Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground, LLC et al

Filing 148

ORDER that Righthavens Motion for Extension of Time and Clarification 143 is GRANTED. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 8/2/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA *** 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, a ) District of Columbia limited-liability company; ) and DAVID ALLEN, an individual, ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) ) DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, a ) District of Columbia limited-liability company, ) ) Counterclaimant, ) ) vs. ) ) RIGHTHAVEN, LLC, a Nevada limited) liability company; and STEPHENS MEDIA ) LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company, ) ) Counterdefendants. ) _______________________________________) 25 26 AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) 1 Case No.: 2:10-cv-001356-RLH-GWF OR D ER (Motion for Extension of Time, and Clarification–#143) 1 Before the Court is Righthaven’s Motion for Extension, Clarification, and Stay 2 (#143, filed July 29, 2011). The Court has also considered Democratic Underground’s Opposition 3 (#145, filed Aug. 1, 2011). 4 Righthaven’s counsel filed this motion in the afternoon of July 29, the day by which 5 Righthaven was ordered to comply with the Court’s sanctions. That same day, the Court granted a 6 ten day extension through Monday, August 8, for Righthaven to comply with the Court’s sanction. 7 The Court deferred ruling on the remaining issues due to the lateness of Righthaven’s filing. 8 In this motion, Righthaven requests that the Court clarify its sanctions order and 9 extend the time for Righthaven to comply with the sanctions. The Court has already gratned an 10 extension and will now address the requested clarifications. Righthaven desires to know: (1) 11 whether simply filing the required documents in a case where the defendant has not yet been 12 served would be sufficient, and (2) whether cases that have been dismissed but appealed constitute 13 pending actions. Although the Court does not believe that clarification is necessary, the Court will 14 clarify these and a few other issues. 15 First, as Righthaven points out in its motion, when the Court issued the sanctions 16 the Court and counsel referred to “parties,” not merely cases. Accordingly, it is insufficient to 17 merely file the required documents; Righthaven must produce the documents to the parties in 18 those cases as the Court clearly stated. The reason for this is simple: the Court is fully aware of 19 Righthaven’s practice of filing suit against a party and then entering settlement negotiations (and 20 frequently settling) without ever serving the party. The Court concludes that depriving those 21 parties of the benefit of the Court’s order would be unjust. 22 Second, Righthaven must produce the required documents to all parties in all 23 24 dismissed unless there’s going to be an appeal in those cases.” (Dkt. #.) The Court clearly 25 ordered that Righthaven produce these documents in cases that have been dismissed but are later 26 AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) pending matters. The Court stated that the order would “not apply to those cases that have been appealed. This logically includes cases that have already been appealed. Further, if there are any 2 1 pending motions in a case, that case is still pending in some fashion. Accordingly, Righthaven 2 must produce the required documents in those cases as well even if all that remains pending is a 3 request for attorney’s fees or some similar matter. 4 Finally, after reexamining the issues and counsel’s stated difficulties, the Court 5 concludes that it was overly generous in granting the extension because counsel’s situation is 6 largely—if not entirely—of his and Righthaven’s own making. Righthaven and its counsel should 7 concentrate their efforts on material issues and court orders, not wishful research. Further, if 8 counsel does not have time to do all that he needs to in Righthaven’s dozens of cases, the Court 9 kindly suggests that he or Righthaven obtain additional help, not complain to the Court about time 10 constraints. Righthaven also informed the Court in its motion that it plans to request a stay of the 11 monetary sanction. The Court already granted an extension, which it will not change, and suggests 12 Righthaven not waste its time on a motion requesting any further relief from the sanction. 13 CONCLUSION 14 Accordingly, and for good cause appearing, 15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Righthaven’s Motion for Extension of Time and 16 17 Clarification (#143) is GRANTED as detailed above. Dated: August 2, 2011. 18 19 ____________________________________ ROGER L. HUNT United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?