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 Begs For More Time To Answer -- Too Busy With Discovery
Thursday, March 10 2005 @ 09:45 AM EST

Well, here comes SCO, asking for more time again. It seems they are very busy preparing discovery responses.

They don't know busy. Wait until they get all that code they asked for dumped on them.

Here's their plea for two more weeks to answer IBM's Motion For Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim, SCO's Motion and Memorandum for Extension to File Response [PDF]. They say they are asking for "an additional two-week period". Not to be petty, but they are actually asking for 15 days, from March 8 to March 23.

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

Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address, phone, fax]

Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
Sean Eskovicz (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]  

Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
Mark J. Heise (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]  

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

THE SCO GROUP, Inc.

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant.

MOTION AND MEMORANDUM FOR
EXTENSION TO FILE RESPONSE

Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK

Hon. Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells


Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") hereby moves the Court for an Order extending the deadline for SCO to respond to IBM's Motion For Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim from March 8, 2005 to March 23, 2005.

As grounds for this Motion, SCO seeks an additional two week period for SCO to respond due to SCO's workload of preparing discovery responses and other matters currently at issue in the litigation. Counsel sought a stipulation to this extension from counsel for IBM, but such accommodation was refused.

SCO submits herewith a proposed Order reflecting the relief sought.

DATED this 4th day of March, 2005.

By: ___[signature]___
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C>
Mark F. James

BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Robert Silver
Stuart Singer
Edward Normand
Sean Eskovitz

Counsel for Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Motion and Memorandum for Extension to File Response was served on Defendant International Business Machines Corporation on this 4th day of March, 2005, by U.S. Mail to:

Alan L. Sullivane, Esq.
Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmenr L.L.P.
[address]

Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]

Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]

__[signature]___


  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 )