|
AutoZone Order - PDF and text |
|
Sunday, August 15 2004 @ 04:51 AM EDT
|
Here is Judge Robert C. Jones' Order in the AutoZone case. The judge has clarified some things and added some items that were not mentioned at the hearing. It isn't open-ended discovery. It's a really fast track, but the judge has given SCO a little more time. All discovery must be done by 90 days from the date of the order. Of course, I note the judge changed the date of the order from July to August, when he got around to signing it, so in effect SCO gets more time than if he had signed the order in July, about a month, at least in terms of preparation. And remember when the judge was asked at the hearing how many depositions would be permitted? He said it was up to the parties to work that out. Evidently there have been more discussions about that, because he has decided it will be 6 each. And SCO has only 20 days after the conclusion of the limited discovery to file its motion for a preliminary injunction. This was not spelled out at the hearing on July 12, and I'm relieved to see it clarified. Also, the periodic reports will have to be not only on IBM and Red Hat cases, as he said at the hearing, but on progress on the Novell case too. You will see some things we haven't seen before in this case, so I will explain.
First, the handwritten corrections. As you may recall from the hearing the judge asked the lawyers for AutoZone to write up the order for his signature. That is what normally happens in such a case. The winning side usually gets "anointed" to do the work. So they then write up what they think the judge said at the hearing, show it to the other side for approval and then submit it to the judge. He then either signs it or changes whatever he wishes. In this case, he changed some dates. Evidently he decided what he said wasn't enough time for SCO. It also could be that there were telephone conferences with the parties and that resulted in the changes. If you remember, he mentioned he was available for such, as was the magistrate.
The second change relates to the fact that nobody knew for sure what the judge had ruled at the hearing about the Motion to Transfer, because he didn't explicitly say, just saying that he was ordering a stay. If you reread it carefully, you will see that is the case. AutoZone had asked for a stay or for a more definite statement, so when the stay was ordered, you'd think that took care of that motion, at least for now, but he never actually said at the hearing what he was doing with that motion. And what about the transfer motion? What do you write up to hand in for his signature? Both sets of lawyers evidently thought he was staying the motion to transfer, as did I, or at least it was their best guess, because AutoZone wrote it that way, and SCO was supposed to sign off on it before it went before the judge. Once the judge saw the order, he evidently realized he hadn't actually said what would happen to that motion, or at least that all he had said at the hearing was that he was staying the case except for limited expedited discovery. The only word he used at the hearing was "stay", but it wasn't in the context of the transfer motion. He was silent on that. So he has now crossed out their wording and inserted the wording that he is denying it without prejudice. What does that mean? It doesn't mean deny in the sense of lose the motion. It's a legal phrase that is similar to a stay in effect, except the way he has chosen means he doesn't have to track the motion any more. It's denied, but without in any way blocking them from resubmitting it if and when the stay on the case is lifted. The order also says the motion for a more definite statement is denied without prejudice, I gather because the judge knows that if the case goes forward, they need a more definite statement. But for now, because of the stay, there just is nothing to rule on that makes any sense, particularly with limited discovery going on there. So for now, nobody needs a more definite statement, and transfer isn't an issue currently needing to be decided, and it won't be until the stay is lifted and AutoZone resubmits, if they choose to, and I'm sure they will. If the motions were denied, there would have been no opportunity to resubmit.
There is an advantage to AutoZone this way. When they resubmit their motions, and they will the minute the case goes live again, they can rewrite it instead of him ruling on what they already submitted. Remember how they offered statistics on how cases go faster in Tennessee and the judge told them they had old info? So he's doing them a kindness by letting them rewrite to make it more convincing. What they had before, in my view, wasn't working on him. So by denying without prejudice, they get to improve their submission and try again later. It is even possible that AutoZone requested the change, just as it is possible SCO asked for more time in telephone conferences. It's also possible the judge made up his own mind. I don't know which it was, so I'm explaining all the possibilities. If it's all a bit confusing, it's because the judge didn't say clearly at the oral hearing what his ruling was on any of the motions except the motion to stay, which AutoZone won, with the limited exception of discovery. But now it is clarified.
Here are the definitions for dismiss with prejudice and without. Dismiss without prejudice is the word used for criminal cases. I couldn't find an online definition for you for deny without prejudice, but it's the same concept:
"Dismiss with prejudice - to set aside the present action and deny the right to file another suit on that claim.
