Friday, January 09, 2009

RIAA submits statement of attorneys fees in Atlantic Recording v. Raleigh seeking $3853.80

In response to the Judge's ruling that the defendant should have to pay plaintiffs' attorneys fees in connection with a previous discovery dispute, in Atlantic Recording v. Raleigh, the RIAA has submitted a "statement of expenses" seeking $3,853.80.


-of the 15.45 hours claimed, only 2.0 hours, all put in on one day, were put in by local counsel; the other 13.45 hours were put in by a first year associate from Holme Roberts & Owen, in Denver, Colorado;

-the hourly rate for the first year associate was $235; and

-the hourly rate for the fifth year associate employed by local counsel was $346.28.

Plaintiffs' statement of expenses
Shane Cross declaration
John Ryan declaration

Keywords: lawyer digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property portable music player


Anonymous said...

It's just gotten to the point where we see how these losers operate. This is almost a travesty in and of itself.

A) The defendant can't pay their extortion money.
B) she didn't do it.
C) Or their whole scheme is on very shaky ground as evidenced by Judge Atherton.

I'm betting on C. If she is willing to drag this out until other judges start to go the same way that Judge Atherton went, she might have a chance at getting these paRIAAh's off her back.

I just wish the defendant the best of luck in going forward.

Anonymous said...

Shawn Cross was the father of the now famous 1919 New York Attorney Generals opponion concerning MediaSentry's investigations.

Anonymous said...

Do we see here another way to screw more out of the defendant than is justified?

%235 per hour for a 1st year associate seems a bit much. $185 would be more reasonable for a c$650 reduction, but that's only 2 to 3 hours of lawyer's time and it would probably take longer than that to file a motion etc. to contest the original amount.


Anonymous said...

Yeah, I agree with Chrisp. It seems like they are playing the money game again here with the defendant.

If the RIAA goes after an amount that would make contesting the motion more expensive than just paying up, then the defendant might just pay us.

Same old story from these RIAA losers. Squeeze every penny, legally and illegally, from our "customers" for our "product".