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
Novell and SCO (Finally) Agree to Postpone Until May
Friday, March 04 2005 @ 09:29 PM EST

The Novell-SCO hearing on Novell's Motion to Dismiss has been postponed for two months. Here are four documents about it, and they are a character study in themselves:

What happened is, Novell's lead attorney is involved in another trial, and it's going longer than was expected, and he can't make it to the March 8 hearing, so he asked for a delay of about two weeks.

Now, as it happens, the last delay was because one of SCO's attorneys, Ted Normand, wanted a continuance because his wife was expecting a baby. Novell was nice enough to say yes to the request. But when Novell asked for a continuance, SCO said no. Their reason was because the judge has no openings until April, despite Novell asking for only 10 to 14 days. As it happens, Normand has a date in another court on the April date offered. So no go.

Discussions galore. The upshot is, Novell put in a motion that pointed out how unreasonable SCO was being about the thing. Lead attorneys have no control over a trial running long in California, and both sides have granted time to the other from day one in this litigation. Besides, Novell's attorney was ready to argue the matter on the date SCO postponed for the baby, so the current problem only came up because SCO postponed the earlier hearing date.

I guess SCO decided, after reading the Novell motion, not to fight, and they stipulated eventually. But first they forced Novell to go to the expense and effort of drawing up a motion that both sides must have known Novell couldn't lose from day one. Just totally unnecessary. So it's May 25th at 3 PM, on stipulation by the parties, and so ordered by Judge Kimball.


  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 )