|
|
| SCO Files Amended Pretrial Disclosure Lists in SCO v Novell |
 |
|
Monday, August 06 2007 @ 08:07 PM EDT
|
SCO has just filed Amended Rule 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures [PDF] in SCO v. Novell, their witnesses, exhibits, and deposition testimony. It amends what SCO filed last Thursday. I doubt it's the last amendment on either side. For those who like to compare them, here's last Thursday's SCO filing [PDF]. I'm just starting to do that myself, so we can do it together.
OK. Here's one change: in the list of persons expected to be called or who might be called, in the amended version, SCO has added Greg Jones to the maybe list, with the annotation that they expect to call him live as a witness (as opposed to using deposition testimony) "in 30(b)(6) capacity". Here's FRCP 30. No. I have no idea. They probably think he's related to me. Joke. Joke. Actually, SCO had Joseph LaSala listed for that before. The only other thing I note is Maureen O'Gara has a different lawyer, Carolyn K. Foley of Davis Wright, whose bio includes this: Regularly represents magazine publishers and newspapers in assertion of reporter’s privilege in response to requests for confidential source information and editorial materials (various jurisdictions, 2006-2007) While you are at their site, you might like to read some of their articles. For example, here's one on trademarks. The firm is into blogging in a big way, so you can read some of their blogs if you are so inclined. For instance, here's their blog on privacy, Privacy and Security Law Blog. Ding. Ding. Ding. Rats. That set off my irony meter. And here's a ruling she won regarding a Freedom of Information request. Here she is in the Tyco case, where some news organizations successfully argued for access to transcripts regarding the meeting with a juror leading to a mistrial, a mistrial caused by the media, as the judge saw it, when the Wall St. Journal published a juror's name and then she got threatening messages by phone and letter.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: joef on Monday, August 06 2007 @ 08:11 PM EDT |
You know the drill.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: myNym on Monday, August 06 2007 @ 08:14 PM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: myNym on Monday, August 06 2007 @ 08:16 PM EDT |
| Are we still doing this? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Monday, August 06 2007 @ 08:16 PM EDT |
She is listed as she will be there live offering testimony.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- You mean Guesstimony. (n/t) - Authored by: myNym on Monday, August 06 2007 @ 08:18 PM EDT
- Why is Maureen O'Gara on this list? - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Monday, August 06 2007 @ 10:23 PM EDT
- Why is Maureen O'Gara on this list? - Authored by: bstone on Monday, August 06 2007 @ 10:28 PM EDT
- Why is Maureen O'Gara on this list? - Authored by: PJ on Monday, August 06 2007 @ 11:08 PM EDT
- Why do I - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2007 @ 11:46 PM EDT
- Why do I - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, August 07 2007 @ 01:29 AM EDT
- Yeah - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2007 @ 06:48 AM EDT
- Yeah - Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, August 07 2007 @ 10:46 AM EDT
- Yeah - Authored by: Darigaaz on Tuesday, August 07 2007 @ 04:02 PM EDT
- Why is Maureen O'Gara on this list? - Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, August 07 2007 @ 07:36 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2007 @ 08:23 PM EDT |
Is Kimball going to let the copyright dispute go through to trial? I get the
feeling from his continued silence on the summary judgement motions
that what ought to be a matter of law will be decided by a jury. He
probably feels that too much money has been spent to decide it on
summary judgement. The question then is, can he?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
