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.
|
