New York disbars infamous copyright troll(abovethelaw.com)
abovethelaw.com
New York disbars infamous copyright troll
https://abovethelaw.com/2024/03/new-york-disbars-infamous-copyright-troll/
101 comments
What this demonstrates: Years of unethical, overtly extortionary and often illegal copyright trolling isn't enough to trigger disbarment. (Not even criminal charges but a loss of license. In one state.)
It's years of copyright trolling so incompetent that judges began pushing back. Plus another period of angering those judges with non-compliance.
What this hints at: When copyright is on the table, unethical, extortionary and illegal trolling usually flies just fine.
It's years of copyright trolling so incompetent that judges began pushing back. Plus another period of angering those judges with non-compliance.
What this hints at: When copyright is on the table, unethical, extortionary and illegal trolling usually flies just fine.
[deleted]
The whole system where a person can lose a license and permission to work for arbitrary reasons is unfair. The license should prove that the person has necessary knowledge and should not be used as a mean to punish someone for his views or for being too smart to profit from unfair laws. If you want to punish people, there is criminal code.
>arbitrary reasons
Uhh... Did we read the same article?
Uhh... Did we read the same article?
Knowledge of how to do X isn't the only relevant qualification for being licensed to do X. In fact, I'd argue it's not even the primary qualification. Something else underlies it: the ability to be trusted to do X without causing damage or harm.
Take an example from another licensed practice: operating a vehicle on public roads. Knowledge, skill, and being of age are enough to elicit an initial trust from your local authorities. But if you violate that trust by, say, willfully disregarding a red light, your license may be revoked, not because you forgot what red lights mean, or because you stopped being skilled at using your brakes, but because your holding of this license is now demonstrated to be a threat to public safety.
The objective of a licensing system is to protect others from harm before it happens. The threat of losing a license is a good deterrent, and better, often, than the threat of criminal punishment, precisely because it's easier to invoke. (You called it "for arbitrary reasons", which is false, by the way.)
Take an example from another licensed practice: operating a vehicle on public roads. Knowledge, skill, and being of age are enough to elicit an initial trust from your local authorities. But if you violate that trust by, say, willfully disregarding a red light, your license may be revoked, not because you forgot what red lights mean, or because you stopped being skilled at using your brakes, but because your holding of this license is now demonstrated to be a threat to public safety.
The objective of a licensing system is to protect others from harm before it happens. The threat of losing a license is a good deterrent, and better, often, than the threat of criminal punishment, precisely because it's easier to invoke. (You called it "for arbitrary reasons", which is false, by the way.)
Haha--that one caught my attention as well. His litigation is so audacious as to begin setting precedent. This is how our system should work though; through contention it strengthens itself.
He sued NBC? What a dummy
"Yea, I work in the office of Liebowitz sanctioning, third floor."
"He's out to lunch right now"
>The respondent’s statement in his January 13, 2018 letter that the defendant “had yet to respond to the complaint” was false and misleading, and the respondent knew that it was false and misleading when he made it. The January 13, 2018 letter failed to advise the court of the months-long history of communication between the parties, beginning in July 2017, as mentioned above.
How is that not outright fraud?
How is that not outright fraud?
I'm also curious about that, but we should recognize that whether it's fraud and whether it should be prosecuted as fraud are different questions. For a conviction you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt, where disbarment seems (from a cursory search) to merely require preponderance of the evidence. If that's right, some people will rightly be disbarred for crimes they cannot be convicted of.
Lawyers rule the entire justice system. Not even the "good" ones want to normalize the prosecution of lawyers for committing crimes while practicing law.
That may also be the case, and not knowing a lot about this case it does seem like prosecution is probably merited here, and we should push back on tendencies like that across industries. My comment still stands, though; we should be quicker to disbar over a thing than to prosecute, evidentiarily speaking.
On the contrary, I believe the existence of and ease of disbarring works as a substitute for prosecution, albeit under different terms of "law" and "justice-- if you can call it that.
At the same time, the very existence of disbarring without the due process required for convictions, also means, the "good ones" wouldn't risk it by speaking up and demanding "prosecution" of their peers.
At the same time, the very existence of disbarring without the due process required for convictions, also means, the "good ones" wouldn't risk it by speaking up and demanding "prosecution" of their peers.
