|
SCO's Memo in Opposition to Novell's Expedited Motion to Compel |
|
Monday, November 27 2006 @ 11:59 PM EST
|
SCO only likes motions to compel discovery when they are the ones filing them. Now that it is Novell asking to compel discovery from SCO, they are appalled. And in today's filing, SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to Novell's Expedited Motion to Compel Production of Deposition Transcripts and Exhibits from SCO v. IBM [PDF], with Exhibits [PDF], they are dancing just as fast as they can, claiming to have complied in full already. They said they'd turn everything relevant over to Novell in plenty of time, and they did so. How could anyone doubt them? So, the court has nothing to compel.
I notice, however, that Novell filed its motion to compel [PDF] and memo in support [PDF] and Declaration of Kenneth W. Brakebill [PDF] with exhibits on November 7th, and only after that did SCO turn over 35 deposition transcripts on November 16, then on November 21 another 22. And then on the next day, they turned over 1,047 exhibits for the responsive transcripts. SCO, if you do its math, admits to having turned over only 6 transcripts prior to Novell's motion being filed. Novell in its motion said SCO had turned over "transcripts (and partial, in some cases) from only five of the approximately eighty-two SCO v. IBM deponents." So now you know why lawyers file motions to compel. If SCO is in compliance -- and I doubt Novell agrees it is, since footnotes in SCO's filing list some transcripts it didn't turn over and my calculations show approximately twenty deponents not yet accounted for -- it's only because of a sudden scurrying about this month to try to look compliant for the purposes of this motion.
SCO says it's still reviewing the rest of the transcripts in the IBM case, but they don't seem to them to be relevant, but if they've overlooked something, why SCO will naturally turn it over as soon as they realize it. The problem they face is that Novell in its motion asked for *all* transcripts and exhibits from SCO v. IBM and it requested that "SCO should also be compelled to describe, on a transcript by transcript basis, why any withheld transcripts do not reasonably relate to a claim or defense in this litigation."
Ah, definitions of terms on the horizon. What is relevant? SCO hopes the court will notice their wonderful compliance and trust them to know what is and isn't relevant. The problem SCO has is Judge Brooke Wells has just been assigned as the magistrate judge in this case too, not just in SCO v. IBM, and SCO represented to her that SCO was in full compliance on all discovery orders in that case, and she strongly disagreed, writing in her June order, "In the view of the court it is almost like SCO sought to hide its case until the ninth inning in hopes of gaining an unfair advantage despite being repeatedly told to put 'all evidence . . . on the table'." So there's some water under the bridge here, and there are no more virgins involved. Everyone has watched SCO's discovery machinations for three years in SCO v. IBM, so if SCO is sounding nervous, they have every rational reason to be. Also, there is something odd. SCO says that it has now turned over 66 deposition transcripts and the 1,047 associated exhibits since Novell's motion was filed. But it also says that it has turned over a total of 1,095 exhibits, and a footnote mentions some 600 exhibits attached to motions they also turned over to Novell. I would think, though, that most of those would be available to Novell from Pacer, as they are to the general public. Some might be sealed, but surely not all 600. In any case, you can see, no matter how you do the math, that SCO didn't turn over the bulk of what it has now delivered to Novell until after Novell filed the motion to compel. So why the hurried compliance? I'm just guessing, but my feel is that somebody was delaying, probably because there is something they'd rather not turn over at all, and after they got hit with the motion to compel and that horrifying request for a breakdown of reasons why any withheld items are not relevant, somebody did some research and found out that the way to turn back such a request is to show yourself compliant and eager to do the right thing. So, 180 turnaround, and here's the compliant version of SCO. Novell has been watching too, of course, and it may not be willing to take SCO's word for a blessed thing. You think? By the way, just a reminder that there is a hearing in SCO v. IBM on November 30 at 3:30 PM in Room 102 before Judge Wells. It's regarding IBM's Motion to Confine SCO's Claims to, and Strike Allegations in Excess of, the Final Disclosures, so it's an important hearing. I hope some of you can attend and will send us news. It looks like Chris will be unable to attend this one.
