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 v. AZ, Ex. C, Email re Document Production, as text
Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 04:29 AM EDT

Here's SCO's Exhibit C, another of the exhibits attached to SCO's Report Regarding Discovery Pursuant to the Order of the Court Dated August 6, 2004 in SCO v. IBM, as text, thanks to juliac. It's a January 2005 email from AutoZone attorney David Stewart to SCO's Chris Iannicelli and David Stone, asking a few pleasant questions regarding document production. In it, we learn that SCO provided AutoZone with a script to search for files. AutoZone asks if they want them to do things this way or like that.

We see the same pattern with most of the defendant in the SCO litigations. They start out -- except for DaimlerChrysler, who came out swinging at the first bell -- polite and gentlemanly and straightforward, the kind of lawyering you typically see. Then, at some point, each realizes that they are dealing with what Illuminata analyst Jonathan Eunice back in July of 2003 called SCO -- a "psycho killer", metaphorically speaking. (One hopes.)

I believe AutoZone must have now figured out just what they are dealing with, after reading SCO's Report, and I hope they now grasp that with SCO, you should admit absolutely nothing but name, rank, and serial number. If you acknowledge the tiniest, stupidest, most insignificant nit, the kind of thing that normally would be no issue at all, they will give it an enormous, ugly SCOtwist, and that nit will end up costing you the pain of hearing yourself called names in some document in the litigation. At a minimum. Hardball is apparently the only game SCO knows, their world view of software is their own, and they appear to me to use legal documents as PR opportunities. And you can't even sue them for the name calling, because they do it in legal filings.

AutoZone knows the SCO M.O. now, though, I'm guessing, so I expect we'll see some changes in tone when AutoZone answers the SCO Report, to correct, as they have said they will, what they call SCO's "material misstatements".


Document Production QuestionsPage 1 of 2

Chris Iannicelli


From:      Stewart, David [email address]
Sent:       Tuesday, January 11, 2005 6:08 PM
To:           Chris Iannicelli; David Stone
Subject:  Document Production Questions

Chris and David:

This follows-up on my conversation with Chris this afternoon about several questions we have related to the mechanics of the document production. These questions are as follows:

  1.  AutoZone has run the script you provided on the store load machine at AutoZone's headquarters. The script identified 15 SCO-ELF and Xenix files. AutoZone is making a copy of these files and will produce them to you. Each of these files likely also exist on all 3,500 AutoZone store servers. We are assuming that production of the 15 files from the load machine will be sufficient and that you do not need copies of the files from each of the 3,500 individual store servers, or an identification of which servers have copies of the files and which do not. Please confirm.

  2.  AutoZone will run the script you provided on each of the individual store servers remotely. If the program identifies additional SCO-ELF or Xenix files on any store servers, is it sufficient if we simply provide you with a copy of each file without an identification of which store server each additional file was on?

  3.  In the prior production, with your client's permission, AutoZone deleted the SCO files it found on its computers after making copies to provide to you. I am assuming that this is the same protocol we should follow with the current production. However, if it is not, please let me know as soon as possible.

  4.  David had originally indicated that he would like to receive images of ten random store servers. We have discussed previously the difficulties of imaging store servers, and I requested that this number be reduced to five. Please let me know if that number is acceptable. We are in the process of obtaining a master store list, and will provide it to you as soon as possible so that you can select the store servers you wish to have imaged.

  5.  Finally, it is probably appropriate to at least pencil in a date for the deposition you plan to take. Can you give me dates that work for you so that I can try to lock them down with the appropriate AutoZone witness?

Thanks much,

David J. Stewart
Alston & Bird LLP

[address, phone, email]

  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 )