decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
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
The Most Recent SCO Letter to the Red Hat Judge
Friday, April 27 2007 @ 11:35 AM EDT

Playing catch-up with all the filings recently in Novell and IBM meant that the most recent SCO letter to the judge [PDF] in the Red Hat case got put on the back burner. But here it is as text, in its usual SCOish magnificence, stressing the positives and talking rather fast about the depressing bits. There are a lot of depressing bits. Not for me, personally, mind you. I always strive not to let SCO's woes get me down. But just empathizing with SCO's lawyer having to write up this report, which is all about SCO's house of cards falling down, down, down.

That's how I read it, anyway. As you'll see, SCO puts the emphasis this time on their efforts to get all the negative rulings reversed. It's hard to make that sound good, but they do their level best. In January, SCO told the judge [PDF] its spoliation motion was pending, for example. And the letter before that [PDF] made it seem like ominous clouds were gathering over IBM's case, for sure:
Also on Sepember 25, 2006, SCO filed its Motion for Relief for IBM's Spoliation of Evidence. In its supporting memorandum, SCO argues that IBM executives directed the widespread destruction of plainly relevant materials and accordingly asks the Court to impose an adverse-inference instruction against IBM and preclude IBM from contesting that it relied on AIX and Dynix source code in making its contributions to Linux development.

Har har. The motion went splat, which is what can happen to allegations that are not accompanied by convincing evidence. Now SCO has the unhappy duty to tell the Red Hat judge the motion was denied (and how, but SCO skips the "and how" part), but it adds that SCO has submitted a request for reconsideration, so all hope is not lost in SCOville just yet.

So we might as well enjoy the show, plus it's a very good summing up of just how bad things are currently in SCOville, with SCO asking the court in every way on every recently decided motion to please, please rethink so SCO's case won't end up on life support, with Novell and IBM continuing to beat up on the helpless comatose patient with their numerous counterclaims.

Yes, it is hard not to get depressed just thinking about it. Happily, I've always had a sunny disposition, and it certainly helps me these days to ride the waves of emotional turmoil one naturally feels watching SCO's case sinking like a slimy stone.

Garçon! Une coupe de champagne, s'il vous plaît.


[Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell letterhead]

April 6, 2007


The Honorable Sue L. Robinson, Chief Judge
United States District Court, District of Delaware

Re: Red Hat, Inc. v. The SCO Group, Inc., C.A. No. 03-772-SLR

Dear Chief Judge Robinson:

Pursuant to this Court’s April 6, 2004 Order, SCO respectfully submits this 90-day status report to apprise the Court of events occurring since our last update (on January 4, 2007) in SCO v. IBM, Case No. 2:03CV0294 (DAK), which is pending before the Honorable Dale A. Kimball in the United States District Court for the District of Utah.

Summary Judgment Motions

On March 1, 5, and 7, 2007, the Court heard oral argument on the parties’ summary judgment motions and took the motions under advisement.

Other Motions

As previously reported, on December 13, 2006, SCO filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order of November 29, 2006, that affirmedMagistrate JudgeWells’ order of June 28, 2006. SCO’s motion is now fully briefed, but the Court has not set a date for oral argument.

As last reported, on December 21, 2006, Magistrate Judge Wells issued an order granting IBM’s Motion to Confine SCO’s Claims to, and Strike Allegations in Excess of, the Final Disclosures. On January 9, 2007, SCO filed its objections to that order as well as a Motion to

The Honorable Sue L. Robinson, Chief Judge
April 6, 2007
Page 2

Amend Its December 2005 Submission. IBM opposed both applications in a brief filed on February 16, and SCO filed its reply briefs on March 19, 2007. The Court has not set a date for oral argument on the objections or motion.

By an order dated March 2, 2007, Magistrate Judge Wells denied SCO’s Motion for Relief for IBM’s Spoliation. On March 16, SCO filed a motion for reconsideration of that order and filed objections to that order.

On April 2, 2007, SCO filed its Motion to Deem a Prospective Third-Party Deposition in Related Litigation to Be a Deposition Taken in This Case As Well.

SCO v. Novell

On December 12, 2006, SCO filed its opposition to Novell’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction, and filed its Cross Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment on Novell’s Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Counterclaims. On January 23, 2007, the Court heard oral argument on the motion and cross motion, taking both under advisement.

On December 1, 2006, Novell filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Its Fourth Counterclaim. On January 17, 2007, SCO filed its opposition brief, and on January 18, its Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Both Novell’s motion and SCO’s cross motion have now been fully briefed, but the Court has not set a date for oral argument.

On April 3, 2007, based on a stipulation by the parties, the Court extended the deadline to complete all outstanding fact discovery to April 30, 2007, without disturbing the trial date of September 17, 2007.


/s/ Leslie A. Polizoti

Leslie A. Polizoti (#4299)

cc: Peter T. Dalleo, Clerk (By Hand)
Josy W. Ingersoll, Esquire (ByHand)
William F. Lee, Esquire (By Fax)
Edward Normand, Esquire (ByFax)
Mauricio A. Gonzalez, Esquire (By Fax)

  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 )