|
|
| Court grants IBM's Motion for 30-day extensions |
 |
|
Monday, July 16 2007 @ 08:35 PM EDT
|
Judge Dale Kimball has granted IBM's motion asking for an extension in the pre-trial schedule, over SCO's opposition. SCO will just have to do the best it can, I reckon, since it filed both lawsuits. Here's the Order [PDF].
************************
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.
|
ORDER RE EXTENSION OF
DEADLINES
Civil No. 2:03CV-0294 DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
|
(1)
Based upon the motion filed by Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM"), and for good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadlines set forth in the Court's May 29, 2007, order be and hereby are extended as follows:
Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures shall be due on August 13, 2007;
Motions in Limine regarding expert testimony shall be due on August 27, 2007;
Objections and counter-designations to Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures shall be due on September 4, 2007;
All remaining Motions in Limine shall be due on September 10, 2007;
The deadline for exchanging jury instructions shall be September 24, 2007;
The Final Pretrial Order shall be due 45 days before trial;
The Special Attorney Conference and Settlement Conference shall be held 60 days before trial; and
The Court will send to the parties a Trial Order setting further deadlines for the case approximately six weeks prior to trial.
DATED this 16th day of July, 2007.
BY THE COURT
[signature]
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
United States District Court Judge
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Monday, July 16 2007 @ 08:49 PM EDT |
Well, we no longer have to guess.
IBM filed.
SCOG opposed.
Kimball ruled.
This may well be that butterfly's wing starting
the tsunami.
---
Peter H. Salus[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Monday, July 16 2007 @ 08:50 PM EDT |
Please place corrections here. A summary in the title helps.
---
"You interact with a computer differently when you can trust it to be reliable."
--from a blog comment, 2007-07[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Monday, July 16 2007 @ 08:51 PM EDT |
Please put non-topical comments under this one.
---
"You interact with a computer differently when you can trust it to be reliable."
--from a blog comment, 2007-07[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sef on Monday, July 16 2007 @ 09:06 PM EDT |
Well, that's interesting... that's one of the clearest signs we've seen (at
least in a while) that the Court has gotten tired of the SCOnanigans.
I
know it's something PJ and the other legal types have been saying for
ages, but
it is nice to see there are consequences to one's actions. However
minor they
may be for now.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 16 2007 @ 09:24 PM EDT |
Can it be that the court didn't get SCO's objections before it granted
IBM's request for an extension? SCO's objections were filed on the 16th,
so was Kimball's decision about the extension. How much time did SCO
have?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Monday, July 16 2007 @ 09:26 PM EDT |
For those that have to comment on them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Monday, July 16 2007 @ 11:58 PM EDT |
..
IBM asked for thirty days, said SCO wanted time beyond the Novell trial, but
would not stipulate. SCO opposed. Judge Wells ordered 30 days, right in the
blizzard of the Novell trial and up SCO's craw. They're acting like zoo monkeys
except when it's their feeding time. Only then can they concentrate and agree.
SCO is going to have to confer, agree and stipulate with IBM. Otherwise they
will have to move and show good cause as did IBM but explain why or who wouldn't
stipulate. Seems to be awfully petty. They certainly don't need the extra
work. Duelling egos?
---
webster
© 2007 Monopoly Corporation. ALL rights reserved. Yours included.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 01:47 AM EDT |
Wait a second, folks. Of all the motions SCOX has filed in any of the cases
we follow, this seems by far the most reasonable. It surely is reasonable
to ask for an extension if the schedule conflicts with another, related,
lawsuit?
So I don't understand why it was rejected. I don't believe a
judge would deny it just because SCOX has annoyed him. There must be another
reason. Either that, or he granted IBM's request before SCOX's objection reached
him. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hawk on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 04:06 AM EDT |
Come on everybody, this is hardly Kimball trying to send a message to SCO or
any other kind of "tides are turning". (I hope that will come soon
enough.)
When did the court not accommodate this kind of delay? The only new
thing here is that it is IBM instead of SCO who wants a small delay instead of
SCO, no?
Regards,
Esben Høgh-Rasmussen [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SirHumphrey on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 04:11 AM EDT |
but just for one day as usual. The ever so predictable pump-and-dump followed by
the usual slow leak in the share price until some other incredible "SCO
Mobile" deal is signed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 05:33 AM EDT |
To me it seems like the long rope IBM and the court gave SCO to hang themselves
with is now hauled in.
About time![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 07:30 AM EDT |
The way I read this, TSG had opposed IBM's request because the extra thirty
days would have put the events in question into the timeframe for Novell. Well,
under the original schedule, TSG would have had to have all this stuff done
before Novell. Couldn't they still just hand it in early, on the original
deadline date? Or am I missing something? Is there some reason to wait until the
(new) deadline to file this stuff?
