decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
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 and IBM File Notices of Unsealing
Tuesday, May 31 2005 @ 10:24 PM EDT

Well, they are fighting some more, this time over what should and what shouldn't be unsealed. Judge Dale Kimball ordered both SCO and IBM to review the documents sealed so far in the case and to let him know which documents the parties agree can be unsealed.

Of course, they can't agree.

As I see it, IBM says SCO's stuff can be unsealed and SCO says IBM's can be, and that isn't a point of agreement. Joke, joke. Each side does list some of their own documents as being able to be unsealed. But, clearly there are issues and while there was a deadline to file, there is activity going on in the background over all this, and SCO threatens to seek the court's intervention. What else is new?

Here's IBM's [PDF]. And here's SCO's [PDF]. Note that there are two letters from IBM to SCO attached to SCO's filing. SCO's Notice seems to try to portray it that IBM was responsible for SCO sealings, that they did it "either because IBM had designated them as 'confidential' or because they referenced materials that IBM had designated 'confidential'", as SCO puts it, but when I read the IBM letters, I get a different picture. For example, on page 13, IBM writes this:

IBM also filed a version of its Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on its Eighth Counterclaim for Copyright Infringement which was redacted to protect information designated by SCO as confidential. IBM understands that SCO will not consent to unsealing this document unless IBM maintains the redactions set forth at pages 14-15.

Obviously, I can't know why documents were sealed by the parties, but for sure I can see that there is at least a dispute as to who was responsible for it in at least this instance. And after my first review, I don't see this document on SCO's list of what can be unsealed. Nor do I see SCO acknowledging any responsibility for sealing documents. To hear them tell it, it's all about IBM.

SCO's lawyering style is putting your best foot forward and then hopping around on one foot, pretending you don't have a second. I never see a complete picture, just their preferred facts. Ever argue with someone like that? Does it violate your sense of justice and honor?

So, stay tuned. Can you imagine? We're up to 450 documents now in this case. And not one thing has been easy. So, here we go again. Both sides will now have to file amended notices, after the dispute is ironed out, or it's back to court we go to get the judge to mediate the squabble.

The good news is, we're going to get to see a lot more, judging from the two notices, no matter how it works out. For example, on page 2 of SCO's Notice, there is a list of 6 SCO filings that both sides now say can be unsealed. And on page 3, SCO agrees to unseal in part (by redacting portions) seven other filings. IBM says that all SCO's exhibits can be unsealed, but SCO doesn't agree. What they do agree to is on page 4 and 5. On page 5, SCO lists some exhibits of IBM's it wants unsealed.

IBM's list of what it feels should be unsealed begins on page 2 of their Notice, but they note that they gave their list to SCO but had not received a reply by the deadline to file.

If anyone has the time to transcribe these, it would be very helpful in comparing the two lists. Please, as usual, leave a comment that you will be doing whatever you want to transcribe, so we don't duplicate effort, and send the result to me by email, rather than posting it, so I can edit first for accuracy. Thank you.

  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 )