Righthaven Asks Court To Speed Up Ruling Against It So It Doesn't Have To Pay For A Trial
from the just-dismiss-it dept
The Righthaven situation keeps getting more amusing. Apparently one of the cases is actually scheduled to go to trial next week... but Righthaven doesn't want it to go forward because it can't afford to actually go to trial. However, the company seems perturbed that the defendant has filed a motion to dismiss on the same standing issue that's resulted in multiple dismissals in nearly every Righthaven case since it was discovered that the copyright transfer from newspapers to Righthaven was a sham transfer. So, Righthaven has now asked the court (involving a judge who has already ruled against Righthaven) to speed things up and avoid the trial by ordering Righthaven to show cause over the standing issue. Yes, Righthaven appears to be asking the court to speed up the process of dismissing the case, without it dismissing the case directly itself. The defendant, Kevin Kelleher and his lawyers, note the irony here:Righthaven appears to be inviting the court to commit what Righthaven would contend is legal error by dismissing this action,’’Righthaven also seems angry that Kelleher hasn't filed for dismissal himself, even though it promised to do so itself. Of course, the reasoning here is that Righthaven (a) doesn't want to actually go through a trial it can't afford, but (b) doesn't want to dismiss because it's still hoping against all hope that it can win an appeal and get these cases reinstated. Either way, it's pretty funny to see Righthaven asking the court to speed up ruling against it.
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: copyright, nevada, standing
Companies: righthaven
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you say Case Study?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can you say Case Study?
Do they do case studies in idiotic legal strategies in law school?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can you say Case Study?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It doesn't help people accused in other situations over different works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve Gibson was right!
What you're seeing here is Righthaven trying to follow that advice!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Steve Gibson was right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It appears that not only are they bad at law, but bad at business as well. Hopefully these crooks are small enough to fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...and then go to trial, using the proceeds from the lottery tickets it is presently buying.
They ought to set aside at least enough money for some false moustaches and vocational training, since they're probably done with law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money gone where?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money gone where?
When it comes to Righthaven demanding to know the name and address of thousands of people, that's when its alright to breach privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why be afraid of trial?
Further, attorneys often play games with discovery (objecting and giving vague answers). If one party is not satisfied with a discovery answer, they must attempt to negotiate resolution informally and only then may file a motion in which they must detail the question and the response and why it is insufficient - obviously a costly and time-consuming process. None of this burden exists at a trial where the judge is in control and will instantly rule on objections.
All sorts of questions could be asked during the trial of both the principals of RH and their "backers". The manner and method of negotiations of the famous agreement and its amendments would all come out.
A trial record also makes it much more difficult to appeal. While an appeal claiming an error of law is heard denovo (a do over of the legal issues), factual determinations made by a trial court (or jury) are subject to challenge only if they are clearly incorrect. This is a much more difficult standard to sustain on appeal.
It is an interesting procedural issue. The court could allow the trial so as to gain evidence concerning the standing issue (which previously has been based on limited evidence submitted without testimony, cross-examination, etc). The court would most likely allow the entire trial to occur since it would not be efficient to stop it half-way through.
Absent a motion by one of the parties, the court is well within its discretion to allow matters to go forward - particularly given a lack of objection by the defendant. The position of RH (that there is standing) further supports the court's allowing a trial to occur.
So, hats off to the defendant here. Good call. I hope the court refuses to take the bait and forces the trial to go forward. The testimony will be priceless to read and make RH's appeals that much more difficult from a credibility stand-point.
Paul
[ link to this | view in chronology ]