|
|
| New Filings -- Novell's bill of costs |
 |
|
Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 04:53 PM EST
|
There are new filings in both the bankruptcy and in SCO v. Novell. First the bankruptcy: You'll see that SCO, despite telling the media yesterday that it would file a plan today, meeting the December 31st deadline set by the court, instead has filed for another delay.
Other interesting filings are:
SCOGBK-639-4 -- pps. 4, 7 and 8, the winding up of the joint venture in China between China and its "partner". P. 7 mentions a company named Dascom. P. 8 has a notation "Research issues that a company will encounter if it does not receive audited financial statements
639 -- p. 8, the Dorsey & Whitney additional pre-petition bills they didn't notice until now apparently
641ExhibitA -- the Stipulation between Novell and SCO regarding the trust money
643ExhibitA -- p. 4 lists two objectors to the omnibus motion, Feraci and Llyod [sic]
644 -- the signed order based on the stipulation, regarding the constructive trust
The stipulation and order resolve Novell's motion for a constructive trust and Novell's seeking the monies now. The stipulation has SCO stipulating to the existence of a constructive trust in favor of Novell in the amount Novell asked for, and it puts the money into a trust account, to be disbursed to Novell if SCO loses on appeal on the constructive trust issue.
You can jump to recent filings in the timeline
(starting at #637). Here are the last few entries:
12/29/2008 - 644 - Order (AGREED) Resolving Novell's Motion for Entry of Order Confirming Constructive Trust and Directing the Debtors to Pay Funds to Novell. (related document(s) 586 ) Order Signed on 12/29/2008.(Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A) (LCN) (Entered: 12/29/2008)
12/29/2008 - 645 - Motion to Approve the Expansion of the Scope of
Retention of Tanner LC to Prepare Consolidated Federal Income and State
Income Tax Returns for The SCO Group, Inc. and to Prepare the
Stand-Alone State Income Tax Return of SCO Operations, Inc. for the
Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 2008 Nunc Pro Tunc to December 3, 2008
Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 1/29/2009 at 02:00
PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3,
Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 1/22/2009. (Attachments: # (1)
Notice, # (2) Exhibit A, # (3) Proposed Form of Order, # (4) Certificate of
Service and Service List) (Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 12/29/2008)
12/29/2008 - 646 - Debtor-In-Possession Monthly Operating Report for
Filing Period October 2008 of SCO Operations, Inc. Filed by The SCO
Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service and Service List)
(Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 12/29/2008)
12/29/2008 - 647 - Debtor-In-Possession Monthly Operating Report for
Filing Period October 2008 of The SCO Group, Inc. Filed by The SCO
Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service and Service List)
(Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 12/29/2008)
12/30/2008 - 648 - Affidavit/Declaration of Service Regarding [Signed] Agreed Order Resolving Novell's Motion for Entry of Order Confirming Constructive Trust and Directing the Debtors to Pay Funds to Novell (related document(s) 644 ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
12/30/2008 649 Motion to Extend Exclusivity Period for Filing a
Chapter 11 Plan and Disclosure Statement /Fourth Motion By Debtors Under
Section 1121(d) for Extension of Exclusivity Deadlines Filed by The SCO
Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 1/29/2009 at 02:00 PM at US
Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington,
Delaware. Objections due by 1/22/2009. (Attachments: # (1) Notice, # (2)
Proposed Form of Order, # (3) Certificate of Service and Service List)
(O'Neill, James) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
SCO v. Novell
Here are the filings, as PDFs and as text for Groklaw's collection:
- [573] Novell's Bill of Costs. [Text]
- [574] Declaration of David Melaugh in Support of Novell's Bill of Costs. [Text]
Partly done as text are the three exhibits to declaration [574]:
Each exhibit contains a table itemizing costs and all corresponding scanned
invoices. We have only done the three tables as text. Please refer to the
PDFs for the actual 117 invoices.
And there is one new entry which we have done as text:
12/24/2008 575
MOTION to Stay Taxation of Costs filed by Plaintiff SCO
Group. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)(Normand, Edward) (Entered:
12/24/2008)
~ The Groklaw Team
***************************
AO 133 (Rev. 11/08) Bill of Costs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
District of Utah
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
v.
