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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
NOTE: This certainly does not mean I am defending the Bush administration...
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The President's advisors need to be able throw out seemingly inconceivable alternatives because every angle needs to be considered. Someone, somewhere, has writte
Hack reporters... (Score:2)
However, hack reporters != Congressional subpoenas.
I do want the President and his executive branch officials to be held accountable by Congress if they believe something was wrong.
Especially since those same people keep changing the story they tell Congress. I mean, if you don't have to tell the truth...what's the point?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe -- but my guess is that the Court would just say "Well, Congress, you have the power to hold people in contempt, so until you employ your remedy to the situation, you really have no business asking us to do anything." And I think they'd be just in that. If Congress has good reason to issue the subpoenas they recently approved, then issue those subpoenas. Let the White House refuse. And then start with the lowest-hanging apple, and find th
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Not indefinite (Score:2)
No, as I stated above, it means until you comply with the order OR until you can appeal. My understanding is that, except in extreme cases of contempt (see the NY Times reporter / Plame incident) people who have an arguably valid reason for their contempt can be ordered released by the appellate court pending the results of that appeal.
Of course, the majority of my legal expertise comes from Steve Martini, John Grisham, and the mass media, so I could very well be engaging in anal elocution.
Winner Take All (Score:2)
The Judicial branch interprets the laws and their application to actual human events. Their humans appointed for political reasons, so their is some, but not much consistency in their interpretations.
They don't enforce laws, they don't make laws so their powers are limited. There really is no need to _challenge_ the courts. Change the law the co
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 t
Re: (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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Administrative law is the most fleeting of all... it is ill-written, and often times unenforceable. It can be challenged in numerous ways, although it takes more time and resources, as you have to exhaust your administrative remedies before you can file in a "normal" court.
As for the executive taking over, I think there was an argument to be made when the Legislative and Executive branches were controlled by one party, but that era is done for now.
I think this issue is emblematic not of the Executive
AND....wait for it....wait for it..... (Score:2)
Which gives him even more control over Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
There are also House and Senate run investigations, such as the ones Joe McArthy and Oliver North each became infamous for. These don't typically result in findings of law (you've committed this crime) but findings of fact (you did something grossly unethical, morally reprehensible, nigh treasonous, or w
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we so often see a judge's orders ignored, challenged, appealed, ad nauseum?
Kinda reminds me of those lawyer units in civ that can tie up a city in meaningless bureaucratic nonsense or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Actually, that's done by U.S. Marshals [usmarshals.gov], the enforcement arm of the judicial branch, with about 3,000 deputy U.S. Marshals.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I hate the MAFFIAA as much as the next guy, but what they are doing here is perfectly normal.
OH MY! Its so big! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know how much they were trying to get, but if they spent more then they were after, then thats a problem.
Especially because it went so far. But I'm sure that they could sue other people to make the money, or even drop out of litigation and get a paper route. I'm sure that someones Mom might be able to cover the court costs, until they can pay her back.
Sweeeeeeeeeet!
Could someone explain? (Score:3, Interesting)
b) Why does the plaintiff care if the defendent finds out?
Re: (Score:2)
The defendant was allowed to get the legal costs.
I think (but not in the us..so) They both need to show the judge their legal costs.
Re:Could someone explain? (Score:5, Informative)
>
> 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: (Score:2)
Re:Could someone explain? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, RIAA refused to pay the bill presented to them stating it was too high. "Too high relative to what?" asked the judge. "Too high according to the fees we normally get" replied RIAA. Next the judge asked 'OK, if so what are your fees?"
RIAA: Doh!"
Re:Could someone explain? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Normally, yes. In this case, the RIAA challenged the defense lawyers' fees as unreasonable. So the court is trying to determine what is reasonable by comparing what the RIAA paid its lawyers to see if it is in the same ballpark.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the RIAA is disputing whether the defendant's legal fees are reasonable. So the defendant said "OK, let's see what you consider reasonable then.", and the judge said "Yes, let's.". The basic argument behind that is that if the plaintiff spent 500 hours on the case, then the defense claiming 550 hours on the case isn't unreasonable. Similarly, if the plaintiff's lawyers are billing $500/hour, a defense lawyer billing $550/hour isn't unreasonable. After all, if plaintiff really thought times and rates
You almost got the story right... (Score:2, Informative)
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: (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: (Score:2)
Even if RIAA is telling the truth their legal fees, how could that possibly be a valid reason not to pay Foster's legal fees? If its a law, it seems rather silly and easy to abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called "frivolous".
