The parties in the record labels' case against Jammie Thomas-Rasset each filed their reply briefs in support of their post-trial motions on Friday.
Here's Thomas-Rasset's Reply in support of her Motion for a New Trial, Remittitur, and to Alter and Amend the Judgment. As Thomas-Rasset notes at the outset, there is little new in this brief, which seeks a reduction in the jury's award of $1.92 million for downloading and "sharing" 24 songs. Thomas-Rasset once again asks the court to apply the BMW v. Gore line of cases about punitive damages to reduce an award of copyright statutory damages -- an apparently unprecedented step . Here's the plaintiffs' opposition, and the government's brief in defense of the award.
And the record labels filed their Reply in support of their motion for a permanent injunction. The labels' brief focuses on rebutting Thomas-Rasset's argument that they are not entitled to an injunction under the standards announced by the Supreme Court in eBay v. MercExchange. "Contrary to Defendant’s contention, eBay did not even address much less alter the established law with respect to the presumption of irreparable harm in cases of proven copyright infringement," argue the plaintiffs, emphasizing that eBay was a patent case.
Judge Michael Davis has not announced when, or whether, he will hold oral argument on the post-trial motions, which are now fully briefed.