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
Motions for Today's Hearing
Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 09:21 AM EDT

There are two motions to be heard by Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells today, as I understand it, IBM's Motion to Strike the 7/12/04 Declaration of Christopher Sontag and SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery. It's a bit complex, so I thought another nice chart might help. Credit for this one goes to Loguar, who did the heavy lifting for us, using the chart format I used for the last hearing. SCO filed a Motion Regarding Discovery, IBM responded and then SCO filed a Reply Memorandum and in support of it, they filed the Sontag declaration. IBM then filed a motion to strike. The chart includes all the filings, for context.

This is for overview, and I don't guarantee it's 100% comprehensive. If you see any errors, do post them, so I can make any adjustments, but this is what I believe is the material being argued today. We did our best to be accurate within the confines of time available for the task. The chart is taken from the Pacer history of the case, so you can cross-check for accuracy yourself, and if there are any elements that don't match, Pacer would be authoritative. Even that isn't the dernier cri, because there could be last-minute activity we just don't know about.



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

IBM Motion to Strike

        • SCO: #287 Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery [Sealed];
          #288 Declaration of Jeremy O. Evans [Sealed];
          #289 Declaration of Barbara L. Howe [Sealed];

              • IBM: #304 Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's Supplemental Memorandum re Discovery [Sealed]
              • #305 Declaration of Ron Saint Pierre [Sealed]
                #306 Declaration of David Bullis [Sealed]
                • SCO: #316 Reply Brief Supplemental Memo re Discovery Documents [Sealed];
                  #317 Declaration of Jeremy O. Evans re brief reply [Sealed];


SCO Renewed Motion to Compel


  


Motions for Today's Hearing | 101 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Please post your corrections here.
Authored by: mhoyes on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:02 PM EDT
Please post your corrections here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Boat Motors Running
Authored by: bsm2003 on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:03 PM EDT
Trolling here

[ Reply to This | # ]

What time is the showdown?
Authored by: MplsBrian on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:08 PM EDT
Is it yet noon at the OK Corral?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Very Useful
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:13 PM EDT
I just hope that Hatchling doesn't want to talk about anything but the matter at
hand and that Silver will actually be awake for it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Impatience triggers office pacing...
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:14 PM EDT
I feel simultaneously like a kid at Christmas and utterly rediculous waiting on
the outcome of a federal civil judicial proceeding.

No one has any news yet?

---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, abolish software patents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Motions for Today's Hearing
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:14 PM EDT
Just to clarify, are these to be heard by Judge Kimball or by Magistrate Judge
Wells? These seem to have to do with the discovery process, so I'm thinking
Wells... (?)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Official "The SCO Group" Positions
Authored by: AllParadox on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:34 PM EDT
Main posts in this thread may only be made by senior managers or attorneys for
"The SCO Group". Main posts must use the name and position of the
poster at "The SCO Group". Main posters must post in their official
capacity at "The SCO Group".

Sub-posts will also be allowed from non-"The SCO Group" employees or
attorneys. Sub-posts from persons not connected with "The SCO Group"
must be very polite, address other posters and the main poster with the
honorific "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Ms.", as
appropriate, use correct surnames, not call names or suggest or imply unethical
or illegal conduct by "The SCO Group" or its employees or attorneys.
This thread requires an extremely high standard of conduct and even slightly
marginal posts will be deleted.

P.J. says you must be on your very best behavior.

---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney

[ Reply to This | # ]

News from the front thread
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:38 PM EDT
We await anxiously your reports. Thank you very much you all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT, URLs here, please...
Authored by: jbeadle on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:51 PM EDT
Along with initial eyewitness accounts of the hearing.

Thanks,
-jb

[ Reply to This | # ]

The OT section
Authored by: paul_cooke on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:54 PM EDT
let's start the ball rolling... :)

British School shows the way forward for others to follow with Linux

A case study of how Orwell High School got it's act together and saved stacks of money by jumping off the upgrade treadmill.

---
Use Linux - Computer power for the people: Down with cybercrud...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Feature request
Authored by: mwexler on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:57 PM EDT
It would be really cool if either in the timeline, or perhaps some new section
it would list what hearigns were coming up, in which court, at what time and
what motions were involved.

Also, I must have missed it some months ago but what are the differences in
responsibilities between the two judges? Is there a pointer to an article that
describes this?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks, and reminder PJ asked for
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 02:41 PM EDT
Thanks very much for all the hard work that went into this story. It is great to see things laid out this way, and fun to go back and reread the stories that went with each step.

I added this suggestion a month or so ago to another story, and PJ asked me to remind her if she forgot. So I'm doing so. :-)

The "IBM Timeline" page, and stories like this, provide a link to the PDF file, and a link to the Groklaw article that has the text version. What they are missing is the link to the Groklaw article that initially provided the link to the PDF version. That is an important link, because more often than not, the great analysis that goes along with the document is found in the PDF story (which comes first), rather than the text story (which often just has a short blurb "here's the text, thanks to XX").

The only thing you can do is take the date of the text story, and start searching backward until you find the PDF story. Searching by date is slow, even when it isn't a day like today when everyone is madly refreshing for news. :-)

So, just a suggestion that would make a great resource even better. And more thanks for all the work that goes into this site.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why no order on PSJ for CC#10 yet?
Authored by: GLJason on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 02:42 PM EDT
This type of request for every version of AIX has been tried in courts before and has failed. See IBM's Response to SCO's Memorandum Regarding Discovery.
In a similar circumstance, when plaintiff in a copyright infringement action opposed defendant's motion for summary judgment on the theory that it required additional discovery regarding the computer program at issue, the court denied plaintiff's request. See Gemisys Corp. v. Phoenix Am., Inc., 186 F.R.D. 551, 566 (N.D. Cal. 1999). In Gemisys, the plaintiff, Gemisys, had licensed a software program, PMIS, to the defendant, Phoenix American. Id. at 554. Phoenix American subsequently developed and introduced its own, competing software product, S.T.A.R. Id. at 555. Gemisys sued Phoenis American, alleging trade secret, copyright infringement, unfair competition and breach of contract claims. Id. at 553. Phoenix American moved for summary judgment on all claims. Id. Gemisys requested that the Court deny the defendant's summary judgment motion under Rule 56(f) on the grounds that Gemisys needed additional discovery "to ask questions about the design, structure, and development of the S.T.A.R. program", whose code Gemisys already possessed. Id. at 565-66. In denying Gemisys' request for additional discovery and granting summary judgment of noninfringement to the defendant, the court noted that "with respect specifically to Gemisys' claim for copyright infringement", plaintiff did not explain "how the disclosure of the S.T.A.R. [program's] design and development documents . . . would provide evidence essential to the motion for summary judgment, namely, proof of substantial similarity". Id. at 566.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Was anyone from Groklaw going to the hearing?
Authored by: GLJason on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 03:07 PM EDT
The hearing was scheduled for 10:00 am (mountain time I believe). That was
three hours ago, I hope we get some eye-witness accounts soon. I just had a
horrible thought that maybe no one from Groklaw was going and we'd have to wait
a week for the transcript and miss interesting tidbits like people falling
asleep :) The hearing is probably just a marathon hearing like the one on 9/15,
with a lunch break thrown in the middle. SCO's probably trying to have three
lawyers talk about the same points while having them all avoid the other points
all together...

[ 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 )