|
IBM Deposed EV1's Robert Marsh |
|
Monday, March 13 2006 @ 10:14 PM EST
|
IBM has subpoenaed Robert Marsh, of Everyones Internet, and he was scheduled to be deposed on the 10th in Houston, Texas, so presumably it has already happened. Here's the subpoena and certificate of service [PDF]. We also learn from Pacer notes that there was a telephone conference with Magistrate Judge Wells regarding the Letters Rogatory on March 3 and SCO raised "no objection to to the deposition of the witness taking place after the discovery deadline". We still don't know who "the witness" is. And SCO has filed its overlength opposition memo to IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material. However, they filed it and a box of exhibits under seal.
Here's how Pacer looks: 646 -
Filed: 03/03/2006
Entered: 03/13/2006
Telephone Conference
Docket Text: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Brooke C. Wells : Telephone Conference held on 3/3/2006 regarding Letters Rogatory and depositions. SCO has no objection to the deposition of the witness taking place after the discovery deadline. Parties updated the Court as to the status of the case. The Court directed that should further telephone status conferences be necessary, counsel are to contact the Court for scheduling. Attorney for Plaintiff: Edward Normand, Attorney for Defendant Todd Shaughnessy. (tsh, )
643 -
Filed: 03/07/2006
Entered: 03/10/2006
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** Memorandum in Opposition to [619] Defendant's MOTION to Limit SCO's Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (blk, )
640 [PDF] -
Filed & Entered: 03/08/2006
Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
Docket Text: ORDER granting [639] Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages . Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 3/8/06. (blk, )
644 -
Filed: 03/08/2006
Entered: 03/10/2006
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** EXHIBITS TO [643] Sealed Memorandum in Opposition to IBMs Motion to Limit SCOs Claims Relating to Misused Material filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Clerks Note: This document is oversized and therefore not scanned and attached as a pdf. It will be retained in the clerks office sealed room for viewing by authorized persons only.) (blk, )
645 -
Filed & Entered: 03/13/2006
Affidavit of Service
Docket Text: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE for Subpoena In A Civil Case served on Robert Marsh on 2/27/2006, filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (Donaldson, Peter)
|
|
Authored by: ceverett on Monday, March 13 2006 @ 10:21 PM EST |
make links clickable, of course. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- ...But They Promise To Only Use These Powers For Good - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Monday, March 13 2006 @ 10:48 PM EST
- ...But They Promise To Only Use These Powers For Good - Authored by: darksepulcher on Monday, March 13 2006 @ 11:15 PM EST
- VM and DRM - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 13 2006 @ 11:21 PM EST
- ...But They Promise To Only Use These Powers For Good - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 13 2006 @ 11:42 PM EST
- ...But They Promise To Only Use These Powers For Good - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 05:03 AM EST
- ...But They Promise To Only Use These Powers For Good - Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 08:04 AM EST
- Can't help but wear the tinfoil tight - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 08:53 AM EST
- ...But They Promise To Only Use These Powers For Good - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 10:08 AM EST
- What if...Rootkit FUD? - Authored by: kenryan on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 11:51 AM EST
- ...but it must hide in memory - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 12:45 PM EST
- ...But They Promise To Only Use These Powers For Good - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 01:58 PM EST
- Magic Smoke Loader (ACPI & MS ASL) - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 08:27 PM EST
- This is not news ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 12:15 PM EST
- Preston Gates Ellis, Vista.com, SCOG, Microsoft and Paul Allen. - Authored by: Brian S. on Monday, March 13 2006 @ 11:47 PM EST
- DRM company supporting piracy? - Authored by: LocoYokel on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 09:32 AM EST
- Sony settlement deal--Say what? - Authored by: Altair_IV on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 11:09 AM EST
- Great Pic - Authored by: kozmcrae on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 11:31 AM EST
- Java bytecode patent - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 12:09 PM EST
- OT: SCO offers the SCAMP stack - Authored by: billposer on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 12:46 PM EST
- User friendly on quantum computing - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 01:00 PM EST
- Something smells funny - Authored by: GelW on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 01:00 PM EST
- Ownership of Internet - Authored by: maco on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 01:19 PM EST
- Microsoft ask for public hearing with EU Commission - Authored by: Chris Lingard on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 01:24 PM EST
- Poor lawyer discipline - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 04:20 PM EST
- Poor lawyer discipline - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 05:09 PM EST
- Very close - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 11:08 PM EST
- NY Times still infected by the "Linux is copied from Minix" meme - Authored by: macrorodent on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 02:11 AM EST
- Microsoft's Hilf Says Windows More Reliable than Linux - Authored by: Sander Marechal on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 05:05 AM EST
|
Authored by: Kilz on Monday, March 13 2006 @ 10:27 PM EST |
For mistakes [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kurtwall on Monday, March 13 2006 @ 10:41 PM EST |
It still seems like SCOG seal everything unless they need to make a media
splash. I find it tiresome and frustrating, but perhaps that is their intent.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Look for it to be unsealed at least in redacted form - Authored by: OmniGeek on Monday, March 13 2006 @ 10:53 PM EST
- People with Secrets - Authored by: kawabago on Monday, March 13 2006 @ 11:36 PM EST
- People with Secrets - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 07:33 AM EST
- Careful!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 11:07 AM EST
- By definition, I'd say - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 12:54 PM EST
- IBM Deposed EV1's Robert Marsh - Authored by: WhiteFang on Monday, March 13 2006 @ 11:36 PM EST
- Sealed - Authored by: tangomike on Monday, March 13 2006 @ 11:42 PM EST
- I thought no more sealed filings were allowed? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 12:58 AM EST
- IBM Deposed EV1's Robert Marsh - Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 08:13 AM EST
- Documents Under Seal - Authored by: tredman on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 10:34 AM EST
|
Authored by: AllParadox on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 12:53 AM EST |
---
PJ deletes insult posts, not differences of opinion.
