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
DaimlerChrysler's Summary Disposition Hearing Postponed Until July 21, 2004
Thursday, June 10 2004 @ 12:57 AM EDT

Today was originally scheduled for a hearing in the SCO v. DaimlerChrysler case, to hear DC's Motion for Summary Disposition. It was postponed on June 1, it turns out, and it is now set for July 21, 2004 [PDF], on stipulation of the parties.

This court is so not in the Information Age yet. No Pacer. No public digital access that I've yet found for free reading of legal documents filed with the court. Maybe this new court decision will inspire them: A federal appeals court in New York City, which is in the 2d Circuit, ruled on June 8 that the public has a qualified First Amendment right to inspect docket sheets. The court pointed out that the public's right to attend civil and criminal cases would be "merely theoretical" if docket sheet info is not available.

Today was Exhibit A. Our representative, eggplant37, set aside the time to go by the court for the hearing, but happily, I'd told him to always call the court first to make sure, so he didn't waste a trip. That's how we found out the hearing had been postponed. Actually, he did go to the court house anyway, because it was the only way to get a copy of the order. Exhibit B.

The 2d Circuit decision has immediate application in the state of Connecticut, where much docket sheet information has been kept in a dungeon for decades. Some information about cases wasn't even recorded on docket sheets, evidently to protect the famous. There are footnotes about the case that still have to work their way through the legal process, but it's a big win for the public's right, including the media, to know what is going on. You can read the opinion of the US Court of Appeals, if it interests you. And here is the new schedule from Michigan:

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

STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
    Plaintiff,
-vs-

DAIMLERCHRYSLER
CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation
    Defendant.
Civil Action No. 04-056587-CK
Honorable Rae Lee Chabot

Joel H. Serlin (P20224)
Barry M. Rosenbaum (P26487)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
[address]
[phone]
James P. Feeney (P13335)
Thomas S. Bishoff (P53753)
Stephen L. Tupper (P53918)
Attorney for Defendants
[address]
[phone]

AMENDED SUMMARY DISPOSITION SCHEDULING ORDER

At a session of said Court, held in the City of Pontiac, County of Oakland, State of Michigan, on June 1, 2004

PRESENT: HON. RAE LEE CHABOT

    CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

The parties, through their respective counsel, having stipulated to the entry of this Order, and the Court being more fully advised in the premises:

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court's Summary Disposition Scheduling Order dated May 4, 2004 regarding Defendant's Motion for Summary Disposition be amended as follows:

  1. The Motion for Summary Disposition shall be heard by the Court on July 21, 2004.

  2. Plaintiff's response brief must be filed and received by the Court and opposing counsel by June 16, 2004.

  3. Defendant's reply brief (optional) must be filed and received by the Court and opposing counsel by June 30, 2004. The reply brief may not exceed five (5) pages.

  4. The moving party must re-praecipe the above-stated motion to be heard on July 21, 2004.

  5. PLEASE BE ADVISED THE COURT WILL STRICTLY ENFORCE MCR 2.119(A)(2).

    If briefs are not filed, the Court will assume that counsel is without authority for their respective positions, and will hear the motion on the re-praeciped date. This scheduling order pertains to the above-stated motion only. All other motions remain scheduled as praeciped. It is the responsibility of the moving party to notify the Court, in advance of the date scheduled, of any cancellations of the hearing. Counsel shall provide a copy of a response or reply (including brief as well as attachments) to the Judge's Chambers in accordance with MCR 2.116(G)(1)(c). The scheduling of this matter for oral argument does not preclude the Court from waiving oral argument at a later date pursuant to applicable Michigan Court Rule.


        (signature)
        CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE


So Stipulated:

(signature)
Barry M. Rosenbaum (P26487)
Attorney for Plaintiff

(signature)
Thomas S. Bishoff (P53753)
Attorney for Defendant

  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 )