RIAA Balks At Complying With Document Order

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "When the RIAA was ordered to turn over its attorneys' billing records to the defendant's lawyer in Capitol v. Foster, there was speculation that they would never comply with the order. As it turns out they have indeed balked at compliance, saying that they are preparing a motion for a protective order seeking confidentiality (something they could have asked for, but didn't, in their opposition papers to the initial motion). Having none of that, Ms. Foster's lawyer has now made a motion to compel their compliance with the Court's March 15th order."

Re:Could someone explain?

[Donniedarkness]

The court has ordered the RIAA to pay the defendant's attourney fees in this case. They want the RIAA's documents so that they can determine what "reasonable attourney fees" are.

Re:I don't get it

[tgatliff]

The Bush issue is different. It is an Executive Branch versus the Congressional Branch issue. The Bush administrations , executive branch, is arguing that allowing the congressional branch to have access to the internal workings of the executive branch would undermine its "separations of powers". In the end, the Judiciary branch will decide if this is the case or not. In short, it will go to the US Supreme Court to decide... Keep in mind that no one branch has final say on anything. Each has their own special rights to balance the other... Read of the Separation of Powers to learn more...

NOTE: This certainly does not mean I am defending the Bush administration... :-)

Re:I don't get it

[Nimey]

A famous example of a court's order going unenforced is the US Supreme Court case Worcester v. Georgia [wikipedia.org].

Is a class-action lawsuit possible?

[G4from128k]

IANAL, but I wonder when the class of people harassed by RIAA will grow so large as to constitute a class for suing the organization. If RIAA is indeed making extortionate use of barratry, then falsely-accused consumers would seem to have just cause for legal action.

Of course, if they do win, RIAA will probably try to offer an in-kind compensation -- discounts for music downloads.

Re:Could someone explain?

[Skye16]

a) Because the plaintiff complained that the defendant's billing hours weren't reasonable. Apparently when you are suing for attorney's fees, if the other side claims they are not reasonable, it is apparently allowable to take the defendent's billing hours and hold them up against the plaintiff's billing hours to see if they are reasonable. If the plaintiff spent 3 hours on a case, but the defendent spent 3000, then that would probably be considered "unreasonable". But if the plaintiff spent 3000 hours and the defendent 4000, it would probably be considered reasonable. Basically, the RIAA lawyers sued a lady and was rejected (or whatever) with prejudice. She then sued them for attorney's fees (since it was thrown out with prejudice, this is allowable). The RIAA then claimed the attorney's fees were unreasonable. It is apparently common practice for the courts to judge the reasonableness of a defense by the amount of hours the (former)plaintiffs had put in, so the judge ordered the billing records turned over. b) Because either the plaintiff DID spend 3 hours on the case, making it look like they weren't doing due diligence, or they spent 3000, which makes them look crazy (and not like a fox). So they probably don't want this getting out - and it will, becoming part of the public record. Which means their anti-RIAA foes will have a field day with their spending on these law suits. - - - - - Keep in mind, most of this I gathered from *seemingly* respectible slashdot posts. On the one hand, it could all be right. On the other, it could all just sound right, but be horribly, horribly wrong. So take it with a grain of salt. Or an entire salt shaker.

Re:I don't get it

[coolmoose25]

The conflict stems from the fact that the Judicial branch doesn't have the ability to enforce the judgement - they have to rely on the Executive for that... for instance, "just throw them in jail" doesn't necessarily work, since the jail and the jailors are part of the Executive branch. If the Executive branch chooses not to enforce the law, they can be held in contempt - the President can be impeached, etc. But at the end of the day, even though both the Legislative and Judicial branches have the power to impose a sentence (ex. Contempt), they are powerless to enforce.

The reason that this is usually not an issue is that the Executive branch knows that flouting the rulings of the Judicial branch will get them in hot water - the Legislative can impeach, try, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the impeachment trial. On a smaller scale, the Legislative can hamper the Executive by cutting off funding for his branch, etc.

The checks and balances usually work out in the end. So far, no one branch of the government has been able to completely take over the others - and its worked for over 200 years.

Re:Confidentiality?

[cez]

Agreed. This reminds me of similar circumstance (well ok similar in that money was invovled and disclosing it). I read an article yesterday wherein Pharmaceutical companies in some states had been required by law to make publically available the figures and amounts given to doctors who prescribe their drugs...wherein as compliance, listed 0 dollars and classified the rest under "trade secrets". Complete BS if you as me. Shouldn't the SEC have a say here as investors I am sure would certainly like to know how much is fumbled away for these lost causes(well in the case of attorney's fees)?

Re:I don't get it

[Aladrin]

I sense someone with an axe to grind.

