|
SCO's Redaction to Sealed Motion for Reconsideration - Curioser and Curioser |
|
Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 01:42 AM EST
|
Somebody is getting confused. Maybe it's me. Maybe it's the clerk. Maybe it's SCO. But SCO has filed a document that is supposedly a redaction of document 894, which is titled on Pacer as "SCO Motion for Reconsideration of November 29th Order", and it's marked "SEALED MOTION". The new filing is called not a redaction of that motion but just Motion for Reconsideration of November 29th Order [PDF, #902]. 902 is described on the docket sheet as being "REDACTION to [894] SEALED Motion". 894 was filed on December 13th. 902 was filed on the 19th. Are you with me so far?
On Monday, we looked at docket number 897, which was filed on the 14th. Pacer says 897 is the "SCO Request for Reconsideration of November 29th Order" (note "request", not "motion"). The court notified SCO on the 18th that this filing, 897, is deficient, because it was "filed as a request and would be better filed as a motion". Now, 897 was filed on December 14th, the day *after* the sealed Motion for Reconsideration, 894. So, the steps, at least on Pacer, go curiously like this, as far as I can make out:
- SCO files [894] sealed Motion for Reconsideration (13th)
- SCO files [897] Request for Reconsideration (14th)
- Court tells [900] SCO (18th) its request [897] needs to be a motion instead, despite the fact that SCO has already filed a motion [894] the day before the request [897].
- SCO files [902] a "redacted" version of the supposedly sealed motion [894], but [897], which is the request for reconsideration, and [902], the "redacted" motion, are identical, which means that the request was actually titled a motion.
I give up. From Pacer, it looks like SCO double filed, once as a motion and once as a request. This is starting to remind me of the subpoena that ordered Oracle to have a witness show up without fail for a deposition on January 27 in Oakland, California and the notice of the deposition said to show up on the 27th for the same deposition in Armonk, New York. Remember? Maybe the court gave up too and that is why it asked SCO to file anew and told it how to file, as a motion, not a request. Honestly, that could actually be the simple explanation. In any case, I'm not going to make my brain hurt any more over trying to figure out what SCO is doing. When they refile, I'll turn my brain back on. Also, the parties wish to take a break themselves, and heaven only knows someone needs a vacation. The parties have stipulated to give each other until January 12th to reply to all the summary judgment motions. The deadline had been December 22. Here's what the stipulated motion says about the time extension: The parties, through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate and jointly move the Court for an Order enlarging deadline for both parties to file their respective reply memoranda in further support of the pending motions for summary judgment. The parties respectfully request that the current deadline, December 22, 2006, be extended to January 12, 2007. The parties make this motion with the understanding that the requested extension will not affect the dates set for oral argument on the parties’ motions for summary judgment, and will allow the Court sufficient time to consider the parties’ papers. This of course mainly benefits SCO, because it has more summary judgment motions to reply to than IBM. And as longtimers will recall, the holidays are very big with SCOfolk. Just kidding around.
Here are all the pertinent Pacer entries, so you can have fun with this puzzle, if you are so inclined. Or, like me, you may wish to just wait and see what SCO files that sticks:
894 -
Filed:
12/13/2006
Entered:
12/14/2006
Sealed Motion
Docket Text: SEALED MOTION for Reconsideration of November 29th Order #[884] filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (blk, )
895 -
Filed:
12/13/2006
Entered:
12/14/2006
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re [894] SEALED MOTION to Reconsider Order #[884] dated 11/29/06, filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (blk, )
897 -
Filed & Entered:
12/14/2006
Request
Docket Text: REQUEST for Reconsideration of November 29th Order filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Hatch, Brent)
898 -
Filed & Entered:
12/14/2006
Brief
Docket Text: SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM BRIEF re [897] Request for Reconsideration of November 29th Order filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Hatch, Brent)
900 -
12/18/2006 - NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY re 897 Request. The document was filed as a request and would be better filed as a motion. The court asks the filer of the original document to file the pleading again. The new pleading will receive a new document number on the docket. (jmr ) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
901 -
Filed & Entered:
12/18/2006
Motion for Extension of Time
Docket Text: Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to file reply memoranda in further support of pending motions for summary judgment filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Shaughnessy, Todd)
902 -
Filed & Entered:
12/19/2006
Redacted Document
Docket Text: REDACTION to [894] SEALED MOTION for Reconsideration of November 29th Order by Plaintiff SCO Group. (James, Mark)
I only know one thing as clear as a bell. I'd pay to be a fly on the wall at BS&F. And to give them a hand, I've posted in News Picks an article by a paralegal on how to draft a motion properly, so next time they positively can't miss. Yes, I'm just kidding around. Maybe they didn't know which was the correct form, a request or a motion, and they worried about missing a deadline, which can happen with a request for reconsideration, which has a short time to file, so they just filed both. That would actually be a smart thing to do in a case like that, I'd say. The worst thing a law firm can do is miss a deadline.
