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 Files Reply Memo on its Objections to June 28 Order Conventionally [Sealed]
Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 09:21 AM EDT

Yesterday was SCO's deadline to file its Reply Memorandum on their Objections to Judge Wells' June 28th Order. And they did file, but conventionally, and it's a sealed document anyway, so we'll have to wait to read a redacted version, if there is one eventually. Here's how Pacer lists the filings:
762 - Filed: 09/05/2006 - Entered: 09/06/2006
Notice of Conventional Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of Reply Memorandum filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group re [721] Notice of Conventional Filing (Hatch, Brent)

763 - Filed & Entered: 09/06/2006
Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
Docket Text: Ex Parte (Not Sealed) MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Reply Memorandum filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1))(Hatch, Brent); proposed order

764 - Filed & Entered: 09/06/2006
Notice of Conventional Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of Reply Memorandum and Declaration of BOH with Exhibits filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group Corrected Caption of Docket 762 (Hatch, Brent)

The Reply Memorandum is another 50-pager, but it's filed conventionally, according to 764, because it's sealed. The purpose of 764 is to correct 762's caption, but if you look, it still doesn't get it right all the way, I don't think.

762 is captioned like this:

NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL
FILING OF SCO’S EXHIBITS TO
REPLY MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF SCO’S OBJECTIONS
TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE WELLS’
ORDER OF JUNE 28, 2006

There are two mistakes there. They didn't list the Declaration of Brent Hatch and they don't list the Reply Memo, just the exhibits. It should be captioned like this, I believe:

[Corrected Title to Docket 762]
NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL
FILING OF SCO’S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF SCO’S OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE WELLS’
ORDER OF JUNE 28, 2006 and
DECLARATION OF BRENT O. HATCH
WITH THE EXHIBITS
TO REPLY MEMORANDUM.

Instead, 764 is captioned:

[Corrected Title to Docket 762]
NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL
FILING OF SCO’S EXHIBITS TO
REPLY MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF SCO’S OBJECTIONS
TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE WELLS’
ORDER OF JUNE 28, 2006 AND
DECLARATION OF BRENT O.
HATCH WITH THE EXHIBITS TO
REPLY MEMORANDUM.

They've corrected the caption to list the Hatch Declaration, but they again listed exhibits twice without listing the reply memo itself, so the caption will probably need another correction.

There are a couple of small fixes also to the recent Wells Order regarding the attorney privilege matter, which I have incorporated into our text version as an update. She is no longer "dully" informed. And there is also a filing about a document that is sent to all the attorneys on a case notifying them of the two new attorneys on SCO's side, that reads like this:

761 - Filed & Entered: 09/05/2006
Mail Returned
Docket Text: Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frederick S. Frei (djs, )

But not to worry. Mr. Frei is still with the firm of Andrews Kurth. You can see that on their website and I verified. If you look at the filing, there is a Xerox of the envelope that came back to them and I don't see any address at all, so I think that is all that happened. Possibly they have address stickers, and it fell off. If they resend, they might want to check the address they have, because the website lists a different address for the firm than the one they seem to have on record. Most of the attorneys got noticed digitally, but the court doesn't seem to have his email address. He does have one.

And in case he reads Groklaw, here are the two orders from the court they want him to have, one for admission pro hac vice of John J. Broghan and the other for Devan V. Padmanabhan, both PDFs.

So everyone is making small mistakes, it seems, these days. They aren't important ones, but it indicates to me that everyone is hurrying and maybe under some stress, focusing more on the content and getting that right than on the details that are less significant.


  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 )