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 v. Novell - Scheduling Set but Parties Sent to Kimball/Hearing Cancelled
Tuesday, December 06 2005 @ 06:19 PM EST

The Magistrate Judge, David Nuffer, in SCO v. Novell has issued a scheduling order and has cancelled the December 20th hearing. He also directed the parties to bring the SCO v Novell scheduling to Kimball to discuss how it relates to SCO v. IBM schedule.

Meanwhile, here's the Scheduling Order and Order Vacating Hearing [PDF], which has a June 25, 2007 date for the trial to begin, the month SCO requested (although they asked only for June 1), subject presumably to Judge Kimball's decision. I think there must have been further discussions with the parties, because if you compare the list of dates in the parties' Attorneys' Planning Report, you'll find additional items in the scheduling order. I note an April date, for example, for pretrial disclosures by plaintiff and a May date for Novell, plus the special attorney conference is set for May 25, 2007 and the final pretrial conference is set for June 6, 2007. So, it may be that there is no way to do it sooner than June, but again, that's up to Kimball. The Magistrate puts it this way:

Counsel are directed to contact the district judge to discuss trial scheduling relative to The SCO Group Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., Case No. 2:03CV294 DAK, D. Utah ("SCO v. IBM case").

The magistrate judge is supposed to leave matters of substance to the presiding judge, because the latter is the one who is supposed to make decisions that might affect the outcome of the litigation. This is obviously one of those decisions. Even if he wasn't supposed to, it makes sense here for the judge presiding over the IBM case to decide the matter. He knows more about it than the new Magistrate Judge in the Novell case. What does it mean? That the two cases are now intertwined somewhat, or, if you will, for the first time officially in that Novell raised the connection between the two and now Judge Kimball has his first direct opportunity to see about the matter. Just how intertwined will they end up? We'll see.

Judge Kimball, who is in charge of them both, gets to decide for starters, if it's still in dispute, if Novell was right in asking for an earlier date because the outcome of the trial might affect the IBM litigation, or if SCO was right that June is the earliest it can possibly begin, or if there is another creative option, or how the the two cases will interface, if they will. I say the last for completeness. I don't see any way the two can't interface.


  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 )