Update: Thanks to Chad, we have it as text now:
*****************************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address, phone, fax]
Stuart H. Singer (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Robert Silver (admitted pro hac)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLOWER. 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.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
__________________________
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF NOVEMBER 29TH ORDER
Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
_________________________
Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc., by and through undersigned counsel, moves for
reconsideration of this Court's Order dated November 29, 2006, which affirmed in total the Magistrate Judge's Order of June 28, 2006, wherein the Magistrate Judge struck 187 technology disclosures from the case. SCO respectfully submits that the rules of procedure do not support such a result under the circumstances of this case.
The grounds for this motion are new evidence previously unavailable, and the need to
correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. SCO respectfully requests that this Court
reconsider the Order to allow for consideration of new evidence not in the original record and to
prevent manifest injustice. The Magistrate Judge did not have, at the time she entered the Order
striking SCO's claims, the benefit of the expert reports prepared in this action.
SCO also seeks leave to reopen four depositions of IBM programmers, each reopened
deposition not to exceed two hours, for the purpose of exploring an evidentiary issue important to
IBM's Motion.
Last, the December Submission did comply with the required level of specificity by
providing a URL address on which numerous patches – all of which indicate file, version and line
– at the Tab linked to Items 279 and 280.
For the foregoing reasons, SCO prays that this Court will reconsider its Order of
November 29, 2006, and grant relief as requested above.
DATED this 13th day of December, 2006.
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent 0. Hatch
Mark F. James
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Robert Silver
Stuart H. Singer
Stephen N. Zack
Edward Normand
By __[signature]__
Counsel for The SCO Group, Inc.
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and
correct copy of the foregoing SCO's MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION was served on
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff, International Business Machines Corporation, on this 13th day
of December, 2006, via electronic mail (by agreement of the parties) to the following:
David Marriott, Esq. (email)
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]
Todd Shaughnessy, Esq. (email)
Snell & Wilmer LLP
[address]
By____[signature]_____
3
|
|
Authored by: moosie on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 01:50 AM EST |
Make links clicky.
- moosie.
---
"I can make you feel, but I can't make you...think" - Jethro Tull[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "And your wise men .... - Authored by: crs17 on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 02:01 AM EST
- that firefox thing at foxnews is a joke - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 02:58 AM EST
- Logs - Authored by: Ed L. on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 03:38 AM EST
- that firefox thing at foxnews is a joke - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 03:44 AM EST
- that firefox thing at foxnews is a joke - Authored by: MathFox on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 05:04 AM EST
- Some businesses have issues with the license - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 05:57 AM EST
- Internet explorer only sites? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 06:17 AM EST
- Sounds about right to me - Authored by: cmc on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 08:05 AM EST
- Maybe MS has teams running around using MS to hit sites? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 08:08 AM EST
- inconsistant websites - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 10:54 AM EST
- that firefox thing at foxnews is a joke - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 01:17 PM EST
- Netscape factor? - Authored by: skyisland on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 01:50 PM EST
- Practical Numbers - Authored by: tredman on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 12:42 AM EST
- It is the ads that they measure - hence the biased statistics - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 03:56 PM EST
- Europe Worst Lobby Awards for patent meddling - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 03:04 AM EST
- Do you think Hatch is still being paid? - Authored by: skidrash on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 03:12 AM EST
- Knoppix as a samba client -- preserve file date/time? - Authored by: cmc on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 08:18 AM EST
- Top 10 Tech Lawsuits - Authored by: bb5ch39t on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 11:40 AM EST
- Patent Trouble - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 12:03 PM EST
- GNU+Linux instead of GNU/Linux - Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 12:22 PM EST
- New ruling on songwriting credits in UK - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 12:56 PM EST
- Ouch! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 04:05 PM EST
- Sony Settles Rootkit CD Suits With Texas, California - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 02:14 PM EST
- A recent real world Perry Mason moment - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 03:19 PM EST
- Corel WP Waffles On ODF - Authored by: W^L+ on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 05:10 PM EST
- Proof of problems at the USPTO - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 05:25 PM EST
- RE:Goodbye VHS, farewell fair use (audio) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 05:52 PM EST
- Mozilla Releases 'Critical' Patches for Firefox - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 08:14 PM EST
- IBM to end stock options for directors - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 08:16 PM EST
- Edward W. Felten Joins EFF Board of Directors - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 08:41 PM EST
|
Authored by: Fogey on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 01:53 AM EST |
Well, this being SCO, it's probably just the Re-Redaction of the Re-Request for
Re-Reconsideration.
