RIAA Has to Disclose Attorneys Fees In Foster Case

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)."

So?

[stratjakt]

Why should I care about some minor maneuver in the legal end-game of a case that's been already decided?

Re:So?

[RingDev]

This is another win for little guys trying to defend themselves. Foster wanted the RIAA to pay her legal fees, they bulked trying to claim that her lawyer inflated his fees. The Judge basically called them to the mat and said that if they are spending [large sums of money] persecuting Foster, then she is entitled to have her expensive lawyer's fees paid. Inversely, if the RIAA was paying a first year law grad to handle the case all on their own, and Foster had hired a $2500/hr dream team, the Judge would likely come down in the opposite way.

-Rick

Re:

[stratjakt]

This isn't a win, this isn't an anything. Wait until we see what the judge actually awards.

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 that much".

He may decide "you guys are assholes and I dont like you wasting my time, so bend over, here comes da gavel".

This news by itself means nothing. It's like a sports announcer announcing "and Manning throws the ball... " and then going to commercia

Re:So?

[AK Marc]

The throw is meaningless, we need to know if it's caught, fumbled, intercepted, or what.

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?

[Viceroy Potatohead]

Even your analogy misses the point. You can't fumble the throw.

This is /. Most people can't fumble a throw, but we can. To paraphrase Sartre: "Sports is other people."

Re:

[ArsenneLupin]

This is /. Most people can't fumble a throw, but we can. To paraphrase Sartre: "Sports is other people."

Most people here on Slashdot don't even try (won't even play).

Sports Analogies?

[Anonymous Coward]

... and I thought car analogies were bad.

Re:

[Fordiman]

Meh. The problem is that Slashdotters by and large don't get football analogies, for the obvious reasons.

It doesn't help that it's not really applicable. This is closer to a bounds check (programming) than an instantiated pass (football).

Re:So?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

They never saw it as trivial. They just never expected to lose on it. They are seeing this as very very major. They brought in their top lawyer to try to stop the bleeding, but from what I can see he's just taken the situation from bad to worse.

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:

[Quantam]

So, now I'm wondering: if it's found that the amount they were suing for exceeded their own lawyer fees, would that pose a legal problem for future law suits? In other words, is it legal to bring law suits when you know that the suit will be a net loss for you even if you win?

Re:

[Quantam]

Whoops. "if it's found that their own lawyer fees exceeded the amount they were suing for"

Re:

[Cederic]

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 court was the important factor, not the financial reparation.

And as for many divorce cases..

Re:So?

[ronanbear]

In the UK an award of 1p damages would almost certainly lead to the plaintiff having to pay costs. If you go to the high court and you're awarded damages less than the maximum from the next court down then you usually have to pay expenses. Also if the defendant offers to settle and you are awarded less than the offer, you pay costs. It's fair.

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:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Boy have you got them pegged. After almost 2 years of litigating with these people day in and day out, I couldn't have expressed it better.

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

No, it's got nothing to do with that.

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 that the amount the RIAA paid its lawyers is relevant to seeing if Ms. Foster's lawyer charged too much

Don't be surprised if the RIAA now abandons its challenge to the 'reasonableness' of Ms. Foster's fees, rather than allow its own financial arrangements

Re:So?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

You are so wrong. The last thing in the world the RIAA wants is for an opponent like Marilyn Barringer-Thomson to know (a) how much they pay their lawyers and (b) what the financial arrangement is with the lawyers. I imagine that they will stipulate to the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's fees now, rather than actually disclose the billing records.

Re:

[Lactoso]

'stipulate'? Perhaps, did you mean, 'capitulate'?

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

:)

Yes I think they will capitulate rather than show Ms. Barringer-Thomson their billing records.

Re:So?

[inviolet]

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?

[Seumas]

Little guys shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves. If you can't afford to win, you don't deserve to win!

Re:

[Atraxen]

Still haven't gotten over Thunderdome, eh?

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Well said.

Re:

[nanoakron]

Why should it make a difference how much her legal defence cost, if she won in the end?