**********************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address, phone, fax]
Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Stuart H. Singer (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.
_________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
_______________________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,
v.
NOVELL, INC.,
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
______________________________
SCO'S MEMORANDUM IN
OPPOSITION TO NOVELL'S
EXPEDITED MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DEPOSITION
TRANSCRIPTS AND EXHIBITS
FROM SCO V. IBM
Case No. 2:04CV00139
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), respectfully submits this memorandum in
opposition to Novell's Expedited Motion to Compel the Production of Transcripts and Exhibits
from SCO v. IBM.
INTRODUCTION
Novell's Motion is based on the unfounded and incorrect suspicion that SCO would not
produce certain documents in discovery. Novell seeks deposition transcripts and exhibits from
the IBM Litigation that are reasonably related to the claims and defenses in this case. Novell
filed the Motion despite SCO's assurances that it would produce the documents in time for
Novell to use them in fact depositions. SCO has done just that: SCO produced the documents
over two months before the discovery deadline and before the parties have even scheduled any
depositions. Indeed, SCO has exceeded its obligations by producing the documents in their
entirety, without redacting the vast portions of unresponsive testimony or withholding or
redacting the corresponding exhibits. If not withdrawn, as it should be, the Motion should be
denied for lack of anything to compel.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On December 6, 2005, the parties entered into a Scheduling Order and Order Vacating
Hearing in which SCO authorized "Novell to have attorneys-eyes only access to those
confidential materials in the SCO v. IBM case, including document productions, depositions,
under-seal briefings, and discovery responses, that reasonably relate to a claim or defense in this
litigation." (Ex. 1 ΒΆ 2.l.) Later that month, Novell served upon SCO forty-five (45) document
requests, including a request seeking relevant materials from the IBM Litigation.
2
In January 2006, SCO produced over half a million pages of materials responsive to those
requests. On February 8 and 9, SCO resent those materials to Novell in a different format, per
Novell's request, along with additional supplemental materials SCO had produced to IBM in the
interim. Also on February 8, counsel for IBM consented to the production to Novell of
confidential transcripts and other documents from the IBM Litigation. Shortly thereafter, SCO
started review of responsive deposition transcripts, and by March 30, had produced to Novell at
least nine transcripts containing the most extensive responsive testimony.
On April 10, Novell filed its motion to stay SCO's claims. On August 21, the Court
granted and denied that motion in part. On September 29, Novell filed its pending motion for
summary judgment or preliminary injunction. On October 4, SCO moved for an extension of the
time to respond to that motion and for an extension of the discovery deadline. On October 24,
the Court extended the discovery deadline to February 1, 2007, based in part on the finding that
"both parties undoubtedly delayed their discovery efforts during the pendency of Novell's
motion to stay pending the SuSE arbitration."
On October 11, while SCO's October 4 motion was pending, counsel for Novell
complained to counsel for SCO that "SCO has produced just five depositions from the IBM case
and Novell is prepared to compel, if necessary." (Ex. 2.) On November 2, having explained
SCO's continuing efforts to respond to IBM's six pending motions for summary judgment, SCO
informed Novell that "SCO will produce those transcripts, or where appropriate portions of
transcripts, from the SCO v. IBM case containing testimony that reasonably relates to claims or
defenses in the SCO v. Novell case." (Ex. 3.) Counsel for SCO further assured counsel for
Novell that SCO "will begin a rolling production of such transcripts or portions of transcripts as
3
soon as practicable, and in time to permit the use of the material for fact depositions in this
matter." (Id) Despite these assurances, Novell filed this Motion on November 7.
On November 11, having obtained two weeks of additional time to respond, SCO filed its
memoranda in opposition to IBM's six motions for summary judgment in the IBM Litigation.
SCO's filing comprised over 900 pages of briefing and almost 400 exhibits1 comprising more
than 10,000 pages. On November 16, SCO produced that filing in its entirety to Novell,
including thirty-five (35) additional deposition transcripts responsive to Novell's request for such
materials. On November 21, SCO produced twenty-two (22) additional deposition transcripts.
