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?

[stratjakt]

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

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.

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?

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:One can only hope for this outcome..

[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.

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.

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.

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?

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:This is judicial craziness

[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:This is judicial craziness

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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. /greedy grin

Re:Could be horrible PR for the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are putting huge resources into suing individual customers, it will look very bad on them.

It won't help at all -- they'll just contend that $2M is cheap insurance if they save an alleged $10M in prevented "piracy".

Many years back, AAA auto insurance decided to make both sides go through depositions and the whole nine yards, just to prove to everyone they weren't an easy touch who would simply pay off any claim under, say, $5000. It may have cost them well over $5000 each on a few claims just to make their point and let the word get around.

Re:hmm

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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

Re:Could be horrible PR for the RIAA

[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.