decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
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 Files Bill of Costs (once again) in SCO v. Novell
Thursday, June 24 2010 @ 08:07 PM EDT

Novell has filed a Bill of Costs in SCO v. Novell for $315,501.19. That reflects, according to footnote 1 of the Memorandum in Support, the "previously allowed costs of $99,639.09, in addition to the $215,862.10 in costs sought in this memorandum." That's just *costs*, not attorneys' fees, so it's things like experts fee, court reporter fees, and fees for transcripts.

In this case, I see also a listing for "Mock Trial DVDs" on page 7. I sure would like to have those DVDs myself. Drool. I'll look into it. Since the company sells them, I'm sure I won't be able to make them available for free, but at least I can tell you about them. And I mention it because some of you may wish to get your own copies.

Here's SCO's bottom line so far: The more SCO litigates, the worse it gets for SCO's bottom line. On paper. They never paid the earlier award, I gather, so it's a loss on paper. They are the Make-Me company.

Here are the filings:

06/24/2010 - 879 - BILL OF COSTS filed by Novell, Inc.. (Brennan, Sterling) (Entered: 06/24/2010)

06/24/2010 - 880 - RESPONSE re 879 Bill of Costs,, Memorandum filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Brennan, Sterling) (Entered: 06/24/2010)

From docket #880, which is marked a Response by the clerk but which is actually a Memorandum in Support:
2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), “costs other than attorneys’ fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.” In the present case, Novell is the prevailing party, as evidenced by the Final Judgment (Dkt. No. 878) submitted herewith as Exhibit A. Novell, as the prevailing party, respectfully requests the Clerk of the Court tax The SCO Group, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”), total costs to Novell in the amount of $315,501.191 as detailed below.

3. On or about December 10, 2008, Novell submitted a Bill of Costs (Docket No. 573) for costs incurred in connection with the judgment entered on November 20, 2008. Pursuant to this Court’s Order of April 22, 2009, Novell’s allowed costs of $99,639.09 were included in the judgment (Docket No. 595).

4. The documentation supporting the Bill of Costs submitted as Docket No. 573 has not been resubmitted, as it is already a part of the record of the Court. However, those previously awarded costs are properly included in Novell’s total costs.

Here's Novell's prior bill of costs. The last time, SCO asked for a stay on figuring out the costs until the appeals were finished. Judge Dale Kimball denied that request. Presumably it can do the same again, if it appeals this new bill of costs. Otherwise, it's time to settle up on the earlier costs, as they were already awarded.

As to the amount, it's up to Judge Ted Stewart to now decide on the new costs submitted, with SCO free to object. The last time, it objected to some of the costs, and the judge lowered the amount slightly, and then the clerk signed the bill of costs. I wrote at the time:

Two of SCO's four objections were sustained, and the amounts subtracted from the totals -- the hotel rooms rented for depositions and the costs for video syncing. So Novell will have to eat those expenses. But most of the costs were sustained. Now all Novell has to figure out is how to get SCO to actually pay them.
Judging from the new bill of costs including the amount earlier determined to be owed, I gather SCO never paid what it owed.

  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 )