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
SCO Files Objections to Novell's Bill of Costs
Friday, August 27 2010 @ 12:54 PM EDT

SCO has filed, as expected, its objections to Novell's bill of costs:

08/26/2010 - 890 OBJECTIONS to 879 Bill of Costs filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Normand, Edward) (Entered: 08/26/2010)

Novell's bills, SCO argues, "beg credulity". They are too high. Who makes that many copies? Some items are not authorized by statute. They are not demonstrated to have been necessary. They were for a mock trial, in one case. They are for things like slides that they should have asked the judge for permission to have made. The judge, SCO argues, should deny Novell's bill of costs entirely.

I will translate for you. What that means is that SCO would like to pay less. If Novell had lost, and they had been ordered to pay SCO's bill of costs, SCO would have fervently argued the opposite. Last time, SCO was able to get a bit knocked off the bill, so they may again. But they'll probably still have to pay something. But will they? In real life, I mean. Not on paper.

They are fighting harder this time. Here's SCO's previous objection to Novell's first Bill of Costs after Novell won the first trial, which SCO hasn't paid to date. SCO then only objected to $50,586.14 of Novell's bill. They were ordered to pay almost all of the bill, $99,639.09 out of the original $124,331.70.

The first bill of costs was incorporated in the total for the second bill of costs [PDF], because it wasn't ever paid.

If you want to follow along with SCO's objections, you'll see they reference Docket Number 880 [PDF] and some bills in this Exhibit D [PDF] from DepoMaxMerit. The contested copying bills are in several exhibits in Exhibit E [PDF], and here's the final list of bills in Exhibit F [PDF], which is where you'll find the bills SCO objects to regarding what it lists as “consulting services” by Impact Trial Consulting.

You know what the real bottom line is? SCO undoubtedly had similar costs. And it has to eat them 100%. Add on whatever the court orders from this contested bill, which is certainly going to be something.

What a court considers to be necessary for a trial is narrower than what you might think. Here's a ruling [PDF] on such a dispute by a District Court in Colorado, just as an example. I gather the idea is to make sure lawyers don't spend lavishly or foolishly. In the ruling, the judge says if you have a paper exhibit, you don't need a computerized version for display. Hard nosed. If you deposed someone, was it really necessary? So this case, though not directly related, will at least give you an idea, some context for reading SCO's objections.

Still, it's a bit cheeky, after the judge has denied SCO's motion to stay taxation of costs, to come back with a request not to have to pay anything, at least for the second trial. Nothing. But Boies Schiller is nothing if not bold and in your face. If they want a single star, they ask for the Milky Way galaxy. Here's the concluding section of SCO's objections:

III. CONCLUSION

Wherefore, for the reasons set forth above, SCO objects to Novell’s Bill of Costs insofar as it seeks $127,494.25 for unauthorized costs of professional services, $62,383.28 for unreasonable and unsupported copying costs, and thousands of additional dollars in unauthorized miscellaneous expenses. SCO respectfully asks the Court to strike all these costs from Novell’s Bill of Costs, or deny the Bill in its entirety.

Deny the Bill in its entirety? Are they kidding? The first unpaid bill too??? Nothing is too far a stretch for them, if that is what they hope for. They already objected to the first bill, and I don't think they can more or less "appeal" that unofficially like this now. But if you don't ask for the Milky Way, how do you get your star? And what if, just daydreaming like SCO, what if you got the Milky Way because the judge was too busy that day to pay close attention?

  


SCO Files Objections to Novell's Bill of Costs | 137 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Shock, Shock... n/t
Authored by: lnuss on Friday, August 27 2010 @ 01:12 PM EDT
.

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic thread...
Authored by: Lazarus on Friday, August 27 2010 @ 01:14 PM EDT
You know the deal, keep it off topic. Make links clickable.

---
Darl McBride: The Uwe Boll of the business management world.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News picks thread....
Authored by: Lazarus on Friday, August 27 2010 @ 01:15 PM EDT
Second verse, similar to the first...

