decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

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

You won't find me on Facebook


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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Novell Wins Most of the Costs It Asked the Court to Get SCO to Pay.
Friday, December 10 2010 @ 01:12 AM EST

The Clerk in the US District Court in Utah has signed off on most of the costs Novell asked for from the second SCO v. Novell trial. For the rest, they can ask the judge, as some of the expenses, while the clerk might find them reasonable in a case of this type, can't be ordered by the clerk. Either side now has seven days to ask the judge to review.

Here's the document:

12/06/2010 - 894 - Costs Taxed in amount of $ 187,817.95 for Defendant against Plaintiff signed by Louise York, Chief Deputy Clerk 12/6/2010. (las) (Entered: 12/07/2010)

We've reported on every event in the SCO saga, big or small, and so I'm telling you about this next tiny piece in the stupidest lawsuit in the history of the world. But the Greek chorus in me has to whisper in your ear that I don't think Novell will ever see a dime in real life, and not just because it's about to be swallowed alive by Attachmate. It's just that when I look at SCO's usual M.O., what I see is they only pay their own lawyers. They still owe Novell costs from the first trial. I mean, SCO tried to get taxation of costs stayed, which failed, and then it objected to things like folder and binder costs and preparation of trial material costs. SCO is tirelessly awful, judging by my ethical framework. But they certainly are tireless, are they not?

Here's the text, and I've put in links to the earlier filings mentioned, for your convenience -- they're not in the original:




The SCO Group, Inc,



Novell, Inc,




Case No. 2:04 cv 139 TS


Judgment in the above-entitled matter was entered on June 10, 2010. A bill of costs and supporting documentation was filed on June 24, 2010. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on July 7, 2010 and a motion to stay the taxation of costs. Defendant objected to the stay of taxation of costs on July 26, 2010. The court denied the stay on August 17, 2010 and the plaintiff filed its objections to the cost bill on August 26, 2010. The defendant replied to the objections on September 7, 2010.

The objections identify specific items included in the cost bill which it asserts are not appropriate for taxation under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. In response to the objections of the plaintiff, the defendant withdrew two contested items, $21,936 for mock trial graphics and $2,914.74 for folder and binder costs. There remain two areas of contested costs. The first area are amounts requested for preparation and presentation of trial material including trial presenter fees for a technology consulting services, graphics consultation and the slide presentation. The defendant objects to the taxation of these costs because they either are inappropriate for taxation as professional services or, if considered part of the costs of

exemplification for trial, should be disallowed for failure to meet the test of necessity for use in the case. The plaintiff responded by noting the highly technical nature of the claims of this cases. Both parties availed themselves of the court's technological resources and both parties employed a trial technician. The court itself noted that the trial proceeded smoothly because of the high quality of the technological resources. The court has discretion to allow such professional fees but the discretion lies with the judge, not with the clerk who taxes costs as a ministerial duty. Trial presenter costs, like attorney fees, are not within the scope of the clerk's authority to tax costs which is limited to the items in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The clerk disallows the $72,832.50 which are designated as trial presenter fees.

The clerk notes the special nature of this litigation and the need for extensive exemplification of data for use of the jury during trial. The fact that each party used similar resources at trial supports the defendant's position that the costs of preparing graphic exhibits meet the test of being necessary for use in the case. The plaintiff cites cases which state that courts regularly impose a requirement for prior authorization of costs which generate great expense and states that the costs should be disallowed on this basis. The clerk notes that prior authorization has not been required in this district and that the parity of the sophistication of the trial exhibits for both parties suggest that these extensive, costly exhibits were reasonable in light of the nature of this case. The clerk will allow the taxation of the requested $32,725.75 for the graphics costs as exemplification costs at trial.

The plaintiff further objects to the taxation of the copy costs requested by the defendant on the basis that there were insufficient support to establish that the copies were necessarily obtained for use in the case. The specific objection is that there was no showing of the nature of the documents copied and how these documents necessary for use in the case. The plaintiff further objects to the costs as patently unreasonable as to the number of pages copied and the


time period in which the copying occurred.

