Copyright enforcer Righthaven's apparent plan to strike it rich by suing bloggers continues to hit some snags. The latest came this week from a federal judge in Colorado who denied the
company's request for extra time to respond to a motion seeking dismissal of the case against blogger
Brian Hill.
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."