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 Letter to the Red Hat Judge
Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 10:25 PM EST

It's a good thing I took a play day to rest up a bit, because today has brought a lot of court filings. On top of the motions in the SCO v. Novell and SCO v. IBM cases, SCO also filed its quarterly letter to the SCO v. Red Hat judge [PDF]. Here it is as text.

How the judge, or anyone else, can possibly get a hold on what is happening in these cases from the letters she gets from the parties, I can't imagine. So here is a list of the various documents referenced in the letter.

SCO Disclosure to IBM:

SCO's Disclosure of Material Misused by IBM [PDF; text]

IBM's Counterclaims:

Discovery Motions:

SCO's Second Amended Complaint Against Novell:

Do you suppose SCO's tactic is to file so many confusing motions no one can keep track? Remember UserFriendly's rendition of what SCO's attorneys sound like?

Your Honor, on behalf of my client, The SCO Group, I'd like to move that we engfeh the wubbly umple borpy.

I agree, so I don't guarantee that this list is complete or even exact, but it can help you to get the picture a lot more clearly than the letter, which doesn't mention at all IBM's Motion to Compel Production of Documents on SCO's Privilege Log [text and Memorandum in Support; and SCO's Memo in Opposition & Broderick Declaration - text]. IBM's Reply Memorandum is sealed, but there is a Todd Shaughnessy Declaration in Support.

If you note any mistakes, omissions, etc., please let me know, so I can perfect. I'm going cross-eyed at this point and need your help to get this done.

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

MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
[letterhead]

January 3, 2006

BY ELECTRONIC FILING

The Honorable Sue L. Robinson, Chief Judge
United States District Court
[address]

RE: Red Hat, Inc. v. The SCO Group, Inc., C.A. No. 03-772-SLR

Dear Chief Judge Robinson:

Pursuant to this Court's April 6, 2004 Order, SCO respectfully submits this 90-day status report to apprise the Court of events that have transpired since our last update (on October 3, 2005) in SCO v. IBM, Case No. 03-0294 (DAK), which is currently pending before the Honorable Dale A. Kimball in the United States District Court for the District of Utah.

SCO Disclosure of IBM

On December 22, 2005, pursuant to the Court's Pre-Trial Management Order of July 1, 2005, SCO submitted its Disclosure of Material Misused by IBM, specifically identifying (from an even larger universe of code and related materials) 293 separate technology disclosures made by IBM in violation of SCO's contractual and other rights. The number and substance of those disclosures reflects the pervasive extent and sustained degree to which IBM disclosed methods, concepts, and literal code from protected UNIX and UNIX-derived technologies.

Dismissal of IBM's Counterclaims

On October 10, 2005, based upon a stipulation by the parties, the Court dismissed IBM's three patent-infringement counterclaims with prejudice.

The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
January 3, 2006
Page 2

Discovery Motions

On October 7, 2005, the Magistrate Court postponed a ruling, pending re-briefing, on SCO's December 23, 2004 Renewed Motion to Compel seeking Linux-related documents from IBM's senior executives; denied in part SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel dated September 6, 2005, ordering IBM to produce materials from twenty Linux developers identified by SCO; granted in part SCO's motion for leave to take additional depositions; and denied IBM's request to lengthen its additional depositions. On October 27, SCO objected to the Magistrate Court's order insofar as it denied SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel of September 6, 2005. On December 16, Judge Kimball affirmed the order.

On December 20, 2005, after the parties had re-briefed SCO's Motion to Compel of December 23, 2004, the Court found that SCO had correctly read past Court orders and directed IBM to produce Linux-related materials from the files of two additional IBM senior executives. On the same date, the Court granted IBM's motion to compel SCO to produce attorney-client privileged documents of SCO's predecessors-in-interest.

On December 29, 2005, SCO filed its Motion to Compel certain discovery and 30(b)(6) witnesses, including numerous categories of damages-related materials, documents concerning Project Monterey, documents related to IBM's ongoing Linux activities, and all versions of AIX from 1985 to 1990.

SCO's Second Amended Complaint Against Novell

On December 30, 2005, SCO moved the Court for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in which SCO re-asserts the slander-of-title claim in its original Complaint and asserts four additional causes of action covering the same subject matter as Novell's seven counterclaims.

Sincerely,

/s/ Leslie A. Polizoti

Leslie A. Polizoti

cc: Peter T. Dalleo, Clerk (By Hand)
Josy W. Ingersoll, Esquire (By Hand)
William F. Lee, Esquire (By Fax)
Edward Normand, Esquire (By Fax)



  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 )