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

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?

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: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:hmm

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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