|
|
| Wells Signs Stipulated Order Re Scheduling |
 |
|
Monday, May 15 2006 @ 07:20 PM EDT
|
Judge Brooke Wells, back from her vacation, has signed the Order Granting Stipulation Regarding Certain Scheduling Deadlines [PDF] proposed by the parties in SCO v. IBM, making a few minor changes in the schedule that we told you about earlier. I think perhaps she's doing the easy stuff first, like this order and the one denying SCO's motion to strike, and saving the more complex IBM
Motion to Limit SCO's Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material until she can seriously research and think it through. I doubt the issue is so much whether or not SCO obeyed the court's orders as it is about what should the court do about it now. Meanwhile, I'm researching SCO's Motion for In Camera Review of Allegedly Privileged Documents . I'm unclear why SCO approached the matter the way it did, unless it's just more gaming for delay.
I've been researching and thinking for three days now, and while doing so, I came across this reminder of what is supposed to happen, the Attorneys' Planning Report and Proposed Scheduling Order [PDF] from July, 2003. Remember when SCO mailed IBM a motion and IBM didn't get it a couple of days later? Here's what SCO wrote about it in their reply memorandum in support of the motion, after IBM complained about not receiving the motion from SCO and as a result having to file a memorandum in opposition without having the opportunity to read the motion: As to service, counsel for SCO mailed the motion and declaration from Utah on Monday, so that IBM's counsel would receive the materials in Utah on Tuesday. In similar manner, IBM mailed its reply brief and declarations last week, as well as its opposition brief yesterday, to counsel for SCO. Notice how the parties agreed to serve the other side in the stipulated Attorneys Planning Report: Papers may be served upon a designated attorney for each party, either by hand, by overnight mail, by facsimile, or by e-mail with a PDF attachment, as needed. When service is effected by any method other than by hand, three additional calendar days shall be added to the response time, if any, pursuant to Rule 6(e). As you see, snail mail is not an option. So, once again, from all I can see, it appears we have yet another technical foul by SCO. And for those of you who have sent me email asking how a person is supposed to conduct himself at depositions or at a trial, here you go, instructions from a law firm I stumbled across during my research. ***************************************
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.
___________________________
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 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.
__[signature]____
MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROOKE C. WELLS
2
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: entre on Monday, May 15 2006 @ 07:26 PM EDT |
| Typos Here for PJ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jplatt39 on Monday, May 15 2006 @ 07:37 PM EDT |
Make links clickable Read the instructions at the bottom of the Post a Comment
page.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kaemaril on Monday, May 15 2006 @ 08:36 PM EDT |
unless it's just more gaming for delay.
Unless? Can't we just
take as read that everything they do is to delay, and then look to a
deeper meaning as well? :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 15 2006 @ 08:41 PM EDT |
"As to service, counsel for SCO mailed the motion and declaration from Utah
on
Monday, so that IBM's counsel would receive the materials in Utah on
Tuesday."
Sounds like overnight mail to me or am I missing something? I don't see how
you can call this a foul.
-- Best, David[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tgf on Monday, May 15 2006 @ 09:39 PM EDT |
Snail Mail v. First Class v. U.S. Mail
I note from a recent Certificate of Service:
"Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and
correct copy of the foregoing Declaration of Marc Rochkind was
served by mail on Defendant International Business Machines
Corporation on the 10th day of April, 2006, by U.S. Mail to:"
I seem to recall that earlier certificates specified something like
"pre-paid First Class US Mail", which I presume is Snail Mail ;-)
Whilst over here in the UK, our Royal Mail's First Class service
usually *does* result in overnight delivery, I gather that the US
version can often take several days to just cross Manhattan, and
also possibly Salt Lake City.
If, however, the generic "U.S. Mail" (First Class or otherwise)
doesn't count as "overnight mail", then these certificates haven't
actually certified an agreed valid method of service, and so both
parties have persistently committed technical fouls.
I therefore conclude that the US First Class "Snail" Mail *is* an
option, which allows three days to arrive (same as fax & email).
Tim
---
Oxymoron of the day:
Microsoft innovation[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gbl on Tuesday, May 16 2006 @ 07:46 AM EDT |
If anybody is interested in how real terrorists operate I suggest that you get a
hold of a copy of "The 9/11 Commission Report" ISBN 0-393-32671-3
It contains a facinating/horrifying account of the planning and execution of the
attack together with a vast amount of background.
It's noticable that technology played almost no part.
---
If you love some code, set it free.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Acrow Nimh on Tuesday, May 16 2006 @ 08:53 AM EDT |
....and I'm surprised that nobody has noticed before now!
Congratulations PJ and long may this site prosper....
---
Any horticultural action not involving a chainsaw isn't gardening...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BassSinger on Tuesday, May 16 2006 @ 11:09 AM EDT |
PJ wrote:
I doubt the issue is so much whether or not SCO obeyed the court's orders as it
is about what should the court do about it now.
*********************
Now, I'm not that familiar with the law, so I have to ask: Is it within the
power of Judge Wells to throw Daryl & his lawyers in jail for contempt until
such time as they comply with the court's order to specify file/line/version on
all claims?
That image certainly brings a smile to my face...
---
In A Chord,
Tom
Proud Member of the Kitsap Chordsmen
Registered Linux User # 154358[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Contempt - Authored by: John Hasler on Tuesday, May 16 2006 @ 11:19 AM EDT
- Contempt - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 16 2006 @ 12:47 PM EDT
- Contempt - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 16 2006 @ 01:24 PM EDT
- Contempt - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 16 2006 @ 02:04 PM EDT
- Contempt - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, May 17 2006 @ 03:49 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
