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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Court rules: IBM didn't spoliate evidence and other PACER action
Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:35 PM EST

The Order denying SCO's motion for relief regarding spoliation of evidence has been signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells. Groklaw reported on the hearing where Judge Wells ruled from the bench. Furthermore there is a PACER entry for yesterday's hearing giving a very short summary of the action: "The court took motions 775, 780 and 781 under advisement". That lists three motions, and we only heard reports about two, so that may be a clerk error, or perhaps one on our part.

A stipulation for more deposition and discovery delay popped up in the SCO v. Novell case. -- MathFox

The PACER entries for the SCO v. IBM case:

972 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dale A. Kimball: Motion Hearing held on 3/1/2007 re 775 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Third Cause of Action, For Breach of Contract filed by SCO Group, 781 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Copyright Claim filed by International Business Machines Corporation, 780 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Contract Claims filed by International Business Machines Corporation. After hearing the arguments of counsel, the Court took the motions under advisement.Attorneys for Plaintiff: Stuart Singer, Edward Normand, Brent Hatch. Attorneys for Defendant: David Marriott, Amy Sorensen, Michael Burke, Todd Shaughnessy. Court Reporter: Ed Young. (kmj) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
973 - ORDER denying 778 MOTION for Relief for IBM's Spoliation of Evidence filed by SCO Group. Follows oral order on motion in hearing on 1/18/07. Signed by Judge Brooke C. Wells on 3/2/07. (blk) (Entered: 03/02/2007)

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

Snell & Wilmer
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
[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.

_____________________________

ORDER DENYING SCO'S MOTION FOR
RELIEF RE SPOLIATION

Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant The SCO Group, Inc.’s (“SCO’s”) Motion for Relief for IBM’s Spoliation of Evidence came before the Court for hearing on January 18, 2007. Mark James appeared for SCO. Todd Shaughnessy appeared for Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”). The Court, having considered both parties’ papers, having heard argument of counsel, and for good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that SCO’s motion is denied for the reasons set forth by the Court at the hearing held on January 18, 2007.

DATED this 2nd day of March, 2007.

BY THE COURT

___[signature]_____
Brooke C. Wells
Magistrate Judge

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

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Michael A. Jacobs, pro hac vice
Kenneth W. Brakebill, pro hac vice
[address, phone, fax]

ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
Thomas R. Karrenberg, #3726
John P. Mullen, #4097
Heather M. Sneddon, #9520
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Defendant & Counterclaim-Plaintiff Novell, Inc.

______________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

______________________________

THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation.

Plaintiff & Counterclaim-
Defendant.

vs.

NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation.

Defendant & Counterclaim-
Plaintiff.

_____________________________

STIPULATION RE SCHEDULING

Case No. 2:04CV00139

Judge Dale A. Kimball

_____________________________

All currently-noticed depositions shall be completed by March 30, 2007. Any documents subpoenaed from currently-noticed third-party deponents shall be produced in advance of their respective depositions.

The parties agree to the following expert discovery deadlines:

(a) The parties agree that the parties bearing the burden of proof on issues will designate and submit the reports of its expert witnesses on these issues, if any, by April 25, 2007.

(b) The deadline for submitting any opposing expert reports will be May 23, 2007.

(c) Any rebuttal expert reports must be served by June 8, 2007.

(d) Expert depositions shall commence no earlier than June 14, 2007 and shall be completed by June 22, 2007. They will be taken where the expert resides unless otherwise agreed.

The deadline for dispositive motions shall be extended from March 14, 2007 to April 13, 2007.

The parties agree to the aforementioned deadlines with the intention of maintaining the September 17, 2007 trial date.

DATED: March 2, 2007

ANDERSON & KARRENBERG

/s/ Heather M. Sneddon
Thomas R. Karrenberg
John P. Mullen
Heather M. Sneddon
Attorneys for Novell, Inc.

2

DATED: March 2, 2007

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

/s/ Peter A. Gwynne
(Signed by filing attorney with permission of Peter A. Gwynne)
Edward J. Normand
Peter A. Gwynne
Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 2nd day of March, 2007, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing STIPULATION RE SCHEDULING to be served to the following:

Via CM/ECF:
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
HATCH JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address]

Stuart H. Singer
William T. Dzurilla
Sashi Bach Boruchow
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

Edward J. Normand
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

Devan V. Padmanabhan
John F. Brogan
DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP
[address]

Via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid:

Stephen Neal Zack
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

/s/ Heather M. Sneddon

4


  


Court rules: IBM didn't spoliate evidence and other PACER action | 191 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off Topic
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:37 PM EST
Clickies are good.

---
I would rather stand corrected than sit confused.
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it on the accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:39 PM EST
IF required.

---
I would rather stand corrected than sit confused.
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it on the accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The text of 973 - order denying...
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 03:45 PM EST
...reads like this:
Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant The SCO Group, Inc.’s (“SCO’s”) Motion for Relief for IBM’s Spoliation of Evidence came before the Court for hearing on January 18, 2007. Mark James appeared for SCO. Todd Shaughnessy appeared for Defendant and Counterclaim- Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”). The Court, having considered both parties’ papers, having heard argument of counsel, and for good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that SCO’s motion is denied for the reasons set forth by the Court at the hearing held on January 18, 2007.

DATED this 2nd day of March, 2007.

BY THE COURT

____________________________ Brooke C. Wells
Magistrate Judge

---
I would rather stand corrected than sit confused.
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it on the accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

When can we expect
Authored by: overshoot on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 04:03 PM EST
SCOX' Motion For Reconsideration of this ruling to be filed with Judge Kimball?

[ Reply to This | # ]

All currently-noticed depositions
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 04:17 PM EST
All currently-noticed depositions shall be completed by March 30, 2007
Do we know who is currently noticed?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Substantial uncapped litigation expenses.
Authored by: TeflonPenguin on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 06:36 PM EST
Looks like the experts are getting warmed up, and will be running hot and heavy
for a few months. These fees, along with extensive attorney travel in relation
to the PSJ motions next week will be costly. Those are not capped expenses.
SCO has already had to replenish the $5 million expense fund once. I can’t
imagine the expert activity in the Novell litigation will be any cheaper. It
will be interesting to see how bad that fund takes a hit in their next quarterly
report.

---
-------------
TelfonPenguin

[ Reply to This | # ]

Whose error
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 08:39 PM EST
I strongly suspect the error is "ours", not the court's, for two
reasons:

First, SCO's motion on its Claim 3 and IBM's motion on SCO's Claims 1-4 are
cross-motions and would be heard together.

Second, Chris must have misspoken when he wrote, "arguments on IBM's Motion
for Summary Judgment on SCO's Third Cause of Action For Breach of Contract"
-- because there's no such motion. There's IBM's motion on SCO's contract claims
(1-4) and SCO's motion on its third cause of action.

[ Reply to This | # ]

When will it be safe for PJ to come back?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2007 @ 11:21 PM EST
When will it be too late to subpoena PJ?

[ 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 )