Counsel for IBM has conferred with counsel for SCO regarding the requested extension. SCO's counsel will not agree to an extension of the deadline to April 18, 2007. SCO's counsel will agree to extend the deadline by one week, but will not agree to move the deadline to the following week as requested.

After all the SCO delays, they quibbled over one week for IBM. They had to know that IBM would be given the time, or at least it was 99 percent likely, so why not agree? 'Tis a puzzlement. Of course, this way, IBM has to take the time and incur the expense of motion practice, plus SCO may be hoping against hope that their dead fish of a motion will not only float but maybe a wave will hit it and make its fins move, creating the illusion of life. And obviously they'd rather IBM not have time to do their best.

However, if so, it's foiled again. IBM's request was immediately approved by the court [PDF]:

Based on the motion for extension of time filed by IBM, and for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that IBM shall have until April 18, 2007, to file its oppositions to (i) the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Denying SCO’s Motion for Relief for IBM’s Spoliation of Evidence and (ii) SCO’s Objections to the Magistrate Court’s Order Denying SCO’s Motion for Relief for IBM’s Spoliation of Evidence.

The court didn't even wait for SCO to file an opposing memorandum.

Here's the order that SCO is trying to overturn, and SCO's motion for reconsideration [PDF]. My thanks, once again, to Steve Martin for the text. What a happy day it was for Groklaw when he showed up! And that reminds me, if you'd like to see an interesting chart, here you go, SCO's stock price since 2001. I've always been perplexed watching the stock price fluctuate in what seemed irrational ways, when in court it was pretty much straight downhill for SCO for quite a long time, after an aggressive start. The stock, though, seemed like The Flight of the Bumblebee to me -- up, down, crazy up, then swooshing down, then right back up again. But this chart is much clearer as to the big picture.

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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

1

Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff International Business Machines ("IBM"), through counsel, hereby moves the Court for an extension of time to respond to (i) the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Denying SCO's Motion for Relief for IBM's Spoliation of Evidence and (ii) SCO's Objections to the Magistrate Court's Order Denying SCO's Motion for Relief for IBM's Spoliation of Evidence filed by Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO").

IBM respectfully requests that it be granted an extension of time, to and including April 18, 2007, within which to file responses to SCO's motion and objections. Counsel for IBM has conferred with counsel for SCO regarding the requested extension. SCO's counsel will not agree to an extension of the deadline to April 18, 2007. SCO's counsel will agree to extend the deadline by one week, but will not agree to move the deadline to the following week as requested. Due to this, the intervening holidays, and other commitments, undersigned counsel respectfully requests an extension to April 18, 2007 to respond to SCO's motion and objections.

DATED this 28th day of March, 2007.

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
_/s/ Amy F. Sorenson_______________
Alan L. Sullivan
Todd M. Shaughnessy
Amy F. Sorenson

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler
David R. Marriott

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

2

Of Counsel:

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
Alec S. Berman
[address]
[phone]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff International
Business Machines Corporation

3

I hereby certify that on the 28th day of March, 2007, 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]

Robert Silver
Edward Normand
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

/s/ Amy F. Sorenson

4