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
AutoZone's First Interrogatories
Saturday, October 16 2004 @ 11:49 PM EDT

Here are AutoZone's First Interrogatories as text, thanks again to the prolific Henrik Grouleff. They are found in this document, on page 68 [PDF].

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

James J. Pisanelli
Nevada Bar No. 4027
Nicki L. Wilmer
Nevada Bar No. 6562
SCHRECK BRIGNONE
[address, phone]

Michael P. Kenny. Esq.
James A. Harvey, Esq.
David J. Stewart, Esq.
Christopher A. Riley, Esq.
Douglas L. Bridges, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
[address, phone]

Attorneys for Defendant AutoZone, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA


THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation
Plaintiff,
v.

AUTOZONE, INC.,
a Nevada Corporation
Defendant.




Civil Action File No.


CV-S-04-0237-RCJ-LRL



DEFENDANT AUTOZONE, INC.'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO
PLAINTIFF THE SCO GROUP, INC.

Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter "FRCP"), Defendant AutoZone, Inc. ("AutoZone" or "Defendant") requests that Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO" or "Plaintiff") respond to the following interrogatories. In accordance with FRCP 33, each interrogatory is to be answered fully and in writing under oath within thirty (30) days after service hereof.

Each interrogatory is addressed to the knowledge of SCO, as well as to knowledge, information or documents in the possession, custody or control of SCO and SCO's attorneys, accountants, agents, employees, or officers.

INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS

AutoZone incorporates herein by reference each of the Instructions and Definitions contained in Defendant AutoZone, Inc.'s First Requests for Production of Documents and Things to Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc., served concurrently herewith. Each of the Definitions apply with respect to each of the following interrogatories, and each of the terms defined therein, when used in any interrogatory below, shall have the meaning given therein.

INTERROGATORIES

1.        Identify with specificity each copyrighted work that you allege AutoZone has infringed, including, but not limited to, each of the works identified in Paragraph 2 of SCO's Injunctive Relief Statement. For source code, identify the specific lines of code that you allege AutoZone has infringed. For non-source code, identify the specific lines or sections of the materials that you allege AutoZone has infringed.

2.        For each line of code identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, (a) identify all products in which, in whole or in part, the code is included or on which, in whole or in part, the code is based, and (b) identify whether SCO has ever distributed the source code under the GPL, LGPL or any other open source license, and if so, the circumstances and license under which it was distributed or otherwise made available.

3.        Identify the author(s) of each work identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 above.

4.        Describe in detail when and how SCO obtained ownership of the copyright of each work identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 above.

5.        Identify by registration number the United States copyright registration for each copyrighted work identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 above.

6.        Describe with specificity how AutoZone has infringed the copyright in each work identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 above.

7.        Identify the date when SCO first learned that AutoZone was migrating, or had migrated, from OpenServer to Linux.

8.        Identify the date when SCO first learned that AutoZone had allegedly infringed each of the copyrighted works identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 above.

9.        Describe in detail all harm that you are suffering as a result of each alleged act of infringement identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6 above.

10.        Identify all persons who have knowledge or information regarding the creation of the works identified in response Request No. 1 above, and describe in detail the substance of each person's knowledge.

11.        Identify all persons who have knowledge or information regarding your ownership of the copyrights identified in response to Request No. 1 above, and describe in detail the substance of each person's knowledge.

12.        Identify all persons who have knowledge or information regarding your claims that AutoZone has infringed the copyrights identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 above, including. without limitation, each of the SCO employees referenced in lines 7 & 8 of Paragraph 2 of SCO's Injunctive Relief Statement, and describe in detail the substance of each person's knowledge.

13.        Identify all facts, documents and other information in your possession, custody or control that support your stated belief that "it is reasonably likely that AutoZone copied SCO's copyright material during the migration process in violation of its contracts with SCO and in violation of Federal Copyright laws," as stated in Paragraph 2 of SCO's Injunctive Relief Statement, and identify all individuals with knowledge of the same.

14.        Identify each expert witness that you will call to provide testimony on your behalf in support of your anticipated motion for preliminary injunction, and, for each such expert, state the subject matter and a summary of each such expert's testimony.

This 1st day of September, 2004.

________[signature]_______

James J. Pisanelli
Nicki L. Wilmer
SCHRECK BRIGNONE
[address, phone]

Attorneys for Defendant
AutoZone, Inc.


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certity that I have this day served a copy of the within and foregoing DEFENDANT AUTOZONE, INC.'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF THE SCO GROUP, INC. upon all counsel of record addressed as follows:

Stanley W. Parry, Esq.
Glenn M. Machado, Esq.
[address]
(Via Hand Delivery)

David S. Stone, Esq.
Robert A. Magnanini. Esq.
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
(Via Hand Delivery)

Stephen N. Zack. Esq.
Mark J. Heise. Esq.
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
(Via First Class Mail)

This 1st day of September, 2004.

__[signature]______
An employee of Schreck Brignone


  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 )