The parties in SCO v. IBM have stipulated to an extension of time for each side to respond to requests for admission, and Judge Brooke Wells has so ordered. Here's the Order RE Requests for Admission [PDF], the parties' Stipulation and Joint Motion of the Parties Regarding Requests for Admission [PDF] and the Proposed Order RE Requests for Admission [PDF]. The new deadline is August 4, 2006. It must be summer, because otherwise it seems quite a long delay.
But here's something else of interest I just noticed. I don't want to leap to conclusions, but did you notice that SCO has been listing Wells as the Magistrate Judge in SCO v. Novell filings now, as well as in SCO v. IBM?
I first saw it in an otherwise insignificant filing, an ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
OVERLENGTH MEMORANDUM [PDF]. The order is signed by Judge Kimball, though, so until we get confirmation, I suggest a wait-and-see position on this. It is possible that SCO copied and pasted a header and no one noticed or cared. But they had to change the docket number, so they couldn't just copy and paste wholesale, and they had to change the name of the defendant too. I see no indication on Pacer that Wells has been assigned to this case. But there she is, listed in the Order's header. I went to check the other recent SCO filings in the Novell case, and they all list her too, which I just hadn't noticed myself before. Novell's filings do not list a magistrate judge at all. For example, compare the header on SCO's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Overlength Memorandum [PDF] or its Memorandum in Opposition to Novell's Motion to Stay Claims Raising Issues Subject to Arbitration [PDF] with Novell's Answer to SCO's Second Amended Complaint and Counterclaims [PDF]. I copy and paste headers myself, and they no doubt reuse them too, because that's one of the things computers are good for, so it could just be that. But it is possible that there has been an assignment since early May when Novell last filed and late May, when SCO filed next, and that their most recent filings reflect it. If so, it would mean there will be no magistrate learning curve. Here they all are as text, in the following order: the IBM Order re Requests for Admission, then the Stipulation, then the Proposed Order, and finally the Novell Order. *************************************
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
|
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION,
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff. |
ORDER RE REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION
Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
|
Based upon the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall have an extension of time, to and including August 4, 2006, within which to respond to all outstanding Requests for Admission.
DATED this 2nd day of June, 2006.
BY THE COURT
___[signature]_____
Brooke C. Wells
Magistrate Judge
***************************
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651)
Amy F. Sorenson (8947)
[address, phone, fax]
|
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice)
David R. Marriott (7572)
[address, phone, fax]
|
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
|
STIPULATION AND JOINT MOTION
OF THE PARTIES REGARDING
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
Case No. 2:03CV0294 DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
|
1
The parties, through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate and jointly move the Court for an Order enlarging the time for the parties to respond to pending Requests for Admission. Specifically, the parties agree that they shall have an extension of time, to and including August 4, 2006, within which to respond to all outstanding Requests for Admission. The parties submit concurrently herewith a proposed Order confirming this deadline.
DATED this 31st day of May, 2006.
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan
Todd M. Shaughnessy
Amy F. Sorenson
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE
Evan R. Chesler
David R. Marriott
By___/s/ Todd M. Shaughnessy___
Counsel for Defendant International
Business Machines Corporation
DATED this 31st day of May, 2006.
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Edward Normand
By /s/ Edward Normand
Counsel for Plaintiff
(e-filed with authorization from counsel)
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 31st day of May, 2006, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court and delivered by CM/ECF system to the following:
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address]
Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
Robert Silver
Edward Normand
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
/s/ Todd M. Shaughnessy
3
************************************
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651)
Amy F. Sorenson (8947)
[address, phone, fax]
|
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice)
David R. Marriott (7572)
[address, phone, fax]
|
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
|
[PROPOSED]
ORDER RE REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION
Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK Honorable Dale A. Kimball Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
|
Based upon the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall have an extension of time, to and including August 4, 2006, within which to respond to all outstanding Requests for Admission.
DATED this ___ day of ____________, 2006.
BY THE COURT
____________________________
Brooke C. Wells
Magistrate Judge
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Edward Normand
___/s/ Edward Normand________________
Counsel for Plaintiff
(e-filed with authorization from counsel)
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 31st day of May, 2006, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court and delivered by CM/ECF system to the following:
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[addresses] Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
Robert Silver
Edward Normand
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
___/s/ Todd M. Shaughnessy___
3
**************************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address, phone, fax]
|
Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
|
Stuart H. Singer (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
|
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
|
Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
v.
NOVELL, INC.
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
|
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
OVERLENGTH MEMORANDUM
Case No. 2:03CV0139 DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
|
This matter comes before the Court on the Ex Parte Motion of Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc. (“SCO”) for Leave to File Overlength Memorandum in opposition to Defendant Novell, Inc.’s (“Novell’s”) Motion to Stay Claims Raising Issues Subject to Arbitration. The Court, having considered the matter, hereby determines that good cause and exceptional circumstances
exist and here ORDERS that SCO be granted leave to file its overlength Memorandum that consists of 26 pages, exclusive of the face sheet, table of contents, table of authorities and exhibits.
DATED: May 31, 2006.
BY THE COURT:
___[signature]______
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
2
|
|
|