Dismiss without prejudice - to set aside the present action but leave open the possibility of another suit on the same claim." Here's a case involving AT&T where the judge denied without prejudice to later refiling because the issue raised in the matter was at the moment speculative, so there was no need for a decision right then: "The Board will grant AT&T’s unopposed motion for stay while the
Board considers the applications for rehearing, but the Board will deny, without
prejudice to re-filing at a later date, the motion for a stay of the Board’s order while
any subsequent judicial review proceedings are pending. At this time, the need for
any such judicial review proceedings is speculative, at best; if AT&T (or any other
party) believes a stay pending judicial review is justified after review of the Board’s
order considering the merits of the applications for rehearing, then AT&T (or any
other party) may file a request for a stay at that time. The Board will consider any
such request if and when filed, after hearing from all interested parties."
Here is another case, where the judge denied without prejudice, and you will see that it is a technique used so the party can refile, sometimes so they can refile better:
"However, the court cannot consider the issue
without adequate evidence (and sufficient briefs).
Therefore, the court shall deny without prejudice the
parties' motions for summary judgment as to the
premium-payment issue, grant the plaintiffs 10 days to
amend their complaint, grant the defendant 10 days after
service of the complaint to respond to the amended
complaint, and give the parties 10 days after filing of the
defendant's responsive pleading to file properly
supported motions for summary judgment on the
premium-payment issue, if the parties see fit to do so." Here is another example, where the party had a new lawyer and the judge wanted to give him or her time to get with it and do a better motion: "Lastly, the Court notes that the defendant has filed three motions in limine (filings 22-
24). Due to the late substitution of plaintiff’s counsel and the necessity to reprogress the
case, the Court shall deny the motions in limine without prejudice to the defendant to
renew on or before March 17, 2000." Deny without prejudice, then, is definitely not the same as deny. You can see that here.
So the judge has done AutoZone a kindness. Who knows? Maybe he heard about the DaimlerChrysler decision. Or he's had time to really look at things more in depth. In any case, he did a nice thing. Speaking of nice things, our thanks go to JeR for transcribing.
**************************
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
a Delaware Corporation
Plaintiff,
v.
AUTOZONE, INC.
a Nevada Corporation
Defendant. |
Civil Action File No.
CV-S-04-0237-RCJ-LRL
|
ORDER
Defendant AutoZone, Inc. (“AutoZone”) has filed a motion to stay this case or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement as well as a motion to transfer venue to the Western District of Tennessee pending the resolution of related litigation pending in federal district courts in Utah and Delaware. Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc. (“SCO”) has opposed the motion and, in so doing, has alleged that AutoZone is infringing SCO’s OpenServer software product in ways that are not at issue in the related pending cases; and that SCO is suffering irreparable harm as a result of the alleged infringements.
Having read and considered the briefs of the parties, and having heard oral argument from counsel for the parties,
It is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. AutoZone”s motion is GRANTED. This action is stayed pending further order of the court. The parties shall each submit a letter to the Court every 90 days as to the status of the following cases: The SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation, No. 2:03CV294 (D. Utah); The SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., No. 2:04CV00139 (D. Utah); and RedHat, Inc. v. The SCO Group, Inc., No. 1:03CV772 (D. Del.). The parties’ letters shall be sent 14 days following the dates on which SCO’s status letters are due to the court in the Red Hat case.
2. Notwithstanding the stay of this case, the court will allow the parties to take limited expedited discovery related to the issue of preliminary injunctive relief. In that regard, SCO shall, within ten fifteen days from the date of this Order, serve on AutoZone a statement of the basis for its claim for preliminary injunctive relief and the nature of the relief it seeks on those claims.
3. Discovery and briefing shall occur according to the following schedule and limitations:
(a) The parties shall have 30 45 days from the date of this Order to propound written discovery pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(b) All relevant party and non-party discovery must be completed within 60 90 days of the date of this Order.
(c) The parties may take no more than six depositions each, including 30(b)(6) and third party depositions.
(d) SCO will file its motion for preliminary injunction and supporting memorandum of authorities within twenty days after the conclusion of discovery.
(e) AutoZone shall have 33 days from the date of service of SCO’s motion for preliminary injunction to file a brief in opposition to SCO’s motion for preliminary injunction. The motion will thereafter be scheduled for hearing at the court’s earliest opportunity.
(f) Defendant AutoZone’s alternative motion for a more definite statement and its motion to transfer this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(c) are stayed pending further order of this Court. denied without prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this 6 day of JulyAug, 2004.
