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.


To read comments to this article, go here
IBM Subpoenas Baystar, Deutsche Bank, Renaissance and Yankee Group
Monday, November 03 2003 @ 03:57 AM EST

IBM misses nothing. They have just subpoenaed the money people: Baystar Capital, The Yankee Group, Renaissance Research Group, and Deutsche Bank Securities. They have also filed a third set of interrogatories and requests for documents that SCO will have to repond to, assuming they ever respond to anything.

There was a conference on the 31st before the administrative judge, who has set November 21 as the date for a second conference. If at that second conference there is still a problem with discovery, then the Motion to Compel Discovery will be argued on December 5 at 10:00 AM.

So things are progressing nicely, and the noose tightens around SCO's neck. They have to show the code and particularize their claims. Judges will let you get away with delays at the start, to give you every benefit of the doubt, which you want if you are ever in a court battle, but the honeymoon doesn't last long.

It looks like the judge is putting SCO on notice that they have a real deadline now, and should they fail to meet the November deadline without a mighty good excuse, the Motion is already set for oral arguments. She could instead have said that she wanted both sides to report back to her in November and then she'd see what to do. Instead, she set a firm date for oral arguments, so it's a kind of a warning that they've delayed as long as they can get away with. Oral arguments on a Motion to Compel -- well, that is, to say the least, what you want to avoid, if you are SCO.

The information is up on the paid Pacer listing, but not on the public one. Here are the details, exactly as listed on Pacer.

10/30/03 60 -- Certificate of service re: Dft IBM's third set of interrogatories and third request for prod of docs by Intl Bus Mach Inc [Entry date 10/30/03]

10/30/03 61 -- Certificate of service by Intl Bus Mach Inc re: subp served on Baystar Capital, The Yankee Group, Renaissance Research Group, Deutsche Bank Securities [Entry date 10/31/03]

10/31/03 62 -- Minute entry:,Counsel for both parties present. Discussion held re: status of discovery. Parties to reconvene for a status conference set for 11/21/03 at 10:00 a.m. before Judge Wells. If at that time it is determined that a hearing should be held re: Motion to Compel (docket entry #44), that hearing will be set for 12/5/03 at 10:00 a.m. Court adjourned. status conference set for 10:00 11/21/03, Motion hearing set for 10:00 12/5/03 for [44-1] motion to compel Discovery ; Judge: BCW Court Reporter: Electronic Tape No.: 29 Log No.: 6030-6325 Court Deputy: alp [Entry date 10/31/03]


  View Printable Version


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 )