On November 22, SCO produced the exhibits for all the responsive transcripts, a total of 1,047
exhibits of the approximately 1,950 deposition exhibits in the IBM Litigation.
In all, after a detailed, thorough, and reasonable review of deposition testimony from the
IBM Litigation, SCO has produced sixty-six (66) deposition transcripts and the 1,047 associated
exhibits. Even though many of the transcripts consist almost entirely of unresponsive testimony,
SCO has produced all sixty-six transcripts in un-redacted form and has not withheld or redacted
any exhibits corresponding to unresponsive testimony.2Although SCO will undertake an even
more detailed review in the next two weeks, the other transcripts do not appear to contain any
material that relates to any claim or defense in this case. Novell made its most recent production
to SCO on November 18, 2006.
4
ARGUMENT
The Court should deny Novell's Motion, if not withdrawn, because SCO has timely
produced the documents that Novell seeks through the Motion.
I. SCO HAS PRODUCED ALL RESPONSIVE MATERIALS.
As of November 22, 2006, SCO has identified and produced all the deposition transcripts
from the IBM Litigation containing testimony reasonably related to the claims and defenses in
this case. As of the same date, SCO has also produced all the exhibits associated with those
transcripts. SCO has never refused to produce such documents and, in the event that SCO has
inadvertently overlooked any responsive document, notwithstanding its detailed review to date,
SCO will promptly supplement its production. There is nothing for the Court to compel.
Novell argues (at 1) that it anticipates that SCO will not produce all the documents
because of the timing of its production. This argument fails for at least two reasons.
First, SCO did not delay in producing the documents. In February 2006, SCO promptly
produced over half a million pages of materials, comprising most of the materials it had
produced in the IBM Litigation to that point. SCO then started to review and produce deposition
transcripts, and by March 30, had produced at least nine transcripts containing the most extensive
responsive testimony. These transcripts include, for example, the deposition of Ed Chatlos, who
was the lead negotiator for Novell in the 1995 transaction reflected in the APA, and who
confirmed in his deposition that Novell sold its entire UNIX business, including the copyrights,
to the Santa Cruz Operation. As the Court found in its Order extending the discovery deadline,
the parties then delayed discovery during the pendency of Novell's motion to stay.
Subsequently, during the meet and confer that preceded this Motion, counsel for SCO assured
5
counsel for Novell that SCO would produce the documents in time for their use in fact
depositions that is, well before that end of discovery. Indeed, while SCO has produced all the
documents, the parties have not even scheduled any fact depositions.
Second, even if SCO had delayed, there is no connection between the timing and the
sufficiency of the production. Novell argues (at 1) that SCO's offer to begin producing the
documents on a rolling basis as soon as practicable is "no more than a vague promise to execute
on some portion" of SCO's obligations even though the offer included the assurance that the
documents would be produced in time for fact depositions. SCO voluntarily agreed to produce
the documents, has never backed down from that agreement, and has now produced them.
Novell cannot impute any insufficiency to the production due to timing.
II. NOVELL ALSO SEEKS UNREASONABLE AND UNNECESSARY RELIEF.
Novell also contends (at 6-7) that SCO should be compelled to explain "on a transcript by
transcript basis" the reasons it has not produced deposition transcripts and exhibits from the IBM
Litigation. Novell believes that relief is necessary "given SCO's apparent overly narrow view of
what is relevant" and "in order to ensure that SCO does not continue to apply an overly narrow
view of `relevant.'" Novell's argument fails for at least the following reasons.
First, SCO has not adopted a narrow view of relevance. On the contrary, SCO has:
- voluntarily agreed to produce the documents, as Novell underscores in its brief;
- not objected to IBM's request for documents in the IBM litigation reasonably relating
to claims and defenses in this case;
- never refused to produce the documents or otherwise suggested that it would withhold
them;
- in fact produced the sixty-six (66) responsive transcripts and the associated exhibits
after a reasonable review of the deposition testimony from the IBM Litigation; and
6
produced all sixty-six transcripts without redacting unresponsive testimony or
withholding or redacting the exhibits corresponding to that testimony, even though
many of those transcripts consist almost entirely of unresponsive testimony.
