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's Rule 56(f) Motion -- as text
Sunday, July 11 2004 @ 05:39 PM EDT

Here is SCO's 56(f) Motion in Further Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as text. The PDF is here and discussion is going on here. We are working on obtaining the exhibits. Meanwhile, tuxrocks.com has begun compiling a list of what the exhibits are, from the documents already in hand. There are a lot of them, all paper exhibits. Groan. The John Harrop declaration is available on SCO's website. We will wait for the official court copy to put it on Groklaw.

Thanks go, once again, as always, to Steve Martin for the work of turning this document into text, as a convenience for all of us but especially for those visually-impaired among us, who rely on plain text. How pleasant it is doing Groklaw, and getting to see the lovely qualities the volunteers show. Thank you, everyone, for pitching in.

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

Brent O. Hatch (5715)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, PC
[address, phone, fax]

Robert Silver, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]

Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
Mark J. Heise (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH


THE SCO GROUP, INC.

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-
Defendant,

vs.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-
Plaintiff.
THE SCO GROUP'S RULE 56(f)
MOTION IN FURTHER
OPPOSITION TO IBM'S MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") hereby moves the Court for an Order denying Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation's ("IBM") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or, alternatively, for an Order continuing consideration of IBM's Motion until sufficient discovery has been conducted. SCO's Rule 56(f) Motion is based on the following grounds:

As set forth in SCO Memorandum and accompanying declarations, SCO has not had sufficient time since IBM filed its counterclaims to analyze the million lines of Linux source code, to compare it to UNIX source code, and to trace the genealogy, ownership, registration and licensing of that code. SCO has also not received discovery essential to oppose IBM's motion, nor even basic discovery that would permit SCO simply to efficiently identify targets for future, focused discovery and efficient investigation of facts to oppose IBM's motion. Without such basic discovery, SCO's investigation for non-literal copying would be made much slower and more inefficient than would otherwise be necessary. SCO has not even been given the basic, Court-ordered discovery on which SCO has now been required to renew a motion to compel necessary to permit SCO to build and prioritize its investigation of non-literal copying into Linux.

This Motion is supported by the Rule 56(f) Declaration of John K. Harrop, the declarations of Christopher Sontag and Sandeep Gumpta and SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and in Support of SCO's Rule 56(f) Motion.

Dated this 8th Day of July, 2004.

[signature of Brent Hatch]
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent 0. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James
[address, phone, fax]

Robert Silver, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]

Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
Mark J. Heise (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]

Counsel for Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant

Frederick S. Frei (admitted pro hac vice)
Aldo Noto (admitted pro hac vice)
John K. Harrop (admitted pro hac vice)
ANDREWS KURTH LLP
[address, phone, fax]

Of Counsel


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, The SCO Group, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of THE SCO GROUP'S RULE 56(f) MOTION IN FURTHER OPPOSITION TO IBM'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT served on Defendant International Business Machines Corporation on this 9th day of July, 2004, as follows:

BY HAND DELIVERY:

Alan L. Sullivan, Esq.
Todd M. Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
[address]

BY U.S. MAIL:

Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address}

Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]

_______[signature]________


  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 )