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
Wells' 2nd Order on SCO's Motion for in Camera Review - PDF and text
Friday, June 23 2006 @ 01:33 AM EDT

Remember I told you that I thought Judge Wells had ruled on SCO's motion prior to reading SCO's Reply Memorandum [PDF]? Now that she has read it, she has issued a second Order [PDF], granting SCO's new request that it be allowed to see at least redacted versions of the two declarations that IBM attached to its Memorandum in Opposition and to be allowed to present arguments. IBM is to file the declarations also under seal with the court. I told you we hadn't heard the end of the matter.

What does it mean? That SCO raised a new issue in a convincing memo it put a lot of effort into, an issue that no judge could ignore without raising other issues, and in her view, there doesn't seem to be much point in not sharing the declarations with SCO, since SCO already saw the underlying documents by mistake. The declarations are from two attorneys, basically saying, I gather, that the underlying documents were indeed privileged. Usually when there is an in camera review request, the party requesting it has not seen the documents. So she is being pragmatic. It also means *we* don't get to see the declarations, let alone the underlying documents, only the judge and the parties. If SCO wishes to present arguments in support of its motion to try to convince the judge that the underlying documents are not privileged after looking over the declarations, it can, with a deadline of July 7. Time will tell if IBM has anything further to add to this mix. Technically, it has had its say, but SCO did raise a new issue, so the door is a bit ajar. I don't know if IBM cares enough to bother.

But that doesn't mean it doesn't matter. I think it does, because it signals that we're in for a bit of a mini-battle over these allegedly privileged documents, and that means delay, and that's SCO's middle name. I can't tell if that's all SCO cares about or if these documents seem truly important to SCO. It's impossible to weigh those nuances when you can't read the documents.

Of course, that was SCO's argument precisely, which is why its request was granted. It's a valid issue to raise, and once raised, it has to be walked through. That's how the system works. Litigation can be won and lost on such small details, although in this case, SCO seems doomed no matter what it does.

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DIVISION, DISTRICT OF UTAH

__________________________________

THE SCO GROUP INC.

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,

vs.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP.

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.

_________________________________

Case No. 2:03cv00294 DAK

ORDER RE SCOíS MOTION FOR IN
CAMERA REVIEW

JUDGE DALE A. KIMBALL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROOKE C. WELLS

__________________________________

After considering Plaintfiff/Counterclaim Defendant The SCO Groupís (SCO) Reply Memorandum in support of SCOís Motion For In Camera Review of Allegedly Privileged Documents1 and for good cause shown the court hereby orders the following:

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) is to provide SCO a copy of the declarations from Sharon Dobbs, Esq. and Mark Walker, Esq by June 30, 2006. Additionally, these declarations are to be filed with the court under seal by that

same date. These declarations may be provided in a redacted form although in the courtís view there does not appear to be much material in the declarations that warrants redaction especially given the fact that SCO has reviewed the underlying documents when IBM allegedly disclosed them by mistake.

After reviewing the declarations SCO may file with the court a reply memoranda in support of its motion if it so chooses by July 7, 2006 following which the court will render a decision on SCOís motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2006.

BY THE COURT

____[signature]________
BROOKE C. WELLS
United States Magistrate Judge

2


1Docket no. 678.


  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 )