Righthaven LLC -- a bottom feeding legal outfit -- has teamed up with the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Denver Post to sue mom and pop websites, advocacy and public interest groups and forum board operators for copyright infringement. The strategy of Righthaven is to sue thousands of these website owners, who are primarily unfunded and will be forced to settle out of court.
Righthaven lawsuitsTo date Righthaven has been ordered to pay $323,138 in legal fees and sanctions.Righthaven lawsuits

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Judge Hunt's Response to Extension: Focus on Material Issues, Not 'Wishful Research' Efforts

In response to Righthaven's application for extension, Chief U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt granted the 10 additional days, then scolded the copyright trolling group and again clarified the July 14 order by defining legal terms such as "parties" and "pending matters" for Righthaven. Hunt also wrote that Righthaven's situation is "largely—if not entirely—of his and Righthaven’s own making" and that, "its counsel should concentrate their efforts on material issues and court orders, not wishful research."
First, as Righthaven points out in its motion, when the Court issued the sanctions the Court and counsel referred to “parties,” not merely cases. Accordingly, it is insufficient to merely file the required documents; Righthaven must produce the documents to the parties in those cases as the Court clearly stated. The reason for this is simple: the Court is fully aware of Righthaven’s practice of filing suit against a party and then entering settlement negotiations (and frequently settling) without ever serving the party. The Court concludes that depriving those parties of the benefit of the Court’s order would be unjust.
Second, Righthaven must produce the required documents to all parties in all pending matters. The Court stated that the order would “not apply to those cases that have been dismissed unless there’s going to be an appeal in those cases.” The Court clearly ordered that Righthaven produce these documents in cases that have been dismissed but are later appealed. This logically includes cases that have already been appealed. Further, if there are any pending motions in a case, that case is still pending in some fashion. Accordingly, Righthaven must produce the required documents in those cases as well even if all that remains pending is a request for attorney’s fees or some similar matter.
See: Judge Hunt's Response to Application for Extension

Service of process costs money; yet another fee Righthaven has been trying to avoid when filing their no-warning lawsuits. Hunt knows Righthaven's game and effectively just tightened up the screws.

1 comment:

  1. Righthaven has until tomorrow, August 8, to comply with the court order to provide a transcript to all parties in pending litigation, including those it has failed to yet serve with the lawsuits they have filed.

    I am a defendant in Righthaven v The Law Med Blog et al. filed in May. They have not yet served any of the defendants in that suit, and as of today have failed to comply with the judges order to provide the transcript. We shall see what tomorrow brings.


Comments that persecute Righthaven victims will be deleted.