|
|
| Pacer activity in Novell and IBM |
 |
|
Friday, February 23 2007 @ 02:22 AM EST
|
There has been some pacer activity Wednesday. One conventional filing in the Novell case (we need to wait for a court clerk to scan them or a volunteer to pick up a copy at the courthouse). In the IBM case we see a request from SCO to get more time to answer why they really really really need to add more disclosures after the deadline for final disclosures; and something that seems like a re-run of IBM-961, but now with addenda available electronicly. Reading the addenda is like SCO was told, not once, not twice, but dozens of times about the deadline for disclosures and what they had to provide by then.
-- MathFox
The Pacer entry for the SCO-Novell case:
239 NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of Novell's Opposition to SCO's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Claim for Relief; Declaration of Heather M. Sneddon in Support; Novell's Response to SCO's Statement of Facts filed by Defendant Novell, Inc. (Sneddon, Heather) (Entered: 02/21/2007)
Pacer entries for SCO-IBM:
967 Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to IBM's Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order on IBM's Motion to Confine and SCO's Motion to Amend its December 2005 Submission filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(Normand, Edward) (Entered: 02/21/2007)
968 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 913 MOTION to Amend/Correct DECEMBER 2005 SUBMISSION and re 899 Objection to Magistrate Judge Decision (CORRECTED) filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation, Counter Claimant International Business Machines Corporation. Attachments:
- Exhibit Addendum A
- Exhibit Addendum B
- Exhibit Addendum C
- Exhibit Addendum D
- Exhibit Addendum E
- Exhibit Addendum F
- Exhibit Addendum G
- Exhibit Addendum H
- Exhibit Addendum I (under seal)
- Exhibit Addendum J (under seal)
- Errata Addendum K (Unpublished Opinions)
(Sorenson, Amy) (Entered: 02/21/2007)
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 23 2007 @ 02:25 AM EST |
As if any would be needed.
---
--Bill P, not a lawyer. Question the answers, especially if I give some.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 23 2007 @ 02:27 AM EST |
Please follow the red suggestions and give clickies.
---
--Bill P, not a lawyer. Question the answers, especially if I give some.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 23 2007 @ 02:29 AM EST |
| Analysis by qualified legal eagles, please. We unqualified ones should read,
but not embarrass ourselves. ---
--Bill P, not a lawyer. Question the
answers, especially if I give some. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Legal Analysis - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 23 2007 @ 10:12 PM EST
- Legal Analysis - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 24 2007 @ 12:13 AM EST
- Legal Analysis - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 24 2007 @ 01:28 PM EST
- Legal Analysis - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 25 2007 @ 12:25 AM EST
- Legal Analysis - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 25 2007 @ 07:26 PM EST
- Legal Analysis - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 26 2007 @ 12:15 AM EST
- Legal Analysis - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 03 2007 @ 01:52 AM EST
- Legal Analysis - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 03 2007 @ 02:33 AM EST
- Legal Analysis - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 24 2007 @ 01:31 PM EST
- Legal Analysis - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 24 2007 @ 05:51 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: SirHumphrey on Friday, February 23 2007 @ 04:32 AM EST |
Amazing Case, how weak the grounds
brought by a wretch like me....
This case is lost and so unsound,
So blind, that, I can't see.
This case has taught me how to spread
fe-ar, uncertainty, doubt
How precious did that FUD appear...
the hour we started out.
De Novo reviews don't bother me...
I think the case Judge has erred.
I need this expedited DELAY
to be URGENTLY deferred.
Through many frivolous appeals...
we have already come.
This case which brought us nought thus far...
goes on and on and on.
The PIPE fairy has funded me...
Its cash my hope secures.
It will my shield and portion be...
as long as TIME endures.
When we've delayed ten thousand times...
Just like we have from day one.
We've no less days to bring delays...
than when we've first begun.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 23 2007 @ 12:10 PM EST |
| Wow.
I just read through the exhibits. When IBM proposed interim and final
deadlines to disclose misused materials they clearly and explicitly said they
didn't want SCO introducing new allegations of misused materials in their expert
reports.
In the original proposal:
It would make no sense, and
would plainly be unfair,
to allow either party to identify the Allegedly
Misused
Material for the first time by way of one of its experts.
-- Exibit
G (page 7 of the pdf)
In the response to SCO's
reply:
SCO's brief holds open the posibilty of SCO's updating its
interrogatory responses, and using its expert reports and other pretrial
disclosures, to identify the Allegedly Misused Material for the first time at or
after the close of fact discovery.
-- Exhibit H (page 6 of pdf)
In sum,
unless the Court imposes a deadline by which the parties must identify the
Allegedly Misused Material, then they may not learn the identity of the material
they are alleged to have misused until after the close of fact discover -- and
potential even expert discovery -- when it sould be to late to prepare a defense
to claims reglatign to the material.
-- Exhibit H (starting bottom of page 7
of pdf)
In oral arguments:
And after that
deadline the target is fixed.
The experts are not permitted to disclose
additional
inforamtion in their reports or other pretrial submissions.
--
Exibit B (top of page 5 of pdf)
Congratualations to IBM
lawyers. They anticipated SCO's late disclosures and brought it properly before
the court.
It was really well done.
The Court ordered interim and final
disclosure deadlines as proposed by IBM. The order had no text suggesting that
some disclosures could be made after the final deadline. Nothing contradicting
IBM's clear position that no allegations could be made after the final
disclosure, including in expert reports.
SCO has no, nil, nada grounds to
say then didn't understand that they couldn't add any allegations in their
expert reports. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 23 2007 @ 08:15 PM EST |
This is a footnote on the memorandum.
1 This corrected memorandum merely corrects certain typographical errors in
IBM’s
Memorandum in Opposition to SCO’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order on
IBM’s
Motion to Confine and SCO’s Motion to Amend Its December 2005 Submission, Docket
No.
961, filed February 16, 2007. It does not otherwise change the arguments
therein.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 26 2007 @ 07:31 AM EST |
967 Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
to IBM's Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Order on IBM's Motion to Confine and SCO's Motion to Amend its December 2005
Submission filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group.
(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Brooke C.
Wells.(Normand, Edward) (Entered: 02/21/2007)
Doesn't
"Stipulated MOTION" mean that both parties agree to the item being moved? We'll
need to look at this one closely once it gets scanned in and is available to see
if SCO is trying to pull another fast one by calling it a "Stipulated MOTION"
when IBM never agreed to anything of the kind. SCO has done this before.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
