Joel Tenenbaum has filed his pretrial materials: pretrial memorandum, witness list, exhibit list, and proposed jury instructions.
Defendant's Pretrial Materials in Sony v. Tenenbaum
A few things to note:
Of the five fact witnesses the defense intends to call, I believe he will actually be permitted to call only two: Tenenbaum and his mother Judith. Cary Sherman and Mitch Glazier of the RIAA are beyond the court's subpoena power, as Judge Gertner has already held. And she has also determined that ethnomusicologist Wayne Marshall (Nesson's son-in-law) may not testify as an expert (though there is a pending motion for reconsideration). Tenenbaum now lists him as a fact witness, but I have no idea what personal knowledge of the facts of this case he allegedly possesses.
Relatedly, Tenenbaum lists Harvard Business School professor Felix Oberholzer-Gee as an expert witness. Oberholzer-Gee has written about the economic effects of p2p, but he was not disclosed by the court-ordered deadline, which Tenenbaum candidly acknowledges. Judge Gertner wouldn't allow Tenenbaum to add Marshall late; I can't imagine her allowing the even more tardy disclosure of Oberholzer-Gee.
Lastly, Tenenbaum's proposed jury instructions ... are not really jury instructions. They're simply more unsupported argument and assertion, and his continued insistence that the plaintiffs have the burden of disproving fair use is flat wrong, under binding Supreme Court precedent. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569, 590 (1994) ("Since fair use is an affirmative defense, its proponent would have difficulty carrying the burden of demonstrating fair use without favorable evidence about relevant markets.").
And Tenenbaum's "instruction" that attempts to limit the labels to recovery to only five songs is beyond absurd. Tenenbaum's counsel Charles Nesson now says he "missed" that the labels informed him that they were pursuing 30 songs last October because this fact was "buried in a footnote." But the list of the 30 songs was included in full-page exhibits, which were repeatedly served on him. And the complaint that these disclosures were "unfiled and therefore not publicly reviewed" is silly. They were served on Nesson, so the significance of whether the public saw them is beyond me. He has no excuse for not reading them.