The defendant notes that the requirement to support copying costs does not require excessive documentation of every single copy made but that more general support was sufficient to show that the material copied was for documents necessarily obtained for use in the case as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

The clerk notes that the costs of obtaining documents from third parties are clearly taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, but the internal copying costs of law firms are more questionable. Many internal copies are made for the convenience of counsel and should be considered part of office overhead which is included in the hourly fees for attorney services charged by members of a law firm. Copies of cases and convenience copies of pleadings are generally not taxable by the clerk. The plaintiff identifies $62,382.28 in copy costs which it feels have not been established as reasonable and necessarily obtained for use in the case. The clerk is also unable to decipher what material is represented by the internal billing sheets attached as support to the bill of costs. Clearly, in this complex litigation, there are recoverable copy costs. The clerk will reduce the copy costs by $30,000.00 for lack of supporting documentation but will allow the remaining $32,383.28 of costs requested.

Total costs allowed are $187,817.95 and are included in the judgment. The parties are further notified that the clerk's taxation may be reviewed by the court upon motion filed within seven days.

DATED this 6th day of December, 2010.

By: [signature]
Louise S. York, Chief Deputy



Novell Wins Most of the Costs It Asked the Court to Get SCO to Pay. | 142 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 02:05 AM EST
Remember to put the correction of the form "wrong -> right" in the
subject line...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 02:06 AM EST
Nothing Relevant here thank you!

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 02:07 AM EST
With link and post in HTML mode please.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Most of the Costs It Asked the Court to Get SCO to Pay.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 02:57 AM EST
Isn't this a post petition debt that the trustee is liable for
if the total debt exceeds the company assets?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Stuff
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 02:58 AM EST
Comes stuff here please. Using HTML markup for formatting while posting in plain
text makes it easier for PJ if you know HTML.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Most of the Costs It Asked the Court to Get SCO to Pay.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 02:59 AM EST
Does that mean SCO would actually have to pay money, after they ask for review
after six days and try to stretch it out as far as possible and ask for a jury
and ask the court to overrule a jury trial about the cost, or does that
just put
Novell into the line of debtors that will get nothing?

[ Reply to This | # ]

... the stupidest lawsuit in the history of the world?
Authored by: jmc on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 03:06 AM EST
Is this case really the lucky winner of this coveted title?

I can think of stupider ones. SCO -v- IBM is an example. SCO -v- D-C is another.
And the cases against Google are shaping up nicely.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Most of the Costs It Asked the Court to Get SCO to Pay.
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 03:57 AM EST
Does this mean that in 7 days time Novell can turn up at the BK court and demand
SCO choose between paying Novell or moving into chapter 7.

Beware of him who would deny you access to information for in his heart he
considers himself your master.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Will this help Novell any?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 07:35 AM EST
Just out of curiosity, does SCO even have money any more?

I thought they had mostly debts, lawyers, and dreams of winning a hojillion
dollars in the lawsuit lottery someday.

Even if they do have money, something makes me wonder if they won't soon spend
their last dollar contesting the bankruptcy, which would be just the sort of
thing I'd expect from them at this point....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bankruptcy court paying it's own lawyers (isn't that the same as Dicken's Bleak House)?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 08:54 AM EST
Bankruptcy court paying it's own lawyers (isn't that the same as Dicken's Bleak
House)... where the lawyers and the court stripped the estate to the bone, and
no one else got a dime.

Maybe the US should revisit it's bankruptcy case situation.

Remember, that all those who have had a home foreclosed on, where they bought
the house for $200,000. and the bank foreclosed and sold the house at auction
for $100,000. - well, those buyers of the house still owe the balance of
$100,000 (due to the fact that the mortgage was also a "note" and the
home was not the be-all-end-all collateral). US congress did a revisit to
limit personal bankruptcy not long ago, and the changes where to the advantage
of the banks.

So, the economy, is it being damaged by unfair bankruptcy laws that are designed
to protect the banks and lawyers?

