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
Oracle Motion to Quash SCO's "Slapdash" Subpoena/Deposition Notice
Friday, February 03 2006 @ 04:06 PM EST

Well, it looks like Marbux had it about right. He guessed that SCO's subpoenas must have been defective and/or that their targets had filed motions to quash and SCO just didn't have the information yet because you can serve such things by mail, if you are a third party. Both happened.

There were defects in the subpoenas to at least two of the recipients, Oracle and The Open Group, and SCO knew there were. SCO didn't tell the Utah court that part in its motion, but I will tell you.

Oracle served a motion to quash or for a protective order in the alternative on January 26. Here's Oracle Corp.'s Motion to Quash Third Party Subpoena Duces Tecum or, in the Alternative, For a Protective Order as text. Pacer doesn't have it yet digitally (parties have 10 days to provide PDFs for that digital process) and so we had to stand on our heads a bit to get this. I'll have the PDF for you as soon as we have it done. But I've verified this for accuracy.

Update: here you go, all PDFs:

Motion
Kumar Declaration
Wadsworth Declaration
Subpoena
Notice

Our thanks go to dburns for picking it up at the courthouse and then to Frank Sorenson for disentangling the PDF.

We see attached to this motion a certificate of service that the motion was served on SCO attorney Ted Normand on January 26, but it was by mail, as Marbux guessed. Oracle says the subpoena is void, suffering from numerous procedural defects. But there is more to it. This is SCO, after all, so there are some tricky twists and turns.

Oracle says it contacted SCO about the procedural defects, something SCO chose not to mention to the court in Utah. Oracle lists all the defects, asking the court in California that the subpoena be quashed:

SCO should not be permitted to impose such slapdash discovery requests on nonparties at the very end of discovery, after it has had years to obtain the information in a more orderly fashion.

Oracle says it doesn't mind providing documents requested, subject to their objections, if SCO does so in harmony with Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(2)(B). This refers to all the procedural defects. In fact, in footnote 1, Oracle says it "timely" responded to the document requests, something SCO also didn't mention. What Oracle does object to is having to do depositions, in response to the subpoena and the Deposition Notice received:

Oracle moves the Court for an order quashing the Subpoena insofar as it purports to require deposition testimony or, in the alternative, for a protective order prohibiting the taking of any deposition testimony pursuant to the Subpoena. Oracle also moves the Court for a protective order prohibiting the taking of any deposition testimony pursuant to the Deposition Notice.

So, what do you think? Did SCO goof and make procedural errors because it is inexperienced and doesn't know how to practice law in the big leagues? Boies Schiller needs to go back to Federal Subpoena School? Joke. Joke. There is no such school. It's called law school.

This is the 4th subpoena Oracle has been served with so far in the SCO v. IBM action, we find out. IBM sent them two subpoenas, one of which was viewed by Oracle as too broad, and the second Oracle responded to. SCO sent them one subpoena prior to this. This one has to do with SCO's theory that IBM interfered with SCO's relationship with Oracle. ("The gist of SCO's claim is that IBM sought to interfere with SCO's relationship with other technology companies, including Oracle.")

Oracle says this subpoena is procedurally defective and thus void. So what did SCO do wrong, according to Oracle? For starters, "No witness fees were tendered...", Oracle states, the subpoena allegedly issued from the District of California, and there is no such district, and Ted Normand signed the subpoena, and he isn't authorized to practice in California, and Oracle questions if he is authorized in Utah either, I guess because he is appearing there in Utah pro hac vice only, and then this:

The Subpoena also calls for Oracle to appear on January 27, 2006 in Oakland, California and provide deposition testimony, though the Subpoena does not specify the subject matter of the testimony.... Separate from the Subpoena, SCO served, via U.S. mail, the Deposition Notice on Oracle.... SCO also faxed, to the "Oracle Corp. Legal Department," a copy of the Deposition Notice on January 11, 2006. The subject matters of the testimony specified in the Deposition Notice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) are the same seven subject matter areas specified in the Subpoena with respect to production of documents.... However, the Deposition Notice provides that the deposition is to take place in Armonk, New York, on January 27, 2006.

At no time prior to serving the Subpoena or the Deposition Notice did SCO confer with Oracle about the date on which it wished to conduct the deposition. Nor did SCO confer with Oracle after it served them....

The topics specified in the Deposition Notice appear to relate to SCO's claims that IBM interfered with SCO's business relations with Oracle.

You can't require a third party to travel more than 100 miles to a deposition, and Armonk is way more than 100 miles from California. So defects galore.

But here's the kicker. SCO didn't meet and confer with Oracle prior to sending the subpoena or afterward fix the problems brought to its attention, according to Oracle. When it got the subpoena, Oracle did contact SCO, it says, and asked SCO to narrow its requests, told them of the procedural defects in the subpoena, which SCO didn't offer in all particulars to fix, for example the witness fees, told them the date was impossible for their most knowledgeable person, and anyway it wasn't clear what state they had in mind. SCO didn't fix any of the issues.

So, when SCO told the Utah court that Oracle and the others were served but "failed" to respond, was that true? Here's SCO's method of telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth:

SCO served Rule 30(b)(6) subpoenas (as well as document requests) on each of these corporations requiring them to appear for depositions scheduled for January 27, 2006. The corporations did not appear for their depositions and have not filed motions to quash or motions for protective order.

Tricky, huh? It's literally true, but completely misleading. SCO and Oracle did talk to each other after the subpoena was received, on Oracle's initiative, and SCO, according to Oracle, just told them that while SCO had to quickly file, because of the deadline for discovery cutoff, they expected Oracle would file a motion to quash or for a protection order ("SCO simply stated that it expected 'that Oracle would file a motion for protective order regarding (at least) the timing of the subpoena before January 27,'" Oracle attorney John Wadsworth states in his supporting Declaration). Oracle had told them the subpoena was void, so they didn't even have to respond. SCO didn't say a word about that. Instead SCO said this:

Considering the corporations' failure to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on January 27, 2006 (today), SCO will file the appropriate motions to compel in the two jurisdictions from which the three subpoenas at issue were issued. In those motions, SCO intends to cite the precedent demonstrating that each of the three companies was given adequate notice and was obligated to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on the noticed topics (and to produce documents in response to the requests therein) -- or else should have filed a motion to quash or for protective order, which none of the three companies did.

If what Oracle states is so, do you see why I compared SCO to a toddler who tells you a whopper and then covers his head with a towel, thinking you can't see him? Does SCO imagine that in a case that attracts so much attention as this one that they can play the courts and not get caught? They actually asked the Utah court for relief *based on* Oracle and the rest failing to respond to the subpoena, without telling the court that they knew Oracle, at least, absolutely did intend to file.

