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 Harrasses IBM Further - Petitions Court to Let Them Depose its CEO
Friday, January 14 2005 @ 08:33 AM EST

SCO has filed a motion seeking to depose IBM's CEO Sam Palmisano. Here is the motion and here is the memorandum in support. IBM has refused to produce him, on the grounds that he doesn't have any specific information relevant to the lawsuit or any knowledge that can't be obtained by deposing others at IBM.

He likely is not a coder and can't find the missing "mountain of code" SCO claimed it knew about and now can't find. He probably has more important things to do with his time, too, I'm guessing. But SCO refuses to accept that he has already given them all he has to offer or that anyone else will do, so they have filed the motion. Obviously, they think he *does* have information they'd like to have.

A little background. SCO asked for all documents from IBM executives already, and they have already been produced. There was nothing useful to SCO in the materials produced, so they told the court that IBM must be holding out. IBM, of course, said that was not so. So the judge asked if IBM would be willing to get affidavits from the executives saying that they had produced all the documents they have that are relevant. Those affidavits have been produced. SCO isn't satisfied. They filed a Renewed Motion Re Discovery and foreshadowed that they would like to depose someone like Palmisano in that document. That is all this is. They also asked for sanctions against IBM for not producing executives the court has never ordered IBM to produce in their renewed motion re discovery. Maybe they noticed I wrote that, or just noticed, so now they are asking the court to order it. Frankly, to me, it's ridiculous.

Fact discovery is supposedly wrapping up next month, so a fight over depositions would be handy if one were seeking a delay, n'est-ce pas? Why didn't SCO ask to depose him earlier? Why wait until December, 2004, which is when they first asked to depose Palmisano? He's been the CEO since SCO first filed its lawsuit back in March of 2003, after all. Darl was deposed by IBM in a timely fashion. The delay is what is so suspicious to me. Why now?

Say, how is that stock doing? Anyone think a headline might help? Actually, when I read the memorandum, the impression I form is that SCO is still desperately dancing about, trying to avoid losing IBM's motions for partial summary judgment, and it's throwing everything it can think of, plus the kitchen sink, into that effort.

P.S. For those who like to keep counts, this is the 1,500th article on Groklaw since we began.


  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 )