,boardof
arbitration,administrativebody,orofficerorinpreparationfortrial
ofcivilorcriminalcases;
Minn.Stat.
326.338,
subd.
1.
Defendant
asserts
that
MediaSentry
engaged
in
eachofthelistedactivitieswhenitinvestigatedtheidentityoftheuserofthe
computerfromwhichitdownloadedthesongsatissueinthislawsuitandwhen
itobtainedevidenceofthecopyrightedsongsonDefendantscomputer.
Defendant
also
claims
that
MediaSentry
violated
the
MPDA
when
it
held
itself
outtobeaprivatedetective;however,shehasofferednoadmissibleevidenceof
suchadvertisementinMinnesota.
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
6/27
6
DefendantnotesthattheallegedviolationsoftheMPDAarecrimesunder
Minnesotalaw. SeeMinn.Stat.326.339.
TheCourt
concludes
that
MediaSentry
is
not
subject
to
the
MPDA.
Based
onthelanguageoftheMPDA,theActdoesnotapplytopersonsorcompanies
operatingoutsideofthestateofMinnesota. SeeMinn.Stat.326.3381,subd.5
(providingproceduresforlicensingoutofstateapplicationsforthosewho
establishaMinnesotaoffice). Additionally,thereisageneralpresumptionthat
Minnesotastatutesdonotapplyextraterritorially. SeeInrePratt,18N.W.2d147,
153(Minn.1945),citedinHarringtonv.NorthwestAirlines,Inc.,No.A03192,
2003WL22016032,at*2n.1(Minn.Ct.App.Aug.26,2003)(unpublished)(noting
thatMinnesotacourtsemploythepresumptionagainstastatestatutehaving
extraterritorialapplication).
MediaSentrydoesnotoperatewithinMinnesota. (ConnellyDecl.3.) It
hasnoemployeesinMinnesotaanddoesnotconductanyactivitiesinMinnesota.
(Id.) Itpaysnotaxesinthestateandhasnoagentforserviceofprocesshere.
(Id.)
MediaSentry
conducted
no
activity
in
Minnesota
relating
to
this
case,
and
alloftheinformationitreceivedwassentbyDefendantfromhercomputerto
MediaSentryscomputerinastateotherthanMinnesota. (Id.) Merely
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
7/27
7
monitoringincominginternettrafficsentfromacomputerinanotherstateis
insufficienttoconstituteengaginginthebusinessofprivatedetectivewithinthe
stateof
Minnesota.
C. ThePenRegisterandTrapandTraceDevicesActDefendantassertsthatMediaSentryviolatedthePenRegisterActwhenit
recordedthepacketsthatincludedtheIPaddressofthesender. Itisacrime
under18U.S.C.3121toinstalloruseapenregisteroratrapandtracedevice,
withoutfirstobtainingacourtorder.
Underthestatuteboththetermpenregisterandthetermtrapandtrace
devicearedefinedasdevicesorprocesseswhichcapturecertaininformationbut
donotcapturethecontentsofanycommunication. 18U.S.C.3127(3),(4). See
alsoColumbia
Pictures,
Inc.
v.
Bunnell,
245
F.R.D.
443,
450
(C.D.
Cal.
2007)
([P]enregistersandtrapandtracedevices,bydefinition,donotrecordthe
contentsofanycommunication.)(citationomitted).
ThePenRegisterActhasnoapplicationherebecausetheIPaddress
recorded
by
MediaSentry
was
part
of
the
content
of
the
communication.
The
metadatathatistransmittedalongwitheveryfilesentthroughtheFastTrack
networkusedinthiscasealwaysincludestheIPaddress. (JacobsonDecl.6.)
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
8/27
8
Furthermore,thePenRegisterActcannotbeintendedtoprevent
individualswhoreceiveelectroniccommunicationsfromrecordingtheIP
informationsent
to
them.