NOVELL, INC. |
)
)
)
)
)
|
Case No.:2:04-CV-00139
|
Bill of Costs
Judgment having been entered in the above entitled __ 11/20/2008__
against _____ THE SCO GROUP, INC.____
,
Date
the Clerk is requested to tax the following as costs:
Fees of the Clerk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $_________ 290.00__
Fees for service of summons and subpoena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
_______ 2,810.50__
Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case . . . . . . .
_____ 124,331.70__
Fees and disbursements for printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
_________________
Fees for witnesses (itemize on page two) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
___________ 0.00__
Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
_________________
Docket fees under 28 U.S.C. 1923 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
_________________
Costs as shown on Mandate of Court of Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
_________________
Compensation of court-appointed experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
_________________
Compensation of interpreters and costs of special interpretation services under 28 U.S.C. 1828 . . . . .
Other costs (please itemize) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
_________________
TOTAL
$_____ 127,432.20__
SPECIAL NOTE: Attach to your bill an itemization and documentation for requested costs in all categories.
Declaration
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing costs are correct and were necessarily incurred in this action and that the
services for which fees have been charged were actually and necessarily performed. A copy of this bill has been served on all parties
in the following manner:
☑
Electronic service by e-mail as set forth below and/or.
☐
Conventional service by first class mail, postage prepaid as set forth below.
s/ Attorney: ___ [Signature]_______________________________________________
Name of David E. Melaugh_______________________________________________
For: Novell, Inc.______________________
Date: _____ 12/10/2008_____
Name of Claiming Party
Costs are taxed in the amount of _____________________________
and included in the judgment.
______________________________
By: __________________ _________________
Clerk of Court
Deputy Clerk
Date
AO 133 (Rev. 11/08) Bill of Costs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
| Witness Fees (computation, cf. 28 U.S.C. 1821 for statutory fees)
|
| NAME , CITY AND STATE OF RESIDENCE |
ATTENDANCE
|
SUBSISTENCE
|
MILEAGE
|
Total Cost
Each Witness |
|
| | | | | | $0.00 |
|
| | | | | | $0.00 |
|
| | | | | | $0.00 |
|
| | | | | | $0.00 |
|
| | | | | | $0.00 |
|
| | TOTAL | $0.00 |
|
NOTICE
Section 1924, Title 28, U.S. Code (effective September 1, 1948) provides:
“Sec. 1924. Verification of bill of costs.”
“Before any bill of costs is taxed, the party claiming any item of cost or disbursement shall attach thereto an affidavit, made by himself or by
his duly authorized attorney or agent having knowledge of the facts, that such item is correct and has been necessarily incurred in the case and
that the services for which fees have been charged were actually and necessarily performed.”
See also Section 1920 of Title 28, which reads in part as follows:
“A bill of costs shall be filed in the case and, upon allowance, included in the judgment or decree.”
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contain the following provisions:
RULE 54(d)(1)
Costs Other than Attorneys’ Fees.
Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs — other than attorney's fees — should be allowed to the
prevailing party. But costs against the United States, its officers, and its agencies may be imposed only to the extent allowed by law. The clerk
may tax costs on 1 day's notice. On motion served within the next 5 days, the court may review the clerk's action
RULE 6
(d) Additional Time After Certain Kinds of Service.
When a party may or must act within a specified time after service and service is made under Rule5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F), 3 days are
added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a).
RULE 58(e)
Cost or Fee Awards:
Ordinarily, the entry of judgment may not be delayed, nor the time for appeal extended, in order to tax costs or award fees. But if a
timely motion for attorney's fees is made under Rule 54(d)(2), the court may act before a notice of appeal has been filed and become
effective to order that the motion have the same effect under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) as a timely motion under Rule 59.
|
***************************
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Michael A. Jacobs, pro hac vice
Eric M. Acker, pro hac vice
Kenneth W. Brakebill, pro hac vice
Marc J. Pernick, pro hac vice
David E. Melaugh, pro hac vice
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
Thomas R. Karrenberg, #3726
Heather M. Sneddon, #9520
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Novell, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff and Counterclaim- Defendant,
vs.
NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant and Counterclaim- Plaintiff.
|
DECLARATION OF DAVID E.
