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 Report Re Unsealing Documents, as text
Sunday, June 05 2005 @ 11:12 PM EDT

Here, thanks to the unfailing volunteer efforts of Steve Martin, is SCO's Report in Compliance with the Court's April 28, 2005 Order Regarding the Unsealing of Documents [PDF], as text. We've commented on this document earlier. Note that there are several letters attached to the Report as exhibits.

Darl McBride, CEO of SCO, mentioned at last week's financial conference call that we can expect to see many more important documents, and here we see what some of them will be.

McBride characterized the judge as saying that the parties should take a look and see if any documents had been inappropriately sealed ("However, the court directed the parties to take another look at their sealed filings, and unseal any documents that are not properly filed under seal."). That isn't precisely what the judge said. What he said is that they should "review the documents filed thus far in this action to determine whether any such documents may be unsealed," which isn't the same thing at all. There could be documents that were improperly sealed. There could be others that were properly sealed at the time but that can be unsealed now.

Just as one example of the difference I mean, IBM turned over some privileged emails by mistake in discovery, which SCO then read aloud in a hearing and then quoted from and discussed in a later document, instead of returning them to IBM, as requested. As Amy Sorenson puts it in the letter to SCO dated April 21, 2005, attached to the report, "SCO's memorandum in support of its motion to amend is replete with quotations from and paraphrases of IBM confidential documents..." At that point, IBM might reason that a bit of the information about those emails might now be unsealed, the bit that is out there already, thanks to SCO's questionable tactics. Or they might not feel that way. But it's an example illustrating that something that was properly sealed might later be viewed as a document that can be unsealed. That doesn't mean it was improperly sealed to begin with. It might just mean, in my book, that somebody played dirty pool.

The second Sorenson letter is particularly interesting. SCO has been spinning it that it's IBM that wants documents sealed and that when SCO sealed documents, it was generally only because they were responding to a sealed IBM document or referenced materials IBM listed as privileged. The letter tells a different story.

The three letters tell me that evidently the parties tried to come up with a list prior to the G2 hearing, a list of documents they could agree to unseal. The letters don't indicate which party initiated the discussion, but it points more toward SCO being the initator in the opening language in the April 21 letter. That could mean a couple of things. It could mean that they were working together to block G2's motion by coming up with a list, just in case, to prove the G2 motion was unnecessary. It could mean they have such discussions before all hearings, since the disastrous one in October of 2004 when SCO read aloud the privileged email. Or, it could mean that SCO was using the G2 motion as a wedge to initiate a strategy to prolong discovery again, by raising more things to argue about. Who knows? They do. We can only watch and deduce. Or it could mean something I haven't thought of. After the documents are unsealed, it will all become more clear. And someday, there will be books written and then we'll all find out, I expect.

What the letters make crystal clear is that there are indeed things that SCO wanted and continues to want sealed, and not because IBM sealed something first. And what I see is IBM pushing for unsealing documents, and taking the lead in unsealing theirs. Something is up. We know SCO wants those emails revealed, but there must be something that IBM sees that we haven't yet seen that they'd like us to see. It's conceivable they are also demonstrating publicly that they want as much as possible unsealed. It is, no doubt, strategically important to answer SCO's never-ending spin. Or maybe they are letting SCO have it, as retaliation for the emails, in effect saying, "Fine. Let's all unseal our privileged documents, you rats." Whatever it is that is motivating IBM, they are pushing SCO to unseal documents and exhibits.

SCO lists their Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery as one document they sealed "because they referenced materials that IBM had previously designated 'confidential'". If you read the letter from Sorenson, dated April 26, 2005 -- two days *before* Judge Kimball's Order in which he requested the parties to review what should be unsealed -- IBM sends SCO a list of documents it felt SCO had improperly sealed and/or could be unsealed. It lists that Ex Parte Motion as one of the documents that IBM felt should be unsealed, and it notes its opposition to that motion was never sealed. Here's another entry from IBM in its letter to SCO:

IBM already filed a version of its Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims which was redacted to protect information designated as confidential by SCO.