[signature]
ROBERT C. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
|
|
Authored by: stevem on Sunday, August 15 2004 @ 04:53 AM EDT |
Corrections Here Please [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Darkelve on Sunday, August 15 2004 @ 05:00 AM EDT |
n/t [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Darkelve on Sunday, August 15 2004 @ 05:02 AM EDT |
n/t [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Totosplatz on Sunday, August 15 2004 @ 05:22 AM EDT |
Thanks for this. I am not studying law by any means but I am something of a
history buff, and reading the earlier article about wanting Groklaw to be a good
historical record, all I can say is - thanks.
And I think some students
of law might benefit from this sometime in future. --- All the best to
one and all. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: johan on Sunday, August 15 2004 @ 05:44 AM EDT |
Thanks for the very clear explanation of with/without prejudice, but the word
"limine" and the phrase "in limine" is new to me. My guess is "the last few"
(something with limit, and these were the last few motions, thus they are at the
ending limit of the sequence of motions) but this is pure speculation on my
part.
[...] the Court shall deny the motions in limine
without prejudice [...]
In short, I need a PJ-type answer.
:-)
Thanks! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 15 2004 @ 06:25 AM EDT |
They sound like a 5-year-old.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 15 2004 @ 10:10 AM EDT |
My question is about the 15 days to state to AutoZone the basis for a
preliminary injunction. In my layman's understanding of the law, to be
granted, a preliminary
injunction request requires specifics regarding actions
on the defendant's
part, a demonstration that prompt action is necessary to
stop any further
irreparable damage, and specific arguments, for which the
Judge rules
that there is a likelihood of success when the suit is
tried.
I may be corrected on these speculations, but it seems that The
SCO
Group
has until August 21 to, at the very least, get specific about what,
how, and
why AutoZone's use of Linux infringes protected copyrights that SCO
clearly
owns. (IIRC, there is some portion of the complaint alleging that
during the
AZ's
transition to Linux,
libraries may have been infringed, but
as this is not continuing, I'm thinking
this would not
suggest a need for
injunctive relief.)
So what happens if the 15 days come and go without
service of the basis
for a
preliminary injunction? I would guess the SCO Group
permanently loses its
opportunity to request a preliminary injunction (and the
related limited
discovery) and, in some sense the allegation of irreparable
harm looks more
like hyperbole. Or, does something else happen should The
SCO
Group pass up a preliminary injunction? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: brian on Sunday, August 15 2004 @ 10:13 AM EDT |
I see lots of balls dropping in this juggeling game.
First, SCO never
asked for the preliminary injunction. The
judge gave them that. The
judge bungled that in court and
instead of correcting it there by making
SCO refile he
tries to fix it with this "limited" fishing
trip discovery.
Second, although PJ give a plausable
explanation on the
time extention there is also the possibility that he
bungled that too.
Third, he never ruled on the other
issues in court
leaving it up to whoever wrote the order to guess.
Forth, SCO's case of "irreperable harm" is very weak
and this judge took
it on himself to find a remedy that
was never asked for. He hopes SCO will not
abuse the
fishing trip discovery order but we know
they
will.
And he says his court is not overworked!
I
just find it difficult to accept that there is this
much ineptitude in a
judge and am inclined to blame it on
the truth that his court is
overworked. It is
merely pride that he denied the change of venue and that
can be seen in his comments in court. The stats may have
been old but I
am willing to bet the new stats will show
the problem is worse.
B. --- #ifndef IANAL
#define IANAL
#endif [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nick Bridge on Sunday, August 15 2004 @ 10:31 AM EDT |
My wife wants to know if there is a twelve step program for leaving Groklaw!
(I kinda visit a lot)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 15 2004 @ 10:44 AM EDT |
The judge just stayed the case... and didn't mention why he decided?
It seems that all the arguements made by AutoZone worked.
I would have loved to read his views on AutoZone's arguement that related to one
of AutoZone's points that spelled out how cases against any manufacturer should
happen before cases against any innocent 3rd party consumers!
Once these cases become final then the question is if SCO is then seen as an
actual Principle in FACT of any IP. If they then are, then due to the laws of
Agency, and their lack of action in an effort to STOP all Linux distribution
(world-wide), if they even have a standing at that time due to the fact that
distributors seem to have apparent or ostensible authority to continue to
distribute LINUX with the only restriction being the wordings as spelled out by
the LINUX preambled GPL, and this LINUX is still being distributed freely,
without SCO taking legal action DIRECTLY AGAINST this FACT, AND SCO's actions in
this regards are certainly one(s) where they seem to be tied up with the
Manifestation of Consent and Acquiescence issues (not good for them)!
