decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
SCO's Substitute Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery - as text
Saturday, December 27 2003 @ 06:58 PM EST

Here is SCO's Substitute Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendant IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery as text so it is searchable. The PDF is available here. Thanks again to Henrik Grouleff.

*************************************************************************



Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address]


Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

Attorneys for Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF UTAH
DISTRICT OF UTAH


THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION, a New York corporation,

Defendant.

PLAINTIFF'S SUBSTITUTE
MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT
OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANT IBM'S MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY

Case No. 03-CV-0294

Hon. Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), through its undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable Local Rules, respectfully submits this Substitute Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery. (1)

The issue underlying IBM's Motion to Compel is not really a dispute about one party's intransigence in turning over documents in its possession. Such motions are relatively straightforward. Rather, as SCO will amplify in its response, IBM has framed the facts underlying the motion in such a tendentious way that it leaves SCO little choice but to address numerous contentions outside the proper scope of a discovery matter.

Specifically, IBM's Motion to Compel attempts to reframe the entire subject matter of SCO's dispute with IBM as the misuse of trade secrets. (2) Yet, SCO's amended complaint has six counts. The first three constitute the core of the complaint, and are for breach of the licensing agreements to which SCO is a successor in interest. The remaining counts - including Count VI for misappropriation of trade secrets under Utah Code Ann. ยง 13-24-1 et seq. -- flow from this transgression and are ancillary to the breach of the agreements. Thus, contrary to IBM's mischaracterization, trade secret misappropriation in this case involves merely one count that recasts one aspect of the injuries caused by IBM's breach. These injuries would exist even in the absence of any trade secret misappropriation.

IBM's frustrations, expressed in its Motion to Compel, seem to flow from its unwillingness to admit that SCO's claims about trade secret misappropriation extend beyond merely lines of source code and computer files to methods, that is, to ways of doing things. Thus, contrary to IBM's assertion that "the only dispute here is whether SCO can meet its obligation to provide meaningful responses to the interrogatories through a general reference to the documents it has or will produce," IBM Memorandum 10, the dispute appears to be of a completely different magnitude. To properly apprise this Court of these facts and the applicable case law, SCO respectfully requests an extension of time to October 24, 2003 to respond to IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery. No prejudice will come to IBM by the granting of this Motion; nevertheless, IBM has opposed it.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED this 20th day of October, 2003.


HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James


BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, L.L.P.
Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise


By: [signature]
Counsel for Plaintiff/Counterclaim defendant



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc. hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of PLAINTIFF'S SUBSTITUTE MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT IBM'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY was served on Defendant International Business Machines Corporation on this 20th day of October, 2003, by facsimile and U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, on their counsel of record as indicated below:

Copies by U.S. Mail and Facsimile:

Alan L. Sullivan, Esq.
Todd M. Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
[address]


Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
David R. Marriott, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]


Copies by U.S. Mail to

Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]



NOTES

(1) The drafters of the first Motion for Enlargement worked largely from faxed documents that were incomplete and did not contain the Addendum to IBM's Motion to Compel. Since the filing of the original motion, the contents of the Addendum were discovered. The Addendum does provide the requisite notice as to IBM's objections to SCO's responses. SCO apologizes to this Court for filing a motion deficient in that manner. This substitute motion again addresses the need for a brief enlargement of time without reference to the procedural requirement imposed by DUCivR 37-1(b).

(2) For example, IBM has claimed that "[t]he gravamen of SCO's complaint is that IBM misappropriated or misused alleged trade secrets," IBM Memorandum 2; IBM likewise implies that trade secrets are the fundamental issue at stake when it claims that "[i]nterpreting SCO's discovery requests absent identification of the trade secrets at issue has, however, proven very difficult." IBM Memorandum 18.


  


SCO's Substitute Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery - as text | 12 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
SCO's Substitute Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery -
Authored by: shaun on Saturday, December 27 2003 @ 07:09 PM EST
In other words we don't want to show what IBM is asking for. even though we
have been told to.

--Shaun

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Substitute Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery -
Authored by: moored3947 on Saturday, December 27 2003 @ 07:13 PM EST
"Sorry.. we didn't read the whole motion.. IBM's filing was proper after
all.."

Was there ever a doubt?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Substitute Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery - as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 27 2003 @ 08:17 PM EST
What's the matter SCO, couldn't find any evidence ? ROTFLMAO :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Substitute Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery - as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 27 2003 @ 08:20 PM EST
Novel reasoning: Misappropriation of trade secrets flows from breach of
licensing agreement. Yet what is the breach? Misappropriation of code,
methods, etc., or, in other words, what SCO wants to think of as "trade
secrets".

I'd really like to hear why this is not a circular argument.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Substitute Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery - as text
Authored by: sef on Saturday, December 27 2003 @ 08:31 PM EST

I'm quite ill, so I may be missing the obvious, but... did I read that correctly? Did they try to say, "We don't have to tell IBM what alleged trade secrets were violated because we have other complaints about them in addition to the trade secret complaint"?

They also seem to be claiming that, because the secrets involve something other than mere code (e.g., methods), they can just point at the whole shebang and IBM should be satisfied. This, um, strikes me as less than usable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Substitute Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery - as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 27 2003 @ 08:48 PM EST
This thing made my eyes cross.
High School english teachers used to give out a yearly double-speak award.
I hereby nominate SCO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The plain english version...
Authored by: belzecue on Saturday, December 27 2003 @ 10:49 PM EST
The SCO group's lawyers submit this Rule 6(b) Substitute Motion for More Time
to Respond to IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery.

We believe that IBM's Motion to Compel has nothing to do with SCO refusing to
provide discovery. Rather, IBM's Motion asks SCO to answer questions unrelated
to discovery.

IBM presumes that this dispute is entirely about misuse of trade secrets. Not
true. The first three counts of SCO's six-count amended complaint deal with
breach of licensing agreements. Counts IV to VI flow from those breaches, and
only Count VI alleges misappropriation of trade secrets. IBM's breach of
licensing agreements (Counts I to III) has harmed SCO regardless of any
misappropriation of SCO's trade secrets (Count VI).

IBM's Motion to Compel could have been avoided had it accepted SCO's claims
about trade secret misappropriation including methods and ways of doing things,
not just source code and computer files. IBM says "the only dispute here
is whether SCO can meet its obligation to provide meaningful responses to the
interrogatories through a general reference to the documents it has or will
produce" (IBM Memorandum 10), but this dispute is much broader.
Therefore, SCO needs until the October 24, 2003 to further study the facts and
applicable case law. The extension won't hurt IBM's case even if they say it
will.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED this 20th day of October, 2003.

HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )