Wednesday, March 14, 2007

RIAA Two (2) Days Late in Capitol v. Foster; Fails to Submit Opposition to Motion to Compel Them to Turn Over Billing Records On Time

In Capitol v. Foster the RIAA has missed the March 12th deadline for submitting its papers in opposition to Ms. Foster's motion to compel turnover of the RIAA's attorneys' billing records. Ms. Foster has submitted papers advising the judge of the RIAA's default, and requesting an order directing turnover of the documents:

Advisory Regarding RIAA's Default*

After receiving Ms. Foster's "reminder", the RIAA finally did submit opposition papers, two (2) days late.

Opposition to Motion to Compel Turnover of Billing Records*

It remains to be seen whether the Court will accept the late filing.

Ms. Foster is represented by Marilyn Barringer-Thomson of Oklahoma City.

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Keywords: digital copyright online download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs

15 comments:

Alter_Fritz said...

Miss Barringer-Thomson is not only correct when she notes: "Plaintiffs’ counsel are clearly monitoring the deadlines in this litigation. On March 13, 2007, Plaintiffs’ counsel left a voice message for defense counsel to determine whether she objects to Plaintiffs’ filing of a brief in reply to Defendant’s objections and response filed on March 12, 2007 to Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration." but it seems to me this highprofile RIAA laywers are doing this kind of stuff willfully! "RIAA-Richard" himself asked for more time in another case last week since he said he needed the remaining time till monday in this one here! http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/03/riaa-lawyer-needs-more-time-in.html

When did the judges start to see what these record label plaintiffs and their lawyers are, how they play with justice and handle them accordingly with the punishment posibilities your FRCP's offer for this bad officers of the court that work for RIAA?!

It looks to me, just because the Plaintiffs already have all that money from the public they can get away with nearly everything in front of those old man judges! It's IMO a shame for your courts whats going on for nearly 3 years now.

Scott said...

I think the estimable Marilyn D. Barringer-Thomson has about had it with the RIAA. She's using bold italics -- and it's the first time I've seen an exclamation point in anything she's filed.

I'm hoping that this will be the inflection point where the RIAA is finally spanked for the obvious way they've been gaming the courts. They have been given more than enough rope to hang themselves by now.

Sanji Himura said...

I think that the RIAA and Mr. Gabriel will not only fork over Ms. Foster the full costs for her attorney, but then some for this little stunt. I also think that Patti Santangelo could use this to not only to get the RIAA's dismisal motion denied, but to get her intitlement of non-infringement.

Why? Because I think that because Mr. Gabriel had asked for more time to file reply motions because of Foster(and Lindor by extention), she can prove that the plantiffs wanted an extention using bad faith pretenses.

I don't know if this could happen for real, but it is just me.

Alter_Fritz said...

LOL about the RIAA answer page 3 last paragraph and page 4 first paragraph

Hello you well known plaintiffs and you nice lawyers of them! With respect to "ripple effect" and precedent.
you might have overlooked, that the defendant ALREADY WON! She is the prevailing party! It goes at the moment only about the question HOW MUCH? you guys have to pay her.
Nothing of your tactics to delay the ruling "how much?" will change the facts.

If I were the judge here, after this argument from RIAA that their billing records are not relevant because of a claimed "ripple effect" would now say:

Fine RIAA, you argue your lawyer bills are irrelevant because of ripple effect and because of the precetential value for your members if we have this question in court even longer. I thing this too. I further think that $75.000 looks reasonable to me. you have 7 days to write the cheque. Question about reasonabless herewith resolved. Have a nice day!
Next case please.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm...

The gist of their argument against compulsory discovery of their billing records seems to be that they have spent an embarrassingly large amount of money prosecuting Capitol v. Foster.

I'm not sure what kind of twisted logic can argue to the court that their attempt to set precedent using the full force and funding of the RIAA has no bearing on how much it would cost to defend such a suit.

These opposition papers are appalling.

Ray Beckerman said...

They're desperate.

StephenH said...

If I were a judge I would turn down the late filing and make the RIAA attorneys have to accept her motion to compel. I agree with Ray Beckerman that the RIAA attorneys are desperate here, because this "not liable" verdict could cost them, and have to declare that this case is indeed a loss, and therfore it will cost them a lot of $$$. Additionally, it affects their whole campaign that the RIAA could have to accept a less than 100% guilty rate, and learn the lesson that innocent cases can be costly to them.

Ray Beckerman said...

Right now the RIAA is waging a war against the judge, trying to bait him into making a mistake.

So, rejecting their late-filed papers might not necessarily be the thing to do.

I'm confident that Judge West is experienced and wise, and knows what's the right thing to do. I'm content to sit back and watch the fur fly.

Ray Beckerman said...

And have a big laugh when it's all over.

Sanji Himura said...

Yeah, Ray, you're right, but I also think that it is a "stuck between a rock and a hard place" moment for Judge West. If he accepts the late filing, the plantiffs could say that the judge was irresponsible for accepting the filing, but if he doesn't, they could then say that he made a mistake.

ryan said...

Ray, I am curious as to the points the plaintiff brought up. Given their history of stating things as fact which are not, is there any truth to the points they raise? Or are the precedents from cases that are dissimilar in some particular way?

Anonymous said...

"Right now the RIAA is waging a war against the judge, trying to bait him into making a mistake."

Interesting. It hadn't occurred to me that the RIAA might deliberately file its opposition papers late, knowing they had a failing position and planning on appealing the rejection of their late papers.

The amount of gamesmanship is stunning.

I used to think that being a lawyer might be fun, now I'm beginning to think that constantly fighting this sort of thing could be very aggravating...

Ray Beckerman said...

1. ryan -- no there's no truth in what they are saying. As usual they're blowing smoke.

2. So we now know how it turned out. Judge West accepted the late papers. And actually read them quite carefully. And then granted the motion, carefully debunking each and every point plaintiffs were trying to make.

3. Judge West is one great judge. If all judges were like him, being a litigation lawyer wouldn't be aggravating at all.

Igor said...

It was probably the most clear opinion I've read. I think if he didn't accept it, it would have been one ground for appeal (maybe?).

Ray Beckerman said...

no, the judge has discretion to accept late papers or to reject them... an appeals court would not question that...