NewYorkCountryLawyer's Journal: RIAA objects to Oregon AG's request for information

The RIAA is apparently having an allergic reaction to the request by the State Attorney General of Oregon for information about the RIAA's investigative tactics, in Arista v. Does 1-17, the Portland, Oregon, case targeting students at the University of Oregon. See The Oregonian, December 1, 2007 ("UO suspects music industry of spying") and p2pnet, November 29, 2007 ("RIAA may be spying on students: Oregon AG"). Not only are the record companies opposing the request (pdf), they're asking the Judge not to even read it. (pdf) Commentary: "RIAA scorns Oregon University request".

My concern

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"It is well-settled that a party cannot raise a new issue for the first time in a reply brief."

How much of a roadblock is this really?

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Federal judges don't usually like hypertechnical arguments. If the Judge thinks the application makes sense, and would have granted it if if it had been made in some format other than reply papers (such as, for example, a cross-motion), he can deem it to be a cross-motion. I.e. the Judge will more likely be guided by whether he feels it is fair for the university to have some discovery at this stage, than by the RIAA's formalistic defense.