SCO's production, moreover, includes nineteen (19) of the twenty-four (24) transcripts of the
deponents Novell identifies (at 4-6) by name.3Other than Novell's unfounded suspicion that the
timing of SCO's production somehow reveals its view of relevance, there is no basis whatsoever
for Novell's supposition that SCO has adopted a narrow view. In light of SCO's extensive
production, and its representation that it has produced all the documents after a reasonable
review, the relief Novell seeks is simply unnecessary.4
Second, Novell does not cite any authority for the relief it seeks. Nothing in the Federal
Rules requires a litigant who has produced documents without objection, and in addition
represents that its production is responsive and complete, to explain why it did not produce each
of the documents it withheld. Implicit in those representations is the representation that withheld
documents are not responsive.
7
CONCLUSION
SCO respectfully submits, for the foregoing reasons, that if the Motion is not withdrawn,
the Court should deny Novell's Expedited Motion to Compel Production of Deposition
Transcripts and Exhibits from SCO v. IBM.
DATED this 27th day of November, 2006.
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Robert Silver
Stuart H. Singer
Stephen N. Zack
Edward Normand
Counsel for The SCO Group, Inc.
By:/s/ Brent O. Hatch
1These exhibits were in addition to the 600 exhibits that IBM submitted with its motions, many of
which SCO referenced in its opposition papers.
2SCO has produced the documents expressly without conceding that all of the material produced
relates to any claim or defense in this case. See, e.g., Letter from E. Normand to K. Brakebill, dated
November 16, 2006; Letter from S. Bach to K. Brakebill, dated November 21, 2006; Letter from E.
Normand to K. Brakebill, dated November 22, 2006. (Exs. 4-6.)
3
SCO has not produced the transcripts for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of each William Broderick,
Jeff Hunsaker, and Chris Sontag, because the transcripts do not contain responsive testimony. For the
same reason, SCO also has not produced the transcript of the May 12, 2004, deposition of Michael Olson
and the transcript of the deposition of Blake Stowell. On the other hand, with respect to these deponents,
SCO has produced the transcripts of three depositions of Mr. Broderick, two depositions of Mr. Hunsaker,
two depositions of Mr. Olson, and four depositions of Mr. Sontag.
4
It is Novell that has by its own words adopted a narrow view of relevance in this case. For
example, SCO's Document Requests Nos. 23-26 seek documents concerning rights under Section 4.16 of
the APA with respect to UNIX license agreements. Though the parties' respective treatment of such
agreements would clearly evidence their respective rights under that provision, Novell has objected "to
this Request as irrelevant to the extent that it seeks documents not related to the specific UNIX license
agreements at issue in the specific claims and defenses in this lawsuit." (Novell's Responses and
Objections to SCO's First Set of Requests for Production, dated Feb. 10, 2006, at 14-16 (Ex. 7).) SCO is
conferring with Novell on this and several other similar issues.
8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and
correct copy of the foregoing SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to Novell's Expedited Motion
to Compel Production of Deposition Transcripts and Exhibits from SCO v. IBM was served on
Defendant, Novell, Inc., on the 27th day of November, 2006, by CM/ECF to the following:
Thomas R. Karrenberg
John P. Mullen
Heather M. Sneddon
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
[address]
Michael A. Jacobs
Matthew I. Kreeger
MORRISON & FOERSTER
[address]
/s/ Brent O. Hatch
9
|
|
Authored by: WhiteFang on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 12:25 AM EST |
If SCOX were a generator spinning as fast as they spin, it would probably
overheat, blow out the attached network grid and meltdown in a shower of
lighting and metal sparks.
It's amazing just how nasty and obstructionist BF&S can be.
---
DRM - Degrading, Repulsive, Meanspirited 'Nuff Said.
"I shouldn't have asked ... "[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 12:27 AM EST |
Hey, everybody!
