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
Motions in Limine in SCO v. Novell
Friday, August 24 2007 @ 10:53 PM EDT

Here are the rest of today's filings, and motions in limine have now been filed. Believe it or not, SCO wants to reargue some things Novell points out were already decided, so four motions in limine. You are surprised. Not.

Before the fight was like from an airplane that flies over a city and the guy pushes a button and drops a bomb. This is more like World War I airplanes in a dogfight. Up close and carefully aimed at a specific target. But SCO being SCO, Novell has to win everything twice.

Here they all are:

389 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2007
Motion in Limine
Docket Text: Plaintiff's MOTION in Limine to Exclude All Evidence Related to Other Litigation and Commentary Thereon filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Normand, Edward)

390 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2007
Motion to Strike
Docket Text: Plaintiff's MOTION to Strike Exhibits on Novell's Revised Exhibit List Not Previously Disclosed filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(Normand, Edward)

391 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2007
Motion in Limine
Docket Text: MOTION in Limine No. 1 to Preclude SCO from Challenging Questions Already Decided as a Matter of Law filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Sneddon, Heather)

392 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2007
Memorandum in Support of Motion
Docket Text: MEMORANDUM in Support re [391] MOTION in Limine No. 1 to Preclude SCO from Challenging Questions Already Decided as a Matter of Law filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Sneddon, Heather)

393 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2007
Motion in Limine
Docket Text: MOTION in Limine No. 2 to Preclude SCO from Contesting Licenses Conveying SVRX Rights are "SVRX Licenses" filed by Defendant Novell, Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Sneddon, Heather)

394 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2007
Memorandum in Support of Motion
Docket Text: MEMORANDUM in Support re [393] MOTION in Limine No. 2 to Preclude SCO from Contesting Licenses Conveying SVRX Rights are "SVRX Licenses" filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Sneddon, Heather)

395 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2007
Motion in Limine
Docket Text: MOTION in Limine No. 3 to Preclude SCO from Introducing New Evidence or Argument of SCOsource Revenue filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Sneddon, Heather)

396 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2007
Memorandum in Support of Motion
Docket Text: MEMORANDUM in Support re [395] MOTION in Limine No. 3 to Preclude SCO from Introducing New Evidence or Argument of SCOsource Revenue [REDACTED] filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Sneddon, Heather)

Just as a reminder and to anyone new, here's what motions in limine are:

Motion in Limine. A motion used to exclude reference to anticipated evidence claimed to be objectionable until the admissibility of the questionable evidence can be determined either before or duing the trial by presenting to the court, out of the presence of the jury, offers and objections to the evidence.... The motion seeks to avoid injection into trial of irrelevant, inadmissible, or prejudicial evidence at any point, including the voir dire examination, opening statements, and direct and cross examination, and therefore prevents mistrials based on evidentiary irregularities.

I explained it in more detail here.


  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 )