Looks like Righthaven has finally reappeared... filing an "emergency motion" in the 9th Circuit appeals court trying to prevent Marc Randazza from continuing to move forward in the Hoehn case, where (as you may have heard) Righthaven has been ordered to hand over various assets (and the company's righthaven.com domain is being auctioned off). Randazza has filed a response in which he goes back to bringing up Herman Melville's classic story Bartleby the Scrivener, in which Bartleby never does any work because "I would prefer not to."

If that sounds familiar, it may be because Randazza used that line the last time Righthaven filed for an "emergency" stay in the same 9th Circuit Appeals Court... in the same case. That time the court rejected it, and as Randazza explains, there are tons of reasons to reject it again. You can read the entire filing explaining all the reasons that Righthaven's emergency filing makes no sense - especially since it failed to bother to oppose many of the things it's now fighting when they were happening in the district court. However, the key reason is simply procedural:

While it would be far more satisfying to see this motion defeated on substantive grounds, it fails cleanly as a matter of procedure. Rule 27-3(a) requires the movant's counsel to make "every practicable effort" to notify opposing counsel before filing an Emergency Motion. Righthaven's counsel failed to do so, and misled this Court about his efforts to do so. Hoehn's counsel first learned of the Motion by receiving it through the Court's cm/ecf system .... Only after receiving the Motion did Hoehn's counsel receive a fax from Righthaven's counsel notifying them of its intent to file this Motion.

I used to think that Righthaven might make a useful law school case study some day, but now I'm wondering if there shouldn't be an entire class studying Righthaven in order to teach lawyers exactly what not to do in handling cases.