Commentary
Judge Tells Rightaven Courts Aren't For Exacting Settlements From 'Cowed' Defendants'
- by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer @wendyndavis, April 8, 2011
Hill, age 20, suffers from autism and a rare form of diabetes that requires around-the-clock blood monitoring -- even while he sleeps. He is unable to work and receives disability. Righthaven sued Hill for $150,000 posting a widely distributed Denver Post photo showing an airport patdown to his non-commercial blog. Righthaven initially offered to settle for $6,000 -- which is far more than Hill has.
Represented by a volunteer lawyer, Hill last month moved to dismiss the lawsuit for a variety of reasons. Righthaven then unsuccessfully sought extra time to respond to the motion. The company said it was engaged in settlement discussions and didn't want to file an answer while talks were under way.
This week, U.S. District Court Judge John Kane in Colorado denied Righthaven's motion. Such a procedural ruling typically wouldn't draw much attention, given that it doesn't interpret legal principles or create new law. And judges can turn down requests for extensions for all sorts of administrative reasons, including the simple desire to move along their caseloads.
Usually, however, such requests are granted, lawyers toldThe Las Vegas Sun reporter Steve Green. Indeed, it makes sense to extend deadlines when the parties are in settlement talks, in order to save litigants, and their lawyers, the time and expense of filing documents that could prove unnecessary.
But Kane doesn't seem interested in helping Righthaven save money. In fact, when he denied the outfit's request for an extension, he had some choice words about Righthaven's operation. "Although plaintiff'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," he wrote. "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."
Wendy Davis is a Senior Writer at MediaPost. You can reach Wendy at wdavis@mediapost.com
I have generally applauded Righthaven's actions, and still believe that copyright holders should assert their rights, and not rely solely on takedown notices in egregious cases. But in this case, Righthaven's conduct is not only indefensible, but also damaging to its cause. It should be much more selective in the actions it brings, and withdraw quickly when it errs, as it did here.
When can Righthaven be sued for nuisance suits or doesn't that exist anymore?