|
|
| Trial in SCO v. Novell Now Scheduled for 15 Days Beginning March 8 - Correction |
 |
|
Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 05:16 PM EST
|
The trial schedule for SCO v. Novell in Utah has been altered. It was set as a 3-week trial; now it's set for 15 days:
01/06/2010 - 613 - AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/25/2010 02:00 PM in Room 142 before Judge Ted Stewart. 15 day Jury Trial set for 3/8/2010 08:30 AM in Room 142 before Judge Ted Stewart. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 01/06/2010. (asp) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
Correction: I'm the idiot. Fifteen days is a 3-week trial. So I need to correct, but I simply don't see what has been amended. All I can think of is there may be a change in dates leading up to the trial, but we don't have an earlier schedule. Here's the article with reports from the status hearing where the original schedule was set. Yes, SCO wanted 2 to 2 1/2 weeks and Novell said 2 1/2 to 3, if I mash together the conflicting reports. I notice that the days are not full days. It's 8:30 am to 1:30 pm. I think we may also assume that Judge Stewart isn't thinking of recusing himself, at least at this point. In any case, we need to begin thinking about covering that many days of a trial. The cost for transcripts for something like this is way beyond our capabilities. So I'm asking the parties if they would please consider providing a copy of their transcripts when they order them? This is an historic case, one that will go down in history, I'm sure, no matter how it ends. So please would you consider the children, so to speak, the coming generations who will want to study and learn about this litigation? And if anyone knows anyone who can take notes and will volunteer to attend a day or two or all of it, this is the moment for us to start to get prepared.
Interestingly, originally Judge Dale Kimball's schedule for the trial set 21 days. If you'd like to compare, here is that schedule. No cut off scheduled for the days either, but in fact each day ended at around 2 PM. Of course, the trial got whittled down after so many claims were decided on summary judgment and because a lot got sent to arbitration in Switzerland. Here's what the parties thought was left to try after the summary judgment motions were decided. And then it was decided there'd be no jury. And then SCO filed for bankruptcy on the eve of trial, and after the stay was lifted, a 4-day bench trial was scheduled and held beginning on April 29, 2008 on some money matters, with mixed results, then came SCO's appeal, and here we are.
Here's the original notice, now amended: [605] - 01-Dec-2009 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ted Stewart: Scheduling Conference held on 01-Dec-2009. The Court sets a Final Pretrial Conference for 25-Feb-2010 02:00 PM and a 3-week Jury Trial for 08-Mar-2010 08:30 AM in Room 142 before Judge Ted Stewart. Counsel will meet to determine other dates and deadlines, and Mr. Hatch will submit an order for the Court's signature reflecting those dates. Attorney for Plaintiff: Brent Hatch, Edward Normand, Mauricio Gonzalez, Attorney for Defendant Michael Jacobs, Thomas Karrenberg. Appearing by phone: Judge Edward Cahn, Trusee; and Bonnie Fatelle Court Reporter: Kerry Sorensen. (slm) I can't see anything changed, now. Can you?
The exact schedule of everything leading up to the trial goes like this:
***********************************
The Court held a status conference on December 1, 2009. Brent O. Hatch, Edward Normand, and Mauricio A. Gonzalez appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") and Thomas Karrenberg and Michael Jacobs appeared on behalf of the Defendant, Novell, Inc. ("Novell"). After reviewing the submissions of the parties, hearing argument from the parties, and considering all other relevant matters of record the Court hereby
ORDERS that the scheduling order in this case be amended as set forth below:
| 1. |
TRIAL AND PREPARATION FOR TRIAL |
TIME |
DATE |
| a. |
Supplemental Rule 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures1 |
|
February 1, 2010 |
b.
|
Hearing on Novell's pending summary judgment
motion on special damages and Novell's Rule 60
motion
|
3:00 p.m.
|
February 4, 2010
|
| c. |
Motions in Limine including any Daubert Motions |
|
February 8, 2010 |
d.
|
Special Attorney Conference and Settlement
Conference
|
|
February 8, 2010
|
e.
|
Oppositions to Motions in Limine including any
Daubert Motions
|
|
February 19, 2010
|
f.
|
Parties to submit Joint Pretrial Order. Parties to
serve proposed jury instructions and any proposed
special verdict forms. Parties to submit any
proposed additional voir dire to the Court.
|
|
February 22, 2010
|
| g. |
Final Pretrial Conference |
2:00 p.m. |
February 25, 2010 |
h.
|
Parties to submit trial briefs, joint proposed jury
instructions, and joint proposed special verdict
forms (with separate proposed instructions or
special verdict forms if agreement not reached)
|
|
March 1, 2010
|
i.
|
Parties to submit objections to proposed jury
instructions and special verdict forms |
|
March 5, 2010
|
j.
|
First Day of Trial. Parties may submit replies in
support of proposed jury instructions and special
verdict forms.
|
8:30 a.m. -
1.30 p.m.
|
March 8, 2010
|
| k. |
Length of trial |
15 days,
8:30 a.m. -
1:30 p.m.
|
March 8-26, 2010 |
SO ORDERED this 6th day of January, 2010.
