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
SCO & Novell's Motions in Limine and Daubert Motions - A Chart
Tuesday, February 23 2010 @ 09:20 PM EST

This should help us follow what is happening with the many motions in limine and motions for Daubert hearings in SCO v. Novell: a chart Steve Martin whipped up for us showing each motion, the memorandum in opposition, and the judge's order. We've set it up as a permanent page, with a link from the Timelines page so you can always find it.

Docket No.TitleFiled ByOpposition Docket No.Status
627MOTION in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Evidence and Argument Concerning Claims Not Included in SCO's Appeal or the Tenth Circuit's Limited MandateNovell669Denied
[#674]
629MOTION in Limine No. 2 to Determine that First Amendment Defenses Apply to Slander of Title Novell 682 Denied
[#730]
630 MOTION in Limine No. 3 to Determine that SCO is a Limited Purpose Public Figure Novell 683 Denied
[#730]
631MOTION in Limine No. 4 to Preclude SCO from Contesting that Novell had an Objectively Reasonable, Good Faith Basis for its Statements Regarding Copyright OwnershipNovell684Granted
[#724]
632MOTION in Limine No. 5 to Preclude SCO from Relying on Novell's June and August 2003 Statements as Factual Assertions of Copyright OwnershipNovell685Denied
[#710]
633MOTION in Limine No. 7 to Determine that Common Law Privileges Apply to Allegedly Defamatory PublicationsNovell687Denied
[#704]
634MOTION in Limine No. 8 to Preclude SCO from Relying on Novell's Applications for Copyright RegistrationNovell688Denied
[#725]
635MOTION in Limine No. 10 to Preclude SCO from Presenting Argument Relating to Issues Stayed Pending ArbitrationNovell690Granted
[#716]
636MOTION in Limine No. 11 to Exclude Evidence of Substantial PerformanceNovell691Denied
[#728]
637MOTION in Limine No. 12 to Exclude Certain Testimony from William Broderick for Lack of Personal Knowledge and Violation of Parol Evidence RuleNovell 692Granted in part
Denied in part

[#717]
638MOTION in Limine No. 13 to Exclude Certain Testimony From Lawrence Bouffard for Lack of Personal Knowledge and Violation of Parol Evidence RuleNovell693Granted in part
Denied in part

[#717]
639MOTION in Limine No.14 to Exclude Certain Testimony from Jean Acheson for Lack of Personal Knowledge and Violation of Parol Evidence RuleNovell694Granted in part
Denied in part

[#717]
640MOTION in Limine No. 15 to Exclude Certain Testimony from Robert Frankenberg for Lack of Personal Knowledge and Violation of Parol Evidence RuleNovell695Granted in part
Denied in part

[#717]
641MOTION in Limine No. 16 to Exclude Certain Testimony from R. Duff Thompson for Lack of Personal Knowledge and Violation of Parol Evidence RuleNovell696Granted in part
Denied in part

[#717]
642MOTION in Limine No. 17 to Exclude Certain Testimony from Ty Mattingly for Lack of Personal Knowledge and Violation of Parol Evidence RuleNovell697Granted in part
Denied in part

[#717]
643MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO PRECLUDE MISLEADING STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE CONCERNING LANGUAGE IN THE APA REMOVED BY AMENDMENT NO. 2SCO Group675Denied without prejudice
[#708]
644MOTION in Limine No. 18 to Exclude Certain Testimony from Douglas Michels for Lack of Personal Knowledge and Violation of Parol Evidence RuleNovell698Granted in part
Denied in part

[#717]
645MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE REFERENCES AND EVIDENCE CONCERNING REVERSED RULINGSSCO Group676Granted
[#709]
646MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO NOVELL'S MONETARY JUDGMENT AGAINST SCOSCO Group677Granted
[#728]
647MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO LITIGATION COMMENTARYSCO Group678Under Advisement
[#713]
648MOTION in Limine No.19 to Exclude Certain Testimony from Edward Chatlos, Burt Levine, and Kim Madsen for Lack of Personal KnowledgeNovell699Granted in part
Denied in part

[#717]
649MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE STATEMENTS MADE BY MICHAEL ANDERER AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR FOR SCOSCO Group679Granted in part
Denied in part

[#712]
650MOTION in Limine No. 9 to Preclude SCO from Contesting that Agreements that Post-Date the APA May Constitute SVRX LicensesNovell689Granted
[#711]
651MOTION in Limine No. 6 to Preclude Reliance on Statements in December 2003 and March 2004 that do not Constitute Factual Assertions of Copyright OwnershipNovell686Denied
[#710]
655MOTION for Daubert Hearing to Disqualify Dr. Christine A. Botosan
Dr. Botosan's report [PDF]
Novell701Denied
[#746]
657MOTION for Daubert Hearing to Disqualify Dr. Gary Pisano
Dr. Pisano's report [PDF; text]
Novell702Denied
[#747]
659MOTION for Daubert Hearing to Disqualify G. Gervaise Davis III
Mr. Davis' report [PDF]
Novell700Denied
[#745]

  


SCO & Novell's Motions in Limine and Daubert Motions - A Chart | 31 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Correction here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, February 23 2010 @ 09:28 PM EST
If any.

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES notes here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, February 23 2010 @ 09:29 PM EST


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks commentary here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, February 23 2010 @ 09:30 PM EST
Please note which article you are referencing
in the title.

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, February 23 2010 @ 09:32 PM EST
Please make any links clickable.

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"scorecard"
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 23 2010 @ 09:38 PM EST
Counting motions granted as +1, and motions denied as -1, ignoring all others,
the current score appears to be:

SCO 0
Novell -2

(Disclaimer: Your results may vary; past performance is not an indicator of
future returns.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Chart
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 23 2010 @ 09:59 PM EST
This is great. My wishlist would include another chart of the complaint issues
and the major rulings associated with each.

Looking at SCO's 2nd Ammeded Complaint,

http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060109231849961

there is

Slander of Title
Breach of the APA and TLA
Alternative Breach-of-Contract Claim Seeking Specific Performance
Copyright Infringement
Unfair Competition

But I'm not sure which of these are complete.



[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO & Novell's Motions in Limine and Daubert Motions - A Chart
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 23 2010 @ 10:28 PM EST
Where is the court record of Novel v SCO appeal - the transcript of 05/06/09 -
or thereabouts?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Order #728 - 636 denied, 646 granted.
Authored by: ChrisP on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 10:10 AM EST
Add these to the table?

---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

631 Granted.
Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 11:08 AM EST
Given that 631 is granted, and 631 is titled
MOTION in Limine No. 4 to Preclude SCO from Contesting that Novell had an Objectively Reasonable, Good Faith Basis for its Statements Regarding Copyright Ownership
If SCOXQ can't contest that Novell had an objectively reasonable, good faith basis, then how can they possibly win on Slander of Title?

---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United States of America.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • 631 Granted. - Authored by: RFD on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 12:58 PM EST
    • 631 Granted. - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, February 25 2010 @ 02:00 PM EST
    Scoreboard after 728
    Authored by: Silurian on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 07:08 PM EST
    The effect of 728 is that all of SCO motion in limine are ordered, seventeen of
    Novell motion in limine are ordered, two of Novell motion in limine are pending,
    and the three Novell daubert motions are pending. Set aside two pending motion
    in limine and three pending daubert motions.

    I will score granter as +1, denied as -1, granted in part and deined in part as
    0, and "under advisement" as zero.

    If my arithmetic is correct (no warranty!) the score for SCO is +2 from 4, so
    say +50%. The score for Novell is -3 from 17, so say -18%.

    Quite a difference.


    [ 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 )