If
it
did
apply
in
those
cases,
then
the
Internet
could
notfunctionbecausestandardcomputeroperationsrequirerecordingIP
addressessopartiescancommunicatewithoneanotherovertheInternet.
(JacobsonDecl.4.)
Additionally,thePenRegisterActdoesnotbarrecordingsofthecontents
ofcommunicationsthataremadewiththeconsentofoneofthepartiestothe
communication. See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Millet,No.05CR81,2005WL
3605269,at*1(N.D.Ill.Nov.3,2005)(Andrecordingsmadeofconversations
withtheconsentofoneofthepartiesarepermissibleunderfederallaw. Thepen
registersand
trap
and
trace
devices
may
well
assist
the
government
in
determiningtheexacttimeanddateoftelephonecallsandthetelephones
accessed,buttheydonotdisclosethecontentsoftheconversations,nordothey
makeillegaltheconsensualrecordings.). Inthiscase,theIPaddresseswere
communicated
as
part
of
the
packets
Defendants
computer
sent
to
MediaSentryscomputer. MediaSentry,asapartytothatcommunication,simply
recordedtheinformationtransmittedtoitfromThomasRassetscomputer.
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
9/27
9
D. TheElectronicCommunicationsPrivacyActof1986TheElectronicCommunicationsPrivacyActof1986prohibits
unauthorizedwiretapping:
Exceptasotherwisespecificallyprovidedinthischapteranyperson
who
(a)intentionallyintercepts,endeavorstointercept,orprocuresany
otherpersontointerceptorendeavortointercept,anywire,oral,or
electroniccommunication;
***
shallbepunishedasprovidedinsubsection(4)orshallbesubjectto
suitasprovidedinsubsection(5).
18U.S.C.2511(1).
DefendantclaimsthatMediaSentryviolated2511(1)byintercepting
electroniccommunications
in
the
form
of
the
packets
traveling
between
Thomas
RassetscomputerandMediaSentryscomputer. Defendantalsoclaimsthat
MediaSentryviolatedthestatutewhenitrecordedimagesoftheKazaainterface.
SheassertsthatthedisplayscreeninterfaceofKazaaconstitutedanelectronic
communication
from
the
sender
to
the
MediaSentry
operator,
communicating
informationaboutthefilesonthesenderscomputer.
Assuming,withoutdeciding,thatMediaSentrysactionsconstituted
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
10/27
10
interceptionofanelectroniccommunication,MediaSentryfallsunderthe
participantexceptiontotheWiretapAct. Section2511(2)(d)provides:
Itshall
not
be
unlawful
under
this
chapter
for
aperson
not
acting
undercoloroflawtointerceptawire,oral,orelectronic
communicationwheresuchpersonisapartytothecommunication
orwhereoneofthepartiestothecommunicationhasgivenprior
consenttosuchinterceptionunlesssuchcommunicationis
interceptedforthepurposeofcommittinganycriminalortortious
actinviolationoftheConstitutionorlawsoftheUnitedStatesorof
anyState.
18U.S.C.A.
2511(2)(d).
MediaSentrywasclearlyapartytotheelectroniccommunicationwith
Defendant. DefendantassertsthatthisexceptiondoesnotprotectMediaSentry
becauseMediaSentrywasinterceptingcommunicationsforthepurposeof
committingthecrimeunderMinnesotalawofengaginginthebusinessofa
privatedetectivewithoutalicense,committingthecrimeunderfederallawof
recordingIPaddressesinviolationofthePenRegisterAct,andcommittingthe
Minnesotatortofintrusionuponseclusion.
MediaSentrydidnotinterceptthecommunicationsforthepurposeof
committingacrimeortort. AstheCourthasalreadyheld,MediaSentrydidnot
commitacrimeundertheMPDAorunderthePenRegisterAct. Although
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
11/27
11
Defendanthasvaguelyalludedtoprivatedetectivelicensinglawsfromother
states,thereisnoevidenceorlegalargumentbeforetheCourtuponwhichthe
Courtcould
conclude
that
MediaSentry
was
subject
to
and
violated
another
statesprivatedetectivelawinthiscase. Evenif,incapturingtheinformation
sentfromDefendantscomputer,MediaSentryhadincidentallyviolatedaprivate
detectivelicensingstatutefromsomeotherstate,gatheringevidenceof
Defendantsallegedcopyrightinfringementcannotbesaidtohavebeen
accomplishedforthepurposeofcommittingatortorcrime. SeeMeredithv.
