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
Novell's Evidentiary Objections to SCO's Exhibits, and more...
Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 11:44 PM EDT

Several new filings in SCO v. Novell today. Novell has a redacted memorandum in opposition to SCO's Motion for Summary Judgment on Novell's 1st, 2nd and 5th Causes of Action and for Summary Judgment on Novell's First Counterclaim, but the most interesting is a type of filing we haven't seen before, Novell's Evidentiary Objections to SCO's Summary Judgment Exhibits [PDF].

Novell wants the testimony disregarded on various grounds from all those folks who swore under penalty of perjury that the APA doesn't mean what it plainly says. "Novell's objections are based on five grounds: inadmissable parol evidence, lack of personal knowledge, hearsay, the best evidence rule, and improper authentication."

Man, this litigation has a little taste of absolutely everything. You'll also see on page one why the Novell team added a California lawyer. I couldn't have picked a better case to explain how litigation works.

Novell explains all five grounds to start off, and most are self-evident, but the best evidence rule is essentially that courts should accept the best evidence of a writing a party is seeking to prove, like a contract. If you have the original document, that would be the best evidence of its contents, not a Xerox copy, and not a bunch of people swearing up and down on a Bible that they remember it differently.

SCO has offered testimony, Novell charges, "that purports to recite the contents of the APA, its Amendments, and UNIX licensing agreements, but which does not accurately recite the contents of those agreements." Like saying copyrights were transferred when the APA says they were excluded. That testimony should be excluded, Novell says, because the agreements themselves are the best evidence of their contents.

The parol evidence rule is the rule that a clear agreement trumps (and excludes) testimony that contradicts it, like R. Duff Thompson contradicting the APA's exclusion of copyrights. They mention him also in connection with lack of personal knowledge, because he wasn't involved in drafting the relevant clauses in the APA. Same with Doug Michels, William Murphy, Lawrence A. Bouffard, Steven Sabbath, Jim Wilt, William Broderick, the paralegal Kim Madsen, Alok Mohan, John Maciaszek, Geoff Seabrook, Robert Frankenberg, Jay Peterson, Burt Levine, Jean Acheson, and Ed Chatlos. Novell wants it all excluded and disregarded.

Oh, and Darl McBride's testimony too. "Throughout his testimony, and without foundation, Mr. McBride offers inadmissable speculation as to the responsibilities, actions, and intentions of Santa Cruz, Novell, Baystar, and IBM." I'll say. All the ugly innuendo I refused to type up -- it's all hearsay, Novell points out, and inadmissable.

Maureen O'Gara's nasty speculations about Chris Stone -- Novell says her testimony is inadmissable on three grounds, parol evidence rule, lack of personal knowledge, and best evidence rule. "The excerpt of Ms. O'Gara's testimony contains speculation as to the intentions of others, including Novell and Chris Stone. Accordingly, her testimony lacks personal knowledge, and must not be considered." I told you. You can't pull in court the kinds of snarky innuendo one might publish in one's own newsletter. I don't think you should do it anywhere, but courts can call you on it. Courts are not interested in what you think someone meant. They want to know what you said and what you saw. Period. Well, there are some exceptions. If you heard someone blurt out, immediately after hearing a gunshot, "Omigod, I think I killed someone," the court probably wants to hear about that. Here are the Federal Rules of Evidence, if you'd like to dig deeper. You'll see hearsay and lack of personal knowledge there, along with authentication requirements. Here's a brief definition of the hearsay rule, which explains the exceptions, some of which I have no doubt SCO will claim in Ms. O'Gara's case at least.

Novell offers SCO no quarter, no matter how small the issue. Improper authentication in this case is that SCO neglected to get signatures on some declarations or didn't have them notarized properly. I think Novell's lawyers have observed that the other side isn't so detail-oriented. Geoff Seabrook's declaration wasn't signed or dated. That may seem like a small thing, and in one sense it is, but actually, it's kind of shocking. Imagine if lawyers could submit documents to a court that are not signed or dated or notarized. The creative firms, shall we say, could have a ball, lying from here to China. So courts require that documents be authenticated, so they know the person really said it and signed it and means it.

