|
|
| SCO Files Motion to Seal Appendix to its Response and Motion to Shorten Notice |
 |
|
Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 12:36 PM EDT
|
My, they stay up late in Utah. Here are some more filings in the SCO bankruptcy posted late yesterday and some today. SCO has filed two motions, one a Motion to Seal Debtors' Appendix to Their Response to Motions to Dismiss or Convert [PDF], because 55 pages and 118 footnotes isn't nearly enough. And the second motion is a Motion to Shorten Notice [PDF] Regarding Debtors' Motion to File Under Seal Debtors' Appendix. The rest are affidavits of service and various bookkeeping things of no consequence, so I'll show you the docket entries on those. What does it mean? If you recall, the Response referenced an Appendix, but it wasn't filed simultaneously. The response was filed on June 5; the Appendix was referenced but still isn't filed, not even sealed. That's unusual indeed, particularly since SCO's Motion to Seal states they were both filed "contemporaneously". Instead we have a motion to seal it, without apparently filing it yet at all, filed on June 8. SCO says it wishes to protect *IBM*, because the appendix includes some confidential IBM memos. Old-timers here will recall how valiantly SCO has always scrupulously fought to keep IBM confidential memos from the public. Hardy har. OK. So what is it really about?
Here's a stab in the dark. How about maybe SCO would like to slow this Mustang down? They request a hearing on this for June 22, with any objections to be filed on June 15. Yes, *that* June 15, the
date set for the hearing on the motions to convert. So, I gather they hope to have an issue remaining, so that June 15 won't be The End. Let's face it. With SCO fighting for its life, the end is not necessarily nigh.
Here are the filings:
06/08/2009 - 784 - Motion to Seal (RE: related document(s) 778 Response (B)). /Debtors' Motion to File Under Seal Debtors' Appendix to Their Response to Motions to Dismiss or Convert Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Form of Order) (Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
06/08/2009 - 785 - Motion to Shorten Notice Regarding Debtors' Motion to File Under Seal Debtors' Appendix to Their Response to Motions to Dismiss or Convert (related document(s) 778 , 784 ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Form of Order) (Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
06/09/2009 - 786 - Affidavit/Declaration of Service for service of Response to Motions to Dismiss or Convert Filed by United States Trustee (D.E. #750), International Business Machines Corporation (D.E. #751), and Novell, Inc. (D.E. #753) (related document(s) 778 ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 06/09/2009)
06/09/2009 - 787 - Certificate of Service for service of Objection to Claim Number by Claimant(s) Red Hat, Inc. (related document(s) 779 ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 06/09/2009)
06/09/2009 - 788 - Certificate of Service and Service List for service of Objection to Claim Number by Claimant(s) Novell, Inc. (related document(s) 780 ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 06/09/2009)
06/09/2009 - 789 - Certificate of Service and Service List for service of Objection to Claim Number by Claimant(s) Suse Linux GMBH (related document(s) 781 ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 06/09/2009)
06/09/2009 - 790 - Certificate of Service and Service List for service of Objection to Claim Number by Claimant(s) International Business Machines Corporation (related document(s) 782 ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 06/09/2009)
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Erwan on Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 12:43 PM EDT |
If any.
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Erwan on Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 12:44 PM EDT |
Please, quote the article's title.
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Erwan on Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 12:44 PM EDT |
As usual.
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 12:50 PM EDT |
Question: If SCO in some alternate reality manages to get the appeals court to
send this case back to Utah, and SCO gets another judge in place of Kimball,
will they have to start this litigation all over again from square 1, or can the
new judge just read over the previous documents from the case and go from there?
---
Trusted computing:
It's not about, "Can you trust your computer?"
It's all about, "Can your computer trust you?"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 12:54 PM EDT |
| Looks like there are some typos in #785 :-(
From
SCOGBK#791:
ORDERED that the Motion to Shorten is granted; and
it is further
ORDERED that the hearing on the Motion is scheduled for June
15, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. prevailing Eastern time and it is further
ORDERED that
the deadline to object or respond to the Motion is set for June 15, 2009 at
10:00 a.m. prevailing Eastern time; and it is further
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bezz on Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 01:26 PM EDT |
Late submissions and intentional delays are not going to be tolerated. I expect
the attempts to further damage SCO's reputation with the US Trustee and Judge
Gross.
