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 Files Redacted Memo in Opposition to SCO's Objections (Conventionally)
Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 06:07 PM EDT

IBM has filed its redacted response to SCO's Objections to Judge Brooke Wells' Order, but because it is too long to file digitally, it has filed it in conventionally, the old way.

Here is the notice, the NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING OF IBM'S REDACTED MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO SCO'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE WELLS' ORDER OF JUNE 28, 2006 AND THE DECLARATION OF TODD M. SHAUGHNESSY WITH UNSEALED EXHIBITS [PDF].

Unfortunately, I think that means we have to pick it up at the courthouse and digitize it ourselves, and we'll be working on getting that done. I can't wait to read it.

There is also now the signed Order Granting Motion to Withdraw Dan Filor as Counsel [PDF], the signed Order Granting IBM's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Overlength Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's Objections to Magistrate Judge Wells' Order of June 28, 2006 [PDF], and the Stipulated Motion [PDF] and the Proposed Order [PDF] giving both sides until October 13, 2006 to respond to requests for admission [PDF].

Update: We have a volunteer who will pick it up Monday for us.

2d Update: The court will be scanning it in tonight (Monday) so it will be available digitally at 8 cents a page, instead of at 25 cents per page if we get it directly from the court as paper and scan it in ourselves. Our volunteer says that, with exhibits, he thinks it may be the largest filing he's seen so far. I don't want to waste your contributions, so it seems prudent to wait, particularly since scanning takes time also, and it'd probably be neck and neck which of us would finish first. Also whenever possible, I prefer to obtain the court's official digital copy. Just letting you know my thinking.

**************************************

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651)
Amy F. Sorenson (8947)
[address, phone, fax]

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice)
David R. Marriott (7572)
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

________________________________________

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.

_________________________________

NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING
OF IBM'S REDACTED MEMORANDUM
IN OPPOSITION TO SCO'S
OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WELLS' ORDER OF JUNE 28, 2006 AND
THE DECLARATION OF
TODD M. SHAUGHNESSY WITH
UNSEALED EXHIBITS

Civil No. 2:03CV-0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

Please take notice that Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") has conventionally filed the original and two copies of the following documents, papers or other materials: IBM's Redacted Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's Objections to Magistrate Judge Wells' Order of June 28, 2006 and the Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy With Unsealed Exhibits.

These documents, papers or other materials have not been filed electronically because:

____ they cannot be converted to electronic format

XXX the electronic file size of this material exceeds 2 megabytes (MB)

____ the Court by order has excused electronic filing

____ they are exempt from electronic filing pursuant to ยง ____ of the ECF Policy & Procedures Manual (specific list of documents including administrative records, ex parte submissions, etc.)

These documents have been conventionally served on all parties.

DATED this 18th day of August, 2006.

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

/s/ Amy F. Sorenson

Alan L. Sullivan
Todd M. Shaughnessy
Amy F. Sorenson

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler
David R. Marriott

Of Counsel:

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
Jennifer M. Daniels
Alec S. Berman
[address, phone]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 18th day of August, 2006, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court and delivered by CM/ECF system to the following:

Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address]

Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

and by U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid to:

Robert Silver
Edward Normand
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

/s/ Amy F. Sorenson

3


  


IBM Files Redacted Memo in Opposition to SCO's Objections (Conventionally) | 73 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off Topic Threads here...
Authored by: devnull13 on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 07:39 PM EDT
Please make links clicky.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: devnull13 on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 07:40 PM EDT
You know the routine.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: electron on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 07:44 PM EDT
Tee hee hee - One would hope that SCO would get a SCOlding by the court over
that little dodgy excapade in that other court in that other state!



---
Electron

"A life? Sounds great! Do you know where I could download one?"

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Law in Japan - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 02:44 PM EDT
Zipped pdf:s doesnt count?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 08:25 PM EDT
Hear this, IBM, I converted a Word-file to pdf earlier this week. It went from
65 MB to 0.56 MB. Had I zipped too, who knows?

--------------------------
IMANAL - Just didn't login

[ Reply to This | # ]

Considering IBM....
Authored by: rm6990 on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 08:38 PM EDT
Considering IBM reads Groklaw, as shown in some of their filings, couldn't they

be nice and provide us directly with a copy of the redacted filing, or would
that
be a breach of the courts rules?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Proposed Order
Authored by: devnull13 on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 10:18 PM EDT
Can someone explain the order to me? Thanks.

JR




Hi, I'm JR and I'm a Groklaw Geek. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Files Redacted Memo in Opposition to SCO's Objections (Conventionally)
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 02:17 PM EDT
sometimes zipping a few files together is a just a method
of keeping things together and not for any benefit you
would get from the compression.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How can something be too long digitally?
Authored by: muon on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 02:26 PM EDT
IBM has filed its redacted response to SCO's Objections to Judge Brooke Wells' Order, but because it is too long to file digitally, it has filed it in conventionally, the old way.

Can someone explain to me how something can be too long digitally? Is it that systems like pacer have hard-coded limits into them? If so, why the limits and what (approx.) are they?

muon

[ 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 )