A plaintiff in a copyright infringement suit must prove two elements: 1) ownership of the copyrights at issue; and 2) an infringement of one or more of the copyright owner's exclusive rights.
Usually ownership is a routine matter; the parties often stipulate to it. Well, not in the Jammie Thomas case. According to the labels, the defense informed the plaintiffs for the first time on June 1 that because the copies of copyright registrations for the 24 songs at issue were "true and correct" rather than "certified" copies from the Copyright Office, it planned to object to them under Federal Rule of Evidence 901. The labels moved to bar such objections on the grounds that they were untimely, and asked the court to take judicial notice of the available copies. Thomas opposed, arguing that she has a right to hold plaintiffs to their burden, and that she intends to challenge the recordings' status as works made for hire.
The court set a quick telephonic hearing for this morning, and, according to Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson, who is now assisting in Thomas' defense, has denied the motion. This will add some fireworks (and time) to the trial, but it's hard to see the labels being unable to actually prove that they own the copyrights at issue.
Pre-trial conference (where motions in limine will be heard) is set for Wednesday; trial gets under way in Minneapolis next Monday, June 15.
UPDATE: here's the order. Two points: 1) the court emphasizes that it "granted an entirely new trial on all issues"; and 2) "The Court makes no determination regarding whether, consistent with the Rules of Evidence and the Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff can prove ownership and registration through means other than certified Certificates of Copyright."