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's Reply in Support of its Ex Parte Motion to Adjourn the April 21, 2005 Argument on SCO's Motion to Amend Complaint
Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 01:23 PM EDT

Here's SCO's Reply in Support of its Ex Parte Motion to Adjourn the April 21, 2005 Argument on SCO's Motion to Amend Complaint [PDF].

It took me a while to figure out what they are "replying" to. Their Ex Parte Motion to Adjourn the April 21, 2005 Argument on SCO's Motion to Amend its Complaint (#429 on the docket sheet) has no response by IBM, of course, but SCO's Reply begins by talking about IBM's "rhetoric". They quote IBM's words "tactical ploy", so that targets the document they are quoting from as being IBM's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of IBM's Proposed Scheduling Order. So this is SCO's equivalent to that, their reasons why their proposed scheduling order is better than IBM's, I gather. But how does the Motion to Adjourn fit into that, exactly? I honestly don't know.

Anyway, they are ratcheting up the rhetoric themselves:

IBM's present argument is also deficient, however, because it would effectively allow IBM to prejudice SCO by exploiting the continuing impact of IBM's prior violations of this Court's orders. By witholding extensive and essential discovery through conduct now adjudicated to have been a prolonged violation of this Court's directives, IBM has necessitated the new scheduling order. IBM has still not produced most of what this Court ordered IBM to produce over a year ago.Whereas the previous scheduling order provided that the pleading amendment deadline would be six months before the close of discovery, IBM's approach would exploit its discovery violations and prejudice SCO by seeking to cut-off amendments fifteen (15) months before IBM has even begun to comply with the Court's discovery orders, and twenty-one (21) months before even IBM's proposed fact-discovery cut-off.

What prior violations of what court orders? Where do they get that? Is this for the peanut gallery? The court surely knows what happened. When did the court ever "adjudicate" that IBM's "withholding" of "extensive and essential discovery" was a "prolonged violation of this Court's directives"? I've read every word that isn't sealed. I simply have no idea what they are talking about. Is it not slander or libel if you say it in a court filing? This gives me a really bad taste in my mouth.


  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 )