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
New Filings -- Novell's bill of costs
Wednesday, December 31 2008 @ 04:53 PM EST

There are new filings in both the bankruptcy and in SCO v. Novell. First the bankruptcy: You'll see that SCO, despite telling the media yesterday that it would file a plan today, meeting the December 31st deadline set by the court, instead has filed for another delay. Other interesting filings are:
SCOGBK-639-4 -- pps. 4, 7 and 8, the winding up of the joint venture in China between China and its "partner". P. 7 mentions a company named Dascom. P. 8 has a notation "Research issues that a company will encounter if it does not receive audited financial statements

639 -- p. 8, the Dorsey & Whitney additional pre-petition bills they didn't notice until now apparently

641ExhibitA -- the Stipulation between Novell and SCO regarding the trust money

643ExhibitA -- p. 4 lists two objectors to the omnibus motion, Feraci and Llyod [sic]

644 -- the signed order based on the stipulation, regarding the constructive trust

The stipulation and order resolve Novell's motion for a constructive trust and Novell's seeking the monies now. The stipulation has SCO stipulating to the existence of a constructive trust in favor of Novell in the amount Novell asked for, and it puts the money into a trust account, to be disbursed to Novell if SCO loses on appeal on the constructive trust issue.

You can jump to recent filings in the timeline (starting at #637). Here are the last few entries:

12/29/2008 - 644 - Order (AGREED) Resolving Novell's Motion for Entry of Order Confirming Constructive Trust and Directing the Debtors to Pay Funds to Novell. (related document(s) 586 ) Order Signed on 12/29/2008.(Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A) (LCN) (Entered: 12/29/2008)

12/29/2008 - 645 - Motion to Approve the Expansion of the Scope of Retention of Tanner LC to Prepare Consolidated Federal Income and State Income Tax Returns for The SCO Group, Inc. and to Prepare the Stand-Alone State Income Tax Return of SCO Operations, Inc. for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 2008 Nunc Pro Tunc to December 3, 2008 Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 1/29/2009 at 02:00 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 1/22/2009. (Attachments: # (1) Notice, # (2) Exhibit A, # (3) Proposed Form of Order, # (4) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 12/29/2008)

12/29/2008 - 646 - Debtor-In-Possession Monthly Operating Report for Filing Period October 2008 of SCO Operations, Inc. Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 12/29/2008)

12/29/2008 - 647 - Debtor-In-Possession Monthly Operating Report for Filing Period October 2008 of The SCO Group, Inc. Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 12/29/2008)

12/30/2008 - 648 - Affidavit/Declaration of Service Regarding [Signed] Agreed Order Resolving Novell's Motion for Entry of Order Confirming Constructive Trust and Directing the Debtors to Pay Funds to Novell (related document(s) 644 ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 12/30/2008)

12/30/2008 649 Motion to Extend Exclusivity Period for Filing a Chapter 11 Plan and Disclosure Statement /Fourth Motion By Debtors Under Section 1121(d) for Extension of Exclusivity Deadlines Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 1/29/2009 at 02:00 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 1/22/2009. (Attachments: # (1) Notice, # (2) Proposed Form of Order, # (3) Certificate of Service and Service List) (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 12/30/2008)

SCO v. Novell

Here are the filings, as PDFs and as text for Groklaw's collection:

  • [573] Novell's Bill of Costs. [Text]
  • [574] Declaration of David Melaugh in Support of Novell's Bill of Costs. [Text]

Partly done as text are the three exhibits to declaration [574]:

Each exhibit contains a table itemizing costs and all corresponding scanned invoices. We have only done the three tables as text. Please refer to the PDFs for the actual 117 invoices.

And there is one new entry which we have done as text:

12/24/2008 575 MOTION to Stay Taxation of Costs filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)(Normand, Edward) (Entered: 12/24/2008)

~ The Groklaw Team

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

AO 133 (Rev. 11/08) Bill of Costs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
District of Utah

THE SCO GROUP, INC.
v.
NOVELL, INC.
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.:2:04-CV-00139

Bill of Costs

Judgment having been entered in the above entitled __11/20/2008__ against _____THE SCO GROUP, INC.____ ,
Date
the Clerk is requested to tax the following as costs:
Fees of the Clerk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $_________290.00__
Fees for service of summons and subpoena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _______2,810.50__
Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case . . . . . . . _____124,331.70__
Fees and disbursements for printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________________
Fees for witnesses (itemize on page two) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ___________0.00__
Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are
necessarily obtained for use in the case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________________
Docket fees under 28 U.S.C. 1923 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________________
Costs as shown on Mandate of Court of Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________________
Compensation of court-appointed experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________________
Compensation of interpreters and costs of special interpretation services under 28 U.S.C. 1828 . . . . .
Other costs (please itemize) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________________
TOTAL $_____127,432.20__

SPECIAL NOTE: Attach to your bill an itemization and documentation for requested costs in all categories.

Declaration


I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing costs are correct and were necessarily incurred in this action and that the services for which fees have been charged were actually and necessarily performed. A copy of this bill has been served on all parties in the following manner:
☑ Electronic service by e-mail as set forth below and/or.
☐ Conventional service by first class mail, postage prepaid as set forth below.

s/ Attorney: ___[Signature]_______________________________________________
Name of David E. Melaugh_______________________________________________
For: Novell, Inc.______________________ Date: _____12/10/2008_____
Name of Claiming Party
Costs are taxed in the amount of _____________________________ and included in the judgment.
______________________________ By: __________________ _________________
Clerk of Court Deputy Clerk Date

AO 133 (Rev. 11/08) Bill of Costs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Witness Fees (computation, cf. 28 U.S.C. 1821 for statutory fees)
NAME , CITY AND STATE OF RESIDENCE ATTENDANCE
DaysTotal
Cost
SUBSISTENCE
DaysTotal
Cost
MILEAGE
MilesTotal
Cost
Total Cost
Each Witness


$0.00


$0.00


$0.00


$0.00


$0.00


TOTAL$0.00

NOTICE

Section 1924, Title 28, U.S. Code (effective September 1, 1948) provides:
“Sec. 1924. Verification of bill of costs.”
“Before any bill of costs is taxed, the party claiming any item of cost or disbursement shall attach thereto an affidavit, made by himself or by his duly authorized attorney or agent having knowledge of the facts, that such item is correct and has been necessarily incurred in the case and that the services for which fees have been charged were actually and necessarily performed.”
See also Section 1920 of Title 28, which reads in part as follows:
“A bill of costs shall be filed in the case and, upon allowance, included in the judgment or decree.”
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contain the following provisions:
RULE 54(d)(1)

Costs Other than Attorneys’ Fees.
Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs — other than attorney's fees — should be allowed to the prevailing party. But costs against the United States, its officers, and its agencies may be imposed only to the extent allowed by law. The clerk may tax costs on 1 day's notice. On motion served within the next 5 days, the court may review the clerk's action
RULE 6
(d) Additional Time After Certain Kinds of Service.
When a party may or must act within a specified time after service and service is made under Rule5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F), 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a).
RULE 58(e)
Cost or Fee Awards:
Ordinarily, the entry of judgment may not be delayed, nor the time for appeal extended, in order to tax costs or award fees. But if a timely motion for attorney's fees is made under Rule 54(d)(2), the court may act before a notice of appeal has been filed and become effective to order that the motion have the same effect under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) as a timely motion under Rule 59.


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

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Michael A. Jacobs, pro hac vice
Eric M. Acker, pro hac vice
Kenneth W. Brakebill, pro hac vice
Marc J. Pernick, pro hac vice
David E. Melaugh, pro hac vice
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
Thomas R. Karrenberg, #3726
Heather M. Sneddon, #9520
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Novell, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff and Counterclaim- Defendant,

vs.

NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant and Counterclaim- Plaintiff.
DECLARATION OF DAVID E.
MELAUGH IN SUPPORT OF
NOVELL’S BILL OF COSTS



Case No. 2:04CV00139

Judge Dale A. Kimball

(1)

I, David E. Melaugh, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and an associate at the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel of record for Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Novell, Inc. (“Novell”) in this action. I was admitted to practice before this Court pro hac vice by this Court’s Order of July 30, 2004. The statements made herein are based on my personal knowledge.

2. On November 20, 2008, the Court entered final judgment. (Docket No. 565.)

3. Novell is a “prevailing party” in this action because it prevailed against every claim asserted by SCO and has prevailed on the bulk of its counterclaims.

4. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), Novell is presumptively entitled to recover its taxable costs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) (“[C]osts – other than attorney’s fees – should be allowed to the prevailing party.”).

5. Allowable costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) are identified in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1821, 1920, 1923, and Local Rule 52-2. Novell moves for the following costs, all of which are allowed by law, are correctly stated, and were actually and necessarily performed or incurred during this litigation:

6. Fees of the Clerk in the amount of $290.00, as further described in Exhibit 1. These fees are taxable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920(5), 1923 and Local Rule 54-3(a)(1) (“The Clerk’s filing fee is allowable if paid by the claimant.”).

7. Fees for service of summons and subpoenas in the amount of $2,810.50, as further described in Exhibit 2. These fees are taxable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1).

8. Fees of the court reporter and deposition costs in the amount of $124,331.70, as further described in Exhibit 3. Court reporter fees for hearing and trial transcripts are taxable

1 (2)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). Recovery of deposition costs is permitted "with respect to all depositions reasonably necessary to the litigation of the case." Furr v. AT&T Techs., Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1550 (10th Cir. 1987) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2), (4). The attached deposition costs were reasonably incurred in prosecuting and defending this complex matter. As just one indicator of the complexity of this case, the parties' motions for summary judgment involved over 1,500 pages of briefing, numerous declarations, and many hundred pages of exhibits. As a result of that complexity, all of the deposition fees sought were reasonably necessary "in light of the facts known to the parties at the time the expenses were incurred." Mitchell v. City of Moore, 218 F.3d 1190, 1205 (10th Cir. 2000) (rejecting requirement that transcripts be used in motions or at trial, affirming restoration by district court of deposition costs cut by clerk on that basis).

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on this 10th day of December, 2008 in San Francisco, California.

[Signature]

David E. Melaugh

2 (3)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 10th day of December, 2008, I caused a true and correct copy of the DECLARATION OF DAVID E. MELAUGH IN SUPPORT OF NOVELL’S BILL OF COSTS to be served to the following:

Via CM/ECF:

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

Stuart H. Singer
William T. Dzurilla
Sashi Bach Boruchow
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

David Boies
Edward J. Normand
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

Devan V. Padmanabhan
John J. Brogan
DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP
[address]

Via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid:

Stephen Neal Zack
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]

/s/ Heather M. Sneddon

(4)

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

EXHIBIT 1

COURT FEES

TAB DESCRIPTION DATE VENDOR AMOUNT
1. Filing Fees – Notice of Removal 1/6/2004 U.S. District Court $155.00
2. Filing Fees – Pro Hac Vice Application for Paul Goldstein 2/9/2004 U.S. District Court $15.00
3. Filing Fees – Pro Hac Vice Application for Michael A. Jacobs 2/9/2004 U.S. District Court $15.00
4. Filing Fees – Pro Hac Vice Application for Matthew I. Kreeger 2/9/2004 U.S. District Court $15.00
5. Filing Fees – Pro Hac Vice Application for Jonathan E. Mansfield 6/9/2004 U.S. District Court $15.00
6. Filing Fees – Pro Hac Vice Application for Maame A.F. Ewusi- Mensah 6/9/2004 U.S. District Court $15.00
7. Filing Fees – Pro Hac Vice Application for David E. Melaugh 7/28/2004 U.S. District Court $15.00
8. Filing Fees – Pro Hac Vice Application for Kenneth W. Brakebill 6/7/2005 U.S. District Court $15.00
9. Filing Fees – Pro Hac Vice Application for Grant Kim 2/7/2007 U.S. District Court $15.00
10. Filing Fees – Pro Hac Vice Application for Marc Pernick 4/23/2007 U.S. District Court $15.00




$ 290.00

[Note: 10 scanned invoices not done as text.]

EXHIBIT 2

FEES FOR SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND SUBPOENA

TAB DESCRIPTION DATE VENDOR AMOUNT
1. Service of Process on Datasafe, Inc. 3/1/2006 Specialized Legal Services, Inc. $140.50
2. Service of Process on Recall, Inc. 5/1/2006 Specialized Legal Services, Inc. $98.00
3. Service of Process on Microsoft Corporation 1/11/2007 1st Nationwide Legal Services, Inc. $168.00
4. Service of Process on Sun Microsystems, Inc. 1/16/2007 1st Nationwide Legal Services, Inc. $74.00
5. Service of Process on Furniture Brands International, Inc. 1/18/2007 1st Nationwide Legal Services $165.00
6. Service of Process on Kellogg Company 1/18/2007 1st Nationwide Legal Services $200.00
7. Service of Process on Leggett & Platt, Inc. 1/18/2007 1st Nationwide Legal Services $200.00
8. Service of Process on Seneca Data Distributors, Inc. 1/18/2007 1st Nationwide Legal Services $175.00
9. Service of Process on CDM Development Corporation 1/19/2007 1st Nationwide Legal Services $150.00
10. Service of Process on Hewlett-Packard Company 1/24/2007 1st Nationwide Legal Services $120.00
11. Service of Process on DTR Business Systems, Inc. 1/25/2007 1st Nationwide Legal Services $110.00
12. Service of Process on Everyone’s Internet, Ltd. 1/25/2007 1st Nationwide Legal Services $230.00
13. Service of Process on Douglas Michels 2/1/2007 Specialized Legal Services, Inc. $150.00
14. Service of Process on Computer Associates International 2/7/2007 1st Nationwide Legal Services $130.00
15. Service of Process on Douglas Michels 4/1/2007 Specialized Legal Services, Inc. $700.00




$2,810.50

[Note: 15 scanned invoices not done as text.]

EXHIBIT 3

FEES FOR COURT REPORTER

TAB DESCRIPTION DATE VENDOR AMOUNT
1. Transcript from May 11, 2004 Hearing 6/24/2004 Kelly Brown Hicken $148.50
2. Transcript from May 25, 2005 Hearing 7/22/2005 Rebecca Janke, Court Reporter $92.40
3. E. Chatlos IBM Deposition Transcript 2/21/2006 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $689.00
4. E. Chatlos IBM Deposition Transcript 2/24/2006 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $256.70
5. J. Messman IBM Deposition Transcript 4/27/2006 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $437.80
6. J. Messman IBM Deposition Transcript 5/1/2006 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $1,066.79
7. Transcript of July 16, 2006 Hearing 10/17/2006 Rebecca Janke, Court Reporter $132.00
8. Video Recording Fees for J. Wilt Deposition 1/30/2007 Video Production Services $535.00
9. Deposition Reporting Fees for B. Stowell 2/1/2007 Citicourt, LLC $644.80
10. Deposition Reporting Fees for T. Mattingly 2/1/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $548.61
11. Deposition Reporting Fees for J. Wilt 2/2/2007 Cleenton Davis Court Reporters, LLC $909.44
12. Deposition Reporting Fees for G. Jones 2/7/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $1,367.92
13. Deposition Reporting Fees for W. Broderick 2/15/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $2,887.11
14. Deposition Reporting Fees for S. Sabbath 2/22/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $2,223.89
15. Deposition Reporting Fees for M. Gennaro 2/22/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $1,078.11
16. Deposition Reporting Fees for J. LaSala 2/26/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $606.00
17. Deposition Reporting Fees for S. Sabbath 2/26/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $516.00
18. Video Recording Fees for M. Gennaro Deposition 2/26/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $336.00
19. Deposition Reporting Fees for J. Messman 2/27/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $1,322.51
20. Deposition Reporting Fees for J. LaSala 2/27/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $1,904.07
21. Deposition Reporting Fees for R. Frankenberg 2/27/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $1,296.37
22. Deposition Reporting Fees for L. Bouffard 2/28/2007 Shari Moss & Associates $1,517.50
23. Deposition Reporting Fees for A. Mohan 2/28/2007 Shari Moss & Associates $3,327.75


