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 Notice of Deposition - as text
Monday, October 18 2004 @ 04:34 PM EDT

Here is a bit more from SCO's AutoZone collection, this time the Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition of the Plaintiff The SCO Group, as text, thanks to Steve Martin and Henrik Grouleff. You'll find it on page 80 of the PDF.

This matches and complements their First Interrogatories and First Request for Documents and Things. I note particularly AutoZone intended to ask about item 7:

7. The factual investigation SCO performed in advance of filing this action against AutoZone

If this were a novel, I'd call that foreshadowing. Of what? Maybe that AutoZone could be thinking of some steps of their own, if this nonsense keeps up. You are supposed to have some kind of good-faith basis for a claim prior to suing somebody.

Number 8 on the list can't be there just for our entertainment, I'm sure, but I, for one, can't wait to read SCO describe how it is being so irreparably harmed by AutoZone booting up its own computers now and again and using them every day that SCO requires an immediate injunction to keep AutoZone from using its chosen operating system until the trial is over.

Like the judge will make that happen in the real world. Like SCO will even ask.

Sorry, but much as I'd enjoy all the merriment that would ensue, I don't honestly think they will even ask the judge for that, unless something extraordinary comes out in discovery, which I can't even imagine at this point. Of course, SCO is nothing if not surprising. These are the folks who thought it would be sensible to sue a company that hasn't used its product in nearly a decade, so in SCOland, anything is possible.

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

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



NOTICE OF 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION OF
OF PLAINTIFF THE SCO GROUP, INC.

Defendant AutoZone, Inc. ("AutoZone") hereby gives notice that, pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it will take the deposition upon oral examination of Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") through one or more of its officers, directors, managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf and who are most knowledgeable with respect to the topics set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The deposition will commence at 9:00 a.m. on October 13, 2004 at the offices of Schreck Brignone, [address] and will continue from time to time and day to day until completed. The deposition will be taken before a notary public or other officer duly authorized by law to administer oaths.

Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, SCO is required to designate one or more persons who will testify to the matters known or reasonably available to SCO regarding each of the subjects set forth on the attached Exhibit "A."

This 1st day of September, 2004.


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

Attorneys for Defendant
AutoZone, Inc.

AutoZone incorporates by reference herein the Instructions and Definitions contained in AutoZone's First Requests for Production of Documents and Things to Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.

EXHIBIT "A"

1.        Identification of the specific copyrights that SCO contends that AutoZone has infringed, including the copyrights identified in SCO's Injunctive Relief Statement.

2.        SCO's acquisition, ownership and licensing of the copyrights SCO contends that AutoZone has infringed, including the copyrights identified in SCO's Injunctive Relief Statement.

3.        The functionality of any source or object code that SCO contends that AutoZone has copied or otherwise infringed.

4.        The creation of any source or object code that SCO contends that AutoZone has copied or otherwise infringed.

5.        How AutoZone has allegedly infringed each of SCO's copyrights, including the copyrights identified in SCO's Injunctive Relief Statement.

6.        The date(s) when SCO first learned that AutoZone was allegedly infringing SCO's copyrights, including copyrights identified in SCO's Injunctive Relief Statement.

7.        The factual investigation SCO performed in advance of filing this action against AutoZone.

8.        The harm that SCO is suffering as a result of AutoZone's alleged acts of infringement.

9.        SCOsource and the SCO Intellectual Property License Program.

10.        AutoZone's migration from OpenServer to Linux.

11.        Communications between AutoZone and SCO, or any of its predecessors, regarding Linux.

12.        Communications between AutoZone and SCO, or any of its predecessors, regarding Unix or OpenServer.

13.        The terms of the OpenServer and/or Linux license agreements between SCO and AutoZone.

14.        Identification and authentication of each document produced in response to AutoZone's First Requests for Production of Documents and Things to Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the within and foregoing NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF THE SCO GROUP, INC. upon all counsel of record addressed as follows:

Stanley W. Parry, Esq.
Glenn M. Machado, Esq.
CURRAN & PARRY
[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 )