---
Old age and treachery ALWAYS
beats Youth and enthusiasm![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 01:59 AM EST |
As I've said before - I'd give almost anything to be able to read minds, if I
could pick the time, and the people.
---
Wayne
http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Mind Reading - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 02:33 AM EST
- Mind Reading - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 07:15 AM EST
- Don't read the SCO minds! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 11:11 AM EST
|
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 02:14 AM EST |
... all in one place.
---
You just can't win with DRM.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 03:00 AM EST |
I don't think there is much to understand -- its just the most people on Groklaw
(there were some exceptions) read way too much into the court's notice of
deficiency.
All the happened is that when 897 was filed, either SCO made a mistake, or the
clerk made a mistake, and it was entered into Pacer as a Request, when it should
have been entered as a Motion (specificially, redacted version of 894, the
sealed *Motion* for Reconsideration).
Someone noticed the mistake, and the court told SCO to re-file as a Motion,
which is what they have done. Of course the contents are unchanged (same as
897), because there was never anything wrong with the contents. (Well, being a
SCO-authored document, there is lots wrong with it, but that is another story
;-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: skidrash on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 03:07 AM EST |
which one to go through when they're pushed.
"oh, judge - silly us, did you really think we meant THAT? no, actually, we
meant THIS ...."
Just like their discovery - to gain an unfair advantage, delay until the 11th
hour, 59th minute, 59th second.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- And then... - Authored by: cricketjeff on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 06:25 AM EST
- "11th hour, 59th minute, 59th second" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 07:32 AM EST
- "11th hour, 59th minute, 59th second" - Authored by: PTrenholme on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 08:32 AM EST
- "11th hour, 59th minute, 59th second" - Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 09:14 AM EST
- "11th hour, 59th minute, 59th second" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 09:29 AM EST
- "11th hour, 59th minute, 59th second" - Authored by: Doghouse on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 10:07 AM EST
- "11th hour, 59th minute, 59th second" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 03:42 PM EST
|
Authored by: wharris on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 03:12 AM EST |
Near as I can tell It's pretty simple. 897 should be a motion for
reconsideration
isntead of a request for reconsideration. Instead of chaning the title, the
court
asked SCO to refile. SCO did, as a motion (Actually, as a redacted version of
their
existing version).
Don't see any mystery here but IANAL.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 04:52 AM EST |
"The worst thing a law firm can do is miss a deadline."
Really? I'd think having a client like Darl the Snarl would have to run that a
very close second![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: elronxenu on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 05:17 AM EST |
I guess that our document 897 is not the correct document
897. The court has
entered this document properly as 902,
and one day soon they will realise their
mistake and make
the correct 897 available.
I guess that the correct 897
will be titled "REQUEST
for ..." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No - Authored by: GLJason on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 10:22 AM EST
|
Authored by: billyskank on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 05:57 AM EST |
:D
---
It's not the software that's free; it's you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GLJason on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 06:10 AM EST |
Very simple (after I spent an hour thinking about it :)). 897 and 898 were
incorrectly filed by the clerk as new entries when they are actually redactions
to 894 and 895. The mistake may have been made since 894 wasn't redacted at all
and the word "REDACTED" doesn't appear on the motion. Also the docket text is
incorrectly entered as "REQUEST". 900 is Judge Kimball telling the clerk
to re-file the documents with correct docket text, since he looked at them and
they are motions. This will give them new docket numbers, possibly because the
system doesn't allow the modification of docket text once entered (sinsible if
you don't want a rogue clerk messing with ten-year-old cases). The clerk
correctly re-files 897 as 902 (nearly exact same documents, down to clerk
stamping both received on 12/13 so it couldn't be SCO re-filing), and either
hasn't bothered with 898 yet (Judge Kimball didn't mention fixing that one) or
hasn't gotten around to it. Since it is simply a redaction of a properly filed
and sealed memorandum and the only issue is with the docket text, I don't think
it's a big deal.
So 897 and 902 are almost identical, down to both
being stamped "Received 2006 Dec 13 7:30". And despite being filed (by clerk)
on separate dates (8/14 and 8/19 supposedly).
About that "almost". I don't
know if anyone else noticed, but pages 2 and 3 are per-pixel identical on both
versions. However, if you open up both documents in different tabs in Firefox
(or in some PDF viewer) and switch between them, you can see that Page 1 is
slightly different, although the contents remain the same. It's almost as if
the first page was scanned at two different times, but the second and third
digital page were copied from the original scan. I don't know what this could
mean...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 08:33 AM EST |
Actually it's the reply in further support that has been delayed. The
oppositions have already been filled.