Here in the UK, the winner gets their legal fees reimbursed. And that's all that matters - that you were proven right in a court of law.

Hence the loser is punished for continuing to drive the case forward to court, when there are innumerable ways of settling prior to this time.

Also FYI, we don't have 'deals' here between prosecutors and persecuted to 'plead' for lower crimes in return for lower charges.

Are legal fees regulated in the UK?

[Lonewolf666]

While IANAL, I know that they are in Germany (which has a loser pays system too). There is an ordinance that determines how much a lawyer can bill you, depending on amount of money at stake, level of jurisdiction etc. And even if you pay him more under the table, the amount you get awarded from the court after winning might not exceed the official numbers.

There are a few booby traps in the system, but it still makes things a lot more calculable than a system where you might have to pay the whole bill for th

Re:

[dargaud]

I'm curious to know what is in place in the US courtroom practice in case of very large difference between lawyer powers. I mean if one side has a crack team of twenty 2500$/h lawyers vs a law grad student working pro-bono on the other side, can anything be done to make the difference less obvious (regardless of who wins or looses) ?

Re:So?

[UnknowingFool]

Court cases are about details. Most court cases, criminal or civil, do not always end in a Perry Mason moment. Little details can reveal much that becomes important later In this case, the amount of money and work that the RIAA has spent in one case can show much about their modus operandi . If they spend very little money or time on a lawsuit, does that not show that they really don't do their homework when sueing someone? Lawsuits are costly and take forever. If one of their lawyers is suing hundreds of people at once, how can that lawyer really get all the details right. They can't. Mistakes will be made. Other plaintiffs can use this information to show that the RIAA did not do the due diligence before filing (something which we expected but is now proved.) My two cents.

Re:

[Dachannien]

The data will provide some insight into the Mafiaa's litigation strategy, perhaps even indicating just how much challenged-case straw it will take to break this camel's back.

Fight Law with Law

[SRA8]

Because people must realize now that the Legal system is a rigged game highly favouring those with money for expensive lawyers. The way to fight RIAA's abuse of the legal system is with Law, not by rantings on tech boards (preaching to the choir.)

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I have to disagree with you.

Before the law changes there has to be widespread knowledge and outrage.

so my question

[User 956]

The RIAA has been ordered to turn over its attorneys' billing records

So my first question is, do they get a volume discount?

Re:so my question

[TheGratefulNet]

So my first question is, do they get a volume discount?

yup.

it goes up to eleven.

Re:

[Binestar]

We can't. But purjury is a felony, and I presume that the attorney in question would rather not be brought up on those charges. A false set of books presented as evidence would be purjury.

PURjury?

[User 956]

A false set of books presented as evidence would be purjury.

Is purjury like when your guilt is decided by a swarm of cats?

Re:PURjury?

[StikyPad]

No, that's furjury. Not to be confused with furgery, which is an illegal copycat.

Re:

[thousandinone]

Does it matter? I got their records via bit torrent.

Transparency necessary for Credibility

[mandelbr0t]

We're just asking the MAFIAA to prove that these lawsuits aren't a legal scam, designed to put money in lawyer's pockets. How can we trust such an organization's motives if they won't tell us how much money their lawyers are making?

Re:Transparency necessary for Credibility

[RingDev]

Because the person who presents the amounts will (hopefully) be a CPA, who would not only be risking contempt and perjury charges, but also losing their professional license.

-Rick

Confidentiality Question

[Shadow Wrought]

I assume the records themselves would confidential, but is it acceptable to publish a summary of the hours? Are there rules about the level of detail allowed?

