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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

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
SCO v IBM - IBM Gets Another Week to Answer SCO's Motion for In Camera Review
Wednesday, May 31 2006 @ 06:47 PM EDT

Some mild activity in SCO v. IBM. The parties have stipulated to let IBM have another week to respond to SCO's Motion for In Camera Review of Allegedly Privileged Documents (here's the Proposed Order Regarding Enlarging of Time [PDF]), and Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells has so ordered [PDF]. The new deadline is June 6. You'll recall IBM was recently given extra time [PDF] for the same purpose, back on May 23, so something like that usually means a key attorney is either tied up on another case or ill or some document or permission is hard to get in hand. Both delays are by stipulation, so it's not a dispute.

Also, one of Boies Schiller's attorneys is leaving the firm and moving on, and so there is a process for that. Attorneys can't just walk away from a client, no matter what. Once you are listed on a case, you need the court to approve any withdrawal. The court has to be informed, and SCO has therefore filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel [PDF] and here's the proposed order [PDF] giving him leave to withdraw. The lawyer's name is J. Matthew Donohue. I'm sure he's just devastated that he won't be able to stay with SCO to the bitter end.

He joined the SCO team in September of 2005, kind of late, as you can see from the motion [PDF] to let him hop on board. He's listed in that long list of attorneys served by Intel. His speciality is antitrust law. Here's the wording of the motion:

The undersigned hereby moves the Court for leave to withdraw J. Matthew Donahue as counsel for Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), in this action and requests that Mr. Donohue be removed from the service list. Mr. Donohue has withdrawn, as he will no longer be with Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.

He's also listed on the Information and Technology Committee of the Northern District of NY's Federal Court Bar Association. Here's his bio on Martindale Hubbell, which lists all the attorneys and tells what they do. I guess that means he's a tech guy, and if so, likely he's going to be missed more than he's going to miss being on the team. His bio is still there on Boies Schiller's website (you have to search for him yourself and you have to like Flash quite a lot), and he sounds like a nice guy. Before he went to law school, he worked with and advocated for developmentally challenged adults in San Francisco. Like so many Boies Schiller attorneys, you'd probably like him if you met him at a dinner party. What happens when they go to court is a mystery to me.

The bio doesn't mention SCO by name, but it does say his "most recent representations include the defense of a large multinational corporation against charges that it violated the federal antitrust laws in connection with its wholesaler merchandising practices, and the prosecution of intellectual property claims involving the licensing of the UNIX source code on behalf of a software provider." Time will tell if even that careful wording stays on his resume going forward. Boies Schiller's site says they are looking for associates and summer associates, by the way. Anybody want to be Groklaw's mole? Joke. Joke.


  


SCO v IBM - IBM Gets Another Week to Answer SCO's Motion for In Camera Review | 318 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Boys will be Boys.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 31 2006 @ 06:59 PM EDT
Here today gone tomorrow.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic here (remember to include links)
Authored by: ansak on Wednesday, May 31 2006 @ 07:02 PM EDT
That's <a href="http://www.mylink.com">like this.</a>

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections go here
Authored by: ansak on Wednesday, May 31 2006 @ 07:03 PM EDT
where PJ can find them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM needs more time
Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, May 31 2006 @ 07:21 PM EDT
I guess it takes IBM longer to respond to fiction than SCO does to fact.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO v IBM - IBM Gets Another Week to Answer SCO's Motion for In Camera Review
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 31 2006 @ 07:40 PM EDT
...prosecution of intellectual property claims involving the licensing of the UNIX source code on behalf of a software provider...

Notice he doesn't say "software developer" or "software manufacturer". Shows that he knows the true nature of his client.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO v IBM - IBM Gets Another Week to Answer SCO's Motion for In Camera Review
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 31 2006 @ 09:54 PM EDT
Attorneys are ethically required to withdraw if a client demands that the
attorney go forward with a frivolous law suit or make harassing motions. The
wording of the rule varies from state to state, but the policy is: if a client
keeps bugging you to do something you as an attoney feel is frivolous you must
refuse, and if they persist, withdraw.

Also attorneys do not just change jobs at the drop of the hat, it takes at least
a month of planning. He has to inform all of his other clients whom he
represents and withdraw from thier cases as well.

My uneducated guess is that he feels the SCO case is meritless at best,
frivolous at worst, and was told to find a new job by the managing partners or
left out of fear of disbarment for ethical violations.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO v IBM - IBM Gets Another Week to Answer SCO's Motion for In Camera Review
Authored by: sef on Wednesday, May 31 2006 @ 11:24 PM EDT

Is this the first time IBM's asked for more time to respond?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Transformation
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, June 01 2006 @ 04:49 AM EDT
"What happens when they go to court is a mystery to me."

Same thing as happens to a Frenchman when he gets in his car: instant cloven
hooves, tail, horns, red skin and an overwhelming desire for others to shrink
back in fear.

Gets out and he's nice as pie.

---
Shampoo for my real friends, real poo for my sham friends - not Francis Bacon
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it out on the accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Will you knock off the childish crap please?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 01 2006 @ 06:14 AM EDT
JOKE, JOKE.

[ Reply to This | # ]

BS&F to a "T"
Authored by: tangomike on Thursday, June 01 2006 @ 09:28 AM EDT
"and you have to like Flash quite a lot" - PJ

ROTFLOL

---
Deja moo - I've heard that bull before.


[ Reply to This | # ]

"Like so many Boies Schiller attorneys, ..."
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 01 2006 @ 10:01 AM EDT
"you'd probably like him if you met him at a dinner party."

I dunno PJ, doesn't SCO's tactics and personality sound a *lot* like that old
evening SOAP, The Practice? They all sounded like perfectly nice people to meet
at a dinner party, and they used despicable tactics. Ok, maybe the Catherine
Manheim character I wouldn't want to meet at a dinner party.

:) :) :)

Paul O.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO v IBM - IBM Gets Another Week to Answer SCO's Motion for In Camera Review
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 01 2006 @ 06:14 PM EDT
You will find many attorneys are very representative of the clients.

[ 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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.06 seconds