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
Judge Well's Order Granting IBM's Motions to Compel Discovery
Saturday, December 13 2003 @ 12:45 AM EST

Here is Judge Wells' Order granting IBM's Motions to Compel for you to savor. Enjoy. Oh, and if you want to have the PDF, it's here. Thanks to mac586 and Frank for transcribing and formatting.

Say, look at the list of names this Order was sent to. You think they've got enough lawyers in this case?

So, 30 days from the date of this order. Let's synchronize our watches.


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF UTAH

CENTRAL DIVISION, DISTRICT OF UTAH


THE SCO GROUP, INC.

Plaintiff,        

      vs.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORP.

Defendant.        

Case No. 2:03cv00294 DK

ORDER GRANTING

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINE'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY AND REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS


Defendant/CounterClaim-Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation's (IBM's) First and Second Motions to Compel Discovery having come before this Court, and the Court having read the corresponding memoranda submitted by both parties, and having heard oral argument on pertinent matters at a hearing on December 5, 2003, hereby enters the following Order

The Court, finding good cause shown, GRANTS IBM's First and Second Motions to Compel Discovery.

In accordance with the Court's order Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant the SCO Group, Inc. (SCO) is hereby ORDERED:

1. To respond fully and in detail to Interrogatory Nos.1-9 as stated in IBM's First Set of Interrogatories.

2. To respond fully and in detail to Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13 as stated in IBM's Second Set of Interrogatories.

3. IBM is to provide SCO a list of requested documents as stated in IBM's First and Second Requests for the Productions of Documents and SCO is to produce all requested documents.

4. To identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming form the basis of their action against IBM. This is to include identification of all Bates numbered documents previously provided.

5. To the extent IBM's requests call for the production of documents or are met by documents SCO has already provided, SCO is to identify with specificity the location of responsive answers including identification of the Bates numbered documents previously provided if applicable.

6. If SCO does not have sufficient information in its possession, custody, or control to specifically answer any of IBM's requests that are the subject of this order, SCO shall provide an affidavit setting forth the full nature of its efforts, by whom they were taken, what further efforts it intends to utilize in order to comply, and the expected date of compliance.

SCO is required to provide such answers and documents within thirty days from the date of this order.

All other discovery, including SCO's Motion to Compel is hereby STAYED until this Court determines that SCO has fully complied with this Order. The Court will hold a hearing on the foregoing issues January 23, 2004 at 10:00 a.m

DATED this 12th day of December, 2003.

BY THE COURT:

[signature of Brooke C. Wells]
BROOKE C. WELLS
United States Magistrate Judge

True and correct copies of the attached were either mailed, faxed or e-mailed by the clerk to the following:

Brent O. Hatch, Esq.
HATCH JAMES & DODGE
[address information]
EMAIL

Stephen Neal Zack, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address information]
EMAIL

David K. Markarian, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address information]

Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address information]

Thomas G. Rafferty, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address information]

David R. Marriott, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address information]
EMAIL

Mr. Alan L Sullivan, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address information]
EMAIL

Todd M. Shaughnessy, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address information]
EMAIL

Amy F. Sorenson, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address information]
EMAIL

Mr. Kevin P McBride, Esq.
[address information]






        

  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 )