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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
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.


  


Trial in SCO v. Novell Now Scheduled for 15 Days Beginning March 8 - Correction | 292 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off topic Here
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 | # ]

Corrections Here:
Authored by: jplatt39 on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 05:22 PM EST
Please make your comment title the correction.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks here:
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 | # ]

15 days *is* 3 weeks
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 | # ]

Trial in SCO v. Novell Now Scheduled for 15 Days Beginning March 8
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 | # ]

Beyond our capabilities?
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 | # ]

So, if they can't file bankruptcy at the 11th hour...
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 | # ]

Sign up here!
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 | # ]

15 days is the three full business weeks
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 | # ]

Where are we wrt arbitration?
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 | # ]

Will this be a jury trial?
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 | # ]

Suggestion
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 | # ]

Supreme Court appeal?
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 | # ]

Order PACER documents through RECAP
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 | # ]

If a far off land where common sense ruled
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 | # ]

calculation for trial time and outcomes
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 | # ]

I belive this is the change:
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 | # ]

Trial in SCO v. Novell Now Scheduled for 15 Days Beginning March 8 - Correction
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 | # ]

optimism for a "right" outcome seems to be wearing a bit thin
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 | # ]

Trial in SCO v. Novell Now Scheduled for 15 Days Beginning March 8 - Correction
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 | # ]

Transcript pledging thread?
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 | # ]

So what exactly is that subject matter?
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 | # ]

Would we expext Cahn to be there?
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 | # ]

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 )