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.

"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: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,

[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: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.