UMG v. Lindor Ends, No Fees, No Sanctions

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."

Comments

Great.

[Adambomb]

So the case is dropped without requiring attorneys fees, adding to the impression that it may be cheaper to pay the recording industry a settlement than have years of legal battle for nothing beyond not having been required to pay the ridiculous punitive damages.

a clear win for the RIAA gameplan, if not the widest possible margin.

Re:Great.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

if its not considered terribly bad form, i wonder if Mr. Beckerman wouldnt mind telling us the ballpark figure this case cost Mrs Lindor. Or failing that, just the total number of billable hours and a general idea of other costs, monitary or opportunity, that she incurred. If only for a sense of proportion.

Suffice it to say, it was a terrible hardship on Ms. Lindor and her entire family.

Re:Great.

[kbob88]

Regarding attorney's fees, from the decision:

In addition to the defendant's delayed disclosures, Beckerman, defendant's counsel, adopted an unduly contentious approach throughout this litigation (albeit the same can be said of plaintiff's counsel). For that reason alone, his request for attorney's fees and costs is not only denied but is also inappropriate.

Sounds like the judge was pretty annoyed, and is taking his ball and going home.

Re:Great.

[wigaloo]

Regarding attorney's fees, from the decision:

In addition to the defendant's delayed disclosures, Beckerman, defendant's counsel, adopted an unduly contentious approach throughout this litigation (albeit the same can be said of plaintiff's counsel). For that reason alone, his request for attorney's fees and costs is not only denied but is also inappropriate.

Why inappropriate? What does Mr. Beckerman's approach have to do with whether or not his attourney's fees -- presumably to be paid by Ms. Lindor -- are to be covered? Surely whether or not the fees are to be paid is a matter of law, and not at the personal discretion of the judge. That the judge is taking out his frustrations with Mr. Beckerman on Ms. Lindor seems wholly inappropriate to me. What the hell is it with the legal system that results in a defendant having to pay when the incorporated plaintiff requests dismissal of the case?

"Without prejudice, without attorney fees...

[mmell]

Perhaps I'm missing something. Doesn't this mean:

The RIAA can refile if they wish (no prejudice), and

Lindor has to pay for his own attorney, UMG is totally off the hook ("no harm, no foul")

They were right: government of the people, by the people and for the people - but in the court system, big business rulez!

Re:"Without prejudice, without attorney fees...

[dgatwood]

Exactly. This case shows pretty clearly that if you're a big company with enough money, you can trample all over the rights of the public, break the law flagrantly, and still get off scot-free. This was anything but a win for the rule of law. At best, it was a draw.

Re:"Without prejudice, without attorney fees...

[Pharmboy]

But some people are more equal than others.

So fighting off the RIAA carries no costs

[Arancaytar]

Other than an attorney bill that you need to sell your kidney for.

Yeah, that's going to teach the RIAA not to scare people. :/

Re:finally,

[SanityInAnarchy]

No fees is sanity? Shouldn't the RIAA have to pay for bringing what seems to be an essentially frivolous lawsuit?

Re:finally,

[Chris Mattern]

Let's see here: The RIAA has demonstrated that they can roast you slowly in court for years, costing you many thousands in lawyer's fees, and get a dismissal which costs them nothing and allows them to sue you for the exact same thing all over again! Yep, they're in trouble now...

Re:finally,

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Shouldn't the RIAA have to pay for bringing what seems to be an essentially frivolous lawsuit?

Yes.

Surprised that no violence occurs

[DoofusOfDeath]

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.

Re:Surprised that no violence occurs

[micheas]

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.

Re:finally,

[2obvious4u]

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

Re:Ray...

[MonsterTrimble]

Some place that uses Fortinet? http://www.fortinet.net/

Same boat. Epically sucks.

Re:finally,

[bmo]

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

Re:finally,

[SanityInAnarchy]

Well, true, but MediaSentry doesn't exist in a vacuum. More money paid to lawsuits means either less money to actually spend on artists (and thus, artists leaving to form indie labels), or less money to spend on MediaSentry. Either one is a good thing in the long run.

More importantly, it would mean the defendant wouldn't have to pay those obscene legal fees, they'd just have to waste a ton of time. So it's not quite a win for the defendant, but it isn't quite what it is now, where a defendant is likely to settle just because their legal fees may well outweigh any possible settlement.

Finally, if it set a precedent, it would break this habit the RIAA has of simply suing everyone and asking questions later. Right now, it's actually profitable for them to do so, because occasionally they do get a settlement. If it cost them that much more each time they failed, they might pay a little more attention to who they sue in the first place.

Re:finally,

[SanityInAnarchy]

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.

Re:Weird

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Reading the judge's decision, he blames most of the court costs on the fact that the Lindors may have had a houseguest in 2004, and that she sold her computers sometime between 2004 and 2008, which was a loss of evidence for the RIAA. If they had disclosed their houseguest then a lot of this could have been averted, according to the judge. Talk about overcompensation for a small discrepancy, you effectively ruin a family because they didn't disclose a houseguest they had for an unknown amount of time. I am not a lawyer, but that seems like a pretty large case of overkill.

The judge's decision seems to be based entirely upon his having accepted as gospel the first version of Ms. Yanick Raymond-Wright's testimony, and totally ignored the second version contained in her errata sheet. At her deposition she testified that she spent a considerable amount of time at Ms. Lindor's house during the Summer of 2004. Thereafter, Ms. Raymond-Wright consulted her records and realized that she was in school in the Summer of 2004, so that it was another Summer, not the Summer of 2004. The trier of fact, at the trial, would have been permitted to determine which of the two versions to accept. Judge Trager was not the trier of fact, since this was a jury case. So the judge -- without even observing the demeanor of witnesses -- made a decision which it was beyond his authority to make.

Re:finally,

[Ungrounded Lightning]

No fees is sanity? Shouldn't the RIAA have to pay for bringing what seems to be an essentially frivolous lawsuit?

Worse: dismissed without prejudice.

In other words the RIAA can rinse and repeat... B-b

Re:finally,

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

What, exactly, did NYCL do that was "unduly contentious?" I don't know.

Neither do I. Neither did Judge Trager. Neither did Judge Levy.

Stupid decision? Yes.

Let us say an "incorrect" decisions.

Some sort of anti-individual, pro-monopolistic corporation perversion of the legal system conspiracy? No.

Let me put it this way: undue deference have been paid to the corporate plaintiffs on numerous occasions during this litigation.