Judge Orders Record Company Execs To Duluth

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Lest there be any doubt that District Judge Michael J. Davis, presiding over the Duluth, Minnesota, case, Capitol Records v. Thomas, really does 'get it' about the toxic effect the RIAA, its lead henchman Matthew Oppenheim, and their lawyers have had on the judicial process, all such doubt should be removed by the order he just entered (PDF). It removes control of the decision-making process from the RIAA, Oppenheim, and the lawyers. In the order Judge Davis spells out, in the clearest possible terms so that there can be no misunderstanding, that at the extraordinary 2-day settlement conference he has scheduled for later this month, each record company plaintiff is ordered to produce an 'officer' of the corporation, or a 'managing agent' of the corporation, who has corporate, decision-making, 'power.' The judge makes it clear that no one who has 'settlement authority' with any limits or range attached to it will be acceptable. This means that 'RIAA hitman' Matthew Oppenheim will not be able to control the settlement process as he has been permitted by the Courts to do in the past."

Re:My heart leaped

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

My heart leaped when I first read that as "Judge Orders Record Company Execs To Death". I'm so disappointed.

I can assure you that if they do show up for this, they will not find it enjoyable.

Re:IANAL..

[Fallen Kell]

Not necessarily. It simply means that whomever represents the different companies must have full authority to agree to any settlement amount, from nothing to everything.

Re:If only...

[GuyverDH]

hmmm - after reading the order... it sounds like if they probably do NOT want to skip this in any way shape or form...

Re:IANAL..

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

It means they'll probably drop the case to avoid the trouble.

That would be the smart play, wouldn't it? But then again... they're not known for choosing the smart play, are they?

Re:Unfortunately I doubt it

[Maxo-Texas]

Nah...

The RIAA companies (SUE-W) will declare bankruptcy and we, the u.s. tax payers will give them several billion dollars..

Oh waiter... "Bitter, party of one!"

Re:My heart leaped

[kokoloko2k3]

I can assure *you* that if they _don't_ show up for this, they will not find it enjoyable either.

Re:Unfortunately I doubt it

[CoolCalmChris]

I don't read a lot of legal documents, but specifically points (3) and (4) sound an awful lot like a judge who's absolutely sick and tired of being jerked around.

I agree, but I also think number 5 is a pretty good indication of his state of mind...

(5) a reasoned analysis justifying their client's last stated settlement position as well as any additional information believed to be helpful to the process of reaching agreement.

Re:Right, but.. SFW?

[Jane Q. Public]

What's at stake is their own entire intimidation scheme... or a large part of it. They don't dare lose in court because the precedent would blow big holes in the way they go after people. If they think there is an appreciable danger of actually getting a judgment against them (other than a "confidential" settlement), they will probably drop the case like a hot potato. Because that way they will be free to try the same tactics again. But if the judgment went against them, that would set a precedent and likely they would have to either stop or make major changes to the ways they go about the whole thing. Changes that are not in their favor.

And the judge in this case is making it clear that he is tired of their games, and that he wants the principles involved (not just their hired guns) to come to the table and pony up, or go away. Three cheers for the judge.

I am not a lawyer, but that is my armchair analysis of the situation.

"A Delaware corporation"

[Kupfernigk]

Whenever I read that, in this case for Capitol Records, why do I just assume they will rely on dubious tactics?

The world would be a significantly better place if the US Government were to send out the cruise missiles to every building listed as a corporate HQ in Delaware, the Bahamas, the Turks and Caicos, Bermuda, Jersey, Guernsey, Monaco, Lichtenstein, Zug...when you start in business with an intention to defraud, the omens are not good.

Re:Unfortunately I doubt it

[sumdumass]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't capitol V Thomas already decided and this is just the settlement portion that was overturned on appeal?

If that is true, that would mean that all RIAA or the record labels would lose is the settlement. I doubt any class action suits would come about from it.

I agree that the judge is expecting to expose/determine exactly what's going on. The information gained will probably be ammunition for other cases which might make RIAA's future suits harder to get this far. Perhaps even opening a door to get some other judgments modified too.

Re:IAAL (I am a Lawyer)

[gknoy]

Sorry to hear that, Ray. You're one of the people demonstrating that lawyers can be awesome. IF you're not happy doing this, I hope you find something you do enjoy.

Re:Makes sense

[Atario]

Go figure.

Yeah, it makes me wonder what kind of figure was involved.

Re:Duluth != Minneapolis

[smchris]

Lucky Californian bastards. Minneapolis should be 10 degrees warmer than Duluth by March 30. Could break 50 here in the afternoon and they won't have the opportunity to savor the wind off Lake Superior.

Re:My heart leaped

[nabsltd]

In this case, they'll probably ignore the judge's requirements to send an "authority" and then say, "Well that sounds good, but I lack the power to agree or disagree," during the settlement meeting.

Based on the judge's order, I'd say that if that happens, expect to see some record company executives found in contempt of court.

In particular, since that person wouldn't have the authority, the judge would ask for the name of the person that directed them to come. Once Federal judges get actual names of people, it can get quite nasty if you don't do what they say.

I don't practice in Minn

[TexasLawyer]

I don't practice in Minn, but I have never seen an order like that from a Texas federal court. Some judges are very active in running settlement conferences, and it would not surprise me for them to want to be very certain that there was no waffling about people not having authority at the settlement conference. But, this order feels like one hacked off judge who is intent on seeing someone very, very senior with each party live and in front of him. In my experience, federal judges are quite capable of delivering world class butt-chewings when they decide you need it. I am happy to say I have only seen, and not been on the receiving end. The order makes perfect sense, if the judge is convinced that the Plaintiffs are jerking around individuals, by effectively threatening them with the sheer cost of the system. Sure looks like the the judge is making sure the Plaintiffs get a taste of their own medicine, by having to send someone with serious authority - in person - to attend the settlement conference.