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
Kimball Rules Against SCO on Motion to Stay Taxation of Costs
Saturday, March 14 2009 @ 03:33 AM EDT

Another ruling [PDF] goes against SCO. Judge Dale Kimball has denied SCO's Motion to Stay Taxation of Costs [PDF]:
...the court does not believe that a party's speculation as to the possibility of the underlying judgment being reversed on appeal is a valid reason for delaying a determination of costs.
I discern the judge may just feel a measure of confidence his ruling will withstand appeal. And his new ruling on costs says that the judge sees no reason to delay figuring out the grand total SCO owes to Novell now, no matter what happens down the road.

If you can't remember what in the world this motion was about or what costs means, here's the page where you'll find SCO's motion, as text, as well as Novell's Bill of Costs. It totals $127,432.20, for costs such as hiring court reporters, renting rooms for depositions, paying video recording fees for depositions, process servers to serve subpoenas, court filing fees, and costs for transcripts -- everything Novell paid out for this stupid litigation, except attorneys' fees. It adds up. Litigation is expensive, and Novell applied for its costs to be covered, arguing that it is entitled to it because it is the prevailing party in the case. Of course, SCO fights everything it can and then some more, although here it was a bit unfinished. Novell filed its opposition to SCO's motion, and SCO didn't reply. That's odd. So the judge ruled on what he had before him, saying he couldn't see that oral argument was required, so if SCO was relying on that, they've missed out.

Novell filed its bill of costs and told the court it wants to know precisely what SCO owes, the total, because it needs that figure for bankruptcy court. And it had argued that it would be better for the judge to decide the matter now, while the case is fresh, and so the grand total can be part of the appeal.

SCO wanted to wait until after the appeal, because, it argued, if it were to be successful, then the payment would be moot, because then Novell would no longer be the prevailing party.

Judge Kimball didn't buy that argument. At the end of SCO's motion, SCO told the judge that while it thought he should grant SCO's motion, if he didn't, then it was SCO's intention to file an opposition to Novell's bill of costs. To which the Honorable Judge Kimball writes, in effect, go ahead: "As SCO indicated in its motion, it shall file any objections it has to Novell's Bill of Costs within ten days of the date of this Order." An objection would be what they normally would have filed in the first place, I think. I don't know why they filed a motion first instead. It seemed to puzzle the judge too:

Instead of filing objections to Novell's Bill of Costs, SCO filed its Motion to Stay the taxation of costs until its pending appeal is decided.
That's SCO. If it can take two steps to get from point A to point B instead of one, it will do the double step. At least that's the impression I've formed, that they'd like to avoid their just deserts or at least postpone having to pay the piper for as long as is legally possible.

Here's the docket entry:

03/13/2009 - 591 - ORDER denying 575 Motion to Stay Taxation of Costs. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 3/13/09. (jwt) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
*******************************

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION


THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,

vs.
NOVELL, INC.,
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ORDER

Civil Case No. 2:04CV139DAK

Judge Dale A. Kimball

This matter is before the court on The SCO Group, Inc.'s ("SCO") Motion to Stay Taxation of Costs. Novell, Inc. has filed an opposition to SCO's motion. SCO has not filed a reply, but the time for doing so has elapsed. The court concludes that a hearing would not aid in its determination of the motion. Now being fully advised, the court renders the following Order.

This court entered Final Judgment on November 20, 2008. Under local rules, a request for costs is due twenty days after the entry of final judgment. See DUCivR 54-2(a). Novell timely filed its Bill of Costs. Instead of filing objections to Novell's Bill of Costs, SCO filed its Motion to Stay the taxation of costs until its pending appeal is decided. Novell, however, opposes the stay on the grounds that the court should determine costs when the case is fresh, which also allows any appeal from the award of costs to be consolidated into the appeal on the merits. In addition, Novell seeks to have SCO's full liability to it identified in its proof of claim in SCO's bankruptcy.

The parties agree that the district court has the discretion to stay the resolution of costs

(1)

pending appeal. See How v. City of Baxter Springs, 2006 WL 1128667, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 26, 2006) (granting unopposed motions to stay taxation of costs pending appeal). At least one court addressing such a stay, however, has concluded that "the consensus seems to be that the court must have some valid reason for not awarding costs at the customary stage of the proceedings." Maytag Corp. v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89383, at *5 (N.D. Iowa Dec. 11, 2006).