The introduction to Novell's evidentiary objections goes like this:

Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Novell, Inc. ("Novell") hereby objects to and requests the Court to strike and disregard for all purposes the following evidence presented by Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") in its Motion and Memorandum in Opposition to Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Fourth Claim for Relief, and in Support of SCO's Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, PACER Nos. 213, 224 ("1/17/07 Cross Motion"), its Reply in Support of its 1/17/07 Cross Motion ("3/19/07 Reply"), and its Motion and Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its First, Second, and Fifth Causes of Action, and for Summary Judgment on Novell's Fifth Counterclaim, PACER Nos. 258-259 ("4/9/07"). Novell's objections are based on five grounds: inadmissable parol evidence, lack of personal knowledge, hearsay, the best evidence rule, and improper authentication.

I linked to the documents, all PDFs, that Novell is talking about, so if you wish you can follow along with their objections closely. Here are all the new filings with the Docket information and exhibits:

05/14/2007 292 -
Defendant's MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 258 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) on SCO's First, Second and Fifth Causes of Action and for Summary Judgment on Novell's First Counterclaim MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) on SCO's First, Second and Fifth Causes of Action and for Summary Judgment on Novell's First Counterclaim [REDACTED] filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Response to SCO's Statement of Facts # 2 Exhibit B # 3 Exhibit C)(Sneddon, Heather) (Entered: 05/14/2007)

05/14/2007 293 -
DECLARATION of James McKenna re 292 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, filed by Novell, Inc.. (Sneddon, Heather) (Entered: 05/14/2007)

05/14/2007 294 -
NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of (Sealed Memorandum in Opposition & Sealed/Redacted Supplemental Declaration) filed by Defendant Novell, Inc. (Sneddon, Heather) (Entered: 05/14/2007)

05/14/2007 295 - **SEALED DOCUMENT** MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 292 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on SCO's First, Second, and Fifth Causes of Action and for Summary Judgment on Novell's First Counterclaim (Copyright Ownership) filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (No document attached.) (blk) (Entered: 05/15/2007)

05/14/2007 296 - **SEALED DOCUMENT** SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Kenneth W. Brakebill in Opposition to SCO's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (No document attached.) (blk) (Entered: 05/15/2007)

05/14/2007 297 - REDACTION to [296] Sealed Supplemental Declaration of Kenneth W. Brakebill by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Exhibits not attached in this image due to overlength size.) (blk) (Entered: 05/15/2007)

05/15/2007 298 - OBJECTIONS to [213] Sealed Document, 258 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) on SCO's First, Second and Fifth Causes of Action and for Summary Judgment on Novell's First Counterclaim MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) on SCO's First, Second and Fifth Causes of Action and for Summary Judgment on Novell's First Counterclaim, 224 Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Counterclaim, 259 Memorandum in Support of Motion, [Evidentiary Objections to SCO's Summary Judgment Exhibits] filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B)(Sneddon, Heather) (Entered: 05/15/2007)

  


Novell's Evidentiary Objections to SCO's Exhibits, and more... | 315 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Novell's Evidentiary Objections to SCO's Exhibits, and more...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 11:57 PM EDT
PJ, you are up late tonight!
And I got to post the first comment!
whooohoooo!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: AJWM on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 12:00 AM EDT
As and if needed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: AJWM on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 12:01 AM EDT
Links clicky if you can.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not like any of this should be a surprise.
Authored by: MDT on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 12:11 AM EDT
Really,

I'm not slamming Novell, or PJ. I'm just saying, Groklaw (that means PJ, the
regulars, and even the Anon's) have been saying for at least a year or more that
half the stuff SCO brought up about the APA was nothing more than Hearsay,
Wishful Thinking (Darl), and Watercooler Rumors (Everyone else).

So it's really no surprise (to anyone except Darl and Co., maybe) that all this
stuff is being called as the bovine fecal matter it is.

I do have a question, if all this evidence get's thrown out, isn't that pretty
strong evidence that BS&F is either Incompetent (for putting it in in the
first place) or guilty of pushing a Nuisance suit? I mean, really, the law
cited by Novell is pretty clear, and none of this stuff even comes close to
being allowed under the relevant laws.



---
MDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

The real question is
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 12:21 AM EDT
When will Kimball actually start, you know, judging. Up until now, he seems to have made every effort to avoid issuing any dispositive rulings.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who's responsible for the testimony?
Authored by: kozmcrae on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 12:31 AM EDT

Doug Michels, William Murphy, Lawrence A. Bouffard, Steven Sabbath, Jim Wilt, William Broderick, the paralegal Kim Madsen, Alok Mohan, John Maciaszek, Geoff Seabrook, Robert Frankenberg, Jay Peterson, Burt Levine, Jean Acheson, and Ed Chatlos.

