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.
hmmm - after reading the order... it sounds like if they probably do NOT want to skip this in any way shape or form...
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
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
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....
It certainly was! If you've not heard of NewYorkCountryLawyer then you're definitely new here!
This one man has done more than anyone else to bring to the public's attention what the MAFIAA have beeen up to for the past few years - check out his blog at http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ for more details.
Ray - keep up the good work, it looks like we're heading for the endgame now....
Out of a morbid sense of curiosity, what happens if they don't follow it to the letter?
It would never happen, but if it were to happen, the judge would throw the case out and grant the defendant her attorneys fees and costs.
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.
this /. summary must have been written by a lawyer, or at least someone who desperately wants to become one!
Well you're part right.
It was written by a lawyer.
But he does not desperately want to be a lawyer; in fact he would prefer to be just about anything else.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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
And in case you hadn't noticed, Slashdot is now available online!
Really? Wow. I'll have to stop getting the paper version delivered.
I am anarch of all I survey.
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