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
Scheduling Order for the Battle Over Deposing Sam
Monday, January 31 2005 @ 07:53 PM EST

There is a scheduling order now, providing deadlines for IBM to answer SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Sam Palmisano for Deposition. IBM's memo in opposition is due February 11, and then SCO has until March 4 to respond. Also, the order gives SCO until February 25 to file its Reply Memorandum in Support of its Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery.

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

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651)
Amy F. Sorenson (8947)
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice)
David R. Marriott (7572)
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,


v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
[PROPOSED]
ORDER RE BRIEFING FOR PENDING
MOTIONS



Civil No. 2:03CV-0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

IBM's Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel Palmisano for Deposition shall be due on February 11, 2005;

SCO's Reply Memorandum in Support of its Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery shall be due on February 25, 2005; and

SCO's Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel Palmisano for Deposition shall be due on March 4, 2005.

DATED this 28th day of January, 2005.

BY THE COURT

___[signature]___

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James

By:__[signature]___
Counsel for Plaintiff


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 28th day of January, 2005, a true and correct copies of the foregoing was and was sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the following:

Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
HATCH JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address]

Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

Robert Silver, Esq.
Edward Normand
Sean Eskovitz
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

___[signature]___
Amy F. Sorenson


  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 )