Slashdot Mirror
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)."
Why should I care about some minor maneuver in the legal end-game of a case that's been already decided?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
The RIAA has been ordered to turn over its attorneys' billing records
So my first question is, do they get a volume discount?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Bloodhounds that they are, they probably work for a couple of bones.
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?
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
Wouldn't it be nice if the Supreme Court actually used RIAA's litigation expenses as the basis to repay their victim in this lawsuit?
I am open source, and Linux baby!
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?
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Now if you could only get a hold of the procedures Media Sentry is trying so desperately to keep secret.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The crowd loves it.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
You can't make the lawyer fees the topic and then refuse to talk about the lawyer fees.
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.
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 , page 4)
The judge is now saying "put up or shut up."
I bet their attorneys get $500 hour at least.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
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.
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?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Spoken like someone truly astroturfing for the RIAA.
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.
The first rule of lawyer fees is you don't talk about lawyer fees.
Would be nice if the judge would add in some to cover the attorneys having to take the time to justify their fees and assess an interest cost to the RIAA to allow for net present value of the fees at the time they were originally presented or occurred. Would seem justifiable to penalize a money grubbing set of corporate thieves this way for a propaganda inspired nuisance/harassment lawsuit.
/greedy grin
How many such results does it require before a class action suit could be filed against the RIAA? After all the RIAA is going after people in very similar fashion to the communist witch hunt that once occurred in this country. Wonder what might be found in the discovery phase. Question for the lawyers out there: is this possible?
If they are going to use us for propaganda, shouldn't we get paid as well as a lobbyist for our time? Or even better, as well as the lobbyists pays our representatives.
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 lawsuit against her and she is entitled to spend whatever amount necessary to defend herself. If they don't like the cost too bad. The RIAA brought the initial action. Therefore they have to be ready to pay whatever the defended had to spend to defend themselves.
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.
As the current system is empowered, ignorant people view lawsuits like a rigged lottery.
All Fixed.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
[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 expensive (they have to justify stealing those artists royalty fees somehow!)
No sig today...
to do Vince?
I wonder how many millions a year of litigation the RIAA has passed on to the taxpayer, all for an industry that doesn't do much for most of us (an album is a smash when it sells a million copies, but there's 300 million or so of us).
technical writing / development
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.)
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.
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 money given to the sharks, the better off our economy is.
paintball
V .. v .. V - Vera Violet Vinn is very, Very VERY awful on her violin.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
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 money given to the sharks, the better off our economy is.
If someone should bring a lawsuit against me then I have the right to defend myself. And if I spend $100M to defend myself then I should be entitled to recover those costs. Period. I shouldn't have to compromise my defense because the person bringing said action may not like how much I spend to defend myself. If they're worried about that then they need to think long and hard about entering into litigation with me.
A false set of books presented as evidence would be purjury.
Is purjury like when your guilt is decided by a swarm of cats?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
lawyers fees are agreed upon before a lawyer takes a case, i.e. before a plaintiff is a client. at the time that the fees are set, no lawyer/client confidentiality applies.
Will the RIAA's costs (or even the size of the defendent's eventual payout) become public?
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
... and I thought car analogies were bad.
I believe that actually will happen, because the judge has specifically provided that Ms. Foster can supplement her fee application after the RIAA is done with its fake 'discovery' on 'reasonableness', and denied the RIAA's application to change that provision.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
IANAL, but it sounds like they are trying to say that they don't owe attorney's fees because they attempted to drop the case when the defendant wouldn't settle.
Of course the several of the proposed settlements refused to acknowledge the defendant's innocence. The RIAA claims the assignment of blame is moot since by dropping the case no damages are being sought. The defendant continued to push back and the RIAA is claiming they shouldn't have to pay for the excessive fees this assignment of blame and eventual court battle cost. The net effect of the arguing over the settlement is that it ran up the potential damages due to the defendant without effectively changing the outcome.
---
In my opinion, the RIAA does have a point. It sounds like they attempted to bully someone but backed down before anyone was hurt so any damages after they backed down are self inflicted. Of course, the fact that they bullied the person and even in backing down they wouldn't admit that they were bullies seems to give the defendant just cause to push back.
O RLY? There is precedent... linked to in TFS, FFS.
Double O RLY? Because you have a unique understanding of lawyer-client privilege. Did you pass the bar, and if so, what state(s)? And how can I make sure you're part of opposing counsel next time I'm involved in litigation?
Just because you have an unclear understanding of the law (especially if you are, indeed, a lawyer as you claim!) doesn't mean you can ascribe to the RIAA rights and privileges that don't apply.