Re:

[Flying pig]

One would think that legal expenses in any lawsuit in which there is any public interest at all should be in the public domain. The legal system is partly State funded and as such we the people have an interest in how it operates and how it interacts with external private bodies (lawyers.) This is nothing to do with client confidentiality. If we know the RIAA spent 500 hours with Sue, Grabbit & Runne (Attorneys), we may speculate on why so much time was spent on the case, but we do not actually know tha

Re:

[Shadow Wrought]

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that there is a confidential aspect to it. Typically communicaitons between an attorney and their client is privileged, so it is not unreasonable to think that the bills would be too. Since the RIAA is basically a private entity (albeit a trade group) and Foster is very much a private entity, then I don't see how the general public can overcome that privilege to see everything that Foster will. A summary, however, might very well be acceptable. It would also, I think, show how

Re:

[MightyYar]

Maybe corporations/trade groups/unions/other entities shouldn't be afforded full attorney-client privileges? I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, but it's an interesting thought.

OT: Your sig

[sconeu]

V .. v .. V - Vera Violet Vinn is very, Very VERY awful on her violin.

Re:

[MightyYar]

Finally someone else with kids!

Tell the truth, did you write that from memory?

Re:

[sconeu]

Yep.

Big Y, Little Y, a Yawning Yellow Yak. Young Yolanda Yorgenson is Yelling on his back.

Re:

[Tweekster]

Since legal fees can be awarded it is pretty obvious the bills would not be privledged

Re:Confidentiality Question

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

It is blackletter law that the bills, invoices, statements, and retainer agreements are not privileged.

Hope

[Nom du Keyboard]

I hope this hurts them (the RIAA) in a place where they didn't want to be hurt. And that it somehow helps out in other trials as well. It least we might find out just how much effort they're willing to put into a case like this.

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

[codemachine]

It'll be interesting to see how much the RIAA is willing to spend on a single copyright infringement lawsuit. If they are putting huge resources into suing individual customers, it will look very bad on them.

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

[magicchex]

Or if it's a very small amount per lawsuit, then it will show that they're not really researching enough per lawsuit to actually have a legitimate claim. This seems to be lose-lose for them, unless they've spent some "golden" number in between the two extremes (but what this number is will vary wildly in the eyes of different observers).

Re:

[vidarh]

There's another downside to it for them: If the amounts are outrageous, and they still offer to settle for reasonably small amounts and/or any judgements in their favor does not cover their costs, it means the risk of illegal copying will be seen as low. They simply won't be prepared to or able to suffer the losses of large numbers of lawsuits if they lose large amounts of money on each lawsuit.

So it may turn out to dramatically reduce the deterrent effect of their threats to sue.

Question for the lawyers...

[msauve]

Is the RIAA now obligated to turn over this information (and presumably make it part of the public record), or do they have the option to refuse disclosure and simply pay the opposing legal bills without contesting the amount any further?

Either way it sets a precedent...

[Joce640k]

[i]do they have the option to refuse disclosure and simply pay the opposing legal bills without contesting the amount any further?[/i]

Doesn't really matter. It's a win-win announcement for Joe Public.

If they refuse to disclose then future defendants will be more likely to hire expensive defense lawyers knowing that they'll get the fees back.

If they disclose, future defendants have a spending target to aim at, and you just *know* RIAA lawyers are going to be friends/family of the RIAA and therefore really ex

Re:Question for the lawyers...

[Overzeetop]

Naturally, ianal, but my guess is they can probably avoid disclosure if they scratch a check to Foster's lawyers. From my limited experience in litigation (I offer expert witness testimony in my field of expertise), usually it's fair game to cut and run when things turn against you. At this point, Capitol's best move probably is to just call butterfingers and pay up. No matter how they play this, they come out looking like fools. Their billings are either too large, in which case Foster gets her fees, or too small, and everybody knows they're running lean in these cases. There is no middle ground, by the way. It's either too much or too little. Finally, they still lose if they pay up without disclosure because the perception is that they are hiding one of the two aforementioned cases. The only advantage to them is that there's no telling which it is, which will keep up the guessing game for future defendants.

Re:

[Myopic]

I don't mean to ask a stupid question, but I will anyway. Why will the amount necessarily seem too large or too small? Why isn't there a good reasonable middle number?

(Also, what is your field?)

Re:Question for the lawyers...

