Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood Demands $2,100 To Reveal The Emails He's Had With The MPAA
from the shake-down dept
As you may know, we've been covering the story of Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood and his campaign against Google. A few years ago, we noted how bizarre it was that Hood and other state Attorneys General seemed to be blaming Google for all kinds of bad things online. It seemed to show a fundamental lack of understanding about how the internet (and the law!) worked. Of course, things became somewhat more "understandable" when emails leaked in the Sony Hack revealed that the MPAA had an entire "Project Goliath" designed around attacking Google, and the centerpiece of it was funding Jim Hood's investigation into Google, including handling most of the lawyering, writing up Hood's letters to Google and even the "civil investigative demand" (CID -- basically a subpoena) that he could send.Hood lashed out angrily about all of this, even as the NY Times revealed that the metadata on the letter he sent Google showed that it was really written by top MPAA lawyers. Hood continued to angrily lash out, demonstrating how little he seemed to understand about the internet. He made claims that were simply untrue -- including pretending that Google would take users to Silk Road, the dark market hidden site that could never be found via a Google search. Hood also dared reporters to find any evidence of funding from Hollywood, and it didn't take us long to find direct campaign contributions to his PAC from the MPAA and others.
Given all of this, we filed a Mississippi Public Records request with his office, seeking his email communications with the MPAA, its top lawyers and with the Digital Citizens Alliance, an MPAA front-group that has released highly questionable studies on "piracy" and just so happened to have hired Hood's close friend Mike Moore to lobby Hood in Mississippi. Moore was the Mississippi Attorney General before Hood and helped Hood get into politics.
We've had to go back and forth with Hood's office a few times. First, his office noted that Google had actually filed a similar request, and wanted to know if we were working for Google in making the request. We had no idea Google made such a request and certainly were not working on behalf of Google in making our request -- but Hood's office helpfully forwarded us Google's request, which was actually a hell of a lot more detailed and comprehensive than our own. This actually is helpful in pointing to some other areas of interest to explore.
However, after some more back and forth, Hood's office first said that it would refuse to share the emails between Hood and the MPAA's lawyers as they "constitute attorney-client communications" or "attorney work product" and that finding the rest of the emails would... require an upfront payment of $2,103.10:
In response to your request for e-mails between this office and the Motion Picture Association of America or the Digital Citizens Alliance, we estimate it will take our IT department five hours to conduct searches for e-mails responsive to your request. The hourly figure for the lowest paid employee able and available to do this work is $30.62, for a total of $153.10.I had one further back and forth with the office, asking why these estimates seemed so high. In this day and age, how could it honestly take five hours to run a search on an email system? More importantly, how could it possibly take 30 hours of high priced time to review each document like that? I may not be a FOIA master like Jason Leopold, but I've never seen a response to a FOIA request like this. Normally, when a journalist is seeking records, it's fairly standard to exempt fees, but it seems clear that Jim Hood's office doesn't want these emails getting out, so it's not going to do that.
The documents will then have to be reviewed to determine if they fall under the definition of "public records" as defined by Miss. Code Ann. §25-61-3(b), and if they are otherwise exempt from the Public Records Act. At this time, a rough estimate of the amount of time to review the requested records is thirty hours. At $65 per hour, the total, conservative estimate to review your request is $1,950. Pursuant to statute, these total estimated costs of $2,103.10 must be paid in advance. We will revise the estimate as necessary after the search is completed and we have a better idea of how many documents must be reviewed. Of course, if we are able to fulfill your request for less than the estimate, then we will refund the difference to you.
It also is already telegraphing the fact that it's likely not going to release any of the emails that actually matter, claiming that they are either "attorney work product" or "investigative reports." While Hood's office says there are "nearly 900 emails" responsive to my request, it expects most of them to be exempt from public records requests. Thus, all we'd end up doing is forking over $2,103.10 that we don't have to Jim Hood's office to use to further its own efforts. I have no interest in further funding Hood attempting to attack fundamentals of free speech and the internet, but this little bit of obstructionism certainly is suggestive of the way Hood's office operates, and its absolute fear of transparency.