BY THE COURT
__[signature]___
Honorable Ted Stewart
United States District Court Judge
___
1 The parties have previously made Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures. Each party reserves the right to oppose the other party's supplemental disclosure, by February 8, 2010.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: jplatt39 on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 05:20 PM EST |
Make links clickable. Read the Important Stuff at the bottom of the Post a
Comment page.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- US company sues China for Green Dam 'code theft' - Authored by: Chris Lingard on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 06:04 PM EST
- Ubuntu that looks like XP - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 07:40 PM EST
- MS to join another standards group - WC3's SVG working group - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 07 2010 @ 12:22 AM EST
- Google Phone May Add to Network Strain - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, January 07 2010 @ 03:45 AM EST
- How to get the PTO to reexamine a patent? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 07 2010 @ 10:45 AM EST
- Excellent Andy Updegrove writeup on (F)(L)OSS - Authored by: clemenstimpler on Thursday, January 07 2010 @ 07:20 PM EST
- Recording devices in theaters - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 08 2010 @ 08:29 AM EST
- No more room at the bench - Authored by: NetArch on Friday, January 08 2010 @ 09:53 AM EST
- British and Irish Legal Information Institute - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 08 2010 @ 10:00 AM EST
- by Richard M. Stallman: On Selling Exceptions to the GNU GPL - Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, January 08 2010 @ 10:09 AM EST
- Less than a week for Judge to decide on SUSE? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 08 2010 @ 08:18 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: jplatt39 on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 05:22 PM EST |
| Please make your comment title the correction. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jplatt39 on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 05:24 PM EST |
| Please use the title of the Newspick you are commenting on. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 05:32 PM EST |
15 days *is* 3 weeks. Unless courts sit at weekends, which I don't think they
do...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AcidDeath on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 05:51 PM EST |
| PJ, this is nothing new, if you look at my report which is Update 2 to the status
conference story you will see this is exactly what I reported, it may not be
initially what was scheduled because they had another trial they needed to see
if they could bump for the last couple of days to get the full three weeks. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 06:30 PM EST |
OK, so .. roughly, how much would the transcripts cost?
Im sure a few hundred regulars could easily donate the required amount if
neeeded .. we've come so far, we need to see the end game play out :)
So, roughly .. what would be the cost of the transcripts? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 07:20 PM EST |
What other stalling tactics could SCO try?
Wait, don't answer that. I don't want to give them any ideas.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- So, if they can't file bankruptcy at the 11th hour... - Authored by: Lazarus on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 07:42 PM EST
- So, if they can't file bankruptcy at the 11th hour... - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 08:08 PM EST
- So, if they can't file bankruptcy at the 11th hour... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 08:12 PM EST
- SCO Wants this Trial Quickly - Authored by: chrisbrown on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 08:15 PM EST
- Chapter 7..... - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 08:22 PM EST
- BOD and former BOD members can book a flight. n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 07 2010 @ 12:10 AM EST
- The truth will of course be revealed 04/01/2010 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 07 2010 @ 06:34 AM EST
- They could ... - Authored by: DMF on Friday, January 08 2010 @ 11:58 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 07:44 PM EST |
I presume that I can take at least one day, maybe two.
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 07:49 PM EST |
| Monday, March 8 - Friday March 26... They actually have 15 business days. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 07:49 PM EST |
If I recall correctly, Novell has a motion before the BK court that arbitration
needs to be allowed to go forward. We haven't had a decision on that?
But does Novell have a motion in Utah that the arbitration needs to happen for
the trial to be decided? If not, why not? And wouldn't that motion have to be
decided (if only by default) before the trial took place?
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jheisey on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 08:14 PM EST |
Does anyone know if a jury will be selected for this trial? If so, I would hate
to be on a jury for three weeks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 08:14 PM EST |
Perhaps someone knowledgeable about such cases indicate the more fruitful days
for people to visit and some co-ordination to have different people cover
different days rather than have everyone there on the same day and leave others
uncovered.
It is way to far for me to even think about going and personal circumstances
would rule it out but I really wish I could.
Tufty
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: keds on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 10:32 PM EST |
All of this could be moot if Novell appeals the copyright decision to the U.S.
