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
Kimball Denies SCO's Ex Parte Motion to Adjourn
Friday, April 15 2005 @ 12:55 AM EDT

Judge Kimball has issued his Order [PDF] regarding SCO's Ex Parte Motion to Adjourn the April 21, 2005 Argument on SCO's Motion to Amend Its Complaint: Motion is DENIED.

Maybe his stomach turned just like mine did when I read their rhetoric. Anyway, for whatever reason, it looks to me that Judge Kimball is on his horse now and determined to ride. So, April 21st is back on the calendar big time. I hope some of you will be able to attend.

Also, SCO has finally filed its 10Q.

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

CENTRAL DIVISION

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,


v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
ORDER REGARDING
APRIL 21, 2005 HEARING



Civil No. 2:03CV-0294 DAK

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant The SCO Group, Inc.'s ("SCO") Ex Parte Motion to Adjourn the April 21, 2005 Argument on SCO's Motion to Amend its Complaint. The court has carefully considered the memoranda and other materials submitted by the parties. Now being fully advised, the court renders the following Order.

The court declines to adjourn the hearing. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that SCO's Ex Parte Motion to Adjourn the April 21, 2005 Argument on SCO's Motion to Amend Its Complaint is DENIED. In addition to hearing SCO's Motion to Amend its Complaint and SCO's Motion to Compel the Deposition of Samuel Palmisano at the April 21, 2005 hearing, the parties are hereby NOTIFIED that the court will also hear argument regarding the parties' Proposed Scheduling Orders.

DATED this 13th day of April, 2005.

BY THE COURT:

___[signature]___
DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge


United States District Court

for the

District of Utah

April 14, 2005


* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CLERK * *

Re: 2:03-cv-00294

True and correct copies of the attached were either mailed, faxed or e-mailed by the clerk to the following:

Brent O. Hatch, Esq.
HATCH JAMES & DODGE
[address]
EMAIL

Scott E. Gant, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]

Frederick S. Frei, Esq.
ANDREWS KURTH
[address]

Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]
EMAIL

Mr. Alan L Sullivan, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]
EMAIL

Todd M. Shaughnessy, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]
EMAIL

Mark J. Heise, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address] EMAIL

Mr. Kevin P McBride, Esq.
[address]
EMAIL

Robert Silver, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]

Stuart H. Singer, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
EMAIL

Mr. David W Scofield, Esq.
PETERS SCOFIELD PRICE
[address]
EMAIL

Mr. Michael P O'Brien, Esq.
JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & MCDONOUGH
[address]


  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 )