The first response to all your cheesy complaints, such as:
"upper level managers don't like litigation and they want to get it over with"
"The longer it takes to go to trial, the worse witnesses' memories will be"
"The greater the chance a key witness will quit, retire, get laid off, be transferred out of the area, die, or otherwise become unavailable"
"more expenses will be run up by expert witnesses and other "hangers on"
?more management time is wasted tracking case progress"
"more senior management and outside auditors will pressure subordinates to "get this done."
"peripheral" expenses of litigation, e.g., employee salaries, are not recoverable"
The response is too bloody damn bad for them. Try sucking it up just a little bit, with your multi billion dollar a year income and wait up for Joe Average low income citizen to retain reasonable legal counsel. Those sloppy crappy junk reasons for trying to quickly pan fry in court an average citizen with average income by an organization with billions at their disposal is so far from being reasonable is laughable, and sad.
It's an absolute crock that an organization with vast resources at their disposal would lay claim to the notion that delay was costing them undue expense, most particularly in this type of case. What I mean by this type of case is that on an individual cost versus recovery analysis, it's a loser from the start.
No sane organization would partake of such litigation on that basis alone, it's just that bad of a loser on the cost for litigation analysis. The benefit for the RIAA is that a win hopefully results in spreading fear in the P2P community, and if it had chance of working the benefit would result even if far more expenses were incurred by the RIAA. Their objection to a continuance is simply greed based.
It's so greed based, they fail to recognize what is common knowledge of what's best for the RIAA in the end. That's what makes greed such a rotten component in the justice system; organizations completely lose sight of what will get them a win as opposed to what makes them the most money. If money is what's important, that is, money in the bank, right now, they should drop all these stupid law suits immediately. The truth is, if every person charged had good legal counsel and took each case to the limits, the RIAA would likely stop all such prosecutions because it was so cost ineffective on an individual basis.
The above post by Rick_R is the typical stupid common response by a lawyer who has first forgotten that bringing a claim for damages forward is most likely to be successful if the court see's the claim as reasonable, and the people bring it forward as acting reasonably and a multi-billion dollar organization opposing a reasonable request for an adjournment by Joe average citizen to retain counsel is not going to be seen as either smart or reasonable, just unreasonably greedy.
My suggestion is this; each and every person charged by a complaint of the RIAA should fight it to the hilt if it's possible to do so, the reason for such clearly sage advice is that the RIAA has very very clearly shot the message off over the bow (so to speak) that if it cost them a little to fight such a case they may rather not fight it. At least that's the clear and somewhat dunce like advice of Rick_R seems to indicate.