I see what you're saying, and... maybe? I do think we need to pick apart two questions that I don't think I kept clear. On the one hand, "given the rules we have, how much can we infer bad behavior of decision-makers in that system because someone is disbarred for a crime they are not charged with"; this is more of what I had in mind, and I think I stand by my position of "based on the rules we should expect to see that when the system is performing nominally, though it's not a bad idea to look closer." On the other hand, there is the question of whether these rules are appropriate. I think philosophically there is something to say for "we should disqualify people from positions of trust faster than we should jail them", but that doesn't rule out the possibility that the system is abused in the ways you describe. The practical probably should win out over the philosophical, here, but I don't have the information myself to weigh in.
> "we should disqualify people from positions of trust faster than we should jail them"
Sure, but the revoking of license can be codified into the law, essentially, the same "disqualification" but under the same framework of law as for any other crime and punishment, most of it anyways.
Sure, but the revoking of license can be codified into the law, essentially, the same "disqualification" but under the same framework of law as for any other crime and punishment, most of it anyways.
I don't think I have a problem with that, although I would have to see the specific proposal, talk to people, and think deeper before I would wave my magic wand to make it happen.
> Not even the "good" ones want to normalize the prosecution of lawyers for committing crimes while practicing law.
Eh. Prosecuting someone for borderline calls and novel arguments is a slippery slope, but unambiguous and intentional fraud isn't that.
Eh. Prosecuting someone for borderline calls and novel arguments is a slippery slope, but unambiguous and intentional fraud isn't that.
As ridiculous as that is, claiming his grandfather died as an excuse then claiming the court lacked jurisdiction and decorum by asking for proof is really something.
Damn.
Damn.
His Grandfather did die, just three days before the day he claimed, according to Leonard French (Lawful Masses)'s stream on the topic
Maybe I should read the article again but I thought the grandfather died in April but the excuse was for November.
This also took me a second The issue is he failed to show for a hearing.
We miss things all the time: Flights, meetings, tests, etc.
We have normalized missing to then try to explain after the fact. Thats not how it works for the courts. You must show up unless you are physically unable to do so. Yhis is why the burial date mattered.
Clearly a death on the same day would make it impossible to attend. But a few days prior would mean its not impossible. You simply need to notify and a new date is granted. Its just poor planning on the plaintiff side.
We miss things all the time: Flights, meetings, tests, etc.
We have normalized missing to then try to explain after the fact. Thats not how it works for the courts. You must show up unless you are physically unable to do so. Yhis is why the burial date mattered.
Clearly a death on the same day would make it impossible to attend. But a few days prior would mean its not impossible. You simply need to notify and a new date is granted. Its just poor planning on the plaintiff side.
"But perhaps the most bizarre story involves Liebowitz missing an April 12, 2019 hearing, explaining that his grandfather had passed."
"The respondent also admitted that his grandfather died on April 9, 2019, and was buried that same day."
"The respondent also admitted that his grandfather died on April 9, 2019, and was buried that same day."
My source was also the Lawful Masses stream, but it sounded like the original excuse was made in April, but it took until November for him to actually produce the death certificate to prove that he had lied about when his grandfather had died.
It sounds like he didn't lie though?
His grandfather did pass away a few days prior.
Depending upon what was happening with the related family, there can be a whole bunch of things that need urgently taking care of in relation to it.
His grandfather did pass away a few days prior.
Depending upon what was happening with the related family, there can be a whole bunch of things that need urgently taking care of in relation to it.
That point is made in the article - he could have simply said the Grandfather died that week, and it would have been accepted. Instead he doubled down on going on attack, most likely because it did feel like a lie when he said it or was not the actual reason he missed the proceedings.
One of the risks of operating in bad faith is that people will stop giving you the benefit of a doubt.
Leonard French has almost obsessively covered this dude at length
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkdgWccrJAy6scjRxG7bf...
56 videos, heh. :p
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkdgWccrJAy6scjRxG7bf...
56 videos, heh. :p
As a copyright attorney, Leonard French will likely be popping a bottle of champagne over this.
I found out recently that a local artist was forced to cease operations because of a copyright troll. I can't imagine they're the only example of a small business getting flattened by this kind of abuse of the law.
