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
SCO and IBM Argue Over Deposition Dates
Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 05:22 AM EDT

Lots of activity in Pacer-land. First, there is a SCO Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order, then there is SCO's Expedited Motion and Memorandum For a Protective Order, which is their request to delay the BayStar and three other depositions, and then there are two orders granting applications by two more Boies Schiller attorneys David S. Stone and Michael Macmanus so they can be added to the SCO legal team, and then there is IBM's memorandum in opposition to SCO's attempt to get the court to change the deposition dates, Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff IBM's Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's Expedited Motion For Protective Order. I have only glanced at them to see what they are, so we can read them together.


  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 )