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
This is a new tactic developed by paid Microsoft shills. I wonder if it will be as successful as previous attempts. Not.
lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
I can see it now:
My Former Attorney: You're honour, the defendant hired me in case X, and refuses to pay the $30,000 owed to me.
Me: You're honour, the plaintiff just violated my right to attorney-client confidentiality by disclosing this amount. I demand the case be thrown out and the plaintiff disbarred.
[Pedant]
Congratulations on being one of the rare few, to use YOU'RE when actually YOUR is appropriate.
[/Pedant]
You are Honour indeed. Your the lucky winner of a free ticket back to grammar school.
^^^^ - Yes it was deliberate.
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's my narrow refutation - care to provide something of equal or greater value?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I'm pretty sure that was an RIAA troll.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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 the opposition's $10.000/hour lawyer.
C - the footgun of programming languages
This is really interesting. I'm surprised there hasn't been any commentary on this yet.
... or not.
The claim by plaintiffs that their litigation investment cannot be easily distilled down to a single case is simply preposterous. Since the plaintiff's claim that they are litigating these cases on a "gigantic scale", the problem can be distilled to the simplest form by identifying all their fees as either:
A) Directly related to the Foster case
B)
The fees for the Foster case would be A + (B divided by the # of cases in litigation). A gross oversimplification, no doubt - I'm sure there are lots of gray areas, either real or imagined by the plaintiffs - but it yields an interesting observation: The argument that the plaintiff's fees are intertwined with all the other cases would force them to reveal _all_ their expenses, and not just the ones tied directly to the Foster case, right?
I have to assume that this is so distasteful an option to the RIAA that it's never going to happen, though. Which means that someone somewhere must be making a decision about what fees are relevant to the case. So who is doing this? The court? Surely that decision shouldn't be left to the plaintiffs.
Regardless, I can't wait to see what this yields. Please let us know once you have the documents in hand!
It's easy to get sucked in by these trolls; they're professionals.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Hello. This is the RIAA.
/have/ to pay that settlement - the judge cannot reduce the damages.
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 the RIAA.] If you lose in court, you will
If you win, you get back your own fees, but you don't get any compensation for your trouble. To get compensation, you have to file a countersuit.
You can call us on this toll-free number.
Thank you,
The RIAA.
Does this seem fair to you, Anonymous Coward? (Woah, I'm replying to an AC!) How fair would it be if they added this to their letter? It's suggested by your brave new legal system!
PS We have already spent $1k in the discovery process, $2k in sending this letter to you, and we typically spend $50k to file suit and all the usual successive motions. An interview of an expert witness costs us $2k, and other motions may cost us other amounts. If you lose the case, you will not only pay $0.265m, you will also pay our legal fees. Our legal fees may change at any time without notice to you. If you lose, the court will send you our bill, and you will have to pay up, whatever it is.
PS2 We have previously spent as much as $2bn defending ourselves from a single countersuit. If you lose your countersuit, you will be bankrupt.
It's easy to get sucked in by these trolls; they're professionals.
/." is about to appear on the expense sheet released by the RIAA. I think that would really make my day.
Could be why he's upset and posting. He's disgruntled that "Time Spent Trolling
That would be funny.
Actually though I don't think they have the lawyers doing it.
Probably use some even more cut rate characters.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Attorney fees aren't privileged, as far as I know. Especially when they are up for payment in a case such as this.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
There is a fine line between skepticism and paranoia.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Glad to know that other lawyers are paying attention to this issue -- and on Slashdot, of all places.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
While I appreciate the discussion so far, the point the RIAA is making is to instill fear into the hearts and minds of digital media users.
DON'T SHARE OR WE'LL FIND YOU AND SUE
That's the take-home message for joe and jane sixpack with a pc that their little janie sixpack uses to load her ipod.
It's about maintaining the climate of fear, and making it okay to treat media consumers like criminals and foist complex DRM schemes on consumers. The RIAA is doing a heck of a job getting this point across.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
Would there be a way to force this disclosure? Or maybe something to start some detective work on? In my experience, anything a malign force is trying to hide is worth a bit of sunshine.
:-)
In any case, this has now set TWO precedents the RIAA campaign could have done without. Not only did the defendant win, cost recovery was also granted (countering the usual blackmail of prosecuting someone dry).
Well done. I'm not for breaches of copyright, but I'm also not for abuse of the law. Somehow we ended up with an ever increasing gap between law and justice so it's nice to see something that goes against the trend
Insert