|
Motions in Limine in SCO v. Novell |
|
Friday, August 24 2007 @ 10:53 PM EDT
|
Here are the rest of today's filings, and motions in limine have now been filed. Believe it or not, SCO wants to reargue some things Novell points out were already decided, so four motions in limine. You are surprised. Not. Before the fight was like from an airplane that flies over a city and the guy pushes a button and drops a bomb. This is more like World War I airplanes in a dogfight. Up close and carefully aimed at a specific target. But SCO being SCO, Novell has to win everything twice.
Here they all are:
389 -
Filed & Entered: 08/24/2007
Motion in Limine
Docket Text: Plaintiff's MOTION in Limine to Exclude All Evidence Related to Other Litigation and Commentary Thereon filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Normand, Edward)
390 -
Filed & Entered: 08/24/2007
Motion to Strike
Docket Text: Plaintiff's MOTION to Strike Exhibits on Novell's Revised Exhibit List Not Previously Disclosed filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(Normand, Edward)
391 -
Filed & Entered: 08/24/2007
Motion in Limine
Docket Text: MOTION in Limine No. 1 to Preclude SCO from Challenging Questions Already Decided as a Matter of Law filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Sneddon, Heather)
392 -
Filed & Entered: 08/24/2007
Memorandum in Support of Motion
Docket Text: MEMORANDUM in Support re [391] MOTION in Limine No. 1 to Preclude SCO from Challenging Questions Already Decided as a Matter of Law filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Sneddon, Heather)
393 -
Filed & Entered: 08/24/2007
Motion in Limine
Docket Text: MOTION in Limine No. 2 to Preclude SCO from Contesting Licenses Conveying SVRX Rights are "SVRX Licenses" filed by Defendant Novell, Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Sneddon, Heather)
394 -
Filed & Entered: 08/24/2007
Memorandum in Support of Motion
Docket Text: MEMORANDUM in Support re [393] MOTION in Limine No. 2 to Preclude SCO from Contesting Licenses Conveying SVRX Rights are "SVRX Licenses" filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Sneddon, Heather)
395 -
Filed & Entered: 08/24/2007
Motion in Limine
Docket Text: MOTION in Limine No. 3 to Preclude SCO from Introducing New Evidence or Argument of SCOsource Revenue filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Sneddon, Heather)
396 -
Filed & Entered: 08/24/2007
Memorandum in Support of Motion
Docket Text: MEMORANDUM in Support re [395] MOTION in Limine No. 3 to Preclude SCO from Introducing New Evidence or Argument of SCOsource Revenue [REDACTED] filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Sneddon, Heather) Just as a reminder and to anyone new, here's what motions in limine are: Motion in Limine. A motion used to exclude reference to anticipated evidence claimed to be objectionable until the admissibility of the questionable evidence can be determined either before or duing the trial by presenting to the court, out of the presence of the jury, offers and objections to the evidence.... The motion seeks to avoid injection into trial of irrelevant, inadmissible, or prejudicial evidence at any point, including the voir dire examination, opening statements, and direct and cross examination, and therefore prevents mistrials based on evidentiary irregularities. I explained it in more detail here.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2007 @ 11:17 PM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2007 @ 11:22 PM EDT |
Make links clicky! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: om1er on Friday, August 24 2007 @ 11:22 PM EDT |
4. The risk of such prejudice is illustrated and heightened by the commentary
that has followed the IBM dispute. The nature of the claims in the IBM dispute
has led to highly polarized commentary in reaction to the lawsuit. One such
example is the website Groklaw.com, on which a self-described former paralegal
named Pamela Jones has published and continues to publish anti-SCO biased
coverage of all pleadings, hearings, and events relating to SCO’s pursuit of its
claims against IBM, Novell, and other parties. There are other similar sites and
commentary, and the Court should not allow Novell or its counsel to make any
statements that might lead jurors to investigate such sources. (We do not
suggest Novell’s counsel will intentionally do so, but witnesses should be so
instructed. We understand Novell may not oppose this part of the motion.)
Wherefore, SCO requests that the Court exercise its inherent power over the
conduct of trials, and order Novell, its representatives, and its witnesses not
to elicit testimony respecting the litigation pending between SCO and IBM or
regarding the commentary on such litigation or on the instant litigation, and
not to mention or refer to the above matters without securing the prior
permission of the Court.
----
PJ - Is this the award you promised to tell us about? :-)
---
August 10, 2007 - The FUD went thud.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Docket 389, paragraph 4 - Groklaw and PJ - Authored by: PJ on Friday, August 24 2007 @ 11:33 PM EDT
- Docket 389, paragraph 4 - Groklaw and PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2007 @ 11:35 PM EDT
- Docket 389, paragraph 4 - Groklaw and PJ - Authored by: PJ on Friday, August 24 2007 @ 11:42 PM EDT
- Docket 389, paragraph 4 - Groklaw and PJ - Authored by: DaveAtFraud on Saturday, August 25 2007 @ 12:35 AM EDT
- Groklaw and PJ are about the content not the spin. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2007 @ 01:13 AM EDT
- "My. They seem to think we are very powerful indeed." - Authored by: Weeble on Saturday, August 25 2007 @ 02:47 AM EDT
- Docket 389, paragraph 4 - Groklaw and PJ - Authored by: elderlycynic on Saturday, August 25 2007 @ 03:25 PM EDT
- Docket 389, paragraph 4 - Groklaw and PJ - Authored by: bobn on Friday, August 24 2007 @ 11:42 PM EDT
- groklaw.COM? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2007 @ 12:32 AM EDT
- yes or no? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2007 @ 02:44 AM EDT
- Docket 389, paragraph 4 - Groklaw and PJ - Authored by: mcinsand on Saturday, August 25 2007 @ 06:41 AM EDT
- I dare the judge to grant SCO exactly what they want - Authored by: pmk on Saturday, August 25 2007 @ 11:36 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2007 @ 12:11 AM EDT |
TSCOG will win on Novell's introduction of additional evidence (according to
TSCOG 200+ pages of extra evidence) not put forward with the first list, as this
was supposed to be a trimming of the evidence not an increase.