Gavin,446F.2d794,798(8thCir.1971)(discussinglegislativehistoryofexception
toonepartyconsentexceptiontotheWiretapAct,whichwasaimedat
monitoring...forinsidiouspurposessuchasblackmail,stealingbusiness
secretsand
holding
that
exception
applied
when
recorders
purpose
is
evil).
Thetortofintrusionuponseclusionoccurswhenoneintentionally
intrudes,physicallyorotherwise,uponthesolitudeorseclusionofanotherorhis
privateaffairsorconcerns...iftheintrusionwouldbehighlyoffensivetoa
reasonable
person.
Lake
v.
Wal
Mart
Stores,
Inc.,
582
N.W.2d
231,
233
(Minn.
1998)(footnoteomitted). ThomasRassetassertsthatMediaSentrysactions
wouldbehighlyoffensivetoareasonableperson. TheCourtdisagrees. Thereis
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
12/27
12
noexpectationofsolitudeorseclusionwhenapersonactivatesafilesharing
programandsendsafiletotherequestingcomputer. ByparticipatinginKazaa,
auser
expects
millions
of
other
users
to
view
and
copy
her
files,
each
time
receivingtheveryinformationthatThomasRassetsenttoMediaSentryand
MediaSentryrecorded.
E. EthicalViolationsDefendantassertsthattheCourtshouldsuppressevidencegainedby
MediaSentrybecauseitwasillegallyobtainedatthedirectionandunderthe
supervisionofPlaintiffslawyersinviolationoftheirethicalobligations. The
CourthasheldthatMediaSentrydidnotillegallyobtaintheevidenceinquestion.
MediaSentryactedforthelegitimatepurposeofdiscoveringinfringersand
protectingits
clients
copyrights.
Therefore,
there
was
no
ethical
violation
committedbyPlaintiffsattorneysinvolvementwithMediaSentrys
investigation.F. Conclusion
Because
Defendant
has
failed
to
show
that
MediaSentry
violated
any
law
ingatheringtheevidencetobeusedinthiscase,Defendantsmotiontosuppress
isdenied.
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
13/27
13
II. PlaintiffsMotioninLiminetoExcludetheTestimonyofDefendantsExpertDr.YongdaeKim[DocketNo.272]A. DaubertStandardTheadmissibilityofexperttestimonyisgovernedbyFederalRuleof
Evidence702. Theproponentofthetestimonyhastheburdentoshowbya
preponderanceoftheevidencethatthetestimonyisadmissibleunderRule702.
Lauzonv.SencoProds.,Inc.,270F.3d681,686(8thCir.2001). UndertheRule:
Ifscientific,
technical,
or
other
specialized
knowledge
will
assist
the
trieroffacttounderstandtheevidenceortodetermineafactin
issue,awitnessqualifiedasanexpertbyknowledge,skill,
experience,training,oreducation,maytestifytheretointheformof
anopinionorotherwise,if(1)thetestimonyisbaseduponsufficient
factsordata,(2)thetestimonyistheproductofreliableprinciples
andmethods,and(3)thewitnesshasappliedtheprinciplesand
methodsreliablytothefactsofthecase.
Fed.R.
Evid.
702.
UndertheframeworkdevelopedinDaubert,trialcourtsmustserveas
gatekeeperstoinsurethatprofferedexperttestimonyisbothrelevantand
reliable. Trialcourtsaregivenbroaddiscretioninfulfillingthisgatekeepingrole
.
.
.
.
Wagner
v.
