Slashdot Log In
RIAA Has to Disclose Attorneys Fees In Foster Case
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Mar 15, 2007 04:56 PM
from the it-feels-good-to-come-clean dept.
from the it-feels-good-to-come-clean dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has been ordered to turn over its attorneys' billing records by March 26, 2007, in Capitol v. Foster in Oklahoma. The 4- page decision and order, issued in connection with the determination of the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's attorneys fees, requires the RIAA to produce the attorneys' time sheets, billing statements, billing records, and costs and expense records. The Court reviewed authorities holding that an opponent's attorneys fees are a relevant factor in determining the reasonableness of attorneys fees, quoting a United States Supreme Court case which held that 'a party cannot litigate tenaciously and then be heard to complain about the time necessarily spent by his opponent in response' (footnote 11 to City of Riverside v. Rivera)."
Related Stories
[+]
Does the RIAA Fear Counterclaims? 245 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes, "The RIAA seems to have a fear of counterclaims. In Elektra v. Schwartz, a case against a woman with Multiple Sclerosis, the RIAA is protesting on technical grounds Ms. Schwartz's inclusion of a counterclaim against them for attorneys fees. This counterclaim includes as an exhibit the ACLU, EFF, Public Citizen brief in Capitol v. Foster, which decried the RIAA's tactics as a 'driftnet.' In prior email correspondence between the lawyers Ms. Schwartz's attorney had offered to withdraw the counterclaim if the RIAA's lawyer could show him legal authority that its assertion was impermissible, saying 'I wouldn't want to get into motion practice over a mere formality.' The RIAA lawyer's response was 'I will let you know.'"
[+]
RIAA Mischaracterizes Letter Received From AOL 287 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Elektra v. Schwartz, an RIAA case against a Queens woman with Multiple Sclerosis who indicates that she had never even heard of file sharing until the RIAA came knocking on her door, the judge held that Ms. Schwartz's summary judgment request for dismissal was premature because the RIAA said it had a letter from AOL 'confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.' When her lawyers got a copy of the actual AOL letter they saw that it had no such statement in it, and asked the judge to reconsider."
[+]
RIAA's 'Expert' Witness Testimony Now Online 512 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The online community now has an opportunity to see the fruits of its labor. Back in December, the Slashdot ('What Questions Would You Ask an RIAA Expert?') and Groklaw ('Another Lawyer Would Like to Pick Your Brain, Please') communities were asked for their input on possible questions to pose to the RIAA's 'expert'. Dr. Doug Jacobson of Iowa State University, was scheduled to be deposed in February in UMG v. Lindor, for the first time in any RIAA case. Ms. Lindor's lawyers were flooded with about 1400 responses. The deposition of Dr. Jacobson went forward on February 23, 2007, and the transcript is now available online (pdf) (ascii). Ray Beckerman, one of Ms. Lindor's attorneys, had this comment: 'We are deeply grateful to the community for reviewing our request, for giving us thoughts and ideas, and for reviewing other readers' responses. Now I ask the tech community to review this all-important transcript, and bear witness to the shoddy investigation and junk science upon which the RIAA has based its litigation war against the people. The computer scientists among you will be astounded that the RIAA has been permitted to burden our court system with cases based upon such arrant and careless nonsense.'"
[+]
RIAA Balks At Complying With Document Order 166 comments
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."
[+]
Judge Says RIAA "Disingenuous," Decision Stands 195 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, has rejected the arguments made by the RIAA in support of its 'reconsideration' motion in Capitol v. Foster as 'disingenuous' and 'not true,' and accused the RIAA of 'questionable motives.' The decision (PDF) reaffirmed Judge West's earlier decision that defendant Debbie Foster is entitled to be reimbursed for her attorneys fees." Read more for NewYorkCountryLawyer's summary of the smackdown.