MELAUGH IN SUPPORT OF
NOVELL’S BILL OF COSTS
Case No. 2:04CV00139
Judge Dale A. Kimball |
(1)
I, David E. Melaugh, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and an
associate at the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel of record for Defendant and
Counterclaim-Plaintiff Novell, Inc. (“Novell”) in this action. I was admitted to practice before this Court pro hac vice by this Court’s Order of July 30, 2004. The statements made herein are based on my personal knowledge.
2. On November 20, 2008, the Court entered final judgment. (Docket No. 565.)
3. Novell is a “prevailing party” in this action because it prevailed against every claim
asserted by SCO and has prevailed on the bulk of its counterclaims.
4. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), Novell is presumptively entitled to
recover its taxable costs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) (“[C]osts – other than attorney’s fees – should be allowed to the prevailing party.”).
5. Allowable costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) are identified in
28 U.S.C. §§ 1821, 1920, 1923, and Local Rule 52-2. Novell moves for the following costs, all
of which are allowed by law, are correctly stated, and were actually and necessarily performed or
incurred during this litigation:
6. Fees of the Clerk in the amount of $290.00, as further described in Exhibit 1.
These fees are taxable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920(5), 1923 and Local Rule 54-3(a)(1) (“The
Clerk’s filing fee is allowable if paid by the claimant.”).
7. Fees for service of summons and subpoenas in the amount of $2,810.50, as further
described in Exhibit 2. These fees are taxable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1).
8. Fees of the court reporter and deposition costs in the amount of $124,331.70, as
further described in Exhibit 3. Court reporter fees for hearing and trial transcripts are taxable
1 (2)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). Recovery of deposition costs is permitted "with respect to all depositions reasonably necessary to the litigation of the case." Furr v. AT&T Techs., Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1550 (10th Cir. 1987) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2), (4). The attached deposition costs were reasonably incurred in prosecuting and defending this complex matter. As just one indicator of the complexity of this case, the parties' motions for summary judgment involved over 1,500 pages of briefing, numerous declarations, and many hundred pages of exhibits. As a result of that complexity, all of the deposition fees sought were reasonably necessary "in light of the facts known to the parties at the time the expenses were incurred." Mitchell v. City of Moore, 218 F.3d 1190, 1205 (10th Cir. 2000) (rejecting requirement that transcripts be used in motions or at trial, affirming restoration by district court of deposition costs cut by clerk on that basis).
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 10th day of December, 2008 in San Francisco, California.
[Signature]
David E. Melaugh
2 (3)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 10th day of December, 2008, I
caused a true and correct copy of the DECLARATION OF DAVID E. MELAUGH IN SUPPORT OF NOVELL’S BILL OF COSTS to be served to
the following:
Via CM/ECF:
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
HATCH JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address]
Stuart H. Singer
William T. Dzurilla
Sashi Bach Boruchow
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
David Boies
Edward J. Normand
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
Devan V. Padmanabhan
John J. Brogan
DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP
[address]
Via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid:
Stephen Neal Zack
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
/s/ Heather M. Sneddon
(4)
***************************
EXHIBIT 1
COURT FEES
| TAB |
DESCRIPTION |
DATE |
VENDOR |
AMOUNT |
| 1. |
Filing Fees – Notice of Removal |
1/6/2004 |
U.S. District Court |
$155.00 |
| 2. |
Filing Fees – Pro Hac Vice Application for Paul Goldstein |
2/9/2004 |
U.S. District Court |
$15.00 |
| 3. |
Filing Fees – Pro Hac Vice Application for Michael A. Jacobs |
2/9/2004 |
U.S. District Court |
$15.00 |
| 4. |
Filing Fees – Pro Hac Vice Application for Matthew I. Kreeger |
2/9/2004 |
U.S. District Court |
$15.00 |
| 5. |
Filing Fees – Pro Hac Vice Application for Jonathan E. Mansfield |
6/9/2004 |
U.S. District Court |
$15.00 |
| 6. |
Filing Fees – Pro Hac Vice Application for Maame A.F. Ewusi- Mensah |
6/9/2004
| U.S. District Court
| $15.00
|
| 7. |
Filing Fees – Pro Hac Vice Application for David E. Melaugh |
7/28/2004 |
U.S. District Court |
$15.00 |
| 8. |
Filing Fees – Pro Hac Vice Application for Kenneth W. Brakebill |
6/7/2005 |
U.S. District Court |
$15.00 |
| 9. |
Filing Fees – Pro Hac Vice Application for Grant Kim |
2/7/2007 |
U.S. District Court |
$15.00 |
| 10. |
Filing Fees – Pro Hac Vice Application for Marc Pernick |
4/23/2007 |
U.S. District Court |
$15.00 |
|
|
|
|
$ 290.00 |
[Note: 10 scanned invoices not done as text.]
