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 Files 90-Day Status Report with AutoZone Judge
Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 12:52 AM EDT

Here's SCO's status report letter [PDF] to the judge in the AutoZone case. As you will recall, Judge Robert Jones ordered [PDF] the parties to submit status reports every 90 days telling him what has happened in three other cases SCO is involved in, IBM, Novell, and Red Hat:

"The parties shall each submit a letter to the Court every 90 days as to the status of the following cases: The SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation, No. 2:03CV294 (D. Utah); The SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., No. 2:04CV00139 (D. Utah); and RedHat, Inc. v. The SCO Group, Inc., No. 1:03CV772 (D. Del.). The parties’ letters shall be sent 14 days following the dates on which SCO’s status letters are due to the court in the Red Hat case."

It's pretty much material we've already seen or know about, and in some cases we already know the outcome, like on the G2 motion, because the letter is dated April 18. It's almost poignant, reading SCO's hopeful words about motions already lost. AutoZone should also have filed a status report as well, and we'll bring it to you as soon as we have it.

The only thing I noted was on page 4 where they say the parties in SCO v. IBM have engaged in "additional document and deposition discovery during the period covered by this report". I'd love to know the details on that, but because there is a hold on all dispositive motions in the SCO v. IBM litigation, and that was how we found out about such things in the past when discovery materials were attached as exhibits or the subject of motion practice, we may not get that info until after discovery is done and motions start to fly again.

So, what do you think? Shall I file a motion to intervene and unseal? Joke. Joke. I can wait, and anyway, discovery materials are normally exempt. Sooner or later, it pretty much all comes out -- at the very latest, when all the cast of characters write their books about SCO v. the World. Well. Maybe not David Boies. This case probably isn't the one he wishes to be remembered for, I'm guessing. It's only my personal feeling, of course. And, after all, what do I know?


  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 )