AllParadox; retired lawyer and chief Groklaw iconoclast. No legal opinions,
just my opinion.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Hmm. Any speculation on what IBM wanted, and got, from Marsh? (n/t) - Authored by: elronxenu on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 01:08 AM EST
- Speculation on what IBM wanted, and got, from Marsh? (n/t) - Authored by: Dave23 on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 01:20 AM EST
- Lanham act violations, most like - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 01:22 AM EST
- Hmm. Any speculation on what IBM wanted, and got, from Marsh? (n/t) - Authored by: webster on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 01:29 AM EST
- Hmm. Any speculation on what IBM wanted, and got, from Marsh? (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 07:30 AM EST
- Hmm. Any speculation on what IBM wanted, and got, from Marsh? (n/t) - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 07:50 AM EST
- Hmm. Any speculation on what IBM wanted, and got, from Marsh? (n/t) - Authored by: N. on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 07:58 AM EST
- Hmm. Any speculation on what IBM wanted, and got, from Marsh? (n/t) - Authored by: Ed Freesmeyer on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 07:59 AM EST
- Hmm. Any speculation on what IBM wanted, and got, from Marsh? (n/t) - Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 08:46 AM EST
- Hmm. Any speculation on what IBM wanted, and got, from Marsh? (n/t) - Authored by: Groo on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 08:36 AM EST
- Hmm. Any speculation on what IBM wanted, and got, from Marsh? (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 09:39 AM EST
- Speculation on what IBM wanted from Marsh? - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 10:25 AM EST
- What was licensed... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 01:27 PM EST
- Hmm. Any speculation on what IBM wanted, and got, from Marsh? (n/t) - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 07:33 PM EST
- Bingo!!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 04:09 AM EST
- Excellent post - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 06:59 AM EST
- Hmm. Any speculation on what IBM wanted, and got, from Marsh? (n/t) - Authored by: iceworm on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 08:35 PM EST
- Hmm. Any speculation on what IBM wanted, and got, from Marsh? (n/t) - Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 08:58 PM EST
- Hmm. Any speculation on what IBM wanted, and got, from Marsh? (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 10:05 AM EST
- Groklaw and Censorship - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 10:30 AM EST
- More deletion than meets the eye - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 11:41 AM EST
- Speculation #42 - Authored by: tangomike on Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 09:26 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 01:07 AM EST |
IBM subpoenaed David Frasure, Baystar, Otis Wilson & David Rodgers on
5-10-2004. Frasure's & Baystar's depositions were scheduled for 6-8-2004
(IBM-172).
On May 27th, the court scheduled a hearing, also for June 8 (IBM-158).
SCO objected to the scheduling conflict, IBM agreed to reschedule the Baystar
depostion for the following week: "IBM agreed to postpone the BayStar
deposition provided that BayStar was amenable to doing so. IBM tried diligently
to reach BayStar to discuss this issue, but BayStar has ignored our calls and
letters. SCO, on the other hand, has talked to BayStar. This morning, we finally
received a message from BayStar's counsel stating that the deposition would not
go forward next week" (IBM-172).
On 6-4-04, SCO filed for an expedited protective order that NONE of the
depostions scheduled for the week of 6-7 thru 6-11 occur. One of their reasons
was, "Forcing SCO to attend these third-party depositions before IBM's
document production obligations have been satisfied poses the significant hazard
that these depositions (many of which are likely to be trial depositions) will
need to be reopened later" (IBM-168).
On 6-7-04 the court denied SCO's motion (IBM-175), but I see no evidence of a
Baystar deposition having taking place.
So my guess is that the witness is Baystar's Larry Goldfarb.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 10:34 AM EST |
I remember that at the time I was leasing linux dedicateds for myself and a few
corporate clients. When I read that the "HeadSurfer" at ev1servers.net
had written a check to SCO, I gave the business to serverbeach and a layeredtech
reseller instead.
So that it's documented for the ages, did you boycott ev1servers and if so,
estimated the lost revenue:
in my case:
2 dedicateds @ US$110/mo x 2 = $5280
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Dave23 on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 01:43 PM EST |
IBM has apparently been making Requests for Admissions to SCOX/BSF for quite
some time now, during Discovery. As I understand it, the Request for Admissions
is a method the court gives the parties to reduce the number of issues in order
to get down to the core of the dispute — thus simplifying the lawsuit.
While, presumably, the process can be gamed with one side not admitting to
anything (even if the ship is sinking under them), from my reading it appears
that the respondent has to do a lot of writing out of their reasoning if they
wish to continue to oppose a contested point. I can see where such Requests
would keep BSF personnel rather busy, particularly if they ever hope to get
their case (ignoring IBM's counterclaims for the moment) before a jury.
Nevertheless, even with potential foot-dragging, I can see how this process
can help clarify matters for a judge, who might be asked to rule that no
reasonable jury would determine otherwise for certain contested facts, when
presented with a motion for a PSJ.
Since I've not seen the actual text for
IBM's Requests, nor SCOX/BSF responses, I have assumed that these documents are
sealed or otherwise privileged. Please correct me if I am wrong.
In any
case I'd like to hear from any of the lawyers of any of their experiences with
the process. Requests for Admission seem to start in Discovery ... and go on
until when? In general how effective are these Requests for Admission? Are
they indeed used in a manner I've outlined above?
IADNAL (I Am Definitely
Not A Lawyer)
--- Gawker [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|