Sony lost in court twice but destroyed at least two commercial playstation emulators in the process. They abused the legal system to disrupt the activities of other corporations by simply burning their money via legal fees until the projects they wanted to kill were no longer financially viable.
Imagine the power imbalance when one of these multi-billion dollar monopolists go after some random individual for downloading a song or something.
Imagine the power imbalance when one of these multi-billion dollar monopolists go after some random individual for downloading a song or something.
That sounds interesting, do you have a link?
Is that because of an accusation of using a reference, or copying a reference too closely, or something like being sued for using their own work?
Is that because of an accusation of using a reference, or copying a reference too closely, or something like being sued for using their own work?
Disbarring is not enough. Prison time for racketeering is proper.
Maybe he's a bad guy, but prison is worse than you think, and probably doesn't fit the crime here. Imnsho.
> Maybe he's a bad guy, but prison is worse than you think, and probably doesn't fit the crime here. Imnsho
Seeing as how he is not required to make his victims whole, even prison time is getting off lightly.
Other criminals don't usually get to keep the proceeds of their crimes, even with prison time.
If the court ordered prison this time, he still gets to enjoy the proceeds when he gets out.
Seeing as how he is not required to make his victims whole, even prison time is getting off lightly.
Other criminals don't usually get to keep the proceeds of their crimes, even with prison time.
If the court ordered prison this time, he still gets to enjoy the proceeds when he gets out.
Patent trolls literally destroy people’s livelihoods and lives. They make billions by destroying trillions in value.
Patents and copyrights are quite different parts of the law. They aren't the same thing.
He wasted a fantastic amount of the court’s time and various people’s time and money which they never got back.
He clearly knew what he was doing was wrong.
Why shouldn’t there be some criminal statute to punish him? Nothing here fixes any of the harm he’s caused. It just (hopefully) prevents him from doing it in the future.
Though based on how he got here I’m guessing he’ll find a new way.
He clearly knew what he was doing was wrong.
Why shouldn’t there be some criminal statute to punish him? Nothing here fixes any of the harm he’s caused. It just (hopefully) prevents him from doing it in the future.
Though based on how he got here I’m guessing he’ll find a new way.
> He wasted a fantastic amount of the court’s time and various people’s time and money which they never got back.
Virtually every crime costs other people time and money. We generally draw a line between that and more severe varieties of crime, such as those involving physical violence.
Virtually every crime costs other people time and money. We generally draw a line between that and more severe varieties of crime, such as those involving physical violence.
Fraud and extortion are both criminal offenses that can carry prison terms without committing any act of violence.
And once you get to prison, there definitely will be physical violence.
What do you think the punishment for protection racket and extortion should be? Patent trolling is exactly that, except masking under the legal system.
It's worse because it's coming from a particularly trusted position, an officer of the court. In the same way it is particularly heinous when a doctor physically harms someone for profit, it is particularly heinous when a lawyer legally harms someone for profit. In both cases they've taken specific oaths and have special duties above-and-beyond regular people to avoid doing such harm. In some sense the question of whether or not these bodies (doctors, lawyers, police officers) actually have higher standards or not is answered by what they do when they find a clear breach of conduct. If they do nothing, or rarely do anything to punish bad behavior, then they don't deserve their reputation for high standards and are, in fact, just a partisan group merely profiting off of a reputation of self-restraint.
I don't think lawyers have a reputation for holding themselves to a high standard. There is a reason that an entire genre of insulting jokes exist targeting lawyers integrity, or rather their general lack of integrity.
Prison costs us a massive amount of money. For that reason alone, I’d be fine with many non-violent criminals being sentenced to monetary punishment and community service or something else that might add value back to society.
westhanover(1)
Prison is not enough. Patent trolls should be thrown into the deepest flaming pit of hell.
Sorry, flaming pits are patented. Can I offer you lava?
Lava is patented as well, can I offer you magma?
My client has patented all forms of magma production that involve heat or pressure. Can I offer you lukewarm water?
My client Luke is suing for defamation
Luke Skywalker is a copyrighted character.
My client, The Walt Disney Company, is suing your client, Luke, for copyright infringement.
My client, The Walt Disney Company, is suing your client, Luke, for copyright infringement.
