One of the most closely-watched copyright infringement lawsuits brought by the RIAA appears to be coming to a screeching halt, much to the music industry's delight. A judge ruled Monday that a defendant had willfully and intentionally destroyed evidence of his P2P activities after being notified of pending legal action by the RIAA. Furthermore, since it was done in bad faith, it "therefore warrants appropriate sanctions."

The order in Atlantic v. Howell was issued at the end of a pretrial conference held in an Arizona courtroom. Jeffery Howell, the defendant who represented himself throughout the case, was accused of copyright infringement for sharing music over the KaZaA P2P network. Howell denied the charges, saying that the music MediaSentry saw in his shared folder was for his own private use.

Howell won a major victory against the RIAA this past April, when a judge rejected the RIAA's cornerstone legal theory that simply making a file available on P2P network constituted copyright infringement. Judge Neil V. Wake denied the RIAA's motion for summary judgment, ruling that "a distribution must involve a 'sale or other transfer of ownership' or a 'rental, lease, or lending' of a copy of the work. The recording companies have not proved an actual distribution of 42 of the copyrighted sound recordings at issue, so their motion for summary judgement fails as to those recordings."

After that ruling, it appeared as though Atlantic v. Howell was headed for a bench trial this fall, but at the end of July, the record labels filed a motion seeking judgment in their favor due to what they characterized as Howell's attempts to cover his tracks. According to the RIAA's brief, Howell destroyed evidence on four separate occasions after first receiving the prelitigation settlement letter and later being served with the lawsuit. The RIAA's forensics experts found that Howell uninstalled KaZaA and deleted everything in the shared folder, reformatted his hard drive, downloaded and used a file-wiping program, and then nuked all the KaZaA logs on his PC. "Defendant's intentional spoliation of computer evidence significantly prejudices Plaintiffs because it puts the most relevant evidence of their claim permanently beyond their reach," argued the RIAA. "The deliberate destruction... by itself, compels the conclusion that such evidence supported Plaintiffs' case."

View: Original Article