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 and IBM Stipulate to Small Delay on Filings Until Nov. 30 and It Is So Ordered
Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 02:00 AM EST

The parties stipulated to a small delay until November 30th, and Judge Dale A. Kimball has so ordered. So IBM has until then to file its Opposition to SCO's Motion for Leave to Amend the complaint. Originally, IBM's deadline was November 23. SCO has until December 21 to answer, and that does not appear to have changed, so overall, there is no ultimate delay.

And SCO has until November 30, instead of November 23, to file its Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims and its Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Counterclaim for Copyright Infringement (Eighth Counterclaim), the one I personally can't wait to read. Again, there seems to be no change in the date IBM has to respond, January 14, so it isn't ultimately a delay in the schedule, looking at the big picture.

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

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.

______________________________

ORDER RE BRIEFING FOR PENDING
MOTIONS

Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells

_____________________________

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

IBM's Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's Motion for Leave to Amend shall be due on November 30, 2004;

SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims shall be due on November 30, 2004; and

SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Counterclaim for Copyright Infringement (Eighth Counterclaim) shall be due on November 30, 2004.

DATED this 24th day of November, 2004.

BY THE COURT:

_____[signature]______
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
United States District Court

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

SNELL & WILMER LLP
Alan L. Sullivan
Todd M. Shaughnessy

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE
Evan R. Chesler
David R. Marriott

_____[signature]_____
Counsel for Defendant International
Business Machines Corporation

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

By: ____[signature]______
Counsel for Plaintiff


United States District Court
for the
District of Utah
November 24, 2004

* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CLERK * *

Re: 2:03-cv-00294

True and correct copies of the attached were either mailed, faxed or e-mailed by the clerk to the following:

Brent O. Hatch, Esq.
HATCH JAMES & DODGE
[address]
EMAIL

Scott E. Gant, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]

Frederick S. Frei, Esq.
ANDREWS KURTH
[address]

Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]
EMAIL

Mr. Alan L. Sullivan, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]
EMAIL

Todd M. Shaughnessy, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]
EMAIL

Mark J. Heise, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]

EMAIL

Mr. Kevin P McBride, Esq.
[address]
EMAIL

Robert Silver, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]

Mr. David W Scofield, Esq.
PETERS SCOFIELD PRICE
[address]
EMAIL


  


SCO and IBM Stipulate to Small Delay on Filings Until Nov. 30 and It Is So Ordered | 97 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 02:33 AM EST
You know the drill.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 02:35 AM EST
Post items that are no pertinent to this article here.

Don't forget to create clickable links like this...

<a href='someurl.com'>LINK TEXT</a>

[ Reply to This | # ]

Slightly OT: When will the court reschedule 12/9 hearing?
Authored by: fudisbad on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 05:07 AM EST
They'd better get moving: we have 2 weeks, about 5 orders (hopefully, probably
3) and about 6 other legal filings to deal with (3 overlength?) before then. If
they don't file an amended notice of hearing, would the old one still stand?

---
FUD is not the answer.
FUD is the question.
The truth is the answer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Official "The SCO Group" Positions - 39 days without an official post
Authored by: fudisbad on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 06:02 AM EST
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.

PJ says you must be on your very best behavior.

If you want to comment on this thread, please post under "OT"

---
FUD is not the answer.
FUD is the question.
The truth is the answer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Working the Holiday
Authored by: spuluka on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 07:09 AM EST
Well, I guess that means all the worker bees on both sides won't have much of a
Thanksgiving break. I feel sorry for them.

These must be some heavily researched replies.

---
Steve Puluka
Pittsburgh, PA

[ Reply to This | # ]

Filings
Authored by: jbeadle on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 09:22 AM EST
"... the one I personally can't wait to read. " PJ

Hmmm. My bet is that all (or most) filings will be sealed. Ugh.

-jb

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Filings - Authored by: PJ on Friday, November 26 2004 @ 05:33 AM EST
What about the Sept 14?
Authored by: grubber on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 10:07 AM EST
Man, it's been two months, and still not an inkling on IBM's PSJ? Hopefully
we'll hear something soon!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Game over?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 12:54 PM EST
I am getting the feeling that the lawyers on both sides as well as the judge know this trial is over.

Where before we had a flurry of activity from all sides, now we see unanimous stipulations of delay over delay with little sign that IBM is still pushing. SCO's counsel no longer needs to work hard: They're on fixed income now and they know the case is lost based on the truckload of depositions in IBM's favor. IBM's counsel know the case is won so they're hapy to go to a more sane pace and let the case die quietly.

Judge Kimball seems to be taking time off to prepare a water tight opinion with which to deal the coup de grace to SCO.

Good riddance!

[ Reply to This | # ]

How many people does it take to make a judgement?
Authored by: N. on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 03:06 PM EST
Just wondering this: both SCO and IBM have thrown a lot of case law at the Judge
in their filings, so presumably the Judge has to read up on all those cases to
check that they really are applicable.

That's a LOT of reading.

Question: is it only the Judge who does the reading, thinking, and eventually
writing the judgement? Or is there a team in the background that double-checks
his work for accuracy?

---
N.
(Recent [well, since mid-2003] convert to Linux)

[ 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 )