[+]
RIAA Drops Tanya Andersen Case 164 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "After 2 years, the RIAA has finally dropped its longstanding case against disabled single mother Tanya Andersen in Oregon, Atlantic v. Andersen. The dismissal (pdf) relates merely to the RIAA's claims against Ms. Andersen, and does not relate to her (a) claim for attorneys fees or (b) counterclaims against the RIAA, which are presently before the Court on a motion to dismiss. The counterclaims were first interposed in December 2005. This is the same case in which the RIAA insisted on taking a face to face deposition of a 10 year old girl. Prior to the case, neither the mother nor the child had ever even heard of file sharing."
[+]
RIAA Directed To Pay $68K In Attorneys Fees 192 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Capitol v. Foster, in Oklahoma, the RIAA has been directed to pay the defendant $68,685.23 in attorneys fees. This is the first instance of which I am aware of the RIAA being ordered to pay the defendant attorneys fees. The judge in this case has criticized the RIAA's lawyers' motives as 'questionable,' and their legal theories as 'marginal' (PDF). Although the judge had previously ordered the RIAA to turn over its own attorneys billing records, today's decision (PDF) made no mention of the amount that the RIAA had spent on its own lawyers."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
So? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
-Rick
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He may decide "aww gee you guys sure spent a lot fighting this, you must have had a strong good faith belief in your claims, therefore Ms Foster isn't entitled to t
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even your analogy misses the point. You can't fumble the throw. The next step can be one of only a few things, an incomplete pass (and we even know where the next play will be from if that happens), a completed pass (with the run or fumble or whatever after), or an interception. It can't be a running play. It can't be a fumble (except after the pass is complete, which is some future step not covered here).
This case has decided that there will be lawyer fees decided for the defendant. The plaintiff claimed the lawyers fees are too high. The judge said "oh, if they are so high, tell me what you spent so I can get an idea of what you think is fair for a side in this case." This presumes several things. First, the intention is to still award fees to the defendant, as originally stated. The claim of the fees being too high is being considered. If the fees the defendant claimed are in line with the actual expenses of the plaintiff, the award will stand. If they are not in line with the plaintiff, the defendant will have to defend the high charges.
As I see it, it is a win. We expect that the plaintiff's fees are high. That means that anything close to the legal fees can be named in the countersuit by all future defendants.
Re:So? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
Chalk one big one up for the good guys.
If this was trivial you wouldn't have seen ACLU, Public Citizen, Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Association of Law Libraries, and ACLU Foundation of Oklahoma come in with an amicus curiae brief explaining the importance of the attorneys fee award here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I believe it's perfectly legitimate to make a loss pursuing legal action.
One case in the UK a couple of years back, an actor sued a media organisation for libel. He claimed and was awarded 1p damages.
Legal fees on both sides were a little more.
The win in c
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
This action by the RIAA is about precedent. They've almost certainly paid far, far more in legal fees than they stood to gain. The defendant would have been liable for such costs and the RIAA would have pursued them aggressively. They lost and they're trying to weasel out of paying costs, not because they care about the money (it's a drop in the ocean to them): it's purely punitive for them. Any expense and hassle they can cause will discourage people from exercising their rights to defend themselves. They don't care about losing a million or two on this case as long as it doesn't affect their other cases.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What it's about is:
-the judge said the RIAA has to reimburse Ms. Foster for her reasonable attorneys fees
-the RIAA said it wanted to challenge the 'reasonableness' of the fees Ms. Foster's lawyer charged
-the judge says
Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So? (Score:4, Funny)
Witty. Yet you forget that this is slashdot... you should've used a car analogy instead of a sports analogy. Woulda got more +1 insightfuls that way. :)
Re:So? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Before the law changes there has to be widespread knowledge and outrage.
so my question (Score:5, Funny)
So my first question is, do they get a volume discount?
Re:so my question (Score:4, Funny)
yup.
it goes up to eleven.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
PURjury? (Score:3, Funny)
Is purjury like when your guilt is decided by a swarm of cats?
Re:PURjury? (Score:4, Funny)
Transparency necessary for Credibility (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Transparency necessary for Credibility (Score:4, Insightful)
-Rick
Confidentiality Question (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Confidentiality Question (Score:5, Informative)
Hope (Score:4, Interesting)
Now if you could only get a hold of the procedures Media Sentry is trying so desperately to keep secret.
