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
IBM Deposed EV1's Robert Marsh
Monday, March 13 2006 @ 10:14 PM EST

IBM has subpoenaed Robert Marsh, of Everyones Internet, and he was scheduled to be deposed on the 10th in Houston, Texas, so presumably it has already happened. Here's the subpoena and certificate of service [PDF]. We also learn from Pacer notes that there was a telephone conference with Magistrate Judge Wells regarding the Letters Rogatory on March 3 and SCO raised "no objection to to the deposition of the witness taking place after the discovery deadline". We still don't know who "the witness" is.

And SCO has filed its overlength opposition memo to IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material. However, they filed it and a box of exhibits under seal.

Here's how Pacer looks:

646 - Filed: 03/03/2006
Entered: 03/13/2006
Telephone Conference
Docket Text: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Brooke C. Wells : Telephone Conference held on 3/3/2006 regarding Letters Rogatory and depositions. SCO has no objection to the deposition of the witness taking place after the discovery deadline. Parties updated the Court as to the status of the case. The Court directed that should further telephone status conferences be necessary, counsel are to contact the Court for scheduling. Attorney for Plaintiff: Edward Normand, Attorney for Defendant Todd Shaughnessy. (tsh, )

643 - Filed: 03/07/2006
Entered: 03/10/2006
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** Memorandum in Opposition to [619] Defendant's MOTION to Limit SCO's Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (blk, )

640 [PDF] - Filed & Entered: 03/08/2006
Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages Docket Text: ORDER granting [639] Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages . Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 3/8/06. (blk, )

644 - Filed: 03/08/2006
Entered: 03/10/2006
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** EXHIBITS TO [643] Sealed Memorandum in Opposition to IBMs Motion to Limit SCOs Claims Relating to Misused Material filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Clerks Note: This document is oversized and therefore not scanned and attached as a pdf. It will be retained in the clerks office sealed room for viewing by authorized persons only.) (blk, )

645 - Filed & Entered: 03/13/2006
Affidavit of Service
Docket Text: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE for Subpoena In A Civil Case served on Robert Marsh on 2/27/2006, filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (Donaldson, Peter)

  


IBM Deposed EV1's Robert Marsh | 347 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off Topic Thread
Authored by: ceverett on Monday, March 13 2006 @ 10:21 PM EST
make links clickable, of course.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections
Authored by: Kilz on Monday, March 13 2006 @ 10:27 PM EST
For mistakes

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Deposed EV1's Robert Marsh
Authored by: kurtwall on Monday, March 13 2006 @ 10:41 PM EST
It still seems like SCOG seal everything unless they need to make a media
splash. I find it tiresome and frustrating, but perhaps that is their intent.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hmm. Any speculation on what IBM wanted, and got, from Marsh? (n/t)
Authored by: AllParadox on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 12:53 AM EST


---
PJ deletes insult posts, not differences of opinion.

AllParadox; retired lawyer and chief Groklaw iconoclast. No legal opinions,
just my opinion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Mystery Witness - a guess
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 01:07 AM EST
IBM subpoenaed David Frasure, Baystar, Otis Wilson & David Rodgers on
5-10-2004. Frasure's & Baystar's depositions were scheduled for 6-8-2004
(IBM-172).

On May 27th, the court scheduled a hearing, also for June 8 (IBM-158).

SCO objected to the scheduling conflict, IBM agreed to reschedule the Baystar
depostion for the following week: "IBM agreed to postpone the BayStar
deposition provided that BayStar was amenable to doing so. IBM tried diligently
to reach BayStar to discuss this issue, but BayStar has ignored our calls and
letters. SCO, on the other hand, has talked to BayStar. This morning, we finally
received a message from BayStar's counsel stating that the deposition would not
go forward next week" (IBM-172).

On 6-4-04, SCO filed for an expedited protective order that NONE of the
depostions scheduled for the week of 6-7 thru 6-11 occur. One of their reasons
was, "Forcing SCO to attend these third-party depositions before IBM's
document production obligations have been satisfied poses the significant hazard
that these depositions (many of which are likely to be trial depositions) will
need to be reopened later" (IBM-168).

On 6-7-04 the court denied SCO's motion (IBM-175), but I see no evidence of a
Baystar deposition having taking place.

So my guess is that the witness is Baystar's Larry Goldfarb.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did you boycott ev1servers.net? I did
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 10:34 AM EST
I remember that at the time I was leasing linux dedicateds for myself and a few
corporate clients. When I read that the "HeadSurfer" at ev1servers.net
had written a check to SCO, I gave the business to serverbeach and a layeredtech
reseller instead.

So that it's documented for the ages, did you boycott ev1servers and if so,
estimated the lost revenue:

in my case:

2 dedicateds @ US$110/mo x 2 = $5280

[ Reply to This | # ]

Slightly OT: Query about Requests for Admissions
Authored by: Dave23 on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 01:43 PM EST
IBM has apparently been making Requests for Admissions to SCOX/BSF for quite some time now, during Discovery. As I understand it, the Request for Admissions is a method the court gives the parties to reduce the number of issues in order to get down to the core of the dispute — thus simplifying the lawsuit.

While, presumably, the process can be gamed with one side not admitting to anything (even if the ship is sinking under them), from my reading it appears that the respondent has to do a lot of writing out of their reasoning if they wish to continue to oppose a contested point. I can see where such Requests would keep BSF personnel rather busy, particularly if they ever hope to get their case (ignoring IBM's counterclaims for the moment) before a jury.

Nevertheless, even with potential foot-dragging, I can see how this process can help clarify matters for a judge, who might be asked to rule that no reasonable jury would determine otherwise for certain contested facts, when presented with a motion for a PSJ.

Since I've not seen the actual text for IBM's Requests, nor SCOX/BSF responses, I have assumed that these documents are sealed or otherwise privileged. Please correct me if I am wrong.

In any case I'd like to hear from any of the lawyers of any of their experiences with the process. Requests for Admission seem to start in Discovery ... and go on until when? In general how effective are these Requests for Admission? Are they indeed used in a manner I've outlined above?

IADNAL (I Am Definitely Not A Lawyer)

---
Gawker

[ 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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.06 seconds