Make sure you reference which news pick you're talking about, as many of them
cover similar topics.

---
Darl McBride: The Uwe Boll of the business management world.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections thread...
Authored by: Lazarus on Friday, August 27 2010 @ 01:16 PM EDT
Place your corrections here.

Ideal format is:

/wrong / right

or

wrong -> right

Or something of that nature.

---
Darl McBride: The Uwe Boll of the business management world.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES thread...
Authored by: Lazarus on Friday, August 27 2010 @ 01:17 PM EDT
If there are any COMES docuements to post, please place them here.

They are most helpful in HTML format or plain text.

---
Darl McBride: The Uwe Boll of the business management world.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files Objections to Novell's Bill of Costs
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, August 27 2010 @ 01:25 PM EDT

(PJ:) "But they'll probably still have to pay something. But will they? In real life, I mean. Not on paper."

Well, if you read Novell's bill of costs, it would appear that they didn't last time, as Novell appears to be rolling the previous cost grant over into this one. (Which raises the question of whether or not TSG may legitimately contest the previously-approved amount this time around.)

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

"But will they? In real life, I mean. Not on paper"
Authored by: Yossarian on Friday, August 27 2010 @ 01:39 PM EDT
This question has a simple answer - NO.

The real question is why does SCO fight so hard over a bill
that it will never pay? My answer is that SCO's goal is to
drive Novell's expenses as high as possible, and then some more.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Request for clarity: Is the Taxation of Cost a pre-petition liability?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 27 2010 @ 03:11 PM EDT
A perceptive commenter, El Corton, made this characterization of the priority of the court cost claim.

..the debt arises from a pre-petition action against a bankrupt. SCO not only doesn't have to, but can't pay the claim until it's allowed by the bankruptcy court as part of a distribution and discharge of all pre-petition debt. Anything else would be a "preference," which is illegal.

I have not seen the priority ranking of the taxation of costs claim discussed on GL. I am not sure if El C. has described the debt accurately.

Is this pre-petition or post-petition debt? The difference is significant in what the likelihood of any payment will be.

[ Reply to This | # ]

When is the bill for these costs due?
Authored by: UncleJosh on Friday, August 27 2010 @ 03:52 PM EDT
Suppose SCO gets a new trial from the appeals court and then prevails in the new
trial?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Asking for the Milky Way Galaxy?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 27 2010 @ 04:21 PM EDT

There's times when I think SCOG is actually aiming for when the Milky Way collides with Andromeda so it can get them both.

Of course... when the obvious is pointed out - such as that not happening for an estimated 4 billion years - that never seems to deter SCOGs wish list.....

... speaking of which, perhaps that's why they have such troubles around the holidays... they just make their wish lists way too big.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO only wants whats fair...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 27 2010 @ 05:00 PM EDT
So they shouldn't have to pay until they get their day in court...

The big mistake of both IBM and Novell was not asking in the discovery phase for
clear and concise definitions of "day" and "court".

[ Reply to This | # ]

What is the likelihood ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 27 2010 @ 08:25 PM EDT
Given how clearly corrupt the USA legal system is, what is the likelihood that
this American judge will grant that motion in its entirety?


[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files Objections to Novell's Bill of Costs
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 30 2010 @ 01:59 AM EDT
If SCO's "Lawers" have to itemize everything, should not Novel be able
to use that to show similar costings to their own lawyers? After all, If
Shiller and Co spent the same number of dollars on the case, (cost as opposed to
what they charged which is capped) SCO could hardly begrudge Novels costs.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why does a judge rules?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 31 2010 @ 10:10 AM EDT
Sorry for my language ... but I have to write. There is something I don't get
right.

The bankruptcy court rules over SCO. SCO is allowed to pay the bills of their
own law firms. A judge rules, that SCO has to pay bills and that is ...

a) forbidden?
b) not mandatory?
c) without any outcome for the bankruptcy court when not paid?

Who is in charge now, when SCO does not pay bills?

[ 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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.04 seconds