Righthaven, the Las Vegas copyright enforcer that has filed hundreds of suits to "defend" newspaper articles, has been hammered repeatedly in court. Now, it is finally paying defense lawyers, even if it can't quite manage to send a check to the proper location.

Not that it wants to pay up. Righthaven has been hit with both fee awards and sanctions in various cases, and it has resorted to such desperate stratagems to avoid payment that the Nevada federal judge overseeing many of its cases is fed up.

Back on July 14, Judge Roger Hunt ruled that "there is a significant amount of evidence that Righthaven made intentional misrepresentations to the Court This conduct demonstrated Righthaven's bad faith, wasted judicial resources, and needlessly increased the costs of litigation." He hit Righthaven with a $5,000 penalty.

At issue was the fact that Righthaven didn't really own the copyrights it was suing over; those belonged to Las Vegas newspaper publisher Stephens Media, which tried to keep itself out of the court fight while still controlling the copyrights. When the operating agreement between the two firms was finally revealed in court, the judge was furious—and many of Righthaven's other cases are now in trouble because of it.

Righthaven received an extension of time to pay, but the deadline ran out and the company asked for another extension. The reason? It had spent so much time investigating ways to get out of the fine, and expended so much effort on dealing with other cases, that it simply couldn't comply in time. ("Counsel’s investigation has been extremely time consuming and has also been impacted by numerous pending responses dates in a significant number of Righthaven and non-Righthaven matters.") Also, no one would give Righthaven a bond for the $5,000, and the firm didn't want to simply cough up the cash.

Judge Hunt yesterday blasted the company again, as PaidContent noted. The response is worth quoting at some length:

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.

In a separate case, Righthaven v. Hoehn, defense lawyers are demanding $34,000 after the case was tossed due to the issue with Righthaven's lack of copyright ownership. (To rub salt in the wound, the judge went on to rule anyway that the "infringement" at issue was actually a fair use.) To avoid paying the opposing lawyers, Righthaven recently argued that fees could not be awarded; since Righthaven had no standing the sue, the court had no jurisdiction in the case, and therefore could not assign legal fees.

The defense attorney handling the case, J. Malcolm DeVoy, was incredulous.

"Righthaven deserves some credit for taking this position, as it requires an amazing amount of chutzpah," he wrote. "Righthaven seeks a ruling holding that, as long as a plaintiff’s case is completely frivolous, then the court is deprived of the right to make the frivolously sued defendant whole, whereas a partially frivolous case might give rise to fee liability. Righthaven’s view, aside from being bizarre, does not even comport with the law surrounding prudential standing."

That issue remains unsettled.

Wrong address

But DeVoy did get some cash out of Righthaven. In a third case, Righthaven v. Leon, the copyright pitbull had to pay $3,815 in legal fees to DeVoy. Righthaven finally did so. Here's what DeVoy, who is based in Las Vegas, had to go through to get the money (from his receipt to Righthaven, which was filed with the court):

Thank you for providing me with the FedEx tracking information for the check that Righthaven LLC sent to Randazza Legal Group in satisfaction of the judgment entered in the above-named case. I am unsure why Righthaven sent this check to our former San Diego address, especially since the address on the pleadings in this case, and in many other matters concerning Righthaven, is in Las Vegas. Nevertheless, upon discovering where the check was sent, Marc Randazza and I were able to contact the current occupants of that office, who did sign for the package, and have confirmed that the check was in Righthaven’s delivery for us. The current occupants will transmit the check to us.

And Righthaven is under pressure in multiple courts. In Colorado, where it has filed suit over some Denver Post material, defense lawyers are also demanding fees. "Righthaven’s conduct, driven by its for-profit litigation model, was frivolous, objectively unreasonable and should be affirmatively deterred by this Court," wrote attorney David Kerr in one typical example. "Indeed, Righthaven’s actions indicate a heavy-handed pattern of vexatious, wanton, and oppressive litigation behavior contrary to the purposes of the Copyright Act, the judicial process, and whose own obstinate behavior resulted in a great multiplication of the proceedings."