Maureen O'Gara will just have to pack a bag and attend the court hearings, if she wishes to get her story straight, just like the rest of us. Judge Kimball has detailed some steps to take to make sure nobody seals anything inappropriately and/or is punished if they do.

The best news is that from now on, even if there is a sealed dispositive motion filed, the parties have to file a redacted version for us, the public, to read. As IBM reportedly pointed out at the hearing, they already have done that. I checked the IBM Timeline page and I counted 5 redacted documents filed by IBM (231, 232, 244, 256, 276). SCO has done it twice that I counted (291, 308), so this seems to affect SCO more than IBM. Nobody will be affected by that part of the Order until discovery is over, though, since no one is allowed to file any new dispositive motions until then.

End of that bizarre chapter in this story.

One ironic footnote: the free Pacer docket sheet reads as follows:

THIS CASE WILL NOT BE UPDATED AFTER APRIL 29
ACCESS TO THIS CASE IS AVAILABLE THROUGH PACER

Odd timing, don't you agree?

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

CENTRAL DIVISION

___________________

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

vs.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

___________________

ORDER

Case No. 2:03CV294 DAK

___________________

This matter is before the court on G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc.'s ("G2's) Motion to Intervene and Motion to Unseal Court's File. CNET Networks, Inc. ("CNET") and Forbes Inc. ("Forbes") have also joined in the motion. A hearing on the motion was held on April 26, 2005. At the hearing, G2, CNET, and Forbes were represented by Andrew H. Stone. International Business Machines Corp. was represented by Amy Sorenson, and The SCO Group was represented by Brent O. Hatch. Before the hearing, the court considered carefully the memoranda and other materials submitted by the parties. Since taking the motions under advisement, the court has further considered the law and facts relating to the motion. Now being fully advised, the court renders the following Order.

The court declines to allow G2, CNET, and/or Forbes to intervene in this case. The court, however, sets forth the following requirements and admonitions to minimize the risk of overdesignating confidential documents, thereby maximizing the public's accessability to the documents filed in this case:

(1) Counsel for both IBM and SCO shall review the documents filed thus far in this action to determine whether any such documents may be unsealed. Counsel shall notify the court on or before May 27, 2005 as to which documents may be unsealed.

(2) All future dispositive motions and memoranda that are filed under seal shall be publicly filed with all confidential information redacted. Additionally, all non-confidential supporting exhibits shall be publicly filed;

(3) After May 27, 2005, the court will award reasonable attorneys' fees to any party that successfully challenges the opposing party's designation of a document as confidential after such document has been filed with the court and after having provided the party seeking confidentiality at least ten days to remove the confidential designation;

(4) Although the court does not have the resources to monitor whether each sealed document is appropriately sealed, the court hereby notifies the parties that if the court, in its regular consideration of future motions, becomes aware that material documents are improperly filed under seal, the court may issue an order to show cause why a particular document was filed under seal and may impose monetary sanctions for improper sealing of a document.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that G2, CNET, and Forbes' Motion to Intervene and Unseal Court's Files is DENIED. The court has set forth several requirements and admonitions to minimize the risk of the parties improperly filing documents under seal.

DATED this 28th day of April, 2005.

BY THE COURT:

___[signature]___
DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge

United States District Court

for the

District of Utah

April 29, 2005

* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CLERK * *

Re: 2:03-cv-00294

True and correct copies of the attached were either mailed, faxed or e-mailed by the clerk to the following:

Brent O. Hatch, Esq.
HATCH JAMES & DODGE
[address]
EMAIL

Scott E. Gant, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER (DC)
[address]
EMAIL

Frederick S. Frei, Esq.
ANDREWS KURTH
[address]

Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]
EMAIL

Mr. Alan L Sullivan, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]
EMAIL

Todd M. Shaughnessy, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]
EMAIL

Mark J. Heise, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
EMAIL

Mr. Kevin P McBride, Esq.
[address]
EMAIL

Robert Silver, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER (NY)
[address]

Stuart H. Singer, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER (FL)
[address]
EMAIL

Mr. David W Scofield, Esq.
PETERS SCOFIELD PRICE
[address]
EMAIL

Mr. Michael P O'Brien, Esq.
JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & MCDONOUGH
[address]