|
SCO and IBM File Notices of Unsealing |
|
Tuesday, May 31 2005 @ 10:24 PM EDT
|
Well, they are fighting some more, this time over what should and what shouldn't be unsealed. Judge Dale Kimball ordered both SCO and IBM to review the documents sealed so far in the case and to let him know which documents the parties agree can be unsealed. Of course, they can't agree. As I see it, IBM says SCO's stuff can be unsealed and SCO says IBM's can be, and that isn't a point of agreement. Joke, joke. Each side does list some of their own documents as being able to be unsealed. But, clearly there are issues and while there was a deadline to file, there is activity going on in the background over all this, and SCO threatens to seek the court's intervention. What else is new?
Here's IBM's [PDF]. And here's SCO's [PDF]. Note that there are two letters from IBM to SCO attached to SCO's filing. SCO's Notice seems to try to portray it that IBM was responsible for SCO sealings, that they did it "either because IBM had designated them as 'confidential' or because they referenced materials that IBM had designated 'confidential'", as SCO puts it, but when I read the IBM letters, I get a different picture. For example, on page 13, IBM writes this: IBM also filed a version of its Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on its Eighth Counterclaim for Copyright Infringement which was redacted to protect information designated by SCO as confidential. IBM understands that SCO will not consent to unsealing this document unless IBM maintains the redactions set forth at pages 14-15. Obviously, I can't know why documents were sealed by the parties, but for sure I can see that there is at least a dispute as to who was responsible for it in at least this instance. And after my first review, I don't see this document on SCO's list of what can be unsealed. Nor do I see SCO acknowledging any responsibility for sealing documents. To hear them tell it, it's all about IBM. SCO's lawyering style is putting your best foot forward and then hopping around on one foot, pretending you don't have a second. I never see a complete picture, just their preferred facts. Ever argue with someone like that? Does it violate your sense of justice and honor?
So, stay tuned. Can you imagine? We're up to 450 documents now in this case. And not one thing has been easy. So, here we go again. Both sides will now have to file amended notices, after the dispute is ironed out, or it's back to court we go to get the judge to mediate the squabble. The good news is, we're going to get to see a lot more, judging from the two notices, no matter how it works out. For example, on page 2 of SCO's Notice, there is a list of 6 SCO filings that both sides now say can be unsealed. And on page 3, SCO agrees to unseal in part (by redacting portions) seven other filings. IBM says that all SCO's exhibits can be unsealed, but SCO doesn't agree. What they do agree to is on page 4 and 5. On page 5, SCO lists some exhibits of IBM's it wants unsealed. IBM's list of what it feels should be unsealed begins on page 2 of their Notice, but they note that they gave their list to SCO but had not received a reply by the deadline to file. If anyone has the time to transcribe these, it would be very helpful in comparing the two lists. Please, as usual, leave a comment that you will be doing whatever you want to transcribe, so we don't duplicate effort, and send the result to me by email, rather than posting it, so I can edit first for accuracy. Thank you.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 31 2005 @ 10:31 PM EDT |
---
--Bill P, not a lawyer. Question the answers, especially if I give some.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 31 2005 @ 10:32 PM EDT |
And remember to read the directions for links
---
--Bill P, not a lawyer. Question the answers, especially if I give some.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, May 31 2005 @ 11:17 PM EDT |
Raw text as child posts... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RandomX on Tuesday, May 31 2005 @ 11:43 PM EDT |
I'm doing a side-by-side for EZ comparison. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: codswallop on Tuesday, May 31 2005 @ 11:55 PM EDT |
These are the case file number IBM and SCO agree about. I've listed the exhibits
in each which each side proposes to unseal. They both agree to unseal the base
documents though again, differing in redactions. I've omitted numbers for which
there is no agreement. I haven't finished with them.
