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."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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?
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.