Here, thanks to the unfailing volunteer efforts of Steve Martin, is SCO's Report in Compliance with the Court's April 28, 2005 Order Regarding the Unsealing of Documents [PDF], as text. We've commented on this document earlier. Note that there are several letters attached to the Report as exhibits. Darl McBride, CEO of SCO, mentioned at last week's financial conference call that we can expect to see many more important documents, and here we see what some of them will be. McBride characterized the judge as saying that the parties should take a look and see if any documents had been inappropriately sealed ("However, the court directed the parties to take another look at their sealed filings, and unseal any documents that are not properly filed under seal."). That isn't precisely what the judge said. What he said is that they should "review the documents filed thus far in this action to determine whether any such documents may be unsealed," which isn't the same thing at all. There could be documents that were improperly sealed. There could be others that were properly sealed at the time but that can be unsealed now. Just as one example of the difference I mean, IBM turned over some privileged emails by mistake in discovery, which SCO then read aloud in a hearing and then quoted from and discussed in a later document, instead of returning them to IBM, as requested. As Amy Sorenson puts it in the letter to SCO dated April 21, 2005, attached to the report, "SCO's memorandum in support of its motion to amend is replete with quotations from and paraphrases of IBM confidential documents..." At that point, IBM might reason that a bit of the information about those emails might now be unsealed, the bit that is out there already, thanks to SCO's questionable tactics. Or they might not feel that way. But it's an example illustrating that something that was properly sealed might later be viewed as a document that can be unsealed. That doesn't mean it was improperly sealed to begin with. It might just mean, in my book, that somebody played dirty pool. The second Sorenson letter is particularly interesting. SCO has been spinning it that it's IBM that wants documents sealed and that when SCO sealed documents, it was generally only because they were responding to a sealed IBM document or referenced materials IBM listed as privileged. The letter tells a different story.
The three letters tell me that evidently the parties tried to come up with a list prior to the G2 hearing, a list of documents they could agree to unseal. The letters don't indicate which party initiated the discussion, but it points more toward SCO being the initator in the opening language in the April 21 letter. That could mean a couple of things. It could mean that they were working together to block G2's motion by coming up with a list, just in case, to prove the G2 motion was unnecessary. It could mean they have such discussions before all hearings, since the disastrous one in October of 2004 when SCO read aloud the privileged email. Or, it could mean that SCO was using the G2 motion as a wedge to initiate a strategy to prolong discovery again, by raising more things to argue about. Who knows? They do. We can only watch and deduce. Or it could mean something I haven't thought of. After the documents are unsealed, it will all become more clear. And someday, there will be books written and then we'll all find out, I expect. What the letters make crystal clear is that there are indeed things that SCO wanted and continues to want sealed, and not because IBM sealed something first. And what I see is IBM pushing for unsealing documents, and taking the lead in unsealing theirs. Something is up. We know SCO wants those emails revealed, but there must be something that IBM sees that we haven't yet seen that they'd like us to see. It's conceivable they are also demonstrating publicly that they want as much as possible unsealed. It is, no doubt, strategically important to answer SCO's never-ending spin. Or maybe they are letting SCO have it, as retaliation for the emails, in effect saying, "Fine. Let's all unseal our privileged documents, you rats." Whatever it is that is motivating IBM, they are pushing SCO to unseal documents and exhibits. SCO lists their Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery as one document they sealed "because they referenced materials that IBM had previously designated 'confidential'". If you read the letter from Sorenson, dated April 26, 2005 -- two days *before* Judge Kimball's Order in which he requested the parties to review what should be unsealed -- IBM sends SCO a list of documents it felt SCO had improperly sealed and/or could be unsealed. It lists that Ex Parte Motion as one of the documents that IBM felt should be unsealed, and it notes its opposition to that motion was never sealed. Here's another entry from IBM in its letter to SCO: IBM already filed a version of its Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims which was redacted to protect information designated as confidential by SCO. Get that? "Designated as confidential by SCO." And in the April 26th letter, Sorenson provides a list of other documents SCO sealed that did not respond to any sealing on IBM's part. Here's a sample:
SCO's Memorandum in Support of its Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery
(Docket No. 365) can also be unsealed in its entirety. IBM's
opposition to this motion was not filed under seal. SCO's Reply
Memorandum in Further Support of its Renewed Motion to Compel
Discovery can be unsealed, except for pages 3 and 7.
IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's 9th
Counterclaim was not filed under seal, nor was its reply memorandum.
SCO's memorandum in opposition to this motion can be unsealed as well.