You know the drill about clickies and the like, I'm sure. ;-)
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Hey, WhiteFang...You Were Just Waiting For Me, Weren't You? - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 12:29 AM EST
- Payscale? - Authored by: WhiteFang on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 12:59 AM EST
- And now for something completely different - Authored by: WhiteFang on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 01:33 AM EST
- How dumb does he think we are. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 05:14 AM EST
- Zune link from the sidebar - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 05:20 AM EST
- What did MS just get a patent for? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 06:30 AM EST
- What did MS just get a patent for? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 08:54 AM EST
- What did MS just get a patent for? - Authored by: Carlo Graziani on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 10:17 AM EST
- What did MS just get a patent for? - Authored by: gbl on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 10:57 AM EST
- What did MS just get a patent for? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 10:57 AM EST
- Sounds like RPM... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 11:16 AM EST
- What did MS just get a patent for? - Authored by: julian on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 11:17 AM EST
- What did MS just get a patent for? - Authored by: Rob M on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 11:22 AM EST
- Sounds like an install script for a Linux OS install! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 11:27 AM EST
- OS/9 lives again... - Authored by: Marc Mengel on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 11:34 AM EST
- Wrong test for patentability? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 11:36 AM EST
- What did MS just get a patent for? - Authored by: Carlo Graziani on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 12:03 PM EST
- What did MS just get a patent for? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 12:17 PM EST
- What did MS just get a patent for? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 01:33 PM EST
- What did MS just get a patent for? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 01:36 PM EST
- What did MS just get a patent for? - Authored by: iefbr14 on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 01:53 PM EST
- Have you heard of Make? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 02:38 PM EST
- What did MS just get a patent for? - Authored by: LegalIdiot on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 06:10 PM EST
- Sounds like M$ just invented Anaconda - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 06:48 PM EST
- What did MS just get a patent for? - Authored by: digger53 on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 07:13 PM EST
- Sounds like rPath / rBuilder to me. - Authored by: Sander Marechal on Wednesday, November 29 2006 @ 07:32 AM EST
- Does some1 wanna post the claims - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 29 2006 @ 11:35 AM EST
- Re:What did MS just get a patent for? - Authored by: zenofjazz on Wednesday, November 29 2006 @ 04:32 PM EST
- What did MS just get a patent for? - Authored by: bb5ch39t on Wednesday, November 29 2006 @ 05:15 PM EST
- The Legal Ring - Authored by: capt.Hij on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 06:36 AM EST
- OpenSuse Speaks on the Novell Deal - Authored by: simonbrooks on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 07:04 AM EST
- Pedal Patent Dispute - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 07:07 AM EST
- There is little new under the Sun - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 08:53 AM EST
- Bubbles - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 08:56 AM EST
- UK 'pays lip service' to open source in schools - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 09:32 AM EST
- Summit Software, Central Ohio Co-op move to OpenServer 6 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 09:50 AM EST
- McDonald's attempts to patent sandwich - Authored by: itchytweed on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 12:08 PM EST
- Pay $50 to use your home theatre, or face $500,000 in fines - MPAA - Authored by: clark_kent on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 12:21 PM EST
- Microsoft in Thailand... - Authored by: Latesigner on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 12:51 PM EST
- Hearing Thursday - I'm confused - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 02:13 PM EST
- Not same issue - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 02:49 PM EST
- Not same issue - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 04:34 PM EST
- Just for clarity..... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 04:06 PM EST
- Microsoft Firefox 2007 Pro - hilarious spoof site - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 02:39 PM EST
- MS^w Novell deep-sixes Hula - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 04:58 PM EST
- Off Topic Here, Please - Authored by: eric76 on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 05:50 PM EST
- Barney backers back off from attack on Fair Use - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 07:45 PM EST
- O3Spaces - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 07:55 PM EST
- Don't I Get Any Say In How My Money Is Spent? - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Wednesday, November 29 2006 @ 12:22 AM EST
- The OpenCD 4.0 now available - Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, November 29 2006 @ 12:37 AM EST
- Novell drops exchange project - Authored by: MadTom1999 on Wednesday, November 29 2006 @ 05:16 AM EST
- Way OT: Spam Poetry - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 29 2006 @ 05:36 AM EST
|
Authored by: WhiteFang on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 12:27 AM EST |
:-D
---
DRM - Degrading, Repulsive, Meanspirited 'Nuff Said.