---
"When I say something, I put my
name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wardo on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 10:04 AM EDT |
So I'm still wondering why IBM moved for the extension. Was it just to impose
more scheduling problems for SCO, or do they have more paperwork to generate to
seal SCO's fate?
Has anyone seen a reason for the extension in the press or other filings?
Wardo
---
caveat lector...
Wardo = new user(lawyer = FALSE,badTypist = TRUE,badSpeller = TRUE);[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 10:05 AM EDT |
So now they have to be finishing up all Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures, Motions in
Limine for expert testimony, Objections and counter-designations, and exchange
jury instructions in August while at the same time making sure they are ready
for the Novell Trial starting on September 17. Sounds like they might be a
little overburdened.
It seems to me SCO had a dual pronged approach to getting themselves out of
financial difficulty, tax Linux or get bought out.
But the tax Linux approach depended on SCO owning copyrights. They've been in
trouble ever since they decided to go after Linux for copyright issues before
they made sure they had those copyrights. They attempted to get them. But
instead of holding off until they actually had them, before proceeding, they
figured Novell would come over to their way of thinking.
The attack on IBM was a convoluted excuse for a lawsuit, (they've changed what
it's about three times at least), in the hopes they would be bought out.
Even so, there is a question in my mind that IBM stock holders may be asking.
Is the money IBM has spent so far on legal issues with SCO more than the money
they would have spent to simply buy SCO out?
Before you tell me that IBM should win legal fees from SCO, the simple matter is
there will be nothing with which to pay IBM after Novell gets done with SCO.
Why do I ask this? A few years ago, in another house, I had a new neighbor move
into the house next door. While the neighbor next door owned the house, they
switched from septic to sewer. That neighbor found a significant other. They
decided to move out. But the neighbor was experiencing flooding problems in the
basement and concluded the cause was water draining from my property. I had
done nothing to change anything on my property since I moved in that would
change drainage. The siginficant other was a litigous individual, and I was
sued for ten grand. My insurance agent picked up the tab for a lawyer. The
lawyer decided it would be cheaper to settle rather than go to trial, regardless
of the merits of the case. Because the insurance company was footing the bill
they settled. Discovered from the next owner a year or so later the flooding
problems still existed, until they found that the drain hose from the water
softener had not been put back into the drain pipe to the sewer after the sewer
conversion.
It appears that the bottom line is all about money, regardless of the merits of
a case.
IBM is going to have to make the case to the stockholders, that the money spent
on the legal fees was to keep the reputation of IBM above reproach, and of far
more value than the money spent on the case.
PJ I hope you forgive me for looking on the legal profession with a jaundiced
eye.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- oops - Court grants IBM's Motion for 30-day extensions - Authored by: WayneStPaul on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 10:53 AM EDT
- Game Theory - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 10:57 AM EDT
- "all about money" - Authored by: tangomike on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 11:10 AM EDT
- oops - Court grants IBM's Motion for 30-day extensions - Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 11:20 AM EDT
- oops - Court grants IBM's Motion for 30-day extensions - Authored by: ftcsm on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 11:28 AM EDT
- oops - Court grants IBM's Motion for 30-day extensions - Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 12:03 PM EDT
- oops - Court grants IBM's Motion for 30-day extensions - Authored by: Nnyan on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 12:46 PM EDT
- The grand delusion - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 01:03 PM EDT
- oops - Court grants IBM's Motion for 30-day extensions - Authored by: sciamiko on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 02:46 PM EDT
- SCOG owning Linux wasn't the only issue to taxing Linux.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 04:17 PM EDT
- Possible alternative situation - Authored by: dmarker on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 09:53 PM EDT
- It is completely irrelevant how much money has been spent - Authored by: jdg on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 11:25 PM EDT
- oops - Court grants IBM's Motion for 30-day extensions - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2007 @ 11:46 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 10:09 AM EDT |
The way I read this was:
IBM is all ready to go, all the motions are finished,signed,copied and sitting
in a folder.
but see'ing the pending PSJ in Novell, that most certainly will have *some*
answers in the next 60 days...
IBM is waiting to see what goes on there, which may or may not change the
motions it already has done.
"lets ask for 30 days, and if SCO is *still* breathing, drop this on their
head".
--jboss
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 11:14 AM EDT |
SCOX has been painted up from $1.38 to $1.50 today. It's currently at $1.45,
with a fairly high volume (for this stock) of around 40,000. Very unusual at
such an early time of a trading day.
Does Kimball's schedule ruling indicate how he will rule on the PSJ motions? Do
the painters and bagholders fear that and are trying to paint the stock up
before it crashes?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rc on Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 12:07 PM EDT |
| Ok, fine - its been a while, the previous 'corrections' thread was misspelled,
and nobody has stepped forward to do the dirty deed.
So, here ya go - in the
unlikely event of errors in PJ's article, a place to go to
whine let her know.
Placing the corrections in the subject
seems to be a good thing to do, with more context in the body if
needed.
---
rc [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