Over and over, the same problem with these people. I'm sorry, but to anyone who values the truth for its own sake and particularly those of us who have deep respect for the legal system and know that it only works if it isn't cynically gamed, it's disgusting. There. I've said it. If Oracle's account is what really happened, it's disgusting to me. I don't relish the thought of these litigious folks maybe coming after me for speaking what I believe out loud, but this is still America, and somebody has to say it. I always used to admire David Boies, and it is so painful to me to see what I see. I also find it very hard to believe that SCO's lawyers made so many procedural mistakes unwittingly. They are pros, quite accustomed to large and complex cases involving more than one jurisdiction, not some local solo practitioner who might innocently goof because he doesn't know the process in another state. Anyway, these are *federal* rules of procedure, not local.

Here's what I believe: Respect for the law means you tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Lawyers should not speak like used car salesmen. Otherwise, the courts become a mockery, and we might as well go back to cowboy days, where might made right, and you just did whatever you could get away with. Most of us believe civilization involves rule of law, and that really does depend on honest men presenting their positions honestly to an honest and impartial judge, who will rule on the facts of the case and the law. That requires all to be forthright and truthful. I won't even go into the obligations we have to God and man to be truthful. Maybe on their deathbeds, SCO folk will think about such things, finally.

Oracle raises other objections as well. Why should Oracle have to be drawn into this, it asks:

Oracle has learned that SCO has only recently noticed Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of IBM on the same topics on which SCO seeks Oracle testimony.

Let SCO get the documents and testimony from IBM first, and then see if it still needs anything from Oracle. And some of what SCO is asking Oracle for has to do with contracts between Oracle and SCO. How stupid is that, Oracle in effect asks. They should look in their own files and ask their own people. "Why should SCO be permitted to force Oracle to produce a witness to testify on a contract Oracle may have signed with SCO eight years ago? This exceeds the scope of permissible discovery and imposes an undue burden on Oracle."

Speaking of over the top, SCO asks for irrelevant information too, Oracle states:

Even more egregious is SCO's demand for testimony relating to any instance in which Oracle has refused to certify "any version of any Oracle software product" to operate with "any operating system" over the past twelve years.

What does that have to do with their theory of the case? It's way too broad, in Oracle's estimation and burdensome. Let SCO at least tailor its requests to the needs of the case. To respond would force Oracle to provide information about confidential business relationships on matters not even tangentially related to this case. Anyway, SCO didn't give Oracle enough notice:

A mere two weeks is not adequate time for any counsel to identify the witnesses who would be required to testify, prepare those witnesses, and also determine a host of other issues such as whether any testimony would breach any nondisclosure obligation or whether any testimony would constitute Oracle confidential information that Oracle might wish to seek to protect even given that a protective order may be in place in this action. That is especially true in because Oracle is not a party. Oracle cannot be expected to drop everything and in two weeks, prepare and produce what would likely be the several witnesses that would be necessary in order for Oracle to meet its Rule 30(b)(6) obligations. And needless to say SCO cannot possibly claim that it had no choice on the timing because of the discovery cutoff. SCO has had ample time to notice these depositions two years, to be precise. SCO's tactics are not allowed under the Federal Rules. The Subpoena should be quashed and the Court should order that the deposition called for in the Deposition Notice not proceed.

Now here's the thing. SCO's motion in Utah to allow taking the depositions late did not attempt to argue grounds for extension of time other than lack of fault. The Oracle brief, however, paints a picture of a party very much at fault for the deposition not going forward as scheduled, as well as raising an undue burden defense, among others. The fun part, of course, is that SCO has to respond to the Oracle motion.

And oh, what a window into SCO's soul.

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

DORIAN DALEY (State Bar No. 129049)
JOHN V. WADSWORTH (State Bar No. 166838)
ORACLE USA, INC.
[address]
[phone]

Attorneys for
ORACLE CORP.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Michigan
corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION, a New
York corporation,
Defendant.
ORACLE CORP.'S MOTION TO QUASH
THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA DUCES
TECUM
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER;
[PROPOSED] ORDER


[CASE NO.: MISC., U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CASE NO. 2:03CV-0294

NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT at a time and date to be set by the Court, Non- Party Oracle Corp. ("Oracle") shall appear in the Northern District of California San Francisco Division, [address], San Francisco, California, and shall move

1

the Court for an order quashing a third-party Subpoena Duces Tecum to Oracle dated January 10, 2006 ("Subpoena"), which was served on Oracle by Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"). In the alternative, Oracle shall move the Court for a protective order prohibiting the discovery sought. Oracle shall also move the Court for a protective order prohibiting the taking of any deposition pursuant to a related Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition ("Deposition Notice") served separately by SCO on Oracle. This motion shall be made pursuant to Rule 26(c) and Rule 45(c)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-1. In support of its motion Oracle submits the Memorandum of Points and Authorities below, Declaration of John V. Wadsworth, Declaration of Monica Kumar, and the attached [proposed] Order.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Oracle moves the Court for an order quashing the Subpoena insofar as it purports to require deposition testimony or, in the alternative, for a protective order prohibiting the taking of any deposition testimony pursuant to the Subpoena.(1) Oracle also moves the Court for a protective order prohibiting the taking of any deposition testimony pursuant to the Deposition Notice.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS

SCO first filed suit against Defendant International Business Machines Corp. ("IBM") in March 2003 in Utah state court. The case was removed shortly thereafter and

2

is still pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division. IBM has counterclaimed against SCO. SCO's current operative complaint is the Second Amended Complaint, dated February 27, 2004 ("SAC"). A copy of the SAC is attached to the Declaration of John V. Wadsworth ("Wadsworth Decl.") as Exhibit A. IBM's current operative counterclaim is the Second Amended Counterclaim ("SACC") (Wadsworth Decl., Exh. B). The parties have been taking discovery for two years.

The action is a complex series of claims relating to the UNIX computer operating system software. (The SAC contains 214 paragraphs in 64 pages; the SACC contains 197 paragraphs in 48 pages.) SCO claims it owns the UNIX technology, and that IBM has misused and misappropriated SCO's software rights in distributing Linux open source software products. SCO has asserted claims for breach of various license agreements, copyright infringement, unfair competition, and interference with business relationships. In response, IBM claims that SCO has wrongly asserted rights over non-SCO products, including IBM's; and that SCO has infringed a number of IBM's patents and copyrights. IBM has asserted claims for breach of contract, Lanham Act violations, unfair competition, interference with business relationships, deceptive trade practices, promissory estoppel, copyright infringement, and patent infringement.