EXHIBIT 2
FEES FOR SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND SUBPOENA |
| TAB |
DESCRIPTION |
DATE |
VENDOR |
AMOUNT |
| 1. |
Service of Process on Datasafe, Inc. |
3/1/2006 |
Specialized Legal Services, Inc. |
$140.50 |
| 2. |
Service of Process on Recall, Inc. |
5/1/2006 |
Specialized Legal Services, Inc. |
$98.00 |
| 3. |
Service of Process on Microsoft Corporation |
1/11/2007 |
1st Nationwide Legal Services, Inc. |
$168.00 |
| 4. |
Service of Process on Sun Microsystems, Inc. |
1/16/2007 |
1st Nationwide Legal Services, Inc. |
$74.00 |
| 5. |
Service of Process on Furniture Brands International, Inc. |
1/18/2007 |
1st Nationwide Legal Services |
$165.00 |
| 6. |
Service of Process on Kellogg Company |
1/18/2007 |
1st Nationwide Legal Services |
$200.00 |
| 7. |
Service of Process on Leggett & Platt, Inc. |
1/18/2007 |
1st Nationwide Legal Services |
$200.00 |
| 8. |
Service of Process on Seneca Data Distributors, Inc. |
1/18/2007 |
1st Nationwide Legal Services |
$175.00 |
| 9. |
Service of Process on CDM Development Corporation |
1/19/2007 |
1st Nationwide Legal Services |
$150.00 |
| 10. |
Service of Process on Hewlett-Packard Company |
1/24/2007 |
1st Nationwide Legal Services |
$120.00 |
| 11. |
Service of Process on DTR Business Systems, Inc. |
1/25/2007 |
1st Nationwide Legal Services |
$110.00 |
| 12. |
Service of Process on Everyone’s Internet, Ltd. |
1/25/2007 |
1st Nationwide Legal Services |
$230.00 |
| 13. |
Service of Process on Douglas Michels |
2/1/2007 |
Specialized Legal Services, Inc. |
$150.00 |
| 14. |
Service of Process on Computer Associates International |
2/7/2007 |
1st Nationwide Legal Services |
$130.00 |
| 15. |
Service of Process on Douglas Michels |
4/1/2007 |
Specialized Legal Services, Inc. |
$700.00 |
|
|
|
|
$2,810.50 |
[Note: 15 scanned invoices not done as text.]
EXHIBIT 3
FEES FOR COURT REPORTER |
| TAB |
DESCRIPTION |
DATE |
VENDOR |
AMOUNT |
| 1. |
Transcript from May 11, 2004 Hearing |
6/24/2004 |
Kelly Brown Hicken |
$148.50 |
| 2. |
Transcript from May 25, 2005 Hearing |
7/22/2005 |
Rebecca Janke, Court Reporter |
$92.40 |
| 3. |
E. Chatlos IBM Deposition Transcript |
2/21/2006 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$689.00 |
| 4. |
E. Chatlos IBM Deposition Transcript |
2/24/2006 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$256.70 |
| 5. |
J. Messman IBM Deposition Transcript |
4/27/2006 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$437.80 |
| 6. |
J. Messman IBM Deposition Transcript |
5/1/2006 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$1,066.79 |
| 7. |
Transcript of July 16,
2006 Hearing |
10/17/2006 |
Rebecca Janke, Court Reporter |
$132.00 |
| 8. |
Video Recording Fees
for J. Wilt Deposition |
1/30/2007 |
Video Production Services |
$535.00 |
| 9. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for B. Stowell |
2/1/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$644.80 |
| 10. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for T. Mattingly |
2/1/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$548.61 |
| 11. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for J. Wilt |
2/2/2007 |
Cleenton Davis Court Reporters, LLC |
$909.44 |
| 12. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for G. Jones |
2/7/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$1,367.92 |
| 13. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for W. Broderick |
2/15/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$2,887.11 |
| 14. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for S. Sabbath |
2/22/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$2,223.89 |
| 15. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for M. Gennaro |
2/22/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$1,078.11 |
| 16. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for J. LaSala |
2/26/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$606.00 |
| 17. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for S. Sabbath |
2/26/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$516.00 |
| 18. |
Video Recording
Fees for M. Gennaro
Deposition |
2/26/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$336.00 |
| 19. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for J. Messman |
2/27/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$1,322.51 |
| 20. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for J. LaSala |
2/27/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$1,904.07 |
| 21. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for R.
