For the past few years, the Recording Industry Association of America has battled file sharing by threatening those it suspects of illegally downloading music with lawsuits. Many potential defendants opt for expensive settlements with the RIAA, others decide to fight it out in court.

In the case of Sony BMG et al. v. Kim Arellanes, the RIAA is using another tactic: strenuously arguing (PDF) against the defendant's request that a neutral, third-party perform a forensic search of the defendant's hard drive to find evidence that she engaged in activities frowned upon by the music industry. Claiming a right to rely on an expert of their own choosing, Sony BMG says that Arellanes "should be ordered to produce her computer hard drive for inspection subject to Plaintiff's proposed protective order."

As one might expect, Arellanes isn't too keen (PDF) on the idea of sending her hard drive to an RIAA star chamber for examination. Citing the RIAA's numerous missteps in its ill-conceived crusade against music fans, she requests that the court require a "neutral computer forensics expert and a protocol protective of non-relevant and privileged information" be used to conduct the examination.

Recently, RIAA target Delina Tschirhart found herself in a mess of hot water when she disobeyed a judge's orders and used a secure file deletion utility to wipe potentially incriminating files off her hard drive. In this case, the RIAA obtained a mirrored copy of her hard drive, on which its forensics expert found the incriminating evidence. The result was a default judgment in the RIAA's favor.

That case aside, the RIAA's history doesn't inspire much confidence in its ability to objectively examine what could be a piece of crucial evidence. Remember, this is an organization that has tried to skirt due process by trying to force ISPs to hand over subscriber information (e.g., names associated with IP addresses). A late 2003 ruling put an end to the practice, requiring the RIAA to look to the courts to compel ISPs to turn over the information. The organization has also sued the deceased along with those who don't even own computers.

Neither plaintiffs or defendants are objective parties in a legal dispute. That's all the more reason to have third parties involved in examining the evidence. When one of the parties has a history of bullying witnesses into perjury and is seemingly incapable of admitting they were wrong and clearing the names of those they wrongfully accused, it becomes even more crucial.