IBM did not file its objections to SCO's privilege log under seal, and
IBM agrees that SCO's objections to IBM's privilege logs can be
unsealed.
What I am seeing is that there is an elaborate battle going on over unsealing of documents. Who is doing what isn't totally clear yet, but it's obvious it is happening. In this Report, I see SCO saying that it wants IBM to unseal documents IBM is unwilling to unseal, and of course there are SCO threats to ask the court to intervene. What else is new? IBM in its parallel filing, and in the first Amy F. Sorenson letter attached to SCO's report, dated May 27, 2005, states that in IBM's opinion all of SCO's exhibits should be unsealed. Sorenson's letter says it like this: "In conducting this review, it does not appear to us that any of SCO's
exhibits are properly maintained under seal." Here, SCO begs to differ. They provide instead a list of the ones they are willing to unseal or redact. So much for it being only IBM wanting to seal documents. No, what we have is this: each party says the other should unseal documents the other is unwilling to unseal. So, a process begins to decide what stays sealed and what gets unsealed. Ah, yes, friends. The discovery soap opera continues.
*********************************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address]
[phone]
Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
Sean Eskovitz (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
Stuart H. Singer (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff
|
SCO'S REPORT IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THE COURT'S APRIL 28, 2005
ORDER REGARDING THE
UNSEALING OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
|
1
SCO respectfully submits this report in compliance with the Court's
Order of April 28, 2005 (the "Order") concerning the unsealing of
documents in this matter. In that Order the Court directed counsel for
both parties to "review the documents filed thus far in this action to
determine whether any such documents may be unsealed" and to "notify the
court on or before May 27, 2005 as to which documents agree may be
unsealed." (Order at 2.)
Pursuant to that direction, we hereby report as follows:
1. In response to SCO's inquiries, counsel for IBM has advised that
certain pleadings SCO filed under seal — because they referenced
materials that IBM had previously designated "confidential" — may now
be unsealed in their entirety. SCO therefore agrees that the
following SCO pleadings may be unsealed, with the exception of any
references to the October 19, 2004 hearing transcript, which the Court
has ordered sealed:
Docket No. |
Date Filed |
Pleading Title |
245 |
August 19, 2004 |
Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental
Memorandum Regarding Discovery |
346 |
November 30, 2004 |
Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary
Judgment on SCO's Breach-of-Contract Claims |
365 |
December 23, 2004 |
Memorandum in Support of Renewed Motion to Compel
Discovery |
369 |
December 29, 2004 |
Reply Memorandum in Further Support of SCO's Motion for
Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint Pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 16(b)
|
425 |
March 23, 2005 |
Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Entry of
Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim |
432 |
April 11, 2005 |
Objections to IBM's Privilege Log and Memorandum in
Support of SCO's Request to Compel IBM to Provide
Proper Bases for Its Privilege Claims |
2. In response to SCO's inquiries, counsel for IBM has also advised SCO
that certain pleadings SCO filed under seal — because they referenced
materials that IBM had previously designed "confidential" — may now
be unsealed in part. SCO therefore agrees that
2
the following SCO pleadings may be filed in redacted form, which SCO
will submit to the court for filing:
Docket No. |
Date Filed |
Pleading Title |
287 |
August 19, 2004 |
Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery |
269 |
September 3, 2004 |
Memorandum in Reply to IBM's Opposition to SCO's Ex
Parte Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental
Memorandum Regarding Discovery |
316 |
October 4, 2004 |
Reply Brief in Further Support of SCO's Supplemental
Memorandum Regarding Discovery |
323 |
October 14, 2004 |
Memorandum in Support of SCO's Motion for
Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint Pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 16(b) |
375 |
January 12, 2005 |
Memorandum in Support of SCO's Motion to Compel IBM
to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition |
409 |
February 25, 2005 |
Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Renewed Motion
to Compel Discovery |
419 |
March 11, 2005 |
Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel IBM
to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition |
3. There are a number of documents that SCO filed under seal — either
because IBM had designated them "confidential" or because they
referenced materials that IBM had designated "confidential" — that
SCO does not agree warrant such treatment. Despite SCO's inquiries,
IBM has continued to insist that such documents remain under seal.
Pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Court's Order, SCO intends to pursue
this matter further with IBM and, if necessary, the court.
