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
Request for transcript of oral argument in SCO v Novell appeal denied
Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 04:44 PM EDT

Wayne Gray filed a motion requesting either a transcript or an audio recording of the oral argument from last week in the appeal of SCO v. Novell. It was denied within 24 hours, without any responses from anyone having to be filed. Here is the one-sentence decision:
Upon consideration, this motion is denied.
If I were Gray, I'd probably take that as a sign.

I take it as a sign, personally, that his other motion asking to file an amicus brief is likely on a slow train to nowhere with this court as well.

Here are the filings:

05/18/2009 - This entry has been removed from the docket. See document filed entry of 5/18/09

05/18/2009 - Open Document - [9660271] Motion filed by Movant Wayne R. Gray for entry of order either releasing audio recording of oral argument or releasing a certified transcript of oral argument. Served on 05/18/2009. Manner of Service: US mail. filed by Wayne R. Gray. Original and. Served on 05/18/2009. Manner of Service: US mail.

05/19/2009 - Open Document - [9660359] - Order filed by Judges Lucero, Baldock and McConnell Denying Movant Wayne R. Gray's request for an order requiring release of the court's oral argument recording for this matter, or in the alternative Mr. Gray seeks release of a certified copy of the transcript. See 10th Cir. R. 34.1(E). Served on 05/19/2009.

You know the part that puzzles me? The rule in this court is that the parties can pay for their own audio or transcription service. What I wonder is whether an amicus would be accorded the same courtesy. If so, since he had applied and had not yet been turned down, might he have been able to record it himself, his attorney at least, at the hearing itself? For that matter, couldn't he or anyone have hired someone to take notes, even elaborate ones by someone who knows shorthand? I would think there were options available. Maybe he didn't know this court doesn't provide transcripts. I didn't. It's so unusual, it didn't enter my head. So perhaps that happened.

I earlier thought of asking the parties if they'd let us have a transcript; but now it's clear it would be fruitless to make such a request in an environment like this, which is a crying shame.


  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 )