decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
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.


  


Request for transcript of oral argument in SCO v Novell appeal denied | 67 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
How do you appeal?
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 | # ]

The Reasoning
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 | # ]

Request for transcript of oral argument in SCO v Novell appeal denied
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 | # ]

Is this usual?
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 | # ]

Corrections thread
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 | # ]

[NP] News Picks comments
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 | # ]

[OT] The Off Topic thread
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 | # ]

Who's Wayne Gray?
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 | # ]

My guesses on transcripts
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 | # ]

Transcripts rules at the different Circuits
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 | # ]

Record?
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
But surely he can copy the court's record?
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 | # ]

Freedom of information act
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )