A federal judge in Denver on Thursday criticized the litigation tactics of Las Vegas copyright enforcement company Righthaven LLC.
Senior U.S. District Judge John L. Kane, who is presiding over all 58 Righthaven cases in Colorado, made the comments in a ruling that could signal difficulties down the road for Righthaven in its Colorado lawsuits.
Kane commented that Righthaven's business model "relies in large part upon reaching settlement agreements with a minimal investment of time and effort."
"The purpose of the courts is to provide a forum for the orderly, just, and timely resolution of controversies and disputes. Plaintiff’s wishes to the contrary, the courts are not merely tools for encouraging and exacting settlements from defendants cowed by the potential costs of litigation and liability," Kane wrote in his order.
Kane's comments came as he denied Righthaven's motion for extra time to respond to a motion for dismissal in one of its most-regretted lawsuits, the one against 20-year-old North Carolina autistic blogger Brian D. Hill.
The judge's comments are some of the most critical to date among judges hearing Righthaven cases, as they echo some of the complaints by critics that Righthaven files frivolous lawsuits and then coerces defendants into settling for a few thousand dollars or risking damages of $150,000 and forfeiture of their website domain names.
Righthaven has not yet responded to Kane's order. In the past, Righthaven has said its lawsuits are not frivolous and are necessary to address rampant online infringements of newspaper material.
The order came as Righthaven said it was working hard to settle the Hill case, that a settlement is near if Hill's attorneys would negotiate in good faith and that it should be granted more time to respond to the motion for dismissal. Righthaven said in a court filing Wednesday that on March 9 the parties arrived at a "general understanding" of settlement terms.
Righthaven's assertions were denied Thursday by Hill's attorneys.
"Mr. Hill disagrees that the parties have ever had a verbal conceptual agreement. In fact, as shown herein by competent evidence, while the parties have engaged in preliminary settlement discussions, the key terms and concerns raised by Mr. Hill have yet to be substantively addressed," said a filing by Hill's attorneys David Kerr and Luke Santangelo in Fort Collins, Colo.
Kane came down on the side of Hill and his attorneys on Thursday.
"Plaintiff has failed to justify its sought-after three-week extension to respond to the arguments raised in defendant’s motion to dismiss. It has been aware of defendant’s motion for over two weeks. Plaintiff’s decision to focus its efforts and resources on reaching a settlement does not justify an extended delay in these proceedings should those efforts prove fruitless," Kane wrote Thursday.
This is the second unfavorable ruling for Righthaven by Kane in the Hill case.
Kane earlier allowed Hill's attorneys to supplement the responses Hill had made -- before he was represented by attorneys -- to the copyright infringement allegations against him involving a Denver Post TSA pat-down photo. Hill's attorneys said Righthaven had opposed allowing them to beef up Hill's response.
Two attorneys familiar with Righthaven on Thursday told the Las Vegas Sun and its sister publication VEGAS INC that Kane's ruling on Thursday was noteworthy not just for his criticism of Righthaven -- but because motions for extension of time are generally routinely granted.