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
More Filings in IBM, Red Hat and Novell
Friday, March 23 2007 @ 12:50 PM EDT

A few more filings in SCO v. IBM, most significantly SCO's Redacted Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Denying SCO's Motion for Relief for IBM's Spoliation of Evidence and there are exhibits [PDF] attached to a lawyer's declaration, Redacted Declaration of Mark James [PDF], including the following:
  • Transcript of the Motion Hearing January 18, 2007 before Magistrate Judge Wells (Leitzinger protective order hearing and the spoliation motion hearing, where she denied SCO's Motion)
  • Interview: Irwin Lee Williams III, March 12, 2002, located at
    http://kerneltrap.org/comment/reply/80
  • February 6, 2004 Hearing Transcript Excerpts (re AIX/Dynix discovery)
  • [sealed] September 22, 2006 Deposition Transcript Excerpts of Marc Rochkind
  • [sealed] Email from Randy Swanber dated April 8, 2003, bearing Bates number 181019724, and marked as Deposition Exhibit 682
  • [sealed]November 18, 2005 Deposition Transcript Excerpts of Daniel D. Frye
  • [sealed] December 2, 2005 Deposition Transcript Excerpts of Paul E. McKenney
  • [sealed] Email from gone@linux.ibm.com dated November 13, 2001, bearing Bates number 181524791-93, and marked as Deposition Exhibit 435
  • Consulting Times, Inside IBM - Dan Frye and the Linux Technology Center, located at www.consultingtimes.com/articles/ibm/frye/fryeinterview.html

You actually have to go here to get the Consulting Times article. And there are some additional filings in Red Hat and Novell as well. The filing mistake in Novell is now corrected, the judge signed the stipulated order [PDF] based on SCO's admission, finally, that Utah's "Yarro's Law" is indeed the one it is relying on, so SCO's complaint is amended to reflect that fact, so keep that in mind when you read that filing. That means that Novell's Motion for a More Definite Statement of SCO's Unfair Competition Cause of Action is mooted.

And Red Hat has filed its periodic letter to the judge in Delaware.

Here are the filings in SCO v. IBM:

1008 - Filed & Entered: 03/21/2007
Modification of Docket
Docket Text: Modification of Docket: Docket entry #998, SCO's Sealed Reply Memorandum was entered by the clerk in the wrong case. Correction: Clerk has modified the docket text and entered this filing in SCO v. Novell, 2:04cv139, as docket #251, re [998] Sealed Document. (blk)

1009 - Filed & Entered: 03/21/2007
Redacted Document
Docket Text: REDACTION to [990] Sealed Document, SCO's Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Denying SCO's Motion for Relief for IBM's Spoliation of Evidence by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Boruchow, Sashi)

1010 - Filed & Entered: 03/21/2007
Redacted Document
Docket Text: REDACTION to [996] Sealed Document Declaration of Mark James Regarding SCO's Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Denying SCO's Motion for Relief for IBM's Spoliation of Evidence by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1-9)(Boruchow, Sashi)

And here's the Novell Pacer filing:

252 - Filed & Entered: 03/22/2007
Order on Motion to Amend/Correct
Docket Text: ORDER on [250] Motion to Amend/Correct Second Amended Complaint. It is hereby ordered that Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant SCO's Second Amended Complaint is deemed amended to reflect that SCO's Fifth Claim for Relief arises out of Utah statutory and/or common law and Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Novell's Motion for a More Definite Statement of SCO's Unfair Competition Cause of Action is mooted. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 3/21/07. (blk)

Finally, here's the Pacer notation in Red Hat:

66 - Filed & Entered: 03/21/2007
Letter
Docket Text: Letter to The Honorable Sue L. Robinson from Josy W. Ingersoll regarding quarterly status report. (Ingersoll, Josy)


  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 )