Frankenberg |
2/27/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$1,296.37 |
| 22. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for L. Bouffard |
2/28/2007 |
Shari Moss & Associates |
$1,517.50 |
| 23. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for A. Mohan |
2/28/2007 |
Shari Moss & Associates |
$3,327.75 |
|
| TAB |
DESCRIPTION |
DATE |
VENDOR |
AMOUNT |
| 24. |
Video Recording Fees
for L. Bouffard
Deposition |
3/3/2007 |
Eureka Street Legal Video |
$284.00 |
| 25. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for K. Madsen |
3/5/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$3,997.00 |
| 26. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for W. Broderick |
3/6/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$1,410.00 |
| 27. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for C. Stone |
3/14/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$1,471.95 |
| 28. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for B. Levine |
3/26/2007 |
Shari Moss & Associates |
$2,609.50 |
| 29. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for J. Maciaszek |
3/26/2007 |
Shari Moss & Associates |
$3,575.00 |
| 30. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for D. Michels |
3/29/2007 |
Shari Moss & Associates |
$1,828.75 |
| 31. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for C. Sontag |
3/29/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$2,652.70 |
| 32. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for D. McBride |
3/30/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$1,650.65 |
| 33. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for M. O’Gara |
3/30/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$1,191.20 |
| 34. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for D. Thompson |
3/31/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$1,784.00 |
| 35. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for M. Anderer |
4/3/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$981.85 |
| 36. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for J. Hunsaker |
4/3/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$1,524.70 |
| 37. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for Steve Welker |
4/3/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$357.15 |
| 38. |
Video Recording Fees
for Steve Welker |
4/5/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$210.00 |
| 39. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for J. Acheson |
4/6/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$1,545.20 |
| 40. |
Video Recording Fees
for M. Anderer
Deposition |
4/6/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$547.50 |
| 41. |
Video Recording Fees
for D. McBride
Deposition |
4/6/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$768.00 |
| 42. |
Video Recording Fees
for J. Acheson
Deposition |
4/6/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$1,047.00 |
| 43. |
Video Recording Fees
for J. Hunsaker
Deposition |
4/9/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$870.00 |
| 44. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for M. Anderer |
4/11/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$318.24 |
| 45. |
Conference Room
Rental for W.
Broderick Deposition |
4/11/2007 |
Hilton Hotel – Short Hills |
$600.00 |
| 46. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for T. Dulin |
4/16/2007 |
Shari Moss & Associates |
$3,304.50 |
| 47. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for E. Chatlos |
4/16/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$3,489.68 |
|
| TAB |
DESCRIPTION |
DATE |
VENDOR |
AMOUNT |
| 48. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for R. Tibbitts |
4/26/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$531.60 |
| 49. |
Video Recording Fees
for R. Tibbitts
Deposition |
4/27/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$300.00 |
| 50. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for C. Sontag
30(b)(6) |
5/3/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$1,545.10 |
| 51. |
Conference Room
Rental for J.
Maciaszek Deposition |
5/3/2007 |
The Michelangelo Hotel |
$795.63 |
| 52. |
Conference Room
Rental for J.
Maciaszek Deposition |
5/3/2007 |
The Michelangelo Hotel |
$1,297.10 |
| 53. |
Conference Room
Rental for T. Dulin
Deposition |
5/3/2007 |
Princeton Marriott Hotel |
$1,013.23 |
| 54. |
Conference Room
Rental for C. Sontag
30(b)(6) Deposition |
5/3/2007 |
Hilton Hotel - Santa Cruz/Scotts Valley |
$641.58 |
| 55. |
Transcript from
January 23, 2007
Hearing |
5/3/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$173.25 |
| 56. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for E. Hughes |
5/7/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$1,555.91 |
| 57. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for M. Danaher
30(b)(6) and A. Alter
30(b)(6) |
5/9/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$2,678.54 |
| 58. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for J. Acheson
30(b)(6) |
5/10/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$1,414.45 |
| 59. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for W. Broderick
30(b)(6) |
5/16/2007 |
Shari Moss & Associates |
$5,155.85 |
| 60. |
Conference Room
Rental for W.