Hesston
Corp.,
450
F.3d
756,
758
(8th
Cir.
2006)
(citations
omitted). Theproposedtestimonymustbeusefultothefactfinderindeciding
theultimatefactissue;theexpertwitnessmustbequalified;andtheproposed
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
14/27
14
evidencemustbereliable. Lauzon,270F.3dat686.
Whenconsideringthereliabilityandrelevanceofexperttestimony,the
Courtmay
examine
whether
the
theory
or
technique
is
subject
to
testing,
whetherithasbeentested,whetherithasbeensubjectedtopeerreviewand
publication,whetherthereisahighknownorpotentialrateoferrorassociated
withit,andwhetheritisgenerallyacceptedwithintherelevantcommunity.
Unreinv.Timesavers,Inc.,394F.3d1008,1011(8thCir.2005)(citationomitted).
TheCourtsinquiryisflexibleandfactspecific. Id.
Asageneralrule,thefactualbasisofanexpertopiniongoesto
thecredibilityofthetestimony,nottheadmissibility,anditisupto
theopposingpartytoexaminethefactualbasisfortheopinionin
crossexamination. Onlyiftheexpertsopinionissofundamentally
unsupportedthatitcanoffernoassistancetothejurymustsuch
testimonybeexcluded.
Bonnerv.ISPTechs.,Inc.,259F.3d924,92930(8thCir.2001)(citationomitted).
B. FactualBasisforKimsOpinionDefendantsexpertwitnessisDr.YongdaeKim,asAssociateProfessorin
theUniversityofMinnesotaDepartmentofComputerScience. Kimwillnotoffer
anopinionregardingwhetherThomasRassetinfringedPlaintiffscopyrightsor
whetherhercomputerwasusedtodistributetheircopyrightedsound
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
15/27
15
recordings. Instead,Kimwillofferpossibleexplanationsregardinghow
someoneotherthanThomasRassetcouldhavecommittedthefilesharingat
issuein
this
case.
Plaintiffs
argue
that,
although
Kim
lists
fourteen
possible
explanationsinhisreport,headmitsthatthereisnoevidencetosupportanyof
theexplanations.
DefendantretortsthatKimwillonlyofferrebuttaltestimonytoassistthe
juryinproperlyweighingtheevidenceregardingtheoriginoftheKazaa
softwareandtheallegedlyinfringingsongsonDefendantscomputer.
DefendantadmitsthatKimwillnotofferanopinionregardingtheprobable
causeofthepresenceofKazaaandthesongsonThomasRassetscomputer.
Instead,heismerelyofferinghistestimonyasarebuttaltothetestimonyof
Plaintiffsexpert
witness.
Kim
will
opine
on
the
reliability
and
weight
of
Plaintiffsexpertstestimony. Kimwillalsodiscusspossiblealternative
explanationsthatPlaintiffsexpertdidnotconsiderinarrivingathisconclusions.
Defendantassertsthattestimonyregardingpossibilities,eveniftheyarenot
probable,
is
legally
sufficient
if
the
proposed
expert
is
attempting
to
rebut
the
testimonyofanotherexpert. Defendantalsoarguesthatshedoesnotbearthe
burdenofproofonthequestionofcausation,soherexpertdoesnotneedto
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
16/27
16
testifyregardingprobablecausation,butcansimplyofferalternative
explanationstoattackPlaintiffstheoryofcausation.
Asadefense
rebuttal
witness,
Kim
does
not
have
to
testify
that
the
other
possibleexplanationsweretheprobablecausethatKazaaandthesound
recordingsatissueappearedtobeonDefendantscomputer. See,e.g.,Allenv.
BrownClinic,P.L.L.P.,531F.3d568,57475(8thCir.2008)(holdingthatdefense
expertcouldtestifyastootherpossible,butnotnecessarilyprobable,causesof
plaintiffsinjury,because,torequiremorewouldundulytieadefendants
handsinrebuttingaplaintiffscase,whereashere,plaintiffsexperttestifiesthat
noothercausecouldhavecausedplaintiffsinjury,andwouldimpermissibly
shifttheburdenofproofandrequireadefendanttodisproveaplaintiffstheory
byapreponderance
of
the
evidence)
(citation
omitted).
