First it was a "clerical error" that caused Righthaven to sue an Ars Technica journalist for using an image that was part of a court filing, now Righthaven is blaming an undisclosed "Former In-House Counsel" for not disclosing Stephens Media as an interested party in hundreds of cases they have filed over copyright infringement.
Righthaven submitted their answer to Judge Roger Hunt's order to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for the omission. Their only answer was this unnamed rogue in-house counsel screwed up.
Since so many lawyers have left Righthaven it is difficult to determine exactly who Righthaven is blaming which cannot go over well for any lawyer that has ever worked for Righthaven.
After reading their reply it is not only a question of how much the sanctions will be, which is almost a certainty, but which "former in-house Counsel" will be the first to inflict some pay-back on Righthaven?
Didn't Steve Gibson just say on a TV interview that Righthaven hires some of the smartest laywers in the country?
Righthaven submitted their answer to Judge Roger Hunt's order to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for the omission. Their only answer was this unnamed rogue in-house counsel screwed up.
For the foregoing reasons, Righthaven respectfully requests that the Court find its failure to comply with Local Rule 7.1-1 through its former in house counsel does not rise to the level of sanctionable conduct given the circumstances described herein. Moreover, Righthaven has taken corrective action in response to the Court’s June 14th Order by filing amended disclosure statements in almost 120 pending cases in within this District and within the District of Colorado. Dated this 28th day of June, 2011.See: Shawn Mangano's response
Since so many lawyers have left Righthaven it is difficult to determine exactly who Righthaven is blaming which cannot go over well for any lawyer that has ever worked for Righthaven.
After reading their reply it is not only a question of how much the sanctions will be, which is almost a certainty, but which "former in-house Counsel" will be the first to inflict some pay-back on Righthaven?
Didn't Steve Gibson just say on a TV interview that Righthaven hires some of the smartest laywers in the country?
There are two parts that are characteristically disingenuous. First, Mangano throws Coons and Chu under the bus, but Gibson signed the Democratic Underground complaint too. Second, this motion only addresses the Democratic Underground filing, but what about the 270+ other complaints that were equally defective--some of which Mangano signed himself? Righthaven can't blame Coons and Chu for all of those. Eric.
ReplyDeleteMangano's refusal to name the former in house counsel is absurd.
ReplyDeleteMangano specifically claims in the complaints that RH is the sold holder to the copyright.
This was a mistake repeated some 270 times because of some in former in house counsel?
Rule 11 Violation
On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).
I hope Mangano gets a sanction in this regard.
And his vague anwser shows contempt for the Court.
Gosh...Mangano, not some unnamed former in-house counsel, was responsible for filing the lawsuit against us....and scores of others. After all his name, and his alone, is at the bottom of the complaint. Guess what? No mention of Stephen's Media as an interested party.
ReplyDeleteTo blame it on anyone other than the attorney whose name and signature are on the pages is ANOTHER FLAGRANT MISREPRESENTATION to the court.
I have no doubt this will not escape the observation of the judges.
Law Med Blog