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 and IBM stipulate to another change in the schedule
Thursday, July 26 2007 @ 11:06 PM EDT

Well, this is different. Remember when IBM asked for a 30-day extension in the pretrial schedule deadlines, or alternatively stipulated that after the Novell trial would be fine? They couldn't get SCO to agree to dates, remember? And then SCO opposed and still didn't offer any firm dates? And then the judge approved IBM's motion, giving them the 30 days, which would plunk SCO smack dab in the middle of the trial in Novell? Well, SCO must have really begged IBM to give them more time, and I gather IBM said OK but you have to write and file the stipulation. And so, here we have it, a stipulation [PDF] written by SCO's side, changing the schedule that was just ordered by the judge. Instead of deadlines in August and September, the first one now will be in October and judging from this schedule, the trial in IBM can't happen until 2008 now.

They are a sketch, these SCO folk. IBM did not have to say yes, but knowing SCO, they probably figured if they refused, SCO would file a motion to reconsider the previous motion's order and simultaneously file an appeal and heaven only knows what else, and we're all sick of that. Mostly IBM is, and it's probably easier to just say fine, we stipulate. They didn't care anyway, as long as it was at least 30 days.

Someday we'll find out what this was all about. It wasn't just about being ornery, I don't think. It smells more like some strategy playing out, but we don't have enough information yet to figure out what they were each looking for. In any case, IBM won, that's for sure, despite SCO's spinning opening line, which kind of comes across to me like SCO is thumbing its nose at the judge.

My thanks to the wonderful Steve Martin for already providing the text for us.

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

Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, PC
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

David Boies (admitted pro hac vice)
Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Devan V. Padmanabhan (admitted pro hac vice)
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Stuart Singer (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

THE SCO GROUP, INC.
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
STIPULATION RE EXTENSION
OF DEADLINES


Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

(1)

As indicated in the memoranda regarding IBM's recent Motion for Extension of Deadlines (dated July 18, 2007), considering SCO's request to avoid a conflict between the trial in SCO v. Novell and the pretrial schedule in this case, the parties hereby stipulate to the following pretrial schedule in this case:

Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures shall be due on October 22, 2007;

Motions in Limine regarding expert testimony shall be due on November 5, 2007;

Objections and counter-designations to Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures shall be due on November 13, 2007;

All remaining Motions in Limine shall be due on November 20, 2007;

The deadline for exchanging jury instructions shall be December 4, 2007;

The Final Pretrial Order shall be due 45 days before trial;

The Special Attorney Conference and Settlement Conference shall be held 60 days before trial; and

The Court will send to the parties a Trial Order setting further deadlines for the case approximately six weeks prior to trial.

The parties submit herewith a proposed order confirming these deadlines.

(2)

DATED this 26th day of July, 2007.

HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
David Boies
Robert Silver
Stuart H. Singer
Stephen N. Zack
Edward Normand

DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
Devan V. Padmanabhan

Counsel for Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc.

By: /s/ Edward Normand

DATED this 26th day of July, 2007.

SNELL & WILMER LLP
Alan L. Sullivan
Todd M. Shaughnessy
Amy F. Sorenson

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

Counsel for Defendant, International Business
Machines Corporation.

By: /s/ Todd M. Shaughnessy
(e-filed with authorization from counsel)

2 (3)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff, International Business Machines Corporation, on this 26th day of July, 2007, via CM/ECF to the following:

David Marriott, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]

Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer LLP
[address]

/s/ Edward Normand

3 (4)


  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 )