Righthaven Loses Track Of Its Many Cases; Discovers Four Days Late That It Missed Deadline In Appeal
from the so-professional dept
Righthaven, which already has a history of late filings with the court, using questionable excuses, seems to be working extra hard to make any story about the company appear to be a farce. The latest is that Righthaven’s lawyer, Shawn Mangano, just discovered on Monday (October 31st) that the deadline for filing the opening briefs in the Hoehn case, one of its many appeals of cases it has lost, was October 27th. He claims that the court misled him on the phone concerning the timing, though that seems questionable:
Righthaven?s counsel originally requested a telephonic 14-day extension of time to file its opening brief in this matter on October 27, but was advised that its opening brief was not due under November 28, 2011. Upon further inquiry, it appears that the opening brief deadline provided was for an associated appeal in this action concerning an award of attorneys? fees and costs (Case No. 11-16995). Righthaven discovered this apparent misunderstanding today, October 31, 2011, which is one business day following the October 28, 2011 filing deadline for its opening brief.
Meanwhile, Hoehn’s lawyers, from the Randazza Group, aren’t buying the excuse and are asking the judge not to grant the belated extension request:
Defendant Wayne Hoehn (“Hoehn”), through counsel, opposes Righthaven LLC?s (“Righthaven?s”) Motion for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief (the “Motion”). (Doc. # 4.) Righthaven?s request for an extension is untimely, sought four days after Righthaven?s brief was due – October 27 (Doc. # 1), not October 28, as Righthaven?s counsel misstated in the Motion (Doc. # 4 at 2). The docket?s plain language belies Righthaven?s claims of diligence, as even a cursory check would have revealed, immediately, the appellant?s briefing deadline. Moreover, a review of this Circuit?s law and the context in which Righthaven brings this motion reveals that it is bereft of good faith as well.
Hoehn’s lawyers make the case that just the merest ability to check the details would have shown the timing on the case, and Mangano’s failure to do so should not result in delaying the case any further.
Righthaven also attempts to blame the Court?s clerk for its untimely motion. (Doc. # 4 at 2). Righthaven?s inability to track its appeals before this Court is not the fault of Court administrators. With six appeals pending before this District ? and not a single brief filed despite numerous extensions sought ? it is all the more important that Righthaven diligently prosecute its appeals. To date, it has not done so, nor offered any legitimate excuse for failing to abide by the original briefing schedule imposed in a single appeal before this Court.
The instant untimely Motion (Doc. # 4) is Hoehn?s first indication that Righthaven had any issue with the briefing schedule. Having not voiced any objections to the Court?s earlier deadlines, Hoehn?s attorneys have made travel plans, holiday plans, and scheduled other litigation matters with this original schedule in mind. (Decl. of J. DeVoy.) To allow Righthaven?s counsel to attempt to change the clock after time has run out will create serious prejudice to Hoehn?s counsel.
It’s somewhat amazing that Righthaven ever accomplished anything, given the way its lawyers have handled these cases.