|
SCO Files Reply Memo on its Objections to June 28 Order Conventionally [Sealed] |
|
Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 09:21 AM EDT
|
Yesterday was SCO's deadline to file its Reply Memorandum on their Objections to Judge Wells' June 28th Order. And they did file, but conventionally, and it's a sealed document anyway, so we'll have to wait to read a redacted version, if there is one eventually. Here's how Pacer lists the filings: 762 -
Filed:
09/05/2006 -
Entered:
09/06/2006
Notice of Conventional Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of Reply Memorandum filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group re [721] Notice of Conventional Filing (Hatch, Brent)
763 -
Filed & Entered:
09/06/2006
Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
Docket Text: Ex Parte (Not Sealed) MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Reply Memorandum filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1))(Hatch, Brent); proposed order
764 -
Filed & Entered:
09/06/2006
Notice of Conventional Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of Reply Memorandum and Declaration of BOH with Exhibits filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group Corrected Caption of Docket 762 (Hatch, Brent) The Reply Memorandum is another 50-pager, but it's filed conventionally, according to 764, because it's sealed. The purpose of 764 is to correct 762's caption, but if you look, it still doesn't get it right all the way, I don't think.
762 is captioned like this: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL
FILING OF SCO’S EXHIBITS TO REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SCO’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE WELLS’ ORDER OF JUNE 28, 2006 There are two mistakes there. They didn't list the Declaration of Brent Hatch and they don't list the Reply Memo, just the exhibits. It should be captioned like this, I believe: [Corrected Title to Docket 762]
NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL
FILING OF SCO’S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SCO’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE WELLS’ ORDER OF JUNE 28, 2006 and DECLARATION OF BRENT O. HATCH WITH THE EXHIBITS
TO
REPLY MEMORANDUM. Instead, 764 is captioned: [Corrected Title to Docket 762] NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING OF SCO’S EXHIBITS TO REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SCO’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE WELLS’ ORDER OF JUNE 28, 2006 AND DECLARATION OF BRENT O. HATCH WITH THE EXHIBITS TO REPLY MEMORANDUM. They've corrected the caption to list the Hatch Declaration, but they again listed exhibits twice without listing the reply memo itself, so the caption will probably need another correction. There are a couple of small fixes also to the recent Wells Order regarding the attorney privilege matter, which I have incorporated into our text version as an update. She is no longer "dully" informed.
And there is also a filing about a document that is sent to all the attorneys on a case notifying them of the two new attorneys on SCO's side, that reads like this:
761 -
Filed & Entered:
09/05/2006
Mail Returned
Docket Text: Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frederick S. Frei (djs, )
But not to worry. Mr. Frei is still with the firm of Andrews Kurth. You can see that on their website and I verified. If you look at the filing, there is a Xerox of the envelope that came back to them and I don't see any address at all, so I think that is all that happened. Possibly they have address stickers, and it fell off. If they resend, they might want to check the address they have, because the website lists a different address for the firm than the one they seem to have on record. Most of the attorneys got noticed digitally, but the court doesn't seem to have his email address. He does have one. And in case he reads Groklaw, here are the two orders from the court they want him to have, one for admission pro hac vice of John J. Broghan and the other for Devan V. Padmanabhan, both PDFs. So everyone is making small mistakes, it seems, these days. They aren't important ones, but it indicates to me that everyone is hurrying and maybe under some stress, focusing more on the content and getting that right than on the details that are less significant.
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 10:28 AM EDT |
Please make links clicky. :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 10:29 AM EDT |
For any mistakes you may find. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 10:34 AM EDT |
SCO: Doing things wrong since 2002.
tick tick tick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 10:51 AM EDT |
I read the headline without mentally noticing the brackets. I had visions of 10
sheets of velum bound with official looking red ribbons fixed with a wax seal
heavily embossed...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 10:52 AM EDT |
Here is something to think about while waiting for the redacted version...
Since they don't have much of a case and the only accusations that are vague
enough to survive a summary judgement are the ones at stake here (IBM is, no
doubt, drafting a summary judgement as we speak).
Thus, winning this order is about their only chance to get to court (if we don't
take in account the chances for getting a conflicting declaration from Otis
Wilson).
Since IBM did what SCO feared they would do: answered in detail, without passing
over a single point to their 'Objections to the order' they are essentially in
no other position than to repeat themselves.
I think they will try to cover up the fact that this is yet another reiteration
of their original nonsensical argument by using the only technique they have
left: abuse.
Count on them to make this reply memo the most poisonous, back-stabbing and
sickening memo yet.
They have no other choice and as for the good will of the judge it has been
clear from the beginning that they don't care about this.
Just my gut feeling.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Acid thinking - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 11:04 AM EDT
- Acid thinking - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 11:05 AM EDT
- Acid thinking - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 12:25 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Observer on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 12:15 PM EDT |
hummm.... I wonder if they are sealed because they contain some deep
dark secrets, or if it's just that they are tired of Groklaw tearing them
apart... --- The Observer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sealed? - Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 12:51 PM EDT
- Sealed? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 12:51 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 01:53 PM EDT |
Of course he could just be making an affidavit that the exhibits are true and
correct copies of whatever they are.
But it's also possible that his affidavit relates to what he is quoted as saying
by Forbes.
Is it possible that he is saying that Daniel Lyons misquoted him? Wouldn't
that be funny if he were.
Quatermass
IANAL IHMO etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Hatch - afirm/deny - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 02:54 PM EDT
- Hatch - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 05:07 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 10:58 PM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: theMutant on Thursday, September 07 2006 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
What does it mean to file something conventionally?
---
David W. Cooney, CNB (Certified Novell Bigot)
IANAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Conventionally? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 07 2006 @ 06:29 PM EDT
|
|
|
|