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 Asks for/Gets 2 Weeks Extra to Answer SCO's Reconsideration Motion
Thursday, March 29 2007 @ 09:26 PM EDT

IBM has filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to SCO's Motion Regarding Spoliation and to SCO's Objections Thereto [PDF], seeking more time, until April 18th. It seems SCO wouldn't agree to the extra time, only to one extra week, so it's Motions Ahoy again:
Counsel for IBM has conferred with counsel for SCO regarding the requested extension. SCO's counsel will not agree to an extension of the deadline to April 18, 2007. SCO's counsel will agree to extend the deadline by one week, but will not agree to move the deadline to the following week as requested.

After all the SCO delays, they quibbled over one week for IBM. They had to know that IBM would be given the time, or at least it was 99 percent likely, so why not agree? 'Tis a puzzlement. Of course, this way, IBM has to take the time and incur the expense of motion practice, plus SCO may be hoping against hope that their dead fish of a motion will not only float but maybe a wave will hit it and make its fins move, creating the illusion of life. And obviously they'd rather IBM not have time to do their best.

However, if so, it's foiled again. IBM's request was immediately approved by the court [PDF]:

Based on the motion for extension of time filed by IBM, and for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that IBM shall have until April 18, 2007, to file its oppositions to (i) the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Denying SCO’s Motion for Relief for IBM’s Spoliation of Evidence and (ii) SCO’s Objections to the Magistrate Court’s Order Denying SCO’s Motion for Relief for IBM’s Spoliation of Evidence.

The court didn't even wait for SCO to file an opposing memorandum.

Here's the order that SCO is trying to overturn, and SCO's motion for reconsideration [PDF]. My thanks, once again, to Steve Martin for the text. What a happy day it was for Groklaw when he showed up! And that reminds me, if you'd like to see an interesting chart, here you go, SCO's stock price since 2001. I've always been perplexed watching the stock price fluctuate in what seemed irrational ways, when in court it was pretty much straight downhill for SCO for quite a long time, after an aggressive start. The stock, though, seemed like The Flight of the Bumblebee to me -- up, down, crazy up, then swooshing down, then right back up again. But this chart is much clearer as to the big picture.

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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

THE SCO GROUP, INC.

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-
Defendant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-
Plaintiff.		 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO SCO'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER
DENYING SCO'S MOTION REGARDING
SPOLIATION AND TO SCO'S
OBJECTIONS THERETO

Civil No. 2:03CV-0294 DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

1

Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff International Business Machines ("IBM"), through counsel, hereby moves the Court for an extension of time to respond to (i) the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Denying SCO's Motion for Relief for IBM's Spoliation of Evidence and (ii) SCO's Objections to the Magistrate Court's Order Denying SCO's Motion for Relief for IBM's Spoliation of Evidence filed by Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO").

IBM respectfully requests that it be granted an extension of time, to and including April 18, 2007, within which to file responses to SCO's motion and objections. Counsel for IBM has conferred with counsel for SCO regarding the requested extension. SCO's counsel will not agree to an extension of the deadline to April 18, 2007. SCO's counsel will agree to extend the deadline by one week, but will not agree to move the deadline to the following week as requested. Due to this, the intervening holidays, and other commitments, undersigned counsel respectfully requests an extension to April 18, 2007 to respond to SCO's motion and objections.

DATED this 28th day of March, 2007.

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

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

2

Of Counsel:

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
Alec S. Berman
[address]
[phone]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff International
Business Machines Corporation

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 28th day of March, 2007, 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]

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

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

/s/ Amy F. Sorenson

4

  


IBM Asks for/Gets 2 Weeks Extra to Answer SCO's Reconsideration Motion | 168 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Flight of the Bumblebee...
Authored by: Jamis on Thursday, March 29 2007 @ 09:41 PM EDT
OD'd on Malathion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I wonder if SCO will object?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 29 2007 @ 09:48 PM EDT
Now, I realize it would be a completely pointless waste of time for SCO to
object to something like that, especially when the order has already been
granted, but who here thinks they'll do it anyhow, just to complain about
something?