TAB DESCRIPTION DATE VENDOR AMOUNT
24. Video Recording Fees for L. Bouffard Deposition 3/3/2007 Eureka Street Legal Video $284.00
25. Deposition Reporting Fees for K. Madsen 3/5/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $3,997.00
26. Deposition Reporting Fees for W. Broderick 3/6/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $1,410.00
27. Deposition Reporting Fees for C. Stone 3/14/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $1,471.95
28. Deposition Reporting Fees for B. Levine 3/26/2007 Shari Moss & Associates $2,609.50
29. Deposition Reporting Fees for J. Maciaszek 3/26/2007 Shari Moss & Associates $3,575.00
30. Deposition Reporting Fees for D. Michels 3/29/2007 Shari Moss & Associates $1,828.75
31. Deposition Reporting Fees for C. Sontag 3/29/2007 Citicourt, LLC $2,652.70
32. Deposition Reporting Fees for D. McBride 3/30/2007 Citicourt, LLC $1,650.65
33. Deposition Reporting Fees for M. O’Gara 3/30/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $1,191.20
34. Deposition Reporting Fees for D. Thompson 3/31/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $1,784.00
35. Deposition Reporting Fees for M. Anderer 4/3/2007 Citicourt, LLC $981.85
36. Deposition Reporting Fees for J. Hunsaker 4/3/2007 Citicourt, LLC $1,524.70
37. Deposition Reporting Fees for Steve Welker 4/3/2007 Citicourt, LLC $357.15
38. Video Recording Fees for Steve Welker 4/5/2007 Citicourt, LLC $210.00
39. Deposition Reporting Fees for J. Acheson 4/6/2007 Citicourt, LLC $1,545.20
40. Video Recording Fees for M. Anderer Deposition 4/6/2007 Citicourt, LLC $547.50
41. Video Recording Fees for D. McBride Deposition 4/6/2007 Citicourt, LLC $768.00
42. Video Recording Fees for J. Acheson Deposition 4/6/2007 Citicourt, LLC $1,047.00
43. Video Recording Fees for J. Hunsaker Deposition 4/9/2007 Citicourt, LLC $870.00
44. Deposition Reporting Fees for M. Anderer 4/11/2007 Citicourt, LLC $318.24
45. Conference Room Rental for W. Broderick Deposition 4/11/2007 Hilton Hotel – Short Hills $600.00
46. Deposition Reporting Fees for T. Dulin 4/16/2007 Shari Moss & Associates $3,304.50
47. Deposition Reporting Fees for E. Chatlos 4/16/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $3,489.68