These saps idiots dupes "experts" who provided testimony for SCO, are they going to be left holding the bag so to speak for BS&F?  Or will BS&F bare some responsibility for their testimony if I comes to the fore that perjury was committed.

Richard

---
Darl, have you been lying to us? Yup.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What exactly did Doug Michels say?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 01:06 AM EDT
It would be interesting to know more about what Doug Michels offered...? He
was heading up Santa Cruz Operation at the time no? If he is saying something
different than what Novell is saying, then what would that mean?

[ Reply to This | # ]

This move surprises me
Authored by: devil's advocate on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 01:21 AM EDT

My impression of SCO's evidence was that it was broadly consistent with Novell's admission that the original intent of both parties was to include the copyrights in the sale. When it became obvious that Santa Cruz could not afford the full price they got excluded. OK, so SCO played up the original intent bit and made their witnesses imply that this was also the final intent, which it plainly wasn't. But I'd still be surprised if all those declarations got thrown out, especially Steve Sabbath's, because in some respects they all have some degree of personal knowledge, even if they said a few things they shouldn't have. Hey, they've got to fill up their depositions with something! They can't just say: I was in the tea room when they were discussing the contract and I think Steve said ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judges haven't decided anything lately
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 01:30 AM EDT
It seems to me the work for the judges is just piling up. The longer they wait,
the more work.

I am not aware of any decision or ruling since March or so. There are lots of
"Order granting [...] Motion for Extension of Time", but that's about
it.

When are they going to decide on the various outstanding motions (in the IBM or
Novell case)?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can we now say 'Lack of Personal Knowledge'
Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 01:42 AM EDT
Instead of M. O'Gorilla just to keep her name out of it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Errors and Omissions
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 03:24 AM EDT

This looks like stuff that a first year law student should get right, which is a
really nasty indictment of BSF. Even worse from their point of view is that a
lot of the nasties from this case are starting to show up relatively high on
Google searches. Search "Boies Schiller Flexner" and you'll see what I
mean. This is not good advertising for them.



---
Wayne

http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Question about the much vaunted legal system
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 03:45 AM EDT

If SCO's case was being handled by Steptoe and Son Scrap Merchants and Lawyers, would it have been thrown out by now?

I mean, if some tiny firm of shyster nobodies were handling it in exactly the same way as BS&F are doing, would it have been allowed to continue so long?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Addition, a reminder
Authored by: cricketjeff on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 06:01 AM EDT
0+0=0
0+0+0=0
0+0+0+0=0
0+0+0+0+0=0
0+0+0+0+0+0=0
0+0+0+0+0+0+0=0
0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=0
0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=0

etc.

TSG's list of 0s now fills about 16 sides of A4 (normal office paper to
non-standard using Americans) and growing fast, the answer to the addition is
still 0 however.

---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.

[ Reply to This | # ]

In Reality...
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 06:12 AM EDT
In reality, however, Thompson admits that he had no involvement in drafting the contract that effectuated the sale...
Oh dear.

Reality is being brought to bear on SCO's case. That could be fatal. What a dastardly trick. Just when we were getting used to SCO's comfortable, nobody-can-hurt-us alternate universe.

Drat, drat and double-drat!

SCO, this does not look good.

---
Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity – and I'm not sure about the former. -- Einstein

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Supposed Mr Seabrook
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 06:54 AM EDT

From the PDF:

Mr. Seabrook purports to recite the contents of the relevant contracts, but misstates those contents.
As this was from an unsigned declaration, surely that should read: "The supposed Mr. Seabrook purports...", as in: "Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury..."

:)

---
Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity – and I'm not sure about the former. -- Einstein

[ Reply to This | # ]

Generic Objection
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 07:08 AM EDT
Mr. Xxxx’s testimony seeks to contradict the APA’s express terms, and is therefore legally irrelevant and inadmissible under the parol evidence rule and the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Considered as a "generic objection", that's quite a big boulder for SCO to shift. It means if SCO provide testimony that contradicts the APA, that testimony goes up in a puff of smoke.

My take of that is: "What SCO says is irrelevant; go ahead Judge K, just read the APA and make our day."

Kind of like what we've been wanting all along.