I just wonder if they'll file it before the weekend or not ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here Please
Authored by: MDT on Thursday, March 29 2007 @ 09:52 PM EDT
Make 'em clicky if you linky...

I know, but you find something appropriate that rhymes with Clicky...



---
MDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

OCR Progress
Authored by: LionKuntz on Thursday, March 29 2007 @ 10:25 PM EDT
With 597-in-one documents filed at once, plus other backlog of updating
PDF->Text->HTML, there needs to be some clarification on what's done,
what's part done, and what is neglected as not sexy enough or too hard.

This thread is a place somebody can speak up, or to quote PJ "I do not
scale".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: artp on Thursday, March 29 2007 @ 10:52 PM EDT
Asumming thet yeh finds eny......

---
Every time I have seen a business move enterprise (business-critical) software
to Windows, the company has gone broke if small, or lost lots of money if large.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Asks for/Gets 2 Weeks Extra to Answer SCO's Reconsideration Motion
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 29 2007 @ 10:53 PM EDT

SCO's counsel will not agree to an extension of the deadline to April 18, 2007. SCO's counsel will agree to extend the deadline by one week, but will not agree to move the deadline to the following week as requested.

Sounds moderately hypocritical of them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Asks for/Gets 2 Weeks Extra to Answer SCO's Reconsideration Motion
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 29 2007 @ 11:06 PM EDT
If SCO's motion is as hopeless as it looks, why does IBM need more time to
answer it? Couldn't they dash off a quick "nothing new here, see our
previous arguments" reply?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Asks for/Gets 2 Weeks Extra to Answer SCO's Reconsideration Motion
Authored by: Just_Bri_Thanks on Thursday, March 29 2007 @ 11:16 PM EDT
I find it somewhat awesome that the court acted so promptly on this. It brings
a grin to my face.

---
Bri. Just Bri. Thank you.
(With a long i sound.)
Without qualification, certification,
exception, or (hopefully) bias.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not something that will matter in an appeal
Authored by: Khym Chanur on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 01:16 AM EDT

The court didn't even wait for SCO to file an opposing memorandum.

I take it that this won't be something taht SCO can pound on if/when they appeal any PSJs or jury results. So why isn't it appeal worthy? These sorts of things are granted as a matter of course? The two weeks won't change the scheduling any? Something else?

---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Perhaps Easter needs to be considered in the timing of all this? n/t
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 01:35 AM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now I get it!!! SCO has invented a working Perpetual MOTIONS machine
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 01:40 AM EDT
Thanks to Ed. L

[ Reply to This | # ]

The reasons of the stock's irrational behaviour
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 02:04 AM EDT
Of course stocks move rational. They only thing people forget is that there are
professional traders on the other side of the deal. With SCO everyone and his
mother wanted to sell SCO short and profit from the obvious downfall of SCO.

The professional traders know this. So what they do is sell SCO short to the
public and then bid up the price to create what is known as a short squeeze.

Due to the publicity a lot of amateur traders shorted SCO only to see the trade
turn against them in an unbelievable price move up. Having sold the stock short
on margin, they now had to buy back these stocks at a higher price (and a loss).
Thus creating more buying pressure and even higher prices.

The higher the price went the more people wanted to short the stock. A rinse and
repeat story. The professionals have gotten pretty rich on this scheme.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comedy gold...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 04:52 AM EDT
"...SCO may be hoping against hope that their dead fish of a motion will not
only float but maybe a wave will hit it and make its fins move, creating the
illusion of life."

[ Reply to This | # ]

I can't believe you said that, PJ.
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 05:26 AM EDT
I've always been perplexed watching the stock price fluctuate
The analysis of their motion to reconsider was all but done yesterday and the investors saw what a powerful thing it was. The stock leapt up $0.0001.

