Redigi Preliminary Injunction Transcript

Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.

Language:

Download

Go BackAdd Note

Link

Embed

Save

1C26TCAPA1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT1 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK2 ------------------------------x23 CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC,34 Plaintiff,45 v. 12 CV 95 (RJS)56 REDIGI INC.,67 Defendant.78 ------------------------------x8 New York, N.Y.9 February 6, 20129 3:30 p.m.1010 Before:1111 HON. RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,1212 District Judge1313 APPEARANCES1414 COWAN, LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN15 Attorneys for Plaintiff15 BY: RICHARD MANDEL16 JONATHAN KING1617 RAY BECKERMAN, PC17 Attorneys for Defendant18 BY: RAY BECKERMAN18 M. TY ROGERS19202122232425SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.(212) 805-0300

2C26TCAPA1 (In open court, case called, appearances noted)2 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Rogers, good afternoon to3 you, and I should note that the docket sheet has you at4 Vandenberg & Feliu.5 MR. ROGERS: That was my former firm. I changed6 everything in the Southern District system. I'm surprised. I7 will look into that.8 THE COURT: Check into it. Maybe you didn't make a9 copy of it when they moved it over. That was a little10 copyright joke.11 Good afternoon. And I gather we have some others in12 the gallery interested in the subject or more than just a13 passing interest in the subject.14 We're here on I guess two potential motions. I have15 the motion of plaintiff's for a preliminary injunction. So I16 got the opening brief that was dated January 6 as well as --17 I'm sorry, the complaint is January 6, the answer is18 January 19, and I have the opening brief January 26, the19 reply -- excuse me, the response January 27, it's date of20 docketing, then the reply brief February 1st. I also have21 premotion letters related to defendant's contemplated motion22 for a summary judgment, so I have a January 19 letter from23 Mr. Rogers and a January 24 and letter in response by24 Mr. Mandel.25 So that's what I have got. I have got something fromSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.(212) 805-0300

3C26TCAPA1 counsel from Google that I have already dealt with, but nothing2 else from the parties. Right?3 MR. MANDEL: That's correct, your Honor.4 THE COURT: I find this to be a fascinating issue. We5 raised a lot of technical and statutory issues that make this6 kind of a niche case, as far as I'm concerned.7 So I have read the papers, and I read them carefully,8 but I'm happy to hear further argument, particularly since9 defendants have not had a chance to respond to the reply10 papers, which I guess fine tune some of the arguments that were11 made in the opening brief. I'm curious to have a little oral12 argument now.13 So it's plaintiff's motion, so we'll start with14 plaintiffs. And I think there's no dispute as to what the15 standard is here. I think we ought to start with irreparable16 harm, because it seems to me that this is the kind of thing17 that money should take care of.18 Mr. Mandel?19 MR. MANDEL: Your Honor, we don't think that money20 really will adequately address the injury here, and I think21 there obviously was a long history for many years where22 irreparable harm was presumed in copyright cases.23 Now obviously in Salinger the Second Circuit said that24 is no longer the case, reading the Supreme Court's opinion in25 Ebay. But at the same time, they were careful to point out asSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.(212) 805-0300