---
Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity – and I'm not sure about the former. -- Einstein

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oops
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 07:18 AM EDT
Levine further testified that during APA negotiations, he had reviewed and marked up drafts of Schedules 1.1(a) and (b) of the APA, which listed Included and Excluded Assets. He revised the list of included assets, but did not add copyrights. He left the exclusion of “all copyrights” intact while making other revisions to intellectual property provision of the Excluded Assets schedule. He then faxed his markup to Wilson Sonsini. (Id. at 71:19-77:18; Supp. Brakebill Decl., Ex. 36). Wilson Sonsini then passed on Levine’s comments to Santa Cruz’s outside counsel, Brobeck.
And SCO submit the Deposition Transcript of Burt Levine to support their case.

---
Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity – and I'm not sure about the former. -- Einstein

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Oops - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 10:06 AM EDT
Summary Judgement Rules
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 07:42 AM EDT
Unless the evidence is thrown out, the judge must consider it at face value to
give Novel its requested summary judgements.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A bit of context: why this motion matters
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 07:49 AM EDT
And why the motion was filed now, rather than sooner or later:

Novell has filed motions for summary judgement on various claims. (So has SCO,
but here I'm only concerned with the SJ motions that Novell filed.) Summary
judgement allows issues to be decided without the bother of a full trial. Out
of fairness, SJ is only allowed where no relevant facts are disputed. The
standard of decision on SJ is that you (the judge) don't try to weigh a witness'
credibility (that's a job for the jury at trial); instead you accept as fact any
competent evidence that the non-moving party (SCO) presents, and furthermore you
make any inferences in that party's favor. If the non-moving party *still*
can't win on that issue, there's no point going to trial, so it's safe to award
summary judgement.
Example:
Plaintiff alleges that defendent punched him in the face without provocation.
Moves for summary judgement on a claim of civil assault.
Defendant replies by asserting self-defense, swears out an affidavit stating
that plaintiff's cousin had warned him that plaintiff was "looking for
him" after a dispute. Allowable inference: it was reasonable for defendant
to believe that plaintiff intended immediate physical harm to plaintiff.
Plaintiff files an affidavit from his cousin, stating that the warning
conversation never happened.
This one probably cannot be decided on summary judgement. Self-defense is a
valid defense if a reasonable person would have believed that he was under
imminent threat, and in this case (without more details) it's possible that a
reasonable person in the defendant's shoes would have reached the same
conclusion the defendant claims to have reached. Of course, that depends on
whether the warning conversation really happened - the only two witnesses
contradict each other. On summary judgement, the judge has to believe the
non-moving party (the defendant), and his witnesses, as to any facts in dispute.
The jury might still decide against him, but for now the defendant has
"survived" SJ.

However, my sentence above about facts in dispute is slightly exaggerated. To
show a fact in dispute, a party has to produce admissible evidence. An
affidavit or deposition by a person who actually witnessed the event, for
example.
Novell is setting out to show that all of the "evidence" that SCO
has produced to support their version of the story is inadmissible for a variety
of reasons. For instance, that the versions of the facts being recited by SCO's
"witnesses" are not based on actual knowledge - Darl wasn't present
when the contracts were being negotiated, so how could he know what was in
Novell's negotiator's head when it was signed? Rumors and hearsay and wishful
thinking don't count.
Net result:
SJ motions by Novell, supported by:
-the contract itself
-the statements of the people who negotiated the contract
SCO opposes, offering its version of the facts:
[nothing at all, after this current motion succeeds]

No facts in dispute? Novell will win as long as it's gotten the law right.

Note that this latest motion by Novell has to knock out *all* of SCO's
"facts" related to each SJ motion in order fot the SJ to succeed.
That's a tall order, but you can see for yourself how flimsy SCO's
"facts" are. Odds are good that Novell wins most or all of this
motion, and most or all of its SJs.

[ Reply to This | # ]

BS&F is *not* incompetent
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 09:56 AM EDT
And their work is not sloppy.

This is a scam. And the object of bsf/msft/scox is not to win, but to keep the
scam alive. This gives bsf a huge amount of money, the mcbride brothers a very
healthy salary, and gives msft a big load of first rate FUD.

If you can see this case for what it is, then you will see bsf/msft/scox are all
winning. In fact they have already won in many respects.

