It's a simple agreement to meet and confer before either side files a motion about their objections, and the order simply confirms that nobody has to answer anything at this time, not that it will work, in my opinion, given past behavior, but it's surely worth a try. You can tell who likely initiated this peaceful effort by who drew up the document, IBM's lawyers, which you can see from the header and the signature, and you can also tell because of who was served with it, SCO's lawyers. You serve whoever needs notice, and if you wrote the stipulation, you don't need notice of it, obviously.

And the order too was written by IBM, which is why it says "Proposed", which the Judge crossed out when he accepted the stipulation terms and signed the Order. You'll notice that Brent Hatch signed the proposed order too, to let the judge know that the other side has no objection. Letting the other side know what is happening is basic to the process, which is why the Boies Schiller attorney was sanctioned for serving a subpoena without notice in the Habie case.

So all indications are that this was an IBM suggestion. If it doesn't work, they can always say they tried.

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

SNELL & WILMER, L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651)
Amy F. Sorenson (8947)
[address, phone, fax]

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE, LLP
Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice)
David R. Marriott (7572)
[address, phone]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

______________________

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.

___________________

STIPULATION REGARDING
RESPONSES TO PRIVILEGE LOG
OBJECTIONS

Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

___________________

The parties, through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree that they will meet and confer regarding their respective privilege log objections filed with the Court on April 11, 2005. If the parties are unable to resolve their objections, they will notify the Court by motion. Therefore, no responses to IBM's Objections to SCO's Privilege Log and to SCO's Objections to IBM's Privilege Log and Memorandum in Support of SCO's Request to Compel IBM to Provide Proper Bases for its Privilege Claims are due at this time.

Based upon the foregoing, the parties hereby stipulate and move the Court for an order consistent with this Motion.

DATED this 2nd of May, 2005.

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
___[signature]___
Alan L. Sullivan
Todd M. Shaughnessy
Amy F. Sorenson

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

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

DATED this 2nd day of May, 2005.

HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.

___[signature]____
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of May, 2005, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the following:

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

Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER L.L.P.
[address]

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

___[signature]___

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

SNELL & WILMER, L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651)
Amy F. Sorenson (8947)
[address, phone, fax]

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE, LLP
Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice)
David R. Marriott (7572)
[address, phone]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

______________________

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 REGARDING RESPONSES TO
PRIVILEGE LOG OBJECTIONS

_________________________

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no responses to IBM's Objections to SCO's Privilege Log and to SCO's Objections to IBM's Privilege Log and Memorandum in Support of SCO's Request to Compel IBM to Provide Proper Bases for its Privilege Claims are due at this time.

DATED this 2nd day of May, 2005.

BY THE COURT

___[signature]___
United States District Court

Approved as to Form:

___[signature]___
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James

Attorneys for Plaintiff