"I shouldn't have asked ... "[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: llanitedave on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 12:47 AM EST |
"Novell's Motion is based on the unfounded and incorrect
suspicion that SCO would not produce certain documents in
discovery."
Now, why should Novell be suspicious? After all, this is
SCO we're talking about...
---
Of course we need to communicate -- that goes without saying![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 12:52 AM EST |
... he was not obligated to do anything until a judge told him to. Apparently
SCO subscribes to that same dictum.
---
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 01:31 AM EST |
"Indeed, SCO has exceeded its obligations by producing the documents in
their entirety, without redacting the vast portions of unresponsive testimony or
withholding or redacting the corresponding exhibits."
Lemons to lemonade: we don't have time to redact so we'll just turn that around
and say we didn't redact as a measure of good faith.
(eye roll)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 02:36 AM EST |
Does Novell have information (from IBM?) that will allow it to rebut SCO's
response? SCO seems to admit they have not turned over several depositions from
witnesses who had relevant testimony. Why is are the depositions withheld not
relevant?
It's hard for me to believe that IBM would fail to ask a few questions relevant
to Novell's case in every possible deposition. Even if the testimony wasn't
relevant why withhold it?
Even if SCO had turned over everything, I think I'd wait for the Judge to rule
the issue was moot rather that withdraw the motion. The production seems tardy
at best, and the Judge should have the opportunity to comment on that at least.
---
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 02:46 AM EST |
I just checked on my dictionary to see if "summary" still meant what
I thought it did. I guess in the US the supply of judges is controlled
like in my country, so that there is always just a little too much work
for them. That way you don't get some bored judge getting irritated
with these proceedings, and coming straight out with:
"Alright people, we've had three years of pussy footin' shadow dancin'
argey bargey, and everybody should now know which way's up. I'm
starting the trial of this case next week. I'll see you gentlemen here,
9am. Tuesday"
---
Orietur Vobis Timentibus Deum Sol Justitiae[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yawn..... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 10:34 AM EST
- Yawn..... - Authored by: k12linux on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 02:26 PM EST
- Yawn..... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 04:52 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 06:16 AM EST |
"Deliberate lying under oath; a felony offense."
I guess memorandums come with a "crossed fingers" disclaimer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 07:08 AM EST |
I think the Judge(s) haarbor a few small thoughts around the idea that it's too
bad the rack and thumbscrews are out of style.
;-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mhoyes on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 08:34 AM EST |
The motion from Novell appears to have done its intended job. I have seen many
cases where one party doesn't do anything until you run to the judge with a
motion. Once that is done, all the processes are handled and then they go to
the judge and say "it wasn't us....we did what we were ordered to do."
Since the justice system is predicated on being civil so the assumption is
always to give a benifit of the doubt, I would say that this motion, if not
withdrawn, will be denied as being moot.
The question I have is if SCO will then try to use it as a club to the media to
show how Novell is such a bad company. I can just see them talking about that,
and the MS deal and trying to paint Novell in a more negative light.
Just my thoughts
IANAL
meh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 08:35 AM EST |
Blake Stowell?
One of Novell's counterclaims is about SCO's public statements that SCO owns the
copyrights (Novell's counterclaim for slander of title).
Why isn't the testimony of main person at SCO who makes public statements, who
is responsible for making public statements, and made some public statements on
this particular issue himself, not relevant???
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 10:50 AM EST |
<I>
...and there are no more virgins involved
</I>
Maybe SCO is hoping that their suicide legal bombing will win them 72 in
paradise....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 12:06 PM EST |
I am as interested as most in having Microsoft/SCO/etc. stop their FUD campaign
and simply "put up or shut up". Is there any legal precedent to the
idea of using some sort of "motion to compel" to get Microsoft and/or
SCO to simply provide all evidence of any patent disputes against free software
so they can all be put to bed at once? This sort of "dribbling" of
assertions is harmful and is in some sense illegal, isn't it? Can't we set some
sort of time limit, whether per software package or for groups of packages, that
says "you cannot enforce any patents against this freely reviewable
software after date XXX, so you are compelled to provide evidence of
infringement by (earlier) date YYY so remedies can be implemented and reviewed
by date XXX or you forever surrender your right to do so"?
