Judge Brooke Wells, back from her vacation, has signed the Order Granting Stipulation Regarding Certain Scheduling Deadlines [PDF] proposed by the parties in SCO v. IBM, making a few minor changes in the schedule that we told you about earlier.
I think perhaps she's doing the easy stuff first, like this order and the one denying SCO's motion to strike, and saving the more complex IBM
Motion to Limit SCO's Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material until she can seriously research and think it through. I doubt the issue is so much whether or not SCO obeyed the court's orders as it is about what should the court do about it now. Meanwhile, I'm researching SCO's Motion for In Camera Review of Allegedly Privileged Documents . I'm unclear why SCO approached the matter the way it did, unless it's just more gaming for delay.
I've been researching and thinking for three days now, and while doing so, I came across this reminder of what is supposed to happen, the Attorneys' Planning Report and Proposed Scheduling Order [PDF] from July, 2003. Remember when SCO mailed IBM a motion and IBM didn't get it a couple of days later? Here's what SCO wrote about it in their reply memorandum in support of the motion, after IBM complained about not receiving the motion from SCO and as a result having to file a memorandum in opposition without having the opportunity to read the motion:
As to service, counsel for SCO mailed the motion and declaration from Utah on Monday, so that IBM's counsel would receive the materials in Utah on Tuesday. In similar manner, IBM mailed its reply brief and declarations last week, as well as its opposition brief yesterday, to counsel for SCO.
Notice how the parties agreed to serve the other side in the stipulated Attorneys Planning Report:
Papers may be served upon a designated attorney for each party, either by hand, by overnight mail, by facsimile, or by e-mail with a PDF attachment, as needed. When service is effected by any method other than by hand, three additional calendar days shall be added to the response time, if any, pursuant to Rule 6(e).
As you see, snail mail is not an option. So, once again, from all I can see, it appears we have yet another technical foul by SCO.
And for those of you who have sent me email asking how a person is supposed to conduct himself at depositions or at a trial, here you go, instructions from a law firm I stumbled across during my research.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION
Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
The stipulation of the parties having been considered and with good cause
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the scheduling deadlines set forth in the Court's
Order dated March 20, 2006, and certain other deadlines set forth in the
Court's Scheduling Order dated July 1, 2005 are extended as follows:
|Initial Expert Reports|| May 19, 2006 |
|Opposing Expert Reports|| June 16, 2006 |
|Rebuttal Expert Reports|| July 14, 2006 |
|Final Deadline for Expert Discovery|| July 24, 2006 |
|Dispositive Motions || August 4, 2006 |
|Oppositions to Dispositive Motions || September 8, 2006 |
|Reply Briefs on Dispositive Motions || October 6, 2006 |
All other deadlines in the July 2005 Order shall remain in force and effect.
DATED this 15th day of May, 2006.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROOKE C. WELLS