---
Regards
Ian Al

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOX chart
Authored by: eskild on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 05:56 AM EDT
We really need a logarithmic Y-axis on that chart

---
Eskild
Denmark

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • SCOX chart - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 06:53 AM EDT
IBM Asks for/Gets 2 Weeks Extra to Answer SCO's Reconsideration Motion
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 06:06 AM EDT
Wow that was quick. Shows the Judge is a human being and accepts the holiday
period during Easter.

This will also give the Judge time to consider all the PSJ motions recently
briefed without interference from SCOundrels.

And I guess that IBM is putting together something to remember. Seems they want
to finaly get rid of all those rererereconsider attempts from SCO side.

In short, when IBM is requesting more time to answer, I' be very afraid in place
of BSF. Luckily I am not in their place :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Asks for/Gets 2 Weeks Extra to Answer SCO's Reconsideration Motion
Authored by: sk43 on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 07:21 AM EDT
What was it that SCO said in [914]? Oh, yes:

"Furthermore, IBM has ample time in the now-extended trial
schedule to formulate a defense to Dr. Cargill's analysis."

However, it appears that the Doctrine of Ample Time
does not extend to IBM's formulation of a defense to SCO's
new and improved Motion on Spoliation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Etch a sketch
Authored by: blang on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 12:49 PM EDT
For anyone interested in literature, the SCO chart is a decent rendition of a
drawing found in "The Little Prince" by St Exupery. It is a sideway
shot of a snake that had just eaten an elephant. The elephant is located where
SCO shot up to $20. Scouting out, one sees no more elephants on the way. Mehinks
this snake is going to starve.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Makes perfect sense as a corporate strategy.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 12:53 PM EDT
In the beginning SCO delayed discovery and asked IBM to go to any lengths to
make this lawsuit slow, painful and expensive to them. The hope was, of course,
that IBM would settle for a lot of cash.

But IBM did not settle. Instead it is using the case as a warning to others. IBM
is asking every other player in the field to consider if it really wants to play
against its legal department AND its enormous corporate resources. IBM is not
wasting money here. It is saving money on all those lawsuits it will avoid in
the future. And at the same time it does to SCO what SCO tried to do to it:
starve SCO to death. And death is assured for SCO... the money is running out
and they have nothing to show for it. And since MS has gotten out of this what
they hoped for and SCO is burned in their eyes, there will be no economic rescue
coming from Redmond, either.

SCO did not just lose another two weeks. It lost the cash they burn in those two
weeks. And given how little they have, that is a lot. IBM can and will probably
pull this one again (and again) and know that SCO will sweat. And by granting
these notions the judge can punish SCO at will, without ever stepping outside of
his legally assigned role.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Stock Slide At Six Flags?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 12:54 PM EDT
It strikes me that this could SAVE SCO....
They can pattent the curve of their stock's slide.
And market it to amusement parks as a design for a new ride!
And instead of the "funhouse" the "Courthouse"..
Which, if it cast you in the role of an SCO lawyer, could be really scarey!
Someday soon we could read:
"SCO a leading Amusment Park Design company."

[ Reply to This | # ]

    Typical, regrettable, hypocriticle SCO...sigh
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 09:23 AM EDT
    In one breath...
    SCO claims they should be allowed to use the experts arguments to introduce new
    claimes because IBM has plenty of time to do discovery and respond.

    In the next...
    they cannot extend IBM one whole week (ohhhh, a whole week) because of some
    stupid reason or another.

    I know the court knows their games, thus the fast response. But at what point
    does (or can) the court say enough of this (insert your favorite expletive
    here)?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCOX De-Listing
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 09:14 PM EDT
    One of the requirements for continued listing (see page 5 of the PDF file) on the NASDAQ exchange is that the stock price be at or above $1.00. The chart shows that SCOX closed today at $0.88. It seems to me that SCOX is in real danger of being de-listed from the NASDAQ stock exchange.

    [ 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 )     		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
    Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
    News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
    Powered By GeekLog
    Created this page in 0.04 seconds