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
Novell's Reply to SCO's Opposition to Consolidation/One Judge
Monday, November 30 2009 @ 08:31 PM EST

Novell has filed its Reply [PDF] to SCO's Response Concerning Novell's Notice of Related Proceeding, which asks the new judge now assigned to the Novell case in Utah, Hon. Ted Stewart, to consolidate the two cases, SCO v. IBM and SCO v. Novell, or in the alternative to at least assign the same judge to both, which SCO opposes. Novell's position is that the two cases were assigned to the same judge before, and for some very good reasons they should still be with one judge.

The docket:

11/30/2009 - 604 - RESPONSE re 600 Notice (Other), filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Sneddon, Heather) (Entered: 11/30/2009)

From the filing:
SCO devotes most of its response to its argument that the consolidation of this case with SCO v. IBM does not make sense because no such request was made before and the cases are too complicated. SCO, however, fails to explain why the two cases should not be assigned to the same judge, as they were before Judge Kimball recused himself. SCO also does not deny that there is substantial overlap between the cases, especially with regard to the core copyright infringement claims.

As an initial matter, consolidation and/or assignment to the same judge was unnecessary before, given that both cases already were assigned to Judge Kimball, who repeatedly recognized their extensive overlap. Further, the fact that both cases are quite complicated is precisely the reason why they should be assigned to the same judge or consolidated. Familiarity with the facts and issues in one case will make it much easier to decide similar issues in the other case, as is evident from Judge Kimball's rulings.

Novell asks that the case be assigned to Chief Judge Tena Campbell, who will be presiding over SCO v. IBM or consolidate it with SCO v. IBM, "so as to promote the efficient administration and prompt resolution of both cases."

Just guessing, but I'm thinking they would also prefer a judge who doesn't have a close relationship with the father of SCO's attorney, Brent Hatch. There is, after all, a smell to that, rightly or wrongly. And Judge Stewart does have that background. So, unless he sends the case elsewhere, every time SCO wins a point on a ruling, many who believe SCO has no legitimate claims against Linux will assume the worst. It's one reason why judges recuse themselves, to avoid even causing the impression that the fix is in.


  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 )