Oracle is the world's second largest independent software company. Oracle is primarily engaged in the business of creating, licensing, marketing, and distributing database software and business application software for financial, manufacturing, human resources, customer relationship management, and other business functions. The database software designed and licensed by Oracle enables the user to store, manage, and process very large amounts of data. The application software designed and licensed by

3

Oracle allows users to perform a variety of business functions such as managing employee records, maintaining financial statements, and monitoring product inventories. Declaration of Monica Kumar ("Kumar Decl."), 2.

Oracle designs its products to operate with the various products of many other computer software and hardware vendors, including IBM. For example, IBM designs and licenses operating system software widely used in corporate information technology departments, and Oracle designs versions of all of its products that will interoperate with IBM's operating system. Those specific versions of Oracle products may not work with any other operating system licensed by other software makers. Thus Oracle has many different "flavors" of its products, each of which is designed to interoperate with the hardware or software of another vendor. Kumar Decl., 3.

Oracle's corporate headquarters are located in Redwood Shores, California. All of the employees who would be designated to testify in response to the Deposition Notice are located at Oracle's headquarters. Wadsworth Decl., 6.

Oracle is not a party to this action. However, Oracle has already received and responded to a number of subpoenas in this action. The first subpoena was issued by IBM on March 19, 2004 and requested various documents relating to Oracle's business relationships with SCO and another affiliated company called The Canopy Group, Inc. The subpoena also requested documents relating to the Unix or Linux operating systems. IBM served a copy of the subpoena on SCO. Given the broad scope of the requests and the marginal relevancy to the action. Oracle objected to the vast majority of the requests and produced several documents. IBM agreed not to pursue the requests further. Wadsworth Decl., 7.

4

Oracle was served with a second subpoena from IBM on or about January 13, 2005. IBM served a copy of the subpoena on SCO. This subpoena requested testimony pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) relating to a series of topics similar to the topics in the previous request. Oracle responded to that subpoena to IBM's satisfaction. Wadsworth Decl., 8.

Oracle was served with a third subpoena dated October 24, 2005. This subpoena was issued by SCO and sought documents relating to any meetings, conversations, etc. between a group of seven large technology vendors, including Oracle, relating to creation of a so-called Linux Consortium. Oracle searched for any responsive documents and found none (the Oracle employee who had interfaced with this group no longer works for Oracle). However, Oracle worked with the other members of the group, who had also been subpoenaed, and documents were produced to SCO. Wadsworth Decl., 9.

The Subpoena at issue in this motion the fourth in this case served on Oracle was served on Oracle's agent for service of process, Corporation Service Company, on January 11, 2006. See Wadsworth Decl., 10 & Exh. C. Oracle received the Subpoena from CSC on January 12, 2006. Id. 10. No witness fees were tendered at that time, or since. Id. 10-12. The Subpoena calls for production of seven categories of documents. Id. Exh. C. The Subpoena also calls for Oracle to appear on January 27, 2006 in Oakland, California and provide deposition testimony, though the Subpoena does not specify the subject matter of the testimony. Id. Separate from the Subpoena, SCO served, via U.S. mail, the Deposition Notice on Oracle. See id. Exh. D. SCO also faxed, to the "Oracle Corp. Legal Department," a copy of the Deposition Notice on January 11, 2006. The subject matters of the testimony specified in the Deposition Notice pursuant to

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) are the same seven subject matter areas specified in the Subpoena with respect to production of documents. Id. However, the Deposition Notice provides that the deposition is to take place in Armonk, New York, on January 27, 2006. Id.

At no time prior to serving the Subpoena or the Deposition Notice did SCO confer with Oracle about the date on which it wished to conduct the deposition. Nor did SCO confer with Oracle after it served them. Wadsworth Decl., 10.

The topics specified in the Deposition Notice appear to relate to SCO's claims that IBM interfered with SCO's business relations with Oracle. In the SAC, SCO alleges that it "had existing or potential economic relationships with a variety of companies in the computer industry," and that IBM has intentionally interfered with those relationships. SAC 209-214. The SAC claims that "at Linux World in January, 2003 IBM representatives contacted various companies with whom SCO had existing or potential economic relations," that "IBM was discontinuing doing business with SCO," and that these other companies, "some of whom are business partners with IBM, also should discontinue doing business with SCO." SAC 210.

The deposition topics broadly cover several different areas:

  • Communications between Oracle and IBM relating to SCO or this lawsuit (Deposition Notice, Topics, 1, 2),

  • Oracle's decisions whether to certify "any version of any software product" to operate with SCO's operating system products (Deposition Notice, Topics, 3, 4).

  • Without any time or scope limitation whatsoever, Oracle's "business and contractual relationships" with SCO or two SCO-related companies (Deposition Notice, Topics, 5),

  • "All versions of all Oracle software products" certified since 1995 to operate with "any version of any Unix-based operating system" designed by any of the various companies that produce such products (Deposition Notice, Topics, 6), and

6

  • All instances in which Oracle has refused to certify "any version of any Oracle software product" to operate with "any operating system" since 1995 (Deposition Notice, Topics, 7).

On January 19th, counsel for Oracle contacted counsel for SCO and advised him that the Subpoena and related Deposition Notice were defective because, among other things, the applicable witness fees were not tendered; the Subpoena was issued out of the "District of California," which does not exist; and because the Deposition Notice specifies that the deposition is to take place in Armonk, New York (even though the Subpoena specifies the deposition site as Oakland, California). Oracle also stated that the topics are overbroad, seek irrelevant testimony, and would require the production of several different witnesses. Oracle requested that SCO confer to discuss the possibility of agreeing to narrow the scope, or else Oracle would be required to file a motion to quash. Finally, Oracle's counsel advised that he was already scheduled to be in Burbank, California on the date specified for the deposition for a long-planned board of directors meeting. Wadsworth Decl., 11.

SCO's counsel responded on January 21st (January 21st was a Saturday and thus Oracle did not receive the response until Monday, January 23rd). SCO stated that SCO might be willing to agree to modify the scope of the Subpoena. However, SCO stated that the discovery cutoff in the case was Friday, January 27th, and SCO could not agree to move the date of the deposition. SCO did not respond as to where SCO expected the deposition to take place, Armonk or Oakland. Nor did Mr. Normand offer to tender the necessary witness fees. SCO simply stated that it expected "that Oracle would file a motion for protective order regarding (at least) the timing of the subpoena before January 27." Wadsworth Decl., 12. This motion followed.

