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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
SCO's Ex Parte Motion For Leave to File Overlength Memo re Motion to Compel - as text
Saturday, August 28 2004 @ 09:15 PM EDT

Here's SCO's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Over-Length Memorandum. This is in connection with their "renewed" motion to compel discovery.

*************************

Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address, phone, fax]

Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address, phone, fax]

Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
Mark J. Heise (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-
Defendant,


vs.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-
Plaintiff.
EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE OVER-LENGTH
MEMORANDUM

Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant The SCO Group ("SCO") hereby moves the Court pursuant to District Court Rule 7-1(e) for leave to file an overlength Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel.

As SCO must address multiple issues and must explain and place many issues in context for the court, SCO respectfully requests leave to file an over-length memorandum. The argument section of SCO's Reply Memorandum is approximately 16 pages in length. SCO has endeavored to be as concise as possible, but respectfully submits that the excess length is necessary to fully address the issues.

DATED this 26th day of August, 2004.

(signature)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Robert Silver, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
Mark J. Heise (admitted pro hac vice)

Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, The SCO Group, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVER-LENGTH MEMORANDUM was served on Defendant International Business Machines Corporation on this 26th day of August, 2004, by U.S. mail, postage prepaid to:

Alan L. Sullivan, Esq.
Todd M. Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P.
[address]

Copy to:

Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]

Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff IBM Corp.

(signature)


  


SCO's Ex Parte Motion For Leave to File Overlength Memo re Motion to Compel - as text | 39 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Trolls, astroturfers and their ilk here please
Authored by: MadScientist on Saturday, August 28 2004 @ 09:29 PM EDT


---
One of the main reasons the Roman Empire fell was because of the lack of the
numeral '0'. This meant they were unable to terminate their C programmes
correctly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: overshoot on Saturday, August 28 2004 @ 09:36 PM EDT
In case people don't know what "OT" means

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: NastyGuns on Saturday, August 28 2004 @ 09:41 PM EDT

If there are any corrections, place them here please.

---
NastyGuns,
"If I'm not here, I've gone out to find myself. If I return before I get back, please keep me here." Unknown.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Ex Parte Motion For Leave to File Overlength Memo re Motion to Compel - as text
Authored by: snorpus on Saturday, August 28 2004 @ 09:52 PM EDT
For not having anything to say that they haven't said a dozen times already, SCO/BSF sure need a lot of pages to say it in.

---
73/88 de KQ3T ---
Montani Semper Liberi

[ Reply to This | # ]

"place many issues in context"
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Saturday, August 28 2004 @ 10:48 PM EDT
SCO sure does like to use that phrase. So to put things in context for SCO, you
claimed you had evidence prior to the lawsuit, then you claimed to have
mountains of evidence after having done a deep dive with three teams and now
you've refused to turn over that alleged evidence that you already claim to
have, you say it will take you thousands of years to get the evidence you
already say you have and you ask IBM for even more evidence without
demonstrating to the judge any proof for getting additional evidence despite
your claims for over a year to have the evidence.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Overlength memos
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 28 2004 @ 11:16 PM EDT
There seems to be a consistent number of requests for filing overlength memos in
this case.

Which begs the question... why have the rule in the first place? Is it simply a
"short-leash" that the judge can exercise if he/she is annoyed enough
with either side?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hey Quatermass...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 28 2004 @ 11:42 PM EDT
...tell us what's in these 16 pages! :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO files...
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 29 2004 @ 01:03 AM EDT
SCO files to request permission to introduce fans and smoke canisters into the
courtroom in order to obscure who may be placing huge bags of fertilizer in
front of both IBM and the Judge.
:)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Change of tone?
Authored by: SammyTheSnake on Sunday, August 29 2004 @ 10:23 AM EDT
I note that in this filing, SCO uses defferential phrasing for the first time
I've noticed. People have commented earlier (PJ included, IIRC) that, while IBM
have consistently used phrasing like "IBM respectfully requests...",
SCO has been rather less tactful.

This time, SCO seems to be "saying it with flowers" a little more.

Is this significant? Probably not...

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

[ 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 )