TAB DESCRIPTION DATE VENDOR AMOUNT
48. Deposition Reporting Fees for R. Tibbitts 4/26/2007 Citicourt, LLC $531.60
49. Video Recording Fees for R. Tibbitts Deposition 4/27/2007 Citicourt, LLC $300.00
50. Deposition Reporting Fees for C. Sontag 30(b)(6) 5/3/2007 Citicourt, LLC $1,545.10
51. Conference Room Rental for J. Maciaszek Deposition 5/3/2007 The Michelangelo Hotel $795.63
52. Conference Room Rental for J. Maciaszek Deposition 5/3/2007 The Michelangelo Hotel $1,297.10
53. Conference Room Rental for T. Dulin Deposition 5/3/2007 Princeton Marriott Hotel $1,013.23
54. Conference Room Rental for C. Sontag 30(b)(6) Deposition 5/3/2007 Hilton Hotel - Santa Cruz/Scotts Valley $641.58
55. Transcript from January 23, 2007 Hearing 5/3/2007 Citicourt, LLC $173.25
56. Deposition Reporting Fees for E. Hughes 5/7/2007 Citicourt, LLC $1,555.91
57. Deposition Reporting Fees for M. Danaher 30(b)(6) and A. Alter 30(b)(6) 5/9/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $2,678.54
58. Deposition Reporting Fees for J. Acheson 30(b)(6) 5/10/2007 Citicourt, LLC $1,414.45
59. Deposition Reporting Fees for W. Broderick 30(b)(6) 5/16/2007 Shari Moss & Associates $5,155.85
60. Conference Room Rental for W. Broderick 30(b)(6) Deposition 5/31/2007 Michael A. Jacobs $1,443.97
61. Video Recording Fees for A. Alter Deposition 6/4/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $741.00
62. Conference Room Rental for A. Mohan Deposition 6/6/2007 Michael A. Jacobs $430.01
63. Conference Room Rental for B. Levine Deposition 6/6/2007 Michael A. Jacobs $656.64
64. Deposition Reporting Fees for J. LaSala 30(b)(6) 6/7/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $2,440.58
65. Transcript of May 31, 2007 Hearing 6/11/2007 Kelly Hicken $303.92


TAB DESCRIPTION DATE VENDOR AMOUNT
66. Deposition Reporting Fees for G. Jones 30(b)(6) 6/14/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $1,581.67
67. Video Recording Fees for J. LaSala 30(b)(6) Deposition 6/20/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $471.00
68. Deposition Reporting Fees for S. Greenblatt 7/10/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $1,099.65
69. Video Recording Fees for G. Jones 30(b)(6) Deposition 7/24/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $651.00
70. Deposition Reporting Fees for M. Hamilton 7/28/2007 Shari Moss & Associates $589.75
71. Video Recording Fees for G. Pisano Deposition 7/28/2007 Valed Video Services $4,542.33
72. Deposition Reporting Fees for G. Pisano 8/6/2007 Shari Moss & Associates $5,147.50
73. Video Recording Fees for M. Hamilton Deposition 8/6/2007 Legaltel $558.75
74. Deposition Reporting Fees for G. Davis, III 8/7/2007 Shari Moss & Associates $1,994.80
75. Video Recording Fees for J. Maciaszek, B. Levine, T. Dulin, and W. Broderick 30(b)(6) Depositions 8/9/2007 Chait Video Inc. $4,190.00
76. Video Recording Fees for G. Davis, III, A. Mohan, and D. Michels Depositions 8/10/2007 Eureka Street Legal Video $1,522.50
77. Video Recording Fees for T. Mattingly, C. Stone, D. Thompson, R. Frankenberg, K. Madsen, E. Chatlos, and M. O’Gara Depositions 8/15/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $3,213.00
78. Conference Room Rental for G. Pisano Deposition 8/16/2007 The Charles Hotel $713.95
79. Video Recording Fees for P. Moxley Deposition 8/17/2007 Citicourt, LLC $281.25
80. Video Recording Fees for C. Botosan Deposition 8/21/2007 Citicourt, LLC $720.00
81. Video Recording Fees for M. Anderer, C. Sontag, E. Hughes, and J. Acheson Depositions 8/22/2007 Citicourt, LLC $750.00