Don't believe me? Add it up. BS&F is way ahead, about $30M in super-easy
money. McBride brothers are both doing very well for small-time Utah scam
artists. It's hard to measure FUD value, but the entire scam probably cost msft
less than one commercial.

As for scox, they were dead anyway. Scox would have been out of business two
years ago, if not for this scam.

With the scam now in it's fifth year, I think it's time to admit that the
scammers have won.

[ Reply to This | # ]

And WHY should SCO object? Hmmm....
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 09:58 AM EDT
PJ Wrote regarding exceptions to the hearsay law: "some of which I have no doubt SCO will claim suit in Ms. O'Gara's case at least."

Which ones might those be? Hmm... follow the link... read like a Darl... Aha!

"k) prior testimony, such as in deposition (taken under oath outside of court), or at a hearing, if the witness is not available (including being dead);"

Of course! That's it! PJ is threatening the ever-so-credible Ms. O'Gara's life! Quick, someone lock PJ up so she can't testify, even if we could find her, which we really never tried to do because we just wanted to harass her and prison? SO much better than just dragging her in for deposition!

Sarcasm aside, you gotta wonder about these folks sometimes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Evidence?
Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 09:58 AM EDT
How long before SCO starts claiming the Federal Rules of Evidence don't mean
what they say? ;-)


---
Be sincere, even if you have to fake it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's Evidentiary Objections to SCO's Exhibits, and more...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 10:23 AM EDT
Novell and IBM are taking SCO' fud away one shingle at a time.
I'm not sure homw much $'s SCO has but the burn rate to answer all these things
is now going to cost them a lot to try and refute real facts from the actual
players who wrote and made the decisions. There's less of their fud left each
day.

How long before the judges say someting?

SCO down the tube.

Yxxx

[ Reply to This | # ]

13. 11/10/06 Declaration of Darl McBride
Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 11:43 AM EDT
A slap in the face to Darl.

Novell spends the least number of lines having to object to Darl. Novell's
objections to others' declarations need more text to point out the problems.

Novell can use four of its reasons (a,b,c,d) for objecting to Darl. That's as
many as most, and more than some, with the exception of 14. Geoff Seabrook,
which is objected to on all five grounds (a,b,c,d and e).

Finally, Darl, unlucky as he is, gets objection number 13. (Disclaimer: I am
NOT superstitious, this is merely a trivial observation.)


---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Link to the redacted reply brief?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 01:25 PM EDT
Does anyone have it? Is the whole thing redacted?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Huh? - Authored by: DMF on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 01:35 PM EDT
    • Re: Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 01:40 PM EDT
      • Re: Huh? - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 02:08 PM EDT
        • Re: Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 02:43 PM EDT
What now? More hearings?
Authored by: DMF on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 01:31 PM EDT
How long are these motions going to take to adjudicate before we get back to the
case? I suppose there'll be two more rounds of briefs (at least). Any
discovery? Oral arguments?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Seabrook's declaration wasn't signed or dated
Authored by: hAckz0r on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 03:00 PM EDT
Perhaps Mr Seabrook refused to submit to an illogical tSCOg minded theory that
they were trying to impose on him, and he refused to go along with the charade?
If you are forced to give a deposition and it is recorded inaccurately, or
mislead the person by twisted illogical questions, Not signing the written
deposition trandscript might still save oneself from perjury would it not? Of
course tSCOg would most likely submit _anything_ that might have a chance to
mislead the judge towards a favorable decision to them about now.

---
DRM - As a "solution", it solves the wrong problem; As a technology its
logically infeasible.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's bets shot..
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 06:06 PM EDT
One of the citations Novell uses Greyhound Fin. Corp. v. Willyard, 1989 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 16040 (D. Utah 1989)is quoted as saying "District courts should
disregard a declaration"when they conclude that [the declaration]
constitutes an attempt to create a sham fact issue.”"

I'd say that was hitting the nail squarely on the head.

--
Rsteinmetz70112
not logged in

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where are IBM's Evidentiary Objections to SCO's Exhibits, and more...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 06:10 PM EDT
I would have thought that IBM would have used the same legal tatic long ago.
What has kept IBM form going down this road? Has it been their focus on lines
of code and documents? Was SCO too afraid of IBM to proffer hearsay?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO will try to have Tor Braham's declaration stricken
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 11:10 PM EDT
And the declaration of Braham's main man at Novell, Bradford

Anyone want to start a pool on that?

Feel free to repost this

[ 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