|
|
| Judge Kimball to SCO and Novell: Provide Info by Dec. 13th - Updated |
 |
|
Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 07:27 PM EST
|
For those of you waiting for word on scheduling from the Utah court, we now have life.
Judge Dale Kimball, the judge presiding over SCO v. Novell, which was just sent back to him when the Bankruptcy Court in Delaware lifted the automatic stay, has issued an order [PDF]. He'd like the parties to tell him what's left, can any of it be handled by summary judgment, and does the subtraction of the constructive trust issue mean the trial will be shorter. Any other matters they'd like to tell him about in the joint statement he leaves to their discretion. And he'd like to know by the 13th. Their answers will impact how soon he can schedule the trial, but he's interested in doing so as soon as possible. As you know, since they've told us so since 2003, SCO can't wait to have its day in court. So I'm sure they will be delighted.
And if you've followed the bouncing ball from day one, you know that SCO never has any difficulty cooperatively filing joint statements. So, this should go lickety split. Yes. Joking. Here's the ruling from the Bankruptcy Court this order references. And here's Novell's original Trial Brief, which mentioned that a request of a constructive trust would not be part of the trial itself. That doesn't mean, of course, that the trial won't be shortened in terms of what evidence Novell might choose to present. Update: And now they can't use the excuse that they have no lawyer -- the Bankruptcy Judge has just signed the very much revised and restrictive Order [PDF] permitting Boies Schiller to be retained, but paid under the Bankruptcy Court's watchful eye.
*************************
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NOVELL, INC.,
Defendant. |
ORDER
Civil Case No. 2:04CV139DAK |
On November 27, 2007, Novell Inc. filed a Notice of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court's
Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting Novell's Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay
to Proceed with the Lawsuit by Novell, Inc. The court has reviewed the Delaware Bankruptcy
Court's decision and will attempt to schedule the trial in this matter as expeditiously as its
calendar will allow.
To assist in its scheduling of the trial, the court requests that the parties submit a joint
statement of their views regarding the appropriate procedures for resolving the issues in this case
by no later than December 13, 2007. The court requests that the parties specifically address
whether any portion of the case can be resolved through a motion for summary judgment and
whether the Delaware Bankruptcy Court's retention of the constructive trust issue will shorten
the anticipated length of the trial. Given the present congestion of the court's trial calendar, the
length of the trial will significantly impact the date on which the trial can be scheduled. Any
other matters that the parties deem appropriate to address in the statement are left to their discretion.
DATED this 6th day of December, 2007.
BY THE COURT:
[signature]
DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge
2
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 07:31 PM EST |
>>As you know, since they've told us so since 2003, SCO >>can't wait
to have its day in court.
Now I need a new keyboard since I just put coke-cola all over mine
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bsm2003 on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 07:36 PM EST |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- olpc.org - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2007 @ 04:10 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: bsm2003 on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 07:37 PM EST |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bsm2003 on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 07:38 PM EST |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- olpc.org - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 08:27 PM EST
- olpc.org - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 11:57 PM EST
- olpc.org - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2007 @ 01:32 AM EST
- olpc.org - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2007 @ 01:35 AM EST
- olpc.org - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2007 @ 04:55 AM EST
- olpc.org - Authored by: gvc on Friday, December 07 2007 @ 06:04 AM EST
- OLPC link, Newspick - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 08:28 PM EST
- Microsoft 'Loves' OLPC, XP 'Loves' XO - Authored by: schestowitz on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 09:55 PM EST
- Microsoft wants OLPC to run XP - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 09:59 PM EST
- SCO bankruptcy docket: #267..271, BSF employment granted - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 11:55 PM EST
- MS WIndows on XO OLPC and Linux on X-Box - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2007 @ 12:01 AM EST
- IBM asking U.S. gov't to ban Asustek notebooks - Authored by: ETian on Friday, December 07 2007 @ 12:14 AM EST
- Monopoly$tuff are just typical Bullies. - Authored by: waltish on Friday, December 07 2007 @ 12:57 AM EST
- Google: evil to its employees? - Authored by: hopethishelps on Friday, December 07 2007 @ 05:34 AM EST
- Hassle Free PC - Authored by: TiddlyPom on Friday, December 07 2007 @ 08:11 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 07:52 PM EST |
Just asking. I feel sure that whatever happens, SCO and Novell will never
completely agree on anything.
Disagreement being the case, when are all the
additional motions due?
Is there any chance that BSF will notice the
bankruptcy court looking over its shoulder and decide to wrap things up quickly? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bezz on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 07:53 PM EST |
A joint statement? You mean SCO and Novell would have to come to agreement? To
schedule as expeditiously as possible?
SCO has no motivation to get into court as soon as possible. Beyond their
longstanding delay tactics and this trial is only about Novell's counterclaims,
SCO has an even better motivation to delay. They can dissipate the remaining
assets by February. Then it's off to Chapter 7 never-never land with nothing to
liquidate.
Novell, however, has a motivation besides money to get into Utah's court -- the
possible declaration SCO had no right to enter into the Sun and MS licenses.
