Once again, it did not. Instead, a day after the deadline to pay up, Righthaven filed for an extension on paying, and said that it had come across some new "grounds to appeal the monetary sanction imposed by the court." It also complained that this research "has taken a significant period of time," which is why it was late and wanted more time. Separately, Righthaven admits that it has not lived up to the requirement to send the transcript of the hearing to all of the other cases its involved with. Here its reasoning is somewhat ridiculous. It claims that it didn't have access to the transcript until two days before it had to be given to the other cases, and at that time it was busy with some of the many other cases in which it has been smacked down.
Judge Hunt, who has the patience of a saint, actually granted a ten day extension, saying that Righthaven has to pay up by August 8th. However, he also makes it clear that he's (yet again) not at all happy about Righthaven's actions. In Righthaven's filing for an extension it also asked for "clarification" on delivering the transcript to all of the parties it had sued, asking if it was okay to just file the documents with the court, rather than deliver them to the actual parties sued. Judge Hunt, who you can almost hear sighing, points out that he "does not believe clarification is necessary," but agrees to provide it just to be crystal clear:
First, as Righthaven points out in its motion, when the Court issued the sanctions the Court and counsel referred to “parties,” not merely cases. Accordingly, it is insufficient to merely file the required documents; Righthaven must produce the documents to the parties in those cases as the Court clearly stated. The reason for this is simple: the Court is fully aware of Righthaven’s practice of filing suit against a party and then entering settlement negotiations (and frequently settling) without ever serving the party. The Court concludes that depriving those parties of the benefit of the Court’s order would be unjust.And then he notes that while he's granting the extension, he believes he's already being "overly generous" in doing so, and won't accept more delays, and will not be happy if Righthaven does not pay up:
Finally, after reexamining the issues and counsel’s stated difficulties, the Court concludes that it was overly generous in granting the extension because counsel’s situation is largely—if not entirely—of his and Righthaven’s own making. Righthaven and its counsel should concentrate their efforts on material issues and court orders, not wishful research. Further, if counsel does not have time to do all that he needs to in Righthaven’s dozens of cases, the Court kindly suggests that he or Righthaven obtain additional help, not complain to the Court about time constraints. Righthaven also informed the Court in its motion that it plans to request a stay of the monetary sanction. The Court already granted an extension, which it will not change, and suggests Righthaven not waste its time on a motion requesting any further relief from the sanction.What amazes me is how incredibly tone deaf Righthaven appears to be to the repeated smackdowns it is getting from judges and how weak its legal position is. I recognize some of that is posturing, but it seems to go even further than that. It seems like Righthaven still thinks that these rulings aren't that big of a deal.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
No comments:
Post a Comment