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
IBM Gets More Time to Answer SCO's Motion and Objection to Judge Wells' Order
Saturday, November 19 2005 @ 02:49 AM EST

Pacer is showing that all the accountants have been served by IBM, and also that the parties stipulated to letting IBM have more time to answer SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery and its Objection to Magistrate's Order of 10/12/05. IBM has until November 21. It probably will be easy to answer both on the same day, since both the Motion and the Objection ask for identical relief. Here's the Pacer entry:
11/14/2005 - 557 - STIPULATION/MOTION for Extension of Time for IBM to respond to SCOs Motion to Compel Discovery by 11/21/05, and for IBM to respond to SCO's Objection to Magistrates Order of 10/12/05 by 11/21/05 filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (blk, ) (Entered: 11/15/2005)

11/14/2005 - 558 - **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** RETURN OF SERVICE Executed for Subpoena served on Deloitte & Touche, c/o Thomas T. Rich on 11/9/05, filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (blk, ) (Entered: 11/15/2005)

11/14/2005 - 559 - **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** RETURN OF SERVICE Executed for Subpoena served on Ernst & Young, c/o David Jolley on 11/8/05, filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (blk, ) (Entered: 11/15/2005)

11/17/2005 - 560 - **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** RETURN OF SERVICE Executed for Subpoena served on Arthur Andersen c.o CT corporation System on 11/9/05, filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (kvs, ) (Entered: 11/18/2005)

Restricted just means it isn't public. If you are curious about how a court decides what documents should be restricted, here's a paper on the subject. As you'll see, just because you are dragged into a lawsuit, it doesn't mean you lose all privacy rights or that the public has a right to know every personal detail in the case. "An individual has a right of privacy in personal information recorded by the judiciary", the paper explains. And the public therefore has only a qualified right of access to court records.

The paper continues:

Just because a person participates in the court process does not mean information required and recorded by the courts should be available to the public. The information may be something in which there is a recognized property interest. Much of the information is embarrassing, sensitive or simply not the proper concern of others.

The potential for personal harm or inconvenience is relevant in determining whether a record is restricted. Thus, personal identifiers such as date of birth, social security number, address, and telephone number might be classified as restricted.

The court recognizes that some loonies might misuse personal identifiers, stalkers, for example, and so it responsibly restricts access to information that could cause danger. It also can restrict a document to protect a property interest or restrict documents the revelation of which could result in an unfair competitive advantage or injury. The public actually has an interest in having the courts protect such interests, because otherwise only the fearless or the irresponsible would ever go to court. So, there is a balance to be struck, and it is up to the court to make those decisions.

I believe strongly in privacy rights. That's why, when the court mistakenly made public a sealed exhibit not long ago in a different case, Merkey v. Perens, Groklaw never published the exhibit, because I knew it was supposed to be under seal. I never even downloaded it from Pacer, because I knew it was not supposed to be made available to the public. And in fact, I took steps to make sure the mistake was brought to the attention of those able to correct it. Just a small footnote to that history that you might not 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 )