Broderick 30(b)(6)
Deposition |
5/31/2007 |
Michael A. Jacobs |
$1,443.97 |
| 61. |
Video Recording Fees
for A. Alter Deposition |
6/4/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$741.00 |
| 62. |
Conference Room
Rental for A. Mohan
Deposition |
6/6/2007 |
Michael A. Jacobs |
$430.01 |
| 63. |
Conference Room
Rental for B. Levine
Deposition |
6/6/2007 |
Michael A. Jacobs |
$656.64 |
| 64. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for J. LaSala
30(b)(6) |
6/7/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$2,440.58 |
| 65. |
Transcript of May 31,
2007 Hearing |
6/11/2007 |
Kelly Hicken |
$303.92 |
|
| TAB |
DESCRIPTION |
DATE |
VENDOR |
AMOUNT |
| 66. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for G. Jones
30(b)(6) |
6/14/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$1,581.67 |
| 67. |
Video Recording Fees
for J. LaSala 30(b)(6)
Deposition |
6/20/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$471.00 |
| 68. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for S. Greenblatt |
7/10/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$1,099.65 |
| 69. |
Video Recording Fees
for G. Jones 30(b)(6)
Deposition |
7/24/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$651.00 |
| 70. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for M. Hamilton |
7/28/2007 |
Shari Moss & Associates |
$589.75 |
| 71. |
Video Recording Fees
for G. Pisano
Deposition |
7/28/2007 |
Valed Video Services |
$4,542.33 |
| 72. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for G. Pisano |
8/6/2007 |
Shari Moss & Associates |
$5,147.50 |
| 73. |
Video Recording Fees
for M. Hamilton
Deposition |
8/6/2007 |
Legaltel |
$558.75 |
| 74. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for G. Davis, III |
8/7/2007 |
Shari Moss & Associates |
$1,994.80 |
| 75. |
Video Recording Fees
for J. Maciaszek, B.
Levine, T. Dulin, and
W. Broderick 30(b)(6)
Depositions |
8/9/2007 |
Chait Video Inc. |
$4,190.00 |
| 76. |
Video Recording Fees
for G. Davis, III, A.
Mohan, and D.
Michels Depositions |
8/10/2007 |
Eureka Street Legal Video |
$1,522.50 |
| 77. |
Video Recording Fees
for T. Mattingly, C.
Stone, D. Thompson,
R. Frankenberg, K.
Madsen, E. Chatlos,
and M. O’Gara
Depositions |
8/15/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$3,213.00 |
| 78. |
Conference Room
Rental for G. Pisano
Deposition |
8/16/2007 |
The Charles Hotel |
$713.95 |
| 79. |
Video Recording Fees
for P. Moxley
Deposition |
8/17/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$281.25 |
| 80. |
Video Recording Fees
for C. Botosan
Deposition |
8/21/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$720.00 |
| 81. |
Video Recording Fees
for M. Anderer, C.
Sontag, E. Hughes,
and J. Acheson
Depositions |
8/22/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$750.00 |
|
| TAB |
DESCRIPTION |
DATE |
VENDOR |
AMOUNT |
| 82. |
Video Recording Fees
for J. Acheson, D.
McBride, and J.
Hunsaker Depositions |
8/31/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$650.00 |
| 83. |
Video Recording Fees
for S. Greenblatt
Deposition |
9/4/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$246.00 |
| 84. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for P. Moxley |
9/6/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$565.85 |
| 85. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for C. Botosan |
9/6/2007 |
Citicourt, LLC |
$775.90 |
| 86. |
Video Recording Fees
for J. Wilt Deposition |
9/14/2007 |
Legalink, A Merrill Company |
$295.00 |
| 87. |
Video Recording Fees
for G. Jones
Deposition |
9/18/2007 |
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC |
$591.00 |
| 88. |
Video Recording Fees
for C. Sontag 30(b)(6),
M. Anderer, J.
Acheson 30(b)(6), E.
