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
AutoZone Stirrings
Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 09:28 PM EDT

Most of the attorneys who are listed as being involved in SCO v. AutoZone have been told that by the court they are in violation of Special Order 109, which is a requirement to participate in the electronic filing system. They are instructed to go to the US District Court for the District of Nevada website and sign up.

It sounds quite alarming, the way it's worded, but trust me, they don't drag them out at dawn and shoot them for this or disbar anyone. It's just the wording of the notice, which is standard. You can find Special Order 109 [PDF], In re: AUTHORIZATION FOR CONVERSION TO CASE MANAGEMENT/ELECTRONIC CASE FILING, here. It's local to Nevada, but it's part of the federal court system switch to digitalization. The Clerk of the Court is responsible to keep the official record, and so there has to be a way to identify when an attorney is who he says, when a document is filed. So this is what it refers to, that they need passwords and such. It also represents their consent to being served electronically.

You see this notice in other Nevada cases. For example, the attorneys in this case had the same thing happen to them. But in the AutoZone case, it's further indication that something has lit a fire under the judge, for whatever reason. I hope there are some folks in Nevada who can attend the hearing, so we can find out whazzup.

I know you'd like me to guess. But the truth is, that's all it could be. What do I think it means? It's one of three things, if I have to guess, either that the judge woke up from a long nap and wondered where everyone had gone and why no one was keeping him informed the way he told them to do. Or, second, that SCO is stirring this case up again. If I were SCO, I'd prefer to have it heard and decided before SCO v. IBM goes to trial, because they might worry, or I would if I were SCO, that the IBM case will whittle their position down even more than it is already after Novell. Or third, AutoZone could be wanting this case over, The End, officially. I don't think it matters which of the three is the cause. The result is a stirring of the dust in SCO v. AutoZone.

Here's the docket:

72 - Filed & Entered: 08/18/2008
Notice of Non-Compliance with Special Order 109
Docket Text: (1st Notice) PURSUANT TO SPECIAL ORDER 109: that Douglas Bridges, Scott E. Grant, James Allen Harvey and Mark J. Heise are in violation of Special Order 109. Participation in the electronic filing system became mandatory for all attorneys effective January 1, 2006. You are required to register for the Courts Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) program and the electronic service of pleadings. Please visit the Courts website www.nvd.uscourts.gov, then select CM/ECF Info, to register the Attorney(s). (no image attached) (RFJ)

73 - Filed & Entered: 08/18/2008
Notice of Non-Compliance with Special Order 109
Docket Text: (1st Notice) PURSUANT TO SPECIAL ORDER 109: that Michael P. Kenny, Robert A. Magnanini, Christopher A. Riley and David J. Stewart are in violation of Special Order 109. Participation in the electronic filing system became mandatory for all attorneys effective January 1, 2006. You are required to register for the Courts Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) program and the electronic service of pleadings. Please visit the Courts website www.nvd.uscourts.gov, then select CM/ECF Info, to register the Attorney(s). (no image attached) (RFJ)

74 - Filed & Entered: 08/18/2008
Notice of Non-Compliance with Special Order 109
Docket Text: (1st Notice) PURSUANT TO SPECIAL ORDER 109: that David S. Stone and Stephen N. Zack are in violation of Special Order 109. Participation in the electronic filing system became mandatory for all attorneys effective January 1, 2006. You are required to register for the Courts Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) program and the electronic service of pleadings. Please visit the Courts website www.nvd.uscourts.gov, then select CM/ECF Info, to register the Attorney(s). (no image attached) (RFJ)

If you compare these names with the names of the all the attorneys listed on PACER for this case, you find Richard J. Pocker, of Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James J. Pisanelli of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, and Stanley W. Parry of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP are apparently already signed up or exempt for some unknown reason. If you go to our Cast:Lawyers page, you can find all the lawyers in the Autozone litigation if you don't remember who is who.


  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 )