RIAA Balks At Complying With Document Order 166
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."
I don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
This is something I don't understand about the US judicial system, and maybe NYCL can help explain it. If a judge orders someone to do something, and they refuse, isn't it then the justice department's responsibility to enforce that judge's order? Why do we so often see a judge's orders ignored, challenged, appealed, ad nauseum?
As an example, I heard on NPR yesterday President Bush's counsel inform the reporter that, should the House vote to subpoena Rove et. al., the White House would be refusing that order. He flat out told them, "No, we will not comply with a judge's order." Now, I understand there is a stickler here with Executive Privilege, but this seems to me to be a growing trend. What happened to the good old days when a judge would give an order, a person would refuse, and they would be thrown in jail for contempt until a) they complied, or b) an appeals court overruled the judge? Am I just naive in my belief that the judicial system was supposed to, I don't know, be able to actually enforce their decisions?
Could someone explain? (Score:3, Interesting)
b) Why does the plaintiff care if the defendent finds out?
Re:Could someone explain? (Score:5, Interesting)
The defendent doesn't care, the judge does.
One of the arguments the RIAA is using to say they don't need to pay Foster's legal fees is that the cost of their legal team would have exceeded the amount Foster would have needed to pay them if the RIAA won. ( http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=cap
The judge is now saying "put up or shut up."
b) Why does the plaintiff care if the defendent finds out?
Two possible ideas I can come up with...(disclaimer, IANAL, so these may not even matter)
1, it's a disgustingly high amount which is now released into the public record, which could bode badly in future cases
2, it's a stall tactic, plain and simple.
Re:Could someone explain? (Score:5, Interesting)
As I understand it, the court ordered the RIAA to pay for the defendant's legal bills. The defendant presented the plaintiff and the court with a detailed invoice. Then the plaintiff complained that the bill was "unreasonable." The defendant then responded with a motion for the plaintiff's bill pretty much saying "if it's unreasonable, how much did you spend?" Basically if the RIAA never made the argument that the bills was unreasonable they wouldn't have to be forced to prove what is reasonable. The court granted the motion agreeing with the defendant and is only trying to determine what is a reasonable settlement. There is precedent that a party to a court case cannot spend as much as they want on a case and then complain about how much the other side spent when they lose and have to pay the legal bills.
Normally the plaintiff wouldn't care . . . if they didn't have something to hide. My best guess is that these suits en masse would show that their lawyers are not spending enough time on each case and just filing against people without really researching the details. In other words, they are abusing the system.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
If the committee doing the investigation wants, they can issue a subpoena on their own authority. If the the subpoena is ignored by the Presidential administration, the committee can go back to the entire House of Representatives to vote on whether to hold people in contempt of violating the subpoena.
At that point, they turn it over to the District Attorney of the District of Columbia to arrest the offenders and bring them to trial for disregarding a subpoena. That DA has the privilege of refusing to press the charges.
So, those who would be responsible for bringing the offenders to court, are directly employed by the offenders that should be brought to court. Pressing charges against your own boss is not the kind of thing most politically-appointed officials are wiling to do.
Now, as for the situation at hand. In a civil proceeding like the RIAA has been pushing, any party has the right to appeal or argue against a judge's orders. It's all based on whatever obscure precedents can be dug up to support your position. Whether or not the judge's order is overruled or rescinded is another matter entirely. Remember, this isn't the final outcome of the trial, merely one more movement of a pawn on the chessboard.
Re:Could someone explain? (Score:3, Interesting)
1, it's a disgustingly high amount which is now released into the public record, which could bode badly in future cases
2, it's a stall tactic, plain and simple.
Another party who is probably very concerned is the law firm involved. Law firms tend to be fairly secretive about what they bill, and how long it takes them to do things.
Re:Could someone explain? (Score:4, Interesting)
What difference does it make how much RIAA pays its own lawyers? Shouldn't the attourney fees be whatever the defense lawyers charged? Does that mean that as long as I can find a lawyer who works for free (or only gets paid a percentage of the settlement, etc) then I can file all the frivilous lawsuits I want without fear of being forced to pay for the defense attourney fees?
Re:Could someone explain? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
We have administrative agencies making new laws (CPSC, FCC, US Mint). The congress does whatever the president wants them to do. It's basically absolute authority.
Re:Can't she claim more than the attorney's fees ? (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Damages to the persons reputation and possible loss of income/opportunities/jobs/...
2) Damages because of loss of income or jobs (because the time she has to be in court, she can't work)
3) A little more difficult for a person, but certainly an argument in 1). The court however can decide to pull the BAR license for the lawyers if it's really obvious that they're suing just because they're a**holes or just want to take the courts time and consideration from other cases.
4) That's what lawyers do, but again as stated in number 3) that's more the court's call and also arguments for 1)
The problem is proving (and calculating) your losses and again, it's a lot of time for the litigation to go through. Just look at how long this case has been going on (2 years?) and she wasn't even remotely connected to any of the pirating cases.
Right... (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, as members of the Executive Branch, shouldn't they be, like, upholding the Constitution, and stuff? Why are they worried about their advice getting out? I would be PROUD to be an aide to the President, and I would tell everyone "Hey, yeah, that thing that he said? Yeah, that was my idea...."
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, some scholars http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/20/21583
And the really fun part is watching the White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow, trying to explain http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_displa y.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003560724 [mediainfo.com] why this was bad for the Clinton Administration, but OK for the Bush Regime.