7

II. ARGUMENT

Non-parties are afforded "special protection" from intrusive discovery requests served by parties to litigation. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Dep't of the Interior, 34 F.3d 774, 779 (9th Cir. 1994) (the Federal Rules "afford nonparties special protection against the time and expense of complying with subpoenas"); Dart Industries Co. v. Westwood Chemical Co., 649 F.2d 646, 649, 651 (9th Cir. 1980) (trial court properly quashed Rule 45 subpoena served on a nonparty); Cmedia, LLC v. Lifekey Healthcare, LLC, 216 F.R.D. 387, 389 (N.D. Tex. 2003). Under the Federal Rules, a court shall quash or modify a subpoena if the subpoena "fails to allow reasonable time for compliance," requires the party to travel more than 100 miles, or "subjects a person to undue burden." Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A). All of those factors are presented by SCO's Subpoena and Deposition Notice. In addition, the Subpoena and Deposition Notice are rife with defects that render them void and/or that render their service incomplete. Accordingly, this Court should quash the Subpoena and enter a protective order commanding that the deposition sought by SCO not be taken.

A. The Subpoena And Deposition Notice Are Procedurally Defective And Thus Void.

The Subpoena and Deposition Notice are procedurally defective and must be quashed for that reason alone. First, SCO has never attempted to confer with Oracle about the scheduling of the deposition, either before or after serving the Subpoena and the Deposition Notice. Wadsworth Decl., 10. On the day unilaterally selected by SCO for the deposition (January 27th), the Oracle in-house attorney who has handled all of the subpoenas in this action and who is familiar with the complicated history of this case is

7

scheduled to be in Burbank, California for a long-scheduled Board of Directors meeting for a board on which he sits. Id. 11. Thus this date is inconvenient for Oracle. SCO's failure to meet and confer violates Local Rule 30-1.

Second, the place set for the deposition Armonk, New York is more than 100 miles from Oracle's headquarters in Redwood City, California. Wadsworth Decl., 6. The Oracle employees that Oracle would be required to designate for these topics all work out of Oracle's headquarters, and thus they individually are more than 100 miles from Armonk, New York. Id. Oracle's counsel is also located at Oracle's headquarters in Redwood City, California. Id. The site designated in the Deposition Notice thus violates the 100-mile rule stated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(2). Rule 45 provides that a court shall quash a Subpoena if the subpoena violates this rule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(ii).

Third, SCO did not tender any witness fees with either the Subpoena or the Deposition Notice, and has not since tendered any witness fees despite having been advised of this omission. Wadsworth Decl., 10-12. This violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1), which provides that where attendance at a deposition is required, service shall include the "tendering to that person the fees for one day's attendance." Indeed the Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 45 "requires the simultaneous tendering of witness fees and the reasonably estimated mileage allowed by law with the service of a subpoena." CF&I Steel Corp. v. Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc., 713 F.2d 494, 496 (9th Cir. 1983) (emphasis added); see also In re Stratosphere Corp. Securities Litigation, 183 F.R.D. 684, 687. (D. Nev. 1999). The Ninth Circuit held that since the subpoenaing party in that case had not tendered the requisite fees, the District Court had properly quashed the subpoena. CF&I

9

Steel, 713 F.2d at 496; In re Stratosphere Corp. Securities Litigation, 183 F.R.D. at 687 (following CF&I Steel and quashing a third party Rule 45 subpoena)

Fourth, the Subpoena was signed, and thus "issued," by SCO's attorney Edward Normand, who is located in Armonk, New York. Under Rule 45, a subpoena may only be issued and signed by an attorney who is either "authorized to practice" in the court in whose name it is issued (here, the Northern District of California) or who is "authorized to practice" in the court in which the subject action is pending (here, the District of Utah). Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3). If Mr. Normand is not authorized to practice in either this District or the District of Utah, the Subpoena is defective and thus void.

Finally, the Subpoena purports to be issued out of the "District of California." There is no such federal judicial district. This defect violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2).

Each of the foregoing renders the Subpoena and/or the Deposition Notice void. SCO should not be permitted to impose such slapdash discovery requests on nonparties at the very end of discovery, after it has had years to obtain the information in a more orderly fashion. This Court should accordingly quash the Subpoena and enter an order commanding that the deposition not take place.

B. The Subpoena And Deposition Notice Seek Information That SCO Can Obtain From Parties To The Litigation Or That SCO Itself Should Already Possess.

A court shall quash a subpoena if the subpoena "subjects a person to undue burden." Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iv); Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions, 353 F.3d 792, 814 (9th Cir. 2003). Oracle has learned that SCO has only recently noticed Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of IBM on the same topics on which SCO seeks Oracle testimony. Wadsworth Decl., 13. SCO should be required to take these depositions

10

first and determine whether further discovery is needed of Oracle or any other third party before it seeks such non-party discovery. It is well settled under the law that litigants should seek discovery from parties to the litigation before attempting to burden nonparties with discovery requests. See, e.g., Haworth, Inc. v. Caruthers-Wallace Coutenay, Inc., 998 F.2d 975, 978 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (affirming trial court's decision to require litigant to seek discovery from opposing party before subpoenaing non-party); Richards of Rockford, Inc. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 71 F.R.D. 388, 391 (N.D. Cal. 1993) (refusing to require non-parties to produce discovery that litigant could obtain from opponent). In this case, SCO should be required to exhaust all means of obtaining such information from IBM before it burdens Oracle with yet another non-party subpoena.

The same reasoning applies with even greater force to the topics requiring SCO-related information. For example SCO demands that Oracle testify as to Oracle's "business and contractual relationships" with SCO or two SCO-related companies, at any time whatsoever in the past. Deposition Notice, Topics, 5. If SCO requires any such information in order to pursue its case, surely it can obtain such information within its own documents and from its own employees and executives, whether past or present. Why should SCO be permitted to force Oracle to produce a witness to testify on a contract Oracle may have signed with SCO eight years ago? This exceeds the scope of permissible discovery and imposes an undue burden on Oracle.

C. The Subpoena And Deposition Notice Seek Irrelevant Information.

A court shall quash a subpoena if the subpoena "subjects a person to undue burden." Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iv). SCO seeks deposition testimony from Oracle

11

on topics that are irrelevant to this case. The gist of SCO's claim is that IBM sought to interfere with SCO's relationship with other technology companies, including Oracle. See SAC. Presumably SCO contends that IBM somehow persuaded Oracle to decide not to certify its products with SCO's products.