As in Maytag, the court does not believe that a party's speculation as to the possibility of the underlying judgment being reversed on appeal is a valid reason for delaying a determination of costs. See id. at *7-8. The court agrees with Novell that this case presents several reasons for determining costs in the regular course: the case and facts are fresh in the court's mind; piecemeal appeals are avoided when an appeal of costs can be consolidated into the appeal on the merits; and Novell should be able to include SCO's full liability to it in its proof of claim in SCO's bankruptcy proceeding. SCO has provided no persuasive reason for staying the taxation of costs pending appeal.

Accordingly, the court denies SCO's Motion to Stay Taxation of Costs. As SCO indicated in its motion, it shall file any objections it has to Novell's Bill of Costs within ten days of the date of this Order.

DATED this 13th day of March, 2009.

(signature)
DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge

(2)


  


Kimball Rules Against SCO on Motion to Stay Taxation of Costs | 72 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections thread
Authored by: BobDowling on Saturday, March 14 2009 @ 04:18 AM EDT
"just deserts" -> "just desserts"

Gosh, am I first?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspick discussions here please
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Saturday, March 14 2009 @ 05:27 AM EDT
Please remember to indicate which Groklaw newspick item you are referring to in
the title of your post.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Kimball Rules Against SCO on Motion to Stay Taxation of Costs
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 14 2009 @ 05:30 AM EDT
So; where do these costs go in the order of priority in the bankruptcy?
Unsecured debtor??

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic here
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Saturday, March 14 2009 @ 05:36 AM EDT
All the stuff not about this topic. Could be the Topic of Cancer or Topic of
Capricorn, or even sub-topical. Remember, it's a jungle out there.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is it October again already???
Authored by: WirelessComGuy on Saturday, March 14 2009 @ 06:18 AM EDT
This story about the Undead still walking the earth made me glance at the
calendar. Then, I realized just how LONG this has been dragging on. In my own
life, I was happily grinding out new features for my company's products and
talking to my Dad about this "...troublesome SCO problem...", what
FOSS was and why this couldn't possibly succeed. Then, time moved on. Company
started slowing down, lost Dad and now have lost my job all together. But the
Undead still walks the earth.

It is my fervent hope that with all the stories about corporate & financial
shenanigans coming to light lately (SEC asleep at the switch no less!) that
there would be less tolerance for these kinds of "forever" litigation,
along with all the other corporate excesses. At the very least, it would appear
that Judge Kimball occasionally fingers a selection of wooden stakes he keeps in
a desk drawer. Perhaps that is his secret for all these years that keeps him
looking sane and calm as we watch from the sidelines...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Get Part of What they Wanted
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, March 14 2009 @ 10:48 AM EDT
Whilst SCO didn't get their day of reckoning postponed indefinitely, by not
playing by the rules -- as they are so inclined to do -- SCO obtain a
two-and-a-half month extension to the objection deadline.

---
Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Requiring Office $tandard Only For
Themselves

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • And... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 14 2009 @ 08:05 PM EDT
Kimball Rules Against SCO on Motion to Stay Taxation of Costs
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 14 2009 @ 12:14 PM EDT

"It's only a flesh wound!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well, SCO had to appeal *SOMETHING*
Authored by: darkonc on Sunday, March 15 2009 @ 12:23 AM EDT
I'm guessing that Novell's costs were just too damned.... reasonable for SCO to file a real appeal against them without opening themselves up to a charge of being 'frivolous and vexatious'. Moving for a stay of taxation, on the other hand, was unusual enough that it wouldn't be clearly unreasonable.

I wouldn't be surprised if Novell was a bit conservative about their costs because they expected an appeal of some sorts a on costs. just on principle -- so to speak ((not, however that I'm claiming that SCO has any principles of the admirable sort..))

---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life..

[ Reply to This | # ]

"SCO didn't reply. That's odd."
Authored by: Yossarian on Sunday, March 15 2009 @ 02:28 AM EDT
Also PJ said:
"I don't know why they filed a motion first instead"

My guess is that SCO's lawyers try to cut a little their
loses by two actions:
1) Put cheap, and error prone, lawyers on the case.
And yes, such lawyers do make mistakes.

2) If a fight is lost, give up early; e.g. not filing a reply.

[ Reply to This | # ]

...piecemeal appeals are avoided...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 16 2009 @ 08:37 PM EDT
I think this [avoidance] is something t$COg would want to avoid, as much, and as
long, as possible, in order to d-e-l-a-y these proceedings as much as possible,
thereby having _piecemeal_appeals_ continue as long as possible. Don't you?
[Sorry about the convoluted sentence above.]

[ 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 )