Link: Full article
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. 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.
It's somewhat amazing that Righthaven ever accomplished anything, given the way its lawyers have handled these cases.
Message Thread
« Back to index