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
Kimball Grants IBM the 45-Day Extension and More
Friday, March 18 2005 @ 01:14 AM EST

Judge Kimball comes through. He has granted IBM their 45-day extension, and he also says they don't have to turn over the materials that are the subject of their Motion for Reconsideration until the court rules on that motion, which is exactly what IBM asked for. They submitted this proposed order.

IBM filed its Motion for 45-Day Extension of Time to Comply with 1/18/05 Order on March 9, and SCO filed an Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for 45-Day Extension of Time to Comply with 1/18/05 Order on March 15, 2005. This order is dated March 16. I take it, then, that Judge Kimball signed the order without waiting for IBM to reply to SCO's opposition memo. I believe that is a first, isn't it? It's certainly rare. But he heard enough already, I gather. So much for SCO's strained and tacky argument about IBM failing to submit an affidavit. It's certainly the first time I can remember where an order was signed before we had the motion briefs transcribed and up on Groklaw.

If I were SCO, I believe, at this point, I'd be quiet as a little mouse.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,


v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
[Proposed]
ORDER RE IBM'S MOTION FOR 45-
DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO
COMPLY WIH 1/18/05 ORDER



Civil No. 2:03CV-0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

Based upon IBM's Motion for a 45-day Extension of Time to Comply with the 1/18/05 Order, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. IBM shall have until May 3, 2005, within which to produce the materials required by the Court's January 18, 2005, Order.

2. With respect to the materials that are the subject of IBM's Motion for Reconsideration of the January 18, 2005 Order Regarding SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel, IBM shall not be required to produce such materials until the Court has ruled on that motion.

Dated this 16th day of March, 2005.

BY THE COURT

____[signature of Dale A. Kimball]____
United States District Court
District of Utah


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 9th day of March, 2005, a true and correct copy of the foregoing [proposed] ORDER RE IBM'S MOTION FOR 45-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH 1/18/05 ORDER was served by hand delivery on he following:

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

and by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the following:

Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

Robert Silver, Esq.
Edward Normand
Sean Eskovitz
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

___[signature]___


United States District Court

for the

District of Utah

March 17, 2005

* * 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]

Stuart H. Singer, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]

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

Mr. Michael P. O'Brien, Esq.
JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & McDONOUGH
[address]


  


Kimball Grants IBM the 45-Day Extension and More | 125 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Kimball Grants IBM the 45-Day Extension and More
Authored by: Mistlefoot on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 01:17 AM EST
"and he also says they don't have to turn over the materials that are the
subject of their Motion for Reconsideration until the court rules on that
motion."

What does that mean?

When the court states what does have to turned over how long would IBM typically
have to produce this material?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Kimball Grants IBM the 45-Day Extension and More
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 01:57 AM EST
No, no, no. Not quiet as a mouse. Please not. Not only do I then miss my daily
entertainment, but SCO really should appeal this decision on grounds that the
judge didnt take time to look at IBM's reply.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: jbb on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 01:59 AM EST
To make them easy to find.

---
SCO cannot violate the covenants that led to and underlie Linux without
forfeiting the benefits those covenants confer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here please
Authored by: jbb on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 02:01 AM EST
Best to make links clickable.

Post in HTML mode.

Preview and check links.

---
SCO cannot violate the covenants that led to and underlie Linux without
forfeiting the benefits those covenants confer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could this be a shift?
Authored by: jbb on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 02:21 AM EST
Maybe this is an indication of a shift in the case from the phase of:
the wheels of justice grinding slowly

right through the phase of:

Do not pass Go, do not collect $699

directly into the phase of:

grinding up SCO exceedingly fine.

---
SCO cannot violate the covenants that led to and underlie Linux without forfeiting the benefits those covenants confer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Was This a Little Quick?
Authored by: AH1 on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 02:36 AM EST
OK call me cynical, but somehow Judge Kimball's granting of this extension seems
to have happened in a hurry. After all SCO filed their memo opposition on the
afternoon of 16 March. Judge Kimball granted the extension on 17 March. This
does not seem to be the "normal" timeline for this case. Could Judge
Kimball be sending SCO a message?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Moving forward, carefully
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 02:40 AM EST
Sounds a lot like a judge who is fed up. His Honor must be careful in such a
situation not to act in such a way as to enable appeals later. In this case
nothing of substance is decided by this order, so that is not an issue. So he
moved forward in timely fashion, as any good judge should. I hope we see
more of this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Kimball Grants IBM the 45-Day Extension and More
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 04:56 AM EST
The Reply Memorandum was actually filed first. It was filed on March 14, and
SCO's Memorandum in Opposition was filed on March 15. Presumably, IBM was
working on an advance copy, or SCO's lawyers didn't get around to filing their
Memorandum until some time after they sent out copies to the parties.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Active Case Management"
Authored by: overshoot on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 05:47 AM EST
I think we're beginning to see what His Honor means by "active case management:" he's not going to allow any more several-month periods of "consideration." When something hits the Clerk's office, it gets routed directly to him and he reads it right away for immediate handling.

That, or he granted IBM's motion for extension as automatically as he has all of SCOXE's so far and their memo in opposition never even got considered.