Get that? "Designated as confidential by SCO." And in the April 26th letter, Sorenson provides a list of other documents SCO sealed that did not respond to any sealing on IBM's part. Here's a sample:

SCO's Memorandum in Support of its Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery (Docket No. 365) can also be unsealed in its entirety. IBM's opposition to this motion was not filed under seal. SCO's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of its Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery can be unsealed, except for pages 3 and 7.

IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's 9th Counterclaim was not filed under seal, nor was its reply memorandum. SCO's memorandum in opposition to this motion can be unsealed as well.

IBM did not file its objections to SCO's privilege log under seal, and IBM agrees that SCO's objections to IBM's privilege logs can be unsealed.

What I am seeing is that there is an elaborate battle going on over unsealing of documents. Who is doing what isn't totally clear yet, but it's obvious it is happening. In this Report, I see SCO saying that it wants IBM to unseal documents IBM is unwilling to unseal, and of course there are SCO threats to ask the court to intervene. What else is new? IBM in its parallel filing, and in the first Amy F. Sorenson letter attached to SCO's report, dated May 27, 2005, states that in IBM's opinion all of SCO's exhibits should be unsealed. Sorenson's letter says it like this: "In conducting this review, it does not appear to us that any of SCO's exhibits are properly maintained under seal."

Here, SCO begs to differ. They provide instead a list of the ones they are willing to unseal or redact. So much for it being only IBM wanting to seal documents.

No, what we have is this: each party says the other should unseal documents the other is unwilling to unseal. So, a process begins to decide what stays sealed and what gets unsealed.

Ah, yes, friends. The discovery soap opera continues.

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

Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address]
[phone]

Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
Sean Eskovitz (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]

Stuart H. Singer (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]

Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]

Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

THE SCO GROUP, INC.

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff

SCO'S REPORT IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THE COURT'S APRIL 28, 2005
ORDER REGARDING THE
UNSEALING OF DOCUMENTS

Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

1

SCO respectfully submits this report in compliance with the Court's Order of April 28, 2005 (the "Order") concerning the unsealing of documents in this matter. In that Order the Court directed counsel for both parties to "review the documents filed thus far in this action to determine whether any such documents may be unsealed" and to "notify the court on or before May 27, 2005 as to which documents agree may be unsealed." (Order at 2.)

Pursuant to that direction, we hereby report as follows:

1. In response to SCO's inquiries, counsel for IBM has advised that certain pleadings SCO filed under seal because they referenced materials that IBM had previously designated "confidential" may now be unsealed in their entirety. SCO therefore agrees that the following SCO pleadings may be unsealed, with the exception of any references to the October 19, 2004 hearing transcript, which the Court has ordered sealed:

Docket
No.
Date Filed Pleading Title
245 August 19, 2004 Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery
346 November 30, 2004 Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Breach-of-Contract Claims
365 December 23, 2004 Memorandum in Support of Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery
369 December 29, 2004 Reply Memorandum in Further Support of SCO's Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 16(b)
425 March 23, 2005 Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim
432 April 11, 2005 Objections to IBM's Privilege Log and Memorandum in Support of SCO's Request to Compel IBM to Provide Proper Bases for Its Privilege Claims

2. In response to SCO's inquiries, counsel for IBM has also advised SCO that certain pleadings SCO filed under seal because they referenced materials that IBM had previously designed "confidential" may now be unsealed in part. SCO therefore agrees that

2

the following SCO pleadings may be filed in redacted form, which SCO will submit to the court for filing:

Docket
No.
Date Filed Pleading Title
287 August 19, 2004 Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery
269 September 3, 2004 Memorandum in Reply to IBM's Opposition to SCO's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery
316 October 4, 2004 Reply Brief in Further Support of SCO's Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery
323 October 14, 2004 Memorandum in Support of SCO's Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 16(b)
375 January 12, 2005 Memorandum in Support of SCO's Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition
409 February 25, 2005 Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery
419 March 11, 2005 Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition

3. There are a number of documents that SCO filed under seal either because IBM had designated them "confidential" or because they referenced materials that IBM had designated "confidential" that SCO does not agree warrant such treatment. Despite SCO's inquiries, IBM has continued to insist that such documents remain under seal. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Court's Order, SCO intends to pursue this matter further with IBM and, if necessary, the court. 1