Hughes, P. Moxley, C.
Botosan, R. Tibbitts,
S. Welker, G. Pisano,
J. Hunsaker, J.
Acheson, and D.
McBride Depositions |
11/5/2007 |
Legalink, A Merrill Company |
$4,040.00 |
| 89. |
Deposition Reporting
Fees for A. Nagle |
4/19/2008 |
Shari Moss & Associates |
$807.40 |
| 90. |
Transcript of
Proceeding Fees for
Trial |
5/1/2008 |
Kelly Brown Hicken |
$1,544.73 |
| 91. |
Transcript of Proceeding Fees for Trial |
5/1/2008 |
Rebecca Janke, Court Reporter |
$1,336.35 |
| 92. |
Transcript of Proceeding Fees for Trial |
5/5/2008 |
Rebecca Janke, Court Reporter |
$471.12 |
|
|
|
|
$124,331.70 |
[ Note: 92 scanned invoices not done as text.]
***************************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, PC
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
|
Stephen N. Zack (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
|
David Boies (admitted pro hac vice)
Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
|
Stuart Singer (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
|
Devan V. Padmanabhan (admitted pro hac vice)
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
|
|
Attorneys for Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
| THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
vs.
NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff. |
SCO’S MOTION TO STAY TAXATION OF COSTS
Civil No. 2:04 CV-00139
Judge Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Brooke C. Wells |
(1)
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, The SCO Group, Inc. (“SCO”), respectfully moves
this Court to stay taxation of costs pending resolution of SCO’s appeal of this Court’s Final
Judgment dated November 20, 2008, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
In its discretion, the District Court may stay the resolution of a bill of costs pending
appeal. How v. City of Baxter Springs, Kas., Nos. 04-2256 & 57 JWL, 2006 WL 1128667, at *1
(D. Kan. Apr. 26, 2006) (citing authority). Such a stay is efficient, acknowledging that the
grounds justifying the bill of costs may be reversed on appeal.
This Court entered Final Judgment in this case on November 20, 2008. (Docket No.
565.) On November 25, 2008, SCO filed its Notice of Appeal of that Judgment to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. (Docket No. 567.) Novell does not dispute that
SCO is taking an appeal nor that SCO may prevail, which would moot any award of costs from
this Court, but instead has informed counsel for SCO that it would prefer that the Court resolve
the bill of costs now for purposes of Novell's proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Court. Yet
Novell concedes that it cannot actually recover the costs pending the appeal, and if Novell were
to prevail on appeal, this Court could just as easily resolve the bill of costs at that time.
In sum, absent any good reason for awarding costs at this time, and considering the
pendency of SCO’s appeal, the Court should stay the resolution of Novell’s request until such
time as the appeal has been resolved. In the event that such stay is not granted, SCO will file its
opposition to Novell’s Bill of Costs within ten days of the Court’s decision.
(2)
DATED this 24th day of December, 2008.
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
David Boies
Robert Silver
Stuart H. Singer
Edward Normand
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
Devan V. Padmanabhan
By: /s/ Edward Normand
(3)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that on this 24th
day of December, 2008, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Stay Taxation of
Costs was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court and delivered by CM/ECF to:
Thomas R. Karrenberg John P. Mullen Heather M. Sneddon ANDERSON & KARRENBERG [address]
Michael A. Jacobs Matthew I. Kreeger MORRISON & FOERSTER [address]
By: /s/ Edward Normand
(4)
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 05:03 PM EST |
| Happy New Year! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: alisonken1 on Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 05:06 PM EST |
Mini-note in subject would be nice
---
- Ken -
import std_disclaimer.py
Registered Linux user^W^WJohn Doe #296561
Slackin' since 1993
http://www.slackware.com
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "Here is as text" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 01 2009 @ 05:51 AM EST
- Document missing - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 01 2009 @ 01:18 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: alisonken1 on Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 05:08 PM EST |
Nice to see on-topic notes, but try to keep off-topic under here
---
- Ken -
import std_disclaimer.py
Registered Linux user^W^WJohn Doe #296561
Slackin' since 1993
http://www.slackware.com
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Off-topic here - Authored by: alchemist on Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 05:51 PM EST
- Microsoft Zune affected by 'bug - Authored by: diddy on Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 06:02 PM EST
- How cold is it? It is so cold my zune froze. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 09:22 PM EST
- Crunchbang Linux has CrunchEee RC1 version now for EeePCs - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 11:53 PM EST
- RIAA shennanigans - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 01 2009 @ 04:59 AM EST
- MS and SW piracy in China - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 01 2009 @ 06:27 AM EST
- Two stories that may be of interest - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 01 2009 @ 08:07 AM EST
- XBOX 360: where did Microsoft get the idea for the name - Authored by: emacsuser on Thursday, January 01 2009 @ 09:30 AM EST
- Yet another software patenta analogy - Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, January 01 2009 @ 11:26 AM EST
- Open Source TV - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, January 01 2009 @ 01:51 PM EST
- Roland Burris in the Senate - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 01 2009 @ 02:29 PM EST
- Bizarre Cathedral cartoon - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 04 2009 @ 04:56 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: alisonken1 on Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 05:09 PM EST |
This layout looks nice in FF on Linux.
