|
|
| SCO and IBM Stipulate to a New Schedule |
 |
|
Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 01:49 AM EDT
|
SCO and IBM have agreed to alter the schedule a bit. Here's Stipulation Regarding Certain Scheduling Deadlines [PDF] and the proposed order [PDF]. The new schedule will go like this, if Judge Brooke Wells signs the order (with the previous date from Groklaw's IBM Timeline page in parentheses, so you can compare): Initial Expert Reports - May 19, 2006 (May 12)
Opposing Expert Reports - June 16, 2006 (June 9)
Rebuttal Expert Reports - July 14, 2006 (July 7)
Final Deadline for Expert Discovery - July 24, 2006 (July 10)
Dispositive Motions - August 4, 2006 (July 28)
Oppositions to Dispositive Motions - September 8, 2006 (September 1)
Reply Briefs on Dispositive Motions - October 6, 2006 (September 29)
As you can see, it's a minor adjustment, and all other deadlines, such as the trial date, remain the same. So, nothing anyone needs to notify the Red Hat judge about. It's just that when you are busy trying to escalate the experts wars, it just might tend to throw you off your schedule.
**********************************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address, phone, fax]
|
Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
|
Stuart H. Singer (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
|
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
|
| Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc. | |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION,
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
|
STIPULATION REGARDING
CERTAIN SCHEDULING
DEADLINES
Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
|
The parties, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as
follows with respect to the deadlines set forth in the Court's Order dated March 20 2006,
and certain other deadlines set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order dated July 1, 2005 (all
other deadlines in the July 2005 Order shall remain in force and effect):
| Initial Expert Reports | May 19, 2006 |
| Opposing Expert Reports | June 16, 2006 |
| Rebuttal Expert Reports | July 14, 2006 |
| Final Deadline for Expert Discovery | July 24, 2006 |
| Dispositive Motions | August 4, 2006 |
| Oppositions to Dispositive Motions | September 8, 2006 |
| Reply Briefs on Dispositive Motions | October 6, 2006 |
| DATED this 11th day of May, 2006. |
|
| |
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
/s/ Todd M. Shaughnessy
Alan L. Sullivan
Todd M. Shaughnessy
Amy F. Sorensen
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler
David R. Marriott
Counsel for IBM
|
2
| DATED this 11th day of May, 2006. |
|
| |
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
/s/ Brent O. Hatch
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
Robert Silver
Stuart H. Singer
Stephen N. Zack
Edward Normand
Counsel for The SCO Group, Inc.
|
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing fully executed Stipulation Regarding Certain Discovery Deadlines was served on
Defendant, IBM, on the 11th day of May, 2006:
|
By CM/ECF:
Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer LLP
[address]
By U.S. Mail:
David Marriott, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]
Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]
|
/s/ Mark Richards
4
*********************************************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address, phone, fax]
|
Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
|
Stuart H. Singer (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
|
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
|
| Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc. | |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION,
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
|
[Proposed] ORDER GRANTING
STIPULATION REGARDING
CERTAIN SCHEDULING
DEADLINES
Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
|
The stipulation of the parties having been considered and with good cause appearing therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the scheduling deadlines set forth in the Court's
Order dated March 20, 2006, and certain other deadlines set forth in the Court's
Order dated July 1, 2005 are extended as follows:
| Initial Expert Reports | May 19, 2006 |
| Opposing Expert Reports | June 16, 2006 |
| Rebuttal Expert Reports | July 14, 2006 |
| Final Deadline for Expert Discovery | July 24, 2006 |
| Dispositive Motions | August 4, 2006 |
| Oppositions to Dispositive Motions | September 8, 2006 |
| Reply Briefs on Dispositive Motions | October 6, 2006 |
All other deadlines in the July 2005 Order shall remain in force and effect.