Because
Kim
is
offered
onlyasarebuttalexpert,andonlyopinesregardingpossibilitiesinhisreport,his
testimonymustbelimitedsuchthatremarksaremadeinrebuttalofPlaintiffs
expertandarenotdonetoestablishacause. Morrisonv.Stephenson,No.
2:06
CV
283,
2008
WL
618778,
at
*4
(S.D.
Ohio
Mar.
3,
2008).
Therefore,Kimcantestifyregardingthepossiblescenariosthatcanoccur
onapeertopeernetworkthatwouldresultintheincorrectuserbeingidentified
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
17/27
17
byMediaSentry. Kimcannotopineregardingcausationorwhathethinks
probablyoccurredinthiscase.
Plaintiffsnote
fourteen
particular
instances
of
Kims
testimony
that
they
allegeareunsupportedandobjectionable. BecauseKimstestimonyislimitedto
rebuttalandheisnotpermittedtotestifyastocausation,theCourtrejectsmost
ofPlaintiffsargumentsregardingadmissibility. Theallegedlackoffactualbasis
formanyofKimsopinionsgoestocredibilityandprovidesgroundforcross
examination. However,theCourtdoesholdthatKimcannottestifybasedpurely
onspeculationorwhen,beyondlackingevidencetosupporthistheory,the
recordonlycontainsevidencethatmakeshistheoryimpossible,and,thus,
unhelpfultothejury. SeeMarmov.TysonFreshMeats,Inc.,457F.3d748,757
(8thCir.
2006)
(Expert
testimony
is
inadmissible
if
it
is
speculative,
unsupported
bysufficientfacts,orcontrarytothefactsofthecase.)(citationomitted).
Therefore,giventheevidencethatthereisnowirelessrouterinvolvedin
thiscase,theCourtexcludesKimsopinionthatitispossiblethatsomeonecould
have
spoofed
or
hijacked
Defendants
Internet
account
through
an
unprotected
wirelessaccesspoint. Similarly,becauseKimexplicitlytestifiedthatthiscase
doesnotinvolveanyblackIPspace,oranytemporarilyunusedIPspace
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
18/27
18
(KimDep.11011),heisnotpermittedtoopineattrialthathijackingofblackIP
spaceortemporaryunusedIPisapossibleexplanationinthiscase.
In3.4
of
his
Report,
Kim
asserts
that
there
is
no
evidence
that
the
music
fileswereconsciouslyplacedintheshareddirectoryonThomasRassets
computerorwerewillfullyofferedfordistribution. Kimtestifiedthatheisnotan
expertinhumanbehaviorandthathisopinionisbasedonnothingbut
speculation. (KimDep.12728.) AlthoughtheCourtgrantsKimleewayto
testifyregardingpossibilities,speculativetestimonyisstillinadmissible. Because
Kimadmitsthathisopiniononthispointisspeculative,itisexcluded.
In4.4ofKimsreport,heopines,TheKaZaAreportedIPaddressisnot
evidencethatthemachinerunningKaZaAisnotbehindaNATdevice.
However,Kim
testified
that
he
has
no
knowledge
to
support
this
opinion.
(Kim
Dep.14143.) HeadmitsthathedidobtainafunctioningversionofKazaaand
couldhaverunittoobserveitsbehavior,butchosenotto. (KimDep.14445.)
KimadmittedlyhasnoknowledgetosupporthisopinionregardingKazaas
functioning
and
has
not,
in
fact,
observed
Kazaa
functioning
although
he
had
theopportunitytodoso. HisopinionregardingKazaasfunctioninginthis
instanceisexcludedasnotbasedonareliablescientificmethod.