TAB DESCRIPTION DATE VENDOR AMOUNT
82. Video Recording Fees for J. Acheson, D. McBride, and J. Hunsaker Depositions 8/31/2007 Citicourt, LLC $650.00
83. Video Recording Fees for S. Greenblatt Deposition 9/4/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $246.00
84. Deposition Reporting Fees for P. Moxley 9/6/2007 Citicourt, LLC $565.85
85. Deposition Reporting Fees for C. Botosan 9/6/2007 Citicourt, LLC $775.90
86. Video Recording Fees for J. Wilt Deposition 9/14/2007 Legalink, A Merrill Company $295.00
87. Video Recording Fees for G. Jones Deposition 9/18/2007 Esquire Deposition Services, LLC $591.00
88. Video Recording Fees for C. Sontag 30(b)(6), M. Anderer, J. Acheson 30(b)(6), E. Hughes, P. Moxley, C. Botosan, R. Tibbitts, S. Welker, G. Pisano, J. Hunsaker, J. Acheson, and D. McBride Depositions 11/5/2007 Legalink, A Merrill Company $4,040.00
89. Deposition Reporting Fees for A. Nagle 4/19/2008 Shari Moss & Associates $807.40
90. Transcript of Proceeding Fees for Trial 5/1/2008 Kelly Brown Hicken $1,544.73
91. Transcript of Proceeding Fees for Trial 5/1/2008 Rebecca Janke, Court Reporter $1,336.35
92. Transcript of Proceeding Fees for Trial 5/5/2008 Rebecca Janke, Court Reporter $471.12




$124,331.70

[Note: 92 scanned invoices not done as text.]

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

Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, PC
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
Stephen N. Zack (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[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]
Stuart Singer (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
Devan V. Padmanabhan (admitted pro hac vice)
DORSEY & WHITNEY 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., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
vs.

NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
SCO’S MOTION TO STAY TAXATION OF COSTS


Civil No. 2:04 CV-00139

Judge Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Brooke C. Wells

(1)

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, The SCO Group, Inc. (“SCO”), respectfully moves this Court to stay taxation of costs pending resolution of SCO’s appeal of this Court’s Final Judgment dated November 20, 2008, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

In its discretion, the District Court may stay the resolution of a bill of costs pending appeal. How v. City of Baxter Springs, Kas., Nos. 04-2256 & 57 JWL, 2006 WL 1128667, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 26, 2006) (citing authority). Such a stay is efficient, acknowledging that the grounds justifying the bill of costs may be reversed on appeal.

This Court entered Final Judgment in this case on November 20, 2008. (Docket No. 565.) On November 25, 2008, SCO filed its Notice of Appeal of that Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. (Docket No. 567.) Novell does not dispute that SCO is taking an appeal nor that SCO may prevail, which would moot any award of costs from this Court, but instead has informed counsel for SCO that it would prefer that the Court resolve the bill of costs now for purposes of Novell's proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Court. Yet Novell concedes that it cannot actually recover the costs pending the appeal, and if Novell were to prevail on appeal, this Court could just as easily resolve the bill of costs at that time.

In sum, absent any good reason for awarding costs at this time, and considering the pendency of SCO’s appeal, the Court should stay the resolution of Novell’s request until such time as the appeal has been resolved. In the event that such stay is not granted, SCO will file its opposition to Novell’s Bill of Costs within ten days of the Court’s decision.

(2)

DATED this 24th day of December, 2008.


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

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

DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
Devan V. Padmanabhan


By: /s/ Edward Normand

(3)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE



Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that on this 24th
day of December, 2008, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Stay Taxation of
Costs was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court and delivered by CM/ECF to:

Thomas R. Karrenberg
John P. Mullen
Heather M. Sneddon
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
[address]

Michael A. Jacobs
Matthew I. Kreeger
MORRISON & FOERSTER
[address]



By: /s/ Edward Normand

(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 )