|
|
| IBM Gets More Time to Answer SCO's Motion and Objection to Judge Wells' Order |
 |
|
Saturday, November 19 2005 @ 02:49 AM EST
|
Pacer is showing that all the accountants have been served by IBM, and also that the parties stipulated to letting IBM have more time to answer SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery and its Objection to Magistrate's Order of 10/12/05. IBM has until November 21. It probably will be easy to answer both on the same day, since both the Motion and the Objection ask for identical relief. Here's the Pacer entry: 11/14/2005 - 557 - STIPULATION/MOTION for Extension of Time for IBM to
respond to SCOs Motion to Compel Discovery by 11/21/05, and for IBM to
respond to SCO's Objection to Magistrates Order of 10/12/05 by 11/21/05
filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (blk, )
(Entered: 11/15/2005)
11/14/2005 - 558 - **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** RETURN OF SERVICE Executed for
Subpoena served on Deloitte & Touche, c/o Thomas T. Rich on 11/9/05,
filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (blk, )
(Entered: 11/15/2005)
11/14/2005 - 559 - **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** RETURN OF SERVICE Executed for
Subpoena served on Ernst & Young, c/o David Jolley on 11/8/05, filed by
Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (blk, ) (Entered:
11/15/2005)
11/17/2005 - 560 - **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** RETURN OF SERVICE Executed for
Subpoena served on Arthur Andersen c.o CT corporation System on 11/9/05,
filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (kvs, )
(Entered: 11/18/2005) Restricted just means it isn't public. If you are curious about how a court decides what documents should be restricted, here's a paper on the subject. As you'll see, just because you are dragged into a lawsuit, it doesn't mean you lose all privacy rights or that the public has a right to know every personal detail in the case. "An individual has a right of privacy in personal information recorded by the
judiciary", the paper explains. And the public therefore has only a qualified right of access to court records.
The paper continues: Just because a person participates in the court process does not mean information
required and recorded by the courts should be available to the public. The information may be something in which there is a recognized property interest.
Much of the information is embarrassing, sensitive or simply not the proper
concern of others. The potential for personal harm or inconvenience is relevant in determining whether
a record is restricted. Thus, personal identifiers such as date of birth, social
security number, address, and telephone number might be classified as restricted. The court recognizes that some loonies might misuse personal identifiers, stalkers, for example, and so it responsibly restricts access to information that could cause danger. It also can restrict a document to protect a property interest or restrict documents the revelation of which could result in an unfair competitive advantage or injury. The public actually has an interest in having the courts protect such interests, because otherwise only the fearless or the irresponsible would ever go to court. So, there is a balance to be struck, and it is up to the court to make those decisions. I believe strongly in privacy rights. That's why, when the court mistakenly made public a sealed exhibit not long ago in a different case, Merkey v. Perens, Groklaw never published the exhibit, because I knew it was supposed to be under seal. I never even downloaded it from Pacer, because I knew it was not supposed to be made available to the public. And in fact, I took steps to make sure the mistake was brought to the attention of those able to correct it. Just a small footnote to that history that you might not know.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: ankylosaurus on Saturday, November 19 2005 @ 03:44 AM EST |
EOM.
---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ankylosaurus on Saturday, November 19 2005 @ 03:46 AM EST |
Please make links clickable, following the example on the comments page -
remember to post as HTML.
---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Merkey vs Perens - and Wallace vs FSF - What Happened - Authored by: ankylosaurus on Saturday, November 19 2005 @ 03:50 AM EST
- XPS could be one of the reasons MS won't support ODF. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 19 2005 @ 05:48 AM EST
- RMS gets in trouble at UN for wearing tinfoil hat - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 19 2005 @ 06:38 AM EST
- OT: UserFriendly on Sony Again - Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, November 19 2005 @ 06:55 AM EST
- Good article on intellectual property in today's Guardian - Authored by: billyskank on Saturday, November 19 2005 @ 08:43 AM EST
- To Ankylosaurus... a really OT story - Authored by: PSaltyDS on Saturday, November 19 2005 @ 09:12 AM EST
- Boycott Sony - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 19 2005 @ 09:12 AM EST
- Stop it - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, November 19 2005 @ 11:10 AM EST
- Stop it - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 19 2005 @ 11:47 AM EST
- Stop it - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 19 2005 @ 12:12 PM EST
- Boycott Sony - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 19 2005 @ 03:24 PM EST
- Diebold Sued in NC - Authored by: joef on Saturday, November 19 2005 @ 09:54 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 19 2005 @ 08:00 AM EST |
Think about it...
Without a right to privacy, we are not free. When people succeed in making your
business their business, that is the beginning of the end for freedom.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 19 2005 @ 08:00 AM EST |
There is a link in the news picks stating that Sony has identified all 52 of the
XCP'ed CDs. GL's stats-for-all (a big hand please ladies and gentlemen) has dug
out a list of 267 that appear to be affected.
--
MadScientist
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ak on Saturday, November 19 2005 @ 10:27 AM EST |
Do not blame the court. It was Jeffrey Vernon Merkey who seems to have made an
error when he filed the document. Judge Dale A. Kimball wrote in his order:
Plaintiff
filed a Verified Complaint in this matter on June 21, 2005, including a
confidential settlement agreement as Exhibit 2 to the Verified Complaint.
Plaintiff notified the court that he intended to file this exhibit under seal.
However, because it was not filed according to the court's rules regarding
sealed documents, the exhibit was scanned into the court's public electronic
docket.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