DATED this ____ day of May, 2006.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROOKE C. WELLS
Approved as to form:
/s/ Todd M. Shaughnessy
Todd M. Shaughnessy
Attorney for International Business Machines Corporation
2
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Nonad on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 02:07 AM EDT |
...here, please.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nonad on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 02:09 AM EDT |
| ...posts here, please. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OFF TOPIC...SGI - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 08:04 AM EDT
- Thanks for news-pick - Authored by: kozmcrae on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 09:14 AM EDT
- Maintenance - Authored by: Dan M on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 02:00 PM EDT
- Maintenance - Authored by: Weeble on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 10:49 PM EDT
- Ditto - Authored by: seventeen on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 09:28 AM EDT
- Ditto - Authored by: AntiFUD on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 10:48 AM EDT
- Ditto - Authored by: jbeadle on Monday, May 15 2006 @ 03:35 PM EDT
- MPlayer Doesn't Recognise Stream - Authored by: luvr on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 03:48 PM EDT
- Open source now ties for first place in app servers - Authored by: pogson on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 04:36 PM EDT
- Petition to abolish U.S. software patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 04:40 PM EDT
- 55% of UK citizens are criminals - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 07:32 PM EDT
- OFF TOPIC... - Authored by: LaurenceTux on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 09:19 PM EDT
- Phone Call records and what the NSA knows - Authored by: AllParadox on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 12:15 AM EDT
- Utah Senatorial Hopeful, Pete Ashdown's Solution - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 01:03 AM EDT
- Phone Call records and what the NSA knows - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 03:12 AM EDT
- Phone Call records and what the NSA knows - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 06:08 AM EDT
- NSA and Net Neutrality - Authored by: Jude on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 10:34 AM EDT
- Phone Call records and what the NSA knows - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 10:55 AM EDT
- Criss-cross directory - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 11:17 AM EDT
- Try This - Authored by: joef on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 05:24 PM EDT
- Wow - Authored by: AllParadox on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 10:00 PM EDT
- Mother's Day -- NSA's Busy Season - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, May 15 2006 @ 01:08 AM EDT
- Changes to copyright law in Australia - Authored by: imperial on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 08:50 AM EDT
- I Like MEPIS! - Authored by: luvr on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 04:24 PM EDT
- "Playstation 3 development kits explored - Close up pics" - Authored by: Brian S. on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 06:20 PM EDT
- Kororaa GPL ?? - Authored by: LaurenceTux on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 07:05 PM EDT
- OT... SCO.COM Hosted On Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 07:07 PM EDT
- "Diebold voting systems critically flawed" - by design! - Authored by: Brian S. on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 07:08 PM EDT
- Kororaa Accused of Violating GPL - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 09:34 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: billyskank on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 04:49 AM EDT |
Dispositive motions can be filed between 24th July and 4th August?
---
It's not the software that's free; it's you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 04:54 AM EDT |
Minor or not, delay is delay. Fortunate that it doesn't impact on the larger
schedule, but still frustrating, because, once again scog got what they wanted.
Sigh...
Ok, so I suppose, looking for the positive side, if this case had gone through
quickly, failing at the point of presenting actionable causes, then this
wonderful community called Groklaw would never have grown up, and Linux's
profile may not have risen so meteorically, and fudsters would still have
mileage in saying "there could be violations within Linux"...
So, on the positive side, we *do* have Groklaw,
Linux *is* a rising star in all sectors, and the fudsters *can't* play the risk
card.
Thanks, PJ. You know Groklaw is responsible for much of this ;-)
-cybervegan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 05:17 AM EDT |
At what point in the schedule do we necessarily have to have a decision by Judge
Well on the 198 items (conclusion of Apr 14 hearing)?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 07:18 AM EDT |
Actually, this is not surprising at all. Given that Judge Wells has not yet
ruled on IBM's motion to limit claims, and that her decision in that matter will
affect the work both sides must do in the expert phase, this doesn't strike me
as unreasonable.
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to
it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stats_for_all on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 11:44 AM EDT |
| The hearing before Judge Wells to dismiss SCO's inspecific allegations was
held
4/14/06. Placing an order on the motion at least 30 days post-hearing.
How does
this time elapsed between hearings and orders compare with other
events in the
case?