They pulled a delay stunt from January to the end of March over the
Stand Alone plan and asked for an additional extension of exclusivity. Judge
Gross did not buy it and note the wording of his April 21, 2009 order denying
the motion:
4. The Court finds that the time tn seek any extension
of the Exclusive Periods ended as of January 16, 2009, under even the most
favorable view toward Debtors. This is because on December 30, 2008, Debtors
filed the Fourth Motion by Debtors Under Section 1121 (d) for the Extension of
Exclusivity and requested extensions to January 16, 2009, to file a plan and
March 16, 2009, to solicit acceptances. Debtors did not promptly set the Fourth
Motion for a hearing and the Debtors did not bring the Fourth Motion before the
Court until March 30, 2009, by which time Debtors had the benefit of the
extensions they sought. Therefore, at best the Exclusive Periods terminated on
January 16, 2009 and March 16, 2009, In addition, Debtors did not establish
cause for an additional extension beyond March 16, 2009.
And this
is not SCO's motion to delay, it is primarily the US Trustee's. The statutory
limit for holding the hearing on a motion to convert is 30 days unless the
movant consents to longer, as she stated in footnote 1 of her motion to convert
to Chapter 7:
11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(3) requires that this Court
commence a hearing on the U.S. Trustee’s conversion motion “not later than 30
days after the filing of the motion . . . unless the movant expressly consents
to a continuance for a specific period of time . . . .” The U.S. Trustee
consents to the initial scheduling of this motion for June
12.
SCO got an additional 10 days already. While the Trustee's
motion does not state SCO requested the additional time, I suspect they did. Of
course, it could have been scheduling conflicts for the US Trustee's office,
too. In any case, SCO got additional time to prepare. Still, they have failed
to timely file the appendix of their objection and request it be sealed and then
a hearing on the matter after the date of the Chapter 7 conversion
hearing.
Once the US Trustee turns on a Chapter 11 debtor, it's bad news.
The US Trustee's office works with the judges on a continuing basis and must
maintain a trusted, professional working relationship. Her opinion carries a
lot of weight. Delay tactics on the part of a creditor damage their own
reputation for operating in good faith and competent, focused management. While
I doubt there will be any fireworks, I suspect Judge Gross is making note of the
delay tactics and they could very well influence his opinion about SCO's
viability. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 02:07 PM EDT |
| <eom> [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 03:13 PM EDT |
| Now available on epiq. So there will (might) be a hearing on the motion to file
the appendix under seal, at 14:00 of 2009-06-15, and then there will (might not)
be a hearing on the motion to convert and response(s), at 15:00 the same
day.
PURSUANT TO THE ORDER SHORTENING TIME, A HEARING ON
THE
SEAL MOTION WILL BE HELD BEFORE THE HONORABLE KEVIN GROSS, UNTED
STATES
BANUPTCY COURT, 824 MARTKET STREET, SIXTH FLOOR, COURTROOM
3, WILMINGTON,
DELAWARE 19801 ON JUNE 15,2009 AT 2:00 P.M. PREVAILING
EASTERN
TIME.
IF YOU FAIL TO RESPOND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS NOTICE, THE
COURT
MAY GRANT THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE SEAL MOTION WITHOUT
FURTHER NOTICE OR
HEARING.
Now when I first read that, why, oh why, did my
eyes see "SALE" instead of "SEAL"? Ah, oh, chuckle! :-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
| IMO, one of the reasons SCO asked to seal their appendix was to keep
the people
at Groklaw from informing the world about the horrible lies
that fill the
appendix from stem to stern. SCO just loves to throw mud
and dirt and sand and
lies when there is no chance for anyone to
respond.
If the appendix does
get sealed then who gets to look at it? Are Novell
and IBM forbidden from
seeing it?
---
You just can't win with DRM. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Like closed source software ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 03:57 PM EDT
- Groklawed! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 04:04 PM EDT
- Groklawed! - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 04:43 PM EDT
- Groklawed! - Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 04:53 PM EDT
- Groklawed! - Authored by: _Arthur on Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 06:19 PM EDT
- Groklawed! - Authored by: _Arthur on Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 06:24 PM EDT
- ACK! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 08:14 PM EDT
- The Mogster - Authored by: argee on Wednesday, June 10 2009 @ 12:50 AM EDT
- Blogs - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 10 2009 @ 01:37 AM EDT
- The Mogster - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, June 10 2009 @ 02:58 AM EDT
- Groklawed! - Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 07:46 PM EDT
- Groklawed! - Authored by: edfair on Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 05:13 PM EDT
- Groklawed! - Authored by: webster on Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 05:14 PM EDT
- Groklawed! - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 05:19 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 09 2009 @ 07:56 PM EDT |
IANAL but is it legal for SCO's legal team to file IBM memos in a case that is
unrelated? This is a bankruptcy proceeding and IBM is a creditor (potentially
the largest one). Does that fact that IBM filed a motion open the floodgates
for SCO to use discovery material from the other trial here?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
