A Florida lawyer convinced a judge yesterday to quash several RIAA subpoenas directed against anonymous University of South Florida students. The subpoenas, which use the secretive ex parte discovery process, were shot down by the judge on narrow technical grounds that seem limited to this particular case. Still, attorney Michael Wasylik tells Ars that his victory still matters because it shows that RIAA attorneys "have to obey the rules" when they use the court system.

Until this point, Interscope v. Does 1-40 has proceeded much like other cases against college students across the country. RIAA lawyers move on an aggressive schedule in such cases; this case was filed in June, subpoenas were authorized in July, were sent out immediately, and were due back by mid-August.

Under ex parte discovery rules, the students aren't notified until after a subpoena has already been granted, giving them little time to contest the process. Unless they act quickly, the RIAA gets the identifying information it needs from the university in question, then usually dismisses the case and files individual suits against the students (whose identities it now knows). It's an aggressive strategy, and as Wasylik points out, is one built on speed and stealth.

In this case, the suit was filed after school had ended for the summer, and the subpoena information was requested before students returned. Once the university received the subpoenas in July, it did attempt to forward them to the students' summer addresses. Not all addresses were correct or up to date, though, and at least one student was traveling in Europe and could not be reached by his agitated parents, who received the letter.

The upshot: Wasylik represented only two of the 40 students in court, and the judge's decision to quash the subpoenas applies only to them. The other 38 defendants have already had their information released. These defendants might not even have known about the case until they arrived back at school to a nasty surprise.

Several similar motions to quash this form of subpoena have been filed in cases across the country, but this is the first to be decided. It's a "crack in the dam, a flaw in the armor," Wasylik tells Ars, but he fully expects the RIAA to fix the technical service errors and try again (the judge did not quash the subpoenas on material grounds, even though Wasylik made several such arguments). To him, though, it's encouraging to see that the RIAA can be beaten, that it does make mistakes. It also provides a roadmap for attorneys in similar cases to follow.

The RIAA wins default judgments in most of its cases after defendants never show up; many other defendants also settle rather than face court. Opposing them at key points in litigation, though, can be effective, in Wasylik's view. Not even the RIAA can afford to fully litigate the more than 20,000 suits it has filed to date. If enough defendants fight back, the group might need to change tactics, especially if it has to keep paying attorneys' fees.