Yet SCO demands that Oracle testify as to its decision whether or not to certify any of its products with any Unix-based operating system (whether or not SCO's) over the past twelve years. Deposition Notice, Topics, 6. This information is not relevant to SCO's claims. And producing this information would be very burdensome because Oracle has many dozens of different products, and virtually all of those products have many different individual versions. The request would likely require Oracle to produce information on literally hundreds of discrete product-version combinations. Kumar Decl., 4. Even more egregious is SCO's demand for testimony relating to any instance in which Oracle has refused to certify "any version of any Oracle software product" to operate with "any operating system" over the past twelve years. Deposition Notice, Topics, 7. Again, this is much too far removed from the subject matter of this case to be permitted. See Mattel, Inc., 353 F.3d at 813-14 (quashing nonparty subpoena that was "way too broad" and where "no attempt had been made to try to tailor the information request to the immediate needs of the case"); Cmedia, 216 F.R.D. at 389-90 (barring subpoena requests that were "facially overbroad because they seek extremely broad categories of documents evidencing communications and agreements between [the nonparty] and Lifekey as well as companies who are not party to the underlying litigation").

12

Several of the deposition topics are particularly problematic because they likely would require Oracle to discuss its confidential business relationships and product design strategies relating to technology products that are not SCO's and that have nothing to do with this case. This also constitutes an undue burden, particularly in light of the fact that the information is irrelevant to the litigation anyway. Cmedia, 216 F.R.D. at 389-90 (barring subpoena requests that called for production of confidential information).

D. The Subpoena And Deposition Notice Do Not Provide Oracle Adequate Time To Identify And Prepare Witnesses.

A court shall quash a subpoena if the subpoena "fails to allow reasonable time for compliance." Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(i). As described above, SCO has set this Rule 30(b)(6) deposition without any regard whatsoever to the realities of business and without any respect for the time of Oracle's employees or counsel. A mere two weeks is not adequate time for any counsel to identify the witnesses who would be required to testify, prepare those witnesses, and also determine a host of other issues such as whether any testimony would breach any nondisclosure obligation or whether any testimony would constitute Oracle confidential information that Oracle might wish to seek to protect even given that a protective order may be in place in this action. That is especially true in because Oracle is not a party. Oracle cannot be expected to drop everything and in two weeks, prepare and produce what would likely be the several witnesses that would be necessary in order for Oracle to meet its Rule 30(b)(6) obligations. And needless to say SCO cannot possibly claim that it had no choice on the timing because of the discovery cutoff. SCO has had ample time to notice these depositions two years, to be precise. SCO's tactics are not allowed under the Federal Rules. The Subpoena should be quashed

13

and the Court should order that the deposition called for in the Deposition Notice not proceed.

III. CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, Oracle respectfully requests that the Court order that the Subpoena be quashed or, in the alternative, that the Court issue a protective order prohibiting the discovery sought pursuant to the Subpoena. Oracle also respectfully requests that the Court issue a protective order prohibiting the taking of any deposition pursuant to the Deposition Notice.

DATED: January 26, 2006
ORACLE CORP.

By: (signature)
John V. Wadsworth
Attorney for non-party Oracle Corp.

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Michigan
corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION, a New
York corporation,
Defendant.
[PROPOSED] ORDER

[CASE NO.: MISC., U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CASE NO. 2:03CV-0294

For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Nonparty Oracle Corp.'s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum is GRANTED.

(line for Judge's signature)
Judge, United States District Court

15

PROOF OF SERVICE
THE SCO GROUP, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP.

I, Maya Beech, declare:

I am employed in the County of San Mateo, State of California, in the office of a member of the bar of this court, at whose direction the service was made. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is [address], Redwood City, California, [zip]. On the date set forth below I served the following:

ORACLE CORP.'S MOTION TO QUASH THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER and [PROPOSED]
ORDER

(X)By placing such a copy enclosed in a sealed envelope postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Postal Service for collection and mailing this day.
( )By hand delivery on this date.
( )By consigning such a copy to an express mail service for guaranteed delivery on this date.
( )By consigning such a copy to a facsimile operator for transmittal on this date.

I served the above on:

Edward Normand, Esq.
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
[address]

Amy F. Sorenson, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer LLP
[address]

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Redwood City, California on January 26, 2006.

(signature)
Maya Beech
Legal Assistant

16

  1. Oracle does not move for a protective order or an order quashing the Subpoena insofar as the Subpoena requests the production of documents. Oracle has timely served responses and objections to the document requests and expects that if SCO disagrees with Oracle's responses or objections and wishes to pursue the production of further documents pursuant to the Subpoena, SCO will do so pursuant to the procedures specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B).

    (Back to the main text)


  


Oracle Motion to Quash SCO's "Slapdash" Subpoena/Deposition Notice | 389 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT stuff here, please
Authored by: overshoot on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 04:23 PM EST
Details on how to post HTML with licky clinks in red at bottom of comment form.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 04:39 PM EST
If any

---
--Bill P, not a lawyer. Question the answers, especially if I give some.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not surprising, on SCO's part
Authored by: long_hair_smelly on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 04:46 PM EST
I can't wait for their response now!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two Questions
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 04:55 PM EST
It appears that IBM may have deposed someone from Oracle in their second
subpeona. Oracle may have responded other than with deposition, but it appears
that IBM requested one. Is that a correct reading?

It appears that one attorney with Oracle has been involved with this matter for
a long time. How could SCOG not know that and direct their motions correctly?

Finally it appears that SCOG is once again misrepresenting things to the court.
While Oracle responded to SCOG by mail Oracle knew they intended to and quite
possible Oracle faxed their motion to SCOG at the ame time they mailed it.



---
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 | # ]

  • Two Questions - Authored by: PJ on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 06:32 PM EST
Lawyers should not speak like used car salesmen.
Authored by: LarryVance on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 04:58 PM EST
Lawyers should not speak like used car salesmen.

If you do the rhyme game, you will discover that lawyer comes much closer to a pair with liar than does used car salesman.

Q. How can you tell if a lawyer is lying?

A. His mouth is moving

I used to have a lot of respect for the legal system until I came to the realization that there is no such thing as justice in our justice system. Our system is a system of rules and procedures only that you have to be a member of the elite club to play the game.

---
Never underestimate your influence!
Larry Vance

[ Reply to This | # ]

contempt?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 05:01 PM EST
Just how far can you push the truth before the judge sends someone away

[ Reply to This | # ]

So how much delay does this buy?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 05:02 PM EST
"...SCO simply stated that it expected "that Oracle would file a
motion for protective order regarding (at least) the timing of the subpoena
before January 27."...

SCOG's "expectation" to me says they deliberately made procedural
errors with the specific intention of getting such a motion filed.

So the question is; why? What does SCOG gain by this? My assumption is that
they somehow gain time, but I'm not clear how unless it was better for Oracle to
not respond at all?

What would have happened had Oracle just ignored this?