My client, the sky, is suing your client for copyright infringement.
Additionally my client is suing GGP’s client for the offer of water, in which my client believes they have a valid interest but were not given due consideration in the making of this offer.
Additionally my client is suing GGP’s client for the offer of water, in which my client believes they have a valid interest but were not given due consideration in the making of this offer.
The sky is in violation of my client Sky Media's trademark. We demand that you immediately cease and desist using the term "sky" and all related vernacular.
Thanks for all of these! It perfectly sums up the tar pit that is patents (trademarks and reservations) and copyrights. A couple made me laugh pretty good. Where there’s an interest, there’s 10 in the wing ready to pounce.
This discussion [1] from last week about a Cory Doctorow article sheds interesting lights on this type practices by copyright / copyleft trolls.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39610509
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39610509
> For years, Richard Liebowitz ran a very successful operation mostly sending threatening letters to companies claiming that they had infringed upon copyrights held by his photographer clients. Under the best of circumstances it’s a niche practice area that’s… kinda shady.
Why is it shady when done properly? Copyright violations are a valid concern for photographers.
Why is it shady when done properly? Copyright violations are a valid concern for photographers.
It's true that copyright violations are a concern for photographers, however some online photographer communities really need to take a chill pill regarding copyright.
I've seen some photographers wanting to sue clients because they cropped or modified their wedding pictures when posting them online. "It doesn't reflect my style" is the argument I've seen excusing this behaviour. I understand that there's a creative aspect to photography, but in my opinion it's mostly linked to subject choice and overall aesthetic. In wedding pictures, the subject is pretty obvious and non-novel, the artistic choices around background / decoration are not made by the photographer, and (this is IMO the crucial point) the photographer is paid for their time while they create the pictures. This makes it pretty clearly a "work made for hire" in terms of copyright, which should be pretty familiar to everyone here.
Now, a photographer that goes out on their own, sees something that nobody else saw, captures it in an interesting way, makes a beautiful edit of said capture, and finally sells that picture on their website; that absolutely is creative work and wholly deserves copyright protection.
I've seen some photographers wanting to sue clients because they cropped or modified their wedding pictures when posting them online. "It doesn't reflect my style" is the argument I've seen excusing this behaviour. I understand that there's a creative aspect to photography, but in my opinion it's mostly linked to subject choice and overall aesthetic. In wedding pictures, the subject is pretty obvious and non-novel, the artistic choices around background / decoration are not made by the photographer, and (this is IMO the crucial point) the photographer is paid for their time while they create the pictures. This makes it pretty clearly a "work made for hire" in terms of copyright, which should be pretty familiar to everyone here.
Now, a photographer that goes out on their own, sees something that nobody else saw, captures it in an interesting way, makes a beautiful edit of said capture, and finally sells that picture on their website; that absolutely is creative work and wholly deserves copyright protection.
Yeah, that sentence was an odd way to start this article. Under "the best of circumstances", sending C&Ds is a pretty damn common, normal, and boringly routine thing for a lawyer to do.
Toll bridge sales do occur, but if you think that's not a shady practice area, I have a bridge to sell you. :-)
That's a good example. Maybe I misunderstand the meaning of "shady" but I don't see toll bridge sales as such. It's either a perfectly legitimate deal or an outright fraud. It's not some grey area when selling toll bridge is semi-legal with courts disagreeing over whether to punish you or not.
> Why is it shady when done properly?
The issue is that it isn't.
The economics of it don't militate in favor of diligence and precision. An individual claim is rarely going to be for a lot of money so to turn it into a profitable business it requires scale. At which point they typically rely on automated systems with a significant false positive rate that don't take into account possible fair use etc. Meanwhile the coercion to settle applies just as much to an innocent party, because the premise is "pay a little to avoid an expensive court battle" which is still coercive even if you could win in court.
Practices that involve shaking down innocent people are shady.
The issue is that it isn't.
The economics of it don't militate in favor of diligence and precision. An individual claim is rarely going to be for a lot of money so to turn it into a profitable business it requires scale. At which point they typically rely on automated systems with a significant false positive rate that don't take into account possible fair use etc. Meanwhile the coercion to settle applies just as much to an innocent party, because the premise is "pay a little to avoid an expensive court battle" which is still coercive even if you could win in court.