The big, bruising motions-- the 10th counter-claim motion took 153
days
for Kimball to rule against IBM, and SCO motion for a 3rd amendment to 69
days for Kimball to rule against SCO. Wells' IBM 377 Order on discovery took
92 days.
The other motions have largely been dealt with in more dispatch.
Well's March
04 crucial "specificity" discovery rule took 25 days between
hearing and
order.
The logic of the expert deadlines especially, and prior
history imply that the
order on the current motion is imminent.
Should it
be argued that the longer the delay before issuance increases the
likelihood of
an outcome favorable to IBM? Both sides of this speculation can
be supported,
but these are amateur speculation on my part.
IBM 68 -- IBM and SCO motions
to compel -- Wells -- 7 days
IBM 109 --SCO's compliance, and SCO's motion
to compel Wells -- 25 days
(specificity)
IBM 182 --SCO's motion for a
protective order (denied) -- 9 days
IBM 177 -- SCO's motions to bifurcate
(deny) and to reschedule (grant in
part) -- Kimball -- 2 days
IBM 398 --
motion and cross-motion to dispose of IBM's tenth counterclaim
(dispositive
motions delayed) -- Kimball 153 days
IBM 328 -- SCO's "renewed" motion to
compel and IBM's motion to strike --1
day
IBM 377 -- SCO's "renewed" motion
to compel-- Wells granted --92
days
IBM 466 -- SCO's motions to amend
complaint (denied)--- Kimball-- 69
days
IBM 438 -- G2 to intervene and to
unseal court's file-- Kimball -- 2
days
IBM 530 -- SCO's discovery motions
(denied) -- Wells -- 6 days
IBM 583 -- SCO's objection to Magistrate Order
--Kimball--(denied) (from
bench)
Novell 29 SCO's motion to remand
(denied) and Novell's motion to dismiss (in
part, amend complaint) --Kimball --
29 day
Novell 75 Novell's second motion to dismiss -- Kimball-- 32 days
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
Wow, they're moving things up by a week or more? Probably IBM's doing... SCO
has never wanted anything but delay that I've seen.
So, I guess what I wonder now is, why did SCO agree to this? One supposes that
they got something, however trivial, from IBM out of it...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- backwards =) - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 12:39 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 12:48 PM EDT |
Is a major holiday in Utah. They may need to adjust that by a day, one way or
another.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 01:49 PM EDT |
I'm wodering if there are some time limits for the Judge. Let's see if I
understand this:
1. Dueling experts until July 24. Unsealed will filter out later as they
becomes available.
2. Dispositive motions Aug 4, hopefully public with a report. Unsealed will
filter out later.
Question 1 - will the motion to strike have to be ruled on by Aug 4 so the
proper motions can be filed?
3. 19 Jan 07 - Final Pretrial Order
Question 2 - Will that mandate the dispositive motions have to be ruled on so we
know what's being tried?
Just trying to set expectations.
;-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 09:59 AM EDT |
I wonder if IBM's lawyers noticed that Sun's Unix (which was allegedly licensed
from SCO) is opensource? <a
href="http://www.opensolaris.org/os/">http://
www.opensolaris.org/os/</a>
This means there are no trade secrets in Unix.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mwexler on Monday, May 15 2006 @ 02:19 PM EDT |
The stipulation of the parties having been considered and with good cause
appearing therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the scheduling
deadlines set forth in the Court's
Order dated March 20,2006, and certain other
deadlines set forth in the
Court's Scheduling Order dated July 1, 2005 are
extended as follows:
Initial Expert Reports May 19,2006
Opposing
Expert Reports June 16,2006
Rebuttal Expert Reports July 14, 2006
Final
Deadline for Expert Discovery July 24, 2006
Dispositive Motions August
4,2006
Oppositions to Dispositive Motions September 8,2006
Reply Briefs on
Dispositive Motions October 6, 2006
All other deadlines in the July
2005 Order shall remain in force and effect.
DATED this 15th day of May,
2006.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROOKE C. WELLS [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
