Slashdot Mirror
Judge Won't Punish Lawyer For Anti-RIAA Blogging
xander_zone_xxx writes with news that Ray Beckerman, known around here as NewYorkCountryLawyer, was not a "vexatious" litigant, as the RIAA claimed. In the same ruling the judge dismissed Beckerman's counter-claims against the RIAA. (We discussed the claims and counters a year back.) "An attorney defending against a music-piracy lawsuit didn't cross ethical bounds by filing motions broadly attacking the recording industry and posting them on his blog, a magistrate judge has ruled, rejecting demands from the RIAA for monetary sanctions. Attorney Ray Beckerman was 'less than forthcoming at times' in defending a client against an RIAA lawsuit, but the music industry's concerns were 'largely overstated,' New York Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy wrote Friday."
Mind you, I do wonder if outing NewYorkCountryLawyer's identity here might be a bad idea.
He outed himself a long time ago as I recall. All of his posts have his webpage in his signature line. His webpage has his name on it.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The decision said that, "[a]ccording to plaintiffs . . . counsel 'intentionally provided false information, attempted to misdirect Plaintiffs as to relevant facts and events, and concealed critical information and evidence regarding the infringement at issue,' unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying this litigation and severely prejudicing plaintiffs' ability to learn the critical facts." The complaint sought monetary sanctions under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927, which only allows for sanctions if the accused attorney "multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously ."
It's even in his description about himself in his user page (right side).
I don't understand the statement that some "counterclaim" was dismissed. The defendant did not have any counterclaims. She did make a Rule 11 motion for sanctions against the RIAA's attorneys. That motion is still pending.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
the judge dismissed both sides' complaints
Not so. The Magistrate Judge recommended denial of the RIAA's motion for "discovery sanctions". He did not rule on Ms. Lindor's Rule 11 motion for sanctions against the RIAA lawyers. That motion is still pending.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
For a more accurate and detailed article on the Magistrate Judge's decision I recommend my own Slashdot submission from last Friday, which Slashdot rejected: "RIAA's "Sanctions" Motion in Lindor Denied"
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Glad to hear NYCL. Whenever I want to find out what is up with the RIAA, I go to you first. You do a great job and please keep it up :)
Thank you, Tigersmind. Much appreciated. I notice that some of the readers are still believing what is in the article, instead of believing my report. The Rule 11 motion has not been ruled upon by Magistrate Levy.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Oh, man... corrected by the expert himself... http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm [cornell.edu] So, a Rule 11 motion simply means that the opponent may be sanctioned for breaking any other rule, if deemed appropriate, correct? If so, what exactly was the sanction for, and if it goes through, what implications might it have outside of this case?
The Rule 11 motion was based on the deliberate false statements of fact contained in the RIAA's motion. My Declaration of Ray Beckerman in opposition enumerates, in detail, the false statements, and the true facts.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Did this kind of BS from the RIAA even have a chance of working
No.
or were they just being vexatious themselves?
Absolutely, which is why I made a Rule 11 motion. I can only remember 1 other time, in 30+ years of practicing law, that I have filed a Rule 11 motion against a fellow attorney.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful