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 IBM - IBM Gets Another Week to Answer SCO's Motion for In Camera Review
Wednesday, May 31 2006 @ 06:47 PM EDT

Some mild activity in SCO v. IBM. The parties have stipulated to let IBM have another week to respond to SCO's Motion for In Camera Review of Allegedly Privileged Documents (here's the Proposed Order Regarding Enlarging of Time [PDF]), and Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells has so ordered [PDF]. The new deadline is June 6. You'll recall IBM was recently given extra time [PDF] for the same purpose, back on May 23, so something like that usually means a key attorney is either tied up on another case or ill or some document or permission is hard to get in hand. Both delays are by stipulation, so it's not a dispute.

Also, one of Boies Schiller's attorneys is leaving the firm and moving on, and so there is a process for that. Attorneys can't just walk away from a client, no matter what. Once you are listed on a case, you need the court to approve any withdrawal. The court has to be informed, and SCO has therefore filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel [PDF] and here's the proposed order [PDF] giving him leave to withdraw. The lawyer's name is J. Matthew Donohue. I'm sure he's just devastated that he won't be able to stay with SCO to the bitter end.

He joined the SCO team in September of 2005, kind of late, as you can see from the motion [PDF] to let him hop on board. He's listed in that long list of attorneys served by Intel. His speciality is antitrust law. Here's the wording of the motion:

The undersigned hereby moves the Court for leave to withdraw J. Matthew Donahue as counsel for Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), in this action and requests that Mr. Donohue be removed from the service list. Mr. Donohue has withdrawn, as he will no longer be with Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.

He's also listed on the Information and Technology Committee of the Northern District of NY's Federal Court Bar Association. Here's his bio on Martindale Hubbell, which lists all the attorneys and tells what they do. I guess that means he's a tech guy, and if so, likely he's going to be missed more than he's going to miss being on the team. His bio is still there on Boies Schiller's website (you have to search for him yourself and you have to like Flash quite a lot), and he sounds like a nice guy. Before he went to law school, he worked with and advocated for developmentally challenged adults in San Francisco. Like so many Boies Schiller attorneys, you'd probably like him if you met him at a dinner party. What happens when they go to court is a mystery to me.

The bio doesn't mention SCO by name, but it does say his "most recent representations include the defense of a large multinational corporation against charges that it violated the federal antitrust laws in connection with its wholesaler merchandising practices, and the prosecution of intellectual property claims involving the licensing of the UNIX source code on behalf of a software provider." Time will tell if even that careful wording stays on his resume going forward. Boies Schiller's site says they are looking for associates and summer associates, by the way. Anybody want to be Groklaw's mole? Joke. Joke.


  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 )