Even today, SCO is ACTING as if LINUX distribution is OK... Darl even said that
he does not want to harm the distribution of LINUX (he just wants his company to
have a cut of the action)... Can he have his cake and eat it too (where the
cake is LINUX and the GPL says he can not have it both ways)?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Night Flyer on Sunday, August 15 2004 @ 12:37 PM EDT |
I agree the judge did Autozone a legal 'kindness', but...
I'm betting this situation is costing Autozone in other ways:
1.) Managers distracted form running their business.
2.) Some level of internal recriminations where the employees are being annoyed
by the details of who did what and how this might turn out.
3.) Having to pay the legal fees (even if, when SCO loses, there might be some
reimbursement).
(The day before I went to court (as a witness), I didn't sleep too well because
it is not my normal place of expertise. Nothing bad happened, but it was
stressful.)
All this annoyance to Autozone because of Darl's misplaced belief in the
definition of 'derivative works' which, really, has nothing to do with Autozone
one way or the other.
--------------------------
As an aside, wouldn't SCO's lawyers have explained the law around what
'derivative works' and copyright law to Darl and company, explaining the
probable outcome of the court case?
--------------------------
Veritas Vincit: Truth Conquers[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 15 2004 @ 01:11 PM EDT |
Judge Jones's August 6 order says "SCO shall, within fifteen
days from the
date of this Order, serve on Autozone a
statement of the basis for its claim
for preliminary
injunctive relief."
I wonder, if this statement is just
as indefinite as SCO's
complaint, will AutoZone move again for a more
definite
statement?
I realize that such motions are normally made with
respect
to the actual complaint, but it seems entirely apropos here.
Once
Judge Jones said at the hearing that he was going to
stay the case, the issue
of the more definite statement did
not seem urgent, and it was barely
discussed.
When the hearing ended, I think it was still just dawning
on
everyone that what the judge proposed was a stay in name
only. We're now
looking at a six-month schedule of activity
in a case that is supposedly
"stayed". If it doesn't start
with SCO making a more definite statement,
AutoZone should
move to end it immediately. (That would also give AutoZone
a
chance to file a written brief about the matter, which
would probably be much
more persuasive than what Mr. Stewart
was able to improvise when Judge Jones's
plan came at him
out of nowhere.)
Rule 12(e), "Motion For More Definite
Statement", says:
If a pleading to which a responsive pleading
is permitted
is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably
be
required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may
move for a more
definite statement before interposing a
responsive pleading. The motion shall
point out the
defects complained of and the details desired. If the
motion is
granted and the order of the court is not obeyed
within 10 days after notice of
the order or within such
other time as the court may fix, the court may strike
the
pleading to which the motion was directed or make such
order as it deems
just.
This "statement of the basis for its claim" that
Judge Jones
has ordered is not an ordinary pleading, and no direct
"responsive
pleading" has been explicitly permitted.
However, AutoZone is being asked to
waste six months of its
life responding to interrogatories and otherwise
dealing
with discovery, and discovery normally only happens after a
complaint
is answered, and a complaint is normally only
required to be answered if it is
not "so vague or ambiguous
that a party cannot reasonably be required" to
answer it.
If SCO's statement on August 23 is the usual vague
or
ambiguous nonsense, I hope Judge Jones will be moved to call
the whole
thing off.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 15 2004 @ 04:40 PM EDT |
If SCO can overcome OpenServer not being mentioned in their complaint, or the
list of copyrights (which I am not sure they can), it just possible that they
might get an injunction against AZ copying the OpenServer libraries - because AZ
will surely contend they are not doing this anyway.
Such an injunction will have no practical effect on AZ, or the case, but it's
possible it could be granted, because AZ by saying they are not doing it anyway,
wouldn't be harmed by such an injunction.
But such an injunction would be a (minor) propaganda victory for SCO
So it's interesting to see if they have the intelligence to go for a narrow
injunction like this (which they might get), or instead, driven by the usual
hyper-aggressiveness, they go for a much broader injunction which they have no
chance of getting
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Sunday, August 15 2004 @ 07:50 PM EDT |
One thing that bothers me about this Order is that there is a restriction
missing. If you recall, Judge Jones told TSG during oral argument that they
should do no discovery at all if they couldn't qualify for a
PI:
"My contemplation was to allow you during thirty days to
propound discovery sufficient to form a factual presentation to the court that
you have the right to a preliminary injunction. If you don't have the right to a
preliminary injunction, you shouldn't proceed with discovery at
all."
However, this limitation does not show up in the Order at
all. Does that mean that Judge Jones (or someone else) messed up and didn't
include it, or is the oral instruction from the Judge in the hearing
binding?
--- "When I say something, I put my name next to it." --
Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|