Would be nice if we could get more formatted like this.
---
- Ken -
import std_disclaimer.py
Registered Linux user^W^WJohn Doe #296561
Slackin' since 1993
http://www.slackware.com
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 05:49 PM EST |
From the linked SDTimes story:
> One area that can potentially help lift SCO from debt
> is its SCOsource business division that manages its
> Unix intellectual property.
I thought Kimball had reduced the value of SCOsource
to near zero since SCO don't own most of the source
they're managing...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SirHumphrey on Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 06:06 PM EST |
SCOXQ.PK's "PLAN" is to continue DELAY ad infinitum. What they really,
really, really need from the kindly gentleman at the Bankruptcy Court is yet
another delay superium expeditum.
If they could just be allowed enough time to spend all of the money now owed to
Novell,and in future (due to counterclaims) to IBM, Red Hat, Autozone, Daimler
Chrysler and other creditor, that'd be just great, mmkay.
Once all the lawyers, family members and sundry busy work people have been paid
everything, THEN the plan will be presented to a steering committee for
consideration of escalating it to a Green Paper Review subcommittee with
delegated powers to alter any and all paragraphs if need be, before finally
passing it to an oversight commission of forensic auditors who will check that
the details comply with the very latest technology concerning time extensions,
whereupon potential investors and White Knights will be given opportunity to
declare through Press Releases how sound the proposal to use Courier 10 pitch
is, due to its readability ...............
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LaurenceTux on Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 06:16 PM EST |
| so what is the current total TSCOG has to dig out of the couch?? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: schestowitz on Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 06:53 PM EST |
"After a great deal of courtroom drama and mounting legal fees, the SCO Group is
expected to file its Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan in court
tomorrow.
"Jeff Hunsaker, SCO’s president, wouldn’t provide exact
details of the plan, but he said the reorganization will hopefully help the
company come out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which the company filed for in
September 2007."
http://www.sdtimes.com/link/33139---
Roy S. Schestowitz, Ph.D. Candidate in Medical Biophysics
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 06:58 PM EST |
You'll see that SCO, despite telling the media yesterday that it
would file a plan today, meeting the December 31st deadline set by the court,
instead has filed for another delay.
Not so fast there, cowboy.
The article linked to merely states that SCO was expected to
file a plan today. It also mentions that Hunsaker was unwilling to detail
specifics of the plan. But nowhere in the article does it say that SCO said it
would file the plan on that day.
For the sake of correctness in PJ's
spirit, you may want to update the article. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Cornishman on Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 09:25 PM EST |
In the event that such stay is not granted, SCO will file its
opposition to Novell’s Bill of Costs within ten days of the Court’s
decision.
So the SCO Group wants Judge Kimball to stay the
taxation of costs, to put off the day when SCOG will dispute the
bill? Sigh. It reminds me of the sort of group restaurant outing which
ends in arguments about who had dessert and who had coffee. ---
(c)
assigned to PJ
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 01 2009 @ 05:54 AM EST |
| Happy New Year everyone. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 05 2009 @ 01:40 PM EST |
is it this company?
http://www.inter
netnews.com/ent-news/article.php/205941 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