If everyone challenged EVERYTHING the judges said, as you are suggesting, the judges' rulings would have absolutely no meaning. So when a judge rules someone in contempt of court, they could just say 'I challenge that' and when that judge, or another, says 'denied', they just say 'I challenge that' forever.

No, our system has plenty of checks and balances in place already. You always have the option of challenging a judge's ruling, of course, assuming that the judge in question is not a Supreme Court judge. Having the option does not mean you should use it.

Re:Umm...

[mwvdlee]

Because they're filing a motion, which they are legally allowed to do?
I hate the MAFFIAA as much as the next guy, but what they are doing here is perfectly normal.

Re:Could someone explain?

[eam]

> The Plaintiff(the riaa), was found to have no case.
>
> The defendant was allowed to get the legal costs.

The defendant asked to get legal costs, but the plaintiff said the defendent's costs were unreasonable. The judge ordered the plaintiff to reveal *their* legal costs to see what the plaintiff considers reasonable.

Then the plaintiff replied with, "Um,...what?"

Re:Man they've got balls

[locokamil]

From what I can tell, sadly, RICO only applies when you've committed two or more "racketeering" crimes... in this case, it's just extortion. But if the RIAA and its ilk were to diversify into, say, the protection business while keeping their core competencies (extortion), an enterprising plaintiff could cite RICO.

IANAL... would a real lawyer care to comment?

One big fishing expedition

[Volante3192]

Oy, the words are English, but the way they're put together hurts my head... but after going through the RIAA's responce ( http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=capi tol_foster_070314Oppos [ilrweb.com] ) noticed something interesting on page 5...

Plaintiffs' current counsel invoice Plaintiffs in accordance with alternative billing arrangements that they have negotiated with Plaintiffs. As such, Plaintiffs' counsels' invoices do not provide any information about the hours spent on any cases. Though counsel track their time for individual cases, that tracking is not part of the invoices.

Sounds to me like this is being funded as a giant fishing expedition. I gather all RIAA's counsel has to do is say "We spent X man-hours today on Y cases." Doesn't matter how many cases or how many hours, just that there's X and Y. Based on what the RIAA is claiming, they don't even have any way of actually verifying their counsel's hours or case volume is accurate even since they're not getting itemized receipts.

I'd figure with all the money problems the RIAA has, they'd want accurate records that someone can be held accountable to. This is like just throwing money to the four winds.

You almost got the story right...

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is that the RIAA objected to the defendant's costs, and said they were excessive. There is a court precedence that if the plaintiff spent oodles for their lawyers, then the defense is entitled to have spent a similar amount. The defendant now what to know how much the RIAA spent. The only reason this came about is because the RIAA didn't pay and instead said the defendant's costs were outrageous. Frankly, it looks like the RIAA was out-lawyered.

Re:Constant updates re: an ended court case

[HermMunster]

The artists pays for everything, including pens, pencils, paper, toner cartridges, phones, then all the marketing, and on and on. The record companies only loose if the artist make no money and can't pay for those things in which case they sue the artist to recoup those costs. You can eliminate everything except the lawyer costs involved directly in suing their customers.

Re:Could someone explain?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

It should be what Ms. Foster paid her lawyer.

But the lawyers for the RIAA are complaining that the amount of the fees is unreasonable. If they're going to make such a complaint, then their own fees become relevant.

If the RIAA spent $100k on the case, they can't complain that Ms. Foster's attorneys' $55k in fees -- fighting them off -- was unreasonable.

If they stipulated to the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's fees [which were, in my opinion, eminently reasonable, if not 'dirt cheap'], then this issue would go away.

Re:I don't get it

[hypnagogue]

The U.S. Marshals are under the D.O.J, and are therefore executive branch.

Re:With Bobby, there's no schadenfreude

[jfengel]

Will snopes.com suffice?

http://www.snopes.com/language/notthink/deserts.ht m [snopes.com]

If not, try this one:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/just-deserts.ht ml [phrases.org.uk]

Re:Constant updates re: an ended court case

[MMC Monster]

Isn't a high 6 good? That means your other 4 cards are 2-3-4-5. Means you have a straight. :-)

(Man. I've got to stop those Saturday nights out with the guys...

Re:Man they've got balls

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I don't know about that but they could wind up with a Rule 11 sanction, and that is a major consequence for a litigation lawyer.

Re:Constant updates re: an ended court case

[Red Flayer]

Not really. At a casino table, you cards are what you call them... so if you have a straight to the six, but call "six high" when you reveal your cards, then 6 high is all you have. You lose to any other hand in poker.

This is why a lot of people don't even announce their hand, they let the dealer sort it out.