Interesting tactic by Novell though, to limit TSCOG's theory on the revenue
split (SCOsource revenue and MS and SUN buyouts) so they can't claim anything
other than 100% to TSCOG. The Judge ruled there was a fact dispute on the
revenue split because at least some of the code was TSCOG's. So by limiting
TSCOG from claiming anything other than 100% to TSCOG they have a hands down
victory to whatever split Novell proposes (which will be 95% to Novell). Can't
say I think the Judge will agree with this one as it sorta makes his ruling
moot, but it appears they have a good argument in that TSCOG has never argued
anything other than 100% to TSCOG. I'll be intrigued to see the Judge's decision
on this one because Novell is right about SCO never proposing any other theory
(and discovery and evidence lists are over), but at the same time if he grants
it he might as well have issued a summary judgment and set up the constructive
trust.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sproggit on Saturday, August 25 2007 @ 05:40 AM EDT |
If you'd like to read something that will *definitely* put a smile on your face,
take the time to read the 6 pages of filing No. 390.
In the final pre-trial disclosures Novell wanted to put approx 200 new documents
on their potential submissions list as backup evidence in case SCO advanced more
wild theories about the apportionment of monies from the SCOsource deals.
SCOs indignation at Novell's temerity is a joy to behold.
It's as though they are saying, "How dare Novell do this! We are the only
party in this case who are entitled to play fast and loose with the rules of
law. Judge, you must deny this instantly!"
I bet Judge Kimball laughed out loud when he read that one.
More seriously, though, I think Novell did this for a couple of very good
reasons.
Firstly, I think that their strategy has now shifted slighlty. They planned for
the worst - a jury trial - but rulings have gone sufficiently favourably that
they now realise that they might get a bench trial instead, which is desirable
to them. Because of this new possibility, they are preparing the ground for such
an outcome. Perhaps the new documents are deep technical legalise and not easily
understood by a jury, but would be appreciated by Judge Kimball.
Secondly, I think this could have been a deliberate sucker punch. By trying to
admit this new evidence and goading SCO to issue this scathing condemnation,
they have effectively prevented SCO from trying the same tactic. So by
complaining to the Court SCO have effectively precluded themselves from trying
the same trick. Neat, if that was the plan.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, August 25 2007 @ 06:27 AM EDT |
From docket 389:
"Given the Court’s recent ruling on summary
judgment, no aspect of the litigation
with IBM relates to or touches upon the
questions the jury must now address. Neither the history
nor circumstances of
the dispute with IBM, nor the nature of the claims, has any bearing on
or
relevance to the remaining issues for the jury to decide. While IBM and
Novell’s interactions
may have been at issue in SCO’s claims against
Novell, those claims are no longer at issue in the
forthcoming
trial."
(emphasis added)
If they may have been relevant "in
[TSG's] claims against Novell", but are not now, it seems to me an implicit
admission that TSG's claims against Novell are no longer in play. In other
words, TSG is admitting they are now no longer the Plaintiff and are in full
Defendant mode.
How charming.
--- "When I say something, I
put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bbaston on Saturday, August 25 2007 @ 09:03 AM EDT |
... SCO’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE RELATED
TO OTHER
LITIGATION AND COMMENTARY THEREON can be taken by the judge as the strongest
confirmation that a Jury should not be used in this case.
You see, tSCOg's
concerns at contamination can be securely addressed by excluding jurors.
How
just! ;)
--- IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, August 25 2007 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
The title of Novell's short-and-sweet 391 gives one a good idea of what it's all
about, but the body refers only to "the Court's Order". No reference.
I guess it means the now famous Aug 10 ruling, but didn't they have time to be
more specific?
---
Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity – and I'm not
sure about the former. -- Einstein[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, August 25 2007 @ 10:38 AM EDT |
If you read nothing else of 392, read the footnote on page two. It's a
humdinger! Kinda gives the game away, doesn't it?
---
Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity – and I'm not
sure about the former. -- Einstein[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2007 @ 10:48 AM EDT |
They refer to Groklaw as "Groklaw.COM" rather than
"Groklaw.NET"
Groklaw.COM, from what I can see, just redirects to us.
I call it kind of Freudian, like: "You mean the Internet is not just for
MAKING MONEY!?!" Hence, no reason for any domain to be other than .COM.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: elderlycynic on Saturday, August 25 2007 @ 01:49 PM EDT |
I got the number right - it was, of course, pure luck!
This strikes me as a game of 5 card stud. Novell is
showing 3 aces. SCO is showing a deuce, a three and
an eight, in different suits. SCO has just matched
Novell's bid and has asked for another card.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|