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)."

Comments

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

[Anonymous Coward]

That would indicate that the RIAA actually thinks ahead when making decisions, evidence seems to point elsewhere...

Re:so my question

[TheGratefulNet]

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

yup.

it goes up to eleven.

Re:so my question

[thousandinone]

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

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:So?

[Atraxen]

Still haven't gotten over Thunderdome, eh?

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.

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.

Sports Analogies?

[Anonymous Coward]

... and I thought car analogies were bad.

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:Question for the lawyers...

[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.

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:This is judicial craziness

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