1
3
4. SCO believes that the following exhibits to SCO pleadings may be
unsealed, either in their entirety or, where indicated, in redacted
form (which SCO will submit to the Court for filing):
Docket No. |
Date |
Sealed Documents |
Filed With |
191 |
07/06/04 |
Exhibit 1 |
SCO's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel |
197 |
07/08/04 |
Gupta Decl. (Redacted), Exhibits B-G, K, N, Q, T, DD |
SCO's Opposition to IBM's Cross-Motion for Summary on
Tenth Counterclaim (Non-Infringement) |
198 |
07/08/04 |
Sontag Decl. (Redacted), Exhibit P |
SCO's Motion for Continuance Pursuant to Rule 56(f) |
203 |
07/12/04 |
Sontag Decl. (Redacted), Exhibits 2-5 |
SCO's Reply Memorandum Regarding Discovery |
206 |
07/09/04 |
Exhibits S-2, S-7 |
SCO's Opposition to IBM's Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment on Tenth Counterclaim (Non-Infringement) |
288 |
08/19/04 |
Evans Decl. (Redacted), Howe Decl. |
SCO's Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery |
293 |
09/09/04 |
Exhibit 8 |
SCO's Memorandum in Support of Expedited Motion to
Enforce the Court's Amended Scheduling Order |
316 |
10/04/04 |
Evans Decl. (Redacted), Exhibits 1-7, Exhibits A-E |
SCO's Reply Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery |
350 |
12/01/04 |
Exhibit S1 |
SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for
Summary Judgment on SCO's Contract Claims |
365 |
12/23/04 |
Exhibits A-E, K-N |
SCO's Memorandum in Support of Renewed Motion to Compel |
369 |
12/29/04 |
Exhibits A-E, A1, A2 |
SCO's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Motion for
Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint |
375 |
01/12/05 |
Exhibits A-C, E, G, I-K, N-Q |
SCO's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel IBM to
Produce Samuel J. Palmisano |
409 |
02/25/05 |
Exhibits 1, 3, A-C |
SCO's Reply to Renewed Motion to Compel |
419 |
03/11/05 |
Exhibits 1, A-F |
SCO's Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel
IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano |
425 |
03/23/05 |
Exhibits A-B |
SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Entry
of Order Limiting Scope of Ninth Counterclaim |
4
432 |
04/11/05 |
Exhibits A-C |
SCO's Objections to IBM's Privilege Log and Memorandum
in Support of SCO's Request to Compel IBM to Provide
Proper Bases for Privilege Claims |
5. Finally, SCO believes that the following exhibits to IBM pleadings,
and any corresponding references to such exhibits in IBM pleadings may
be unsealed:
Docket No. |
Date |
Sealed Documents |
Filed With |
234 |
08/13/04 |
Exhibits 5, 7, 40, 53, 57-59 |
Declaration of Todd Shaughnessy in Support of IBM's
Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims |
239 |
08/16/04 |
Exhibits 1, 23 24, 32, 34, 37, 38 |
Declaration of Amy Sorenson in Support of IBM's
Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment on Copyright Infringement Claim |
251 |
08/23/04 |
Exhibits 7, 22 |
Declaration of Todd Shaughnessy in Support of IBM's
Reply Memorandum in Further Support of its Cross-Motion
for Summary Judgment on its Claim for Declaratory
Judgment on Non-Infringement |
345 |
11/30/04 |
Exhibits 1, 10, 11, 13 |
Declaration of Todd Shaughnessy in Support of IBM's
Opposition to SCO's Motion for Leave to File a Third
Amended Complaint.
|
DATED this 27th day of May, 2005.
|
Respectfully submitted,
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Robert Silver
Stuart H. Singer
Stephen N. Zack
Edward Normand
Sean Eskovitz
By (signature of Brent Hatch)
Counsel for The SCO Group, Inc.
|
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Plaintiff/Counterclaim defendant, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby
certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing SCO's Report
in Compliance with the Court's April 28, 2005 Order Regarding the
Unsealing of Documents was served by mail on Defendant IBM on the 27th
day of May 2005, by U.S. Mail to:
|
David Marriott, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]
Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]
Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer LLP
[address]
|
|
|
|
By
(signature) |
6
1
At approximately 2 p.m. EST on May 27, 2005 -- the court
imposed deadline for filing the parties' reports -- counsel for IBM
sent counsel for SCO a letter notifying SCO concerning IBM's
position with respect to approximately twenty filings and their
associated exhibits. (Exh. 1.) IBM's new position with respect to
several such documents appears to be at odds with the position that
IBM articulated just one month ago in response to SCO's written
inquiries. Compare id. with Letters from Amy F. Sorenson to
Edward Normand, April 21 & 26, 2005 (Exh. 2). The timing of
IBM's letter prevented counsel for SCO for reviewing it in detail
before finalizing this report. We have notified counsel for IBM
that we intend to confer with them concerning their latest proposal
after we have had an adequate opportunity to review it. To the
extent that IBM's latest letter changes the nature of the parties'
agreements set forth herein, SCO will file an amended report to the
Court.