3

4. SCO believes that the following exhibits to SCO pleadings may be unsealed, either in their entirety or, where indicated, in redacted form (which SCO will submit to the Court for filing):

Docket
No.
Date Sealed
Documents
Filed With
191 07/06/04 Exhibit 1 SCO's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel
197 07/08/04 Gupta Decl. (Redacted), Exhibits B-G, K, N, Q, T, DD SCO's Opposition to IBM's Cross-Motion for Summary on Tenth Counterclaim (Non-Infringement)
198 07/08/04 Sontag Decl. (Redacted), Exhibit P SCO's Motion for Continuance Pursuant to Rule 56(f)
203 07/12/04 Sontag Decl. (Redacted), Exhibits 2-5 SCO's Reply Memorandum Regarding Discovery
206 07/09/04 Exhibits S-2, S-7 SCO's Opposition to IBM's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on Tenth Counterclaim (Non-Infringement)
288 08/19/04 Evans Decl. (Redacted), Howe Decl. SCO's Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery
293 09/09/04 Exhibit 8 SCO's Memorandum in Support of Expedited Motion to Enforce the Court's Amended Scheduling Order
316 10/04/04 Evans Decl. (Redacted), Exhibits 1-7, Exhibits A-E SCO's Reply Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery
350 12/01/04 Exhibit S1 SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Contract Claims
365 12/23/04 Exhibits A-E, K-N SCO's Memorandum in Support of Renewed Motion to Compel
369 12/29/04 Exhibits A-E, A1, A2 SCO's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint
375 01/12/05 Exhibits A-C, E, G, I-K, N-Q SCO's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano
409 02/25/05 Exhibits 1, 3, A-C SCO's Reply to Renewed Motion to Compel
419 03/11/05 Exhibits 1, A-F SCO's Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel IBM to Produce Samuel J. Palmisano
425 03/23/05 Exhibits A-B SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of Ninth Counterclaim

4

432 04/11/05 Exhibits A-C SCO's Objections to IBM's Privilege Log and Memorandum in Support of SCO's Request to Compel IBM to Provide Proper Bases for Privilege Claims

5. Finally, SCO believes that the following exhibits to IBM pleadings, and any corresponding references to such exhibits in IBM pleadings may be unsealed:

Docket
No.
Date Sealed
Documents
Filed With
234 08/13/04 Exhibits 5, 7, 40, 53, 57-59 Declaration of Todd Shaughnessy in Support of IBM's Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims
239 08/16/04 Exhibits 1, 23 24, 32, 34, 37, 38 Declaration of Amy Sorenson in Support of IBM's Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Copyright Infringement Claim
251 08/23/04 Exhibits 7, 22 Declaration of Todd Shaughnessy in Support of IBM's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on its Claim for Declaratory Judgment on Non-Infringement
345 11/30/04 Exhibits 1, 10, 11, 13 Declaration of Todd Shaughnessy in Support of IBM's Opposition to SCO's Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint.

DATED this 27th day of May, 2005.

Respectfully submitted,

HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Robert Silver
Stuart H. Singer
Stephen N. Zack
Edward Normand
Sean Eskovitz

By (signature of Brent Hatch)

Counsel for The SCO Group, Inc.

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Plaintiff/Counterclaim defendant, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing SCO's Report in Compliance with the Court's April 28, 2005 Order Regarding the Unsealing of Documents was served by mail on Defendant IBM on the 27th day of May 2005, by U.S. Mail to:

David Marriott, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]

Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]

Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer LLP
[address]

By (signature)

6

1 At approximately 2 p.m. EST on May 27, 2005 -- the court imposed deadline for filing the parties' reports -- counsel for IBM sent counsel for SCO a letter notifying SCO concerning IBM's position with respect to approximately twenty filings and their associated exhibits. (Exh. 1.) IBM's new position with respect to several such documents appears to be at odds with the position that IBM articulated just one month ago in response to SCO's written inquiries. Compare id. with Letters from Amy F. Sorenson to Edward Normand, April 21 & 26, 2005 (Exh. 2). The timing of IBM's letter prevented counsel for SCO for reviewing it in detail before finalizing this report. We have notified counsel for IBM that we intend to confer with them concerning their latest proposal after we have had an adequate opportunity to review it. To the extent that IBM's latest letter changes the nature of the parties' agreements set forth herein, SCO will file an amended report to the Court.


