Foster Demands RIAA Post $210K Security For Fees

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A few days ago it was reported that, in view of the RIAA's one-month delay in paying the $68,685.00 attorneys fee award in Capitol v. Foster, and its lawyers' failure to respond to Ms. Foster's lawyer's email, Ms. Foster filed a motion for entry of judgment so that she could go ahead with judgment enforcement proceedings. In response to that motion the RIAA submitted a statement that it had no objection to entry of judgment, and intimated that it thought there would be an automatic stay on enforcement of the judgment, and that it would ultimately file an appeal. After seeing that, Ms. Foster's lawyer has filed a motion for the Court to require the RIAA to post $210,000 in security to cover the past and future attorneys' fees and costs that are expected to be incurred."

Comments

Re:Within a reasonable amount of time probably

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Given that they are fairly stupid in these matters it wouldn't surprise me if they really do try and appeal it, mostly as a delay tactic. It also wouldn't surprise me if the net result is the judgement is upheld, and she gets more money (for the fees incurred during the appeal). Not only wouldn't it surprise me, it seems that that outcome is inevitable. The judge was brutal in cutting down Ms. Foster's fee award. I wouldn't be surprised if the cross-appeal Ms. Foster files wound up increasing the amount of the old award, and no doubt there will be another $100k or so in attorneys fees and disbursements on the appeal.

Re:New train of thought

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'm not familiar with the dates/timeline here, but in most if not all jurisdictions -- and definitely in federal court -- you have only 30 days from the entry of an order or judgment to file a notice of appeal (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)). The order [ilrweb.com] was apparently filed on July 16. Today is August 16, which is the 31st day. BUT Foster is just now asking the court to enter judgment for this amount, which means that Capitol will probably have 30 days from the day that judgment is entered. Issue isn't time to appeal. It's time to avoid paying the judgment. Appeal doesn't stay obligation to pay the judgment. For that you have to post security.

Re:So Mr. Beckerman and Mr. Rogers...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Let me clarify.
1. I don't represent Ms. Foster; her lawyer is Marilyn Barringer-Thomson of Oklahoma City.
2. If I were her lawyer I probably could not answer the question anyway, since it is confidential information the RIAA would just love to have.
3. As a general proposition, it would be legally irrelevant how much of the bill was paid and how much unpaid.
4. If I had to guess, my guess would be that Ms. Foster is a poor hardworking person without much dough and she has probably paid only a very small portion of the bill.

Re:Law School 101

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

There is a law against frivolous appeals, and an appeal from this judgment would be frivolous. If anyone has grounds to appeal it would be Ms. Foster, who was awarded only $68,685 even though the attorneys fees and sdisbursements were around $114,000.

Re:When in a hole

[Eivind Eklund]

Capitol records is owned by EMI. EMI is - or was - publicly traded. The last news is this: Terra Firma seals takeover of EMI (for 2.4 billion pounds).

Terra Firma is a private equity firm; they specialize in buying out companies, restructuring them and fixing management issues, and taking profit from the restructuring.

So, the NEW owners haven't yet had time to do much. Whether they will change or not remains to be seen - they've only had a couple of weeks on their hands...

Eivind.

Re:Law School 101

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Yes, the higher up they lose, the better the precedent will be for us. For all the other RIAA victims, the best possible scenario would be for this to go up to the Supreme Court.

Re:Not uncommon

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Does anyone have a name/address/phone number of her attorneys? I'd love to send them a check for $100 to help fund her legal fees. Marilyn D. Barringer-Thomson, Esq.
Post Office Box 54444
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73154

Re:I understand your 1st point, but not your 2nd

[sampson7]

Why shouldn't the paralegal's fees be included? Who should pay for that work to be done? If you're saying it's too expensive, I have no knowledge with which to disagree. But if you're saying it shouldn't be included at all, I'd have to disagree. Someone has to pay for the paralegal's work - why should it be Ms. Foster or the firm? Happy to clarify. First, $80 per hour is a high billing rate for most paralegals. But it depends on the type of work involved. Highly technical and skilled paralegals, working in a complicated area of law they are skilled in, can easily command this type of rate. But as the Judge's opinion clarifies, this was not a person with any particular specialized knowledge of copyright. Thus he found the hourly rate was too high. Second, the Judge goes through and discusses the specific tasks performed by the paralegal. He finds that many of the tasks were no not "legal" in nature and thus could not be reasonably billed at legal rates. For example, on more than one evening I have stood at the copier preparing documents for a meeting. I can't (ethically) bill the client for my non-legal time (especially when it was just because my lazy ass didn't feel like getting get the docs prepared in time for the secretarial pool to take care of it). Essentially, I am for that period of time a secretary and should bill like one.

In short: It is perfectly normal and accepted to bill for paralegal time. But in this particular case, the Judge made a rather detailed finding that these specific bills were excessive.