Righthaven disputes judge’s criticism on disclosures
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleWednesday
29 June 2011
5:30 p.m.
Righthaven Archives
Las Vegas copyright enforcement company Righthaven LLC is disputing assertions by a federal judge that it was involved in a "factually brazen" misrepresentation to the court.
On June 14, U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt in Las Vegas ordered Righthaven to show cause why it should not be sanctioned for failing to disclose Las Vegas Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC is an interested party in its lawsuits, as Stephens Media shares in Righthaven’s lawsuit revenue.
Such disclosures are required so judges can determine if they have conflicts that need to be disclosed or would prevent them from presiding over a case.
In the Righthaven cases, the correct disclosure also would have alerted defendants to the fact the Review-Journal and the Denver Post stood to benefit financially from the suits against them. Since Righthaven claimed to have full ownership of copyrights it sued over, many defendants thought only Righthaven would benefit from damages or settlement money. Two judges have now ruled Righthaven doesn’t have full ownership of the copyrights at issue – voiding four lawsuits so far.
Righthaven – which sues over alleged online infringements of Las Vegas Review-Journal and Denver Post material – responded Wednesday that Hunt’s "factually brazen" commentary "inaccurately implies that Righthaven intentionally failed to comply" with the disclosure rule.
"Righthaven did not intentionally, recklessly or willfully fail to comply with (the rule) in this case or in any other pending action," Righthaven’s filing said.
Rather, its past and current attorneys failed to fully comprehend the language in the rule requiring disclosure of parties with a "direct, pecuniary interest" in the litigation, Righthaven said.
"In fact, I did not fully appreciate the need to disclose Stephens Media under Local Rule 7.1-1 in view of the SAA’s (Stephens Media/Righthaven lawsuit Strategic Alliance Agreement) terms until reviewing the court’s June 14, 2011, order," Righthaven attorney Shawn Mangano wrote in a court declaration. "I reasonably viewed any contingent payment to Stephens Media under the SAA as constituting an indirect interest that required a two-step payment process assuming any case resulted in a recovery. Simply put, receipt of settlement funds through settlement or recovery by the enforcement of a judgment would be made to Righthaven. Righthaven would then be contractually obligated under the SAA to subsequently pay Stephens Media any recovered sums over and above costs incurred."
Mangano noted that immediately after Hunt’s sanctions threat, he amended Righthaven’s disclosures to name Stephens Media and, in the Denver Post cases, its parent company MediaNews Group, as interested parties.
Hunt hasn’t indicated when he may rule on the sanctions issue. Righthaven, which has filed 274 lawsuits since March 2010, has seen two federal judges dismiss its suits this month based on lack of standing – and three more judges are threatening to do the same thing.
Share
Discussion 7 comments
Comments are moderated by VegasInc editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy.
Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their VEGAS INC account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.
If you have a LasVegasSun.com account, you are already registered.
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Live from Billboard Music Awards: Stevie Wonder closes with ‘Superstition’; Adele wins 12 awards
- Firefighters extinguish blaze in east valley
- Cancer claims life of Bee Gees co-founder Robin Gibb, 62
- Travel business rebounding as agents adapt to tech-savvy generation
- In remembering Dr. Clarissa Engstrom, friends and family will mobilize efforts against suicide
Oh this is precious. Righthaven throws unnamed "Former In-House Counsel" under the bus and blames for not disclosing Stephens Media as an interested party. The problem is there are so many former lawyers that have quit Righthaven so this surely will not go over well with them. You have to wonder if there are former in-house counsels that are now looking for some pay-back.
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/5901940...
Didn't Steve Gibson just say in a TV interview that Righthaven has hired the smartest lawyers in the country?
Well, he argued how I figured he would. Not much else he could say unless he wanted to admit to wrongdoing.
There is one potential flaw in the argument, though. Hasn't Mangano filed other cases on behalf of Righthaven himself? Mangano argued exclusively about the case before Judge Hunt, but there are several others that needed to be amended including ones presumably filed by Mangano. So whatever ignorance or incompetence he is throwing on the old in-house counsel applies equally to him as well.
There is one other point to nit-pick in his argument.
Mangano states that the Court should have been able to deduce that Stephens Media had an interest since the R-J was named as the source of the material. That implies that the R-J still had an ownership interest in the copyright, else why would they stand to collect any recovery? (This is before seeing the SAA, mind you.)
Righthaven has consistently said it has full ownership of the copyright. If that is the case, why would the Court think that Stephens Media had an interest in the outcome based upon the earlier statement regarding the source material?
Methinks Mangano has given more ammunition to various defendants in the course of pleading incompetence as opposed to a lack of ethics.
"Rather, its past and current attorneys failed to fully comprehend the language in the rule requiring disclosure of parties with a "direct, pecuniary interest" in the litigation, Righthaven said."
LOL, the attorneys didn't even understand the language in the law.
Then they shouldn't be lawyers.
These lawyers absolutely disgust me. It makes me want to go wash my hands after reading about them.
A favorite saying of mine is "never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by human stupidity." (I don't know who said it first, but it sounds like a Mark Twain quote.)
Mangano is making a good case for human stupidity, but he is also arguing that Hunt does not have the authority to impose sanctions on him personally, only the prior in-house counsel. It is exactly that arrogance that has offended the bench and led to this OSC and other unfavorable rulings.
I think Judge Hunt will call "bullsh#t!" and remind Mangano that the concept of coming to equity with "clean hands" still carries weight.
"Righthaven did not intentionally, recklessly or willfully fail to comply with (the rule) in this case or in any other pending action," Righthaven's filing said.
Seriously? Just because they have a bunch of dumb lawyers doesn't excuse their ignoring the rules.