Randazza Files For Contempt Of Court Against Righthaven
from the you-knew-this-was-coming dept
This won't come as much of a surprise to anyone following the ongoing battle between Righthaven and Marc Randazza, representing Wayne Hoehn (Randazza is also representing other clients fighting Righthaven, but much of the "action" is in the Hoehn case). The latest is a filing (embedded below) for the court to declare Righthaven in contempt of the court for completely ignoring a court order from December 12th to produce certain documents to Randazza as part of the effort to collect the attorneys' fees that the court has already ordered:Righthaven has failed to respect this Court's lawful order. On December 12, this Court entered an order granting Hoehn's motion to conduct a debtors examination in the presence of a U.S. Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 67). Righthaven did not oppose Hoehn's motion seeking a debtors exam, and therefore consented to this Court's entry of an order scheduling one (Docs. # 60, 64). At this time, there is no stay in place to inhibit the debtors exam from proceeding (Docs. # 56, 57).I would suggest that Righthaven's strategy of trying to completely ignore Randazza is not likely to be successful.
In order to ensure his debtors exam was efficient, targeted and fruitful, Hoehn moved the Court to order Righthaven to produce certain documents in advance of the examination (Docs. # 60, 60-4). The Court granted this request by adopting Hoehn's proposed order, and instructed Righthaven in clear, unambiguous language, to produce to Hoehn all of the following at least one (1) week before the scheduled examination:Any and all information and documentation identifying real property, vehicles, bank accounts, bank deposits, company securities, intangible intellectual property and all other assets that may be available for execution to satisfy this Court's judgment and writ of execution, including money owed to Judgment Debtor by others, and other information of the like;andAny and all information and documentation identifying purchases, transfers of funds, or other dissipation of assets from Righthaven to yourselves or any other third parties commencing on or about April 15, 2011. (Doc. # 67 at 2)By obtaining these documents, Hoehn hoped to prepare for the debtors examination with specific, narrowly tailored questions about any unexplained or suspicious assets or transactions. Righthaven has refused to produce these documents, to discuss their production, or to even acknowledge that the Court ordered the Plaintiff to produce these documents...
One week after the Court's order instructing Righthaven to produce the above-described documents, December 19, Hoehn's counsel sent a facsimile message to Righthaven's counsel inquiring about the production of those documents, as Righthaven had not contacted Hoehn about their production.... Righthaven's counsel had previously requested that all correspondence occur exclusively via U.S. Mail or facsimile, and Hoehn's counsel honored this request .... Sensing that Righthaven may not comply with the Court's order, Hoehn's counsel subpoenaed several banks doing business in Las Vegas for any financial records they may have for Righthaven LLC .... Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1), Hoehn's counsel provided a notice of these subpoenas to Righthaven's counsel .... Since bank records were just a small portion of the documents the Court ordered Righthaven to produce, Hoehn's counsel specifically reminded Righthaven of its duty to produce these documents in advance of the debtors exam, despite the subpoena .... To the contrary, the subpoenas heightened the need for Righthaven's records, as they were needed were needed in order to check for discrepancies against the bank-issued financial records.
Having received no reply from Righthaven with respect to the December 19 letter or December 21 notice, Hoehn's counsel sent another letter to Righthaven's counsel via facsimile on December 26, 2011.... Righthaven's counsel did not respond to this communication.... After the close of business on December 29, 2011, one week before the scheduled debtors examination, Hoehn's counsel again sent a letter to Righthaven's counsel via facsimile and U.S. Mail, seeking production of these documents ... To date, Righthaven's counsel has not responded to this communication
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: contempt of court, marc randazza, shawn mangano, steve gibson
Companies: righthaven
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not sure laughing is really appropriate....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Huh? What makes you think Gibson is not about to have a bench warrant issued for his arrest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Righthaven, with good intent, was set up to vindicate people's rights that were being violated. It's apples and oranges.
