Righthaven Fails To Pay Sanctions; Complains A Day Late
from the wow dept
It really is quite stunning just how cavalier Righthaven appears to be concerning the absolute smackdown it has been getting repeatedly from various judges. The company was accused of trying to avoid paying legal fees owed in one case. In the first big case where it got smacked down, the one involving the Democratic Underground, which revealed Righthaven's questionable deal with Stephens Media, the court last month ordered Righthaven to pay $5,000 for misleading the court and to send the transcript of Judge Roger Hunt's explanation for the sanctions to everyone else that Righthaven is currently suing. That happened on July 14th and the company was given two weeks to comply.Once again, it did not. Instead, a day after the deadline to pay up, Righthaven filed for an extension on paying, and said that it had come across some new "grounds to appeal the monetary sanction imposed by the court." It also complained that this research "has taken a significant period of time," which is why it was late and wanted more time. Separately, Righthaven admits that it has not lived up to the requirement to send the transcript of the hearing to all of the other cases its involved with. Here its reasoning is somewhat ridiculous. It claims that it didn't have access to the transcript until two days before it had to be given to the other cases, and at that time it was busy with some of the many other cases in which it has been smacked down.
Judge Hunt, who has the patience of a saint, actually granted a ten day extension, saying that Righthaven has to pay up by August 8th. However, he also makes it clear that he's (yet again) not at all happy about Righthaven's actions. In Righthaven's filing for an extension it also asked for "clarification" on delivering the transcript to all of the parties it had sued, asking if it was okay to just file the documents with the court, rather than deliver them to the actual parties sued. Judge Hunt, who you can almost hear sighing, points out that he "does not believe clarification is necessary," but agrees to provide it just to be crystal clear:
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.And then he notes that while he's granting the extension, he believes he's already being "overly generous" in doing so, and won't accept more delays, and will not be happy if Righthaven does not pay up:
Finally, after reexamining the issues and counsel�s stated difficulties, the Court concludes that it was overly generous in granting the extension because counsel�s situation is largely�if not entirely�of his and Righthaven�s own making. Righthaven and its counsel should concentrate their efforts on material issues and court orders, not wishful research. Further, if counsel does not have time to do all that he needs to in Righthaven�s dozens of cases, the Court kindly suggests that he or Righthaven obtain additional help, not complain to the Court about time constraints. Righthaven also informed the Court in its motion that it plans to request a stay of the monetary sanction. The Court already granted an extension, which it will not change, and suggests Righthaven not waste its time on a motion requesting any further relief from the sanction.What amazes me is how incredibly tone deaf Righthaven appears to be to the repeated smackdowns it is getting from judges and how weak its legal position is. I recognize some of that is posturing, but it seems to go even further than that. It seems like Righthaven still thinks that these rulings aren't that big of a deal.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: sanctions
Companies: democratic underground, eff, righthaven, stephens media
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's like SCO's "negative knowledge". (Don't ask. Or visit Groklaw. SCO used the "negative knowledge" argument in court. Its like saying SCO knows many ways how NOT to make a successful operating system.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I hope so. We should get to the jerk at the end pretty soon...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Minor typo
Also, this judge is awesome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Minor typo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Minor typo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Minor typo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please RightHaven --- DON'T STOP
Eventually you'll dig deep enough and find oil. Or China.
You're providing two valuable services:
1. Precedents against future copyright trolls.
2. Amazingly funny comedy material.
Yes, just like SCO, you'll be a laughing stock for years. Hope you like your reputation. Glad you've managed to get the names of both Review Journal and Stephen's Media dragged into it. Good job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now that puts a smirk on my face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Truly believe that people have taken from you. Treat them as "thieves". Collect your money by any means necessary.
Righthaven is not in the business of seeking justice for their clients, rather they're in the business of extortion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Queue the AC apologists in...
Where's the paytard battle cry "But the law is the law!" now?
Pay up RH! Feels good being on the other side doesn't it?
I wish they'd just find the tallest tree in the county and hang 'em all, then throw a BBQ to celebrate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Denial is the first stage of grief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The judge is unprofessional
Mike, shouldn't this drivel have waited until Friday? One stupid judge acting retarded is not a good story line. The law is the law, and even judges can't circumvent it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The judge is unprofessional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The judge is unprofessional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The judge is unprofessional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The judge is unprofessional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The judge is unprofessional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The judge is unprofessional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who's looking out for big business?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Court shows a distinct lack of self-respect
Given the explanations, extensions, and all-around lack of consequences, Righthaven appears to be correct in thinking that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Court shows a distinct lack of self-respect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too bad this couldn't be settled the old way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The more patient they seem to be, the more you really.. really.. I mean REALLY.. do not ever, EVER want them to become pissed off, because once pissed off they are more scary and unknown than a Judge who is by nature easily annoyed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You gotta know when to fold 'em
[ link to this | view in chronology ]