Labels respond to Tenenbaum's motion re use of web in courtroom; complain of lack of notice of specifics

On Tuesday, Joel Tenenbaum filed a Motion in Limine re: Access to Internet during trial, asking for an"order permitting the parties to access the Internet, through whatever means the Court may have available, such that witnesses may demonstrate the Internet related activities at issue in this case." Specifically, Tenenbaum said he wants web access in order to show "how ... programs, such as Kazaa and Limewire, actually work; and how alternatives to p2p networks, such as iTunes, work."

Today the labels responded. They say they are "in favor of all counsel having access to the Internet in the courtroom." However, they complain that they were never given notice of what specific web sites Tenenbaum intends to show or demonstrate:

Defendant has never disclosed to Plaintiffs any urls or computer programs that he intends to show to the jury, as he was required to do under Rule 26(a)(1). Not only was there no disclosure during the course of discovery, but there has been no disclosure in the exchange of pre-trial materials or in the motion that was just filed. Nor has Defendant disclosed how these websites and/or programs would be displayed, who would testify about them or how they are relevant to the case.... [W]hile Plaintiffs might agree to accede to Defendant’s request, they cannot do so without adequate disclosure. For these reasons, Plaintiffs oppose Defendant’s motion.

My guess is that Judge Gertner will permit use of the web in the courtroom, but will make Tenenbaum disclose in advance of trial exactly what he intends to show.
Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion Re Courtroom Web Use