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
19/27
19
AstoKimsotheropinions,theCourtconcludesthattheirallegedlackof
foundationorimproperfactualbasisgoestoweightnotadmissibility.
C. KimsExpertisePlaintiffsarguethat,whileKimisqualifiedincomputerscience,hehasno
experiencewiththeKazaaorKazaaLitefilesharingprogramsorwiththe
FastTrackfilesharingnetwork. HisonlyexperiencewithKazaawashisattempt
todownloadtheprogramandexaminetheinterfaceinconnectionwiththiscase.
Hedidnotattempttoruntheprogramorobserveitsbehavior. Plaintiffs
concludethat,therefore,KimisnotqualifiedtotestifyonKazaa,KazaaLite,or
FastTrack. PlaintiffsalsoarguethatKimisunqualifiedtoopineregardinghis
examinationofaforensiccopyofDefendantscomputerbecauseofhislackof
experiencein
computer
forensics.
DefendantrespondsthatKimhasconductedresearchandisanexpertin
peertopeersystemsandnetworksecurity. Kimseducationandbackgroundin
computersciencequalifyhimasanexpertingeneralcomputerscience.
Defendant
admits
that
Kim
has
little
experience
with
FastTrack,
Kazaa,
or
Kazaa
Lite,butarguesthatthisisauniversalproblembecausetherehavebeenfew
studiesdoneoftheseprogramsintheacademiccommunity,particularlybecause
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
20/27
20
Kazaaisproprietary. Defendantarguesthat,somehow,Plaintiffshavea
monopolyonKazaaexperts.
Kimis
qualified
in
the
general
areas
of
computer
science,
peer
to
peer
networks,andcomputersecurity. HeisnotspecificallyanexpertinKazaa,
KazaaLite,orFastTrack. Here,PlaintiffsdonotcontrolKazaa,FastTrack,or
KazaaLite. Infact,KimhadafunctioningcopyofKazaa,butchosenottotestit.
Thereisnoinstitutionalbarriertoacomputerscienceexpertbecomingexpertin
KazaawithoutworkingwithPlaintiffs.
Despitethisfact,theCourtholdsthatKimisqualifiedtotestifyinthiscase.
Heisanexpertinthegeneralfieldsofpeertopeernetworksandcomputer
security. AlthoughhehasnottestedKazaa,KazaaLite,orFastTrackfirsthand,
hehas
gained
knowledge
of
these
areas
through
his
review
of
other
academic
studies,informedbyhisgeneralexpertiseinpeertopeernetworks. Kims
failuretotestofKazaa,FastTrack,orKazaaLitegoestotheweightand
credibilityofhisopinionsandwillbegroundsforcrossexamination.
D. ApplicationofRule403PlaintiffsalsoclaimthatKimstestimonyshouldbeexcludedunder
FederalRuleofEvidence403.
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
21/27
21
1. Rule403StandardFederalRuleofEvidence403provides:
Althoughrelevant,
evidence
may
be
excluded
if
its
probative
value
issubstantiallyoutweighedbythedangerofunfairprejudice,
confusionoftheissues,ormisleadingthejury,orbyconsiderations
ofunduedelay,wasteoftime,orneedlesspresentationof
cumulativeevidence.
Because[e]xpertevidencecanbebothpowerfulandquitemisleading,a
trialcourtmusttakespecialcaretoweightheriskofunfairprejudiceagainstthe
probativevalueoftheevidenceunderFed.R.Evid.403. Nicholsv.Am.Natl
Ins.Co.,154F.3d875,884(8thCir.1998)(quotingDaubertv.MerrellDow
Pharm.,509U.S.579,595(1993)).
2. ApplicationtoKimsProposedTestimonyPlaintiffs
argue
that
Kims
testimony
has
almost
no
value
because
he
has
noexperienceortrainingwithKazaaortheFastTracknetworkandbecausehis
opinionsrelyonspeculativeassumptions. Theyconcludethattheprobative
valueofhistestimonyisoutweighedbythedangersofunfairprejudiceto
Plaintiffs,
of
confusing
the
issues,
and
of
misleading
the
jury.