Re:Could someone explain? (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh. Please forgive the above lack of formatting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RIAA must pay Foster's legal fees.
Foster shows them the bill.
RIAA claims it's the legal fees are too high.
Judge says; "Sure RIAA, how much money do YOUR lawyers cost?".
RIAA thinks "If they find out our legal fees are a lot higher, our claim will be rejected".
In fact, it may get even worse for the RIAA if the judge thinks they knowingly lied in their claim that fees were too high.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Is a class-action lawsuit possible? (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, if they do win, RIAA will probably try to offer an in-kind compensation -- discounts for music downloads.
Man they've got balls (Score:5, Insightful)
The defendant should've just let the RIAA win. She didn't *have* to go to court, and hire a lawyer. And so, they shouldn't have to pay her fees. Even though the judge said they *did* have to pay her fees.
Unbelievable. If that isn't enough to get the Feds to start investigating the RIAA for RICO violations, I don't know what is. They really *are* trying to blackmail people.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IANAL... would a real lawyer care to comment?
Re: (Score:2)
Extortion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was
Re:Man they've got balls (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean that they will be disbarred and unable to practice law for flouting the orders of the judge?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
For the benefit of the uninitiated amongst us, including myself, would you please explain what a "Rule 11 sanction" is? Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
SCO/BSF has been doing it for years, no problem (Score:2)
The rules are not evenly applied.
It really depends on the judge. In the SCO v IBM case, BSF, has flouted many court orders without any punishment what so ever.
Hello Pot. Hello Kettle (Score:2)
Can't she claim more than the attorney's fees ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, she can. She'd have to file a countersuit. She did not, she is just seeking fees for the one suit. Let her win the fees on this one, then someone else, after this case sets fee precedent, can also file a countersuit. It is best, when faced with so many suits being filed, to tackle one and only one legal issue with each case. It's easier to focus on the single issue and win.
Re: (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)
One big fishing expedition (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
shoe on other foot (Score:2)
Isn't the meter still running? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, do they have an ace up their sleeve, like they know the judge is going to retire, or they're working on buying him off or have a hit on him? (Ok, I've watched too much television)
Ides of March (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Constant updates re: an ended court case (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Constant updates re: an ended court case (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Constant updates re: an ended court case (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Constant updates re: an ended court case (Score:5, Insightful)
Is about as exciting as watching Bobby Fischer put away his chess sets at the end of the day
I disagree... when RIAA litigation starts to show unexpected financial consequences is when it really begins to get interesting. The "seeing who wins" portion of most of these cases are nice and all, but in the end, the RIAA spends whatever their budget says they should spend on litigating, and the defendant goes broke. Maybe they settle and go broke that way, maybe they lose and have to pay the RIAA, maybe they win a Pyhrric victory but spent their life savings on legal bills. When all is said and done, the RIAA manages to send the message that once they come after you, you are in for financial ruin.
Where things get interesting is when they begin not to go according the the RIAA's plan. You get situations like the Santangelo case (the case is no longer furthering their interests, but they don't have the option to fold) and this one. There could be a lot more light shed on the financing of these RIAA witch hunts than they would like to see. They would much rather leave things at "We have enough money to drive you into bankruptcy if you cross us, that is all you need to know". They might not get to do that this time, which makes it more interesting to follow.
Re:Constant updates re: an ended court case (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Constant updates re: an ended court case (Score:5, Informative)
(Man. I've got to stop those Saturday nights out with the guys...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Constant updates re: an ended court case (Score:4, Informative)
This is why a lot of people don't even announce their hand, they let the dealer sort it out.
With Bobby, there's no schadenfreude (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:With Bobby, there's no schadenfreude (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.snopes.com/language/notthink/deserts.h
If not, try this one:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/just-deserts.h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You could sit corrected. It must be tiring to slashdot standing.
Oh. My. God. I feel stupid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slow news day? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slow news day? (Score:4, Insightful)
-why do you refer to the collection of litigation documents as a "link farm"? some people actually have the brains to want to read the documents so they can know first hand what is going on...
-the whole article and all of the links relate to the title
so all i can ask is: who do you work for?
Re: (Score:2)
Ever.