It certainly makes you wonder why his office is so afraid to release those emails? The Sony Hack certainly revealed some questionable activities going on between Hood, the MPAA, its lawyers and the Digital Citizens Alliance. If Hood's work with the MPAA and its lawyers and partners were truly above board, and Hood were truly committed to transparency, you'd think his office would be eager to release the emails and clear up any misconception. Unfortunately, they'd rather demand thousands of dollars from a small blog. That says a lot.
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: jim hood, journalism, mississippi, open records
Companies: google, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Slip of the tongue?
Hood's office first said that it would refuse to share the emails between Hood and the MPAA's lawyers as they "constitute attorney-client communications" or "attorney work product"
Compare the above to this, from an earlier article:
Hood said the MPAA "has no major influence on my decision-making," although he noted that content creators occasionally provide reports and advice to him. "They're just reporting wrongdoing. There's nothing unusual about that," he said. Hood said he has never asked MPAA a legal question, isn't sure which lawyers they employ, and doesn't think he's ever met the organization's general counsel.
So they've had 'no major influence on [his] decision making', and yet there are estimated to be at least 900 emails sent between the two.
In addition, despite claiming that they were 'just reporting wrongdoing', and Hood never asked them a legal question, somehow the communications between the two qualify as "constitute attorney-client communications" or "attorney work product".
One of these claims is clearly not true. Either the hundreds of emails sent back and forth had nothing to do with legal matters, in which case they would not be protected as attorney-client communications, or they were indeed legal discussions, in which case they would be.
Honestly, if he's going to lie, he could at least put some effort into it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Slip of the tongue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As for Hood, shame on him.
it would refuse to share the emails between Hood and the MPAA's lawyers as they "constitute attorney-client communications" or "attorney work product"
The "attorney-client" claim is kind of shaky already considering the whole thing but let's not be so harsh, eh? But "attorney work product" would include virtually everything produced by his office considering he is the ATTORNEY general... But never mind.
I think this is big. Very big. I hope Google digs to the end. And if I see a crowdsourcing campaign to help dig it I will contribute for sure. It's about time the anti-piracy morons are exposed for their shady business that does not care about artists and creativity at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Slip of the tongue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Slip of the tongue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To get that "900 emails" figure, does that mean they already spent the "five hours" running the query?
Why are they charging you for work they already did?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Slip of the tongue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Slip of the tongue?
when we practice to deceive."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crowd source it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Explanation for 5 hours...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Crowd source it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Slip of the tongue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Crowd source it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Slip of the tongue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Crowd source it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It also is already telegraphing the fact that it's likely not going to release any of the emails that actually matter, claiming that they are either "attorney work product" or "investigative reports." While Hood's office says there are "nearly 900 emails" responsive to my request, it expects most of them to be exempt from public records requests. Thus, all we'd end up doing is forking over $2,103.10 that we don't have to Jim Hood's office to use to further its own efforts. I have no interest in further funding Hood attempting to attack fundamentals of free speech and the internet, but this little bit of obstructionism certainly is suggestive of the way Hood's office operates, and its absolute fear of transparency.
Crowdfunding things like this would be nice, but in this case pointless, as it would be paying for useless information(as any damning emails would certainly be kept), and giving money to an unpleasant individual to help him with his actions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Crowd source it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
courts generally recognize that the attorney-client privilege is established when a communication is made between privileged persons, in confidence, for the purpose of Seeking, obtaining, or providing legal assistance to the client.
I guess hood is in some sort of trouble.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm calling bullshit on this. There's no way that their lowest paid IT person is making $30+ an hour. It's more realistically half that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is ridiculous. The communications between Hood and MPAA's lawyers are not attorney-client communications unless one was retained as the lawyer for the other. Which, almost certainly, is not the case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pigeon-hole him
Ask his office if this is confirmation that he has retained MPAA attorneys as counsel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Waiver?
