SCO has filed, as expected, its objections to Novell's bill of costs:
Novell's bills, SCO argues, "beg credulity". They are too high. Who makes that many copies? Some items are not authorized by statute. They are not demonstrated to have been necessary. They were for a mock trial, in one case. They are for things like slides that they should have asked the judge for permission to have made. The judge, SCO argues, should deny Novell's bill of costs entirely.
08/26/2010 - 890 OBJECTIONS to 879 Bill of Costs filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Normand, Edward) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
I will translate for you.
What that means is that SCO would like to pay less. If Novell had lost, and they had been ordered to pay SCO's bill of costs, SCO would have fervently argued the opposite. Last time, SCO was able to get a bit knocked off the bill, so they may again. But they'll probably still have to pay something. But will they? In real life, I mean. Not on paper.
They are fighting harder this time. Here's SCO's previous objection to Novell's first Bill of Costs after Novell won the first trial, which SCO hasn't paid to date. SCO then only objected to $50,586.14 of Novell's bill. They were
ordered to pay almost all of the bill, $99,639.09 out of the original $124,331.70.
The first bill of costs was incorporated in the total for the second bill of costs [PDF], because it wasn't ever paid.
If you want to follow along with SCO's objections, you'll see they reference Docket Number 880 [PDF] and some bills in this Exhibit D [PDF] from DepoMaxMerit. The contested copying bills are in several exhibits in Exhibit E [PDF], and here's the final list of bills in Exhibit F [PDF], which is where you'll find the bills SCO objects to regarding what it lists as “consulting services” by Impact Trial Consulting.
You know what the real bottom line is? SCO undoubtedly had similar costs. And it has to eat them 100%. Add on whatever the court orders from this contested bill, which is certainly going to be something.
What a court considers to be necessary for a trial is narrower than what you might think. Here's
a ruling [PDF] on such a dispute by a District Court in Colorado, just as an example. I gather the idea is to make sure lawyers don't spend lavishly or foolishly. In the ruling, the judge says if you have a paper exhibit, you don't need a computerized version for display. Hard nosed. If you deposed someone, was it really necessary? So this case, though not directly related, will at least give you an idea, some context for reading SCO's objections.
Still, it's a bit cheeky, after the judge has denied SCO's motion to stay taxation of costs, to come back with a request not to have to pay anything, at least for the second trial. Nothing. But Boies Schiller is nothing if not bold and in your face. If they want a single star, they ask for the Milky Way galaxy. Here's the concluding section of SCO's objections:
III. CONCLUSION Deny the Bill in its entirety? Are they kidding? The first unpaid bill too??? Nothing is too far a stretch for them, if that is what they hope for. They already objected to the first bill, and I don't think they can more or less "appeal" that unofficially like this now. But if you don't ask for the Milky Way, how do you get your star? And what if, just daydreaming like SCO, what if you got the Milky Way because the judge was too busy that day to pay close attention?
Wherefore, for the reasons set forth above, SCO objects to Novell’s Bill of Costs insofar as it seeks $127,494.25 for unauthorized costs of professional services, $62,383.28 for unreasonable and unsupported copying costs, and thousands of additional dollars in unauthorized miscellaneous expenses.
SCO respectfully asks the Court to strike all these costs from Novell’s Bill of Costs, or deny the Bill in its entirety.