[Snell and Wilmer letterhead];
Amy F. Sorenson [phone]
[email address]
|
May 27, 2005 |
By Facsimile & Mail
Edward Normand
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Re: SCO v. IBM, Civil No
2:03CV-0294DAK
Dear Ted:
As you know, Judge Kimball's April 28, 2005 Order required the parties
to review the documents filed under seal in this case to date and to
notify the Court on or before May 27, 2005 as to which documents the
parties agree may be unsealed. Accordingly, IBM intends to notify the
Court today that, as far as IBM is concerned, the following documents
may be unsealed, and that it will provide the Court with redacted or
unsealed versions of its pleadings as soon as possible:
- Exhibits I and J to the 7/6/04 Memorandum in Support of Renewed
Motion by SCO Group to Compel Discovery can be unsealed; Exhibits G
and H should remain under seal;
- 7/8/04 SCO's Sealed Exhibits to Memorandum in Opposition to
IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Tenth Counterclaim
for Non-Infringement may be unsealed, except for the first full
paragraph on page 13 of Exhibit S-3, and for Exhibit S-6, which
should remain under seal or be redacted;
- 7/9/04 Declaration of Chris Sontag in Support of SCO's
Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and all
exhibits thereto;
- 7/12/04 Sealed Declaration of Chris Sontag in Support of Reply
Memorandum Regarding Discovery and all exhibits thereto;
- 8/4/04 Declaration of Amy F. Sorenson in Support of IBM's
Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's "Renewed" Motion to Compel, except
for portions of Exhibit 5;
- 8/13/04 Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy in Support of Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims and all
exhibits thereto;
- 8/16/04 Declaration of Amy F. Sorenson in Support of IBM's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgments on its Counterclaim for
Copyright Infringement (Eighth Counterclaim) and all exhibits
thereto;
- 8/19/04 Declaration of Jeremy O. Evans in Support of SCO's
Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery and all exhibits thereto;
- 8/20/04 IBM Sealed Declaration of Brian W. Kernighan and all
exhibits thereto;
- 8/23/04 Reply Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy in Support of
IBM's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Claim for
Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement and all exhibits thereto;
- 9/9/04 Memorandum in Support of SCO's Expedited Motion to
Enforce the Court's Amended Scheduling Order Dated June 10, 2004,
except for Exhibits 5 and 7, which should remain under seal;
- 10/4/04 Declaration of Jeremy O. Evans in Support of SCO's Reply
Brief in Further Support of its Supplemental Memorandum Regarding
Discovery and all exhibits thereto, except for Exhibit 10, from which
the names of the individuals and their contact information at the
ISVs listed should be redacted;
- 10/14/04 SCO's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to File
a Third Amended Complaint and all exhibits thereto, except for
Exhibit 7 and page 14 of the Memorandum;
- 11/30/04 IBM's Sealed Declaration of Todd Shaughnessy in
Opposition to SCO's Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended
Complaint and all exhibits thereto;
- 12/01/04 SCO Sealed Exhibits to the Declaration of Jeremy
O. Evans in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on
Breach of Contract Claims, except for Exhibits S-4 and S-6;
- 12/23/04 Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Renewed Motion to
Compel Discovery and all exhibits thereto;
- 12/29/04 SCO Sealed Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for
Leave to File Third Amended Complaint and all exhibits thereto,
including the Declaration of Jay F. Petersen;
- 1/12/05 SCO's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel IBM to
produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition and all exhibits thereto;
and
- 2/25/05 SCO's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Renewed
Motion to Compel Discovery may be unsealed, as well as and all
exhibits thereto, with the exception of Exhibit 1, which should
remain under seal.
In conducting this review, it does not appear to us that any of SCO's
exhibits are properly maintained under seal. Please let me know
immediately if you have any objections to any of the foregoing, so
that we can prepare IBM's pleadings and all exhibits associated
therewith for filing in unsealed or redacted form as soon as possible.
|
Very truly yours,
Snell & Wilmer
(signature of Amy Sorenson)
Amy F. Sorenson
|
AFS:kb
cc: |
Brent Hatch David Marriott Todd Shaughnessy |
[Snell and Wilmer letterhead]
Amy F. Sorenson [phone]
[email address]
|
April 26, 2005 |
By Facsimile & Mail
Edward Normand
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Re:SCO v. IBM, Civil No
2:03CV-0294DAK
Dear Ted:
In my letter to you dated April 21, 2005, I set forth IBM's proposal
regarding unsealing the briefing associated with the motions to be
heard that day (with the exception of SCO's memorandum in support of
its motion to amend, which required additional analysis). I also told
you I hoped to provide you with similar information for the remaining
briefing filed under seal in this case as quickly as possible.
