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.