The recording industry has deep pockets, but even RIAA largesse has its limits. Case in point: the Jammie Thomas-Rasset peer-to-peer trial in Minnesota, the first of the file-sharing cases to make it all the way to a verdict. In two weeks, Thomas-Rasset will have an extraordinary third trial, and the recording industry is sick of the expenses it's ringing up to prosecute someone who (let's face it) is just never going to cough up much money.

Judge Michael Davis threw out the two previous verdicts; the second verdict absurdly ordered Thomas-Rasset to pay $1.92 million for sharing a couple dozen songs, and Davis slashed the award after trial to a mere $2,250 per song. Nine months after Davis made this decision, and mere weeks before the third trial was to begin, Thomas-Rasset's legal team has asked the judge to alter his ruling. Instead of cutting down the damages through "remittitur" (essentially, common-law judicial discretion), they want Davis to change his order and find that the damages were unconstitutionally divorced from the actual harm. This would end the trial phase completely; the case would be over, and appeals would suddenly become possible.

The RIAA is, to put it mildly, agitated by this last-minute maneuvering, and opposes it. "Thomas-Rasset’s request for reconsideration is based not on compelling circumstances, but rather on her desire to avoid another trial in this case, which she masks as an appeal to judicial economy," recording industry lawyers wrote this week. "What Thomas-Rasset really seeks is not judicial economy, but to avoid the possibility of another verdict by a properly instructed jury that reinforces the reasonableness of statutory damages well above the range she thinks is appropriate or constitutional."

The RIAA wanted the case over long ago so it could move on to the appellate stage; instead, it has spent years litigating its district court case against Thomas-Rasset two more times. And why did it want to move on an appeal way back then? "By contrast, Plaintiffs were motivated by a genuine concern for judicial economy (as well as, concededly, their own legal fees) when they sought certification of an interlocutory appeal in an effort to avoid the need for a second trial in this case."

Translation: "We're going to appeal anyway, and it would have been way cheaper to have done that a long time ago. Do you have any idea what these outside law firms cost us?"

This gets a bit confusing; if the RIAA wanted to appeal the case after the first trial, its opposition to the defense motion now might seem curious. But after prepping for a third trial on damages at great expense, the industry wants to go through with it. Their view: if enough juries dish out massive damage awards, it's hard to complain that these awards aren't "reasonable."

"Especially given that the new trial was long-ago ordered and is scheduled to begin, this Court should stay the course rather than engage in an abrupt about-face on the eve of trial," the RIAA concludes. The US Department of Justice also weighed in today, and it agrees with the RIAA.

Judge Davis has yet to rule, but we would be surprised if he suddenly altered his remittitur order at this late date, especially when that order explicitly refused to reach constitutional questions (and when Thomas-Rasset explicitly asked for remittitur after the second trial).

Assuming that this seminal case goes ahead, Ars will have live coverage from the courtroom beginning on November 2. Though the case is supposed to deal only with damages, there's already talk about deposing Thomas-Rasset's ex-husband, one Justin Gervais, who Thomas-Rasset basically implicated while on the stand during her last trial. The soap opera rolls on—as do the RIAA's legal fees.