What happens now that the motion has been filed?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Timing question
Authored by: mexaly on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 05:07 PM EST
If this was filed on the 26th, was it possible for SCO to check with the
California court for the motion to quash, before telling the Utah court that
there were no such motions?

I realize the letter was in the mail.

I'm wondering if SCO could have, say, called up the clerk in California, to make
sure that what they were about to tell the Utah court was true.

---
My thanks go out to PJ and the legal experts that make Groklaw great.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"[would] become a mockery" ??
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 05:10 PM EST
I totally disagree. This time has long passed. They're already obviously quite a
mockery. SCO will not be punished for this. Their motion will get denied
*maybe*, but will the court impose sanctions or whatever on them for all these
false filings (and all the ones before)? No they won't. SCO keeps brazenly
asking that *everyone else* gets sanctioned and that they keep getting more of
what they want. Our courts are just as much a farse as the ones in Iraq, where
they have lawyers and defendants dragged from the courtrooms literally kicking
and screaming. Our snakes just wear nicer suits. This **is** a joke and it has
been for two years now. Sure, SCO just keeps getting more and more rope with
which to hang themselves, supposedly, but the time for that to happen has long
passed and this should have been done with a long time ago. Even *if* they lose,
DBS can still brag about how long they drew this out without a shred of evidence
to back up a single claim, how much they cost IBM, how they got so much of what
they wanted every single time, and how much of a bother they were allowed to be
to the courts and the public.

Now I remember why the general public finds lawyers and the practice of law such
loathe. What a mockery indeed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Amen brother (or sister) - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 07:56 PM EST
    • Wrong. - Authored by: Ed L. on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 11:52 PM EST
      • Well, no. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 04 2006 @ 01:30 AM EST
What if the question is relevant to MS?
Authored by: phantom21 on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 05:12 PM EST
Speaking of over the top, SCO asks for irrelevant
information too, Oracle states:
Even more egregious is SCO's demand for testimony
relating to any instance in which Oracle has refused to
certify "any version of any Oracle software product" to
operate with "any operating system" over the past twelve
years.

Now I have a question. This whole incident makes SCO look
bad. But, suppose it knows it's going to get kicked in
the head by the legal system and is just trying to satisfy
a supporter's needs, like maybe a company which could use
the overbroad aspects of the question above to get some
info on Oracle's clients?

Would it serve MS to know which clients Oracle has told
Oracle software is not certified for a specific OS? Could
MS then use that info to contact the customer to push
their software?

Just asking.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle Motion to Quash SCO's "Slapdash" Subpoena/Deposition Notice
Authored by: kbwojo on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 05:31 PM EST
This seems a little odd to me. Anyone have any ideas why they are calling SCO a
Michigan corporation and not a Delaware Corporation?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yay! This is really getting to be fun again ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 05:32 PM EST
Just when it was getting boring, the SCOnks come up with yet another circus act for us all to enjoy! This case is more entertaining than Desperate Housewives!

So what do you think - will they get away with this ploy to delay things even further, or will the judges finally just bop them over the head and tell them to sit down?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Certificates of Service
Authored by: mwexler on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 05:34 PM EST
If SCO has been serving all these folks with Subpoenas, why don't they show up
in Pacer's Docket or document history for this case? IBM has tons of
Certificates of Service listed in Pacer, but I couldn't find any for these 3
Subpoenas.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Setup an appeal?
Authored by: kjb on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 05:36 PM EST
When this gets quashed does this position SCO with ammo for an appeal?

---
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 | # ]

Oracle Motion to Quash SCO's "Slapdash" Subpoena/Deposition Notice
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 05:41 PM EST
What I'd like to know is if the Utah court see this?

The motion to Quash is being handled in California... but will Judge Kimball see
this and be able to reconcile this with the SCOG's antics in the greater case?


Will Judge Kimball wait to rule on the SCOG motion before him vis-a-vis these
subpoenas to see if motions to quash were indeed filed?

I'm just curious how this plays out between the courts.

...D, obviously NOT a lawyer

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is My Absolute Favorite Part...
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 06:01 PM EST

"On January 19th, counsel for Oracle contacted counsel for SCO and advised him that the Subpoena and related Deposition Notice were defective because, among other things, the applicable witness fees were not tendered; the Subpoena was issued out of the "District of California," which does not exist; and because the Deposition Notice specifies that the deposition is to take place in Armonk, New York (even though the Subpoena specifies the deposition site as Oakland, California)."

Priceless!!

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's "Slapdash"
Authored by: AllParadox on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 06:51 PM EST
I was expecting some foolishness.

Instead, as usual, I am stunned.

Nobody invited me to join in the Jan. 26 Court teleconference between IBM and
SCO attorneys, so I do not know the exact words or tenor of the conversation.
Most of what follows is speculation.

A week before the teleconference, the attorneys for "The SCO Group"
knew that there were insurmountable problems with the subpoena and notice of
deposition for Oracle. This is not a marginal issue, and is not a matter of
interpretation.

IMHO, it is not "good faith" to file a motion, as "The SCO
Group" has done, on the basis of such poorly executed procedural steps.

The Fed.R.Civ.Proc. require an attorney to act in good faith.

At the very minimum, the relevant details of the problems with the Oracle
subpoena and notice of deposition should have been included in the motion.

IMHO, I am appalled. When I was practicing, I watched lawyers commit
malpractice through incompetence, and do a better job than this while they were
committing the malpractice.

In other posts, I have harped on the practice of law by non-attorneys, and the
criminal laws prohibiting such practice. An attorney can violate these laws.
This is when an Attorney is not an Attorney. Licensed in Washington, D.C. is
not the same as licensed in Colorado, is not the same as licensed in California.


To go to a court and complain about anything like this is unbelievable.

"SCO v. IBM" has begun to be a stain on all lawyers, even the valiant
folks doing such a good job for IBM.

I continue to be struck by the contrasts.

IMNSHO, the attorneys for IBM are delivering some of the best legal work I have
ever seen, and the attorneys for "The SCO Group" are producing more
and more egregious examples of flubbed and misdirected work. Each in its turn
takes its place as the worst example of legal practice I have ever seen.

---
PJ deletes insult posts, not differences of opinion.

AllParadox; retired lawyer and chief Groklaw iconoclast. No legal opinions,
just my opinion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is SO BAD, it would seem impossible to achieve without motive?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 06:54 PM EST

PJ -They are pros, quite accustomed to large and complex cases involving more than one jurisdiction, not some local solo practitioner who might innocently goof because he doesn't know the process in another state.

Is it possible there is a good reason for their apparent inneptitude?

