Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UMG v. Lindor Ends, No Fees, No Sanctions

Posted by kdawson on from the attempting-graceful-extrication dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The 5-year-old case of UMG Recordings v. Lindor (which we've discussed all those years) has come to a close in Brooklyn, without ever reaching the deposition and document production of MediaSentry. The District Judge denied the RIAA's motions for discovery sanctions but granted the RIAA's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice and without attorneys fees, adopting the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge."

6 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Surprised that no violence occurs by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm really surprised that with all this potential wrecking of lives, no otherwise-innocent person has simply arranged for a meeting with the accusing attorneys and shot them to death.

    I'm not advocating this, but I'm surprised that no one has snapped in that manner.

    1. Re:Surprised that no violence occurs by micheas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The recent history has been to shoot the family of the Judge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Lefkow .

      There is starting to be a realization that civil court is basically out of the reach of the lower 70% of the US citizenry. and this is starting to strain the fabric of society.

      --
      Work bio at MMWD
  2. Re:finally, by 2obvious4u · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can they counter sue? I mean they did ruin this guys life for the past couple of years...

  3. Re:Ray... by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Some place that uses Fortinet? http://www.fortinet.net/

    Same boat. Epically sucks.

    --
    I call it 'The Aristocrats'
  4. Re:finally, by bmo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's nice to know that a judge can stick you for doing your job.

    What the fuck is "unduly contentious"? Shouldn't a lawyer work harder when up against a more formidable foe than "Joe's Garage and Automobile Recycling?"

    "You successfully wore down the representatives of a large monopoly. We can't have that. You and your client must be punished"

    --
    BMO

  5. Re:finally, by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just because the defendant prevails in a case doesn't mean that the case was frivolous.

    No, and I don't mean to imply that...

    To say that it was a frivolous case would mean that the plaintiff had no hope of winning from the outset.

    The RIAA has sued a 12-year-old girl, an 85-year-old grandmother who never touched a computer in her life (not sure about the precise ages, but about that), a dead person, and a network printer.

    I suppose it's possible this case had some reasonable grounds, but in general, they've been litigious bastards, and it seems pretty clear that it was never their goal to win in court, but rather, to pressure the defense (financially, with legal fees) into a settlement.

    I'm not a lawyer, and I have no idea whether it was actually frivolous, but it seems to me that this is exactly the reason we have the ability to award legal fees -- to prevent litigious bastards from abusing the system.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!