It's no longer about money for Novell, it's about clearing the encumbrances as
much as possible.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cmc on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 08:01 PM EST |
I wonder if SCO (and/or their lawyers) will try to get the opposition's lawyers
to work through Christmas break again this year.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Christmas break - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 08:38 PM EST
- Christmas break - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 09:10 PM EST
- Christmas? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2007 @ 01:19 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 08:09 PM EST |
Sorry PJ, but I couldn't resist this.
To me it looks just like a
Zombie.
:)
Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Grog6 on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 08:44 PM EST |
I hope I never gain as much attention myself from a federal Judge as these
clowns...
Let's see:
Going back to court, From Bankruptcy Court, from a bankruptcy filed on the
business day previous to the Original trial, after all their hot air was thrown
out.
And after saying that there was no need for a constructive trust. Thankfully,
Judge Gross has that under control.
And after making snide remarks to the media, grossly distorting Judge Kimball's
ruling, and appeal record.
And after mentioning in open court that they could sell rights they didn't own,
and it was the buyer's problem...(paraphrasing Mr. Spector...)
I'd be willing to bet that the Judges final ruling will put to shame the
overlength filings we have seen so far, and be so filled with analysis and
support for his decisions, any appeal will be laughable.
I do think that they have tried to provoke Judge Kimball several times; and
Judge Wells, during discovery.
Judges here can't have you drug out and shot, but they can make sure that every
applicable statute is applied to it's fullest extent...and criminal charges are
seeming more likely to me as things proceed. These guys were what the
Sorbiennes-Oxley laws were written for.
---
ITYJW? ITM?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 09:07 PM EST |
Considering the congested court, when the trial could be scheduled would depend
on how long it is expected to take. Anyone care to guess who would want to make
it last longer, and who would expect it to be quickly resolved?
Anyone? Anyone?
Buelher?
Right..........[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 09:17 PM EST |
| "Any other matters that the parties deem appropriate to address in the
statement are left to their discretion."
Translation:
"I want to hear
about a settlement please."
J [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Judgespeak - Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 11:03 PM EST
- Judgespeak - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 11:53 PM EST
- Judgespeak - Authored by: J.F. on Friday, December 07 2007 @ 03:33 AM EST
- Judicial fishing - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2007 @ 01:40 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 10:40 PM EST |
Kimball acted within 10 day of the original order form the Bankruptcy court.
He set a 7 day deadline to respond.
He seems to be daring the parties to try to hold this up any more while at the
same time moving as fast as the Bankruptcy court.
Things should move along at warp speed now.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 10:43 PM EST |
At least Novell shouldn't have to waste time pointing out that SCO is going
broke.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Khym Chanur on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 10:48 PM EST |
It's pretty much a certainty that SCO will try to appeal the lift of the
stay. And if they're looking for delay, they'll try to start the appeal at the
last possible minute. So, how late can they file the appeal? Is there
any sort of "statute of limitation" on filing an appeal of that sort? Are there
any actions SCO could take in the Utah court (like actually file the joint
report Kimball ordered, for example) that would implicitly waive their right to
appeal the stay, so they can only put off the appeal as long as they put off
those Utah court actions? ---
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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2007 @ 10:48 PM EST |
Might Judge K decide that SCO already waited, so they get to go to the front of
the line?
--tce[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2007 @ 12:00 AM EST |
IANAL I was wondering about the mechanics of restarting the stay of the Utah
trial. Would the trial ever get scheduled if Novell never sent the notice of
the lift of stay? With the stay in effect what would happen if someone attempted
to file a motion? Does this notice end up as a docket number for this case? I
was wondering if someone, looking back through the court records listed by
docket number we see how this case got restarted.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2007 @ 12:09 AM EST |
"...[The] length of the trial will significantly impact the date on which
the trial can be scheduled."
This is pretty much, "SCO, if you want to put this off, tell me that you
expect to do a lot of arguing and that it will be a long trial", isn't it?
Good thing it's going to be a joint statement, I guess.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Maybe not - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2007 @ 12:31 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: IMANAL on Friday, December 07 2007 @ 01:32 AM EST |
At this stage he seems rather fed up with this case. I
read his order as "Here is your bone, fight to death if
you wish. But not in my backyard. So, be gone.".
Brief orders - less is more?
-
---
--------------------------
IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rfrazier on Friday, December 07 2007 @ 02:02 AM EST |
I sometimes read too much into too little. However, it seems to me that Kimball
thinks that, given the constructive trust issue is put on the side, there is
more that can be settled by summary, and is inviting Novell to think about it.
Best wishes,
Bob
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2007 @ 06:53 PM EST |
I am impressed that a judge can impart so many message in so few words. Each
party must intrepret each message for themselves. A refreshing break from
hyperbole.
I am going to be completely fair and completely thorough.
This court is the epitome of civility
I am not going for any baiting.
Here's your bone.
Here's an opportunity to act like adults.
Let's use judical resources wisely.
Here's your chance to settle.
A lawyer could simplify this with the right summary judgement motion.
I'll settle this for you.
If a trial is needed, I will enjoy some good lawyering.
Don't be wasting the court's time with lousy lawyering.
Let the best case prevail.
It is a good time to have a good case.
It is a bad time to have a bad case.
My appeal record speaks for itself.
He can say all that without saying anything about:
What case?
Sanctions
Frivilous
Disbarrment
Book deal
Frustrated
Imprudent
Baseless
Make my day
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