[Overzeetop]

Actually, there are multiple ranges here: Those in industry, those for lawyers on the various sides, and the general public. Their ranges will all overlap, so that what may be middle ground to the industry group, may be high to the general public.

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...

[jyoull]

I didn't write the comment, but it's probably significant that they've already established that $4,000 is "enough" to settle the cases and to recover whatever was "lost" to the music bandits.

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:

[Myopic]

Well yeah I figure the "motive" is that by suing a small number of people, other people won't break the law (I use that phrase loosely), thus improving the situation of the content industry. That seems like a reasonably "honest motive". Is that irrational, from a legal perspective? I mean, is there a rule that you can't sue if the individual case isn't financially lucrative?

Re:

[Michael Woodhams]

Look at how much stuff in the SCO case is 'under seal' and we don't get to see it. I strongly suspect that this information will not become public. (But IANAL.)

Re:

[Sique]

As someone who lives in a legislation system where legal fees are always open (because they will become part of the sums awarded in civil cases), I am very used to know how much a certain case has cost. The Bar Association even hands out a list how much certain legal services have to cost, and you can sue an attorney if he sends you a fee statement that differs from the Bar Association's rules.

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

You are probably correct that that is what they will do... cut the check and shut up.

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

You're 100% on target. If they stipulate to the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's fees, then the issue becomes moot. Which is what I'm betting they will do, rather than let their adversary know the financial details of the relationship with the attack dogs... I mean attorneys.

So how much did it cost

[pair-a-noyd]

to do Vince?

Re:

[TheRaven64]

One suggestion I've seen for making the legal system fairer is that the loser would pay the winner legal fees equal to their own. If you want to spend $2m litigating against someone, and they defend themselves, then if you win you are out of pocket $2m for legal fees. If you lose, then they get $2m. This encourages litigants to not spend more on legal expenses than the other can afford.

Re:

[zCyl]

One suggestion I've seen for making the legal system fairer is that the loser would pay the winner legal fees equal to their own.

That system wouldn't work very well for lawyers who charge no fee unless they win. Then if they lose, the fee is zero, and the defendant receives zero.

Re:One can only hope for this outcome..

[Archangel Michael]

The system I would suggest is quite similar.

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..

[Petrushka]

-- then only very very very rich people would ever dare to sue anyone. Sometimes people who aren't so well-off have cause to sue big wealthy corporations; under your system they would be absolutely totally screwed for life if they lost. The current system favours the incredibly wealthy; so does the system you propose.

Re:

[MightyYar]

Agreed, but I do like his idea with the punitive damages. Why should a doctor's mistake be like winning the lottery? You should be compensated fairly for your suffering, plus enough to cover your legal expenses.

Re:

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Why should a doctor's mistake be like winning the lottery?

What makes you think it's like that now?

Re:

[MightyYar]

I realize that it isn't for everyone, but there ARE enough people winning large awards to make it hard or impossible for doctors to get insurance in some states. For a high-profile example, John Edwards won a $2.75 million dollar award (the jury awarded $6.5 million but it was reduced on appeal) against a hospital for an infant born with cerebral palsy. He also settled for $1.5 million with the OB. If we forget for a moment the really... interesting tactics he used in the case and just assume that the docto

Re:

[MightyYar]

Some sarcastic anonymous coward needs to do their homework. Punitive damages have nothing to do with being fairly compensated - they are about punishing the defendant. IANAL, but I am married to one (well, an ex-lawyer).

I haven't sued anyone because: a. I haven't been wronged in a significant way that I could not resolve independently, and b. I'm not the type to sue because some ass-hat lawyer calls and tells me that I might have a case. Watch daytime TV sometime and see some of the lawyer ads that come on

Re:

[vishbar]

That would help big business. They could sue citizens for, to them, relatively small amounts--$1,000,000, for instance. If they win, they destroy the person they sue...if they lose, that's only a few million lost, no big deal. When the little guy decides to sue the big corp, however, he's better have a rock-solid case. He'd be forced to pay the attorney fees if he loses--so in addition to the $100,000 he was suing for, he'd also have to pay the $15,000,000 for the super-elite attorney force hired by the

Re:

[vux984]

Wow. I could make billions, billions with a B. Next time my contractor screws up and get into a dispute I won't sue for some measly 5 or 10k. I'll get 5 or 10% of his assets!!

