|
|
| SCO's Deadline to Answer IBM's Motion to Compel Is Tomorrow |
 |
|
Thursday, October 20 2005 @ 07:33 PM EDT
|
IBM and SCO stipulated [PDF] to allow SCO a bit more time to answer IBM's
Motion to Compel Production of Documents on SCO's Privilege Log [PDF] and the Memorandum in Support [PDF], which we discussed briefly here. The deadline is tomorrow.
SCO is claiming privilege on documents created "by and for third parties" AT&T, USL, Novell, and Santa Cruz Operation, and IBM wants those documents. The judge has signed the Order giving SCO the extra time, according to Pacer, but it hasn't been scanned in yet.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: robertd on Thursday, October 20 2005 @ 07:48 PM EDT |
| Corrections here please [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ambiguity - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 20 2005 @ 07:59 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: robertd on Thursday, October 20 2005 @ 07:49 PM EDT |
| Off Topic here please [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Thursday, October 20 2005 @ 07:59 PM EDT |
...which I believe is another deadline for SCO (and for IBM, too, but I suspect
IBM is already prepared).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: GLJason on Thursday, October 20 2005 @ 08:58 PM EDT |
How can SCO even fight this motion? The law seems pretty clear on the subject.
Attorney-client confidentiality only extends between the attorney and the
client. When that information is disclosed to a third party, it loses its
protection. You still couldn't force the attorney or the client to divulge it,
but SCO was not the client when the documents were prepared for AT&T, USL,
or Novell.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, October 20 2005 @ 10:26 PM EDT |
I understand that privilege is broken when a third party is included. I'm a
little confused about what documents SCOG is claiming privilege over and a
little confused over the details of privilege.
It appears to me that SCOG is claiming privilege over documents which were
created by its purported sucessors ATT, USL, Novell and SCO. If those documents
were privleged when they were created and if SCOG is currently the sucessor to
those organizations does not the privilege survive the acquisition? That would
seem a logical result.
I imagine the case where in the middle of a long piece of litigation one of the
litigants is acquired by another company, are all prior communications between
the predecessor company and the attorneys no longer privileged? That seems, to
me at least, a perverse result.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dmarker on Friday, October 21 2005 @ 02:42 AM EDT |
Among the parts I enjoyed was the section in the Memorandum in Support (PDF pg
7 of 18) where IBM rubs tSCOgs nose in the fact that tSCOg are even daring to
claim privilige over Novell documents while at the same time being "adverse
parties in litigation pending before this court".
The judges reaction will be very interesting.
Doug M[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MplsBrian on Friday, October 21 2005 @ 09:15 AM EDT |
Maybe this comment will little more than evidence of my ignorance of court
and/or litigation protocols, but it seems odd to me that on 17 October, parties
agree that a 26 September deadline should be moved to 21 October. Shouldn't
such a thing be agreed to prior to the original deadline?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 21 2005 @ 09:58 AM EDT |
ATT, USL, Novell, etc. had legal documents created by and/or for their legal
counsel.
SCOG now has these docuemnts.
SCOG is claiming attorney-client privilege over these docuemnts.
Here is my confusion: So if SCOG did *NOT* have these documents, or at least did
not state they had these document in their privilege log, then IBM would have no
right to obtain them. But, IBM is arguing that since SCOG has these documents,
attorney-client privilege has since been destroyed and thus they should have
access to the documents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 21 2005 @ 10:04 AM EDT |
Just wondering when scox will again ask for more time, and again get it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 21 2005 @ 12:03 PM EDT |
| What would happen if SCO failed to answer in time? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 21 2005 @ 10:08 PM EDT |
Did SCO file it's reply?
I don't think it has any ability to obtain these records.
It would also be nice for IBM to request them from their original sources - such
as Novell, ATT, Santa Cruz - so we would be able to see for ourselves what SCO
wants to hide.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cricketjeff on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 06:05 AM EDT |
| Any sign that they did what they were supposed to? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