[Snell and Wilmer letterhead];

Amy F. Sorenson [phone]
[email address]
May 27, 2005

By Facsimile & Mail

Edward Normand
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]

Re: SCO v. IBM, Civil No 2:03CV-0294DAK

Dear Ted:

As you know, Judge Kimball's April 28, 2005 Order required the parties to review the documents filed under seal in this case to date and to notify the Court on or before May 27, 2005 as to which documents the parties agree may be unsealed. Accordingly, IBM intends to notify the Court today that, as far as IBM is concerned, the following documents may be unsealed, and that it will provide the Court with redacted or unsealed versions of its pleadings as soon as possible:

  • Exhibits I and J to the 7/6/04 Memorandum in Support of Renewed Motion by SCO Group to Compel Discovery can be unsealed; Exhibits G and H should remain under seal;

  • 7/8/04 SCO's Sealed Exhibits to Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Tenth Counterclaim for Non-Infringement may be unsealed, except for the first full paragraph on page 13 of Exhibit S-3, and for Exhibit S-6, which should remain under seal or be redacted;

  • 7/9/04 Declaration of Chris Sontag in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and all exhibits thereto;

  • 7/12/04 Sealed Declaration of Chris Sontag in Support of Reply Memorandum Regarding Discovery and all exhibits thereto;

  • 8/4/04 Declaration of Amy F. Sorenson in Support of IBM's Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's "Renewed" Motion to Compel, except for portions of Exhibit 5;

  • 8/13/04 Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims and all exhibits thereto;

  • 8/16/04 Declaration of Amy F. Sorenson in Support of IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgments on its Counterclaim for Copyright Infringement (Eighth Counterclaim) and all exhibits thereto;

  • 8/19/04 Declaration of Jeremy O. Evans in Support of SCO's Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery and all exhibits thereto;

  • 8/20/04 IBM Sealed Declaration of Brian W. Kernighan and all exhibits thereto;

  • 8/23/04 Reply Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy in Support of IBM's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Claim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement and all exhibits thereto;

  • 9/9/04 Memorandum in Support of SCO's Expedited Motion to Enforce the Court's Amended Scheduling Order Dated June 10, 2004, except for Exhibits 5 and 7, which should remain under seal;

  • 10/4/04 Declaration of Jeremy O. Evans in Support of SCO's Reply Brief in Further Support of its Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery and all exhibits thereto, except for Exhibit 10, from which the names of the individuals and their contact information at the ISVs listed should be redacted;

  • 10/14/04 SCO's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint and all exhibits thereto, except for Exhibit 7 and page 14 of the Memorandum;

  • 11/30/04 IBM's Sealed Declaration of Todd Shaughnessy in Opposition to SCO's Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint and all exhibits thereto;

  • 12/01/04 SCO Sealed Exhibits to the Declaration of Jeremy O. Evans in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims, except for Exhibits S-4 and S-6;

  • 12/23/04 Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery and all exhibits thereto;

  • 12/29/04 SCO Sealed Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint and all exhibits thereto, including the Declaration of Jay F. Petersen;

  • 1/12/05 SCO's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel IBM to produce Samuel J. Palmisano for Deposition and all exhibits thereto; and

  • 2/25/05 SCO's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery may be unsealed, as well as and all exhibits thereto, with the exception of Exhibit 1, which should remain under seal.

In conducting this review, it does not appear to us that any of SCO's exhibits are properly maintained under seal. Please let me know immediately if you have any objections to any of the foregoing, so that we can prepare IBM's pleadings and all exhibits associated therewith for filing in unsealed or redacted form as soon as possible.

Very truly yours,

Snell & Wilmer


(signature of Amy Sorenson)

Amy F. Sorenson

AFS:kb

cc: Brent Hatch
David Marriott
Todd Shaughnessy


[Snell and Wilmer letterhead]

Amy F. Sorenson [phone]
[email address]
April 26, 2005

By Facsimile & Mail

Edward Normand
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]

Re:SCO v. IBM, Civil No 2:03CV-0294DAK

Dear Ted:

In my letter to you dated April 21, 2005, I set forth IBM's proposal regarding unsealing the briefing associated with the motions to be heard that day (with the exception of SCO's memorandum in support of its motion to amend, which required additional analysis). I also told you I hoped to provide you with similar information for the remaining briefing filed under seal in this case as quickly as possible.

