Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Balks At Complying With Document Order
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."
This is something I don't understand about the US judicial system, and maybe NYCL can help explain it. If a judge orders someone to do something, and they refuse, isn't it then the justice department's responsibility to enforce that judge's order? Why do we so often see a judge's orders ignored, challenged, appealed, ad nauseum?
As an example, I heard on NPR yesterday President Bush's counsel inform the reporter that, should the House vote to subpoena Rove et. al., the White House would be refusing that order. He flat out told them, "No, we will not comply with a judge's order." Now, I understand there is a stickler here with Executive Privilege, but this seems to me to be a growing trend. What happened to the good old days when a judge would give an order, a person would refuse, and they would be thrown in jail for contempt until a) they complied, or b) an appeals court overruled the judge? Am I just naive in my belief that the judicial system was supposed to, I don't know, be able to actually enforce their decisions?
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
a) Why does the defendent care about the plaintiff's billing hours?
b) Why does the plaintiff care if the defendent finds out?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Sure, but she'll have to sue for:
1) Damages to the persons reputation and possible loss of income/opportunities/jobs/...
2) Damages because of loss of income or jobs (because the time she has to be in court, she can't work)
3) A little more difficult for a person, but certainly an argument in 1). The court however can decide to pull the BAR license for the lawyers if it's really obvious that they're suing just because they're a**holes or just want to take the courts time and consideration from other cases.
4) That's what lawyers do, but again as stated in number 3) that's more the court's call and also arguments for 1)
The problem is proving (and calculating) your losses and again, it's a lot of time for the litigation to go through. Just look at how long this case has been going on (2 years?) and she wasn't even remotely connected to any of the pirating cases.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Heaven forbid that the President's aides should be concerned that what advice they give to the man elected President of the United States ought to leak out into the public.
...unless, of course, I was giving advice that I would be ashamed for the public to know...
I mean, as members of the Executive Branch, shouldn't they be, like, upholding the Constitution, and stuff? Why are they worried about their advice getting out? I would be PROUD to be an aide to the President, and I would tell everyone "Hey, yeah, that thing that he said? Yeah, that was my idea...."
:(){