Could be horrible PR for the RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, worse than they already look I guess. The public already sees these as David vs Goliath lawsuits. But now we'll be able to put a number on how big and bad Goliath really is.
Re:Could be horrible PR for the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Question for the lawyers... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Question for the lawyers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(Also, what is your field?)
Re:Question for the lawyers... (Score:4, Interesting)
I suppose there's a small window of "about right" where the fees match the defense within about 10-15%, but that chance is pretty small, imho, without suspecting that they cooked the books. Actually, to most consumers, the fees will always be mind boggling. It's amazing how fast the legal fees on the simplest of cases can just destroy either/both sides. I happen to be a structural engineer, and if there is a dispute less than about $20k, it's usually not even worth filing. I'm not privy to all of the costs, but hours add up quickly, and lawyer hours are darned expensive. I'm usually the cheapest guy in the room, and it still costs a grand, minimum, if I'm going to be deposed, double that if I end up in the courtroom, too, and more than double again even if there's a simple onsite observation. Remember - these folks are usually fighting over $50k-$500k structures, and my fees alone could run 5-10% of the dollars in play on a small job. And, again, I'm the cheap one.
Re:Question for the lawyers... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, they are rational actors if they spend up to $4,000, and no more, to bring each complaint. But nobody wins all the time. If they expect to win, say 3 cases out of 4, then they can rationally drop only up to $3,000 per case, but no more.
The problem is, you can't get much lawyerin', research or expert assistance for $4,000... even less for $3,000.
So if they're spending a rational amount, then they aren't proceeding to court with very good data (a single, simple letter from an ordinary neighborhood attorney can cost $200 to $400).
And if they're spending lots more than $4,000, that's bad too. Nobody with clean hands and honest motives spends $40,000 to recover $4,000.
Civil courts can't do much more than award cash to fix boo-boo's. Considering that, the settlement amounts, and the cost of attorney-time, there's a strong suggestion that the RIAA has some unspoken motive and is simply using the court to advance it. That sort of thing doesn't look good at all, and IMO tends to catch the attention and ire of courts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One can only hope for this outcome.. (Score:5, Interesting)
X sues Y for Z$
X wins, gets Z$
Y wins, gets Z$ from X + the greater of Attorney Fees(X, Y)
Currently there is no incentive NOT to sue. You sue, you lose, more often than not, you are only out Attorney Fees.
Further, I would remove plaintiffs from collecting "Punitive Damages" as those should go to the State or into a fund to compensate victims of similar crimes/losses, where there is no Plaintiff to be found.
As the current system is empowered, most people view lawsuits like a rigged lottery.
Re:One can only hope for this outcome.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is judicial craziness (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is judicial craziness (Score:4, Funny)
The first rule of lawyer fees is you don't talk about lawyer fees.
Re:This is judicial craziness (Score:5, Informative)
The judge is now saying "put up or shut up."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is judicial craziness (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is judicial craziness (Score:5, Informative)
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I have NO involvement in this case whatsoever.
Re:This is judicial craziness (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
These records are clearly covered by attorney-client confidentiality and this order is going to get slapped down on appeal faster than you can say denied (IAAL).
Yet again, this is proof that when someone says clearly, they're trying to snow you. Here [law.com]'s
Re:This is judicial craziness (Score:5, Informative)
1. Whenever someone starts out "I'm no fan of RIAA, but......" that's a dead giveaway.
2. Any one with any legal knowledge knows that (a) attorneys' bills, statements, time records, and expense records are NOT privileged (b) the order is not an appealable order and (c) if it were appealable there is no basis for reversing it.
3. What rights and privileges is he/she/it talking about that were denied? The RIAA was a year in default in responding to the discovery notices. After the motion was made, it submitted its papers 2 days late, the judge accepted them anyway and read them carefully, and knocked down each frivolous argument the RIAA was making.
4. Ignore this troll.
Re:hmm (Score:4, Interesting)