So, as far as you want to characterize it as helping one side or the other, I'd
say it helps IBM a little. Since I believe IBM is far more likely to get their
SJ motions than SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 09:00 AM EST |
Hey, everybody!
So the only way to find out what SCO is presently doing with these filings is to
wait for them to stop, then track where they've been.
Or does the "Uncertainty Priciple" mean their prospects in the case?
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Oh, Great. SCO Has Gone Heisenberg On Us - Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 09:16 AM EST
- Oh, Great. SCO Has Gone Heisenberg On Us - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 09:47 AM EST
- Oh, Great. SCO Has Gone Heisenberg On Us - Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 10:24 AM EST
- The more specific SCO have to be... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 10:57 AM EST
- I think SCO's prospects in the case are NOT uncertain. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 11:18 AM EST
- Oh, Great. SCO Has Gone Heisenberg On Us - Authored by: gtall on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 11:50 AM EST
- Oh, Great. SCO Has Gone Heisenberg On Us - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 01:25 PM EST
- Great Defense - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 08:59 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 09:54 AM EST |
PJ said:
I'm not going to make my brain hurt any more over
trying to figure out what SCO is doing. When they refile, I'll turn my brain
back on.
PJ, now you've gone and done it! By turning your
brain off, you will most likely thoroughly understand what SCO is doing! Be
afraid , be very afraid !
Seriously,
I wish you and all grokers the best blessings of the holiday season!
...D [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 10:52 AM EST |
This is the original motion that was rejected by Judge Kimball as inadequate.
It is dated December 13, 2006. Nothing new to see here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 11:10 AM EST |
SCO has been crying wolf for 3 years, they say they do not know what a wolf
looks like. The longer this drags on the better for Linux & the community,
by that I am suggesting that the case has already been dismissed in the minds of
the majority leaving only motivation as a factor for continuing.
Can anyone think of any other OS that has been subject to a MICRO scopic
examination ?
Would Microsoft ever allow windows code under go this type of scrutiny?
Nuff said, now for a quote " Time is on my side, yes it is"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jmc on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 11:13 AM EST |
In the bleak midwinter, while frosty winds make moan,
PJ's working out what SCO means and feeling all alone.
It's not as if she's come to think that SCO has got a case,
But she really would just like to know how came we to this place.
If they were playing Chess or Go it really would be time,
That looking round the board they'd say "It's hopeless we resign",
But SCO has had it from Judge Wells and Kimball's shown the door,
Still onward goes their argument - for discovery they crave more.
They endlessly repeat their bleating 'gainst all reason it may face,
That IBM should help them out with failings in their case.
Of "truckloads", "mountains" stolen code they haven't found
a jot,
So IBM employees now should have to find the lot.
"If they can find it", so they say, "that only goes to
show",
"That the seekers of the evidence should be IBM not SCO".
"And if they can't find it", they say on, "and they're the ones
who know",
"Then how can anyone expect the finders to be SCO?".
This sophistry seems clever and it's gone on for so long,
That all and sundry overlook here IBM has done no wrong.
That despite the system's failings and its glacier-like pace,
It really is now down to SCO to come up with their case.
And if they cannot do that as surely now they ought,
They'd better give it up and seek the mercy of the court.
Their latest pleading's pretty lame and offensive can't get higher,
Than saying to Judge K - "No de novo you're a liar".
For four years now we've had our fun and said to Darl, "You Jerk,
This senseless case has haunted us and we must get back to work.
It's time for you to take your loot and find a sunny beach,
In some poor third-world country where extradition doesn't reach".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 11:26 AM EST |
many non-ie browsers are set to identify themselves to web servers as ie.
also, most users use the default browser installed on their machine when they
get it. iow, ie due to the windows monopoly on the desktop.
sum.zero
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- strange - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 11:28 AM EST
- strange - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 12:11 PM EST
- borwser identification - Authored by: Tyro on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 02:38 PM EST
|
Authored by: DMF on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 01:18 PM EST |
One decision was the reaffirmation of Judge Wells' order.
The other decision was about scheduling, vacating the trial date.
It could be that one of the sealed duplicates deals with the scheduling issue.
It would be sealed if they talked about how it affects their financial
condition. And maybe duplicate titling is to throw everyone (i.e. PJ) off... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mrcreosote on Wednesday, December 20 2006 @ 11:29 PM EST |
... is starting to give me motions of a somewhat different type.
---
----------
mrcreosote[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|