Las Vegas copyright enforcement company Righthaven LLC faces more problems in its most-regretted lawsuit, the one over a Denver Post photo that it dismissed Sunday against autistic North Carolina blogger Brian D. Hill.
Hill's attorneys today filed a motion seeking unspecified attorney's fees and asking for a hearing on the issue.
Righthaven says it didn't know about Hill's disabilities when it sued him.
Today's motion would seem to only prolong the problems it has faced in the case, including a judge criticizing Righthaven's business model and striking from the record comments Righthaven had filed critical of Hill's attorneys and warning people not to infringe on its copyrights.
"Righthaven’s conduct in bringing this lawsuit, and the manner in which it was prosecuted, was reckless, unreasonable, in bad faith, or solely for vexatious, obstinate, wanton, or oppressive reasons," said today's filing by Hill's attorneys with Santangelo Law Offices P.C. in Fort Collins, Colo.
"More to the point, should Righthaven be allowed to bring such profit-motivated lawsuits against persons, such as Mr. Hill, who are obviously not subject to this court’s jurisdiction, with minimal due diligence as to the facts and the law, coupled with inappropriate and unsupported in terrorem (threatening) requests, then simply allowed to voluntarily dismiss such cases to avoid the cost of litigation that Righthaven itself initiated, after defendants have put forth considerable effort in defense, could convert this court, and its officers into a vehicle to extract settlements from overwhelmed and ill-equipped defendants," the filing said.
Hill's attorneys noted Righthaven last year also tried to drop its suit against the Democratic Underground in federal court in Las Vegas, on the condition it not pay the Democratic Underground's attorney's fees.
Righthaven was unable to simply have that case go away, since the Democratic Underground had hit Righthaven and Las Vegas Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC with a counterclaim.
And efforts by Righthaven to avoid paying the Democratic Underground's legal fees are being opposed by the group's attorneys.
"Defendants agree that this case should be over -- indeed, it should never have started," Democratic Underground attorneys said in a December court filing. "But it should not end until Righthaven is called to account for the cost of the defense it provoked.
"This was a meritless lawsuit from the beginning, launched as part of a well-publicized business model in which Righthaven acquires interests in copyrights for the sole purpose of suing unsuspecting alleged infringers, and then seeks to leverage the cost of defending (and its own purported right to attorneys’ fees and domain name seizures) to coerce settlements. To allow Righthaven to avoid compensating those who have no choice but to defend would be unjust and unsupportable," the Democratic Underground filing said.
Righthaven sought to drop the Democratic Underground case after sustaining a fair-use loss in another case -- one of two fair-use losses for the copyright enforcer.
Righthaven hasn't yet responded to the motion by Hill's lawyers for attorney's fees.