Slashdot Mirror
Judge Orders Record Company Execs To Duluth
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Lest there be any doubt that District Judge Michael J. Davis, presiding over the Duluth, Minnesota, case, Capitol Records v. Thomas, really does 'get it' about the toxic effect the RIAA, its lead henchman Matthew Oppenheim, and their lawyers have had on the judicial process, all such doubt should be removed by the order he just entered (PDF). It removes control of the decision-making process from the RIAA, Oppenheim, and the lawyers. In the order Judge Davis spells out, in the clearest possible terms so that there can be no misunderstanding, that at the extraordinary 2-day settlement conference he has scheduled for later this month, each record company plaintiff is ordered to produce an 'officer' of the corporation, or a 'managing agent' of the corporation, who has corporate, decision-making, 'power.' The judge makes it clear that no one who has 'settlement authority' with any limits or range attached to it will be acceptable. This means that 'RIAA hitman' Matthew Oppenheim will not be able to control the settlement process as he has been permitted by the Courts to do in the past."
Maybe this is the beginning of the end and a new business model will show up. take the lawyers out of the mix and get to the heart of the matter? This will be interesting to watch
no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I appreciate the glimmer of hope. :)
I dearly hope some of them eventually find it unenjoyable in a criminal PMITA prison kind of way, rather than a merely expensive civil way.
I only wish that there had been some way to make it an official judicial order, requiring them to send someone, something that could have major legal / monetary penalties applied if they don't comply, preferably with U.S. Marshall escort, in hand-cuffs if they refused or tried to weasel out - but that would be dreaming big...
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
I'd prefer some kind of RICO act finding myself... especially with the illegal investigations by unlicensed investigators. Attempts at entrapment (if their actions had been done by police officers or federal agents), attempts at extortion that border on blackmail... "Pay us 5,000.00 or we'll take you to court for hundreds of thousands - oh and we'll keep your little dog as hostage until you pay up..." kind of things (the dog comment is an exaggeration, although it probably went through some of their minds)...
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Other than the fact that the settlement conference will be with Judge Davis instead of a magistrate, this order is completely standard.
For comparison, here is the relevant portion of a notice of settlement conference in another recent Minnesota federal district court case:
"Counsel who will actually try the case and each party, armed with full settlement discretion, shall be present. If individuals are parties to this case, they shall be present. If a orporation or other collective entity is a party, a duly authorized officer or managing agent of that party shall be present. This means that each party must attend through a person who has the power to change that party=s settlement posture during the course of the conference. If the party representative has a limit, or âoecapâ on his or her authority, this requirement is not satisfied."
Okay, I'm crawling out on a limb here, but what if they are masochists by way of business tradition, and can't help but asking for pain?(yes, this may be far-fetched, but is it a factor?)
BTW, I hope you are right! Experience will have me 'betting' on your side.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Ray - keep up the good work, it looks like we're heading for the endgame now....
Thanks. Yes it looks to me like we are in, or close to, the endgame.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I don't think a contempt charge is possible since the order doesn't name a specific person to show up. It just asks for somebody in authority, don't care who. IANAL though.
But from the tone it sounds like "if you don't do this - you forfeit." And I don't think anyone wants that to happen.
Reason being, this bit:
If complete agreement is not reached, each attorney shall deliver to chambers on or before March 23, 2009 by noon, a letter which shall include: (1) the parties' respective settlement positions before the meeting; (2) the parties' respective positions following the meeting; (3) a concise analysis of each remaining liability issue, with citation to relevant authority; (4) a reasoned, itemized computation of each element of the alleged damages, with a concise summary of the testimony of each witness who will testify in support of the damage computations; and (5) a reasoned analysis justifying their client's last stated settlement position as well as any additional information believed to be helpful to the process of reaching agreement.
I don't read a lot of legal documents, but specifically points (3) and (4) sound an awful lot like a judge who's absolutely sick and tired of being jerked around.
If I read this right the judge is trying to expose exactly what's going on here. I hope that is his intention. It sounds like it to me. If that's the case, the RIAA will drop the case. If they don't, if the judge has his way, that that's it for the RIAA. And it certainly sounds like that's on the judge's agenda.
Because if the judge exposes this for the scam that it is, there will be the Mother Of All Class Action Countersuits, where the previous victims of this scam unite and get their money back. With damages added, of course.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
NYCL, would you favor us with your opinion regarding what you think will happen at the settlement meeting?
If it goes forward, the Judge will lean on each party to soften its position, and get rid of the case.
For one thing, is it clear who the settlement will favor?
Most likely the settlement would be for a small payment by defendant. Most likely all parties will be unhappy with it.
How unusual is an order like this, and why do you think the judge entered it?
In my experience it is quite unusual, and the judge entered into to try to avoid another taxpayer funded circus serving no appropriate purpose. The courts have much more serious things to attend to than some lady allegedly downloading 24 MP3 files.
And why is it so important that Oppenheim can't represent the RIAA at the meeting?
Because he and his lawyer friends have been churning these cases to the detriment of everyone except themselves.
Presumably he was only following executive orders anyway.
I think the actual relationship is somewhat more subtle than that. Yes the record company executives authorized this, but both they and Oppenheim and the lawyers Oppenheim hired were all acting to the detriment of the companies themselves. Yes they had authority to do it. But they weren't giving their clients sound advice. And the record companies were being played for the suckers. Highly 'aggressive' clients are easy prey.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Assuming the judge *lets* them drop the case without prejudice. Seems like the judge is more than tired of the nonsense and if the MAFIAA tries a 'oh! my bad! Let's be friends' he'll *find* for the defendant - which would amount to making case law out of his/her defense.
That would go a LONG way to invalidating their whole extortion scheme - they sue, defense cites this case and then puts in a counterclaim for legal fees and damages.
The MAFIAA doesn't care if they don't win - they just can't afford to actually LOSE because it would set a precedent.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Would the settlement proceedings effect just this one instance, Capitol Records v. Thomas, or would the results be more wide reaching, perhaps setting a precedent for other cases pending around the country?
Yes, anyone a judge orders to appear in court but who doesn't appear is clearly acting in contempt of court. In that case, the judge can issue a bench warrant and that person can be arrested and held in custody (i.e. jail) until they agree to appear (if they skip out on this they'll have an warrant issued on them immediately). The only recourse I'm aware of would be a writ of habeus corpus from a higher court. I don't think even an executive pardon or legislative act (either at state or federal level) can get you out of contempt of court in the USA.
And even more importantly, while he hasn't named anyone specific he has order that someone with specific roles in the record companies to appear. Ultimately, it is the obligation of the top executives to direct their companies to ensure someone from their company who meets these qualifications attends the hearings. If they don't then the judge can summon them to explain their failure to do so in person, if they ignore that summons they will be in contempt of court themselves (and all that entails).
I am not a lawyer and there might be some nuiances I'm unaware of that would allow them to weasel-out of the intended process. However on the face of the matter, the record execs will be exposing themselves to a world of legal hurt if they simply ignore this court order.
Sure that might satisfy the legal obligation, but as a practical matter it could seriously backfire and they would to live with it if they did. Perhaps the janitor in question was captain of his high school debate team, but unless he has prior experience and skill with negotiations he could still unintentionally "give away the Homeworld" (Babylon 5 reference), especially if the otherside is very shrewd. After all, they can't invalidate a settlement just because their hand-picked negotiator is incompetent!