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
AutoZone's Notice of Deposition - as text
Monday, October 18 2004 @ 04:34 PM EDT

Here is a bit more from SCO's AutoZone collection, this time the Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition of the Plaintiff The SCO Group, as text, thanks to Steve Martin and Henrik Grouleff. You'll find it on page 80 of the PDF.

This matches and complements their First Interrogatories and First Request for Documents and Things. I note particularly AutoZone intended to ask about item 7:

7. The factual investigation SCO performed in advance of filing this action against AutoZone

If this were a novel, I'd call that foreshadowing. Of what? Maybe that AutoZone could be thinking of some steps of their own, if this nonsense keeps up. You are supposed to have some kind of good-faith basis for a claim prior to suing somebody.

Number 8 on the list can't be there just for our entertainment, I'm sure, but I, for one, can't wait to read SCO describe how it is being so irreparably harmed by AutoZone booting up its own computers now and again and using them every day that SCO requires an immediate injunction to keep AutoZone from using its chosen operating system until the trial is over.

Like the judge will make that happen in the real world. Like SCO will even ask.

Sorry, but much as I'd enjoy all the merriment that would ensue, I don't honestly think they will even ask the judge for that, unless something extraordinary comes out in discovery, which I can't even imagine at this point. Of course, SCO is nothing if not surprising. These are the folks who thought it would be sensible to sue a company that hasn't used its product in nearly a decade, so in SCOland, anything is possible.

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

James J. Pisanelli
Nevada Bar No. 4027
Nicki L. Wilmer
Nevada Bar No. 6562
SCHRECK BRIGNONE
[address, phone]

Michael P. Kenny. Esq.
James A. Harvey, Esq.
David J. Stewart, Esq.
Christopher A. Riley, Esq.
Douglas L. Bridges, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
[address, phone]

Attorneys for Defendant AutoZone, Inc.

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



NOTICE OF 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION OF
OF PLAINTIFF THE SCO GROUP, INC.

Defendant AutoZone, Inc. ("AutoZone") hereby gives notice that, pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it will take the deposition upon oral examination of Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") through one or more of its officers, directors, managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf and who are most knowledgeable with respect to the topics set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The deposition will commence at 9:00 a.m. on October 13, 2004 at the offices of Schreck Brignone, [address] and will continue from time to time and day to day until completed. The deposition will be taken before a notary public or other officer duly authorized by law to administer oaths.

Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, SCO is required to designate one or more persons who will testify to the matters known or reasonably available to SCO regarding each of the subjects set forth on the attached Exhibit "A."

This 1st day of September, 2004.


_____signature]______
James J. Pisanelli, Esq.
Nicki L. Wilmer, Esq.
SCHRECK BRIGNONE
[address, phone]

Attorneys for Defendant
AutoZone, Inc.

AutoZone incorporates by reference herein the Instructions and Definitions contained in AutoZone's First Requests for Production of Documents and Things to Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.

EXHIBIT "A"

1.        Identification of the specific copyrights that SCO contends that AutoZone has infringed, including the copyrights identified in SCO's Injunctive Relief Statement.

2.        SCO's acquisition, ownership and licensing of the copyrights SCO contends that AutoZone has infringed, including the copyrights identified in SCO's Injunctive Relief Statement.

3.        The functionality of any source or object code that SCO contends that AutoZone has copied or otherwise infringed.

4.        The creation of any source or object code that SCO contends that AutoZone has copied or otherwise infringed.

5.        How AutoZone has allegedly infringed each of SCO's copyrights, including the copyrights identified in SCO's Injunctive Relief Statement.

6.        The date(s) when SCO first learned that AutoZone was allegedly infringing SCO's copyrights, including copyrights identified in SCO's Injunctive Relief Statement.

7.        The factual investigation SCO performed in advance of filing this action against AutoZone.

8.        The harm that SCO is suffering as a result of AutoZone's alleged acts of infringement.

9.        SCOsource and the SCO Intellectual Property License Program.

10.        AutoZone's migration from OpenServer to Linux.

11.        Communications between AutoZone and SCO, or any of its predecessors, regarding Linux.

12.        Communications between AutoZone and SCO, or any of its predecessors, regarding Unix or OpenServer.

13.        The terms of the OpenServer and/or Linux license agreements between SCO and AutoZone.

14.        Identification and authentication of each document produced in response to AutoZone's First Requests for Production of Documents and Things to Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the within and foregoing NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF THE SCO GROUP, INC. upon all counsel of record addressed as follows:

Stanley W. Parry, Esq.
Glenn M. Machado, Esq.
CURRAN & PARRY
[address]
(Via Hand Delivery)

David S. Stone, Esq.
Robert A. Magnanini, Esq.
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
(Via Hand Delivery)

Stephen N. Zack, Esq.
Mark J. Heise, Esq.
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
(Via First Class Mail)



This 1st day of September, 2004.

