Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 05:25 PM EDT |
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:44 PM EDT |
You might imagine this was deliberate destruction of
evidence. I know that they were given permission, but all IBM
has to do is require one of the documents that were
destroyed. I can't imagine that going down well with any
judge. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 10:41 AM EDT |
You can't destroy evidence even if someone told you that you could destroy all
your documents.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: YetAnotherSteve on Saturday, March 30 2013 @ 12:37 PM EDT |
The motion for permission to shred documents included paying someone to check
them first. I'm imagining them finding that almost all of the remaining
documents have to be kept until this case is over.
I wouldn't be surprised if IBM had a better idea than SCO about how much storage
is needed for SCO's unshreddable paperwork.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|