NewYorkCountryLawyer's Journal: RIAA Subpoenas Ms. Lindor's Son's Computer & Calls His Boss

To those who might think that I might be exaggerating when I describe the RIAA's litigation campaign as a "reign of terror", how's this one: in UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA not only subpoenaed the computer of Ms. Lindor's son, who lives 4 miles away, but had their lawyer telephone the son's employer. See page 2, footnote 1.

Objective

[cerberusss]

It's hard for me to oversee the objectives here of the plaintiffs. What are they seeking by contacting the boss of the son? Is this done just for the intrusion of the private life of the son?

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Supposedly it was in connection with attempting to serve process on him. But it seems to me that it would have an 'in terrorem' effect far beyond that. Imagine having your personal computer subpoenaed, and your boss contacted, in connection with a lawsuit that has nothing to do with you, but is against your mother. Your boss would get the impression that you had done something wrong.

Re:

[feepcreature]

Is 'in terrorem' a technical term for an effect the plaintiff is not supposed to evoke, and if so, how likely is it to apply, and are there any remedies available? Or is it just yet another small PR blunder among many?

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I just meant to indicate that they are trying to strike terror into people's hearts... and succeeding.

Here's the message:

If we sue you, and you didn't do anything, and after examining your hard drive we confirm that you didn't do anything.... then we'll go after your children's computers, and subpoena them, and even look for a pretextual reason to make a phone call to their employers implying that they are copyright infringers and evaders of process.