Anyone know the answer as this is a question that the US and the World's
economies are going to face as we try to correct the problems with the
"real estate bubble" and it's after affect.

SCO should be paying Novell what it is supposed to pay. If the system protects
SCO, to the harm of Novell, then is that justice?

[ Reply to This | # ]

It is not SCO being awful anymore ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 10:48 AM EST
it is the trustee.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Don't forget about Ralph
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 11:15 AM EST
This case has gotten this far for one reason - to make sure that Ralph gets the
assets and can start this up again next year. The trustee needed the money,
made a deal with the devil, and now I'm sure he's regretting it.


[ Reply to This | # ]

The clerk knocked off $100,000
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 02:48 PM EST
The clerk knocked off over $100,000 from what Novell asked for and Novell
knocked off almost $25,000. now, Novell can try to get that $100,000 figure if
they want to ask the judge to approve the cost of the "technology"
usage and provide more documentation for the printing costs. So they might wind
up with a judgment of $290,000 in costs, and that's for the two trials, and
minus the lawyer's fees, IIUC.

All of which Judge Gross, may deny anyway? Even if the Judge wipes the slate
clean, SCO would still be bleeding cash and losing customers and has no clue on
how to ever make a profit. Then the poison pills, and the special loan deal. How
can this company ever be made whole, and at what cost to the economy? Is one
company surviving, which has no business plan for a profit, be more important
than the continued health of all the creditor companies?

So $100,000, the first time out, and $215,000 the second time out, and millions
in lawyer fees. Sounds reasonable. Should I ever need to defend my company from
a lawsuit, I know how to calculate exactly when there will be nothing left of
the company, and when to walk a way with a default judgment, due to lack of

How does that work? "Sorry your honor, our company has no more money to pay
for legal services or court costs, we're innocent but can't afford to continue
our business or this case, please close this case as the company no longer
exists. Have a nice day."

Then, I would be free to start a new company and wait for them to sue again?
Rinse and repeat until the other company gives up and goes away, or I retire.
Whichever comes first?

Or, do small companies just have to fold and pay up, or go out of business

What a great and fair system we have. Whoo hoo.

How do you run up a $60,000 tab for copy services. That's like 300,000 pages! At
retail! God it would be cheaper: to buy a color copier, hire a person full time
to run a copy machine and print your own stuff. But of course, you can't do
that, because then it would be in-house, and meet different criteria for getting
paid. So, then the solution of course is to: hire a contracter at an hourly rate
(the same rate as you would if hiring someone), pay the contractor to buy a
color copier, and all printing is covered in the rate plus tangibles (ink,
paper, binders, repairs). Then you'd be able to print probably 3,000,000 pages
for the same price. I'm just pulling that number out of the air. Or wherever.

God 300,000 pages for a two freaking week trial! Per side!! I'd hate to see the
sum total for the IBM case. In fact, I really don't want to know how many
California Redwoods they had to cut down to cover the printing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did We Kill A 'Do Not Track' Feature? (Update: No)
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 08:53 PM EST

Someone posted this topic without being signed in.

While I agree that going back 20 years and fixing the problem would be nice,
it's not practical. The browser is what needs to be fixed, so that tracking is
not technologically possible.


[ Reply to This | # ]

since SCO won't hand over the money...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 09:53 PM EST
I want to see the court give Novell an asset seizure order, to be taken into SCO
offices by Novell's duly appointed representatives (could be lawyers, but not
required), with a couple sheriff's deputies walking behind them.

I'd like to see Novell's reps point at desks, chairs, lamps, wall hangings,
Ethernet cabling, speakers, basically anything larger than a pencil, that can be
put to immediate office use by Novell (which excludes phones, computers, and
routers, as they must be re-configured or re-installed), tagged and seized by
court order, until the net value of the seized items covers the costs granted by
the court.

And if anyone resists the order, seize the entire office, change the locks, seal
the door(s) with tamper-evident tape, and eject everyone until said costs
granted by the court are covered.

I can already hear you saying, "Yeah, right, dream on." Well, that's
what I'm doing. You're not gonna deny me that, are you?

[ 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 )