Supreme Court, no?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 07 2010 @ 04:36 AM EST |
PJ writes:
The cost for transcripts for something like this
is way beyond our capabilities. So I'm asking the parties if they would please
consider providing a copy of their transcripts when they order
them?
If folks place their PACER orders using the RECAP plug-in for Firefox, copies
of any documents they order will be added to RECAP's public repository hosted by
the Internet Archive. If someone has already ordered a PACER document in which
you are interested through RECAP, it can be downloaded from this repository free
of charge. Ed Felten and the boys at Princeton deserve our support (not to
mention a pat on the back) for this innovative "open source" law
project.
BTW, in case you hadn't noticed, RECAP is PACER spelled
backwards. ;-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: complex_number on Thursday, January 07 2010 @ 04:48 AM EST |
we would have by now:-
- Seen the millions of lines of offending code
- Had the APA sorted out once and for all
- Some SCO or former SCO employees in Jail for perjury
Instead we get all this legal schanagins, prevarocation & delay that does
nothing but line the pockets of the lawyers
AND
There is still a nagging thought that somehow the SCO legal team will bamboozle
the jury and get a verdict in their favour. Then Novell will appeal and ther
will be a retrial and and and and
Why can't someone put an end to this silliness and like a dying horse put SCO
out of their misery. Oh wait, the lawyer for the horse would appeal that it was
unjust. The Dead Parrot sketch is being played out in Delaware & Nevada.
Will John Cleese et al, claim copyright infringement.
Yes, I got out of bed on the wrong side today.
---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: davidf on Thursday, January 07 2010 @ 07:17 AM EST |
For every day or the trial multiply by 365. This accounts for all SCO's delay,
disrail, disrobing and other disgusting tactics, which force the courts into
becoming contosionists and all around acrobates in trying to *finalize*
something whicih SCO never wants finalized. B&S (no... not fowl [sorry for
the bad pun but thtis is a unix based list and it just follows their style of
humour-but with Canadian spellings] language ... Boise & Schiller) I am
sure are not objecting tha strenuously, after all, the lawyers always get paid
--- well most of the time anyway.
I'd honestly hate to say that my looney (a Canadian one dollar coin) type of
calculations actually came to pass. I might be burdened wiht the title of
*prophet*, a title I know I cannot live up to, not being a preacher or a
politician.
cheeers,
david (88-fingers) f.
p.s. this is where you laugh or throw ..... eggrolls or cream pies.
---
"Music is enough for a lifetime, but one lifetime is not enough for music."
Serge Rachmaninoff[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dwiget001 on Thursday, January 07 2010 @ 10:03 AM EST |
"...The Court sets a Final Pretrial Conference for 25-Feb-2010 02:00 PM and
a 3-week Jury Trial...."
Wasn't it originally 2 and a half weeks, as opposed to 3?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 07 2010 @ 01:11 PM EST |
I simply don't see what has been amended.
I think
it's amending the original Scheduling Order. That's document 85, from 6th Dec
2005 (PDF). That set a trial
date in June 2007.
I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that there can only be
one original Scheduling Order in a case, and any further changes are Amended
Scheduling Orders. Of course, in this case there have been many twists and
turns since the original Scheduling Order was made. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 07 2010 @ 03:08 PM EST |
It has been a long long journey and it's not over yet.
Usually before some big event PJ gets on here and says something like,
"This probably won't be the end, but it will be closer to the end and the
outcome we know is right. Keep the faith."
This time I think even her indefatigability seems to be waning.
Keep the faith.
A bit of scripture: "And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due
season we shall reap, if we faint not."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 07 2010 @ 03:42 PM EST |
Ok, Ok and OK again, I just have to ask...and if anyone has asked it and it was
answered, I very much apologize, but please, someone tell me, once the Novell
trial is a done deal, no matter the outcome, and when (not if) tSCOg comes out
from under the BK rock, can they be sued then for acts, actions, etc. after the
trials and BK?
As an aside, I can't believe AZ paid the SCOscum anything, no matter how small
the amount. I'm very disappointed, what with the trial and (hopefully)
arbitration as close as they are. As much as tSCOg has been able to delay
certain death, it's hard to believe AZ couldn't delay long enough for Novell and
the arbitration to go through.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 08 2010 @ 01:30 AM EST |
I'm good for $10, who else wants to pledge up here?
bkd69[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DMF on Friday, January 08 2010 @ 12:01 PM EST |
What exactly is being tried here? Only the matters remanded by the CoA? Or
might it stretch into matters that were supposedly mooted by the original SJ?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 08 2010 @ 11:14 PM EST |
Doesn't he have to be there to make a secret deal if the jury doesn't look like
they fall for the SCO line?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