Practices that involve shaking down innocent people are shady.
Fun thing is I’ve faced the same automation of incompetence at scale from the lawyers who run Florida’s child support system. There’s a deadbeat dad out there born 10 days before me with the same first and last name. Every time I move, the automation goes into action and it takes me hiring a lawyer remotely in Florida to get it to stop every time.
That sounds absolutely horrible. It's the ratcheting up of injustices like this that will put the final nail in the coffin of our "modern society."
I agree that running an automated system with a significant false positive rate is shady, it's just I don't think that this counts as "under the best circumstances".
I've seen cases of e.g. big newspapers publishing photos without permission and when asked politely to purchase a license reply that "you should be proud of your work being published in such a respectable establishment as ours". For a photographer in question an "expensive court battle" is an obstacle just the same and I have nothing against a lawyer who makes a living out of cases like this.
I've seen cases of e.g. big newspapers publishing photos without permission and when asked politely to purchase a license reply that "you should be proud of your work being published in such a respectable establishment as ours". For a photographer in question an "expensive court battle" is an obstacle just the same and I have nothing against a lawyer who makes a living out of cases like this.
> For a photographer in question an "expensive court battle" is an obstacle just the same and I have nothing against a lawyer who makes a living out of cases like this.
That this is an obstacle for the photographer is exactly the issue. The scale is required in order for it to become a "practice area" (as opposed to e.g. a pro bono case taken on the side), and the shady practices come with the scale.
That this is an obstacle for the photographer is exactly the issue. The scale is required in order for it to become a "practice area" (as opposed to e.g. a pro bono case taken on the side), and the shady practices come with the scale.
I don't see how making a living out of professionally defending independent content producers automatically translates to sending scam e-mails. Both can be done at scale but they are not the same.
Are there actually lawyers who make a living out of the former though? To not have it be so many letters that haste is inevitable, they would have to be individually large claims. Minor violations by large entities aren't worth much, major violations by small entities aren't either (because they can't pay), and major violations by large entities are uncommon because large entities can afford counsel. Meanwhile when they happen they're coveted by every law firm that likes money, so how would anyone secure for themselves enough of those cases to specialize in it?
> An individual claim is rarely going to be for a lot of money
Isn't it? I thought the MAFIAA had made it so that copyright violations incurred $150,000 in damages per work infinged?
Isn't it? I thought the MAFIAA had made it so that copyright violations incurred $150,000 in damages per work infinged?
"In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000."
Plus attorneys fees…
Fun fact: the majority of U.S. states have no procedure for permanently disbarring an attorney.
Including New York, though he has to wait seven years before he can apply for reinstatement.
~~~
See ”Should Permanent Disbarment be Permanent?”
https://web.archive.org/web/20081112072221/http://findarticl...
Including New York, though he has to wait seven years before he can apply for reinstatement.
~~~
See ”Should Permanent Disbarment be Permanent?”
https://web.archive.org/web/20081112072221/http://findarticl...
He can still send such letters if even though he is disbarred, right?
It's not like it's a trial.
It's not like it's a trial.
Not ones claiming that he is an attorney that represents the photographer.
An authorized representative does not have to be an attorney
No, but who cares what non-attorneys have to say about legal matters? Anyone that settles a claim asserted by a non-attorney is nuts.
> ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent, Richard P. Liebowitz, shall continue to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,
Is "I am an authorised representative for XYZ, and you are infringing on their copyright. Please pay us $xxxx or we will prosecute" "giving another an opinion as to the law"? I could see it being so.
Is "I am an authorised representative for XYZ, and you are infringing on their copyright. Please pay us $xxxx or we will prosecute" "giving another an opinion as to the law"? I could see it being so.
No, such a request is not legal advice.
“You are infringing his copyright” is very much a legal opinion.
It's heartening to see people punished for operating in bad faith. Real scumbag behavior seems to thrive when what they do is "technically legal" but super corrosive to the social fabric. I know it's a fine line, which is why judges and other decision makers need to be wise.
It doesn’t seem like he was punished for litigating in bad faith but rather for lying about his grandfather dying. Lying to a judge is about the worst thing a practicing attorney can do.
