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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
AutoZone Stirrings
Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 09:28 PM EDT

Most of the attorneys who are listed as being involved in SCO v. AutoZone have been told that by the court they are in violation of Special Order 109, which is a requirement to participate in the electronic filing system. They are instructed to go to the US District Court for the District of Nevada website and sign up.

It sounds quite alarming, the way it's worded, but trust me, they don't drag them out at dawn and shoot them for this or disbar anyone. It's just the wording of the notice, which is standard. You can find Special Order 109 [PDF], In re: AUTHORIZATION FOR CONVERSION TO CASE MANAGEMENT/ELECTRONIC CASE FILING, here. It's local to Nevada, but it's part of the federal court system switch to digitalization. The Clerk of the Court is responsible to keep the official record, and so there has to be a way to identify when an attorney is who he says, when a document is filed. So this is what it refers to, that they need passwords and such. It also represents their consent to being served electronically.

You see this notice in other Nevada cases. For example, the attorneys in this case had the same thing happen to them. But in the AutoZone case, it's further indication that something has lit a fire under the judge, for whatever reason. I hope there are some folks in Nevada who can attend the hearing, so we can find out whazzup.

I know you'd like me to guess. But the truth is, that's all it could be. What do I think it means? It's one of three things, if I have to guess, either that the judge woke up from a long nap and wondered where everyone had gone and why no one was keeping him informed the way he told them to do. Or, second, that SCO is stirring this case up again. If I were SCO, I'd prefer to have it heard and decided before SCO v. IBM goes to trial, because they might worry, or I would if I were SCO, that the IBM case will whittle their position down even more than it is already after Novell. Or third, AutoZone could be wanting this case over, The End, officially. I don't think it matters which of the three is the cause. The result is a stirring of the dust in SCO v. AutoZone.

Here's the docket:

72 - Filed & Entered: 08/18/2008
Notice of Non-Compliance with Special Order 109
Docket Text: (1st Notice) PURSUANT TO SPECIAL ORDER 109: that Douglas Bridges, Scott E. Grant, James Allen Harvey and Mark J. Heise are in violation of Special Order 109. Participation in the electronic filing system became mandatory for all attorneys effective January 1, 2006. You are required to register for the Courts Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) program and the electronic service of pleadings. Please visit the Courts website www.nvd.uscourts.gov, then select CM/ECF Info, to register the Attorney(s). (no image attached) (RFJ)

73 - Filed & Entered: 08/18/2008
Notice of Non-Compliance with Special Order 109
Docket Text: (1st Notice) PURSUANT TO SPECIAL ORDER 109: that Michael P. Kenny, Robert A. Magnanini, Christopher A. Riley and David J. Stewart are in violation of Special Order 109. Participation in the electronic filing system became mandatory for all attorneys effective January 1, 2006. You are required to register for the Courts Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) program and the electronic service of pleadings. Please visit the Courts website www.nvd.uscourts.gov, then select CM/ECF Info, to register the Attorney(s). (no image attached) (RFJ)

74 - Filed & Entered: 08/18/2008
Notice of Non-Compliance with Special Order 109
Docket Text: (1st Notice) PURSUANT TO SPECIAL ORDER 109: that David S. Stone and Stephen N. Zack are in violation of Special Order 109. Participation in the electronic filing system became mandatory for all attorneys effective January 1, 2006. You are required to register for the Courts Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) program and the electronic service of pleadings. Please visit the Courts website www.nvd.uscourts.gov, then select CM/ECF Info, to register the Attorney(s). (no image attached) (RFJ)

If you compare these names with the names of the all the attorneys listed on PACER for this case, you find Richard J. Pocker, of Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James J. Pisanelli of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, and Stanley W. Parry of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP are apparently already signed up or exempt for some unknown reason. If you go to our Cast:Lawyers page, you can find all the lawyers in the Autozone litigation if you don't remember who is who.


  


AutoZone Stirrings | 114 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here please
Authored by: designerfx on Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 10:04 PM EDT
Wow, my first time posting this! Remember, PJ is limited to 2 errors per article
maximum :D

[ Reply to This | # ]

AutoZone Stirrings
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 10:10 PM EDT
Looks like somethin is fixin ta happen.

The Special Order is 2 years old and they are just now gettin around to checkin
this case. What with the status conference scheduled and all, it kinda looks
like somebody is gonna so sumpen.

---
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 | # ]

Off Topic threads
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 10:18 PM EDT
Please stay off topic and make your links clicky

[ Reply to This | # ]

[NP] News Picks comments
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 10:20 PM EDT
Include the News Pick article title in your heading and make your links
clicky.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sounds like the definition of "A Crying Shame"
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 10:20 PM EDT
"... they don't drag them out at dawn and shoot them for this"

DRAT! Another botched opportunity for the legal "profession" to clean
up it's act and thin the ranks!

;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Robing Room
Authored by: jonathon on Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 10:43 PM EDT
Curious about the judge in this case (Magistrate Judge George W. Foley), I
decided to Google him.
And discovered _The Robing Room_.

http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=232
"Grat tempermenmt" is the only comment about him.

Then I looked at the comments about Judge Kimball. I can't help but think that
somebody from SCO wrote the only comment about him.
http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=371

[ Reply to This | # ]

Electronic Service
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 11:50 PM EDT
"It also represents their consent to being served electronically."

How exactly does that work?

If it is via E-Mail, what provisions are made for the fact that E-Mail is not,
and never has been, guaranteed delivery?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What about the bankruptcy?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2008 @ 09:11 AM EDT
Isn't this case automatically stayed by the bankruptcy? Why would any activity
be occurring at all?

[ Reply to This | # ]

AutoZone Stirrings
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2008 @ 01:36 PM EDT
"[T]hey don't drag them out at dawn and shoot them for this or disbar
anyone."

Which is exactly what needs to happen and in the worst way.

krp

[ 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 )