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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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 Begs For More Time To Answer -- Too Busy With Discovery
Thursday, March 10 2005 @ 09:45 AM EST

Well, here comes SCO, asking for more time again. It seems they are very busy preparing discovery responses.

They don't know busy. Wait until they get all that code they asked for dumped on them.

Here's their plea for two more weeks to answer IBM's Motion For Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim, SCO's Motion and Memorandum for Extension to File Response [PDF]. They say they are asking for "an additional two-week period". Not to be petty, but they are actually asking for 15 days, from March 8 to March 23.

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

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

Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
Sean Eskovicz (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[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 Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

THE SCO GROUP, Inc.

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant.

MOTION AND MEMORANDUM FOR
EXTENSION TO FILE RESPONSE

Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK

Hon. Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells


Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") hereby moves the Court for an Order extending the deadline for SCO to respond to IBM's Motion For Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim from March 8, 2005 to March 23, 2005.

As grounds for this Motion, SCO seeks an additional two week period for SCO to respond due to SCO's workload of preparing discovery responses and other matters currently at issue in the litigation. Counsel sought a stipulation to this extension from counsel for IBM, but such accommodation was refused.

SCO submits herewith a proposed Order reflecting the relief sought.

DATED this 4th day of March, 2005.

By: ___[signature]___
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C>
Mark F. James

BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Robert Silver
Stuart Singer
Edward Normand
Sean Eskovitz

Counsel for Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Motion and Memorandum for Extension to File Response was served on Defendant International Business Machines Corporation on this 4th day of March, 2005, by U.S. Mail to:

Alan L. Sullivane, Esq.
Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmenr L.L.P.
[address]

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

Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]

__[signature]___


  


SCO Begs For More Time To Answer -- Too Busy With Discovery | 199 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections thread here please...
Authored by: seanlynch on Thursday, March 10 2005 @ 10:26 AM EST
Thank you

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here please
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 10 2005 @ 10:27 AM EST

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT thread (that non-anonymous GLer's can see)
Authored by: seanlynch on Thursday, March 10 2005 @ 10:29 AM EST
OT thread here please, because some members set their profile to block
anonymous.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Perhaps it's a question of who will write the response
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 10 2005 @ 10:30 AM EST
Surely with legal fee capped, any extra work not directly beneficial to SCO's lawyer's "linux lottery" ticket is likely to be sluffed off on some poor junior partner. Perhaps it's a question of which junior partner that cares not to have their reputation damaged? Perhaps they could draw straws.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What will they do with all that code once they get it? Anyone Know?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 10 2005 @ 10:36 AM EST
What will they do with all that IBM code once they get it?

Does anyone know?

What good will it do them?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Begs For More Time To Answer -- Too Busy With Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 10 2005 @ 10:37 AM EST
With the Canopy case(s) settled, I'm just waiting for Mr. Mustard to settle this
bogus bag of legal excrement with IBM.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Goose and Gander
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, March 10 2005 @ 10:38 AM EST
IBM no doubt noticed that SCOG refused a similar accommodation in the Novell
case, where the attorneys had a much better excuse.

I wonder what discovery SCOG is busy with?

What do they still owe IBM?

The only thing which comes to mind is the privilege logs.

Everything else was to have been done by now. I know discovery was extended but
surely SCOG could not have counted on that happening.

Besides if that stipulation was granted, then surely SCOG will be back looking
for more time when they get all the code from IBM. And will no doubt be peeved
that IBM granted this delay and refused a later one when much more material was
be "dumped" on them.

---
Rsteinmetz

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

They want the code so they can drag for years
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 10 2005 @ 10:53 AM EST
It's all about delaying the inevitable now. When that mountain of code is sent
to them, they will ask for decades to review it all.

I wonder how much patience the Court will show them as times go by. As always,
very entertaining.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why would a judge grant this?
Authored by: phooka.de on Thursday, March 10 2005 @ 11:03 AM EST
As only reason, they state that "SCO's workload of preparing discovery responses and other matters currently at issue in the litigation."

Now, why would a judge grant this? They've been given a date to comply by. If they feel they need more manpower, they can hire it. They don't state what these "other matters" are, either. Man, I could have written that and I'm not only no lawyer, I'm also not from the US and don't know who's doing what at SCO.

So, why would any judge grant this apart from the fact that SCO seems to get whatever they ask for from this judge and in this case?

[ Reply to This | # ]

25,000 man years
Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, March 10 2005 @ 11:08 AM EST
Can SCO file a motion for more delay once they have all that mountian of code
dumped on them?