Naturally I'll stop hiring small companies -- only HP, Dell, IBM, and Microsoft from now on!! I want to make that 5% to count!!

I dunno about you, but I think your proposed system has a flaw there. ;)

Crrrection

[geekoid]

As the current system is empowered, ignorant people view lawsuits like a rigged lottery.

All Fixed.

Re:

[zotz]

"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."

You might want to re word that about no Plaintiff, but... Wow! I have finally found another person that says Punitive Damages should not go to the victims but to some other "related" purpose. That makes tow I know about now... Could this be qa groundswell?

"Y wins, gets Z$ from X + the greater of Attorney

Re:

[Atlantis-Rising]

Punitive damages are not the same as damages to the plaintiff for harm. Punitive damages are to punish the defendant for breaking the law, and shouldn't really go to the plaintiff anyway- the plaintiff had little to do with them.

Re:

[Archangel Michael]

Y wins, they deserve to lose their shirts.

Replace X from "Little Guy" to SCO, and Y from MS to IBM and see if you now agree with me.

Re:This is judicial craziness

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't make the lawyer fees the topic and then refuse to talk about the lawyer fees.

Re:This is judicial craziness

[vimh42]

"You can't make the lawyer fees the topic and then refuse to talk about the lawyer fees."

The first rule of lawyer fees is you don't talk about lawyer fees.

Re:

[terrymr]

You forgot the /sarcasm tag at the end.

If attorney/client privilege was required to go that far then your attorney couldn't speak on your behalf in court.

Re:This is judicial craziness

[Volante3192]

The RIAA's argument that they shouldn't have to pay attorney's fees is based, in part, 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=capi tol_foster_070221MotReconsider [ilrweb.com] , page 4)

The judge is now saying "put up or shut up."

Re:

[dlim]

In its Order, at 5, the Court suggested that, to sustain a finding of contributory infringement, plaintiffs were required to show that defendant had substantially participated in the underlying infringements and that defendant had actual knowledge of those infringements. See Order, at 4. These assumptions as to the applicable law, on which the Court appears to have relied heavily in making an award of fees, are incorrect.

Is this true? So if I use the wi-fi at the Starbucks to download mp3s, are they guilty of "contributory infringement"? Wouldn't every company that releases a P2P file sharing application be guilty or (given the ubiquity of CD/DVD burners) Blockbuster, Netflix, and every library that loans CDs DVDs? This argument from the RIAA sounds like a pretty desperate claim to me, but then again... IANAL.

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I believe that actually will happen, because the judge has specifically provided [blogspot.com] that Ms. Foster can supplement her fee application after the RIAA is done with its fake 'discovery' on 'reasonableness', and denied [blogspot.com] the RIAA's application to change that provision [blogspot.com].

Re:This is judicial craziness

[Solandri]

Look, I'm no fan of RIAA, but this is judicial activism at its best. 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).

So by that reasoning, how much Ms. Foster paid her attorneys is covered by attorney-client confidentiality, and RIAA should just shut up and pay the bill? RIAA decided to make an issue of Ms. Foster's attorney fees being unreasonable. The judge, in a "one person cuts the cake, the other person picks the piece" stroke of wisdom, decided to use RIAA's attorney fees as a measuring stick for what was reasonable.

Re:

[MaverickUW]

No, not exactly. She's trying to recover the fees so that way she ends this with only a headache and no money lost or gained. They submitted how much her legal fees were, the RIAA complained and said it was too much, so the judge is saying, "And how much did you spend?"

