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 Wells Denies SCO's Motion For Protective Order! - Depositions Stay on Schedule
Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 02:08 AM EDT

Judge Wells has denied SCO's Expedited Motion for Protective Order, in which it asked that three depositions be postponed. There was a telephone conference and the docket entry says this:

"Court hears arguments and DENIES the motion due to lateness of the objection and inconvenience to the parties scheduled for deposition."

So much for SCO's "Let them just go to work instead of to the deposition" breeziness. They lost. No delay. IBM's arguments won the day.

Here* is the Docket Entry of the telephone conference, oh ye of little faith in our courts.

So, the deposition of Mr. Wilson, who executed the 1985 IBM-AT&T agreement for AT&T and David Frasure, also an AT&T employee, and David Rodgers, who was at Sequent, will go forward as scheduled. Frasure was actually scheduled for Tuesday the 8th. Mr. Wilson and Mr. Rodgers are scheduled for June 10. BayStar was postponed on IBM's consent. We expect some swordplay on that one.

*Note it may take a few minutes for the PDF to be available on ibiblio's servers. I just couldn't wait to tell you.

*******************************

MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

JUDGE: Hon. Brooke Wells

DATE: June 7, 2004

CASE NO. 2:03CV294DAK

SCO vs. IBM

COURT REPORTER: n/a
COURTROOM DEPUTY: n/a
INTERPRETER: na

TAPE # n/a

LOG # n/a

Approved By: ___________


APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

Pla Brent Hatch
Dft Todd Shaughnessy
US PO
USMS

MATTER SET: Telephone Conference


DOCKET ENTRY:

Counsel for both parties contact the Court by telepone re: expedited motion for protective order (d.e. #168). Court hears arguments and DENIES the motion due to lateness of the objection and inconvenience to the parties already scheduled for deposition. Counsel for defendant is to prepare an order.


Case Title: 2:03CV294DAK, SCO v. IBM


  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 )