Arista Records v. Usenet.com
Arista Records LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 124 (2009). Decided in S.D.N.Y..
- COURT
- S.D.N.Y.
- DECIDED
- 2009
- CITATION
- 633 F. Supp. 2d 124
- OUTCOME
- Admitted
- STANDARD
- Daubert / Rule 702
- CITED BY
- 51 later opinions (CourtListener)
Applying the circuit's three-part Rule 702 test, the court held the plaintiffs had met their burden of showing that their expert's testimony — classifying infringing content by statistical sampling of files — was reliable and relevant, and admissible for the purposes of the motion before it.
Every entry in this docket was written from the opinion itself, and this is the copy that was read. If the opinion does not support what is written here, the entry is wrong — tell us and it will be corrected or removed rather than softened.
READ THE OPINIONArista Records v. Usenet.com, 633 F. Supp. 2d 124↗COURTLISTENER · FREE LAW PROJECT · OPENS IN THE SAME TAB
The court’s reasoning
The court set out Rule 702's reliability indicia — sufficient facts or data, reliable principles and methods, and reliable application of those methods to the facts — and asked in sequence whether the witness was qualified, whether the opinion rested on reliable data and methodology, and whether it would assist the trier of fact. It weighed the sampling approach against comparable sampling accepted in earlier file-sharing litigation. The proponent bears the burden of satisfying Rule 702 by a preponderance.
From the opinion
“Plaintiffs have met their burden to prove that Dr. Waterman's testimony is reliable and relevant”
Grounds argued
This ruling turned on 2 of the eight arguments that recur across the docket. Each is defined the same way on every entry, so the same ground can be followed across rulings that reached opposite results.
- Methodology
- Whether the steps the examiner took are a recognised way of answering the question asked, and whether they were followed as described. Most digital-forensics rulings turn on this rather than on anything the field would call science.
- Fit to the issue
- Whether the opinion helps decide a fact actually in issue. Testimony can be entirely reliable and still be excluded because it answers a question the case does not ask.
Practice note
Terms used on this page
Every term below is defined in the forensic glossary — what it is, why a case turns on it, and what happens in the matter when it is mishandled.
Rulings on the same grounds
One ruling is not a rule. These are the other entries in the docket argued on the same grounds, most-cited first — including the ones that came out the other way, which are the ones worth reading before relying on this entry for anything.
ON METHODOLOGY
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ADMITTED
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael 526 U.S. 137 (1999) EXCLUDED
- General Electric Co. v. Joiner 522 U.S. 136 (1997) EXCLUDED
- Wellogix v. Accenture 716 F.3d 867 (2013) ADMITTED
ON FIT TO THE ISSUE
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ADMITTED
- Wellogix v. Accenture 716 F.3d 867 (2013) ADMITTED
- ClearOne Communications v. Biamp Systems 653 F.3d 1163 (2011) ADMITTED
- United States v. Noel 581 F.3d 490 (2009) EXCLUDED
If an opinion in your case has to survive the argument this ruling turned on — or you need one tested before it is served — Law & Forensics retains court-tested digital forensic expert witnesses and forensic neutrals.
A conflicts check and scoping call follow, normally within one business day. Please do not send privileged or case-sensitive material until conflicts have cleared.
- The Daubert Docket
All 55 rulings, filterable by ground, outcome and court, with the distribution across the three outcomes reported up front.
- Daubert and digital evidence
The argument this docket is the evidence for: why an opinion stated one level too strongly is an admissibility problem under Rule 702(d).
- Daubert Exposure Check
Twelve questions about an expert's methodology, mapped to the failure modes these rulings keep finding, with the remediation for each gap.
- Daubert or Frye?
Which reliability test your forum applies — settle that before relying on a ruling from another jurisdiction.
Attorney advertising / expert services. Each entry summarises a decision as it appeared in the opinion linked from that entry, on the day the entry was written. Decisions are reversed, vacated, superseded, and distinguished, and the text of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was itself amended effective 1 December 2023 — check the current status and subsequent history of any ruling before relying on it. Nothing here is legal advice, none of it is a prediction about how any court will rule, and it is not a substitute for the rules, standing orders and case law of your own forum.