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."
My heart leaped when I first read that as "Judge Orders Record Company Execs To Death". I'm so disappointed.
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
Work's been kind of slow for him lately. Perhaps he can represent one of the record companies.
Not necessarily. It simply means that whomever represents the different companies must have full authority to agree to any settlement amount, from nothing to everything.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
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?
It means they'll probably drop the case to avoid the trouble.
That would be the smart play, wouldn't it? But then again... they're not known for choosing the smart play, are they?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
No matter if this is good or bad news against the RAFIAA, but when I read ...
"Lest there be any doubt ... the toxic effect [...] have had on the judicial process ... the decision-making process ... in the clearest possible terms ... can be no misunderstanding ... the extraordinary 2-day settlement ... who has corporate, decision-making, power ... with any limits or range attached to it", etc.
Oh bloody hell, don't know who did it, but this /. summary must have been written by a lawyer, or at least someone who desperately wants to become one! Not a good sign....
Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
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."
My guess is that Oppenheim's barred from negotiations.
He wouldn't be barred from attending. He just won't be in control, as he is normally permitted to be.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
How they got away with this before is beyond me.
It's beyond me too. In Brooklyn several years ago the Magistrate Judge ordered the "principals" of the record companies to attend an in-person settlement conference. When the day came, however, the only person who showed was Matthew Oppenheim, who is not even an employee of any of those companies. If I was the judge I would have thrown their case out, due to their flagrant disobedience of his order. Instead, the judge said "okay" and said he was accepting Oppenheim as a "principal" of all of the companies, and the judge claimed that Oppenheim was the only person in the world who had authority to settle on behalf of all 4 companies. Go figure.
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
> The judge makes it clear that no one who has 'settlement authority' with any limits or range attached to it will be acceptable
There's still a possibility that the settlement will include beheadings, since the agent will have the authority to grant it.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
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.
Looks to me like the record company execs are ordered to go to the courthouse in downtown Minneapolis, not Duluth.
Toss a couple of bucks to the defendant instead of winning is not exactly an eternity having your liver eaten while chained to a rock*...
*Also known as "justice", around these parts.
You're from Greece?
Some would consider Prometheus' punishment for giving fire to humans an injustice.
passetspike!
What's at stake is their own entire intimidation scheme... or a large part of it. They don't dare lose in court because the precedent would blow big holes in the way they go after people. If they think there is an appreciable danger of actually getting a judgment against them (other than a "confidential" settlement), they will probably drop the case like a hot potato. Because that way they will be free to try the same tactics again. But if the judgment went against them, that would set a precedent and likely they would have to either stop or make major changes to the ways they go about the whole thing. Changes that are not in their favor.
And the judge in this case is making it clear that he is tired of their games, and that he wants the principles involved (not just their hired guns) to come to the table and pony up, or go away. Three cheers for the judge.
I am not a lawyer, but that is my armchair analysis of the situation.
What is that, a Black Metal band?
Yeah, it makes me wonder what kind of figure was involved.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
I know this judge. My father was an attorney that tried many cases in front of him including his own divorce.
My father described him for the most part as a by the book sort of judge, as far as the book would go, but tended to side with the underdog when there was no specific rule dictating how he needed to rule.
My father also described his rulings as a bit irrational. Which in this case I would take to not be a good thing for record executive or their lawyers trying to game the system to punish the little guy basically using loop holes in the law.
Living in Chile
To those readers here at Slashdot and on my blog who brought this error to my attention, I express my profound gratitude.
And to all of you who may have been misled by my post, I apologize profusely.
As it turns out....the order is a standard form commonly used in Minnesota's federal court for settlement conferences. Although I have almost 35 years of litigation experience, none of that experience has been in Minnesota.
Again, sorry, folks, for my mistake.
Meanwhile, as to the substance of the order, it's still a great order; I wish the courts in which I do practice had been using it. It still requires each of the record companies to produce one of its 'officers' or 'managing agents' with decisionmaking 'power'. That means Mr. Oppenheim and the lawyers are not in control.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I take the blame. Although the trial will be in Duluth, you are correct that the notice specifies Minneapolis as the location of the settlement conference.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
3/3/10 12:50 PM UPDATE The question of whether it's a 'standard form' is not necessarily so clear. I have just heard from a few veteran Minnesota federal litigators who say they have never seen such an order in their experience.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I don't practice in Minn, but I have never seen an order like that from a Texas federal court. Some judges are very active in running settlement conferences, and it would not surprise me for them to want to be very certain that there was no waffling about people not having authority at the settlement conference. But, this order feels like one hacked off judge who is intent on seeing someone very, very senior with each party live and in front of him. In my experience, federal judges are quite capable of delivering world class butt-chewings when they decide you need it. I am happy to say I have only seen, and not been on the receiving end. The order makes perfect sense, if the judge is convinced that the Plaintiffs are jerking around individuals, by effectively threatening them with the sheer cost of the system. Sure looks like the the judge is making sure the Plaintiffs get a taste of their own medicine, by having to send someone with serious authority - in person - to attend the settlement conference.