Indeed, the emails would seem to be a clear example of a *waiver* of attorney client privileged because Jim Hood is a 3d party to the MPAA and their lawyers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Falsehood
Small blog? Sh'yeah.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I remind you that this blog is read widely and frequently by political forces in Washington, DC. Jim Hood has political foes if nothing more than the opposite political faction but could well go deeper.
Several articles on this is likely to bring the sort of embarrassing pressures that Hood would not like to be faced with, in a front page sort of news worthy event in his own state where accountability is likely to bring a Streisand landslide.
Jim Hood has put himself in a rather delicate position for a public figure. One that is beginning to sound highly fragile and needing only some small push to create a Humpty Dumpty event.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Falsehood
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Slip of the tongue?
Just going by this latest lie, didn't he just admit he's working for the MPAA ("attorney-client") while serving as Mississippi's AG, or is he saying he's the client and the MPAA is his lawyer (and, if so, WTF?!?)? How can anyone reasonably expect BS like this to pass the smell test?
I can tell I'm going to really enjoy reading whatever Google pries out of him. This is crazier than HRC's email problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Slip of the tongue?
WTF legal business does the THE STATE'S AG have with a private korporation that there is 'attorney/client' privilege ? ? ?
just who the hell is he 'representing' ? ? ?
(rhetorical question)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Slip of the tongue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lets look some more
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
To the extent that the claim isn't complete bullshit (which I think it probably is), I would think the MPAA hired him, not the other way around. Which should be grounds for immediate prosecution IMO, but we know how likely a federal prosecutor is to pursue an AG.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crowd source it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Attorney General is a state employee...
That means every citizen of that state is a client, and has the legal right to every document / e-mail / recording that this idiot has.
He has NO privacy, he's employed by the people of his state.
End of story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Slip of the tongue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Slip of the tongue?
as we practice more and more"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or a facepalm button/emoticon.
Even a face-go-splat-on-desk button or emoticon would get used a lot!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ($30.62...)
And quite a few IT folks are on salary. IT got shafted in FLSA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: ($30.62...)
That doesn't mean they wouldn't charge for the work though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If only there was a group that would investigate criminal actions like this. Peddling ones power & office to the highest bidder, seems like it should be a serious crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And here are of all you dummies defending him and a huge corporation. All so you can steal music and movies. You're a real benefit to society, guys. Nice job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
If this is true, then surely you won't have a problem pointing them out.
"All so you can steal music and movies."
As I suspected, you have no idea what you're talking about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do you REALLY prefer the MPAA actively working to corrupt our democracy? Or are you just a paid shill?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why the estimate was so high
These days, that estimate was so high because, try as they might, Hood's office just could not find a way to justify $21,030,100.00.
I mean, seriously, what part of, "Go away," didn't you understand?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'd like to see proof of that.
Afraid not. I boycott. I look forward to watching Imaginary Property maximalists' rotting and emaciated bodies float by.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040604.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
locaation, location, location...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Slip of the tongue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yup.
Well, that's equivalent to "we refuse to share the emails since they are evidence of a criminal collusion between state servant Hood and the MPAA". Because a criminal collusion is the only thing which could lead to an attorney-client relationship here.
It's nice that they admit as much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Slip of the tongue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ironically, it was the fair-haired Republican stalwart Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Attorney General is a state employee...
They changed the law and now its only a land of Order.
So now, all Federal Employees have civil rights and all citizens have but one right - the right to remain silent, as anything you say may and indeed will be used against you in a court of law.
No Brown Shirt, no civil rights.
---
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We Done Fucked UP!!!!
Google seems to have much better lawyers who are able to show they are in the right even under the restrictive court rules, I am personally impressed with their lawyers so far and hope they continue this winning trend.
Seems like the cocaine parties have gone to MAFFIA heads as they don't make any sense when arguing this case.
Awwww shut up andy they might read this and use that as an excuse to get the case thrown out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: locaation, location, location...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Slip of the tongue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]