Any thoughts on which?

[ Reply to This | # ]

    If SCO were PJ:
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 06:02 AM EST
    "If I were SCO, I believe, at this point, I'd be quiet as a little
    mouse."

    If only SCO had half as much sense as PJ, there would be no Groklaw, this
    lawsuit, or this crazy Stock Scam company.

    Caldera would still be a much loved and trusted company, and would probably give
    RedHat and Novell some serious compitition in the Linux server market.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Kimball Grants IBM the 45-Day Extension and More
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 06:49 AM EST
    If I were SCO, I believe, at this point, I'd be quiet as a little mouse.

    It could be that the SCO legal team has never heard the tale of the lawyer who filed the overlength memo to cry wolf.

    ---
    Are you a bagel or a mous?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Kimball Grants IBM the 45-Day Extension and More
    Authored by: oldgreybeard on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 08:54 AM EST
    Well at this rate SCOXE will be out of money.

    They need a dull black knight to rescue them, or they'll need to can all of
    their remaining worker bees..

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Is the judge taking a risk in doing this?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 09:33 AM EST

    Earlier discussions suggested that judge Kimball
    was being very careful - "dotting his i's and crossing
    his t's" to make sure SCO had no grounds whatsoever
    for appeal.

    Now judge Kimball is doing something he hasn't done before,
    something that is clearly to the benefit of IBM.

    Is there any chance that SCO could try to leverage this
    for appeal.

    Perhaps I should rephrase this - Is there any chance that a relatively sane
    company could try to leverage this for appeal?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Kimball Grants IBM the 45-Day Extension and More
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 10:26 AM EST
    He saw IBM's request, and thought it was a fair request.
    He saw TSCOG's reply, and found nothing in it to change
    his mind.

    So when he got IBM"s reply to TSCOG's reply, He did not
    have/need any reason to "NOT" sign the order as proposed
    by IBM. So he signed it.

    Remember that based on what we have seen of Judge Kimball,
    he is an intellegent man and that, he "gets it".

    George

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    IBM press-review la SCO
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 01:48 PM EST
    If IBM would follow SCO's behaviour, they'd say something like: "today, the
    court delivered another deafening blow to SCO, the nuisance unix company".
    ;)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Could there be a connection between SCO's oppostion to IBM extension, and SCO v AZ
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2005 @ 01:10 AM EST
    This might be way out there... it seems an unlikely idea even to me (and I thought of it)... but I can't get this nagging thought out my mind that there might be this connection that we ain't seeing... so I thought I'd run the idea past you guys and gals:


    I was wondering whether SCO might be hoping to use the IBM discovery production in the AutoZone case (I do not know if this would be proper - and anyway, personally, IMHO, I do not think they have any realistic hope of analyzing it in days [let alone finding anything] - but if they're desparate, you never know what they might try).

    The reason I make this speculation, is the dates coincide, sort of, and they would explain why SCO would not want IBM to have more than an 18 day extension at the absolute maximum (and even 18 days assumes SCO can decide how to use IBM material against AutoZone in 1 day).


    Consider...


    First AutoZone 46 - Dated 18 January:

    1. The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") shall have 60 days from the date this Stipulation and Order is entered with the Clerk to complete all relevant party and non-pary discovery set forth in Paragraph 3(b) of the Court's August 6, 2004 Order.


    i.e. 18 January + 60 days = 17 March or thereabouts

    2. Paragraph 3(d) of the Court's August 6, 2004 Order shall be amended as follows:

    "If SCO chooses to file a motion for preliminary injunction, such preliminary injunction motion and supporting memorandum of authorities, shall be filed within 20 days of the conclusion of discovery set forth in Paragraph 3(b)."


    i.e. 17 March + 20 days = 6 April or thereabouts


    COMPARE AND CONTRAST...

    - IBM discovery (AIX/Dynix/CMVC) production - original planned date - 18 March, which leaves SCO 19 days to use IBM produced material to prepare preliminary injunction motion against AutoZone.

    - IBM discovery (AIX/Dynix/CMVC) production - with 2 week delay (as SCO requested the maximum) = 1 April, which would leave SCO 5 days to use IBM produced material to prepare preliminary injunction motion against AutoZone.

    - IBM discovery (AIX/Dynix/CMVC) production - with 45 day delay (as IBM requested and got) = 2 May, which would mean SCO would have to decide whether to file their preliminary injunction motion against AutoZone, before produced.


    Thoughts?


    Quatermass
    IANAL IMHO etc

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Kimball Grants IBM the 45-Day Extension and More
    Authored by: elderlycynic on Monday, March 21 2005 @ 04:58 AM EST
    Yes. Even as a layman, I read that as saying:

    SCO, your reply was legally vacuuous polemic, so IBM need
    not waste time writing a reply, and I need not waste time
    reading it.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Now That's Funny PJ
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2005 @ 05:43 PM EST
    "When asked what settlement figure was acceptable to him and the SCO board,
    McBride jokingly said it would have to be 'more than our current market
    capitalization but less than $5 billion.'" (eWEEK, SCO Plans for the
    Future, March 23, 2005, By Peter Galli and Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols).

    [ 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 )