Dishonesty and bad faith are cousins. Its more or less the chickens coming home to roost.
"Liebowitz wasn’t alone in the copyright trolling practice. A number of entities scour the internet looking for photographs that they can claim are “unlicensed” and demanding thousands of dollars to settle the matter knowing that between statutory damages for copyright infringement and the cost of litigation, most companies will just pay it. Many times, the photo in question actually is legally licensed through an agency like Getty Images, but the plaintiff photographer has, for whatever reason, pulled the image since the license was granted."
This article is so poorly written and uninformed, it conflates asserting copyright infringement against an entity that licensed the photo, with the court demanding past licenses as a means of calculating actual or statutory damages.
Liebowitz problem is that he has lied to courts several times previously, about things as trivial as scheduling issues, or the basic facts of his case as the article points out. His disbarrment has nothing to do with him asserting copyright cases, it has to do with him lying. Unfortunately the term troll is used against pretty much any photographer asserting their legal rights over the work that they own.
This article is so poorly written and uninformed, it conflates asserting copyright infringement against an entity that licensed the photo, with the court demanding past licenses as a means of calculating actual or statutory damages.
Liebowitz problem is that he has lied to courts several times previously, about things as trivial as scheduling issues, or the basic facts of his case as the article points out. His disbarrment has nothing to do with him asserting copyright cases, it has to do with him lying. Unfortunately the term troll is used against pretty much any photographer asserting their legal rights over the work that they own.
I think the term “troll” is generally accepted where someone’s MO is to spray-and-pray settlement demands that the troll doesn’t actually want to take to court. Given that his behavior was all related to trying to avoid demands of judges and court time, it sounds like it actually was related to his trolling indirectly.
Yeah, but look at any thread where patents are an issue, any plaintiff that isn't a big tech company gets called a troll. Also, Liebowitz had no fear of going to court, he'd sue before he'd send letters. Liebowitz was disbarred because he repeatedly lied. The issue with him not producing licenses is because they didn't support the damages award he wanted, not because he just didn't want to deal with judges or being in court. Like I said, the article is very poorly written.
Part of Liebowitz's problem was that he did ~0 research before filing a lawsuit. Often the only thing he did was send the photographer a list of URLs and ask for "GO" or "NO GO" for each one. In at least some cases there was a license that he or probably should have known about, but he didn't even bother to check. He probably would've been fine with that though if he hadn't lied to the judge(s) so, so much.
In cases like these, you need to rely on the photographer, they are the ones who will know there is a license. So him relying upon the client, who might make a mistake, wont necessarily be the end of him as you point out, which I agree with. These photographers do not have agents, and to the extent they did, it'd be Getty, who pays them less than $5 for perpetual web-use licenses. That's why so many of them leave Getty. Getty then continues to offer new licenses for the photographs, despite their contract being terminated. The article seems to mistake that as well. I'm a copyright attorney and we have the opposite approach of Liebowitz.
The headline makes it seem that being a copyright troll is grounds for disbarment. If only!
A quick search and yea the guy looks as slimy as he sounds.
Looks like he should be working for a VC.
I try not to be hateful but dealing with attorneys every day will make you truly despise their profession. This brightened my day. Now if we could only disbar a couple million more.
Actual footage of the lawyer being told by the bar association that he's going down for this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dJHaHwzuRTk
to spare others the disappointment I had when clicking: this is a video titled "The Dark Knight Rises - Bane l Tom Hardy #2"
I assume this was meant to be some pop culture joke I didn't get.
I assume this was meant to be some pop culture joke I didn't get.
> In his relatively short career litigating in this District, Richard Liebowitz has earned the dubious distinction of being a regular target of sanctions-related motions and orders. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that there is a growing body of law in this District devoted to the question of whether and when to impose sanctions on Mr. Liebowitz alone. See, e.g., ... This Opinion is the latest contribution to that body of law. For the reasons stated below, the Court concludes that sanctions should indeed be imposed on Mr. Liebowitz for his repeated failure to comply with this Court’s orders, failures that imposed considerable and unwarranted costs on the Court, its staff, and Defendant NBCUniversal Media, LLC.
https://www.abajournal.com/images/main_images/Lebowitz.pdf