|
|
| Request for transcript of oral argument in SCO v Novell appeal denied |
 |
|
Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 04:44 PM EDT
|
Wayne Gray filed a motion requesting either a transcript or an audio recording of the oral argument from last week in the appeal of SCO v. Novell. It was denied within 24 hours, without any responses from anyone having to be filed. Here is the one-sentence decision:Upon consideration, this motion is denied. If I were Gray, I'd probably take that as a sign. I take it as a sign, personally, that his other motion asking to file an amicus brief is likely on a slow train to nowhere with this court as well.
Here are the filings:
05/18/2009 - This entry has been removed from the docket. See document
filed entry of 5/18/09
05/18/2009 - Open Document - [9660271] Motion filed by Movant Wayne R.
Gray for entry of order either releasing audio recording of oral
argument or releasing a certified transcript of oral argument. Served on
05/18/2009. Manner of Service: US mail. filed by Wayne R. Gray. Original
and. Served on 05/18/2009. Manner of Service: US mail.
05/19/2009 - Open Document - [9660359] - Order filed by Judges Lucero,
Baldock and McConnell Denying Movant Wayne R. Gray's request for an
order requiring release of the court's oral argument recording for this
matter, or in the alternative Mr. Gray seeks release of a certified copy
of the transcript. See 10th Cir. R. 34.1(E). Served on 05/19/2009.
You know the part that puzzles me? The rule in this court is that the parties can pay for their own audio or transcription service. What I wonder is whether an amicus would be accorded the same courtesy. If so, since he had applied and had not yet been turned down, might he have been able to record it himself, his attorney at least, at the hearing itself? For that matter, couldn't he or anyone have hired someone to take notes, even elaborate ones by someone who knows shorthand? I would think there were options available. Maybe he didn't know this court doesn't provide transcripts. I didn't. It's so unusual, it didn't enter my head. So perhaps that happened. I earlier thought of asking the parties if they'd let us have a transcript; but now it's clear it would be fruitless to make such a request in an environment like this, which is a crying shame.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 04:51 PM EDT |
If there is no record of the appeal argument? Isn't it necessary if someone
appeals the decision? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 05:02 PM EDT |
I wonder if maybe that may not be one of the side reasons for the amicus request
in the first place.
1) Get in his points about the UNIX IP, etc, from the FL case.
2) Get expanded access to information about the appeal (transcript, etc).
---
Clocks
"Ita erat quando hic adveni."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Henning Makholm on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
If so, since he had applied and had not yet been turned down, might
he have been able to record it himself, his attorney at least, at the hearing
itself?
Apparently the only permitted recording is "for the
exclusive use of the court. No other recording is allowed." (See the circuit
rule cited by the order). Parties are allowed to bring in someone to take
shorthand notes, on paper.
But this someone must be a "qualified court
reporter". I wonder whether this means that nobody but officially qualified
court reporters are allowed to take notes?
I also wonder which interest the
no-recording rule is supposed to protect. I can see it making sense at trials,
where it might bother witnesses to have their evidence recorded and perhaps
broadcast/podcast/youtubed -- but oral argument at appeals is just lawyers
discussing legalese, right? Would a recording intimidate them? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 05:47 PM EDT |
I had gotten the impression that almost all courts provided transcripts on
request, except for when things are discussed under seal. I guess I'm asking, if
it has something to do with the way he asked for it?
---
Wayne
http://crankyoldnutcase.blogspot.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 05:50 PM EDT |
| Should any corrections be required, they can be requested here. ---
"Then
you admit confirming not denying you ever said that?"
"NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?"
"I'll put `maybe.'"
--Bloom County [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 05:52 PM EDT |
| Comment on Groklaw News Picks here. Mention which News Pick your comment
pertains to.
---
"Then you admit confirming not denying you ever said
that?"
"NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?"
"I'll put `maybe.'"
--Bloom County [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 05:53 PM EDT |
| Please keep Off Topic comments confined to this thread, to keep Groklaw
tidy.
---
"Then you admit confirming not denying you ever said
that?"
"NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?"
"I'll put `maybe.'"
--Bloom County [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: billyskank on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
I've been away from Groklaw for a while.
---
It's not the software that's free; it's you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 06:39 PM EDT |
I see from the court rules that the parties are allowed to make their own
transcripts, and if they do they have to file copies with the court. I'd wager
that the court expects the parties will be making transcripts if they feel them
necessary and that most appeals will be based on the written ruling, so
generally the court's transcript won't be necessary. Likely the only time the
court releases a transcript would be if there's an appeal to the Supreme Court
and the SC requests the transcript. I'd imagine one of the parties could request
a transcript, but they'd need a really good reason why their own wouldn't
suffice. "We didn't think we'd need one." is probably not sufficient, but
"The other party's misrepresenting what we argued at the hearing, and we need
independent corroboration that our transcript's in fact correct." might be.
Third parties are probably out of luck, it sounds like the court's position is
that this is a matter between the two parties and the court and only their
ruling's anybody else's business. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 08:31 PM EDT |
An article at Law.Com
11th Circuit Oral Arguments Won't Be Online Soon is about transcripts of
oral arguments at the 11th Circuit, but it talks about the rules at the various
Circuits. According to the article,
Five circuits -- the 5th, 7th,
8th, 9th and Federal Circuits -- provide free public access to audio of
arguments right on their Web sites, although not necessarily in real time.
Except for the 10th and 11th Circuits, the remaining courts of appeal will
provide a copy of a recording for the $26 fee set by the federal Judicial
Conference.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: walberg on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 08:32 PM EDT |
Cool... Without counting words, it seems the order (absent requisite headers and
such) might actually be almost as brief as the docket entry. That's a bit
unusual, from what I've seen...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Record? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 20 2009 @ 08:36 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 20 2009 @ 07:43 AM EDT |
IANAL.
But I thought that the record of a court's proceedings was
public. The court keeps a record of all its cases, and anyone can get to look at
that record, unless the record for a specific case has been ordered to be
sealed, which is unusual. This is certainly true in some jurisdictions in
the US.
Isn't it true in all? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 20 2009 @ 11:36 AM EDT |
Wouldn't it be possible to make a request based on the freedom of information
act?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