IBM SCO
1 191 All but G and H | I
2 197 All but S-3 and S-6 | B-G, K, N, Q, T, DD
4 203 ALL of Sontag | P
6 234 ALL | 5, 7, 40, 53, 57-59
7 239 ALL | 1, 23, 24, 32, 34, 37, 38
8 288 ALL | Evans, Howe
10 251 ALL | 7, 22
12 293 ALL but 5 and 7 | 8
13 316 All but 10 | 1-7, A-E
14 323 ALL but 7 and page 14 | ALL
15 345 ALL | 1, 10, 11, 13
16 350 ALL but S-4, S-6 | S-1
17 365 ALL | A-E, K-N
18 369 ALL | A-E, A1, A2
19 375 ALL | A-C, E, G, I-K, N-Q
20 409 ALL but 1 | 1, 3, A-C
---
IANAL This is not a legal opinion.
SCO is not a party to the APA.
Discovery relevance is to claims, not to sanity.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: codswallop on Wednesday, June 01 2005 @ 03:42 AM EDT |
These are the unilateral proposals of the two sides. Of course SCO has 10 to
IBM's 4. I wonder why SCO didn't join IBM in suggesting unsealing "IBM's
Declaration of Brian W. Kernighan"?
IBM 3 197 SCO's Declarations in Support
of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgement
--- ALL
SCO 198 SCO's Declarations in support of SCO's Motion for
Continuance Pursuant to Rule 56(f)
SCO 206 SCO's Memorandum In
Opposition to IBM's Motion [152] for Summary Judgment on its Tenth Counterclaim
for Declaratory Judgment Of Non-Infringement
--- S2 Deposition of David
Rodgers, June 10, 2004,
--- S7 SCO Linux Introduction v1.2
IBM 5 220
IBM's exhibits to Declaration of Amy F. Sorenson Re: [217] IBM's Memorandum in
Opposition to [190] SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery
--- ALL but 5
SCO
245 SCO's Ex parte motion by SCO Grp for leave to file a supplemental memo re:
discovery
SCO 269 SCO's Reply to response to [245] ex parte motion for
leave to file a supplemental memorandum re: discover
SCO 287 SCO's
Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery
IBM 9 252 IBM's Declaration of
Brian W. Kernighan
IBM 11 271 IBM's Memorandum in support of [212] Motion to
Strike the 7/12/2004 Declaration of Christopher Sontag
SCO 323 SCO's
Memorandum in Support of [322] SCO's Motion for Leave to File 3rd Amended
Complaint
SCO 346 SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for
Summary Judgment on SCO's Breach of Contract Claims
SCO 419 SCO's Reply
Memorandum in Support of SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J.
Palmisano for Deposition
SCO 425 SCO's Memorandum [SCO v. IBM 425] in
Opposition to IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth
Counterclaim
--- IANAL This is not a legal opinion.
SCO is not a party to the APA.
Discovery relevance is to claims, not to sanity. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: soronlin on Wednesday, June 01 2005 @ 05:53 AM EDT |
It's not really suprising IBM hadn't received a reply, seeing that they faxed
their letter to SCOG three hours before the deadline. - Mind you if I'd been
SCOG I'd have loved to have answered it with new information half an hour before
the deadline. :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Wednesday, June 01 2005 @ 06:02 AM EDT |
While I want to know more about sealed docs; I feel this sealed doc battle is a
SCO created wookie.
SCOX know their legal case will lose; any delay helps SCO more than IBM, Redhat
and the world...
---
Just Say No to Caldera/SCO/USL/?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Observer on Wednesday, June 01 2005 @ 11:53 AM EDT |
I'm wondering, who exactly is driving this push to unseal documents? Is this
all because of MOG and her complaint? Obviously, this doesn't have anything to
do with the case itself, since all the direct parties have access to all the
documents. The rest of us don't have to see all the documents in order
for the case to go forward. In theory, this is just about public access,
right?
It's altogether possible that MOG is simply acting as a proxy for
SCO, trying to get potentially embarrassing information out into the Court of
Public Opinion, but even with that, I don't see how it would affect the final
outcome of the case.
Well, I suppose it might serve to prop up their stock
price again... --- The Observer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|