Paul W, Denver CO[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: thombone on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 01:56 PM EST |
If anything, SCO has proven that lying to courts can be done without fear of
penalty, in America.
I certainly cannot call this justice. I call it a meal ticket for the world's
bottom feeders (better known as lawyers).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 06:11 PM EST |
I tried to post this on the article about the Novell Motion to Compel, but it
brought me back to the main page. Also, apologies in advance if this has been
mentioned before and I missed the post.
There seems to be a discontinuity
between the 1st Set of Requests for Production (as exhibit D to their
motion to compel) and the second set (as exhibit H to same). The
first set numbers from 1-5 and the second set goes from 18-45. What happened to
requests 6-17?
Should exhibit D be a revised version of the initial set of
requests? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Something odd - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 29 2006 @ 03:01 PM EST
|
Authored by: darkonc on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 06:43 PM EST |
What I notice is that they claim that they're providing Novell with irrelevent
materials ... "many of those transcripts consist almost entirely of
unresponsive testimony." -- thus dumping irrelevant material on Novell
(without even, I'm sure, bothering to tell them what material they know is
non-responsive ).
This allows SCO to snow Novell with lots of useless
material to eat their time.
On the other hand, they're not providing SCO
with what they claim are non-responsive articles -- and, once again, not
describing why they think they're non-responsive.
This is despite the fact that
they claim to have done a detailed examination of the documents -- which should
have resulted in equally detailed documention of why each document is, or isn't
responsive, and what parts are responsive.
Most damning, in my mind,
although they claim that "Implicit in those representations is the
representation that withheld documents are not responsive.", they provide
themselves with a backdoor if they're caught holding responsive documents by
claiming that they're going to look again for responsive documents that they can
provide at the last minute.
If they're going to provide documents that are
"almost entirely unresponsive" without bothering to explain what parts are
unresponsive, then why are they not just as happy to provide the rest of the
supposedly unresponsive documents -- and given that they have insisted on
providing Novell with what they describe as mostly useless documents, I think
that it's only fair that they povide them with the documentation (that they've
undoubtedly created) describing why various (parts of) documents are
irrelevent.
.... and, given their history, I think that they need to get
explicit about their 'implicit' claim that they've provided all responsive
documents, and remove the back door of saying that the responsive documents that
they've held back were only held back accidently. --- Powerful, committed
communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 09:05 PM EST |
Hey, everybody!
So I'm sitting here reading all the pundits talk about how Novell is violating
the GPL (or may be violating, but there doesn't seem to be anyone outside the
two parties saying there's no way they did) while listening to a little Sex
Pistols, and a thought strikes me. I want to discredit this as being
oversimplistic or completely unlikely, but I have little background with the law
or the realm of possibility here. So let me turn and ask, what do you, the
viewers at home, think?
If the deal gets shredded by the FSF lawyers, does Novell have to give M$' cash
back? If not, the thought occurs to me that this could be a scam. Novell gets
the money, knowing the deal won't survive, and laughs all the way to the bank.
I can't imagine any company not putting something in the contract to protect
themselves. M$ is predator, not prey, so I can't see them falling for it. But
I just can't shake the idea.
Target up...open fire!
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger
"Aha! You fool! I have caught you in a logical conundrum and now must
mock you for your idiocy!"
--Rat
"Pearls Before Swine"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mexaly on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 10:26 PM EST |
To me, this is the headline.
The motion is more of the same.
With Judge Kimball and Judge Wells now working both cases, dirty tricks passed
off as "oops, mistake" won't be tolerated on the repeat.
I wonder if the scoundrels are going to try it anyway?
[grin]
---
My thanks go out to PJ and the legal experts that make Groklaw great.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|