TheCourthasrestrictedKimstestimonytoexcludeopinionsoncausation,
opinionsbasedonspeculation,andopinionsbasedonfactscompletely
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
22/27
22
contradictedbytherecord. Thebasisforhisremainingopinionscanbetested
throughcrossexamination. HavingweighedtheprobativevalueofKims
testimonyas
rebuttal
against
the
dangers
enumerated
in
Rule
403,
the
Court
concludesthatRule403doesnotjustifyadditionalexclusion.
III. DefendantsUnopposedMotioninLimine[DocketNo.276]AstheCourtorallyruledduringtheJune10hearing,thepartiesshallrefer
totheprevioustrialasapriorproceeding. Theresultsofthattrialshallnotbe
revealedtothejury.
IV. PlaintiffsMotioninLiminetoPrecludeDefendantfromRaisingorAssertingEvidenceofOtherLawsuits[DocketNo.279]PlaintiffsaskthattheCourtbarDefendantfromintroducingevidence
regardingothercopyrightlawsuitsinvolvingPlaintiffs. AstheCourtexplained
duringJune10hearing,itwillreserverulingonthismotionbecausethetypeof
evidencethatDefendantwillbepermittedtoofferwilldependupontheevidence
andargumentsofferedbyPlaintiffs. AllpartiesarewarnedtoabidebytheRules
ofEvidenceandCivilProcedureduringtrial.
V. PlaintiffsMotioninLiminetoPrecludeFairUseDefense[DocketNo.283]
PlaintiffsaskthatDefendantbebarredfromassertingthefairusedefense
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
23/27
23
becauseshefailedtoassertthisaffirmativedefenseuntiltwoweeksbeforetrial
andhaswaivedthedefense.
Fairuse
is
an
affirmative
defense.
Campbell
v.
Acuff
Rose
Music,
Inc.,
510
U.S.569,590(1994)(Sincefairuseisanaffirmativedefense,itsproponentwould
havedifficultycarryingtheburdenofdemonstratingfairusewithoutfavorable
evidenceaboutrelevantmarkets.)(footnotesomitted);Harper&RowPublrs,
Inc.v.NationEnters.,471U.S.539,561(1985)(Thedraftersresistedpressures
fromspecialinterestgroupstocreatepresumptivecategoriesoffairuse,but
structuredtheprovisionasanaffirmativedefenserequiringacasebycase
analysis.)(citationsomitted).
DefendantsrelianceuponSonyCorp.ofAmericav.UniversalCity
Studios,Inc.,
is
misplaced.
464
U.S.
417
(1984).
In
Sony,
the
Supreme
Court
did
notholdthatfairuseisnolongeranaffirmativedefenseinnoncommercial
cases. Moreover,bothCampbellandHarper&Rowweredecidedafterand
bothcitedtoSonyandbothexplicitlyprovidedthatfairuseisanaffirmative
defense.
The
Supreme
Court
has
explicitly
rejected
any
fair
use
presumption
basedoncommercialornoncommercialuse. SeeCampbell,510U.S.at584
(discussingSonyandholding:Thelanguageofthestatutemakesclearthatthe
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
24/27
24
commercialornonprofiteducationalpurposeofaworkisonlyoneelementof
thefirstfactorenquiryintoitspurposeandcharacter. ... Asweexplainedin
Harper&
Row,
Congress
resisted
attempts
to
narrow
the
ambit
of
this
traditional
enquirybyadoptingcategoriesofpresumptivelyfairuse,anditurgedcourtsto
preservethebreadthoftheirtraditionallyampleviewoftheuniverseofrelevant
evidence.)(citationsomitted).
Generally,failuretopleadanaffirmativedefenseresultsinawaiverof
thatdefense. FirstUnionNatlBankv.PictetOverseasTrustCorp.,Ltd.,477
F.3d616,622(8thCir.2007)(citationsomitted). However,[w]henanaffirmative
defenseisraisedinthetrialcourtinamannerthatdoesnotresultinunfair
surprise,...technicalfailuretocomplywithRule8(c)isnotfatal. Id.(citation
omitted).