God knows why they didn't turn over documents last Thursday, but violating a court order should lead to a contempt charge and a warrant. They'll get what's coming to them (as they have been all along) so I don't understand the notion that they're getting special treatment. They're not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Umm, exactly what is the intent to break the law to try and force people who did nothing wrong to try and pay for something Righthaven didn't own to begin with? I am curious about how this apple is more like an orange...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
/just sayin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, doing so, as I just did, is completely legal. I'm using your words to inspire discussion, which is protected under the first amendment.
Righthaven's whole tactic was to shakedown people for money, on rights they didn't even own. Which isn't legal to begin with, because you can't transfer the rights to sue without transferring the rights themselves.
Also "I think" does not constitute a fact. And sure, many would settle, since settling is much cheaper than going to court and fighting it out. That's one of the big issues with how out system works today. It's much cheaper and easier to just pay up than it is to fight it court. And Righthaven knew this. In fact, it was their entire strategy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That could(/should?) have been undertaken by the original rightholder(s) themselves. Righthaven was created for the purpose of shielding those rightsholders from fallout if it all went horribly wrong. All of which sort of suggests that those who created Righthaven knew they were planning something dodgy all along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"..it was set up to monetize on widespread infringement, which wouldn't be possible in the first instance, if" the applicable laws did not criminalise people for behaving normally and reasonably.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
AJ - are you aware that the apples and oranges argument has been refuted?
The paper is here:
(by Scott A. Sandford, NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, California)
"We have all been present at discussions (or arguments) in which one of the combatants attempts to clarify or strengthen a point by comparing the subject at hand with another item or situation more familiar to the audience or opponent. More often than not, this stratagem instantly results in the protest that "you're comparing apples and oranges!" This is generally perceived as being a telling blow to the analogy, since it is generally understood that apples and oranges cannot be compared. However, after being the recipient of just such an accusation, it occurred to me that there are several problems with dismissing analogies with the comparing apples and oranges defense.
First, the statement that something is like comparing apples and oranges is a kind of analogy itself. That is, denigrating an analogy by accusing it of comparing apples and oranges is, in and of itself, comparing apples and oranges. More importantly, it is not difficult to demonstrate that apples and oranges can, in fact, be compared.."
read the link to see the rest of the refutation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think anyone believes that they were in it to "illegally extort money," especially since the federal court system kinda allows them to "legally extort money." However, the fact that they didn't follow the right procedures and the fact that they didn't really own the copyrights they were using to extort money from folks with makes their efforts to "legally extort money" using the federal courts illegal. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gibson went on record a few years ago stating that the market for prosecuting online copyright infringement was in the "gazillions." Combine that with the haphazard way the agreements with Stephens Media and the Post were executed and the arrogant manner in which Righthaven went about extorting settlements, it's very difficult for many of us to see their intent as an altruistic vindication of newspapers' copyrights. This has all the earmarks of a cash grab with little to no regard for motivating creativity as intended by copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: average_joe
That's debatable, considering that Righthaven turns out not to have had sufficient rights from their clients to pursue those copyright infringement claims. Unless that was meant in sarcasm, maybe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Don't think we're at that stage yet - it does seem to be a long and tangled process for these trolls to receive their come uppance - but I would agree with AJ that it IS likely to happen sometime if he continues along his present line - courts may be more lenient to copyright trolls than to pirates - but they are generally pretty draconian against people who ignore the court - regardless of who they are or why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
See? even you are surprised at the astounding patience,
kindness and tolerance of this judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
the point being made is the speed with which a case goes to court and gets actual action taken when it's an ordinary citizen compared to a company. whether Gibson is about to have a bench warrant issued or not is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do agree, though. Companies seem to have more rights than the average citizen, which is scary.
[ 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 ]
Re:
Just doesn't make sense to let stuff default without replying.
I agree with the sentiment tho, and as someone else put it (but about the RIAA that time iirc) "I'm sorry you're drowning, please accept this anvil as a gift."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wonder where...
They are probably scrambling to hide any assets they own or transfer them out of the country.
They won't go to jail - courts almost never do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wonder where...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wonder where...
Actually, no, I am wrong about that, it uses them even with countries that it has extradition agreements with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]