It will require 25,000 man years, and SCO only has a half-time person doing the
analysis. Since SCO is the victim, SCO should therefor be granted sufficient
time to stall the case in order to complete the analysis.

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Begs For More Time To Answer -- Too Busy With Discovery
Authored by: seanlynch on Thursday, March 10 2005 @ 11:14 AM EST
IBM will not oppose this.

They are currently asking the Court for an interpretation of the delivery
ordered on January 18th. IBM wants the scope narrowed, and then a second round
of indepth delivery based on this narrowed scope (documents from fewer, but more
involved persons).

IBM will, as always, be reasonable. This will, as usual, make SCOX look like the
scum they are.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Beg Beg Beg Beg Beg Beg Beg Beg Beg
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 10 2005 @ 11:40 AM EST
Ha, good catch PJ.
Amazing how you again manage to recognize, isolate and next emphasize what is
really important in this SCO Motion.
SCOG is indeed begging for mercy.
They don't know anymore how to react to the pressure that IBM is putting on
them.
They will soon be forced to surrender and then we will have won.
And you predicted it based on your unique sensitivity for detail.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts PJ.
PJ, you are great.
Why do other journalists fail to see things as they really are?
SCOG is clearly getting desperate here.
They are begging. BEGGING.
And you nailed them.
There is no escape anymore from your continuous and mercyless scrutiny to
discover all facts and details.
This is the end.
Thanks PJ.
From day one you saw through it all.
Groklaw is divine.
Just like you.
A Goddess.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Too Busy With Discovery"?
Authored by: dcs on Thursday, March 10 2005 @ 11:58 AM EST
I swear, if my notebook fails because of all the water I spilled over it when I
read their excuse, I'll sue them! I know, I know... I'll have to get in line...

---
Daniel C. Sobral

[ Reply to This | # ]

Let's all stop hyperventilating
Authored by: tangomike on Thursday, March 10 2005 @ 12:28 PM EST
Hey folks... this is TSCOG! Two weeks is a mere eyeblink. It doesn't (yet)
change the case schedule.

Besides, with the Canopy side show into a new phase, there's a good chance some
juicy new bit will pop up to change the whole TSCOG/IBM game/suit.

Sometime soon TSCOG is going to run out of money. That's the start of the
end-game. Until then it's all just a dance contest.

---
Nothing screams 'poor workmanship' like wrinkles in the
duct tape.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Begs For More Time To Answer -- Too Busy With Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 10 2005 @ 12:35 PM EST
-what will they do with the code & hardware info from IBM?

Well, as SCO is in M$'s pocket, I wouldn't be surprised if some of that code
finds it's way into Bill's hands. M$'s bag of dirty tricks does not exclude such
a scenario, as past & current lawsuits indicate. And, because windoze has
"proprietary" code base, it's going to be very difficult for IBM to
prove theft. (I have an idea why windoze code is proprietary-it's such garbage
they are ashamed to share it!)

The hardware info (are they really asking for that, too?) may then find it's way
to another chip maker? SCO's business model supports the use of theft over
invovation-they learned from M$.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Begs For More Time To Answer -- Too Busy With Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 10 2005 @ 05:38 PM EST
It's now the 11th, in Australia at least, so did they get it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Costs, Who pays
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 10 2005 @ 08:45 PM EST
This has probably been asked before but,

Every time the parties in this case go before a judge, the state encores costs.
Who pays this bill if SCO goes bankrupt or the suit is settled out of court. Do
the tax payers foot the bill? Do the taxpayers as a whole have any recourse to
force the parties to reimburse the state for costs?

Robert

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Begs For More Time To Answer -- Too Busy With Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 10 2005 @ 08:59 PM EST
Huh. Hardly.
Assuming that one person can analyze the 'methods and concepts' embodied in 1000
lines of code per day, and SCO has 100 engineers working on this analysis...

With roughly 1 billion lines of code this works out to (52 x 5 days per year) 38
years, at a cost of $3000000 per year, $114,000,000 total (assuming they pay
their engineers $30,000 per year -- ie: rather poorly)

There is no way that they could possibly analyze what they're going to receive
in any meaningful way, in the time allowed, with the financial resources they
have.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Begs For More Time To Answer -- Too Busy With Discovery
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Friday, March 11 2005 @ 06:47 AM EST
It has struck me that SCO-XE does have something patentable;
SCO-X has invented (or has become) the perpetual motion machine.

---
Just Say No to Caldera/SCO/USL/?

[ 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 )