Is there any reason why BSF would seek to antagonise the Judge further?

What would be her sanction if she has "had enough"?

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle Motion to Quash SCO's "Slapdash" Subpoena/Deposition Notice
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 07:12 PM EST
Hmmm... the more I think about this, the more I think it's SCOG's way of
attempting more delay. By filing a motion to extend their time to take these
depositions / and getting responses from these three 3rd parties, if Judge
Kimball allows them the leeway to take these subpoenas "late" ... they
then get the delay accomplished from handling the motion practice including the
motions to quash, etc.

Not quite sure what this'd buy them tho... :::boggle:::

...D

[ Reply to This | # ]

The legal work is so bad it could only be for:
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 07:35 PM EST
P U B L I C I T Y.

Something to point to when they are forced to talk about the case in public.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle Motion to Quash SCO's "Slapdash" Subpoena/Deposition Notice
Authored by: Yossarian on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 08:19 PM EST
>They actually asked the Utah court for relief *based on*
>Oracle and the rest failing to respond to the subpoena,
>without telling the court that they knew Oracle, at
>least, absolutely did intend to file.

While I agree with your observation, I still have a simple
question: "what is the point?"

I mean, a lawyer can use my ignorance of legal proceedings
to issue an illegal subpoenae, and without a legal advice
I'll just follow it. But, how can you even dream
about doing so to a big company with a legal department?
If you know that your opponent can have an easy win, why
even bother with all the motions? Why did SCO go to
court with such a hopeless case?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sanctions, not likly.
Authored by: arthurpaliden on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 10:28 PM EST
The only thing that will happen is that B&S will be able to show future
clients how they are able to use their knowlage to game the system and thereby
collect higher fees because of it not to mention that the rest of the legal
profession will hold them in high esteem for being able to pull it off.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle Motion to Quash SCO's "Slapdash" Subpoena/Deposition Notice
Authored by: webster on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 10:42 PM EST
.
.
1. Where to start? If this episode is perceived to be inept by the Court,
Oracle may reasonabley ask him for legal fees expended on this subpoena and
notice. I wonder if SCO and attorneys would agree on who should pay such fees.

2. Notice that IBM asked for the moon as does SCO. Oracle responded with what
they thought was reasonable, and IBM let them alone. Oracle gave documents to
SCO but they found many reasons to resist and so they have. The request was
late and improper, laughably so.

3. To notice a deposition on a non-party on the last day of a two-year
discovery period is worse than the dog eating homework. It is lame. It is too
dumb. They must have known it would never have come off! Why did they do it?
Why subject themselves to such ridicule? Are they trying to distract from
something else? Did someone forget? Were they forced to make a desperate try?
Has the SCO saga addled the brains if its own attorneys and removed
reasonability, good judgment and clear thinking? Who has a clearer view of the
impending disaster than they? They are already mourning their reputations.

4. "Slapdash!" That is a knee to the professional groin. It is not
used lightly. It should never apply to big time litigation firms with a marquee
name. The SCO attorneys are playing shuffleboard on the listing Titanic. They
seem to be fooling around. SCO better hope the judge disposes of all this
quickly with no hearing and a short written order. He might be tempted to use
the word "slapdash."

5. Oracle says it is a burden and SCO can get the info from themselves and IBM.
They say:

"Oracle has learned that SCO has only recently noticed Rule 30(b)(6)
depositions of IBM on the same topics..."

There is only one way they can know this. SCO told them. SCO was desperate to
persuade Oracle to cooperate in time so they threw caution to the wind and
argued the truth. It has come back to haunt them. They will have to admit they
missed IBM subpoenas of a year and two years before. They ought to just file a
"notice of never-mind" and hope everyone forgets the subpoenas. Now
would be a good time to release some code, unseal some documents.

6. Sad to say most of the time litigants get away with this stuff. The Court
and nonparties don't necessarily know what is going on in a case so they allow
what they don't fathom or bother to understand. Some folks win by expense,
burden, obscurity and unpleasantry. Its what gives American litigation a bad
name. But when folks fight, they use the weapons at hand.

7. Next month will be three years. They filed in Utah State Court on what day
in March? We should observe the day somehow.





---
webster
-----------Free China

[ Reply to This | # ]

And oh, what a window into SCO's soul.
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 11:29 PM EST


PJ is right. The question is did we really want to see into that window?



---
Wayne

http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Which SCO?
Authored by: argee on Saturday, February 04 2006 @ 05:56 AM EST
From page 11:

"5. If SCO requires any such information in order to pursue its case,
surely it can obtain such information within its own documents and from its own
employees and executives, whether past or present. Why should SCO be permitted
to force Oracle to produce a witness to testify on a contract Oracle may have
signed with SCO eight years ago? This exceeds the scope of permissible discovery
and imposes an undue burden on Oracle."

But 8 years ago, SCO was what now is Tarantella. Those
contracts with Oracle etc were corporate transactions;
Caldera only bought the Unix Business from SCO-now Tarantella.

So what we have here is newSCO (SCOg) asking these questions
because they were not a party to the oldSCO dealings with
Oracle. Thus, by asking for this material they are
admitting that there is no corporate continuity.

Looks like newSCO has their foot in their mouth, and/or
Oracle is confused as to the meaning of "SCO."

---
--
argee

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle Motion to Quash SCO's "Slapdash" Subpoena/Deposition Notice
Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, February 04 2006 @ 07:36 AM EST
I wonder what's the point for SCOG to expend time and energy to file a subpoena
on Oracle that's so sloppy that it's going to get squashed on procedural grounds
alone. And then lie by omission and contrivance about what happened to judge
Kimball.


---
Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

PSJ motions and discovery not in sync
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 04 2006 @ 07:48 AM EST
> As IBM is barred from requesting summary judgment until discovery is over,
SCO needs to extend discovery.

This seems to be a widespread opinion. But is it correct? No, it is not.

When Judge Kimball set the current schedule in July 2005, he decided that PSJ
motions would not be accepted during discovery. To that effect, he set the end
date for discovery before the start date for PSJ motions.

However, he didn't say that discovery and PSJ motions would roll in sync, should
discovery be delayed. The date is set. According to Groklaw's Timeline PSJ
motions can and will start on July 28. Tricks and delays the SCO Group pulls out
of the hat will not help.

The rationale for suspending PSJ motions during discovery was that PSJ motions
must rely on undisputed facts and discovery can dig up relevant facts indeed.

However, the issues open to PSJ motions do not depend any more on discovery
(e.g. SCO's GPL violations and ensuing IBM copyright infringement). There is no
need to postpone them any longer. The discovery that has been going on in the
past half year concerned contractual issues, in particular the derivatives of
derivatives of derivatives theory pushed by SCO. Contractual issues were never a
candidate for PSJ, so Judge Kimball could actually open the fox hunting season
now. As a courtesy to those gentlemen, lawyers Hatch and Normands.


