The breadth of RIAA’s campaign against ‘infringement on a giganti...
The breadth of RIAA’s campaign against “infringement on a gigantic scale” doesn’t justify a refusal to give up attorney billing records in a single case, U.S. Dist. Court, Oklahoma City, ruled in Capitol v. Foster. After seeking to dismiss…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
the case last year, the trade group has tangled with defendant Debbie Foster, whose demands for reimbursement of attorney’s fees recently was granted. When RIAA replied with a motion for reconsideration (WID Feb 26 p2), Foster filed to compel release of RIAA lawyer bills. RIAA said its “litigation investment cannot be easily distilled” to a sum for Foster alone, and that its billing data cover its campaign en masse, not by case. The RIAA has given “every indication” it will “vigorously challenge” Foster’s demand for attorney’s fees, Judge Lee West said, which under 10th Circuit rules means its billing records are a “useful factor” in deciding the Foster request’s reasonableness. West noted a 1986 Supreme Court decision citing a 1980 U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., ruling: “The government cannot litigate tenaciously and then be heard to complain about the time necessarily spent by the plaintiff in response.” The court understands that billing records are not an “immutable yardstick” for setting Foster’s compensation, and will weigh the breadth of RIAA’s litigation portfolio in deciding how much Foster gets, West said. RIAA has until March 26 to hand over the requested materials. West also approved RIAA’s motion to file a response to Foster, who objected to RIAA’s motion for reconsideration of the fee award. That filing is due March 22.