IBM proposes that the below briefs filed in this case under seal be unsealed, with the exception of the confidential exhibits submitted therewith and the following: SCO's Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint can be unsealed in its entirety, except for pages 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.

SCO's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery can be unsealed in its entirety. (IBM did not file its opposition to SCO's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery under seal.) SCO's Reply to IBM's Opposition to SCO's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery also can be unsealed, except for pages 3 and 5.

SCO's Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery can be unsealed in its entirety, except for pages 5, 6, and 7. IBM also intends to file another Opposition to SCO's Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery, redacted to protect IBM privileged and confidential information. SCO's Reply Brief in Support of its Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery can be unsealed except for pages 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22.

IBM already filed a version of its Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims which was redacted to protect information designated as confidential by SCO. IBM intends to file an unredacted version of this memorandum. In addition, SCO's memorandum in opposition to IBM's motion for summary judgment on the contract claims can be unsealed in its entirety. In light of Judge Kimball's February 9, 2005 Order, no reply memorandum was filed on this motion.

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 designed 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. Accordingly, IBM intends to file a new version of this memorandum which will be unsealed in its entirety except as to the redactions on pages 14 and 15 (subject to the objection we have previously raised). SCO's memorandum in opposition to this motion was not filed under seal, and again no reply memoranda were filed in light of the February 9, 2005 Order.

SCO's Memorandum in Support of its Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery (Docket No. 365) can also be unsealed in its entirety. IBM's opposition to this motion was not filed under seal. SCO's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of its Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery can be unsealed, except for pages 3 and 7.

IBM's Motion for Entry of Order Limiting Scope of IBM's 9th Counterclaim was not filed under seal, nor was its reply memorandum. SCO's memorandum in opposition to this motion can be unsealed as well.

IBM did not file its objections to SCO's privilege log under seal, and IBM agrees that SCO's objections to IBM's privilege logs can be unsealed.

Finally, there may be additional memoranda filed in redacted form in this case which may permit additional unsealing. We will provide you with additional information about any such briefs as quickly as possible.

Very truly yours,

Snell & Wilmer

(signature of Amy Sorenson)

Amy F. Sorenson

AFS:kb

cc: Brent Hatch
David Marriott
Todd Shaughnessy


[Snell and Wilmer letterhead]

Amy F. Sorenson [phone]
[email address]
April 21, 2005

By Facsimile & Mail

Edward Normand
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]

Re:SCO v. IBM, Civil No 2:03CV-0294DAK

Dear Ted:

This letter follows up on the conversation we had on Monday, in which I agreed to review the briefs filed in this case and provide you with information as to which portions of those briefs could be unsealed. I further told you I hoped to get back to you before today's hearing.

We do not believe any portions of the briefs filed under seal for today's hearing need to remain under seal, except for the confidential exhibits submitted therewith and the following: pages 2 through 5 of SCO's memorandum in support of its motion to compel Mr. Palmisano's deposition and pages 5 and 6 of SCO's reply memorandum in support of its motion to compel Mr. Palmisano's deposition. All pages of SCO's reply memorandum in support of its motion to amend can be unsealed. SCO's memorandum in support of its motion to amend is replete with quotations from and paraphrases of IBM confidential documents, and so will require further analysis. As to IBM's briefs, IBM intends to unseal all pages of its memorandum in opposition to SCO's motion to compel Mr. Palmisano's deposition, as well as all pages of its memorandum in opposition to SCO's motion to amend and of its sur-reply in further opposition to SCO's motion to amend.

I will continue to review the numerous briefs filed in this case to determine which portions thereof should remain confidential, and will try to provide you with that information as quickly as possible.

Very truly yours,

Snell & Wilmer

(signature of Amy Sorenson)

Amy F. Sorenson

AFS:kb

cc: Brent Hatch
David Marriott
Todd Shaughnessy


  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 )