IBM proposes that the below briefs filed in this case under seal be
unsealed, with the exception of the confidential exhibits submitted
therewith and the following: SCO's Memorandum in Support of its Motion
for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint can be unsealed in its
entirety, except for pages 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.
SCO's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum
Regarding Discovery can be unsealed in its entirety. (IBM did not file
its opposition to SCO's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File a
Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery under seal.) SCO's Reply
to IBM's Opposition to SCO's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File
Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery also can be unsealed,
except for pages 3 and 5.
SCO's Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery can be unsealed in
its entirety, except for pages 5, 6, and 7. IBM also intends to file
another Opposition to SCO's Supplemental Memorandum Regarding
Discovery, redacted to protect IBM privileged and confidential
information. SCO's Reply Brief in Support of its Supplemental
Memorandum Regarding Discovery can be unsealed except for pages 18,
19, 20, 21, and 22.
IBM already filed a version of its Memorandum in Support of its Motion
for Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims which was redacted
to protect information designated as confidential by SCO. IBM intends
to file an unredacted version of this memorandum. In addition, SCO's
memorandum in opposition to IBM's motion for summary judgment on the
contract claims can be unsealed in its entirety. In light of Judge
Kimball's February 9, 2005 Order, no reply memorandum was filed on
this motion.
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 designed 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. Accordingly, IBM intends to file a new version of this
memorandum which will be unsealed in its entirety except as to the
redactions on pages 14 and 15 (subject to the objection we have
previously raised). SCO's memorandum in opposition to this motion was
not filed under seal, and again no reply memoranda were filed in light
of the February 9, 2005 Order.
SCO's Memorandum in Support of its Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery
(Docket No. 365) can also be unsealed in its entirety. IBM's
opposition to this motion was not filed under seal. SCO's Reply
Memorandum in Further Support of its Renewed Motion to Compel
Discovery can be unsealed, except for pages 3 and 7.
IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's 9th
Counterclaim was not filed under seal, nor was its reply memorandum.
SCO's memorandum in opposition to this motion can be unsealed as well.
IBM did not file its objections to SCO's privilege log under seal, and
IBM agrees that SCO's objections to IBM's privilege logs can be
unsealed.
Finally, there may be additional memoranda filed in redacted form in
this case which may permit additional unsealing. We will provide you
with additional information about any such briefs as quickly as
possible.
|
Very truly yours,
Snell & Wilmer
(signature of Amy Sorenson)
Amy F. Sorenson
|
AFS:kb
cc: |
Brent Hatch David Marriott Todd Shaughnessy |
[Snell and Wilmer letterhead]
Amy F. Sorenson [phone]
[email address]
|
April 21, 2005 |
By Facsimile & Mail
Edward Normand
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Re:SCO v. IBM, Civil No
2:03CV-0294DAK
Dear Ted:
This letter follows up on the conversation we had on Monday, in which
I agreed to review the briefs filed in this case and provide you with
information as to which portions of those briefs could be unsealed. I
further told you I hoped to get back to you before today's hearing.
We do not believe any portions of the briefs filed under seal for
today's hearing need to remain under seal, except for the confidential
exhibits submitted therewith and the following: pages 2 through 5 of
SCO's memorandum in support of its motion to compel Mr. Palmisano's
deposition and pages 5 and 6 of SCO's reply memorandum in support of
its motion to compel Mr. Palmisano's deposition. All pages of SCO's
reply memorandum in support of its motion to amend can be unsealed.
SCO's memorandum in support of its motion to amend is replete with
quotations from and paraphrases of IBM confidential documents, and so
will require further analysis. As to IBM's briefs, IBM intends to
unseal all pages of its memorandum in opposition to SCO's motion to
compel Mr. Palmisano's deposition, as well as all pages of its
memorandum in opposition to SCO's motion to amend and of its sur-reply
in further opposition to SCO's motion to amend.
I will continue to review the numerous briefs filed in this case to
determine which portions thereof should remain confidential, and will
try to provide you with that information as quickly as possible.
|
Very truly yours,
Snell & Wilmer
(signature of Amy Sorenson)
Amy F. Sorenson
|
AFS:kb
cc: |
Brent Hatch David Marriott Todd Shaughnessy |
|