Read: Righthaven's response to Brian Hill's motion for legal fees
In their response, Righthaven reveals their "Confidential" settlement demands and claim that Brian Hill was acting in "bad faith" for not simply capitulating to Righthaven's demands. In the settlement demands that Righthaven has revealed shows they were willing to settle for as low as $1 even though they had demanded as much as $6000, but even that $1 would have been illegal per federal law for them to collect since Brian Hill's only form of income is Social Security Disability.
The worst part of the settlement demand was to force Brian Hill to publicly disavow everything he had ever said or written about Righthaven and to remove any posts he had written about them and never to write anything "untruthfull" about Righthaven which would mean anything Righthaven objects to. This assault on Brian Hill's First Amendment right to free speech was unacceptable.
Righthaven also claims in their response that they did not object to Brian Hill's motion to get a 21 day extension after he had obtained legal council from David Kerr.
4.Righthaven did not oppose Defendant’s first request for an extension of time to respond to the Complaint.This is at odds with this Las Vegas Sun article by Steve Green dated March 1, 2011 where attorney David Kerr says that Righthaven did oppose Hill's 21 day extension:
Despite all that, Kerr complained Righthaven wouldn't agree to give Kerr more time to file a more thorough legal response.
Senior U.S. District Judge John L. Kane sided with Kerr on Tuesday, giving him until March 21 to file an amended answer to the lawsuit.