NewYorkCountryLawyer's Journal: Marie Lindor Renews Motion for Summary Judgment vs. RIAA

Marie Lindor Renews Motion for Summary Judgment; Home Health Aide Who Never Used A Computer Seeks End to RIAA Litigation

In UMG v. Lindor, Marie Lindor, the Brooklyn home health aide who's never used a computer, has renewed her request for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her.

Ms. Lindor's lawyers first wrote to the Court asking for a summary judgment pre-motion conference on February 2, 2006. The Judge indicated that he wanted pretrial discovery to take place first. Since then Ms. Lindor has answered the RIAA's written discovery requests (interroagtories, document requests, and requests for admissions), attended her deposition, made the computer in her apartment available to the RIAA for a 'mirror imaging' exam, and made her son and daughter available -- without need of a subpoena -- to testify at their depositions.

Her lawyers argued:

"With all the discovery they've taken, plaintiffs are no closer to making any kind of case against Ms. Lindor than when they started this action. There is simply no evidence that she did anything that would subject her to any form of liability. Ms. Lindor has never even used, or even turned on, a computer, in her life. Plaintiffs are content to let the case go on indefinitely, to use it as a convenient platform for a never ending fishing expedition against potential third parties, but it would be unfair in the extreme to the defendant to allow this to continue, as it was unfair for plaintiffs to go this far. Plaintiffs should have conducted an appropriate investigation prior to commencing suit, and should conduct whatever further investigation they wish on their own time, but defendant should not have to support plaintiffs' investigation, when it has nothing to do with her. It is an abuse of the federal judicial system to allow a lawsuit against an individual who is clearly not the copyright infringer to be used as a convenient vehicle for investigating to find out who, if anyone, did violate plaintiffs' copyrights.

"No doubt plaintiffs will respond to this letter with a voluminous, albeit frivolous, letter of their own, representing to the Court that they have many good ideas for pursuing further leads against other possible individuals, one of whom who may have infringed some of plaintiffs' copyrights. But they will have nothing pointing to the defendant. There is simply no basis in the law to permit a lawsuit to be maintained against an innocent individual in order to give the plaintiffs a convenient platform for investigating to find some other individual who might be liable."