Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Balks At Complying With Document Order

Posted by kdawson on from the show-me-the-money dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "When the RIAA was ordered to turn over its attorneys' billing records to the defendant's lawyer in Capitol v. Foster, there was speculation that they would never comply with the order. As it turns out they have indeed balked at compliance, saying that they are preparing a motion for a protective order seeking confidentiality (something they could have asked for, but didn't, in their opposition papers to the initial motion). Having none of that, Ms. Foster's lawyer has now made a motion to compel their compliance with the Court's March 15th order."

3 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Could someone explain? by Donniedarkness · · Score: 5, Informative

    The court has ordered the RIAA to pay the defendant's attourney fees in this case. They want the RIAA's documents so that they can determine what "reasonable attourney fees" are.

    --
    Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
  2. Re:I don't get it by tgatliff · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Bush issue is different. It is an Executive Branch versus the Congressional Branch issue. The Bush administrations , executive branch, is arguing that allowing the congressional branch to have access to the internal workings of the executive branch would undermine its "separations of powers". In the end, the Judiciary branch will decide if this is the case or not. In short, it will go to the US Supreme Court to decide... Keep in mind that no one branch has final say on anything. Each has their own special rights to balance the other... Read of the Separation of Powers to learn more...

    NOTE: This certainly does not mean I am defending the Bush administration... :-)

  3. Re:Could someone explain? by eam · · Score: 5, Informative

    > The Plaintiff(the riaa), was found to have no case.
    >
    > The defendant was allowed to get the legal costs.

    The defendant asked to get legal costs, but the plaintiff said the defendent's costs were unreasonable. The judge ordered the plaintiff to reveal *their* legal costs to see what the plaintiff considers reasonable.

    Then the plaintiff replied with, "Um,...what?"