Inthiscase,theCourtholdsthatDefendanthaswaivedtheaffirmative
defenseoffairuse. DefendantfailedtoraisethefairusedefenseinherAnswer,
atanytimebeforetheFirstTrial,duringtheFirstTrial,oratanytimeleadingup
to
this
retrial
until
only
two
weeks
before
retrial.
This
litigation
has
gone
on
for
years,yetPlaintiffshadnoinklingofthisdefenseuntiltheeveoftrial. Because
Plaintiffshadnonoticeofthisdefense,theyhavetakennodiscoveryregarding
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
25/27
25
Defendantsallegedfairusedefense. Therecordinthiscase,withwhichthis
Courtisintimatelyfamiliar,gavenohintthatafairusedefensewouldbe
forthcoming.
Itwould
be
highly
prejudicial
to
Plaintiffs
to
allow
Defendant
to
assertthisnewaffirmativedefenseontheeveofretrial,whentheyhaveno
opportunitytoconductdiscoveryonthisissueandlongagomissedthe
opportunitytofileadispositivemotionregardingthisaffirmativedefense. The
CourtholdsthatDefendanthaswaivedthefairusedefense. Plaintiffsmotionis
granted.
VI. PlaintiffsMotioninLiminetoPrecludeDefendantfromAssertinganInnocentInfringementDefenseatTrial[DocketNo.284]PlaintiffsasktheCourttoholdthatDefendantcannotseekareductionin
statutorydamagesunder17U.S.C.504,knownastheinnocentinfringement
defense. TheyclaimthatThomasRassethaswaivedthisdefensebynotasserting
ituntiltwoweeksbeforetrialand,inthealternative,thedefenseisbarred
becausePlaintiffsplacedpropercopyrightnoticesonpublishedcopiesoftheir
copyrightedworkstowhichThomasRassethadaccess.
AttheJune10hearing,DefendantinformedtheCourtthatshedoesnot
opposePlaintiffsmotion. Therefore,Plaintiffsmotionisgranted.
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
26/27
26
VII. DefendantsMotiontoDismissforLackofSubjectMatterJurisdiction[DocketNo.310]
AstheCourtorallyruledduringtheJune10hearing,DefendantsMotion
toDismissforLackofSubjectMatterJurisdictionisdeniedatthistimebecause
themotionispremature.
Accordingly,baseduponthefiles,records,andproceedingsherein,ITISHEREBYORDERED:
1. DefendantsMotiontoSuppressEvidence[DocketNo.263]is
DENIED.
2. PlaintiffsMotioninLiminetoExcludetheTestimonyofDefendants
ExpertDr.YongdaeKim[DocketNo.272]isGRANTEDINPARTandDENIEDINPARTassetforthinthisOrder.
3.
DefendantsUnopposed
Motion
in
Limine
[Docket
No.
276]
is
GRANTEDassetforthinthisOrder.
4. PlaintiffsMotioninLiminetoPrecludeDefendantfromRaisingor
AssertingEvidenceofOtherLawsuits[DocketNo.279]is
RESERVED.
5. PlaintiffsMotioninLiminetoPrecludeFairUseDefense[Docket
No.
283]
is
GRANTED.
6. PlaintiffsMotioninLiminetoPrecludeDefendantfromAsserting
anInnocentInfringementDefenseatTrial[DocketNo.284]is
GRANTED.
8/14/2019 Capitol Records File-Sharing MIL Decision
27/27
27
7. DefendantsMotiontoDismissforLackofSubjectMatter
Jurisdiction[DocketNo.310]isDENIEDWITHOUTPREJUDICEaspremature.
Dated: June11,2009 s/MichaelJ.Davis
MichaelJ.Davis
ChiefJudge
UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
Recommended