|
|
| Order from Kimball: SJ Hearing April 30 |
 |
|
Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 10:07 AM EST
|
There is a new order from the judge handling the Utah trial in SCO v. Novell, the Hon. Dale A. Kimball, setting forth what he'd like the parties to do. First, the hearing on any summary judgment motions will be set for April 30th at 3 PM. The trial will be from 8:30 AM to 2 PM each day, with no lunch break, just two 15 minute breaks. He also reminds SCO that it never filed a trial brief, and he'd like them to do that by April 23rd, and Novell can file a new one if it wishes to. On the first day of trial, each party is to provide proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order, along with an exhibit list. Here's the docket entry:485 -
Filed & Entered: 01/15/2008
Order
Docket Text: ORDER regarding bench trial and hearing on motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 1-15-08. (sih) Now you can make your plans, if you are hoping to attend.
***********************
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 January 11, 2008, the court scheduled a four-day bench trial in this matter to begin on
April 29, 2008. As the parties are likely aware, the court runs its trial day from 8:30 a.m. to 2:00
p.m., with two 15 minute breaks and no lunch break. The court requests that the parties
submit on the morning of the first day of trial their Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law, and Proposed Judgment. If the parties desire to file Trial Briefs, they should do so by April
23, 2008. The court previously received a Trial Brief from Novell, but did not receive a brief
from SCO. The court will hear any pending motions for summary judgment in this case on
Wednesday, April 30, at 3:00 p.m.
Pursuant to Local Rule DUCivR 83-5, each party is required to pre-mark all exhibits
intended to be introduced during trial and prepare an exhibit list for the court's use at trial.
Exhibit labels (stickers) are available at the Intake Desk in the Clerk's Office. The standard
exhibit list form is available on the Court's website (www.utd.uscourts.gov). The court typically
requests that Plaintiffs list their exhibits by consecutive numbers and Defendants list their
exhibits by consecutive letters. The court recalls, however, that the parties had previously agreed
to a different system. The parties should contact Judge Kimball's Case Manager, Kim Jones, if
they still intend to use a different system. The parties should not file the exhibit list or the
exhibits. The exhibit list is to be provided to the Courtroom Deputy Clerk on the first morning of
trial; the exhibits are to remain in the custody of counsel until admitted as evidence by the Court.
DATED this 15th day of January, 2008.
BY THE COURT:
DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge
2
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: DFJA on Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 10:20 AM EST |
.
---
43 - for those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe
and everything[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DFJA on Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 10:21 AM EST |
.
---
43 - for those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe
and everything[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DFJA on Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 10:22 AM EST |
.
---
43 - for those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe
and everything[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 10:30 AM EST |
I find it interesting that the hearing of any SJ motions
is not only AFTER the start of the trial, but also in
the afternoon at 3pm on the second day of the trial.
(I suppose with no lunch break, that folks would eat between
the 2pm trial day end and the 3pm SJ hearing)
It comes as no surprise that SCOG did NOT file their
trial brief. One could guess that they knew they were
going to declare bankruptcy.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fandom on Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 11:28 AM EST |
Since Judge Kimball himself is the finder of fact for the
trial, is there a real difference between the sumary
judgement and the trial itself?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SJ vs. Trial Judgment - Authored by: tsspdx on Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 11:49 AM EST
- The judge is not the finder of fact in SJ - Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 12:00 PM EST
- SCOrched Earth - Authored by: Zak3056 on Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 01:13 PM EST
- Chapter 7 won't stop the trial - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 01:31 PM EST
- Appeals? - Authored by: mtew on Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 04:26 PM EST
- Appeals? - Authored by: John Hasler on Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 07:05 PM EST
- Appeals? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 08:59 PM EST
- SCOrched Earth - Authored by: John Hasler on Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 02:03 PM EST
- SCOrched Earth - Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 03:01 PM EST
- SCOrched Earth - Authored by: darthaggie on Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 03:23 PM EST
- SCOrched Earth - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 03:56 PM EST
- SCOrched Earth - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 04:55 PM EST
- Correction: graybar => crowbar - Authored by: iceworm on Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 05:44 PM EST
- SCOrched Earth - Authored by: Zak3056 on Thursday, January 17 2008 @ 01:38 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: webster on Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 12:38 PM EST |
..
Kimball makes sure everyone is prepared. No shooting from the hip in his
trials. Brief and exhibit list before trial.
SCO's unfiled brief is telling. They never intended to go to trial. Bankruptcy
was contemplated and executed in lieu of any trial brief which would have been a
waste of time.
Now they have to produce a trial brief. This is no simple task since they have
painted themselves into a corner.
Remember the only issue for trial is how much they owe on the SUN and Monopoly
SVRX licenses, and whether they had the authority for such licenses. SCO has
maintained that they were not SVRX licenses and so they owe nothing to Novell.
Kimball has already concluded otherwise. SCO has backed their contention by not
disclosing anything and denying tey owe anything. To come up with a proposed
alternative position at this point would contradict their previous contentions.
Note too that the images of claims presented on Groklaw a few days ago also
contradict their contentions in this case. With contradictions already on
record, SCO has confounded itself as usual. Further proceedings will only
stress their hopeless predicament.
The trial will have to examine the licenses and the code to come up with a
figure. Employees and experts are all that is really needed.
The Judge as permitted SCO to argue new theories since his August order.
Whatever they are, they will be contradicted. SCO and the Monopoly dread going
down this road. SCO should just submit on the admitted and stipulated
documents. Kimball and can rule and the verdict will be too much for them to
pay. They can then go on to Chapter 7 and Judge Gross.
Of course SCO's best argument is the truth: there really wasn't much going on
with SCO and this SVRX code for years. They entered into these licenses just to
fund the Linux lawsuits. They can then explain that instead of using the money
to develop code, they put it right into the lawyers for the lawsuit. So SUN and
the Monopoly can then say what they did with the SVRX code and whether it was
material to any product or sales, and how much it gained in relation to how much
was paid. These are not areas that they want to get into. Clearly this
True-FUD defense won't keep them out of bankruptcy for long and it will cause
severe other problems for a few.
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: elderlycynic on Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 04:25 PM EST |
Short, to the point, and clear. SCO, are you attending?
The trial could be amusing :-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Khym Chanur on Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 05:02 PM EST |
Is that wise? With only seven days between the deadline for SCO filing its
trial brief and the trial itself, won't SCO find some way to add more delays?
Like try to sneak in new claims or new exhibits, Novell objects, SCO says that
they're perfectly fine, they have to go before the bench, and so
on. ---
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 Wednesday, January 16 2008 @ 07:55 PM EST |
It'll never happen. I wonder whether SCO is deliberately burning the cash to
ensure they have nothing left to afford the trial. Then the whole question is
left open.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
