decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
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



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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

IBM Files 2 Executives' Declarations
Monday, January 09 2006 @ 02:58 PM EST

You'll recall that at the last hearing, Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells decided that IBM should provide affidavits from a couple of more executives as to what they did to comply with SCO's discovery requests, as Frank Sorenson's report told us:
SCO's Motion to Compel Production from IBM's Execs: Wells took a short recess to read up on a few things before making a finding that IBM has acted in good faith with respect to the production of documents from Palmisano & Wladawsky-Berger. In light of wording used in the February 2004 hearing, the March 2004 order was meant to include Paul Horn & Nick Bowen. IBM has stated that they have produced documents from their files, and should provide affidavits stating that IBM has performed a reasonable search of their files and produced responsive, non-privileged documents. If SCO believes the production is insufficient, they should ask the individuals during depositions (which, if taken, won't count against the 50 allowed). SCO's Motion is therefore GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.

Friday was the day for IBM to do that, and IBM filed two executive declarations on Friday. One affidavit is from Nicholas S. Bowen [PDF], Vice President, Software Development, IBM Systems & Technology Group, and the other is from Paul M. Horn [PDF], Senior Vice President, IBM Research, as ordered.

They both say that the lawyers told them what to look for, and they did, and they turned it over to the lawyers for review, and that they believe all the responsive materials were provided to SCO. Mr. Horn's administrative assistant helped him look, as did the lawyers, in December. Mr. Bowen looked, with the lawyers, in September and turned over what they found initially, and since then, he's found more and turned that over as well.

So, that's that. Of course, if SCO could ever find anything that the two executives hid in a shoebox somewhere on purpose, or trip them up in a deposition somehow, they could undermine the credibility of the two executives and hence IBM could be punished by the judge or whatever. You'll remember how IBM showed by deposition material that William Broderick's claim in his declaration that he had been uninterruptedly employed by SCO or its purported predecessors turned out not to be precisely true. As a result, the court ruled that his affidavit was insufficient to establish transfer of privilege, and IBM won its motion to compel production of documents on SCO's privilege log.

That's the kind of thing SCO is hoping for. But frankly, you don't normally get to be a Vice President at IBM by hiding things in shoeboxes and then lying about it in affidavits. Consequently, I don't expect anything like what happened to Mr. Broderick to happen to either of these two, but I'm just explaining the purpose of the affidavits, so you understand the underlying chess moves.


IBM Files 2 Executives' Declarations | 102 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT Here
Authored by: Chani on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 03:17 PM EST
whee! I'm first!

remember to make links clicky, and put a space in
somewhere harmless so that the link doesn't get broken up.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: Chani on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 03:24 PM EST
it just took me 3 minutes to find the "reply" button.
I'll go sit in the corner now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Still can't get to consortiuminfo
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 03:34 PM EST
Even if I give it the IP address ( instead of the hostname.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Authored by: kjb on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 03:41 PM EST
No problem here. this should be in OT thread

keith.burt at gmail dot com
Copyright info in bio

"No! Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."
- Yoda

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm sure Novell has been . . .
Authored by: Latesigner on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 05:01 PM EST
following this all along.
Just what are the chances of the judge granting their request for the

The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Penalty and perjory
Authored by: IMANAL on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 05:27 PM EST
I note that all of IBM's people (as far as I can remember) have declared their
declarations to be true under penalty and perjory. Have SCO produced anything
like that, e.g. William Broderick's? If his was, was would happen then, to him
as his original answer was not completely true?

IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Files 2 Executives' Declarations
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 06:21 PM EST
So SCO's "granted in part" motion won them -- these 2 brief
documents, and no substantive information or advantage.

Whereas SCO's "denied in part" motion requires them to disgorge
documents sought by IBM, which reveal the inner discussions and evaluations from
counsel to mgmt regarding earlier transactions and sales of the UNIX business.

Way to go, SCO!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

At Least One Shoebox Won't Be Found
Authored by: jcjodoin on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 06:42 PM EST

FWIW (for what its worth), when I was younger (a mere toddler), my family lived
next door to and my dad was in
graduate school with one of the mentioned execs. Our
families were good enough friends that we visited them
in several locations across the country and they've since
visited with my parents. The night my mom went in to labor
for my sister's birth, they watched me. I can vouch,
assuredly, that for at least one of the execs (and I would
dare say for both of the execs), that a shoebox full of
Linux information doesn't exist.

Just my two cents, you mileage may vary,


"The five fingered hand in the ocean ... swimming
with aligator fishes ..."

[ 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 )