|
|
| Scheduling Orders in SCO v. IBM |
 |
|
Saturday, February 12 2005 @ 06:58 AM EST
|
Two new scheduling orders have issued in the SCO v. IBM case, by Judge Brooke C. Wells. Both are on stipulation by the parties. First, there is Order Re Briefing of Pending Motion [PDF], which is the one about whether or not Sam Palmisano will be forced to be deposed. IBM has until February 18 to file any objections, and then SCO has until March 11 to respond. Second, there is an Order Re Deadlines for Filing Privilege Logs and Objections [PDF]. Both parties have until March 11 to file them and each can file objections to the other's privilege log no later than April 9, 2005.
Pacer also lists some documents that are not yet available, including IBM's memorandum in opposition to renewed motion to compel discovery, and that would be their objections to Wells' discovery order. It will no doubt be made available in a day or so.
Here is the Pacer listing:
2/4/05 395 Memorandum by Intl Bus Mach Inc in opposition to [190-1]
renewed motion to compel discovery (blk)
[Entry date 02/08/05]
2/4/05 396 Certificate of service re: discovery by Intl Bus Mach Inc
(blk) [Entry date 02/08/05]
2/8/05 397 Certificate of service re: discovery by Intl Bus Mach Inc
(blk) [Entry date 02/08/05]
2/11/05 399 Stipulation by Intl Bus Mach Inc to extend time for filing
privilege logs no later than 3/10/05; objections within 30
days thereafter, by 4/9/05 (blk) [Entry date 02/11/05]
2/11/05 400 Stipulation by Intl Bus Mach Inc to extend time on motion
briefing deadlines on SCO's Motion to Compel as follows:
IBM's memo in opposition due by 2/18/05; SCO's reply due by
3/11/05 (blk) [Entry date 02/11/05] So IBM has timely filed its memorandum in opposition to Judge Well's discovery order.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: fudisbad on Saturday, February 12 2005 @ 07:34 AM EST |
I've noticed these judges are also playing the delay game. First it was Wells
with her fishing license and cleaning out the scheduling order. Next it is
Kimball saying "no fireworks until discovery ends". Now add another
extension to what little legal entertainment have left. BORING! I know it's only
a week, but all those stipulations and orders add up very quickly (I might bet
there has been at least one year of delay ordered through the judges through
stipulation and Motions to Extend Time).
And Now For Something Completely Different... (Monty Python)
---
See my bio for copyright details re: this post.
This subliminal message has been brought to you by Microsoft.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Fourmyle on Saturday, February 12 2005 @ 07:56 AM EST |
| [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 12 2005 @ 08:48 AM EST |
PJ, are you sure that IBM's memorandum in opposition to SCO's renewed motion to
compel discovery has anything to do with their objections to Judge Wells' order?
At a minimum, it would be a weird styling. It seems to me that this is just a
memorandum in opposition to the motion that SCO filed on 12/23/2004. (There
have been two "SCO's renewed motion[s] to compel discovery": #190 and
#366. The pacer record says this is re: 190, but I think it's a clerk error.)
Regarding the discovery order, IBM wanted to submit a "motion for
reconsideration/clarification."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
