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
New AutoZone Filings - SCO Needs More Time for Discovery
Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 02:06 PM EDT

SCO has filed with the court its periodically required filing letting the judge in the AutoZone case, The Honorable Robert C. Jones, know how things are progressing in the SCO v. IBM case. I think I know why SCO always trash talks IBM in its filings in that case. It's so they can report the trash talk as fact in the reports to the judges in the other cases. For example, in its letter to the judge [PDF] in AutoZone, it reports:

On December 22, SCO filed a Motion to Compel with respect to IBM's failure to fully comply with the Magistrate Judge's October 20 Order...

That's only according to SCO's interpretation, of course. But see how handy it is to overstate your case?

Two other filings have to do with discovery. The limited period of discovery, which was originally extended by the judge, is stretching longer and longer, as you probably suspected it would, given SCO's gifts. The parties stipulated to a 60-day extension, which came to an end on March 19, and then the parties stipulated [PDF] to yet another 45-day extension, which they call a "final" extension, and a letter to the judge [PDF] explains why they need it. It's quite humorous, actually. SCO couldn't unzip or decipher some compact discs AutoZone turned over. Whatever could the problem be?

You have to admit, that's funny.

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

Curran & Parry
[address, phone, fax, email]

March 16, 2005

VIA HAND-DELIVERY

The Honorable Robert C. Jones
U.S. District Judge
U.S. District Court, District of Nevada
[address]

RE: The SCO Group, Inc. v. AutoZone, Inc., CV-S-04-o237-RCJ-LRL

Dear Judge Jones:

We are counsel to The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") and write to apprise the Court of recent discovery-related developments in the above-referenced matter and to request an additional brief extension of the limited discovery period for an additional 45 days.

As Your Honor will recall, on August 6, 2004, the Court ordered limited discovery, in part so SCO could examine information, documents, and computer data in AutoZone, Inc.'s ("AutoZone") possession to determine whether AutoZone had used or copied SCO's proprietary materials in connection with, or subsequent to, AutoZone's migration from SCO's proprietary UNIX-based Operating System "OpenServer" to a Linux-based Operating System. On November 4, 2004, SCO wrote to advise the Court that the information it had obtained warranted further discovery on this issue and that AutoZone had consented to the application. The Court executed an Order extending discovery for the first time on November 12, 2004 for an additional thirty days.

Thereafter, the parties conducted extensive factual discovery during the first extended discovery period including among others things, production by AutoZone, and analysis by SCO, of highly-technical computer programs and AutoZone store server images which elicited additional facts requiring even further discovery. Thereafter, in early January 2005, the parties jointly requested that the Court enter a Stipulation and Order further extending discovery for an additional sixty days fully-anticipating that all discovery would be completed within that period. (See Exhibit "A" hereto) The second extended discovery period will conclude on March 19, 2005.

The parties now request a final 45 day discovery period as a result of unanticipated technical production problems which occurred throughout the second extended discovery period which delayed the production of responsive materials to SCO for analysis. In particular, Counsel and SCO's expert -- a computer software engineer -- were unable to unzip or decipher certain compact discs produced by AutoZone shortly before the discovery deadline which contained materials responsive to SCO's discovery requests. Indeed, AutoZone did not produce a hard drive that contained the majority of the supplemental discovery until 4 days before the close of the second extended discovery period.

Given the foregoing unanticipated occurrences, and the parties contemplation that SCO will need an adequate opportunity to review and analyze the various responsive technical materials produced by AutoZone before taking the deposition of the manager of the AutoZone IT Department, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter the enclosed Stipulation and Order providing for an additional 45 day discovery period. (See Exhibit "B" hereto).

We thank the Court for its continued courtesies in connection with this matter.

___[signature]___
Stanley W. Parry, Esq.

cc: James Pisanelli, Esq. (via hand-delivery)
David J. Stewart, Esq. (via facsimile)
David S. Stone, Esq. (via facsimile)


  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 )