[ Reply to This | # ]

The Open Group?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 04 2006 @ 08:31 AM EST
There were defects in the subpoenas to at least two of the recipients, Oracle and The Open Group,

Oh really? What is known about the subpoena to The Open Group?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle Motion to Quash SCO's "Slapdash" Subpoena/Deposition Notice
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 04 2006 @ 10:20 AM EST
Normally I play devils advocate.
However it's so early in the morning I thought I'd share what made me laugh more
then Garfield today.

<blockquote>So, what do you think? Did SCO goof and make procedural errors
because it is inexperienced and doesn't know how to practice law in the big
leagues? Boies Schiller needs to go back to Federal Subpoena School? Joke. Joke.
There is no such school. It's called law school.</blockquote>

LOL
If I were David Boies right now I'd be looking for a new job. Maybe in Iraqi
public relations for the baath party.
"The infidels at Oracle are throwing themselves to the mercy of our legal
advances.
lol
RT Smith
Thank you PJ for the best and I mean best line for February.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ficticious authority
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, February 04 2006 @ 02:01 PM EST
"Oracle states, the subpoena allegedly issued from the District of
California, and there is no such district, and Ted Normand signed the subpoena,
and he isn't authorized to practice in California"

Oops, Ted Normand! You naughty, naughty person you!

For some time now, we've been blaming a degree of "naughty behaviour"
on "SCO" or "SCO's lawyers". But look now: there's an
actual individual we can put a name to. Fingerprints, if you like.

There's probably a legal term for "ficticious authority", but I'm not
sure what it is - I just made that bit up.

---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ha ha haaa (!!!CRASH!!!) he he heee...
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, February 04 2006 @ 02:11 PM EST
SCO, the laughing, dancing gnome, skips and jumps adroitly as usual. Meanwhile,
Thor, the Thunder God smashes his enormous hammer down upon SCO's stockinged
feet, or at least, upon the earth where SCO's stockinged feet were set one
millisecond before. Where will the laughing, dancing gnome go next?

---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Caldera Open Linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 04 2006 @ 05:38 PM EST
"32-BIT UNIX(r) POWER FOR YOUR PC"

I'm doing some clean-up and have found a box and manual for Caldera Open Linux
dated Dec. 1996. They strongly imply that Linux is a version of Unix.

I presume that IBM already has this or doesn't need this kind of evidence. I
only bother to post this just in case...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Connecting the Dots -- the Technical Perspective
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 04 2006 @ 05:56 PM EST
Why is SCO deposing Oracle anyway -- what TECHNICAL excuse do they have?

Well. Where are the dots?

(1) Oracle certifies its own product on OlderOpenSewer running on certain
specified hardware configuration -- meaning of course that it will provide
support, bug fixes, etc.

(2) Recently there was a big PR splash about SCO paying MySQL money to support
NewOpenSewer.

(3) SCO is now demanding to know if Oracle "refused" to certify &
support any [OTHER!] operating systems.

Maybe this is too obvious to be remarked, but what's the connection?

<begin surmise>

Darl&Co. decided they needed some software running on their shiny new OS.
They went to Oracle and said, "here's NewerSewer, go ahead and certify
it."

Eventually, Oracle said "no and don't bug us again."

Darl went and paid MySQL so he'd have a database for his customers.

But why did Oracle say no?

<begin surmise class="wild">

(1) Oracle said, "Sure. The fee is $XXXXXX per hardware/OS configuration.
How many different configurations, and which ones?" Darl wouldn't pay.

(2) Oracle said, "Sure, we'll do it if the demand is high enough. How many
customers do you have, and what hardware are they running?" Darl said
something about he'd check with DeSoto or whatever their names were now, and get
back to them. And never got back.

(3) Oracle just flat said "No thanks, we don't want any of the Darlness
rubbing off on us."

Any combination of (1) and (2) works, just so long as Oracle can't see
"money from Darl" + "money from Darl's customers" adding up
to anything more than "two diddleys short of a squat."

On the other side of the non-meeting of minds,

(1) Darl hears Oracle's "no" or "mo' money!" and thinks
Oracle has joined the "World+Dog Conspiracy to Do Darl Out of Dough"
of which he has so often spoken, and in which Groklaw is such a prominent
participant.

(2) Darl whines up the strings to his puppetteer, "Nobody is doing business
with me." Puppetteer says, "Ah, yes. IBM is up to our old tricks.
That's how we forced Netscape, DRDOS, etc., out of business, you know. IBM is no
doubt playing the same game. All you have to do is get the documents -- not from
IBM, they'll shuffle and shread the evidence, just like we do, you know. Go hit
up the customers that IBM was leaning on.

(3) Darl's Lawyers figure the techniques that worked so well on Microsoft would
work on IBM also -- after all, IBM is a guilty monopolist, even though they
escaped the federal suit they had to buy off CDC's suit. So surely the same bad
blood is there, waiting to be found.

Any combination of these works well also.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Really off topic - CSI in Italy
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Saturday, February 04 2006 @ 08:27 PM EST


Researchers in Italy investigating the death of a Copper Age man found frozen in a glacier have determined his cause of death, and that he was likely sterile.

Fascinating story - I've been following it since the body was found.

---
Wayne

http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another fishing expedition.
Authored by: Jaywalk on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 11:16 AM EST
Even more egregious is SCO's demand for testimony relating to any instance in which Oracle has refused to certify "any version of any Oracle software product" to operate with "any operating system" over the past twelve years. ... What does that have to do with their theory of the case?
To hazard a guess on this one, I'd think it has something to do with SCO's claim that they cancelled IBM's license for AIX. They're looking for other cases where a software vendor refused to license someone in hopes of claiming that they were following common practice to cancel IBM's license. They would find any similarities between what Oracle did and what SCO did and present them as "proof" that their own actions were legitimate.

If that's what SCO is looking for, this really isn't about Oracle or IBM; it's about general business practices. SCO is just hoping someone else will compile the details and save them the trouble of doing their own research. IANAL, but I doubt this is legal. I can't imagine they could require just any company to provide a witness to testify to general business practices. They're only asking Oracle because they have the smokescreen of IBM's dealings with Oracle to justify the request.

---
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle Motion to Quash SCO's "Slapdash" Subpoena/Deposition Notice
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 05:04 PM EST
How much did it cost to research and construct this motion to quash?

Why shouldn't SCO pay this legal fee?

[ 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 )