It's very relevant if her fees were $10,000, the RIAA said it was too much, and then we find out they spent $50,000 suing her.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

So by that reasoning, how much Ms. Foster paid her attorneys is covered by attorney-client confidentiality, and RIAA should just shut up and pay the bill? RIAA decided to make an issue of Ms. Foster's attorney fees being unreasonable. The judge, in a "one person cuts the cake, the other person picks the piece" stroke of wisdom, decided to use RIAA's attorney fees as a measuring stick for what was reasonable.

What's reasonable is what she paid to defend herself whether it be $1 or $1M. The RIAA brought a laws

Re:

[raehl]

What's reasonable is what she paid to defend herself whether it be $1 or $1M.

That's not reasonable at all, and can't be the way the system is allowed to work.

If it were, my defense to a lawsuit, ESPECIALLY if I had a lot of cash to pay lawyers, could very well be:

"I'm going to spend $100 million paying my lawyers to win this case, and for $100 million they will win, and then I am sticking you with the bill."

A fair legal process demands that only REASONABLE fees are recoverable.

And, more generally, the less

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

What's reasonable is what she paid to defend herself whether it be $1 or $1M.

That's not reasonable at all, and can't be the way the system is allowed to work.

If it were, my defense to a lawsuit, ESPECIALLY if I had a lot of cash to pay lawyers, could very well be:

"I'm going to spend $100 million paying my lawyers to win this case, and for $100 million they will win, and then I am sticking you with the bill."

A fair legal process demands that only REASONABLE fees are recoverable.

And, more generally, the less

Re:

[r3m0t]

Hello. This is the RIAA.

We have found you have shared 350 music files which are copyrighted by the RIAA, its members, or its members' musicians. Our list is attached.

If you don't pay us $3.5k within 20 days, we will sue you for digital copyright infringement.

The *minimum* fee for copyright infringement is $750 per copyrighted work. This comes to $262,500. [Of that, about $245 is compensatory to the RIAA. The wholesale price of a music file is estimated at $0.70. The rest is "punitive" and is also paid to th

Re:This is judicial craziness

[sandberglaw]

The post is only partly correct. Yes, a party normally cannot be compelled to divulge communications with counsel. This is an exception to/variation on that rule. First, no advice is being revealed, although perhaps some trial strategy (ie, an entry like, "research New York law on defenses to malicious prosecution") would be revealed. BUT, the substantive part of the case is over, so the other party gets no tactical advantage from seeing the billing records. Second, when the issue is attorney fees, parties have to produce the records to the court - simple as that. Here, the defendant (prevailing party, entitled to some award of fees) had to produce fee and cost records in order to ask for fee shifting. When plaintiff (losing party, facing the prospect of paying) objected to the reasonableness of defendant's request, the court decided to look at both sides' expenditures to get a sense of scale. No judicial activism (code for "a judge doing something I don't like") here, just a judge following SOP for fee requests.

Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I have NO involvement in this case whatsoever.

Re:

[Michael Woodhams]

Will the RIAA's costs (or even the size of the defendent's eventual payout) become public?

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Definitely the size of the payout will be public. The details probably will too, since the judge's decision will probably go into great detail.

Re:This is judicial craziness

[iabervon]

The fee arrangement isn't covered by attorney-client privilege. An attorney and a client conducting a business transaction (i.e., paying for the legal work) aren't protected, because it is only legal advice and the information the legal advice is based on that is protected.

Re:

[Fulcrum of Evil]

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 my narrow refutation - care to provide something of equal or greater value?

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'm pretty sure that was an RIAA troll.

Re:

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Well, he did spout some nonsense and claim to be a lawyer. I'm just saddened that I repsonded to an AC. Guess I should update my prefs.

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

It's easy to get sucked in by these trolls; they're professionals.

Re:This is judicial craziness

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I suspect this AC is an RIAA troll.

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:

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Actually I think they get paid in Keith Urban merchandise

Re:hmm

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I doubt it. My guess is that the lawyers they're using are 'low bidders'.

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

My guess is that the fees are on an hourly basis, and that they are broken down on a case-by-case basis, so that it's no big deal to give Ms. Barringer-Thompson a couple of printouts -- one for the first national firm, one for the second national firm, and one for the local firm.