__________[signature]__________
An employee of Schreck Brignone


  


AutoZone's Notice of Deposition - as text | 188 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off Topic and URLs
Authored by: overshoot on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:01 PM EDT
Clickable links:
<a href=""></a>

[ Reply to This | # ]

Item 9 - SCO Source
Authored by: voxclamatis on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:01 PM EDT
This is another interesting inclusion. Would this perhaps be there to show that
TSG has already voluntarily put an upper limit on the harm: $699/per server or
something? Or is it a setup to a countersuit?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Item 7
Authored by: Lev on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:09 PM EDT
Won't SCO just claim work product privilege?

[ Reply to This | # ]

October 13?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:16 PM EDT
Anybody know what happened? Did anybody from SCOG show up to give the
depositions?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Items 11 and 12
Authored by: PolR on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:18 PM EDT
A deposition about prior communications? Isn't this information already
available to both parties? Or do they want to make it undisputed there was a
lack of proper communication prior to the lawsuit?

This looks like a page from IBM's book on PSJ motion preparation. Foreshadowing
is indeed the word.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections and trolls go here
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:19 PM EDT
Corrections go here.

Trolls please post umopəpısdn.

-Cyp

[ Reply to This | # ]

Official "The SCO Group" Positions
Authored by: AllParadox on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:23 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 | # ]

AutoZone's Notice of Deposition - as text
Authored by: Tomas on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:23 PM EDT
I would love to be present (the "fly on the wall" ploy) at this
interrogation, er, excuse me, "deposition."

Actually, just knowing who The SCO Group could send to speak intelligently about
these subjects would be interesting...

Has anyone heard anything that might indicate anything like this actually began
on October 13?

---
Tom
Engineer (ret.)
Comment ©2004 Tomas@TiJiL.org

[ Reply to This | # ]

Number 13
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:49 PM EDT
I for one am interested in how SCOG thinks AutoZone violated the SCO license.

Based on SCO licenses I've seen, I believe that Autozone had a right to use
parts of OpenServer, providing that they didn't increase the number of users and
servers beyond the number they had licenses for.

---
Rsteinmetz

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."

[ Reply to This | # ]

The SCOG's Interrogatories
Authored by: Glenn on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 08:33 PM EDT
Has the SCOG presented any interrogatories to AutoZone? I cannot find any
record of such here on Groklaw or on Tuxrocks.

Glenn

[ Reply to This | # ]

Consent vs. compulsion
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 09:07 PM EDT
The document refers to "persons who consent to testify." It also says
that SCO must designate someone to testify.

Can someone who is designated by SCO then refuse to testify? "I'm sorry
your honor, we designated Joe Blow but he refuses to testify."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Are SCO liable for the impropper inconvenience?
Authored by: eamacnaghten on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 09:12 PM EDT
There is one thing that is puzzling me about these SCO cases in general....

The more time progrsses, and the more analysis done on the SCO complaints, it is becoming more and more obvious that they neither have nor ever had any evidence whatsoever of any developer or customer misparropriating, illegally copying, improperly using or anything else any IP that either belongs to SCO/Caldera now nor ever belonged to SCO/Caldera or any company that they bought these products from, nor anyone they bought it from and so on in the past.

In short - it is becomming more and more obvious SCO bought these cases on in order to create a nuisance so that people would pay them to go away. A bit like these "protection" people who carried violin cases but were not musicians that one associates with the seedier parts of 1920 Chicago (possibly unjustifiably).

Please excuse the question, but are SCO in any way liable for the costs they are causing what is in fact their victims? Or is the legal system such that it allows the SCOs of this world to get away with this? And if so, will that not encourage others? If that is the case it would mean there is no risk in these IP pirate conmpanies from trying to cream a large chunk of the profits of legitimate companies at no risk to themselves! Is that really the case? (I genuinely do not know).

Please forgive me if this should be in the OT (or similar) section.

Web Sig: Eddy Currents

[ Reply to This | # ]

Number 13 ... hummmmm......
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 09:18 PM EDT
... "13.The terms of the OpenServer and/or Linux license agreements between
SCO and AutoZone." ...

Could it be that AZ just happens to be running ....

... SCOLinux ( be it one of the OldSCO versions, or
one of the "Caldera" versions )?

Now that would be ...

... FOMCROTFLMAOSTC! ...

Sorry. But the possilility is just to funnie.

But it would not be unlike TSOG to go after someone that ...

A) use to use SCOUnix,
B) that moved from SCOUnix to Linux,
C) and that the version of Linux that
they are using just happens to be SCOLinux.

George

PS: Would anyone be interested in seeing a "Offical"
copy of a SCO "Certificate of License and Authenticity"
looks like. I just happen to own a copy of SCOLinux
Server v. 4.0 ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Item#: 2
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:30 AM EDT

"SCO's acquisition, ownership and licensing of the copyrights SCO contends
that AutoZone has infringed, including the copyrights identified in SCO's
Injunctive Relief Statement."

So AutoZone wants to see where the hell SCO claims they got these copyrights
from.

From what I understand newSCO has yet to provide the document that shows what
they received from oldSCO when the purchase agreement was signed. The transfer
of these *copyrights* to new SCO is not shown anywhere. Please correct me if I
am wrong.

The last I heard new SCO was claiming that it cannot *find* the purchase
agreement detailing what it got from old SCO. You would think that they could
get a copy of the agreement from old SCO? Unless they have lost it too. Now
wouldn't that be interesting.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOTLAND not Scoland [sp]
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 05:24 AM EDT

[pj:] "...so in SCOland, anything is possible."

More things are possible in Scotland than in Scoland

[ Reply to This | # ]

3 or 4 monitary sources, no consequence...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 05:39 AM EDT
It seems to me that SCO (Darl?) has just tacked one more calculation onto an old
equation.
The old equation would be the old Dotcom scenario where lots of other peoples
money is floating around on nothing but promises and whoever is telling the
stories is living high on the hog. But then it comes to an end when the company
is grossly overvalued and not really performing and producing.
Suppose (and take a look at Darl's track record here) that one gets the money
flowing with the empty promises and hype, but then when the natural
over-valuation and drop starts, you sue somebody else for causing it.
Exploiting three sources of income with noise and threats, but no real product
or service.
The three sources are 1) investors buying into the hype, 2) a monopoly willing
to invest into the detraction of a competitor, 3) the company(s) you are able to
place the blame on and sue.
And if no one checks what is holding up your kite by digging into your meritless
claims you actually start a business making money from other peoples work.
Balance this against the probability that there will be no consequence in giving
it a try. Voila.

[ Reply to This | # ]

AutoZone's Notice of Deposition - as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 09:22 AM EDT
>>7. The factual investigation SCO performed in advance of filing this
action against AutoZone

I am going to be very interested in what is written here. My guess is AutoZone
is getting ready to sock it to SCO for filing a false law suite.


[ Reply to This | # ]

AutoZone's Notice of Deposition - as text
Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 11:24 AM EDT
I expect SCOG's reply to AZ's demands for discovery to be right out of the
"Twilight Zone". Now that I think about it, being sued by SCOG is a
"Twilight Zone" experience - "do not touch that dial!",
suspension of disbelief and all. Having said that, we will continue our analysis
effort with the seriousness and effectiveness we have always shown.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe they should start selling Linux PCs
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 11:30 AM EDT
Leaverage the ggod will of the FOSS community. Use their distribution network
and in house Linux skills... and irritate the hell out of SCO and Microsoft.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why the AutoZone collection?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 11:57 AM EDT
Can someone please explain why the autozone Collection was assemled and filed?

I can see a reason for the letters between council, the court would not know
that, but why the hearing transcript? Why the interrogatories?

There does not seem to be any motion attached, or anything else pending.

I probably missed something.

---
Rsteinmetz

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."

[ Reply to This | # ]

The SCO Group dedicated thread created by AllParadox...
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 12:04 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"..."

I think this thread is a very good idea as a device to, hopefully, entice SCO
personnel to describe their stance on the various topics typically addressed on
Groklaw.

I think the rules PJ and AllParadox have established for poster behavior are
prudent and acceptable. As guests who are likely to represent unpopular
positions, it is essential that we treat them as guests, observing every
protocol for polite and respectful behavior.

That said, dissenting views are apparently welcome provided the proper protocols
are observed. I think that we, as members of Groklaw, are both willing and able
to present our views in a clear, concise and polite manner.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

An opinion
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 12:23 PM EDT
My observtion is that the AutoZone lawyers have done a good job of coming to an
understanding of the situation and have covered the relevant points clearly and
effectively in their brief(s).

Though I have no direct evidence, I like to think that GROKLAW, through its
analysis and investigations, have, however indirectly, contributed in some way
to the clarity and thoroughness of these submissions.

Together we are stronger.

-----------------------------
Veritas Vincit: Truth Conquers

[ Reply to This | # ]

AutoZone's Notice of Deposition - as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 12:28 PM EDT
Anyone else getting antsy about the hearing? I know, I know, it's just the the
wait is killing me. I have to fly out this afternoon, not sure I'll be able to
keep up.

[ 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 )